User talk:Freedom Fan

Islam external links

Please don't just add links. We have forged an agreement with much blood shed over the issue. If you would like to bring it up again in discussion you may go to Talk:Islam but don't change before consensus is built. gren グレン 06:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Grenavitar! Freedom Fan 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

NPA

Please regard WP:NPA; edit comments such as this violate it - flinging allegations of vandalism around for good faith edits with which you disagree is unacceptable William M. Connolley 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks. Freedom Fan 23:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator, heal thyself. ~ UBeR 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting indeed UBer: No "inconsistency" here. LOL.Freedom Fan 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Restoring the criticism section in full is unacceptable. It was thoroughly laced with violations of the NPOV requirements. Please discuss the matter before restoring inappropriate content. Frank Pais (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see "Criticism" in the discussion section. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Eurabia

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Eurabia appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Also, please read and heed WP:OR. Specifically, I'm asking you not to cite sources which don't relate to the topic of the article - even if you personally think that they're relevant. <eleland/talkedits> 23:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, welcome to Wikipedia. I have restored this content; please see explanation under the Eurabia talk page- Comments from the Islamic World. Thank you.Freedom Fan (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I'm a huge fan of this woman, but I don't see how WP:BLP relates to your recent edit. Weren't these sourced, verifiable comments? And didn't this lead to her loss of a place in the legislature? Yes, she was eventually 'forgiven', but it is a fact that she was accused of these things, which is what the edits said? Mind you, I have no intention of reverting, as I disagree with those claims. But I don't understand citing BLP for removing them. If you have time, please explain. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes hi Unschool. The remarks were inappropriate because they merely call Ms. Ali unflattering names, without adding any substance. One gratuitous comment called her a liar yet her misrepresentation, on an application for asylum in her attempt to escape oppression, have already been covered at length redundantly in a previous section.

The other comment called her a "chameleon" without providing explanation. This section clearly violates the BLP principle. If someone has some additional criticism of substance, sure bring it. But let's lose the pointless name calling. Thanks.Freedom Fan (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Ayaan Hirsi Ali. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please don't remove well referenced and sourced content which are there for several months, without proper discussion. Suigeneris (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, welcome to Wikipedia. My reasons for removing the content was explained above and meets the criterion for instant removal consistent with the Wikipedia policy BLP. I will also move the comments to the talk page per your suggestion. Thank you.Freedom Fan (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments may be unflattering, but if they are referenced, they will stay - You may have many reasons of your own to feel like removing a sourced content, but consistently removing sourced contents amount to vandalsim. Suigeneris (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The comments may or may not stay, but accusing another editor, who acts in good faith, of vandalism is a direct violation of the Wikipedia policy of "no personal attacks" WP:NPA.

My edits have been made in good faith because I have documented my reasons for the edits in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Hopefully we can resolve this disagreement without administrator mediation, but that will be up to you. I am allowing for the required cooling-off period for now. The verifiability of the sourcing is irrelevant.

Again my points are these:

1) Accusing Ms. Ali of "fraud" is redundant because she has already admitted the misrepresentation on her application for asylum. This has already been covered at length in an entire section devoted specifically to this issue, where Ms. Ali's explanation also appears. So redundantly including this point twice distorts the neutrality required of Wikipedia articles, which I am willing to believe for the time being, would not be your intent. As a compromise, if you want to merge this into the main section dealing with this, I would not have a problem with this.

2) Calling Ms. Ali a "chameleon" who reinvents herself is meaningless without any additional explanation. I am not even sure if it is a compliment or a smear. As a compromise, if you want this to stay, you need to qualify this so that it has some meaning without requiring the reader to go read the source.

The ball is in your court.Freedom Fan (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello FF, pointing out vandalism is in no way a personal attack. I just pointed out the effect of your action without touching your intention.

It is true that you had provided an edit summary - but this is not the same as trying to build a consensus (atleast this was the case), a vital policy when editing disputed articles like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The section that you had removed was included after many heated debates in the talk page by many editors - so you cannot just delete them without challenging the rationale for including them(in the talk page).My arguments have been detailed in the talk page - so I am not rewriting them all here again ( give specific attention to undue weight ), but still my reply to your concerns -

1) The fact that she had admitted her crime doesn't make the critisicm unnecessary. Parts of the article where this was discussed never mentions this from a critical point of view - it just mentions the problem. Your idea to merge is in general respectable as some editors are of the opinion that WP:BLP need not have a separate Critisicm section, all criticisms need to be just noted in the other sections of the biography, wherever applicable. But in case of this article it is better to have a separate criticism section, as it fails to mention any critical opinion of Hirsi which are published through a variety of sources.

2) Ali was called a chameleon by a well respected source like Economist - it is worth mentioning according to the policy of clearly stating everything that is worth mentioning. The latter part of the sentence(ie, referring to her "talent for reinvention") makes it clear, why Hirsi was called a chameloen. Hope this helps Suigeneris (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please research the term vandal and let us know whether it carries any negative connotation. Furthermore, I disagree with your reasoning, and am moving this discussion to the talk page of the article. I urge you to seek consensus in order to improve the balance and quality of this article, regardless of your personal feelings toward Ms. Ali. Thanks.Freedom Fan (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dont you think that its a bit funny to accuse others of bias(ie, I am against Hirsi, so I am inclined to write against her) while you openly state your political bias in your userpage and make more or less only edits of similar nature to articles related to particular causes?? Suigeneris (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What I think is funny is that you seem to think anyone is unbiased, including yourself. However, I don't deny my bias as you apparently do.

I also believe I have a well developed sense of fairness, and a high regard for the objectives and principles established by Wikipedia, especially those which require a neutral point of view.

But if you think charging that someone is a "fraud" and supporting that with an obviously biased blog as a source, then I question your ability to be an effective editor. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hirsi obviously committed fraud despite the legal complexities of the word in different countries. Though lying per se is not a fraud, lying deliberately to accomplish certain things(whether a job or a citizenship) accounts to fraud. Judgement about effectiveness of an editor is better left to the Wiki community and users, who are more likely to judge it based on the diversity of a editor's contributions. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 13:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Obviously you have no bias as an editor, either. Regardless, the section is now expressed in a neutral manner, and I suggest you leave it that way. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting..You removed three words from the critisicm section(which itself takes less than 5% of the whole article) and suddenly the article attains the "neutral" status. The article is full of cheap praise heaped on a mediocre subject, often supported by references from some dutch blogs. Anyway thanks that you noticed my neutrality Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you realized what you were complaining about. Always nice to forge a consensus with fellow neutral editors. Freedom Fan (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good revert at Tony Rezko article

Thank you for reverting Loonymonkey's edit at the Rezko article. If you ever need support for a consensus to keep information like that in at the article, please contact me because I'm interested in the subject. I'm busy with edits about Bill Ayers and the Obama-Ayers controversy articles, so I'm not able to pay as much attention to Rezko as I'd like. Cheers, Noroton (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Noroton. I also entered similar text into the talk page in the event that it requires more discussion. I realize some subjects can be controversial as we near the election, but Wikipedia must get it right. Freedom Fan (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

About the mediation. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, hate to be such a rookie, but I don't know how to find your email address. Please advise. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

On the far lefthand side of each user's page and user's talk page is a section called "toolbox", and "E-mail this user" is the fifth bulleted item on that list. Click it and it opens a page that lets you email through Wikipedia. Subsequent emails can be sent directly between users, since your own email address would be in your email to me. Many users set up google gmail accounts for Wikipedia purposes because they tend to be pretty safe (they're quick to set up; just remember to check it; you can set it up and activate your own ability to receive emails through Wikipedia if you chose, but tha isn't necessary, I think, if you just want to send email to others, like me). -- Noroton (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama Article Probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Article, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Brothejr (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi my name is BountyHunter2008 and I was wondering if you could give me some information on the case of Eurabia as to what exactly has been going on so we can try and sort this out without having to go through the proper process of mediation. Many thanks BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BountyHunter2008. Please allow me to address this in the article talk page, as my answer will be comprehensive. Thanks for your interest. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Eurabia talk page i was wondering if you have sorted it out or if you are still arguing and mediation is still required? BountyHunter2008 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we are still sorting this out. Thank you so much for your help; I think this article will be improved dramatically as a result. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Weatherman (organization)

The website of a book, a bookseller, and YouTube cannot be considered reliable sources. Do not add contentious material without getting proper sources. Consider discussing on the talk page before edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I will take this discussion to the talk page. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a request for mediation, and you are invited to contribute. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop edit warring - your edits have been rejected for several days, and you have no consensus. In addition, poorly sourced accusations of murder against a living individual are a WP:BLP violation. You have reverted this inappropriate WP:POV material into the Weatherman (organization) article three times in ten hours. Additionally, if you make any more edits to the article it will be a WP:3RR violation. Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect; I restored deleted material in one particular section twice. In addition to the material I added, you have almost completely gutted the section dealing with the bombing of the San Francisco Police Station bombing including the picture and any mention of Brian V. McDonnell, the police officer who was killed in the bombing. You also removed strongly sourced details from the San Francisco Chronicle. I suggest you restore this section immediately. Freedom Fan (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see this, and reflect on this. There I have warned you not to repost content that has been removed for BLP reasons. Other editors have asserted that this is a BLP problem, and at my prompting they have explained it reasonably. As a consequence you need to find better sources, and probably also be more cautious in how it is represented. The next time you engage in edit warring rather than research on these Obama related pages, you will be blocked. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

While I attempted to address this on the talk page, WikiDemon has now censored even that, so I will restore the discussion here:

There is an obvious solution: report the 2/16/1970 pipe-bomb murder of San Francisco Police Department Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell as attributed at the time to Weather or to the Panthers but remaining unsolved. No mention of any individual suspects need be included. Removing the very mention of unsolved acts of violence from this Wiki article distorts the historical record, and brings this article out of factual concordance with a wide variety of sources, especially the FBI FOIA files. I suggest there be a section in the article on unproved acts of violence attributed to Weather, and that the McDonnell murder be included there. What is lost by removing it? Here's what--The credibility of Wiki as a fair and complete source. Anyone looking up the Weathermen can find a reference to the unsolved McDonnell murder--except now in Wikipedia. This diminishes Wikipedia's credibility. For another source on the McDonnell murder, see-- http://books.google.com/books?id=_hEoAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Brian+V.+McDonnell%22&dq=%22Brian+V.+McDonnell%22&pgis=1 Ajschorschiii (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ajschorschiii, you are absolutely correct. This episode is one of the most shamefully one-sided I have ever witnessed. It has the effect of extraordinarily diminishing the credibility of Wikipedia. If you want an unbiased account of the pipe-bomb murder of San Francisco Police Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell, you will need to consult a source other than Wikipedia. There are hundreds of places to find this information; it's not as if this is a particularly controversial topic.

Information on this horrible crime was contributed originally by someone else, and had been a part of this article for several weeks. Now all related material has been destroyed from both the main article and this discussion page by certain editors and even a Wikipedia administrator. Any further attempt to discuss this event has been met with a threat to block, citing bogus WP:BLP concerns. Note that BLP policy deals with poorly sourced information about living persons; it does not encourage suppression of information about an investigation of an organization such as the Weathermen.

True, at one point there was also material related to specific persons, but that was removed along with the entire section, and any attempt to restore the strongly-sourced part dealing with just the Weatherman organization's involvement has been suppressed. Note that this material was not merely changed to be more balanced or better sourced; all mention of this crime was completedly removed.

Here's an interesting dilemma: How do you discuss whether proposed material fails the BLP test without at least presenting it for discussion on the talk page? When I attempted just restore information about the crime and its investigation, I was threatened with being blocked. (Also note while my edits were bold as encouraged by Wikipedia policy, at no time did I violate the WP:3RR rule.)

Here's another amazing thing: Apparently Congressional testimony -- that's right, information in the Congressional record itself -- is not considered a reliable source by this group. If you don't believe it, take a look at the record of attempted mediation above.

I would encourage you to try to contribute some balance to this egregiously distorted article. However, personally I will not be attempting to contribute any further to this article and perhaps others for a while. Furthermore, I will weigh this experience whenever I read any Wikipedia article in the future. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I note the experience and am sorry for it. I get the frustration, as Wikipedia is subject to MPOV (multiple point of view) bias. You may not be able to achieve all that you wish, but if you are very patient thigs will change and the attention of the corrupting influences will wander, or wish they weren't identified. A good example is the Climate change issue. DDB (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

Please make your arguments for removal of material on the talk page and not edit summaries. There is an ongoing discussion that you appear to be ignoring but are more than welcome to chime in on. I'm considering reverting.Cptnono (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's leave this section non-controversial or remove entirely until consensus is established. Freedom Fan (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted one of your edits to this article because it appears to violate WP:NPOV. Please discuss your issues with the section on the article's talk page. Thank you. --N419BH (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Again:Use the talk page were a discussion is ongoing. You are being disruptive and going against consensus. This is the third request in only a week or so. Stop it.Cptnono (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is "disruptive" is your repeated attempts censor the Breitbart $100,000 reward-for-evidence segment without consensus. You are welcome to start mediation proceedings. Perhaps you can find someone with an official position at Wikipedia willing to force a one-sided WP:BLP violation, even though they just did the opposite in defending the Weatherman organization, per the above. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no WP:BLP violation involved. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not continue to change the section heading in Tea Party movement, against consensus and without discussing it on the talk page. You have done it three times now, despite being asked each time not to. Scolaire (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have flagged the section as lacking neutrality. Please do not remove tag until consensus is established. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind describing the specific neutrality concerns you have on the article talk page, so that other editors may participate in the consensus building? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Strike that - I see you have now started a discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"is your repeated attempts censor the Breitbart $100,000 reward-for-evidence segment without consensus" Wow just saw that. You might want to take a look at the history to see how much censoring I tried to do. If anything my edits were overly complementary to the movement. Pay more attention, stop having knee-jerk reactions, and stop soapboxing.

The reason I meant to comment was based on your formatting. Read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and WP:LAYOUT. Misuse of bold, misuse of wikilink in section header, improper spacing, and the section should probably not be stuck at the bottom. It also might need to be trimmed and made into a summary instead of a copy paste.Cptnono (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. You didn't specify what you were talking about, but I take responsibility for the miscommunication. Freedom Fan (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No reason to apologize. Read my recent comment on the talk page regarding providing information to readers instead of the article not addressing the controversy over race.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This sort of talk is unacceptable: "Maybe in Ireland you have a peasant caste who must bow before royalty, whose words are given more weight than peasants in a court of law (or an encyclopedia), but that's not the way it works in America. In America you have concepts which must seem very foreign to you such as 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty', and 'equal protection under the law'." If you don't take prompt steps to retract it, I will raise it at WP:ANI. --Scolaire (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. My intent was not to offend, but to try to understand how you could have made such an outrageous statement, suggesting that "elected officials" were somehow more worthy than ordinary folks. Then I visited your user page and saw you were from from the British Isles where your traditions and laws arose from a system of monarchy where royalty ruled over commoners. For the record, here is my entire statement:

As for your earlier statement that "There is a presumption that elected representatives do not wantonly and maliciously lie in order to bring an organisation into disrepute. To accuse them of maliciously lying, or even to infer that they did by the use of the word "claim" is a BLP violation." Maybe in Ireland you have a peasant caste who must bow before royalty, whose words are given more weight than peasants in a court of law (or an encyclopedia), but that's not the way it works in America. In America you have concepts which must seem very foreign to you such as "presumption of innocence until proven guilty", and "equal protection under the law". Also in America, the standards for establishing libel are much higher than in Ireland, and the standards are even higher for "public figures" such as politicians. Freedom Fan (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I would appreciate your retracting your outrageous charge that my error somehow makes me a racist, especially since I have Irish ancestors.

You <s>strike</s> your comment and I'll strike mine. As usual, your "apology" is immediately followed by further aggression, but that's only what I've come to expect. And some of my favourite racists had Irish ancestors. Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Offer withdrawn, since you proceeded to fuel the discussion instead of striking out the slur. Goodbye. Scolaire (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have apologized and striken the offending text as you requested, but I reject your attempt to shut down discussion by playing the flimsy, well-worn race card. For example, if someone from Europe says something culturally insensitive about an American citizen, then that hardly makes the European a "racist". Therefore, once again I am asking you to retract your offensive "racist" charge. Freedom Fan (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See also section

---

Hi Freedom Fan, Is there some reason you keep added Tea Party Movement and Protests back into the see also sections of these articles? TIA --Tom (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It allows the reader easy access to more information on the same topic, which I believe is the reason for having such a section. If anything belongs in the "see also" section, it would seem that these do because the Tea Party movement and Tea Party protests are closely related. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:SEEALSO. --Tom (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:SEEALSO I see that, while not forbidden, the policy suggests that generally the link should not both appear in the body as well as the "see also" section. So although I still feel the link would be helpful in the "see also" section, I am deferring to your good judgement on this, as long as some cross reference remains in the body of both articles. Thanks for your help. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem.--Tom (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Your continuous reverting is still edit warring. The fact that you come dangerously close to 3rr without passing it within 24hrs is still disruptive. If you revert the heading again you will be reported for edit warring. No more warnings on this.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia policy on making threats and issuing "warnings" WP:Bullying, WP:Assume Good Faith and WP:3RR, which specifically exempts:

Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates Biographies of living persons (BLP).

Your insistence upon characterizing someone as a "racist" is in clear violation of several Wikipedia policies with regard to describing groups of living persons and is a candidate for speedy removal. An editor must strive to achieve a neutral point of view on all articles, without regard to your personal feeling about the topic. Describing a group of living persons as "racist" is not even close to observing your responsibilities as a Wikipedia editor. If you believe that this particular article should be an exception to one of the five founding principles of Wikipedia, I strongly urge you to begin mediation proceedings immediately. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

---

FreedomFan, please reread WP:BLP. It generally doesn't apply to groups of people, especially large groups. It's meant for individuals. To quote from WP:BLP "Bear in mind that when dealing with groups, particularly very small ones, edits made to Wikipedia could have a bearing on living persons, so exercise caution. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. With a large group or organization it is easier to draw a distinction between statements about the group's members (where BLP might apply) and statements about the organization itself (where it would not). This is harder to do with smaller groups and organizations. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." --Cubic Hour (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but as you say the issue is "complex". After studying the Wikipedia policies extensively, it becomes apparent that the most important "non-negotiable" principal for editors to follow is to try to achieve a "neutral point of view", and this has been established from the beginning as one of the five founding pillars of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, since libel exposure can be involved, NPOV is doubly important when describing living persons or groups of living persons, and pursuant to WP:BLP such material must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Also note that there are photographs and videos of specific persons described here, such as the man alleged to have accidentally "spit" upon Rep. Cleaver, so there is little doubt that BLP is an issue in this article, and it is important to get it exactly right.

Obviously Wikipedia has little tolerance regarding straying from this founding principal and "editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked". In addition, WP has now established a task force to deal specifically with violations of BLP. The Wikimedia Foundation has established a direct reporting mechanism to deal with BLP violations to ensure that we take "human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding" material.

Even without the BLP policy, it remains a fundamental principal that editors must strive to achieve a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. As if it weren't already obvious that using, loaded, "contentious labels" like "racist" to describe living persons, violates NPOV, there are several examples in Wikipedia policy which strongly recommending avoiding this specific word.

For example, WP:Words To Avoid specifically states that it is unacceptable to use words such as these, even in describing obviously racist organizations such as the KKK, because "such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint". So:

"The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization." thus becomes

"The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism."

I don't think it gets much more clear than that. Similarly, Wikipedia:Words to watch advises against use of "Contentious Labels", and specifically the word "racist":

"Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

I have no doubt that the BLP policy pertains to groups of living persons because when I worked on the Weatherman article, I was severely reprimanded by an administrator for attempting to use strongly sourced material which put unnamed members of the group in an unfavorable light. Even a vague mention of the sworn Congressional testimony considered a BLP violation and was immediately removed from the talk page by the administrator.

If you disagree, I would welcome your finding an administrator to explain why this particular article should be an exception to the WP:NPOV policy, one of the five founding principles of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I would like to understand whether the BLP policy should be strictly enforced when describing a left-wing organization, yet disregarded when describing a right-wing one.

If you argue that somehow the size of the organizations exempts it from WP:BLP, then I would like to know if it would be acceptable to take the unsavory actions of a few individuals and start a section in the Democratic Party (United States) article similarly entitled "Reports of Racism and Homophobia". I have a feeling that this might meet with a WP:Undue or WP:Recentism objection because"

"Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

Clearly when you are dealing with a growing movement supported by 24% of Americans, the actions of some loon on Twitter are not notable and inclusion would violate WP:Undue.

Thanks for your contributions to this article. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If the title was "The Tea Party is Racist," I'd agree with you. As it is, the title is simply discussing "reports" of racism. Saying this section should instead be titled something to the effect of "inappropriate behavior" isn't any more or less neutral, it's just less precise. --Cubic Hour (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV policy, which is the bedrock of all Wikipedia articles, is clear: You report events in a neutral manner and allow the readers to draw their own interpretations as to intent in the minds of the participants. If you want to find a more "precise" heading I'll support that, as long as you don't assign contentious labels to the disputed behavior. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, "We report, You decide." I understand you think your opinion is "neutral." I disagree. --Cubic Hour (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than work on an encyclopedia, you may prefer contributing to a blog where someone values your opinions. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Please go to the TPM talk page and vote for title of section. Thanks.Malke2010 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for this, it's much appreciated. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

... and much deserved. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)