| Revision as of 20:07, 4 June 2017 editNeutrality (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators165,441 edits →References: huh?← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:12, 4 June 2017 edit undoNeutrality (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators165,441 editsm →References: typo, fmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| I've reverted. 38.132.63.125's comment about the AP journalist is disgusting and sexist. As for the subsequent edit, the downplaying of the group's far-right stances is a form of "improper distancing" - basically distancing ourselves from what the reliable sources say. Where we have multiple high-quality reliable sources that say "Group is X" - and no reliable sources that contradict this, then Misplaced Pages should also directly state that "Group is X" not this "Group has been described as X" weaseling. | |||
| The idea that "the organization has never described itself directly as 'far-right' or 'alt-right', so we should not ascribe that tag" is not supported by policy. The fact that a group does or does not describes itself in a certain way is not a justification for ignoring how reliable outside observers describe them. They simply don't get a veto in this way. In addition, we ''already'' include in the lead section the group's own self-description. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :The issue is that it ''is'' controversial. Most of those sources are biased/unreliable. The "Village Voice" source even says "the group is mostly apolitical". I'm not going to revert, but what is your reasoning, in opposed to saying something like " has noted that the group's idealogy fits ? --'''<font color="#E466A9">]</font><font color="#E466A9"></font>''' 19:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :: Your position is that the is "biased/unreliable"? And the ? And the ? ]<sup>]</sup> 19:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well, the first would be OR, but the other two, sure. You never answered my question though. '''<font color="#E466A9">]</font><font color="#E466A9"></font>''' 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Why is the first OR? The link literally says it in the opening line: ''"NEW YORK (AP) — Fights broke out when the founder of a far-right men’s organization appeared at New York University, leading to 11 arrests — the second time this week that violence broke out at a controversial speech at a U.S. university. The speaker, Gavin McInnes, ... McInnes is the founder of a group called the “Proud Boys.'''" ]<sup>]</sup> 20:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:12, 4 June 2017
 | United States Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
References
This article is shit and contains 3 shitty references that call proud boys far right so i guess they must be cause well we're calling them that, after all the sky is green because I say it's green. One of the 3 shit references contradicts this article by stating PB is a fight club but this article says FOAK is the fight club part of PB, which is it? I watched the video that reference 2 describes and the AP "reporter" is clearly writing from a partisan viewpoint and obviously a total cunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.132.63.125 (talk • contribs)
You could change the wording to "has been described as far-right". That's not biased and is an adequate way of dealing with your issue. --Aleccat 21:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: Done. If anyone else has any comments on this, please use this page. --Aleccat 21:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Next time, consider just making the edit instead of ranting on the talk page and then making the edit. Muad (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted. 38.132.63.125's comment about the AP journalist is disgusting and sexist. As for the subsequent edit, the downplaying of the group's far-right stances is a form of "improper distancing" - basically distancing ourselves from what the reliable sources say. Where we have multiple high-quality reliable sources that say "Group is X" - and no reliable sources that contradict this, then Misplaced Pages should also directly state that "Group is X" not this "Group has been described as X" weaseling. The idea that "the organization has never described itself directly as 'far-right' or 'alt-right', so we should not ascribe that tag" is not supported by policy. The fact that a group does or does not describes itself in a certain way is not a justification for ignoring how reliable outside observers describe them. They simply don't get a veto in this way. In addition, we already include in the lead section the group's own self-description. Neutrality 16:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- The issue is that it is controversial. Most of those sources are biased/unreliable. The "Village Voice" source even says "the group is mostly apolitical". I'm not going to revert, but what is your reasoning, in opposed to saying something like " has noted that the group's idealogy fits ? --Aleccat 19:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Your position is that the Associated Press is "biased/unreliable"? And the Seattle Times? And the Los Angeles Times? Neutrality 19:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the first would be OR, but the other two, sure. You never answered my question though. Aleccat 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Why is the first OR? The link literally says it in the opening line: "NEW YORK (AP) — Fights broke out when the founder of a far-right men’s organization appeared at New York University, leading to 11 arrests — the second time this week that violence broke out at a controversial speech at a U.S. university. The speaker, Gavin McInnes, ... McInnes is the founder of a group called the “Proud Boys.'" Neutrality 20:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the first would be OR, but the other two, sure. You never answered my question though. Aleccat 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Your position is that the Associated Press is "biased/unreliable"? And the Seattle Times? And the Los Angeles Times? Neutrality 19:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)