Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:10, 18 July 2019

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Exceptional claim about the WSJ

I'll begin by saying an RfC was opened May 21st and closed June 1st asking if the following text should be kept in the lede:

The Journal editorial board has promoted pseudoscientific views on the science of climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos.

The RfC was closed as keep. My concern is that it is noncompliant with NPOV for the following reasons:

1. Exceptional claims require multiple high quality sources, but only one source was cited.
2. None of the pages listed in the citation substantiate the claim that the WSJ editorial board promoted pseudoscientific views about any of the issues mentioned.
3. Opinions should not be stated as fact in WikiVoice.
4. The editorial board mentioned in the lede claim has undergone changes between the time said opinion essays were first published (from 1988–2002) through today.
5. NPOV policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

The statement is sourced to Merchants of Doubt which is not specifically about the WSJ, although it is mentioned occasionally in the 270+ pages along with other MSM publications. The book actually criticizes 53% of MSM for downplaying the science (pg 215), but the fact that their criticism is retrospectively based opinion doesn't appear to have been taken into consideration. To what editorial board is the claim referring? The published opinion essays/letters to the editor that were actually published in the WSJ were authored by highly respected scientists and experts in their field at the time, not all are still alive today, and the science back then was not as advanced as it is today. WSJ, like so many other publications, published different views, including opinion essays by highly qualified scientists and other experts in their field, not all of whom agreed with each other. They also published letters to the editor, some of which included rebuttals from other scientists and experts. That's what news publications do, and I do not consider routine publishing of controversial topics authored by reputable scientists in leadership positions to be confirmation that the WSJ promotes pseudoscientific views. _Talk 📧 05:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As well as the RFC linked to above, it’s probably also worth having a look at this more recent thread on the same topic. Brunton (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

(1) This was settled in a RFC. (2) There is not just one source for this content. This is the relevant section of the body where there are by my count at least 9 sources cited. (3) The editor has not pointed out how Merchants of Doubt, which is authored by historians of science Naomi Oreskes (of Harvard University) and Erik Conway (of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology) and is considered a credible authoritative source, has been misused or alternatively, how the contents of the book are false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is not appropriate for the lead. Yes, the claim is reliably sourced, and I think it should be discussed in the article... however, highlighting it in the lead gives the claim UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There's troubling issues in that RFC and the article. Yes, there are clear sources that WSJ's oped page editors will likely give more space to climate deniers and the like to other viewpoints, if any at all. That's a compliant that can be made. But the article does not have the sourcing appropriate to say what that is going into the lede, nor for this supposed section in the body The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. The Journal disputes that it poses a major threat to human existence and can be prevented through public policy. The Journal has published articles disputing that global warming is occurring at all. The Journal is regarded as a forum for climate change skeptics, publishing articles by individuals skeptical of the consensus position on climate change in its op-ed section. The fact that they feature op-eds (supported by the given sources) is not the the same as a direct statement from the editorial board rejecting climate change. Both the statement in the lede needs to be removed (undue weight) and the section on climate change stance reworded to better reflected the more limited facet (that the WSJ will favor op-eds from climate change deniers) --Masem (t) 14:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Masem I've made a post at the talk page in question, feel free to comment there too. Perhaps it might make sense to modify the wording slightly, though I can't actually read all the pages being referenced from Orestes and Conway. -Darouet (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it's the editorial board itself (in its own columns) that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. Here they refer to the "settled science" of climate change in scare quotes, describe the science as "still disputable" and that there are "doubts about how much our current warming is man-made as opposed to merely another of the natural climate shifts that have taken place over the centuries". Here they say, "There is still serious scientific debate about the causes, effects and possible solutions for climate change". Here they question both that the Earth has been warming, as well as that CO2 contributes to warming: "If emitting CO2 into the atmosphere causes global warming, why hasn't the globe been warming?". They refer to the IPCC saying the Earth has been warming as a "bold-face conclusion". They characterize climate science and the IPCC as follows: "Temperatures have been flat for 15 years, nobody can properly explain it (though there are some theories), and the IPCC doesn't want to spend much time doing so because it is politically inconvenient and shows that the computer models on which all climate-change predictions depend remain unreliable." The editorial board has not published a single editorial under its own name that recognizes the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That's what news sources do - they publish various opinions that were presented in arguments. One of the reasons WSJ received 37 Pulitzers is because of their in-depth coverage and research into topics. This isn't the first time WSJ was the opposing side of a particular topic but this is the kind of information readers expect and want to know about. Are you wanting the public at large to simply accept whatever science is most promoted without any opposing views? That would be more like State-run public dissemination - keep the public compliant and unaware. I disagree.

Masem, I was initially focused on the lead and had not paid much attention to the Science section until you mentioned it. The lead paragraph in the section mirrors what's in the lead, and I've already pointed out those issues, so if we get the lead issue resolved, we do need to correct the Science section. I agree with you in that there are troubling issues, and will add that there are exceptional claims in that paragraph that are either not cited at all or do not use in-text attribution. They are not cited to multiple high quality sources as required by NPOV. Worse yet, they are contentious statements (attacks, actually) that have been editorialized rather than summarized. Fact: In the past, the WSJ has published op-eds from climate change deniers and have also published the resulting rebuttals in "Letters to the editor". Other problems include dated material and an obvious political bent of the criticisms that has been published in RS sources, some of which have a COI as competitors of the WSJ. The entire secton should simply provide encyclopedic information in a dispassionate tone with strict adherence to DUE and NPOV. I had not realized how much of a role politics plays in this particular topic. It wasn't that way when I was producing environmental/conservation programming for PBS broadcast. _Talk 📧 15:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

We cannot read what the staff writers/editorial board include in non-op-eds and claim they take the stance against climate change or the like, without reliable third-party sources. That's both original research and POV. As DGG says below, it's fair game from your existing sources that you can say the WSJ favors editorials/opinions from climate change deniers. Now, relative to everything else, and given that this facet of the WSJ is so tiny relative to everything else about the paper, that would still be UNDUE in the lede, trying to coatrack the climate change issue that early on; fair game otherwise in the body. --Masem (t) 15:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• It could be better worded "The editorial section of the WsJ is known for frequently publishing editorials and opinion promoting ...." . Strictly speaking, we never know anyone's opinion, we only know what they say. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As I have stated at the article talk page... a paper’s editorial stance on ANY single issue is too detailed to be mentioned in the lead. The WSJ has taken editorial stances on a multitude of controversial issues through the years... from opposing Roosevelt’s New Deal, to supporting US intervention in Vietnam... and on and on. The climate stuff is but one of this multitude, and does not rise to the level of being highlighted in the lead. It may be a good example of the Journal’s bias... but the lead isn’t the PLACE for examples. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

What makes this notable is that it's having a serious and important impact on the world - i.e. the WSJ's fringe BS is being covered by academic books on climate change disinformation as a prominent source of climate change denial. If the WSJ had engaged in a sustained effort to push birtherism or anti-vaxx propaganda, then that would very likely also end up in the lede, because a premier news outlet pushing those things would have lent credibility to it and a had a real impact on the world. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between a newspaper taking an editorial stance on political issues versus promoting claims that are factually incorrect. Details of the former do not seem relevant for a lead, while details of the latter may be. In this specific case, the lead material seems appropriate. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The amount of sourcing, even if it is from the seminal academic-researched work on misinformation about climate change in the media, is nowhere close to make the case for a lede standard that WSJ should be tied to climate change denial. Yes, it is a point of concern in some circles, but it is not a stance that WSJ is well-known for, and you don't have that many sources to push it to a lede point; its addition to the lede, and the rationale here feels like this is coatracking the climate change denial aspects. WP can't take the few that a work that marginalizes climate change must be called out on that, unless that is a major point the work is known for, and honestly, that's just not something well-discusses for the WSJ. --Masem (t) 16:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to definitively prove (to Misplaced Pages's standards) what anything is "known for", but "14% of the guest editorials presented the results of 'mainstream climate science', while the majority did not" seems to suggest that it's a major and concerted effort on the part of the editorial board in selecting who and what to publish. Certainly climate denialism is what I know WSJ for, as the only major news outlet to have this position. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that the average person knows of the WSJ primarily for being the newspaper of record for American financial and business news. Similar to the FT in the UK. Most people would not immediately think “climate” when thinking about the Journal. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. When I want to read about climate change, I go to NASA's website. The article summary in the aforementioned link is quite interesting as is this article about the use of global warming vs climate change. There is a stark difference in the way politically driven publications view things vs what actual science is telling us. _Talk 📧 19:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: this is an attempt to reargue a closed discussion: RfC: WSJ editorial board's promotion of fringe science, June 2019. Consensus can change, but not so soon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No it is not an attempt to do anything other than get the article lead in compliance with NPOV which is a core content policy that cannot be overruled by editor consensus. _Talk 📧 04:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Recap: In the lead we state in WikiVoice, right after acknowledging the WSJ has earned 37 Pulitzers, that they promote pseudoscientific claims on the science of climate change..." yet, a simple Google search brings up the following:

• WSJ 11-2018 U.S. Government Report Warns of Economic Losses From Climate Change
• WSJ - updated: "Editor’s note: This Future View is about climate change. Next week we’ll discuss unpaid internships. Are they exploitative or do they serve a purpose? Students should click here to submit opinions of fewer than 250 words before May 28. The best responses will be published that night."
• Climate Change is Affordable 11/27/2018.

The claim which is stated in WikiVoice in the lead is based on dated technology (1990s - 2007) and reports that are based on that technology. It does not take into consideration the advancements in technology and updated reports, or the more recent news and opinion published by WSJ as I exampled in the diffs above. What about our readers? What do you think they are gleaning from the mixed message in the lead? My concern is that it reflects badly on WP for the reasons I stated above. _Talk 📧 00:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The WSJ's news operation is outstanding, and wins Pulitzers, and covers climate change reasonably well. The WSJ's editorial board routinely promotes climate-change denialism and various other nonsense in its editorial section. Our goal is to inform readers about this dichotomy. You continue to conflate the WSJ's news and editorial operations, intentionally or unintentionally, although the distinction has been explained several times and is crucial to understanding the issue under discussion.

Separately, your contention that the WSJ editorial board no longer traffics in climate-change denialism is easily disproven by spending 5 minutes reading WSJ editorials. From the last year or so alone, one can quickly find editorials which repeat standard-issue denialist talking points (e.g. "The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change", "Climate Change Has Run Its Course", "Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?", "Pruitt Leaves a Proud Legacy at the EPA", etc.) MastCell  21:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

NAMBLA content on Harry Hay

Sorry for the length and subject matter.

I found the inclusion of NAMBLA content in the lead of Harry Hay surprising, and in looking at the sources used, then a look to see if there were better ones available, I found sourcing lacking. I took the one sentence off the lead and also removed Category:Pedophile activism as both seemed inappropriate. Can you guess where this is going? They were both re-added and the content in the lead expanded. (Here is a copy as of 4 July 2019. I read all the sources I could find and tried to apply NPOV. After a couple rounds of this I gave up and started a survey of all sources on this content.

NAMBLA is widely despised as child molesters by the vast majority of LGBTQ people as well as popular culture. It’s a group for pedophile advocacy. Pedophilia, is a preference for prepubescent children as old as 13. NAMBLA is possibly the most hated group imaginable to many LGBTQ people.

Any connections to NAMBLA automatically taint whoever is connected with them. The vast majority of reliable sources barely mention anything, those that do cite:

1. February 1983, Hay speaks at an event (not NAMBLA’s) and states, “...if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.” This quote follows Hay’s recounting his own positive sexual experience when he was 14 with an older man (reasoning for his going public in proposed content section); No reliable source for the quote but one good source for the overall speech.
2. June 1986, LA Pride parade bans NAMBLA, Hay wears a sign in protest on his back, one supporting Valerie Terrigno who was also banned, on his front.
3. June 1994, Stonewall 25, and ILGA bans NAMBLA, Hay and 149 others protest the action, about NAMBLA mainly (reasoning in proposed content section) and march in the Spirit of Stonewall alternative parade with 7,000.
4. sometime in 1994, spoke at a NAMBLA event where he suggested changing the group’s name. (I only see one brief mention of this.)

reliable sources found

References

1. Vern L. Bullough (2002). Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context. Psychology Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-1560231936. "Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."; "an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world."
2. Timmons 1990, p. 295.
3. "The smear campaign continues: Fox Nation, Washington Examiner manufacture Jennings-NAMBLA link". Media Matters for America. October 2, 2009. Retrieved 2019-07-01. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
4. Hay, Harry (1997). Roscoe, Will (ed.). Radically gay : the story of gay liberation in the words of its founder. Beacon Press. pp. 302–307. ISBN 9780807070819. OCLC 876542984.
5. Rind, Wright Bruce (2016), "Chapter 10; Blinded by Politics and Morality—A Reply to McAnulty and Wright", in Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert C. (eds.), Censoring Sex Research : the Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations, Taylor & Francis, pp. 279–298, doi:10.4324/9781315432458-16, ISBN 9781611323405, OCLC 855969738, retrieved 2019-07-12

Unless other reliable sources support this material and demonstrate it has a significant bearing on his life I don’t see how this should be in the lead. As well I think the category is inappropriate. Am I crazy? Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

When Hay was was alive, his constant advocacy for NAMBLA and his cruising of boys was common knowledge. Same as with Ginsberg. It's part of what made Hay a controversial figure - someone who was routinely disrupting Pride, getting kicked out of the very orgs he founded (Mattachine Society), etc. I've tried to explain this to Gleeanaon, who clearly wasn't around then, but he takes my suggestion to read the sources as a personal attack. He suggests respected gay journalists like Michael Bronski, who was part of some of the same radical collectives as Hay, are somehow orchestrating a smear campaign. I suggest anyone who wants to comment first read Bronski's article, "The real Harry Hay", all the way to the end, as Bronski points out the the New York Times and other major outlets were already leaving the NAMBLA stuff out of his obits, and immediately trying to reinvent him on death:

Neither of the long and laudatory obits in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times mentioned his unyielding support for NAMBLA or even his deeply radical credentials and vision. Harry, it turns out, was a grandfatherly figure who had an affair with Grandpa Walton. But it’s important to remember Hay — with all his contradictions, his sometimes crackpot notions, and his radiant, ecstatic, vision of the holiness of being queer — as he lived. For in his death, Harry Hay is becoming everything he would have raged against.

Gleeanon's main project right now is editing National LGBTQ Wall of Honor, and they are the one who added the list of names and are the creator and main editor of the article. Gleeanon honestly didn't seem to any know this about Hay, as he seems to not know much about any of the older community members he's copy and pasting into that list. I've told them the answer is not to rewrite history. But Gleeanon keeps deleting discussions from their talk page and misrepresenting both the sourcing and other people's edits. He has become a Tendentious editor who is wasting our time with his, I'm sorry, ignorance of this topic and, possibly, agenda to whitewash on behalf of this group. If the people working on the memorial didn't want someone this problematic, they should have asked older people, or done their research, rather than trying to whitewash the honorees after the fact. Gleeanon is now focusing rather intensely on this. I have asked if they have COI on this project and they have denied it, but I'm really not sure I believe that given this intense POV push. - CorbieV ☼ 19:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It may be that Bronski had an inside view of what Hay was like, and that Bronski disliked the fact that reliable sources like the New York Times, did not consider these problematic aspects of Hay to be significant aspects of his life. It may be that some people involved in some hall of fame project have failed to consult enough older people about their choice of inclusions. But Misplaced Pages should reflect what the balance of reliable sources say about it, not the views of individuals with an interest or individuals disgusted or disappointed. MPS1992 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, editors are permitted by policy to blank content from their own talk page -- especially when the content concerned is several thousand words in length. Blanking such content is generally regarded as an indication that they have read it. Anyway that's a question of editor conduct, not a question of article neutrality which is what this noticeboard covers. MPS1992 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I have continually asked for reliable sources that verify the “constant advocacy for NAMBLA” and pedophilia. There seems to be a massive conspiracy except one lone, but respected LGBTQ journalist. Perhaps that should be also shoehorned into the lead? One of the world’s best known pioneering gay rights advocates whose had dozens of obituaries, articles, interviews, books, and documentaries about him all fail to mention this despite Misplaced Pages even advertising it, possibly for years. Perhaps because they saw was is plainly evident, a lack of evidence despite NAMBLA themselves posting every scrap of pro-pedophile material they can. I look forward to more people looking into this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy? There is/was no conspiracy. This has been common knowledge for decades. The sources support this common knowledge. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed -- but the sources do not seem to regard it as significant in the individual's biography. MPS1992 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

MPS, it's not just Bronski, it's the Gay press in general who wanted this known about him, because he was continually raising a stink about it and people were having to kick him out of groups and events. It's in the Advocate, and his own group, the Radical Faeries have it on their tribute page to him:. This isn't righting great wrongs, it's keeping history accurate against a POV push from a relatively new, revisionist editor. NAMBLA is ugly. Of course people would rather not see it. But those who supported and promoted the pedophile group should be kept accountable. Go look at the article, not this user's misrepresentations. I think there is a misunderstanding here about what WP:NPOV is. We write in a neutral voice. It doesn't mean we hide awful things about people to make them sound nicer. Yeah, it's hard to write neutrally about a pedophile group. So we just state the facts. But we don't bury the facts when he, after Allen Ginsberg, was probably the group's most famous advocate in the gay community. Yeah, it's gross. But it happened. So we document it. - CorbieV ☼ 21:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess you really are saying that the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times were "revisionist" as well, and therefore we shouldn't consider them reliable on this topic, but instead we should only consider reliable the views of people that Hay knew personally and had had disagreements with? MPS1992 (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Or, let us look at it a different way. There are three questions. First, should Hay's protesting the exclusion of NAMBLA from events be mentioned in the article? (I would say yes.) Second, should it be mentioned in the lede of the article? And third, if it should be mentioned in the lede of the article, how should it be mentioned there? MPS1992 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

They were incomplete. As their obits of subcultural figures have often been. - CorbieV ☼ 21:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Those sources are already included in the seven(!) total(!) to be found, this one is a collection of obits with only one even touching on this content, the very sole one you helpfully quoted at length despite it already being posted above. These scraps were then woven into a grand story. It certainly feels “undue”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

References in the article include Hay's official bio, which was fine with Gleeanon until he realized it sourced all this, with this photo:, where Hay wore the sign, "NAMBLA walks with me" in LA Pride. As I said on talk: I really didn't want to link to them, but here's - https://www. nambla. org/hay2002.html NAMBLA's index on their Harry Hay materials. This page has - https://www. nambla. org/sanfrancisco1984.html photos of Harry Hay speaking on a NAMBLA panel in 1984, in San Francisco, under their banner. And again in 1986 in Los Angeles (no photo). Ick. The link is not live because, understandably, the site is on the blacklist. So the the url has spaces. You will have to copy and paste, and take out the spaces, to see it. Ick again. Gleeanon thinks all this is a conspiracy. But it's in Hay's official bio, which was written by some of his most ardent supporters. - CorbieV ☼ 21:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

None of that proves anything but that he made invited speeches at some of their conferences, helpfully they provide their version of the transcripts which show ... no advocacy for the group or even anything beyond Hay recounting his own positive gay sex experiences as a kid. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Trying to destroy Pride because they wouldn't let NAMBLA march is not being an advocate? Helping them re-brand in order to get more members, sitting under the banner for photos while the group was sending out newsletters with photos of smiling seven year olds with the caption, "Smiles mean consent." Wow. You are really reaching here. - CorbieV ☼ 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Original research inventing narratives not supported by reliable or even NAMBLA’s own sources isn’t helpful. Zero evidence Hay had control of how his photo was used, that he was helping recruit, or even destroy Pride. All interesting ideas that I’m sure will be spun into gold by right wing bloggers. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

OK folks, I think we need some outside input here, if anyone is willing? That's what this noticeboard is for. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite bemused by all this discussion about whether Hay was a ardent supporter of NAMBLA. He was. Anyone who is old enough, was contemporaneous in his communities while he was alive, knows it to be true. As a co-founder of the Mattachine Society, people saw him as an elder statesman in the 1970s-90s. Gay people listened when he had opinions. Many vociferously disagreed with him on supporting NAMBLA. There were a significant number of Gay/Lesbian newspapers and newsletters during that time period. Hay did interviews with them and articles were written about him. Those papers, often with very good journalists writing for them, could be used as contemporaneous reliable sources. Unfortunately, only a fraction of them are available online. They would be secondary sources on this issue. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are aware of any reliable sources, they are welcome. I just added one that was wedge into the lead just hours ago which ironically proves how weak the sourcing remains. As to your point, it seems like the only thing that we can reliably verify up to now, is that he defended their right to be in two Pride parades where they had been banned, and the reasons. Arguably this might have caused a furor at the time, although I’m not seeing any evidence of that either, but don’t we have to rely on verification through reliable sources? What we have after searching is listed at the top. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need." He is advocating for children to be in sexual relationships with adults. He gave this speech in 1983 at NYU and it is archived on the NAMBLA website as well as here . On the Back to Stonewall site it also states,"These events overshadowed Hay’s previous legacy so much that today he is all but forgotten and purposely left out of many LGBT historical writings." Indigenous girl (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The first quote you cite is already included in the first sections of this report, sourced only to NAMBLA itself, everyone has pulled it from them.

On the surface, the “On the Back to Stonewall“ site looks great but the Hay content seems to be word for word copying from an older version of Misplaced Pages’s Hay page. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am aware that the quote has been previously linked to however I thought it best that it was out in the open. Please help me try and understand, are you insinuating that the speech at the forum, hosted by the Gay Academic Union at NYU in 1983, given by Hay, is not accurately presented? Are you insinuating that Back To Stonewall is made up of revisionists and that Will Kohler doesn't know what he's talking about? Indigenous girl (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The quote was already out in the open, it’s point #1, in bold of this report.

That speech is only known from NAMBLA’s posting their transcript. It has to be presented that way. Additionally it’s not about NAMBLA so you have to use original research to say it is. It’s also not about pedophilia, Hay was the 14-year old and the man he had sex with thought he was an adult.

I’m saying ”Back To Stonewall” didn’t even use their own words for the NAMBLA content, they used Misplaced Pages’s Hay article as gospel, but as is evident here, all the NAMBLA content is generally unverified and he presents zero sources or even credit to Misplaced Pages. I have no problem publishing true content that is verifiably sourced, but we are currently publishing unverified, and possibly unverifiable claims. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually the GSU collection at USC contains the entire transcript of his speech. He specifically mentions NAMBLA in the context of his speech and urges allies to advocate for sex with 13, 14 and 15 year old children because, "it's what they need more than anything else in the world.". Indigenous girl (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Indigenous girl:, or @CorbieVreccan:, who added it to the article here, can you share how you verified this? Any link that others can use?

I do accept the NAMBLA-posted transcript does mention the group in the summary of the speech. I still think it’s borderline original research and has to be used NPOV. His speech is a testamonial of Hay’s own positive experience as a 14-year old having gay sex with an older man, based on his own experience he thinks that parents and friends of gays “should be running interference for NAMBLA”. Only presenting this material NPOV without original interpretation is acceptable. He also does not specifically advocate for sex with teens, but says a relationship which, I think requires original research to infer he meant romance or sex rather or additionally to anything else. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? In one sentence he advocates defending NAMBLA and in the next he speaks positively about relationships between young teenagers and older men. How could you possibly read that in a way that isn't about sexual relationships? All of your comments in this thread give the impression of increasing desperate denialism. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. I maintain that Misplaced Pages should report facts that are actually verified in reliable sources. All this NAMBLA content is dependent on supposedly well-known information which few to none reliable sources documented. Compare that to the mamouth volume about this is the lead and article. Any reader would falsely believe this was central to his life. Yet the vast majority of reliable sources make no mention of it. Those that do make very little mention of it. Yet the article lead? It’s a fourth of the content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.back2stonewall.com/2017/10/gay-history-october-23-harry-hay-montreal.html
2. Lesbian and Gay Academic Union Records, Coll2011-041, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives, USC Libraries, University of Southern California

Notes before closing

In closing, I think the discussion here has reached consensus that this is reliably sourced as a prominent and recurring issue in Harry Hay's political work. As Gleeanon409's initial presentation did not include all the sources, mentioned "sources" that are not in the article, and simply dismissed all sources that discuss this part of Hay's life as "unreliable", I am including a list here of the actual sources that cite this well-known, unfortunate fact about Harry Hay. As others have said, NPOV means we write neutrally about the facts of someone's life, without censorship. This was a well-known fact of Hay's life.

Reliable Sources:

• The Advocate (LGBT magazine) <ref name="Advocate1994">{{cite magazine|last=Weir|first=John|title=Mad About the Boys|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KmMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA37|date=23 August 1994|magazine=]|page=37|issn=0001-8996}}</ref>
• Michael Bronski for The Phoenix <ref name= rhh>{{cite news|url=http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm|archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20120302214758/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm |archivedate=2012-03-02|title=The real Harry Hay|date=2002-11-07|accessdate=2008-11-16|first=Michael|last=Bronski|authorlink=Michael Bronski|newspaper=]|quote=He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades.|dead-url=no}}</ref>
• MIT Press <ref name=NonasLeVay>{{cite book|author1=Simon LeVay|author2=Elisabeth Nonas|title=City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cl-4yFFql8gC&pg=PA181&dq=Harry+Hay+NAMBLA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb4enV94XjAhVnTt8KHWyVCHUQ6AEITTAH#v=onepage&q=Harry%20Hay%20NAMBLA&f=false|year=1997 |publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0262621137|page=181|quote=Although some prominent gay leaders such as Harry Hay have supported NAMBLA's right to participate in gay rights marches, the link between NAMBLA and the mainstream gay rights movement has always been tenuous.}}</ref>
• Stuart Timmons, Hay's Official Biographer: scan of photo plate <ref name="LAPridePhoto">{{cite web|url=https://www.wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Harryhaysignnambla2.jpg|title=Photos by Sandy Dwyer |last=Timmons |first=Stuart|date=1990|work=The Trouble with Harry Hay: Founder of the Modern Gay Movement|accessdate=2010-06-24|quote=The sign Harry tried to wear in the 1986 L.A. Gay Pride Parade}}</ref>
• <ref name=Spectator>{{Cite news | last = Lord | first = Jeffrey | title = When Nancy Met Harry | work = The American Spectator | date = 2006-10-05 | url = http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/05/when-nancy-met-harry | accessdate = 2009-04-14 | deadurl = yes | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090329000719/http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/05/when-nancy-met-harry | archivedate = 2009-03-29 | quote=Said Harry: "Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."}}</ref> Gleeanon wants to exclude this because it's "conservative". WP does not exclude sources on the basis of being liberal or conservative, and the text is the same as in the full speech below. This is included because it is an online text.
• Hay himself <ref name=LGAUfullspeech> Lesbian and Gay Academic Union Records, Coll2011-041, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives, USC Libraries, University of Southern California</ref>
• Timmons again {{sfn|Timmons|1990|p=310}} {{sfn|Timmons|1990|p=295}} - Official biographer
• Vern Bullough <ref name=Bullough>{{cite book|author=Vern L. Bullough|authorlink=Vern Bullough|title=Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2002 |isbn=978-1560231936|page=74}}</ref> In Before Stonewall, biographer Vern L. Bullough writes, "Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."
• Yale University Press / Hay again / GCN again: Hay, Harry, "Focusing on NAMBLA Obscures the Issues", Gay Community News, Fall 1994, pp. 16, 18. As cited in {{cite book |title=Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America|year=2004|last=Jenkins |first=Philip |publisher=Yale University Press|page=275|isbn=978-0300109634}} Hay writes on the issue for Gay Community paper of record.
• Hay's spiritual group: Obituary on Radical Fairy site, reproduces Bronski obituary.
• Obviously, as the NAMBLA site is blacklisted, we are not going to link to their website pages, but they have Hay's speeches, and photos of him speaking in front of their banner on their panels. These speeches and photos are in other publications that are not currently available online, but they are well-known in the community. It is inappropriate for Gleeanon409 to cast aspersions on older editors who remember these things and suggest this material is fabricated. This material is linked via broken URL's on article talk.

There are more mentions out there online, and a ton more in print, but these are the ones in the article at the moment. To include this material is in no way an endorsement of Hay's views. It is certainly not an endorsement of NAMBLA. Whenever someone invokes "trying to right great wrongs" when it's something like pedophile advocacy (dear gods...) I wonder if they think we have no responsibility as editors here at all. Hay made quite the ruckus trying to keep NAMBLA from being shunned when he was alive, so it's only fair that it stays in his article now. What's there right now is NPOV and minimal, all things considered. - CorbieV ☼ 00:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course I remain dubious of these statements, and how “NPOV” and “minimally” the content is presented but first I’ll look at these sources to see which ones aren’t already listed at top, and include and assess what information should be added. It will take me a little while to do all this. When I’m ready I’ll post here again with a summary. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Advocate article was already listed by me in the reliable sources section; so is the Bronski obit with it’s quote; so is the superfluous Timmons photo; so is the problematic Jeffrey Lord article; so is the Vern Bullough book; so is the Gay Community News; so is the link to the Radical Faeries.
I’ve added the Simon LeVay book; and the LGAU archive box.
I see little value in adding any more credibility to NAMBLA by acknowledging their online content, we can hold our collective noses and use the Spectator article that got it from them. His other two times as speaker both were Hay talking about his own positive experiences with gay sex when he was young. We already have the context for the quote to cover that, and it’s all primary sourced. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So we basically haven’t moved much to allay my initial concerns.
There remains zero reliable sourcing to support “Hay was an active supporter ”, you may know it to be true but no reliable source has backed it up.
Also it’s deceptive to state Hay “protested the group being banned from Pride parades” when we only have evidence for two; 1986 LA Pride, and 1994 Stonewall parades.
It’s also POV to state he spoke “about helping the group strategize a name change to help with their public image” implying he was doing something not implicated in his speech, a neutral take would be more along the lines of what I tried, he thought boy lover had negative connotations just like homosexual did in the 1950’s.
Misplaced Pages is broadcasting worldwide these deceptions. I can’t see how any content on NAMBLA should be wedged into the lead, and the utter lack of coverage in reliable sources presented so far suggests it should be trimmed to a NPOV minimum in the article.
Additionally there remains zero evidence to prop up the “Pedophile advocacy” category being included. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of POV, what you are calling "gay sex when he was young" was sex between an adult man and a 14 year old boy. Then Hay went on to speak at a handful of events that we have documented to plead with the gay community to endorse adults having sex with kids as young as 13, saying this would be the best thing adult gay people could do for gay kids. This is horrible. This is why he got kicked out of Pride parades and shunned by those who cared about kids. You are minimimizing criminal activity, this man's advocacy for criminal activity, and the way he tried to implicate normal gay people in criminal activity. - CorbieV ☼ 18:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

He “pleaded” for gay men to have sex with teens? Or did he mean mentoring them? I don’t think we can say without evidence so instead, again to be NPOV, we likely should just report neutrally what the sources support, “relationships”, and leave the leap of guilt for the reader to decide. And that “series of events”, looks to be a total of three, and it was NAMBLA that kicked out of parades, and not even NAMBLA advocated for breaking any laws. Please dial down the hysteria and actually let the reliable sources dictate what is verified instead of your own memories. Your personal facts might be the gospel truth but they don’t belong in an encyclopedia. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As both Red Rock Canyon: and Mark Ironie: have noted, watching you increasingly attempt to minimize the damage done by NAMBLA, it's really hard to believe you're serious at this point. - CorbieV ☼ 20:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere was this more evident than in Hay’s persistent support of NAMBLA’s right to march in gay-pride parades. In 1994, he refused to march with the official parade commemorating the Stonewall riots in New York because it refused NAMBLA a place in the event. Instead, he joined a competing march, dubbed The Spirit of Stonewall, which included NAMBLA as well as many of the original Gay Liberation Front members. A source specifically states that he "persistently" protested NAMBLA's exclusion from these marches. Including that is not deceptive; it's accurately following the sources. Your personal research about which marches he protested cannot be used to counter that statement.

Harry Hay... suggests to a crowded room at the recent NAMBLA meeting that a name change might help. Maybe this isn't "strategizing", but the source does say that he offered them advice on how to improve their image. This is not "adding credibility to NAMBLA," it's presenting the facts about Harry Hay as recorded in reliable sources. That is, and should be, the sole goal of Misplaced Pages. Material is not censored because we fear it may lend credence to some disgusting agenda, and biographies are not white-washed because we might prefer to see our heroes presented in a better light. Oh, and even Britannica mentions his support of NAMBLA Hay often waded into contentious debates, notably by advocating for such controversial organizations as the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pro-pederasty group.. This isn't some smear cooked up by the right-wing media and Misplaced Pages.

That being said, I agree that these statements He spoke out in support of relationships between adult men and boys as young as thirteen and helping the group strategize a name change to help with their public image are not well-sourced. They rely on analysis of primary sources and that questionable Spectator article (hard to tell if it's an opinion piece or journalism). It would be better to leave that out of the lead, and just let the quotes speak for themselves in the body of the article. I think that entire final sentence should be cut from the lead, both for issues of sourcing and to avoid lending undue weight to the issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous girl found the full speech about NAMBLA where Hay "urges allies to advocate for sex with 13, 14 and 15 year old children because, 'it's what they need more than anything else in the world.' in the ONE archives of Hay's speeches at USC. So, the sourcing is solid, and it should be included in the body of the article. As long as the rest of the text prior to that is in the lede, as it was before Gleeanon's disruption, I think the specific details about that speech (which he gave multiple times) can be left for further down. - CorbieV ☼ 21:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a primary source, and appears to be interpreted as such -- those are the dangers of primary sources. I understand that the topic causes emotions to run riot, but this is, after all, the neutral point of view noticeboard. MPS1992 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, @Gleeanon409:, please do not say things like 'it’s deceptive to state Hay “protested the group being banned from Pride parades” when we only have evidence for two' -- no that is not deceptive. If he protested two of them, he protested it on an ongoing basis. Don't be silly. MPS1992 (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as MPS1992 says, any text of the speech is a primary source, and we are not permitted to analyze primary sources and summarize them. I think it might be acceptable to quote some of the text of the speech in the article, since it's on a topic discussed by other secondary sources, and it's in the subject's own words, but we cannot put in any interpretation of what he's saying absent a secondary source that reports on his speech and what it means. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, as the primary source is available for comparison, we are able to see that the secondary sources are quoting Hay accurately. So that means the Spectator, Kohler, and the others cannot be ruled out just because we may not like their views on other issues. That is the sole reason I left the Spectator in - to verify the quote. - CorbieV ☼ 22:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you guys totally following the idea that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, so we should be summarising what secondary sources say, not just confirming that our chosen primary sources are accurate in what they say and what our longstanding appreciation of them is? MPS1992 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The main function of the primary source is to assuage concerns that the Spectator piece was completely inventing something. Author Jeffrey Lord's opinion of Hay based on that speech would need to be attributed, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing this NAMBLA content and presenting it NPOV has been the main problems from the beginning. It remains that we ONLY have the primary source for this quote. Kohler copies Misplaced Pages word for word, I pointed this out in a previous section, and the Spectator, which is unmistakably an opinion hit piece, acknowledges they got it off NAMBLA’s website. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous girl may have found that Archive box source but you added it to the article, I asked both of you for anything that other editors could verify the information but nothing yet has come forth. It remain unclear what if anything about Hay’s speech is in there. Please be clear about what that source actually is and how it was confirmed.
And my “disruption” has continued to prove there indeed is glaring NPOV and sourcing issues. I’m glad we’re finally getting some more eyes on the issues, as well as finding any reliable sources. Hopefully the article will improve and all this content will be adjusted with due weight. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992: It’s hardly silly, especially with such contested and controversial content, to be precise, NPOV, and encyclopedic when reporting this content, specifically in the number of parades he protested NAMBLA being banned from. There were two, separated by eight years. It’s deceptive not to report the facts as verified. I would say the same thing if there were eight or dozens. Let the facts speak for themselves. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Having more time to look over sources, I can't see an NPOV version of Hay's article not mentioning NAMBLA. Now, I will say that I agree that The Specator should not be cited, or more accurately Jeffrey Lord should not be cited. That's not because he's a conservative, but because he has a documented history of saying utterly ridiculous things about anything he perceives as liberal. He's a political strategist, not an academic or a journalist, and his expertise is trying to make opponents look bad. Aside, I found what I consider two more useful sources that I don't think have been mentioned yet. Hay, Harry (1997). Roscoe, Will (ed.). Radically Gay. Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807070819. seems to me a very good reference for sourcing content on this topic. There are also two contrasting interpretations of Hay's support for NAMBLA in Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert (2013). Censoring Sex Research: The Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations. Left Coast Press. ISBN 9781611323399. One of those interpretations was penned by Bruce Rind, who has a well known agenda, but I find he does have a point. Specifically, while searching for sources, it was hard to miss the volume of relatively recent conservative hit pieces that bring up Hay and overstate his support of NAMBLA, even going so far as to say he founded the organization. I will not cite those as they are light years from RS. That is, there really are people trying to posthumously demonize him as advocating for the rights of sexual predators to rape children, and may explain counter-attempts to minimize his involvement with them. Anyway, I found original statements of Hay and other content in Radically to be quite illuminating on Hay's position toward the group (note that although Hay is listed as the author, he is not the literal author of much of the content within). Notably, at times Hay described his support NAMBLA as being a sort of counter-counter-reaction. His belief was that NAMBLA was being excluded from the gay movement to appease conservatives, and therefore the gay community was allowing outsiders/opponents to dictate who could be members of it. He also of course had a very expansive view of "consent" as described here, that included underage males seeking out older men for sexual purposes, as already mentioned. Again, I don't see how an NPOV article avoids mentioning this, but it does have to be done correctly. I would actually avoid using any sources that are just dumbing down the history here to "Hay supported NAMBLA". Those are not useful because they are far more vague than we need to be. The outline of a paragraph or two I think would be npov would go, 1. Hay was controversial for his involvement with nambla. 2. Although not a member, Hay protested in support of Nambla's rights to march, etc. 3. Accurately describe Hay's statements on man-boy relations and exclusion of groups from the movement. It's of course a tricky thing because people see 'nambla', the imagine creepy old men grooming young boys for molestation. I assume that's the goal of some of the writers who bring this up. It's also obvious that although what Hay had in mind was still a crime, it's not that particular scenario. Plenty of people will consider that a distinction without a difference, but they will be basing that opinion on an accurate statements of facts. But anyway, I think this is achievable, inevitable, and necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your insight and comments on this. It’s exactly what I was hoping would happen here.
No one has suggested that this content shouldn’t be presented in the article. How it’s presented, and wether any mention belongs in the lead is the main concern.
I’ll have a look at these new sources to see how they can add to the understanding of the subject. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m having several issues accessing these sources mostly because I’m using Google Books. The site purposely blocks sections of pages so I’m not sure that when I’m searching I’m getting all the content on the subject, as well everything has to be hand copied rather than cut and paste. If anyone has ideas I’m open to them! Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Update (July 6, 2019)

I got feedback on the two books suggested above. Accordingly the Will Roscoe one will likely be used to note facts but not analysis.
While the Hubbard - Verstraete one, is considered of scholarly research and likely can be used to explore Hay’s motivations. I have a copy of the book on its way as I’ve been unable to fully access it online. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sticking with this. I think some criticisms have been valid and others have been problematic. I hope you will take others' concerns seriously, and I hope that you will recognize their concerns about the historical portrayal of Harry Hay. Equally, I hope they will understand and help in your efforts to portray Hay according to reliable sources. I think you are all trying to achieve the same aim -- more or less. I am from a different cultural milieu, so I can't really claim to understand any of it. MPS1992 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I’m learning plenty about sex and sexuality researchers including the prejudice and backlash they faced when they approach taboo subjects. Apparently that’s been true from the beginning. I’m almost through the first book, if I have to I’ll track down the other as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• I’ve asked for some help at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities#Pro-research help needed for Harry Hay. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• I’ve also asked for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Opinion piece? By Harry Hay In ‘94 Gay Community News. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible content

Hay’s favorite story, of his coming-of-age, “which he repeatedly told to audiences in later years and refered to ironically as his ‘child molestation speech,’ in order to emphasize how sharply different gay life is from heterosexual norms,” recounted his time as an emancipated fourteen-year-old (circa 1926) pursuing sex with a man in his mid-twenties who assumed Hay was of the age of consent. He shared the story “specifically to contradict entrenched stereotypes and to caution against uncritical generalizations so common in reference to pederasty.“ The man gave Hay “tips on how ‘people like us’ should conduct themselves, which ‘inspired Harry almost as vividly as the erotic memory’.”

In 1986, Los Angeles Pride wanted Hay to march, but they had banned NAMBLA, a group synonymous in the U.S. with pro-pedophilia advocacy, and had to negotiate for him to only carry a sign, rather than a larger banner, to protest the action. Hay wanted to do so “because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.” He ended up wearing two posterboard signs; one for Valerie Terrigno, a recently disgraced lesbian politician also banned from the parade, on his front, “Valerie Terrigno walks with me"; and on his back, “NAMBLA walks with me.”

Eight years later, in 1994, Hay was again protesting NAMBLA being banned: ILGA (now ILGBTIA), the-then only group representing gays and lesbians at the United Nations (UN) banned them and two other groups from membership; and Stonewall 25 organizers, producing the 1994 twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the largest LGBTQ Pride event in the world as of then, banned them and similar groups from its Pride protest march, that purposely changed the route to use First Avenue going past the UN, reflecting the events’ international focus on LGBTQ issues. Hay was among the 150 “activists, scholars, artists, and writers” who signed on to support Spirit Of Stonewall (SOS), an ad hoc group that felt the banned group had free speech, and association rights. Hay delivered “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” speech, concerning the expulsion of NAMBLA, at a SOS press conference, where he stressed three organizing principles from the formation and growth of the LGBTQ movement he used since the early 1950s: we do not censor or exclude one another; if someone identifies as lesbian or gay he accepts them as such; and we cannot allow heterosexuals to dictate who is in our communities—we decide. Hay helped lead the counter-march with almost 7,000 participants.

Notes and References

1. “Brussels-based ILGA, said NAMBLA joined the association about 15 years ago, when it was a loose network with no rules for admission.“ (approximately 1979). They instituted a screening process to eliminate pro-pedophile advocates.
2. The Stonewall 25 signature event was the pride march, the International March on the United Nations to Affirm the Human Rights of Lesbian and Gay People. Stonewall 25 organizers plans also went public that they were not going to include leathermen or drag queens in the official ceremonies, prompting the creation of the first annual New York City Drag March. Of the two counter-marches, only the drag march continued.

1. ^ Rind, Wright Bruce (2016), "Chapter 10; Blinded by Politics and Morality—A Reply to McAnulty and Wright", in Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert C. (eds.), Censoring Sex Research : the Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations, Taylor & Francis, pp. 279–298, doi:10.4324/9781315432458-16, ISBN 9781611323405, OCLC 855969738, retrieved 2019-07-12
2. ^ Timmons, 1990, page 36.
3. ^ Vern L. Bullough (2002). Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context. Psychology Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-1560231936. "Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."; "an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world."
4. Timmons 1990, p. 310.
5. Mills, Kim I. (February 13, 1994). "Gay Groups Try to Put Distance Between Themselves and Pedophile Group". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2019-07-14.
6. ^ Lenius, Steve (June 6, 2019). "Leather Life: Stonewall 25 Memories". Lavender Magazine. Retrieved 2019-07-14. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
7. ^ Walsh, Sheila (June 10, 1994). "Ad Hoc Group Formed To Protest Ban On NAMBLA" (PDF). Washington Blade. Retrieved July 14, 2019.
8. Dommu, Rose (2018-06-25). "Hundreds Of Drag Queens Fill The NYC Streets Every Year For This 'Drag March'". HuffPost. Retrieved 2019-06-08. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
9. Osborne, Duncan (June 19, 2018). "A Heritage of Disagreement". Gay City News. Retrieved 2019-07-15. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
10. Hay, Harry (1997). Roscoe, Will (ed.). Radically gay : the story of gay liberation in the words of its founder. Beacon Press. pp. 302–307. ISBN 9780807070819. OCLC 876542984.

Comments

If any better sources are forthcoming I’m happy to check them out and add accordingly.

I’m proposing this content be used in the article instead of the current material, after this has been vetted.

Separately, and dependent if any new sources are found, decisions can be made if the category is appropriate, and what, if any, content belongs in the lead. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism by Ellen G. White

This is about . I had even explained on the talk page why the previous text violated WP:NPOV and was proper for the theater of the absurd: White has confessed to plagiarism, and some decennials afterwards a lawyer paid by her own church cleared her of plagiarism (obviously in the juridical meaning, why else would a lawyer write a Memorandum of Law Literary Property Rights 1790 – 1915 in her defense?). It seems like someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, although the US SDA publishing houses offer her works with footnotes to the works from which she has creatively copy/pasted. As for Richard W. Schwarz, "Professor, I did not plagiarize my paper, but I was supernaturally inspired in more or less the same words as someone else." Such argument is pseudoscholarship used for preaching to the choir of conservative Adventists and we don't WP:GEVAL to the historical method and claims of supernatural encounters. I think that Okrent's law is of application. Only WP:FRINGE apologists deny that she has borrowed much historical information from other books without giving proper credit. I don't understand the complaint: the alleged facts turn out to be true but there is nitpicking about some words? Those words could be rephrased instead of the whole facts being deleted. After criticism, I stuck to the sources as closely as I could. I am not guilty for the words of those sources, it's their choice, not mine. We don't have to remove objective facts from Misplaced Pages just in order to pamper true believers. And, yes, in case you wonder Spectrum is a magazine by the Adventists and for the Adventists. Conservative Adventists got pissed off when they could no longer hide the dirt under the carpet. Moderates had no dog in that fight, and liberals were willing to embrace historical criticism. To some conservatives, historical criticism is from Satan. Other conservatives accept the bare facts of historical criticism, but nevertheless disagree with liberal theology, which is based upon historical criticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

White did not have a "formal" education beyond the 3rd grade or so, however she became self-educated, like many in her day, through being widely read. She had a large library. She wrote some 50,000 pages of manuscript in her own hand writing; Hundreds of magazine articles; hundreds of letters; and several dozen books. She was a renown orator in great demand, who spoke to thousands and thousands of people through out the US, Australia and Europe. She sounded like she knew what she was talking about because she did. In her later life, some believers accredited everything she wrote as coming directly from the mouth of God. In her early carrier, no one who knew her ever claimed such nonsense because they knew better. White never made any such claim or intimation. It was to dispel such silly notions that she wrote about her sources in the forward to the 1911 Great Controversy jshortly before her death. However, that claim that everything she wrote came directly from the mouth of God remained an urban legend in the SDA community and grew exponentially after her death in 1915, which is why Ray was so shocked when he discovered that it wasn't so. And why Numbers is so viciously anti White. Yes, she used other sources, just like everybody else. And like most in her day, those sources were not always noted. but her use was not for her gain or self aggrandizement. She was looking for the best ways to express what she believed that God had impressed upon her mind. She was not a mindless dictation machine. She claimed that she was shown things in vision and then she told or wrote down what she had seen and heard. Since her death, the White estate has gone to great lengths to add footnotes to her republished works giving credit to sources where known. Contrary to the claims of Ray and other critics, most of what White wrote is enough different from her sources to not constitute cut and past copyright plagiarism. It is important to note that her statement in 1911 occurred long before charges of plagiarism ever came up so I'm adding that back in. Back in her day, there were plenty of critics, but none ever charged plagiarism. Plagiarism is a distinctly mid-20th century concern. --DebbieEdwards (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a quote from someone who does believe in EGW's inspiration, albeit not naively. So, the cause of all that rage and bitterness was an urban legend, which is now debunked. So, yes, as McArthur stated, "at least the educated mainstream church" (SDA) have acknowledged that the myth was busted and have revised their views accordingly. Everyone except Kool Aid drinkers has accepted that the myth was busted. This is an objective fact. Misplaced Pages is biased for objective facts. So my take does not violate WP:NPOV. A bias for the objective reality isn't a sinister cabal, see WP:GOODBIAS. The NPOV view (agreed by the secular academia, liberal and moderate Adventists) is that the myth is stubborn and has done a lot of damage to the SDA church. Misplaced Pages has to render that some are right and some are wrong on this matter and that far-fetched, objectively seen ridiculous explanations are not the way wherein conservative Adventists could save face. Schwarz's argument is far-fetched and ridiculous, and he should have known better. Unwillingly, he gave his students a perfect example of what to avoid like the pest in a scholarly paper: "Hey, if you want to pass your exam in any bona fide faculty don't do like me!" Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar

Ilhan Omar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is this statement neutrally worded:

Ilhan "described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to "install a far right opposition", even though Guaidó is described as a centrist and a social democrat."

To me it implies that Ilhan is wrong, although the posting editor says "It doesn't imply that as it doesn't say her claim is false."

There is controversy in reliable sources about how to describe Guaido. (See Alan Macleod, "Everyone Washington Supports, by Definition, Is a Moderate Centrist" (March 23, 2019) in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) March 23, 2019.)

TFD (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's Misplaced Pages's favourite failure of WP:NPOV popping up right there - if an American journalist said it, it must be true. Honestly I don't even know why Vox is ever allowed as a reliable source regardless. TL;DR burn it with fire, but be prepared for a fight that will exhaust you because it's a Venezuela related article and those are just about the least neutral articles on Misplaced Pages in general in 2019. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That is a good point. Journalists are experts in reporting news, not determining analyzing ideologies. We can't even call the BNP far right unless we have a peer-reviewed paper that says that is the academic consensus, but we can call Guaido center-left based on the opinion of someone with a degree in journalism from Columbia. TFD (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO, either we remove the Omar claim that he is far right or we provide a response to it noting that he is generally not considered far right. Guadio and Omar are both BLPs and the claim arguably falls under BLP, as the far-right is generally affiliated with Nazis, fascists, reactionaries, and generally nasty and evil figures. Our readers might be confused into thinking he is far right. I lean towards just removing Omar’s claim entirely, as I did in this edit. Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Why? The article also mentions her opinions on free tuition, medicare for all, abolition of ICE and a number of other things that other people have differing opinions on. We don't mention the opposing views for each and every one. Only an ideologically driven article would do that. TFD (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Are there any solid, independent sources on Guaido's political leanings? Are any experts on the subject writing about it? His party claims to be progressive/center left/social democrat, and his policy proposals seem (to me) to align with that (a market-based economy with a large welfare state and high social investment), but do we have any sources better than newspapers saying that's the case? As for why we might want to note this specific issue, it's because leaving her accusation that Guaido is a fascist may violate BLP. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly no. Before the USA hung their regime change hopes on him, Guaido was a back-bencher of little repute. His failed regime change PR stunt in February is the only notable thing about him. The sources in the media surrounding Venezuela are all highly biased, although Misplaced Pages only accepts pro-US sources as reliable in general. Academics haven't had time since February to really do any rigorous work. But arguably a politician's assessment of another politician is pretty much the dictionary definition of WP:DUE while Misplaced Pages-voice editorializing is the opposite. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Could we avoid both problems (the Omar "far right" claim and the editorializing that she's wrong that's in the present wording) by changing the phrasing a little and dropping the last part? Something like: she "described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to install an opposition that would move the country to the right." Whether Guiado is "far right" is controversial, but there is no controversy about whether an opposition government (allied with the U.S.) would be to the right of the present government (allied with Cuba).NightHeron (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

So only violating WP:NPOV by omitting key details from the notable and due quote. No. Simonm223 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please clarify. What "key details" would we be omitting? How would we be violating WP:NPOV? My purpose was to find a NPOV-compliant and BLP-compliant wording that would be fair both to her (by not suggesting that she's wrong, as the current wording does in Misplaced Pages's voice) and to Guaido.NightHeron (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not violating BLP for us to accurately report what one notable politician says about another notable politician. I know that Guaido being tied to the far-right is something that conservaties would rather avoid. But it's not Misplaced Pages saying that, it's Omar. So as long as we attribute the source, I don't see how it violates WP:BLP but it certainly violates WP:NPOV to exclude it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

And why should we mention what Omar says? She hardly has a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy, so it seems WP:UNDUE to highlight her opinion. Surely we can find better sources for all of this. Are there no academic sources we can rely on? Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

There's Venezuelanalysis. But then, that's not in line with the US narrative and so the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of Misplaced Pages treats it as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that Omar's opinion on Venezuela is notable and should be included, and also that the present wording, in which two Americans are quoted calling Guaido "center-left" and "social democrat", is biased in favor of an American narrative. Guaido is clearly conservative and right-leaning. However, Omar's claim that he's "far right" is inflammatory -- elsewhere in the same article the term "far right" is used to describe the Norwegian terrorist who murdered 77 people. It's arguably also a fringe viewpoint to describe as "far right" someone who's recognized in preference to Maduro by 54 countries, including Canada. Normally an inflammatory or fringe statement, even one by a politician, is not left standing without any mention of sources that refute it. The compromise wording I suggested would avoid the need for Misplaced Pages to decide which sources about Guaido are reliable, which is something that would be hard to reach consensus about. NightHeron (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Check out https://fair.org/home/everyone-washington-supports-by-definition-is-a-moderate-centrist/ 09:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.161.58.217 (talk)

Countries, including Canada, recognize all kinds of far-right figures as the leader of their country. The only difference between Guaido and, say, Orban of Hungary in that regard, is that Guaido is neither the de facto nor the de jure president of Venezuela and yet countries recognize him anyway. And frankly I don't know what to even say about your claim that far right includes bad people and therefore should not include people who may be less bad. Simply put, Omar is a notable politician with a notable opinion about another notable politician. And as one of the few dissenting voices in the American political establishment, her opinion is due inclusion. Efforts to keep her opinion out or to soften it are openly harmful to WP:NPOV by creating a false narrative that nobody in the US political establishment dissents. Simonm223 (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but the present wording makes Omar sound a little foolish, and that's not what we want. Let me make another attempt to propose a new wording that I hope is NPOV-compliant.

Current wording:

She described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to "install a far right opposition" even though Carlos Curbelo described Popular Will as centre-left or centre and Zack Beauchamp of Vox (website) described Guaidó as a social democrat.<ref name="Daugherty" /><ref name="Beauchamp">{{cite web |last=Beauchamp |first=Zack |title=The fight between Ilhan Omar and Elliott Abrams, Trump’s Venezuela envoy, explained |date=February 15, 2019 |work=Vox |url=https://www.vox.com/2019/2/15/18225109/elliott-abrams-ilhan-omar-venezuela}}</ref>

New wording:

She described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to "install a far right opposition". Her characterization of the opposition is in sharp contrast with that of most U.S. political commentators, who describe Popular Will as centrist or even center-left and social democrat,<ref name="Daugherty" /><ref name="Beauchamp">{{cite web |last=Beauchamp |first=Zack |title=The fight between Ilhan Omar and Elliott Abrams, Trump’s Venezuela envoy, explained |date=February 15, 2019 |work=Vox |url=https://www.vox.com/2019/2/15/18225109/elliott-abrams-ilhan-omar-venezuela}}</ref> but it agrees with the characterization of the opposition on the pro-Bolivarian Revolution website Venezuelanalysis.<ref>{{cite web|last=Harris|first=Roger|title=Juan Guaidó: The Man Who Would Be President of Venezuela Doesn’t Have a Constitutional Leg to Stand On|date=February 8, 2019|url= https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14308}}</ref>

NightHeron (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not very difficult to find sources that describe that party as right wing.

https://mondediplo.com/2019/01/10venezuela-dossier "right-wing, radical, and convinced that a military intervention would be the best way to rid Venezuela of Chavism"

https://fair.org/home/everyone-washington-supports-by-definition-is-a-moderate-centrist/ Guiadó’s Popular Will party has always represented the most radical right-wing elements of the Venezuelan opposition

https://www.thenation.com/article/venezuela-coup-guaido-maduro/ relatively unknown second-string politician from the right-wing Popular Will party, simply declared himself acting president

These were in the top 10 Google results when searching for "Popular Will party right wing".

It would probably wise to get rid of the sentence starting with: "Her characterization of the opposition is in sharp contrast with that of most U.S. political commentators" (which sounds as if she is wrong although she probably isn't) and instead write something like: "Some sources describe X as Y, others as Z" (with a top5 refs for each position). 77.161.58.217 (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The phrase at issue in this thread is not "right" but rather "far right". The term "far right" is much more extreme than "right" (which can be used for any conservative party). "Far right" appears just one other time in the Omar article, namely, for the Norwegian terrorist who killed 77 people. None of the three sources given above use the term "far right" for Popular Will (the third source uses "far right" to refer to the Nicaraguan Contras but not to Popular Will). Can you find a top5 set of references that describe X as Z, that is, Popular Will as "far right"? I could find only one (other than Omar) -- Venezuelanalysis.com. NightHeron (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

1: We don't necessarily have to find sources that describe the party as far right; we are talking about the fact that different people/groups have described something in different ways. Some have used labels like centrist, center-left and social democrat while others have used labels like right-wing, radical right and far right.

2: The radical right is more or less the same thing as the far right; right? Misplaced Pages says: "Far-right politics, sometimes used interchangeably with 'radical right'." and "The ideological spectrum of the radical right extends from right-wing populism to white nationalism and neo-fascism."

3: I am pretty sure there are more sources out there... https://mronline.org/2019/01/31/the-making-of-juan-guaido/ ...the 35-year-old was an obscure character in a politically marginal far-right group closely associated with gruesome acts of street violence...

4: Why not just remove the second part of that sentence? Just get rid of the "even though Carlos Curbelo described Popular Will as centre-left or centre and Zack Beauchamp of Vox (website) described Guaidó as a social democrat."-part.

77.161.58.217 (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the "far right" statement should just stand alone without context or explanation. Note, by the way, that, unfortunately, the first sentence of the lede in the Juan Guaido[REDACTED] article describes Popular Will as "social-democratic". I'm glad you found a second source that agrees with Omar's "far right" characterization. So here's another attempt at a new wording, along the lines you suggested above:

She described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to "install a far right opposition". Although some political commentators describe the Venezuelan opposition group Popular Will as centrist or even center-left and social democratic, others agree with Omar's characterization of the opposition.

NightHeron (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's an improvement. Thank you. 77.161.58.217 (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I’ve reworded slightly to note the socialist and pro-Venezuelan viewpoints of the latter two outlets. To treat them on the same level as newspapers is misleading. Toa Nidhiki05 14:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion stated in your edit summary ("to describe socialist “news” outlets in the same category as others without noting that is silly") makes it clear that you want to impose your political views on the Omar article. Your edit identifies simply as "political commentators" those who support the U.S. narrative about Popular Will, as if all true political commentators agree with that narrative, and you put "news" in scare-quotes in your edit summary as if no socialist or pro-Venezuelan source could be a true news source. Of course, you're entitled to your pro-U.S. anti-socialist opinions, but putting them into your edit is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Please self-revert. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A socialist news outlet created to support the Bolivarian revolution is hardly an impartial source on the subject, and certainly not on par with actual news outlets. There is no reason not to describe these sources as socialist or pro-Venezuelan, because they are. I’m not going to self-revert and your suggestion I should is patently ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 15:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you find a Misplaced Pages policy that supports your position that U.S.-based news outlets sympathetic to the Trump Administration's Venezuela policy (e.g., the Miami Herald) are "impartial sources", whereas news outlets sympathetic to the Venezuelan government are not? Please see WP:WORLDVIEW. NightHeron (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• None of the sources listed above mention Omar or are reliable, making it a WP:SYNTH issue. Omar's view is WP:FRINGE and should be cited as such, like the reliable sources explain. wumbolo ^^^ 19:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• TFD, when I read the sentence you supplied, I thought it would be okay - provided the quoted phrases "U.S. backed coup" and "install a far right opposition" came from the same RS that described Guaidó "as a centrist and a social democrat"
• You trimmed the phrase "even though Guaidó is described as a centrist and a social democrat."
• I agree that phrase does not belong in that sentence, unless a single person said both... That phrase, properly attributed, could be places nearby, as a sentence of its own. Geo Swan (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not a synthesis issue to exclude information that is incorrect. Synthesis refers to adding information. If your source for example had mistakenly said that Omar was a Representative from Texas for example, we would be right to exclude that in the article, even though the source that she was a Representative from Minnesota did not mention her comments on Guaido.

I don't think her opinion is fringe, but in any case, Fringe theories says, "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." In other words, Omar's opinion could be excluded from articles about Guaido.

"is described as" is clearly weasel-wording since you don't identify who describes him that way. We could equally say that he has been described as far right, since Omar described him that way.

American politicians and even the media frequently use the terms far left and far right as superlatives, even though they don't meet the descriptions in political science texts. Yet we don't fact check them. CNN for example refers to AOC as far left. although she clearly doesn't meet any of the definitions in political science. She is only far left relative to other members of her party caucus.

TFD (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Rachael Denhollander

Can people please keep an eye on Rachael Denhollander. Some weirdo was offended by something she wrote about her religion. 02:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.161.58.217 (talk)

I'll note that the website used for the "has faced criticism in the Christian community" statement is categorically not a reliable source as it is a personal website. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The real issue is UNDUE weight. The opinion of one random guy on the internet is not worth mentioning unless other sources pick up on it and comment. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Pokémon Sword and Shield

I am growing concerned about the reception section of this article, in relation to the controversy surrounding the games. It has been getting increasingly verbose, cataloging everything that's been going down with the controversy, while failing to mention the positives coming from the other side of the argument. What should be done about this? ElectricBurst_(Zaps) 22:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd stop calling it a controversy if it really is as one-sided as three paragraphs currently have it. That's complaining, or criticism. Both sides agree the game won't have everything, and settle for letting the buyer beware. That's a compromise between capitalism and consumerism. Common, even.

If there is an other side the article is missing, you should certainly mention it. I can imagine fans bickering amongst themselves, if that's what you mean. As long as the dispute itself is covered by reliable sources, go for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, July 9, 2019 (UTC)

Controversy at The Lancet

The addition of the issue in 2019 has been added many times, and all of them were soon reverted by the administrator Randykitty in the name of WP:UNDUE as well as WP:OR, etc.

The issue has been published in Taiwan and foreign media. Taiwan medical association, which stands for all physicians in Taiwan, and the vise president of Taiwan, who stands for the official POV of Taiwan, are also included. There's by no means a minor or insignificant POV.

The administrator Randykitty demands that this issue to be talked about a year from now to be file-able , which seems to be double-standard compared with the events in 2014 and 2010, which were added in a few months and a few days since occurred, and doesn't seem to be supported by any current policy in Misplaced Pages.

Can someone provide a more thorough explanation about how the policy WP:UNDUE should be applied, with reliable references?--111.243.232.158 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the kinda thing that feels very important to people with strong opinions about the status of Taiwan, but its not very important if we see it as yet another nationalistic squabble about potentially incorrect wording of the status of Taiwan in a paper published by a medical journal that was founded in 1823. The Lancet has published quite a few papers. Heck, it probably wouldn't bother you if you were born on the other side of the planet, or if it was about another place with a disputed status. I live far far from Taiwan and to me its not important at all. Randykitty described it as "a storm in a tea cup and only a blip in the history of this journal" and that seems to be correct. If the wiki article would be about this specific paper (not The Lancet as a whole) it would make more sense to include a sentence or two about this event. 77.161.58.217 (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This issue is not only about the status of Taiwan, but also the methodological flaw by comparing data from China with data from a totally different and independent health care system, and by using Taiwan data without providing the source, which commits a serious issue for an academic journal. --111.243.232.158 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is (as they point out) is that Taiwan is regarded as a province of china by international bodies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that no matter what Taiwan is politically considered by international does not change the fact that Taiwan's medical system is actually not governed by China and is unrelated with China's, and data comparison among them is a methodological flaw. You may consider the status of Taiwan unimportant, but what about the methodological issue? --111.243.232.158 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not know about you, but I do not feel qualified to judge whether or not a paper published in one of (if not the) worlds leading peer revived, I.e checked by other expert, medical journals is going to be flawed. I will say that it would most likely be based upon published, and available information, and I suspect even Taiwan published medical data that can be compared to other places. So no I am not ignoring anything, I just do not agree with how you view the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The source of data about Taiwan is not confessed in the paper, which is also a mentioned and significant flaw. We don't like to judge that The Lancet has published a paper with flaw, but it did have done some, and current it seems to do so in this paper. That's why the vice president (also a medical academic), as well as several academics wrote a letter to the editor, which is mostly focus on the methodological issue. (See the letter to the editor attached in this news: )--111.243.232.158 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This is why even RS are not always RS outside their areas of expertise. But its pretty minor, and not major controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. As the Lancet referred to UN/WHO designation as the guide that they follow for how they consider Taiwan, its more an issue with the UN than the Lancet. --Masem (t) 17:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Added to which they did not write the paper, they published it, and it fits any criteria because it uses recognized geographic designations. They had no reason (as far as I can tell) to reject it or ask for a re-write. Nor are they (or we) beholden to Taiwan's sense of self image.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You are still ignoring that the issue is not only about how they call Taiwan, but the methodological flaw by including Taiwan in comparison at where not appropriate. (See the letter to the editor written by vice president (also a medical academic) attached in this news: )--111.243.232.158 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that I am not sure how much of a flaw that is. The data is not sourced to china, so what is flawed, its not the raw data as that is just data? the conclusions? So what is flawed about the conclusions? I note the letter mainly talks about differences in the healthcare systems, and Taiwan's independence. It seems to be more about "we are not China" then "here is how the data is flawed". It reads political, not medical.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You can read the paper if you are not sure. The data about Taiwan is not disclosed in the paper, and you think that including data with an unclear source in analysis is not a flaw? --111.243.232.158 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The medical experts who reviewed it did not, and they know a lot more about it then me.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

So you choose to trust The Lancet totally, no matter what they have done and what they're actually doing now? --111.243.232.158 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No, but I see no reason to not trust this, as I am not seeing anything really more then "TAIWAN IS NOT PART OF CHINA!!!", from sources that are far form independent of the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Randykitty and IP editor 77x. This is nothing. Slater's comment that we're not in a position to judge the paper ourselves is also correct. I will add, however, that the difference between the medical systems is not prohibitive for epidemiological studies like that one - you can compare cities, provinces, countries and even entire continents. François Robere (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify this to the IP editor: I realize it's important for you personally, but from our perspective it's not a meaningful point of criticism of the Lancet, as the Lancet isn't an RS on geopolitics. If the same "error" had appeared in a source in that field, it could've made for a meaningful inclusion. More generally, people in conflict zones (or people with ties to such) are often overly protective of their narratives; attacking some 2nd rate celebrity, a minor foreign dignitary or an unrelated media outlet for a supposed miss-statement (and I've seen all three) is rarely useful, even if it can be emotionally satisfying. François Robere (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

At ip, 111. … I appreciate that the quality of the data source might be evaluated by some other factor, transparency of information and quality of each health system, and unclear on most of this discussion, however, where is that qualification is being made? Is the argument that the data quality was better and that skewed the results? cygnis insignis 18:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference Daugherty was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Beauchamp, Zack (February 15, 2019). "The fight between Ilhan Omar and Elliott Abrams, Trump's Venezuela envoy, explained". Vox.
3. Harris, Roger (February 8, 2019). "Juan Guaidó: The Man Who Would Be President of Venezuela Doesn't Have a Constitutional Leg to Stand On".
4. Cohen, Dan; Blumenthat, Max (January 31, 2019). "The Making of Juan Guaido".
5. "Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017". The Lancet. June 24, 2019.

Gibraltar

Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is it neutral to say the following without mentioning the Spanish position:

• Gibraltarians rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in a 1967 referendum and, in a 2002 referendum, the idea of shared sovereignty was also rejected.
• Gibraltarians voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty in the 1967 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum.
• In a referendum held in 2002, Gibraltarians rejected by an overwhelming majority (99%) a proposal of shared sovereignty on which Spain and Britain were said to have reached "broad agreement."

The Spanish position is that the referendums are invalid because the indigenous population had been expelled from Gibraltar and only British subjects resident there were allowed to vote.

In my opinion, the current wording implies that there was no question of the legitimacy of the referendums, while neutrality requires that all major positions be reported.

TFD (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait, the indigenous population that was expelled over three hundred years ago? Well, do sources that discuss those referendums mention the Spanish position? These are old enough that there could be proper academic-historical references to work with. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that TFD has got the wrong end of the stick completely here. There is no serious dispute that the referendums accurately reflect the views of the Gibraltarians. And no reader is realistically going to understand the word "Gibraltarians" as including the entire population of Spain, or as including any of the townspeople who left Gibraltar in 1704

(FTR the sources suggest that "expelled" is factually incorrect).

The article does in fact put the Spanish side of the dispute. But we do need to be careful not to allow the dispute to dominate the article. There is already an article at Status of Gibraltar, and we don't need a second. Kahastok talk 20:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources do mention the dispute. For example, "According to Spain, Gibraltar "was converted to a military base and the inhabitants were expelled.... rejects the notion that the interests of the inhabitants of Gibraltar are paramount because its interpretation of Article 73 of the UN Charter is that the reference to “the inhabitants of these territories” was to “indigenous populations who had their roots in the territory”, and this does not apply to the present inhabitants of Gibraltar." The author mentions several times that Spain objected to the referendums based on its interpretation of the UN Charter. (Peter Gold (2009) Gibraltar at the United Nations: Caught Between a Treaty, the Charter and the “Fundamentalism” of the Special Committee, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20:4, 697-715) A source used in the article alao says, "Even before happened it was dismissed as irrelevant by the British and Spanish governments....Gustavo de Aristegui, Spain's then spokesman on foreign affairs, said the referendum had not been called by "competent authorities" and was "not legally binding". ("Gibraltar", The Guardian 4 Aug 2004))

I am not saying that the Spanish position should be explained in detail, but should be mentioned briefly, that they did not consider the referendums to be legitimate. Your argument is that the Spanish position is "so obviously ridiculous that anyone reading it is going to conclude that the Spanish government is talking out of its hat and dismiss their POV out of hand." Whether or not it is true, it is not based on policy or guidelines.

TFD (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly how many "indigenous" people were expelled in the 1700's as part of the Spanish War of Succession? (Some of them left voluntarily, I imagine, not wanting to stick around while various diseases killed most of the Britishers and most of anyone that shared close quarters with them. Some of them were Jews.) Were not Spain's demands, at the time, mostly connected with denying Jews the right to live in Gibraltar or to be buried in Gibraltar? I can appreciate TFD's view, but "Spain renewed calls for joint Spanish–British control of the peninsula" is already in the article and seems to cover this. MPS1992 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The Alliance's aim in 1704 was to establish Gibraltar as a beachhead for a wider invasion of Spain. For that to work, one thing they wanted was a supportive local population. Unfortunately, the Alliance commanders lost control of their men, who ran amok through the town. After a few days, most of the townspeople left the town of their own accord as (in modern terms) refugees. I am not aware of any evidence that any of them were actually expelled. Kahastok talk 21:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That's right. Since 1704, things have changed. MPS1992 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how many if any people were expelled. It is not our role to evaluate different arguments, merely to ensure "that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." TFD (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead Gibraltarians rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in a 1967 referendum and, in a 2002 referendum, the idea of shared sovereignty was also rejected appears to be a simple statement of fact, independent of either Britain's or Spain's perspective on the matter. There were referendums, and the people of Gibraltar overwhelmingly declared their desire to remain British sovereign territory both times. Perhaps Spain's point of view on the matter should be added to the body of the article, but nothing needs to be added to the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe copy edit slightly to "The residents of Gibraltar rejected proposals..."? That would deal with the Spanish position, don't you think? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. While the article should not dwell on the dispute it should not come down on one side or another. Calling the residents of Gibraltar the "people of Gibraltar" does that, since the issue of who the people are is disputed. TFD (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that "people of Gibraltar" is a disputed term? I think you're really misunderstanding Spain's position. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any sources that say Spain claims the "people of Gibraltar" refers to anything different than the residents of Gibraltar. Spain's position in the dispute appears to be that Spain's right to territorial integrity supersedes Gibraltar's right to self-determination. Basically, they don't dispute that the residents of Gibraltar are the people of Gibraltar, they simply believe that those people have no legal say in the matter of Gibraltar's sovereignty. See . NPOV is about fairly representing all significant points of view reported in reliable sources. The POV that the residents of Gibraltar are not "the people of Gibraltar" is not reported in any reliable sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

According to Spain, Gibraltar "was converted to a military base and the inhabitants were expelled.... rejects the notion that the interests of the inhabitants of Gibraltar are paramount because its interpretation of Article 73 of the UN Charter is that the reference to “the inhabitants of these territories” was to “indigenous populations who had their roots in the territory”, and this does not apply to the present inhabitants of Gibraltar." (Peter Gold (2009) Gibraltar at the United Nations: Caught Between a Treaty, the Charter and the “Fundamentalism” of the Special Committee, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20:4, 697-715) TFD (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't say they believe the current inhabitants of Gibraltar are not "the people of Gibraltar", it just says they believe the people of Gibraltar have no legitimate interest in the sovereignty dispute, because they don't qualify as "indigenous" under UN law. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference. TFD (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution