Misplaced Pages

The current wording which is "obviously inferior" is Nishidani's version (and it includes countries that disagree with the terrorist designation).I'm glad you agree that the current version is not ideal, and that others referring to analysts rather than states is problematic, that's why I brought it to the noticeboard. I also agree that we should discuss analysts in the lede. Regarding the new proposal by Nishidani in this noticeboard, my disagreement is with the line "Analysts have disputed the designation", which is incorrect. Instead, it would be preferable to use the following:

Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999). It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Hamas appealed the EU blacklisting in 2008, and the European court found the earlier determination flawed. (2014). The European Council appealed the decision, and in 2016 its Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group."

Drsmoo (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: I'm sorry, but the current version is identical to the one you quoted at the top of this thread, and Nishidani shortly thereafter appears to have suggested changing it to

Hamas has been designated a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, the EU, Japan, Egypt and Canada. It is banned in Jordan.It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Many analysts view the designation as problematic, and Hamas successfully challenged in a court of law the EU classification in 2014.

Am I missing something? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the current version is Nishidani's edit. I quoted it to say that it needs to be changed. We've already moved past that suggestion you quoted. Drsmoo (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Very well. I don't care who wrote what, when. The problem you appear to have with the current wording is not one I agree with. The above-suggested edit is superior to the current wording. Original comment edited accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If by the "above-suggested edit" you're referring to the one you initially quoted, it's no longer under consideration and both Nishidani and I have moved past it. Drsmoo (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't care. All I said is that it's obviously superior to what's there now, and I stand by that statement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

A point to several of the above statements: the lede should not be where complex arguments (supported by sources) should be laid out. Noting that Hamas is called or not called a terrorist organizations by several countries (which is factually true and a simple statement) is good. Trying to explain the EU delisting is getting a bit too much in the weeds (I would leave it out until it's officially removed), and trying to explain the arguements from the politics and academics side is far too complex beyond noting it is a point of contention. That keeps the balance and gives your body the amount of space needed to spell out specifics. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that is compatible with WP:LEDE, summary style. There is no complexituy, surely, in simple words. WP:NPOV requires that we present this highly contentious issue with neutrality, meaning not just a list implying 'most civilized countries think Hamas' terrorist. What worries me most, however, is that I came here to work out a compromise. And Drsmoo hasn't budged. I appreciate Masem's suggestions, but they are, as I see it, all in Drsmoo's direction (the less about doubts on the terrorist clòassification the better). Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

When you say "the less about doubts on the terrorist classification the better", that's showing a POV here. We have to recognize that whether or not Hamas is a terrorist organization is clearly a long-standing subject of debate, and which is the "majority" view near impossible to determine given the systematic bias of English-based (read mostly Western) sources. "Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by (list), while (second list) have stated the group is not a terrorist organization, and Hamas has recently disputed the EU's classification as such in 2014. Whether or not to designate Hamas as as a terrorist organization is a point of debate by many political and academic analysts." That's neutral and reflects the world view, keeping in mind the systematic bias, while allowing the body of the article to get into the more lengthy specifics. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with Masem's suggestion. I also reject Nishidani's claim about me. There is nothing "unclear" about "It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group." Drsmoo (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This has become pointless. We are all agreed on the new version, since I accept Masem's précis, Drsmoo's variation on my first proposal. In synthesis, to recap

(A=Nihshidani)Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999). It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Hamas appealed the EU blacklisting in 2008, and the European court found the earlier determination flawed. (2014). The European Council appealed the decision, and in 2016 its Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming. Analysts have disputed the designation.

(B=Drsmoo) Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999). It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Hamas appealed the EU blacklisting in 2008, and the European court found the earlier determination flawed. (2014). The European Council appealed the decision, and in 2016 its Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group.

(C= Masem's précis) Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by (list), while (second list) have stated the group is not a terrorist organization, and Hamas has recently disputed the EU's classification as such in 2014. Whether or not to designate Hamas as as a terrorist organization is a point of debate by many political and academic analysts.

So, the compromise is version B, which contains all Masem's points, satisfies Drsmoo, and is just an controversial tweaking of what I proposed. Okay? If Darout, Hijiri and TFD have no objections, of course. Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue with versions A and B is that literally 46% of version A and 40% of version B is comprised of details regarding the ongoing EU appeal. That is obviously undue. It's strange that you suddenly decided that "this has become pointless." Drsmoo (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You endorsed it with your tweak above. Drsmoo (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC). I accept that. Now you are raising another objection. Masem agrees with you, 4 other editors adopt nuanced comments that differ with that viewpoint. Is this attrition to get what you want 100% or are you willing, as before, to make a gentlemanly compromise? The EU appeal is critical for Hamas's own perspective: it succeeded in a court challenge to the 'Western consensus' and that court judgement will, if acted on, affect the designation of 28 countries. Hamas's legal POV cannot obviously be ignored: if it is, we are saying the US to China axis are relevant, the subject itself has no political relevance, unlike them. I believe I have a rough consensus that the version you and I agreed on is not objected to. I'm patient. I'll wait and see if objections from others involved here arise.Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If we are going to list the EU's designation in the lead, we also need to note subsequent developments. I still believe those two sentences about the EU process could be shortened, but they definitely need to be there somehow. -Darouet (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to the EU appeal being mentioned. I object to it being 46% of the paragraph. Something like "The EU decision is currently being appealed" with further detail given in the body paragraphs. Something like:

Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999). The EU decision is currently under appeal. It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group. Drsmoo (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. That is falsification of sources. The EU verdict is not currently under appeal. See why one has to give a minimum of attention to details of the kind you wish to erase, Drsmoo. After endless discussion you still haven't grasped the meaning of the passage you want eliminated, which says the EU challenged the court's 2014 verdict in favour of Hamas, and its legal advisor said in 2016, that the EU had to look to other options, since the court decision was correctly formulated.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. That's the wording used by the EU court. I didn't say the verdict was under appeal, I said the decision was under appeal, and it is. The court has not yet issued its final ruling. Drsmoo (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and nonneutral caption of Satellite image of Russian MoD

Some group of authors keep changing caption to the satellite image in the article presented by Russian MoD making it nonneutral and biased ignoring reliable sources. Before I posted a message here I conscientiously called those authors on the article talk page to follow WP:NPOV . Other conserned WP authors should pay attention to this in order to work out the overall consensus. Discussion is here: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Should this image be added to the article?--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"Neutral" means, if anything, that the text represents reliable sources. Which in this case it does. What Aleksandr is complaining about is that the sources don't say what he wants them to say. Inserting a caption which does not represent the sources is what is non-neutral, not the other way around.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

While you and Александр Мотин have contested the image caption, declaring the images are either real or faked, the situation is not so simple, as pointed out in this interview appearing in Der Spiegel, and in a statement published by the chief editor of Spiegel Online. I would at least attribute the term "faked" to the report, as newspapers do, or more properly refer to the images as contested. Jeffrey Lewis, once of the researchers involved in developing the software, states that there are multiple reasons the photographs may appear doctored, with intentional fabrication one of the reasons. Jens Kriese, in his interview with Der Spiegel, points out the obvious fact that any image making its way from a satellite to the public will undergo multiple rounds of processing. -Darouet (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved because the image was removed. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the image still exists. -Darouet (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

POV fork: Malia Obama (celebrity)

Randomly came across this article and I believe it's a POV fork of Malia Obama which currently redirects to Family_of_Barack_Obama#Malia_and_Sasha_Obama. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Definitely should be deleted: a bunch of semi-literate BS including "In addition to a student, Obama is occupationally a babysitter... She was reported dancing and causing a storm because of exposing her buttocks. She was also reported to smoking marijuana, raising the question of favoritism according to editorials." She is a child and entitled to protections afforded others in the periphery of various famous people. -Darouet (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• The article has been redirected. I requested a speedy deletion to remove the article history. I also wonder if it would be appropriate to request sanctions against the article's creator Special:Contributions/BBBH. Any thoughts on this? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking over their contributions it's almost impossible to tell if they are grossly incompetent or prank trolling Misplaced Pages. I am not usually involved in discussions regarding enforcement on those issues so I'll leave it to the judgement of others. -Darouet (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I took an extensive look at their history as well as the history of some other editors of the same topics. My vote is 'trolling undisclosed alt account'. BBBH has been aware of the issues surrounding this since 2008, its unlikely in 8 years they have neither matured or failed to grasp how[REDACTED] works. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Indeffed as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC).

trying again: Tchaman vs Ébrié

The question got archived without being answered; if nobody knows, or has an opinion, fine; I am just trying to assess whether there is any reason NOT to make the change I propose, since these are deep waters about which I know little. But I have come back to the article where this arises, and hope to finish it some day... (It's long and on a list for translation cleanup. But notable enough to chip away at the cleanup).

The issue is this -- French[REDACTED] uses Ébrié. Just about the only thing that the stublet says for fr  is that these are the same people as the Ébrié, but the latter is a derogatory name that they are called by another ethnicity. Their own name for themselves is the Tchaman, which the english[REDACTED] redirects to Ebrié, which is a misspelling as well. If I don't hear otherwise I plan to remove the redirect, and possibly point it in the other direction, and I guess translate the part about derogatory. (Apparently it means unclean). However there are no sources provided for any of this and I am a little wary of taking French wikipedia's word unsupported on tribal/ethnic issues. Any thoughts?

Since this doesn't seem to be a burningly controversial issue I may see if there is an Ivory Coast portal or something where someone may know Elinruby (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

For thoroughness' sake: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 61#Ebrie people. Ibadibam (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The proper mechanism for this is WP:RM#CM. Request that Ebrié be moved to whichever term you prefer. In your submitted rationale, be sure to point out that WP:NCET#Self-identification indicates we should prefer autonyms over derogatory terms. Ibadibam (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Elinruby (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Number inflation of Serbs

In the articles Serbs and Slavs, any total population figures lower than 12 million are removed. I warned and asked that the editors explain their edit according to WP:REVEXP, but the persistent edit war without edit summaries continue. I take that as silent crypto-nationalist WP:IDONTLIKEIT motivation and vandalism of sourced content, so to report it here. Judist (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Odd outdated/racist wording

Both our Tipu Sultan and Christianity in India articles (and probably others) include the following:

His skin had darkened to the swarthy complexion of negroes

I'm almost certain his is a quotation from a contemporary (eighteenth century) source, but it is not marked as such. The entire section in which the text is embedded (in both articles) is poorly written and very questionable. More eyes (better eyes than mine) would be good. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Our James Scurry article marks "complexion of negroes" as a quotation from the guy's memoirs, meaning that the other two articles that don't are probably engaged in OR based on very old, biased, dubious primary sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I please have some help at Shooting of James Boyd?

This case is also at the OR noticeboard, but no outside editors have commented yet and the other editor keeps editing in the OR. This is really becoming more a matter of behavior than lack of knowledge of WP policy, as I originally assumed. I have already spent way more time on this than I had and today I gotta be elsewhere today so I'll have to do the fleshing out and diffs later, and I guess I am supposed to close the other discussion (?) However I'll leave it up while I am gone, for reference, for now, as the two issues described there are among the of several problems faced by the article. The sort of very angry line-by-line refutation of the smallest details you see there is another. Almost every attempt to discuss has gone off into the weeds. A few of the current concerns, which may require attention today:

• repeated reinsertion of, essentially, an OR refutation of the prosecutor's opening statement. These are studies the editor went out and found on his own.
• possible outing of another editor, @Activist, and stark refusal to delete the material from his page, because, he says, he wants to prove how ignorant that editor is. **Needless to say we don't see that editor on the page any more very much at all.
• he likes the word ignorant and uses it a lot
• editor has said he knows he is right and primary sources are acceptable if used carefully. "Careful use of primary sources" in this case is, per that editor, a courtroom exhibit briefly seen on a YouTube video. I am inclined to believe the video is genuine and there is such an exhibit but the sources do not use terminology he wants in the article; his contention is that the accuracy of the terminology is obvious from the exhibit.
• editor has said he doesn't care what I or any other editor say about this.
• there was some sort of rant about BS yesterday, which, as best I can determine, refers to a prosecution witness' testimony.
• editor has said he has "inside sources"
• there are COI discussions open re the city of Albuquerque
• editor makes wild and unfounded accusations
• editor makes remarks about other editors. All the time, non-stop, and assumes bad faith.
• editor, when asked directly if he has a contract with the city of albuquerque, editor replies that he is not a city employee Elinruby (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:Elinruby wrote, This case is also at the OR noticeboard, but no outside editors have commented yet and the other editor keeps editing in the OR. This is really becoming more a matter of behavior than lack of knowledge of WP policy, as I originally assumed.

I am the other editor involved in this situation. I disagree that I have a lack of knowledge of WP policy. This dispute is a mostly a result of a difference of opinion about how to properly use primary sources.

Elinruby wrote, The sort of very angry line-by-line refutation of the smallest details you see there is another. Almost every attempt to discuss has gone off into the weeds.

I agree. Most of our discussions have gone off into the weeds. But there is a good reason for this. Elinruby has a highly biased POV, and does not appear to be emotionally stable. Repeatedly I've been called a name. Nothing too bad, but when I point it out, Elinruby minimizes it, refusing to retract it or apologize for it. There have even been claims that I've done the same thing, called other editors names. This is simply not true. Elinruby claims that I've called her a liar, and such a claim is absurd. At worst I've 'awarded' Elinruby "Pinocchios," a polite way to say that someone is wrong, either factually, based on a false premise or emotion, or is simply being careless. If requested, I can demonstrate several instances of this.

Elinruby wrote, A few of the current concerns, which may require attention today:

repeated reinsertion of, essentially, an OR refutation of the prosecutor's opening statement. These are studies the editor went out and found on his own.

My insertions on this are about as far from OR as one gets. I've cited a very well respected, very well researched issue of a newsletter, published by the Force Science Institute. I have no idea why Elinruby thinks that there's something inherently wrong about my finding this source on own. I've known about it and used it for many years.

Elinruby wrote, possible outing of another editor, @Activist, and stark refusal to delete the material from his page, because, he says, he wants to prove how ignorant that editor is.

The other editor wrote some replies to some of my questions on his own page. He said that when I and Elinruby had read it he planned to delete it. I read it and copied it to my Talk page, telling the editor that I wanted to preserve it in the event he tried to change his answer to any questions that I might ask at a later time. It's IMPOSSIBLE to out him because there is absolutely NOTHING OF A PERSONAL NATURE that would enable anyone to find him in his information. Conveniently both that editor and Elinruby forget that ANYTHING that is posted on WP stays here forever.

Elinruby is unable to tell the difference between a comment made about something that's written, and a personal attack. That editor seems to think that when a written comment is attacked, the editor is personally attacked. I've pointed this out several times, to no avail. At least some of the disagreement is due to the fact that neither Elinruby, nor Activist has any education, training, or experience in law enforcement matters that are a large part of the incident under discussion. I've been trained and worked in these matters for many years. And so they make assumptions about what happened based on this inexperience and lack of knowledge. Elinruby interprets this as being called ignorant.

Elinruby wrote, Needless to say we don't see that editor on the page any more very much at all.

I've invited him back. I've pinged him repeatedly. He hasn't put in an appearance in quite some time.

Elinruby wrote, he likes the word ignorant and uses it a lot

I don't know what a lot means, it's quite vague. As are many of that editor's messages on the Talk page. I've asked dozens of questions of Elinruby to try and clear up inconsistencies or when vague references that can't be followed are made, but Elinruby refuses to answer them. At one point, after I'd asked about a dozen questions trying to clear up misunderstandings and vague references, and not even one of them had been answered, I asked why there hadn't been any answers to my questions. Elinruby denied that I'd asked any questions! And so I listed them one by one. Even then, answers were not provide for many of them. Since then, the number of unanswered questions has climbed to over 50 and they are just ignored, making communication difficult, if not impossible.

Elinruby wrote, editor has said he knows he is right and primary sources are acceptable if used carefully. "Careful use of primary sources" in this case is, per that editor, a courtroom exhibit briefly seen on a YouTube video. I am inclined to believe the video is genuine and there is such an exhibit but the sources do not use terminology he wants in the article; his contention is that the accuracy of the terminology is obvious from the exhibit.

This is old business. The point is moot because I've found and cited a secondary source that gives the information, but Elinruby will not let go of it. At question is the description of a knife used by a suspect who was committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against several police officers. Many secondary sources state that the knife was a folding knife with a blade about 3 1/2" long. The knife was a lock−back type and the blade of the knife was partially serrated, but none of the sources had written these last two descriptions in the news stories about the incident. The knife however, is shown in a still photo on some video footage that comes from Court TV, a live TV camera in the courtroom during the criminal trial of two officers who were involved in the incident. The knife is shown in a still photo against a scale, to show its length.

It's my contention that any "educated person, without any specialized knowledge" could look at the photo of the knife and see that the blade is partially serrated. This does not take any interpretation, only observation. This takes it out of the realm of Original Research, and makes it a BlueSky matter. REPEATEDLY I've pointed this out to Elinruby and at least one other editor, but they've not replied to that comment. Once Elinruby said that the average person would not recognize that the knife was a lock−back from looking at the photo and perhaps that's correct. But the knife is described that way in one of the reputable secondary sources that I've cited. Elinruby also disagreed that the average person would recognize that the knife was partially serrated. But if you showed three knives to the average person and one of them was serrated, I have no doubt that they could pick out the serrated one from the other two. This is common knowledge, it doesn’t take a knife "specialist" or "expert" to see that a knife has a serrated blade. But Elinruby does not respond at all when I've pointed this out. Instead, the entire argument about OR is restated, as if we had not discussed the matter repeatedly.

Elinruby wrote, editor has said he doesn't care what I or any other editor say about this.

I carefully considered the opinion of this editor when it was first proposed. I closely read the policy on Original Research, closely examining it. I do not think that this matter requires interpretation. It only requires observation. I think this editor is wrong on this and has added nothing new to the discussion, since it originally came up.

Elinruby wrote, there was some sort of rant about BS yesterday, which, as best I can determine, refers to a prosecution witness' testimony.

As with some of Elinruby's other references, I don't know what is being referred to here. This is typical of some of the comments that this editor makes. When I ask for clarification so that we can discuss what is being referred to, I do not get a response, making progress towards a solution, impossible.

Elinruby wrote, editor has said he has "inside sources"

I do have some sources inside the law enforcement agency under discussion. But I have no idea why Elinruby brings this up. I have not used any unattributable sources in the article, only to enlighten the other editors in the Talk section.

Elinruby wrote, there are COI discussions open re the city of Albuquerque

I thought that this had been settled. After I answered repeated questions, stating that I did not have any COIs about the Article under discussion, Elinruby responded that it was understood that I did not have any COIs. To repeat, I am not, and have never been an employee of any entity under discussion in the Article. That includes the City of Albuquerque, the Albuquerque Police Department, the attorneys involved in the case, and the police union. Elinruby was under the impression that I had said that I had done some work for someone involved in the court case, but I've never said anything of the kind.

In our last exchange on this matter of COIs I wrote this, As it says, I am not, and never have been employed by anyone or any entity mentioned in this incident. NO, I was not involved in this case. I can't say this with any more clarity and if you don't get it this time, too bad – I DO NOT HAVE ANY COI'S HERE. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC) and Elinruby responded, ok then not an employee not a contractor not a witness. Got it. but that entry was not signed so there is no date and time for it. But it sure appears that it was clearly understood that I do not have any COIs in this matter. But now it comes up again. This is an oft repeated situation in editing this Article and dealing with Elinruby. We discuss something, it appears to be settled, but then it's brought up again, as if the previous discussion had never occurred.

Elinruby wrote, editor makes wild and unfounded accusations

Such an allegation without supporting evidence is worse than worthless. It's character assassination of the lowest kind. If Elinruby wants to be believed on this then those unfounded accusations should be presented so that I can address them. Until that happens, I'll deny making any.

Elinruby wrote, editor makes remarks about other editors. All the time, non-stop, and assumes bad faith.

This is just about identical to the last accusation. I'll deny it until evidence of same is presented. But I'll STRONGLY disagree with the bad faith accusation. IN FACT, both Elinruby and Activist have accused ME of acting in bad faith, several times in both our discussions on the Talk Page and in editing the Article. I've only made such a remark when it's been obvious. As mentioned before Elinruby can't tell the difference between a remark made about an editor's writing and one made about the editor himself. I've made many of the first and none of the second, except to reply to such a comment made about me.

Elinruby wrote, editor, when asked directly if he has a contract with the city of albuquerque, editor replies that he is not a city employee

This is an excellent example of this editor's redundancy and inability to understand simple statements. Just a few paragraphs above I quoted Elinruby as stating, ok then not an employee not a contractor not a witness. Got it. But here it is again, as if it had never before been discussed. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking over their contributions, every edit in the last week has been utter nonsense: including poorly sourced and OR lurid details or longwinded explanations all meant to justify the actions of the police. -Darouet (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Everyone's a critic, but this is simply twaddle. I've placed several comments that were either neutral towards the police, or were against their interests. When I started editing this page, there was nearly a complete lack of anything that supported the officers in the case. It was a highly biased article, against the police. I did nothing but provide balance, the NPOV that WP requires. Here we have more accusations without any support for them. My sources are reputable and properly cited. There are no lurid details or longwinded explanations. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

pretty much. I am just sticking my head in the door and can't do the promised diffs just now, but I will follow up by morning. He does make some useful contributions now and then but the signal to noise ratio is very low, and generally you have to go through a few rounds of being called stupid before getting any substantive answer. I have only persisted thus far because I think the article is important. Albuquerque police have a LOT of issues and this is the only one that has been documented to any extent on wikipedia. So part of my discussion with Beanyandcecil has been "ok, I understand that that this is not the usual best-practices protocol for making contact with the mentally ill, but that is sort of the point."

James Boyd was minding his own business on a mountain with a knife in his pocket and wound up dead. The knife was legal and at worst Boyd was committing an infraction of a municipal ordinance. Death is not the desired outcome for this in my mind so how did this happen? There are a lot of sources, although there are also a lot of errors and contradictions. But, and this is according to New Mexico attorney-general Hector Balderas as reported in many many RS, APD filed criminal charges against the DA for "political reasons" after she filed criminal charges against these officers. I did not make that up. The other editor did not make that up. It is established fact widely reported in RS. There are very valid grounds for concern about retaliation, for example, whether Beanyandcecil believes he is endangering the other editor or not. If the other editor lives in a small enough town the information Beanyandcecil is trying to use to prove the other editor is stupid -- and why is he trying to prove the other editor is stupid anyway? ---might well be identifying, especially if the incident happened someplace in New Mexico like say Hatch for example. Gotta go, back later Elinruby (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC).

Elinruby wrote, pretty much. I am just sticking my head in the door and can't do the promised diffs just now, but I will follow up by morning. He does make some useful contributions now and then but the signal to noise ratio is very low, and generally you have to go through a few rounds of being called stupid before getting any substantive answer.

Here we have an excellent example of Elinruby's inability to accurately recount facts. I have NEVER called any editor stupid! This is a deliberate attempt to deceive any outside editors who may be reading this. It's reprehensible and disgusting!

Elinruby wrote, James Boyd was minding his own business on a mountain with a knife in his pocket and wound up dead. The knife was legal and at worst Boyd was committing an infraction of a municipal ordinance. Death is not the desired outcome for this in my mind so how did this happen?

I find it amazing that some people will summarize a situation like this in such a manner. Yes, Boyd was minding his own business on a mountain with a knife and wound up dead. Conveniently Elinruby has omitted vital details that wound up with Boyd being shot and killed by the police. Commensurate with his violation of camping (for over a month) in an area where no overnight camping was permitted, and subsequent to a call by a local resident complaining about him, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) dispatched two officers assigned to the area to deal with the situation. When they approached Boyd, who was under a make−shift shelter constructed from a sheet of plastic he confronted them with a knife, threatening to kill them if they touched him, escalating the violation from one of a misdemeanor (illegal camping), to a felony, (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer). Naturally the officers called for backup. Boyd was known to the officers who responded to the second call as a violent mental patient who had slashed someone with a box cutter, broken the nose of a APD officer, and who had spit jalapeno pepper into the eyes of a jailer.

It turned into a stand-off lasting about 3 1/2 hours, during which the police called in mental health professionals to deal with Boyd. Negotiations were unsuccessful at having him put down his knives and he continued to threaten to kill anyone who tried to take his knives or to take him into custody. When it was clear that he was not going to comply with commands to put down the knives and darkness was fast approaching, they formulated a plan to use less lethal force to take him into custody. That plan failed and two officer shot Boyd to save the life of a police K−9 handler who was in close proximity to Boyd who, at that moment was armed with two knives. There was a trial that of the officers for open count murder (later reduced to second degree murder) that resulted in a hung jury, voting 9-3 for acquittal. Just a little bit more than the killing of a harmless camper that Elinruby described.

Elinruby wrote, There are a lot of sources, although there are also a lot of errors and contradictions. But, and this is according to New Mexico attorney-general Hector Balderas as reported in many many RS, APD filed criminal charges against the DA for "political reasons" after she filed criminal charges against these officers. I did not make that up. The other editor did not make that up. It is established fact widely reported in RS.

No matter how many RSs repeat the statement that the APD filed charges against the DA for "political reasons" it's still nothing but an opinion, and one clearly driven by politics. I have no problem with adding that to the article, but it's not been done! I have no idea why Elinruby brings it up at this late date. But if so, then it's only reasonable to provide NPOV to counter the statement with one from another source, perhaps the police union, that the charges were appropriate and correct. In fact, the entire DA's office was removed from the case, requiring the appointment of a special prosecutor, lending some credence to the opinion that there was an obvious COI in the DA's office. But of course, you won't hear that side from Elinruby.

Elinruby wrote, There are very valid grounds for concern about retaliation, for example, whether Beanyandcecil believes he is endangering the other editor or not. If the other editor lives in a small enough town the information Beanyandcecil is trying to use to prove the other editor is stupid -- and why is he trying to prove the other editor is stupid anyway?

I'm sorry but this is so much nonsense. Activist provided the information himself. There is nothing of a personal nature contained in the message. And I've done no research to find any material of that nature at all. As WP describes, "Personal information can be anything that can be used to identify an individual, not limited to but including name, address, date of birth, marital status, contact information, ID issue and expiry date, financial records, credit information, medical history, where one travels, and intentions to acquire goods and services." There is a vague description of an incident and some vague background information that Activist supplied. WP states that if an editor has supplied personal information himself that it's not considered to be harassment. This occurred on the 10th or 11th of this month. Activist voice his complaints to me and I responded that by keeping his message to me, his responses to my questions that, per WP policy and rules, I had neither harassed him, nor was there information to "out him" in the material THAT HE HAD PROVIDED. I thought the matter closed. Activist basically 'took his ball and went home' refusing to take part in the editing of the article any longer or to respond to pings, but Elinruby continues to bring it up occasionally, as now. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have to run as well, so I'll be quick. I've been interacting with Activist on this site for years. Unfortunately, he may have outed himself by posting to other sites under his real name and talking about the same topics with the same level of detail than he does here. I'm going to be respectful and leave it at that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Since Activist has apparently outed himself as shown by RadioKAOS, it appears that his concerns about me 'outing him' are just so much nonsense. I have no personal information that would allow this, nor would I be interested in such a thing. It appears that Activist, along with Elinruby, simply do not want me to provide a NPOV, and that this section started by Elinruby is nothing but another attempt to prevent that. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

That may be so, and I think it is up to @Activist to pursue the attempted outing as an attempted outing if he chooses to do so. Nor do I know if is in New Mexico. But Beanyandcecil by the same token doesn't know that he is not, and is waving around a legalistic and cherry-picked citing of the policy in order to leave it up.

My primary point in bring this up however is the level of contentiousness shown by Beanyandcecil in posting the exchange to his talk page to somehow prove...something... and then refusing to remove it.

Activist wrote, "There is no basis for posting personal information about myself that I took pains to clearly restrict solely to both of you." *There was no "personal information" about yourself in your message.

If an editor feels his privacy is at risk who is BeanyandCecil to question that? Chilling effects doesn't begin to cover it; APD is known for killing people for crying out loud. *I* feel intimidated by this action and have removed some identifying details from my account because of it. But this is not the forum for that discussion and I would out myself and perhaps endanger other people if I explained why. Let's just say "Beanyandcecil has a contentious editing style" and leave it at that. It is also important to realize the context -- and yes I will provide a diff -- Beanyandcecil was saying since neither of us was an LEO who has used lethal force we should not edit the article, as we were doing, to reflect the trial. I disagree of course; police officers charged with homicide seems notable to me, regardless of whether I approve. Back shortly to flesh out the NPOV items, need food first tho. Elinruby (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it is up to Activist if he wants to pursue the matter. But there is no, as Elinruby claims, an attempted outing. ACTIVIST put the information up and there is NO PERSONAL INFORMATION, per WP definition, in it. It makes no difference where he lives, it's impossible to determine his identity by what he wrote.

There is going to be, as Elinruby wrote, contentiousness in an article like this, particularly when one editor or more, allow themselves to become so emotionally invested that they lose sight of the fact that fairness and WP policy require a NPOV.

Any reasonable person may question the opinion of anyone here. That's the way that this works. Activist may feel that his privacy is at risk, but in fact, it's not. There is no personal information, as defined by WP or by any other standard for that matter, contained in Activist's message. Identification of him is impossible from it. AND both Activist and Elinruby seem to forget that contrary to Activist's wishes to delete the material, WP keeps it forever. This is clearly written in the policy page on this. Activist might think that he's being stalked by Bigfoot, that the moon is made of green cheese and that the Russians have tapped his phone. But that does not affect reality.

It's unfortunate that Elinruby has such a degree of paranoia that those feelings could only be dealt with by remov some identifying details from account ... But those details should never have been there in the first place. WP makes this extremely clear. Keeping such information from appearing on the Net is little more than common sense. Elinruby's obsession is so severe that she fears that APD will kill her for daring to post on WP!? Good grief, could there be any deeper emotional involvement? Get a grip.

Perhaps I do have a contentious editing style. But unlike some, I manage to stay polite and professional, until the personal attacks become too egregious to bear, then I return like for like. Contrary to Elinruby's statement, I've not called anyone names or committed any personal attacks, as she's done to me. My comments have all been aimed at the comments of other editors, NOT at the editors themselves.

But I will have to award ten Pinocchios to Elinruby's claim that Beanyandcecil was saying since neither of us was an LEO who has used lethal force we should not edit the article, as we were doing, to reflect the trial. I've NEVER said this, or anything close to it. I challenge Elinruby to bring that statement here to support that claim. I have NEVER said that ANYONE should not edit the article ... to reflect the trial. This is a complete and utter fabrication. But the converse is true. Elinruby has, several times, told me that I should not insert material that provides NPOV. I will be happy to bring those statements here, if requested.

And finally, Elinruby is challenged by simply keeping to facts and being accurate in editing. "Homicide" is the killing of a human being. It's not a crime, but simply a finding of fact. It's a general term. NO ONE is charged with homicide as Elinruby has just claimed. IN FACT, the two APD officers were charged with "open murder" meaning that they could be convicted or either first or second degree murder, depending on what the jury decided. IN FACT the jury voted 9-3 for acquittal, and a mistrial was declared when they dead−locked. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There you have it, folks

I found that very hard to read and I actually mostly know what he is talking about. I am itching to slap a hatnote on that mess but I think someone else should do that if in fact it is appropriate.

One of the things I need help with is keeping my temper.

Another is trying to explain NPOV to Beanyandcecil, because he is sure not listening to me, and I have been working on this for more that a week full-time, and come on, that is ridiculous. He has said he doesn't care what I or anyone else thinks of his OR, because he is sure he is right. Perhaps he will listen to several of you. Whatever you do though, do not attempt to explain anything inline as he will inline-answer your explanation to tell you how wrong you are and ping you for each inline alleged refutation.

Let's attempt a different format. I have promised diffs on the issues in the weeds and am late on that. But I feel a need to address, as one uninterrupted train of thought, the most recent astonishing pronouncement from Beanyandcecil. Perhaps he should ask the Kari Brandenburg about his certitude that APD does not engage in retaliation. I'll pursue my own privacy issue through the proper channel, but the important point here is that Beanyandcecil is dismissing safety concerns about which he has no information whatsoever. I will not be bullied into exacerbating them, nor will I be bullied into letting Beanyandcecil distort the account of this homicide on Misplaced Pages.

I feel also the need to point out (and should not feel this need imho) that I have had a global account for almost five years, although I created this username in 2007. Before that I had some IP edits, almost all of the copywriting variety. I came to Misplaced Pages through the Open Education Repository. As noted in my user profile, my background is computer networking and internet security. I have more than 19,100 contributions on 18 projects. I usually translate and currently am working on articles about trade theory (en->fr), the appeals process in French law (fr->en) and Mexican proto-punk(es->en).

Not only do I seriously have other things to do than be schooled on What is Misplaced Pages -- much less privacy on the internet, omg -- by Beanyandcecil, I get very few complaints about my ability to communicate ;) let alone my mental stability, forsooth.

I can of course make a mistake like anyone else, but my work is autopatrolled on Wikimedia Commons and I have had an IP block exemption on English Misplaced Pages, so there have been a couple of findings already that on the whole I try to do the right thing and often actually do. I have been profoundly involved as a 3rd party mediator in big messy disputes both here at NPOV and at the RS noticeboard and on talk pages. Articles like Ugg boot, Leopold II of Belgium.

Recently I extensively contributed to Panama Papers. I am somewhat familiar with BLP policy ;) Before that, Stop Online Piracy Act (remember the day they turned off Misplaced Pages?). Yeah, I've heard of NPOV. No blocks, ever, not even any administrative contact not initiated by me, I don't think.

And ;) someone who just now broke 500 edits this month wants to explain to me that Misplaced Pages has an NPOV policy. Because I letting my emotions govern my edits. Or something.

Bah. Back to diffs, sorry about the delay there. ~~

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Child rape claim

Within the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page is a claim by a woman, called "Jane Doe", who says that at the age of 13 she was raped by Donald Trump on multiple occasions. She first filed a suit in California, but it was thrown out due to filing issues; The plaintiff filed the case by herself, without a lawyer. A civil lawsuit was filed in New York earlier this year, and a third attempt at litigating the case began with an October 2016 filing.

Although there has been widespread press coverage of allegations against Donald Trump of sexual assault or misconduct since the second presidential debated on October 9, 2016 — this case has not received significant press. Although we have reputable mainstream press sources that have reported that a suit was filed and that a hearing is scheduled for December 2016, there is not widespread coverage.

Please see argument presented by Mandruss (emphasis his):

1. We should look at percentage of the whole who have reported it, not simply the number who have reported it. We should consider that the others have not reported it, despite the fact that they must know about it. They have made a positive decision that it is not newsworthy, not simply overlooked it. We have to assume that.
2. I have essentially proposed limiting our "universe" to 18 of the highest quality sources for the purpose of judging WP:DUE. The alternative is to expand the universe to all reliable sources, research all of them, and then calculate a new percentage who report it. That would be completely unworkable for multiple reasons.
3. 16.6% of our current universe have reported it. 83.3% of our current universe, 5 times as many, have deemed it not newsworthy. That does not justify content about accusations of the repeated rape of a 13-year-girl. Accusations don't get much more serious, short of murder.
4. I have said in multiple places that this rationale is only for the purpose of deciding whether to include any content. If we decide to do so, then we can use other reliable sources to determine content.

Due the visibility of Donald Trump during his campaign and the severity of the claim, we would like to have your assistance to settle the issue of whether or how accusations by this woman should be included in the page. Conversation about this issue is posted at The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage / Remove Jane Doe?.

Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This section became difficult to manage and find the discussions, so as requested, I created subsections. I collapsed them, then, too - hoping that makes any further content easier to edit + it highlights that it would be good, if you have an opinion, to vote on approaches at the RfC.--00:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Early discussion

Balancing aspects

List of sources

RfC at article talk page

Being that the debate in this thread has become largely circular, after almost 5 days of discussion about this question, I think it's time to get that RfC started. There has been no acknowledgement of my above comment about the RfC, let alone any comments about the draft. So, unless I hear an objection here within about an hour, with some cogent rationale, I'm starting the RfC as currently drafted, at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I added a "Votes" section and cast the first vote.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Simple inclusion of a notable recurring character

In lieu of entering a lengthy Talk Page debate of back-and-forth opinions or launching an edit war (of which I have never been a party), I would like to address this matter of neutrality here regarding the simple inclusion of the recurring character "Charlie the Bartender" played by Danny Wells on the The Jeffersons WP page. I am inviting editor Quis separabit? to the discussion. My first inclusion was rv'd by Rms125a@hotmail.com (and rightly so). After having sought advice from editors and admins as to how I could improve the situation, notability via expansion of the actor's WP page was suggested: which I diligently accomplished. I made it known on the actor's talk page ] of my intent as well as the The Jeffersons's talk page ] and felt confident to reinstate "Charlie" from the overwhelming evidence that I had found in my research from reliable sources claiming the recurring role and notability for the character in relation to others already included. Within hours, it was rv'd on the basis that there had been no consensus on the talk page. With all due respect and with the highest regard to all contributors on WP, including Rms125a@hotmail.com, with the long standing history of deletions by him/her, I felt it to be non-neutral to the article. I would appreciate a side-by-side discussion as to why this character is being deleted in relation to the others that remain; a few of whom are equal, if not less than equal, to that of Danny Wells in notability and recurrence. This is not my opinion, but cited within the resources on the very same pages that claim the other characters. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Issues at a Donald Trump page

• 1. The problem is with respect to this page: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.
• 2. The issue is the extent to which Trump's version, and his defense against the sexual misconduct allegations, can be included in the main article. Also, whether the views of people who have defended Trump from the allegations, like Mike Pence, can be included in the page; and whether any comment of Hillary Clinton on these allegations can be included in the main article. Finally, whether Trump's claim that he intends to sue all the women who have been making these allegations can be included in the main article; and whether Trump's claim that the Clinton campaign could be responsible for these allegations can be included in the main article. The consensus on the talk page seems to be to reduce Trump's defense against the sexual misconduct allegations to the bare minimum. However, i believe this is in violation of WP:DUE,WP:BALANCE,WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:BLP.
• 3. The diffs in question are: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=745237756&oldid=745233947, and https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=745706477&oldid=745699707
• 4. Discussion about the first diff has taken place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Response_by_Trump_and_Trump.27s_attorney
• 5. Discussion about the second diff has taken place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Trump_wants_to_sue_and_condemns_his_accusers
• 6. The first diff involved a reversion of my edit by CaroleHenson. The second diff involved a reversion of Zigzig20s's edit by CaroleHenson.Other editors who have participated in the talk page discussions involving the two diffs are: Smallbones,SPECIFICO, K.e.coffman, Mandruss, and J mareeswaran
• 7. I am posting my query here so that more editors can participate on this very sensitive issue since more editor participation is the best way to eliminate or reduce any possible bias in this very sensitive page. Soham321 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - For several reasons, I posted a comment about this on the article talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This article covers an obviously very contentious, emotional, and very, very important topic. So obviously it is a very difficult article to edit. In 10 years of editing on Misplaced Pages, I've made perhaps 2 dozen edits related to presidential elections and generally have regretted it. Too many sharp elbows. Too many emotional POV editors. I don't see this article as much different, though it actually falls on the calmer side of things. Also CaroleHenson has done a good job trying to keep editing within the rules, though I have disagreed with her a couple of times. I also have given up on editing the article, but have commented several times on the talk page. All in all, I'd say it's about as well written as can be expected and the process is working about as well as can be expected. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I would generally concur with all of that. But on something like this I don't know we need an extended debate at NPOVN. One or two experienced and uninvolved editors could review the article for NPOV and give opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that anyone who stands to benefit from Trump emerging innocent/guilty of rape charges cannot be use, as they are hopelessly biased. Of course, HRC wants this out in front, since it only benefits her political campaign. Of course Pence is going to dismiss it...for now. If his ride to the White House is later kicked out, he becomes the driver. Nope, nobody political - and we are going to have to stay very, VERY vigilant on this matter, as other political articles of different politicians (Guliani and his ilk) are going to try and sneak in commentary about it. We use neutral articles and court records, and vet out any others collaboratively. The election is 2 weeks away; depending on whether Trump "keeps us in suspense" over conceding defeat. Some of this will die down afterwards.

I hate politic-related articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps all American editors should step back and allow only truly uninvolved editors to examine the article for bias, NPOV, and undue weight issues. --Taivo (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Leave it to the Russians!--Jack Upland (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Thankfully, I live in Uganda. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Jack Sebastian, please explain why you believe Mike Pence's comments defending Trump from the allegations should not be included in the main article, considering that Michelle Obama's comments criticizing Trump because of these allegations have been included in the page.Soham321 (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian:@Soham321:I don't see a problem with listing the most notable reactions by American politicians. The politicians may have conflict of interest, but they have generated a lot of the media comment, so their reactions are very notable. The context of many of these events happening within a campaign season is relevant to this article. We can't include every politician, but I think we should continue to include the notable ones in a balanced way. Madshurtie (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, this is also my view. But note one more thing. As per WP:WEIGHT, it cannot be that there are 10 lines in the main article dealing with Michelle's statement, and 1-2 lines for Pence's statement. Either Michelle's statement should be reduced/condensed, or Pence's statement be given equal weightage. Right now, bizarrely enough, Michelle Obama's criticism of Trump on account of these allegations is being given more weightage than Trump's defense of himself in the main article.Soham321 (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: WP:WEIGHT says we should give viewpoints weight 'in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.' Michelle Obama has had more coverage than Mike Pence, so I see no problem there. Pence is also included in the Trump campaign, whose reaction we've already given, so it may cause duplication. That said, I don't see much of a problem adding Pence if he has a novel and widely covered reaction we can add. Madshurtie (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Also note that we haven't added Clinton. Madshurtie (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie is correct, neutrality does not mean equal treatment. And that misunderstanding may be part of the reason we're here. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you added the neutrality tag a few minutes before being shown that you don't understand neutrality, so I won't fault you on that. But you might reasonably consider self-reverting that. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I am not reverting the neutrality tag until an uninvolved Admin or senior editor has closed this discussion, and neither should you in my opinion. Soham321 (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I promise not to touch it. And I'm not aware that noticeboard discussions have closes or closers. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, you did not comment on whether you also believe that Michelle's statement criticizing Trump on account of these allegations should be given more weightage than Trump's defense of himself in response to these allegations. Note that Trump addressed this issue in the third presidential debate, and also in several campaign speeches and interviews.Soham321 (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: Trump's own statements by themselves have been given more content than Michelle Obama. In the Trump campaign reaction section alone, my screen shows more lines discussing Trump's reaction (including the note) than Michelle's. That's not to mention that Trump gets a quote in most of the womens' sections, and in the intro. On top of that, we are giving additional space for reactions by his affiliates, who are clearly directed by Trump. The only person we have included who has spoken for the Hillary Clinton campaign is Michelle. Basically, 1) Trump gets more coverage in the reactions section 2) Trump gets far more coverage in the whole article 3) The Trump campaign gets massively more coverage than the Clinton campaign. If anything, the article is biased in the other direction. Madshurtie (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, on my 15 inch laptop, Donald Trump's defense against the allegations get approximately six lines of coverage (5 1/2 lines + the word "choice"), in a sub-sub section titled "Donald and Melania Trump" within the sub-section "Trump and affiliates' reactions" in the "Reactions" section. Michelle's comments on the allegations against Trump get 9 1/2 lines of coverage. Michelle's comments are included in a sub-section titled "Michelle Obama" in the "Reactions" section. So I cannot agree if your contention is that Donald Trump's defense is being given more coverage and more prominence than Michelle's reaction. This, mind you, is just one NPOV related issue; there are in fact multiple NPOV related issues in the article which spring from the fact that details about Trump's defense of himself against the allegations, which have been inserted in the main page, have been either removed or drastically reduced. That is why it is important that uninvolved editors and/or Admins get involved in this page. Two other editors have expressed support for my position on the talk page of the article: Isaidnoway, and Zigzig20s. Soham321 (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: This is the most inane discussion, because you have ignored the point that Trump is quoted multiple times in other sections of the article so that you can nit-pick these paragraphs. However, I have word counted the two sections. The two paragraphs about Trump's reactions inside "Donald and Melania Trump", excluding the Melania paragraph, and including the quote note, add up to 239 words. The one paragraph in the Michelle Obama section, plus the quote box, adds up to 234 words. So you don't have a case, even if we balanced articles like this based on word count. Madshurtie (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, There's a comment from David Eppstein that is relevant to previous discussions about content additions. I am not sure which diff that's listed above that it might apply to. As the review proceeds, would you please take a look the question I asked (in gray) and his response from this edit? That would be great!--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: As the review proceeds, - Que? If you mean this discussion, this is not what I've meant when I used the word review. I have suggested soliticing an experienced and uninvolved editor to review the article for NPOV so we can dispense with this debate, which is not likely to be very productive. We have already seen that at least one editor present didn't even know what neutrality means. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Mandruss, when you bring someone in to review the article for NPOV, could David's comments be included as well, perhaps a #8? I would be happy to type it up in a summary if that would help. It pertains to comments about the accusers. He's not a regular here, I just wanted to make sure it didn't fall through the cracks. It came up at the first dispute, and since the content about accusers was backed-out in editing, it was a non-issue until now.

I was just informed that my ping did not work with this mention because I did not sign it. It sounds l ike that's immaterial, but I thought I'd give you a "heads up". --CaroleHenson (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What I would do would be to ask David Eppstein if he would care to do a review, something similar to a GA review but perhaps less time-consuming for the reviewer. He appears to have the competence, and I think he qualifies as uninvolved. So he could write a list of points for improvement. We would then make those improvements and use that review as a guide for future editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Lovely idea! Oh, if that doesn't work out, I do have experience with a number of GA editors - you and others probably do, too! Yes, there are sections of the GA that wouldn't need to be followed, but that's a great template - or mindset - for reviewing issues!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, certain editors who don't agree with his points for improvement will accuse him of bias, just because that's how they roll (anyone who disagrees with them is obviously a POV pusher), but I think we can deal with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have much more experience with disputes, RfCs, etc. and know how to manage the process. You may not need this, but there are a number of different templates, this is my favorite GATable, which might be a good reference to determine what sections might apply for a NPOV review.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd let Eppstein decide how to do it, should he choose to accept the mission. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool!

I just had my comments on the talk page reverted. I put them back in but made two sections: 1 for the review and the 2nd for a side conversation that I am closing out. I had actually typed an FYI in here awhile ago, but decided that noone would care, and it's best tp close that chapter. Soham321, Please don't revert comments that I make to the talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

See ―Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I am aware of talk page etiquette and would not have reverted you but for the fact that you closed the discussion on the talk page which was following immediately after i gave a link to this discussion on the talk page. You were closing not just your comments, but the comments of other editors, including myself, and you are very much an involved editor in this discussion. I still find it objectionable that you should close the discussion on the talk page which is related to this discussion which continues to take place here, given that you are very much an involved party. Soham321 (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yours was the WP:BATTLEGROUND reaction to a WP:BOLD edit. That is not how disagreements are peacefully resolved. Your decision to take a break from the article is a good one in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that it was a battleground reaction. I just made one revert, and i have not reverted Carol again leaving it for other editors to do so if they wish to. There seems to a pattern in your editing behavior: of mixing up content disputes with conduct disputes and thereby attempting to get editors who disagree with you banned. Only a short while back you have requested an Admin to place a ban on Zigzig20s after you had a content dispute with Zigzig on this very page we are disputing. You and Carol are welcome to take me to ANI if you wish to, but do watch out for the boomerang. As far as my talk page message to Carol is concerned, it was just a polite way (the opposite of battleground behavior) of telling CaroleHenson that i did not wish to interact with her on my talk page on this dispute after she made this edit on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Soham321&diff=745744878&oldid=745743728 ; and i did take a break from the article after telling her i would do so. Soham321 (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything that I've said here that would make you think that I didn't understand and support this review? How many people do you know who self-report in a situation like this, specifically ask people not to come to their defense, and leave themselves open that way? You're offended because I closed that question out? I just didn't want anyone else to be pulled into any more drama than necessary.

Please WP:AGF and talk about things. So much gets smoothed out that way - and so much festers if you believe the other person is evil.

Just so I can understand, what is the benefit of leaving that open?--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on your responses, I wonder if you read it. Did you see this: Paraphrasing, I also hear that a bit of distance from responding to a lot of the content issues would be good. I'm "way cool" with that. So, we'll let the NPOV approach roll forward and look forward to the feedback.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)