User talk:207.153.53.19

February 2022

Hello, I'm Politanvm. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Police abolition movement in Minneapolis seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Politanvm ^talk 03:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're reinstating some of the edits. Again, as I replied on my talk page, Wikipedia only summarizes what is written in reliable sources, without editorializing those sources. I've gone through and undone some of the obviously unsourced claims, rather than reverting all of your edits, so please do not re-instate the unsourced statements. If you want to make a case for them, you can do so at Talk:Police abolition movement in Minneapolis. Re-instating them without discussing would be considered edit warring, and can lead to being blocked from editing. Also, please use edit summaries. Best, Politanvm ^talk 01:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I have not made any uncited changes to my knowledge. It would be helpful if you would explain where you think you see those as I have been adding a lot of citations - or it feels like I am. I am intimately knowledgeable about what happened and not just some dilettante but have not done this before so am unfamiliar with what standards you are expecting. I am happy to meet them if I could understand what you are expecting. What you had was terribly slanted - things like ignoring that the main thrust of the amendment was to remove the minimum staffing for the police department but instead saying it was just about creating a "Department of Public Safety" which we already had under a different name. And then things like calling the City Council "counselors" a term no one here would use. Or glossing over the court order to hire more police or things like that. Just let me know where you are having problems and I am more than happy to fix them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.153.53.19 (talk • contribs)

Hi, you can see what I changed in the page history. Specifically, this sentence didn't have a source. These two edits say the council took illegal actions, but that isn't mentioned in the cited sources. I'm not saying the article was perfect before (and it's not "my" article, it was written by other people), just to make sure your own contributions are following Wikipedia's reliable sources and neutral-point-of-view guidelines. Most of the edits seem fine, but some (like these few examples) aren't supported by the sources. You can indent your talk page replies with ":" and sign them with "~~~~". Best, Politanvm ^talk 02:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I understand. It is hard to cite something that didn't happen. I think I can cite the open meeting law requirement which makes it illegal to hold a public meeting without properly noticing that you are having a meeting and then link to the City Council meeting archive to show that in fact it was never properly noticed. would that meet the standards of Wikipedia?

And are there other places like this that I can improve on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.153.53.19 (talk • contribs)

That wouldn't follow Wikipedia's No original research policy - that would be considered synthesis because you're combining information from multiple sources in a way that no reliable secondary source says itself. If there's a reliable secondary source that says "the council's actions were illegal", then you could summarize and cite that. If no reliable source states that, then it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article. It's helpful to keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a place to right great wrongs, it simply follows what reliable sources say.

The other pieces of advice I've already mentioned: Using Edit summaries, indenting your talk page replies with ":", and signing them with "~~~~". Politanvm ^talk 17:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I am not trying to explain about righting some wrong. What I am trying to explain is why nine city council members standing in a park taking a pledge doesn't have the force of law. This article keep saying that a veto-proof majority took an action, but what is missing is that action didn't constitute law. Because it didn't follow the procedures of an actual legal action at an actual legal meeting. It is a missing gap in the explanation of what happened and I am just trying to fill it. It is actually implied in all of these articles but it needs to be said out loud for everything following to make sense.

So the only thing that is acceptable is another media source? Like it can be totally skewed as a media source but can be cited? The fact that no one sued over this and thus generating an article in the StarTribune - does that mean we can't show this is true? Like someone in the media had to say it for it to be reported in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.153.53.19 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, reliable media sources would be the most commonly used sources. Scholarly material is also used, but I'm not an academic, so it's not my expertise. Again, you can read all of these guidelines and policies at the links I've shared above and in my edit summaries, and I probably can't paraphrase them any better than they're already written, but let me know if anything seems unclear. Politanvm ^talk 18:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.