User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2016/December

RSN

I added some quotes relevant to Gibraltar from that source at RSN. Basically the author sets out the argument and then discusses individual cases including Gibraltar. WCM_email10:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump infobox

Hello there! You participated in a previous discussion about Donald Trump's infobox. I just wanted to let you know about an active RfC on this question. Edge3 (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Potpourri

You like to paint in broad strokes. When I have removed, or have tried to remove, "negative stuff' from articles on pro-life groups it is because I believe that by the rules and guidelines we operate under, either the 'stuff' doesn't belong in the article or its wording should be modified. When I have added, or have tried to add, "negative stuff" to articles on pro-choice groups it's because I believe that it has been kept out of the article because of pro-choice bias which is quite prevalent in this project. More to the point: Show me an "abortion" edit which I can't very easily defend. Maybe there's one somewhere, but I'll chance it. By the way, you say "fringe" means "views held by very few people in reliable sources." But how does that possibly apply to the abortion issue? Would the Catholic Church be "fringe" on this issue, along with the scores of nations and their physicians where abortion is severely restricted.

Back to "broad strokes." You say the SPLC "does describe [crisis pregnancy centers] in an unfavorable way." As an example you direct me to the SPLC article headlined "SUSPECT IN MONTANA CLINIC MAY BE LINKED TO CONTROVERSIAL CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTER." Your problem here is "so what"? If the SPLC made a habit of straining the truth to link clinic bombings to various crisis pregnancy centers then you would have a point, though this would hardly speak well of your beloved SPLC. In your example, however, they have done nothing different than a major newspaper does in carrying a headline such as "TERRORIST BOMBING MAY BE LINKED TO CONTROVERSIAL MOSQUE." Assuming there is a factual basis for each headline neither is describing crisis pregnancy centers or mosques unfavorably, just factually.

As to the Family Research Council being included on the SPLC's list, though I am no great fan of the FRC, I don't see it as an organization that wants to drive gays from the face of the earth. I can certainly see where strong supporters of gay rights wouldn't like it. But no, I wouldn't throw it in with the Nazi party. Motsebboh (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that Wikipedia is so biased that the fact that you are an SPA that CPUSHes is helping Wikipedia become more neutral? That is bizarre. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You've convincingly demonstrated to me that you are bizarre, since pretty much nothing you've said makes any sense, and most editors here seem to ignore you. However, I put this on TFD's Talk page to converse with him not you. Get lost. Motsebboh (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not think you understand the policy of neutrality. It does not mean that all views should be given equal weight or that weight should be determined by what the average person believes. It means that weight should be assigned based on what reliable sources do. That means that if the leading broadsheets and network news ignore a story about a well-known organization, that weight has not been established. That does not mean that U.S. media is neutral. Obviously they must make editorial decisions, and those decisions are determined by the values and beliefs of their organizations. That's why alternative media, both of the left and right, exist. To provide coverage of stories ignored by the mainstream.

Wikipedia articles are not the place to correct mainstream bias. If you think it should be, then you should get the policy changed. Or you can persuade mainstream publications to run articles critical of the SPLC.

Your comments to me are often filled with accusations and misrepresentations of what I said. I do not see it as helpful to provide a point by point rebuttal, which I am sure will lead to more accusations and misrepresentations. You should bear in mind that I am explaining mainstream opinion, which is not necessarily what I personally believe. I will answer one of your complaints however. Opposition to abortion is not fringe. However, the "crisis pregnancy" centers have been criticized in mainstream sources for allegedly deceptive tactics and the SPLC article, while not repeating these allegations, uses "scare quotes" for "crisis pregnancy." They include the FRC on their list of hate groups not because they are anti-abortion but because they believe they propagate hate, particularly against the LGBT community.

Unless you either accept content policy or get it changed, you are going to find yourself in conflict with other editors, particularly considering that redressing the bias you perceive in articles appears to be your main activity.

TFD (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)