Revision as of 20:17, 19 November 2016

By the same criteria you use, it could be said that there is no reason to include in the first place the "non-notable" SPLC source and their criticism/labeling of NPI. If the SPLC's criticism of NPI is valid, then so is TNO's criticism of the SPLC. Pick one, you can't have it both ways.

Your edits at National Policy Institute

Hi. I reverted this edit that you and User:Balance3241 keep adding to the page. I assume the other account is also you, given the similar names and the fact that the two accounts seem interested only in that particular edit. Please be aware that using multiple accounts is disfavored, and using multiple accounts for an improper purpose (such as edit warring) will get you sanctioned. Dyrnych (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not using multiple accounts intentionally. I lost the password to the first account, and will be sticking with the second one.

I reverted your changes back. By removing my edit, you are biasing the article by censoring certain information from readers, which is a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality point of view (NPOV). Give readers both viewpoints and let them decide for themselves, rather than unfairly presenting the SPLC as the sole authority on NPI's reputation.

You need to take a more careful look at WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The view you're trying to include (1) does not come from a reliable source and (2) is not significant. NPOV doesn't mean "include all possible views and let the reader sort out which ones are significant."

Also, you're edit-warring. Please follow WP:BRD and discuss the content on the article's talk page instead of just restoring it. Multiple users believe it's inappropriate, and the burden is on you to get consensus for its inclusion. Dyrnych (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, It's YOU that's edit warring. I'm just trying to be helpful in providing user's more information. The point you're missing is that the SPLC is not any more or less reliable than The New Observer. By what criteria are you judging the SPLC as "reliable" and not TNO??? I take issue with the SPLC as a reliable source. The New Observer is not the only publication to criticize it. There are major publications, including the Washington Times and Human Events that have criticized it as a hate group. You should really be the one to take another look at the NPOV, because YOU ARE BIASING THE ARTICLE with arbitrary criteria on "reliable" sources.

You said, "There is no reason to include a non-notable source's criticism of the SPLC, especially when that criticism is unrelated to the article's subject." So, by the same criteria you use, it could be said that there is no reason to include in the first place the "non-notable" SPLC source and their criticism/labeling of NPI. If the SPLC's criticism of NPI is valid, then so is TNO's criticism of the SPLC. Pick one, because you can't have it both ways. If you remove the last section altogether, I will leave it alone, but you are not going to quote the SPLC as some higher authority.

You're misunderstanding the issue here. The SPLC is certainly a reliable source for its own statements. For that matter, The New Observer is also reliable for its own statements. But the SPLC is a notable source, while The New Observer is not. Further, the SPLC is commenting specifically on the NPI, while The New Observer is making a general (and hyperbolic) claim. Again, the issue is that you need consensus for your edit and you don't have it. This discussion is best reserved for the article's talk page. Dyrnych (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only misunderstand is on your part. You have yet to delineate what makes the SPLC "notable" and not The New Observer. The SPLC's criticism of NPI is general (and hyperbolic). Again, there will either be both criticisms, or neither.

Revision as of 20:14, 19 November 2016 edit Balance213 (talk \| contribs) 21 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:17, 19 November 2016 edit undo Balance213 (talk \| contribs) 21 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 19:		Line 19:

	::::You're misunderstanding the issue here. The SPLC is certainly a reliable source for its own statements. For that matter, The New Observer is also reliable for its own statements. But the SPLC is a notable source, while The New Observer is not. Further, the SPLC is commenting specifically on the NPI, while The New Observer is making a general (and hyperbolic) claim. Again, the issue is that you need consensus for your edit and you don't have it. This discussion is best reserved for the article's talk page. [[User:Dyrnych\|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych\|talk]]) 20:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)		::::You're misunderstanding the issue here. The SPLC is certainly a reliable source for its own statements. For that matter, The New Observer is also reliable for its own statements. But the SPLC is a notable source, while The New Observer is not. Further, the SPLC is commenting specifically on the NPI, while The New Observer is making a general (and hyperbolic) claim. Again, the issue is that you need consensus for your edit and you don't have it. This discussion is best reserved for the article's talk page. [[User:Dyrnych\|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych\|talk]]) 20:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

			::::: The only misunderstand is on your part. You have yet to delineate what makes the SPLC "notable" and not The New Observer. The SPLC's criticism of NPI is general (and hyperbolic). Again, there will either be both criticisms, or neither.