Talk:New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case

Create a subsection

This article has less information about the incident than New Black Panther Party#Recent controversies. I propose creating a sub-section within that section dealing with the charges of voter intimidation and merging this article into that sub-section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the lack of information problem with this article now. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further reading section

I notice that Malik Shabazz has just added a "further reading" section to the article with a link to this article in the Washington Post. The linked article is a pretty good summary of this case, but I was wondering if he could explain why he considers this article more relevant to include here than any of the dozens of other news articles that exist about the case, some of which are currently cited by the Wikipedia article. The Washington Post alone has published at least six articles about this case, and the Washington Times has published more than 50 about it. Why single out this one article in particular? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I added it because I thought it presented a good overview of the case, whereas many of the sources in the article seem to be about specific events. If you think it's inappropriate, by all means remove it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:EL, one type of external link to be avoided is "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The linked Washington Post article contains very little information that isn't currently in the article, so I don't think it satisfies EL criteria.

The article is still a useful resource, though, so you're welcome to add it as a source for any of the content in the body of the Wikipedia article. I may take a look myself sometime soon to see if it's worth using as a source for anything. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

On one hand this incident is quite minor. My first impression is that this incident does not have the enduring notability necessary for it to have a long term future on Wikipedia. I sincerely doubt that in five or ten years time there will be much discussion concerning this controversy. It is possible that it could grow legs and start to run. If there is some scandalous email or recorded phone conversation from the DOJ, anything could happen. But barring such a revelation, I don't see this incident having long term notability, similar to WP:NOTNEWS. I consider the tone of this article not neutral and have added the NPOV tag. Captain Occam has attempted to preemptively address neutrality problems by including some criticisms of how some conservatives have handled the case. The New Black Panther Party is a fringe group that has made a series of highly controversial and divisive statements in its history. But I do think that in this article, the NBPP has been set up as a punching bag, a sort of strawman. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not this case is notable enough to deserve its own article was discussed here and here, and every editor who expressed an opinion about this agreed with me that it was. That was in July. If anything, the case’s notability has only grown since then, since that was before Christopher Coates offered his testimony about this case as well as before the DOJ’s inspector general began his investigation about it.

If anyone else thinks this case isn’t notable, then they can start an AFD about the article, but I don’t think there’s much question what the outcome of any such AFD would be. This topic has about the same level of notability as the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod, which was nominated for deletion in July. The deletion discussion about that article lasted barely a day, before being closed early as “keep” per WP:SNOW. I think we can expect any AFD about this article to have a similar result.

Something you need to keep in mind about this article is that the case it covers has received more coverage from conservative news sources than from liberal ones, and both conservative and liberal news sources have pointed this out. NPOV policy requires articles here to contain the same proportion of perspectives that exists in reliable sources, so in order for the article to comply with NPOV policy, that proportion of conservative and liberal viewpoints needs to be reflected in the article. According to WP:TAGGING, any tag for an article should be accompanied by an explanation of what’s wrong with the article, and if none is provided it’s appropriate to remove the tag. All you’ve said about your reason for tagging the article is “I consider the tone of this article not neutral”, which does not tell me anything about what specific parts of the article you think are biased, or even in which direction you think they’re biased. (I suspect that you think the article has a conservative bias, but you haven’t even made that clear.) Therefore, I am going to remove the tag until someone can explain more specifically what NPOV problems there are with this article, in a way that would make it possible for them to be fixed. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You have given a blow by blow account of the controversy, mostly from a conservative perspective. However this blow by blow dramatic account tends to give undue weight to the controversy. You have used several quotes but most of your quotes have been cherry picked from conservative sources, and there is much less criticism of conservatives. The article assumes that the incident is very important, whereas most mainstream outlets have not considered the story as one of their top priorities. In short, in this article, the NBPP is the punching bag, and the justice department was wrong to dismiss the case. This is why I believe the article isn't neutral Wapondaponda (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

“most mainstream outlets have not considered the story as one of their top priorities”

That’s simply false. I recommend that you take a look at the source list I’ve assembled in my userspace to get an idea of the mainstream news coverage this case has received. So far there have been six articles about this case from the Washington Post, five from the Associated Press, four from CNN, and so on. This case would be notable even if were to completely ignore the coverage it’s received from conservative sources. (Not that we should, since that would be a blatant NPOV violation.)

I also don’t see how it’s possible for the article to “give undue weight to the controversy” over this case. The article is about the controversy over this case, because the controversy over it is what every one of the news articles about it is discussing. How is it possible for an article to give undue weight to its entire subject matter?

And you aren’t acknowledging my point about the article needing to accurately reflect the balance of viewpoints that exists in the source literature about this case, which are more conservative than liberal. Until you address this point, and provide specific examples of things that you think ought to be changed about this article, there’s nothing for us to discuss here. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that mainstream outlets haven't covered the story, only that it is not a top priority for them. There are not enough arguments from mainstream outlets that suggest that this incident is "very small potatoes". Sure there is a section on media coverage, but there isn't enough information about how this story is actually being hyped up and driven by conservative outlets. In my opinion, this is more of a story about a story. The actual incident is close to being irrelevant. The fallout is more seemingly more important than the actual events. I think these news items give a better representation of the media coverage and the controversy as a whole.

• A conservative dismisses right-wing Black Panther 'fantasies'
• Conservative Media Stokes New Black Panther Story

Wapondaponda (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Since articles at Politico are not checked for accuracy by an editorial board, I don’t think articles there satisfy WP:RS. However, there is already an entire section devoted to the main subject of the Politico article you linked to, which is Abigail Thernstrom’s criticism of the investigation about this case. And the NPR article that you linked to is already cited here.

NPOV policy requires that each aspect of this case be given about the same amount of space in the Wikipedia article that it’s given in reliable sources discussing the case. Of the 100 or so news articles that I’ve found about this case in reliable sources, there are around eight that focus on the media coverage it’s getting. In other words, around 8% of the source material about this case is discussing the media coverage it’s received, with the other 92% of the source material being about various aspects of the case itself. Therefore, in order to comply with NPOV policy, discussion about this case’s media coverage should take up around 8% of the article. That’s pretty close to the amount of space that it currently has. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I got the NPR item from the article, but a lot of the information from the source isn't included in the article. Such percentages are unscientific and misleading, especially given how a single news item can be duplicated in an infinite number of ways over the internet. In time I will proceed to make some adjustments to bring some neutrality to the article, I will use sources such as those mentioned above. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has major NPOV issues that I will start address in the coming days. The article could also do with some trimming because sometimes less is more. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you actually are intending to try and improve the article, I hope it’s going to involve more than just blanking large sections of content. There may well be parts of the article that could be worded in a more neutral or more concise manner, but I don’t think there are any entire sections or paragraphs that it would be reasonable to just delete, the way you’ve often done on race and intelligence articles. Your other method of trying to improve articles, by reverting them back several months to an earlier version you liked better, also isn’t going to work in this case because the article doesn’t have an earlier version to revert it to. (Unless you intend to turn it back into a redirect, which is completely inappropriate for a topic with this level of notability.)

I’d also suggest that you seek consensus for any major changes you’re intending to make. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the changes you’ve made to this article appear to be worthwhile, so I’m not going to do a blanket revert, but it would have been better if you’d discussed them here first. There are definitely some changes you’ve made that I don’t approve of, such as sourced content that you’ve blanked without any explanation why, and unsourced statements that you've added about living people. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Initially I didn't do a thorough job of sourcing. I have added the sources that were missing, so all the material should be backed up. I can provide clarification if needed. To go over a few points

• The criminal investigation was dropped by the Bush administration, not the Obama administration. [1]
• According to Perez's testimony

Whereas, the original complaint sought an unlimited injunction prohibiting acts of intimidation anywhere in the United States, the final relief sought by the Department was limited solely to the City of Philadelphia and was only to last through November of 2012

So I have added this text to explain what exactly the reduction in scope entailed.

• As for the Reactions in Congress vs Republicans in congress, I just wanted to point out that it is not a bipartisan concern, rather it is a few republican congress people who are driving the issue. [2]
• According to Adam's testimony

MR. BLACKWOOD: Was there any indication that anyone higher up than Loretta King or Steve Rosenbaum was making the decision to override the six career attorneys who said the case should go forward?

MR. ADAMS: None that I had any indication of.

• This is still a Bush administration controversy, because it started prior to the Obama administration, and is also related to the Noxubee- Ike Brown case.

Wapondaponda (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have just added some information that states that the individuals who decided to dismiss the case against the NBPP, King and Rosenbaum, had served in the justice dept under both Bushes and several other presidents. They were temporarily "promoted" to acting AAG under the Obama administration, but they were still DOJ insiders. This may help clear up what actually happened. One could easily get the impression that the decision to dismiss the case came directly from the White House. While not impossible, the evidence seems to suggest that a lot of the deliberation was internal to the DOJ and that disputes over how to handle such incidents commenced in the Bush administration, and not the Obama administration. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with including this information, but we also need to make it clear that what’s currently being reported by reliable secondary sources is that political appointees may have been heavily involved in the decision to drop the case, and that the DOJ has tried to conceal their involvement. An example of an article pointing this out out is this article in the Washington Post, which is a fairly mainstream and non-partisan news channel. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

One issue is the characterization of political appointees. Usually we think of a political appointee as someone who comes from outside the department to enforce the governing administration's policies. In this case the political appointees who made the decision to dismiss, King and Rosenbaum, were not from outside, but were veterans of the DOJ. Conservative critics would like to give the impression that their decision to dismiss came from higher up, that is from the AG or the White House. This is not impossible, but it also seems likely that their decision may have been influenced by baggage from their long careers in the department, rather than any direct influence from higher ups. According to Adam's testimony, there was already tension in the DOJ about how to handle racial issues long before the Obama administration took office. The DOJ was also under a lot of pressure from civil rights groups when it came to pursuing cases against minorities. Blaming the Obama administration for what is partly a pre-existing dispute seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. This is why a number of sources have described the controversy as phony, faux or as a manufactured scandal.

As for the Washington Post article, it doesn't give the whole story. The draft report that states that political appointees were involved in the decision to dismiss was created by the conservative dominated US Civil Rights Commission. It is the report that the democratic commissioner Michael Yaki, walked out on in order to prevent a vote when he described the commission as a Kangaroo court. The draft report was leaked to TPMMuckraker, so it is not officially out. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like I initially cited the wrong article in this paragraph. I’ve fixed the ref now, and clarified which political appointees are suspected to have been involved in the decision.

Something you need to realize about this article (and all Wikipedia articles, for that matter) is that the perspectives we present in it can only be the perspectives that exist in reliable secondary sources. You’ve added a lot of information to this article that’s cited to primary sources, such as unedited transcripts of testimony before the Civil Rights Commission. That isn’t in itself a problem, but it isn’t appropriate for you to use your understanding of the case from these kinds of sources as a basis for disputing what the Washington Post is reporting about it. If the Washington Post doesn’t give the whole story, and neither do any other reliable secondary sources, then Wikipedia can only give as much of the story as what these sources are reporting. That’s just how Wikipedia works. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The CNN article gives a more accurate account, than the Washington Post. The CNN article is a reliable secondary source, so I believe it should supersede the Washington Post article. The title "possible involvement of political appointees" reads like a leading question and would appear to violate NPOV. Some claim that political appointees were not involved and some claim that they were involved. Therefore it is appropriate for neutrality to take neither side. I can't find much on Hans Spakovsky, it seems the only articles that have published anything are Foxnews and The National Review. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia can only present information that’s published in reliable sources. So if National Review and Fox News are the only sources that talk about Spakovsky, then that’s all we can present about him here. (I think it’s better to cite National Review than Fox News, since there seems to be some dispute over how reliable Fox News is.)

The CNN article that you linked to is already cited here, for the part of the article which talks about Yaki walking out of the commission meeting. This article doesn’t discuss the question of the extent that political appointees were involved in the decision to dismiss the case, so I don’t see how it’s possible for it to supersede what the Washington Post is reporting about that. I understand your point that the draft is what Yaki walked out of the meeting in order to prevent a vote about, but unless a reliable source is disputing what the Washington Post has reported about political involvement specifically for this reason, for Wikipedia to use Yaki’s reaction as a basis to dispute this would be an example of WP:SYNTH. Remember, we can’t present any conclusions here that don’t exist in the source material. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that the Washington Post does not explicitly mention that the draft report was leaked to TPMMuckraker as the CNN article does. The Washington Post does not mention that the leaked report was not the final draft. The CNN articles states

Reynolds confirmed the draft document is authentic, but said it is not the most recent summary that the commission would have voted on Friday had there been a quorum. He declined to immediately release the newest version, and would not describe what revisions may have been made.

You write

The Washington Post reported that according to a draft report from the Civil Rights Commission, political officials had been extensively involved in the decision to dismiss the case, and that the Department of Justice had attempted to conceal their involvement.

But this statement is out of context and even obsolete because the draft that the Washington Post is referring to is not the final draft, is not official but a leaked version and has not even been voted on by the commission. This was why I mentioned that the CNN article supersedes the Washington Post because it has these extra details. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, I’ve added some of the additional details from the CNN article to clarify that the leaked draft wasn’t the final version. However, I think for this part of the article to discuss Yaki walking out of the meeting would be getting too close to WP:SYNTH. The CNN article discusses Yaki’s reaction without discussing the report’s accusations of political interference, and the Washington Post article discusses the report’s accusations about this but not Yaki’s reaction, so for us to bring up Yaki’s reaction in order to dispute what the report says about this is making a point that doesn’t exist in the source material. I think Yaki’s walking out of the meeting should be discussed later in the “Civil Rights Commission” section, where it currently is. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not particular about the details. The main point is that the accusations from the USCCR are not official yet. When they draft is voted on and the final report is officially made public, not just leaked, then the USCCR would have declared its position. It wouldn't be inappropriate to report speculative or unofficial claims that appear in reliable secondary sources, but these claims should be placed in their proper context. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

George W. Bush administration controversies

I notice that Richrakh has just added this article to Category:George W. Bush administration controversies. Could he please explain why he thinks the article belongs in this category? Even though Bush was in office when the New Black Panthers were charged with voter intimidation, the actual controversy over this case didn’t start until the charges against them were dismissed, which happened after Obama had been inaugurated. It doesn’t seem appropriate to put the article in this category when none of the controversy over this case happened while Bush was in office. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Update

I am not not confident on how to edit articles but this page needs desperately to be edited esp not only is the investigations over but there is plenty of government information concerning the case.Notnow1230 (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

Thread retitled from "Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources".

Two editors, User:Malik Shabazz and User:MastCell, have blanked content verified by multiple reliable sources. The reliable sources are as follows:

• Matthew Boyle (19 September 2012). "Emails reveal Justice Dept. regularly enlists Media Matters to spin press". Daily Caller. Retrieved 24 February 2013.
• "Emails show Justice working with Media Matters on stories that target critics". Fox News. 18 September 2012. Retrieved 24 February 2013.
• Matthew Boyle (19 September 2012). "Farenthold: Congress will likely investigate DOJ-Media Matters collusion, target group's tax-exempt status". Daily Caller. Retrieved 24 February 2013.
• Ryan J. Reilly (14 February 2013). "Top Eric Holder Aide Tracy Schmaler To Leave DOJ". Huffington Post. Retrieved 26 February 2013.
• Allen, Charlotte (2013). "Politicizing Justice". The Weekly Standard. 18 (23). The Weekly Standard LLC. Retrieved 26 February 2013.
• Evan Perez (14 February 2013). "Senior Aide to Holder Stepping Down at Justice". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 26 February 2013.
• Mike Allen (15 February 2013). "IN PRIVATE, OBAMA FLASHES ANGER OVER GOP STRAFING OF HAGEL -- Justice's Tracy Schmaler to ASGK Public Strategies -- The era of big Wall Street deals is back -- Ted Cruz shakes Senate". Politico. Retrieved 24 February 2013.

The blanking of verified content is uncalled for. If we look at all sources that connect "New Black Panther" and "Tracy Schmaler" one will find dozens of sources, some reliable, some not, that connect the two subject's togther, that connect the individual to the subject of this article. Same things can be said if one does a search for "New Black Panther", "Tracy Schmaler", and "Media Matters". The reason given by one for blanking content is because the reliable sources are "partisan". Yet, as has been said by others, it isn't sources that need to be neutral, it is how the sources are used and the content that needs to be neutral. I cannot answer why such "partisan" sources such as the Huffington Post, MSNBC, and other such sources did not cover the emails that the Daily Caller received through a FOIA request regarding the DoJ working with Media Matters regarding the coverage of the subject of the article. What I can say is that reliable sourcse verify all the content which was removed.

Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification I shall be informing other potentially interested editors of this blanking of verified content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Tracey Schmaler's connection with the case is that she was the Department of Justice spokesperson who explained why the case was not prosecuted. The removed material explains her later career move from reporting to one prominent Democrat to another. There is no reason to believe that she had anything to do with the decision not to prosecute and adding this material appears to be an attempt to insinuate that the Democratic Party had some connection with the alleged intimidation of voters. That is highly POV and misleading and was rightfully removed. I notice that RightCowLeftCoast has canvassed subscribers to the Conservatism project, although the New Black Panthers is not a conservative group. TFD (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I made the notification I would be contacting all listed wikiprojects, of which Conservatism is one of them. To point out only that one notification does not appaer to be assuming good faith of my actions. The content removed verified that Tracey Schmaler, as a high level spokeswoman within the DoJ coordinated with Media Matters on coverage of the subject. There was at least one reliable source that verified that at least one congressmember called for an investigation of Schmaler in relation to the subject of this article, and her communications with Media Matters in regards to news coverage of the subject of this article.

IMHO that appears to be relevant to the subject. Others may differ with my opinion, and they are free to do so. But to remove content from reliable sources because one does not agree with the bias of the source IMHO is not a reason for removal, it falls into a battlefield mindset. I am not attempting to push a POV.

If others believe that the content can be more neutrally worded, I would like to hear it, and like to see proposals of neutral wordering to be used.

If others believe that the content is given undue weight I would like to hear explanations as to why other editors believe that. Know upfront, that I will disagree, and will do my upmost to be civil in our future conversations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Another NPOV and RS dispute. The material was removed due to undue weight and poor quality sources. There seems to be a competency problem at work here that lies outside the scope of this talk page. Perhaps the problem is with your understanding of the policies and guidelines. If so, editors should not be required to argue with you on page after page after page. Rather, you should be required to explain your reasoning for adding the material based on NPOV and RS. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL & WP:AVOIDYOU

The following comment gives me great concern:

If so, editors should not be required to argue with you on page after page after page.

— Viriditas

It can be seen as evidence of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If this is the case, I kindly ask that this stop.

I have provided links showing multiple reliable sources that verify the content.

Removed sources show the connection between Schmaler, the subject of this article, Media Matters, and her resignation.

If others wish to limit the content to Schmaler's communications with Media Matters regarding the subject of this article, and leave out her resignation, I am fine with that as a compromise.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the fence with Malik's removal, and leaning in favor of it. The sources don't establish the connection well enough IMO. MastCell's removal has no merit. These sources are perfectly acceptable. The claims of UNDUE are even more baffling. How is discussing possible legal macihnations not germane?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It is germane, and thus why I am saying that the removal was uncalled for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a question of WP:BLP. You are inserting contentious material about a non-notable, living private individual. The sourcing for that sort of material should be of the highest quality. Instead, the material seems to be sourced almost entirely to partisan websites. I'm not going to argue the general question of whether the Daily Caller is a reliable source in general, or for statements of opinion - but it is clearly not appropriate as the main source of contentious allegations against a non-notable private figure. That's BLP 101.

Separately, the amount of weight given this episode is grossly undue. It appears to have attracted exactly zero attention from non-partisan, independent reliable sources, and it seems confined to a handful of partisan media. I suppose one could argue that it deserves brief mention in our article on Media Matters for America. Instead, it's being spammed into a variety of tangentially related articles - including BLPs - and given its own freestanding section. The good-faith explanation for that sort of editing is a lack of competence. The alternative explanations include a determination to use Wikipedia as a ideological platform to broadcast partisan talking point. I am assuming good faith. MastCell ^Talk 05:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this article is notable that is without a doubt But to say that Schmaler is not notable IMHO is wrong, and it could be argued that the Schmaler is notable in regards to this subject. Schmaler is a public figure in that Schmaler worked in the DoJs office under Eric Holder and was the spokesperson who interacted with the media in regards to the subject of this article. Moreover, she has been described by the Huffington Post and Bloomberg as a "top aide", and by the Wall Street Journal as a "senior aide" to Holder. As a staff member to Holder, I had originally thought it relevant to Holder. When told by another editor, that it was not relevant, I moved on. As the FOIA email were focused on the coverage of the media of the subject of this article, I believed it relevant to this subject, and added the verified content.

When some of the content was removed due to alleged poor source quality, I provided better quality sources, and have not since edited the article space of this article. Rather I have entered this discussion, which I hope remains civil.

I am not here to push a POV. I am here attempting to add content which I believe is relevant to the subject.

I can understand others opinions that it could be more neutrally worded, or summarized better in order to carry less weight in the article; however, I can also civilly disagree that the content should be removed outright, and as I have done, civilly discuss why I disagree.

If it is the view of other editors that the mention of MMA collaborating with senior aide to Holder, and spokesperson of the DoJ, in regards to news coverage of the subject of this article better belongs at the MMA article, I would be more than happy to hear arguments why it would be better there, rather than here, or why it shouldn't receive some content in both articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how using this DC article is undue. The article specifcically mentions the NBPP. As for BLP, of course we need to be careful. But in this instance, which person (or persons) do you think is being disparaged?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In light of a claim of BLP, I'm going to self revert for now. If there is a BLP, it needs to go. But I would request that MC address the specifc persons being addressed so we can determine if there is an actual BLP in the first place.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Would one week, say 8 March 2013, be an appropriate period to wait for a response? What to do if no response is provided?

I have stated why I do not believe that BLP is at issue above, what is LGRs opinion of my opinion?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on your opinion, because frankly I'm a bit confused (read; too lazy to go through the history) of the additions/removals. Suffice it to say I think you disagreed with two removals; As I said above, I agreed with one removal of source content, but not another. The text of the content that was removed that I am referring to states:

In September 2012, the Daily Caller reported that they had obtained emails showing that staff members of Eric Holder's communication staff worked with Media Matters to criticize coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation incident.[17] The emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.[18] Representative Blake Farenthold said he seeks a congressional investigation regarding the emails, and called for the tax-exempt status of Media Matters to be reviewed.[19]

Now on the face of things, I see no problem with this text. The article by the Daily Caller is a RS. We could ask about this at RS/N, but I think we call can agree we know what their response would be. The fact that the DC is libertarian leaning is besides the point. The article has an appropriate byline, and the author in question has apprporiate bona fides as a journalist. Just because a source participates in gotcha journalism doesn't make the results of their findings any less reliable. There is no way this is undue, as it is directly related to the subject this article covers.

The BLP claims are a different animal altogether. To be honest, I'm not sure if MastCell is talking about the text I presented above, or the text removed by Malik. I see no BLP in the presented text, much less even a contentious claim. I think we should wait for MastCell to address this. I don't have an appropriate "waiting period" in mind. This isn't a life or death matter to any of us (or I should hope not!). Given that MastCell is a frequent editor, I'm sure he (she?) will respond in a fairly soon.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If your only source is the Daily Caller then it does not meet WP:WEIGHT, it is only of interest to the extreme right rather than mainstream readers. Also, the organ probably does not meet rs anyway. TFD (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

We aren't talking about the flat earth theory here. The fact that the DC (and Judicial Watch) obtained emails from the DOJ via a FOIA request isn't a minority view. It's the only view. There is also a FoxnewsWashington Examiner article quoting a federal judge that The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Say what you want about Fox, but I don't think anyone can honestly challenge that they didn't get that quote correct.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Idea. If we remove mentioning Schmaler's name directly in the article, but leave the verified content that the DoJ colluded with MMA on coverage of the subject of the article, I think this would remove any BLP issues (if any actually exist).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• What I'm saying seems so self-evident, and I've said it so many times now, that I don't know how much more clearly I can express it. First of all, there is a serious WP:BLP issue in repeating allegations against Schmaler, a non-notable individual, when those allegations come solely from a partisan website and have received no significant coverage at all in reputable non-partisan sources. That is a BLP violation, and not a particularly ambiguous one. If this allegation is in fact as notable and scandalous as RCLC seems to believe, then it will be covered in reputable non-partisan sources. If it remains relegated to a momentary talking point in the partisan webosphere - which is what it is now - then any sensible editor would be very hesitant to include it in a serious reference work, and any competent editor would steer clear out of basic respect for WP:BLP.

  Separately, there's a serious violation of undue weight in creating a standalone section to feature this material. It has exactly zero weight in reputable non-partisan sources. We're giving it a prominence far in excess of its actual representation in the sources. We should write articles by finding and proportionately reflecting the best available sources, not by latching on to a partisan talking point and trying to angle it past the bare-minimum sourcing requirements.

  If you don't get why this sort of editing is misguided, then I don't think I have the patience or the words to explain it any further. And these days, we don't have a set of experienced and clueful editors to step in and correct this sort of poor editing. So do what you want - I don't really feel like arguing this any further, because it's just depressing me by reminding me how badly we fail at trying to write encyclopedic articles about topics of partisan obsession. MastCell ^Talk 05:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I for one don't want to chase you off out of frustration. And I certainly don't want to add BLP. Can you address my question about the quoted text above related to BLP? I understand there might be other complaints, but BLP should be addressed first.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If something is reported in an extremist publication, it is of no interest to the general public, i.e., people who read Wikipedia. If people want to read about ancient astonauts, how the U.S. government was behind 911. etc., there are other websites. TFD (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is extremist? Ludicrous.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with LGR here, the Daily Caller is just as much a reliable source as Reason, or The New Republic, or Salon.

I have offered a compromise that keeps the content but removes mention of Schmaler, which would remove any BLP issues, but that has been ignored.

However, I have provided a reason why Schmaler is not a non-notable individual given her highly public position in the DoJ, and thus why WP:WELLKNOWN applies to Ms. Schmaler. However, I am fine leaving out her name if it would please others and keep the content about the DoJs attempt to influence the media in covering the subject.

Imagine if content about the Bush Administration influencing the media leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom was removed, imagine how quickly that would be reverted and the person accused of POV pushing and vandalism. Yet, here it is OK?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You can read about the Daily Caller in Race-baiter, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, pp. 57-61.[3] It says that Reuters refused to pick up its series on Media Matters, because it was "bad journalism and lame propaganda." TFD (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, this article isn't from that series. And if you read the actual critique by Jack Shafer, he attacked the DC for using anonymous sources and internal memos. So, no he isn't calling the DC a hotbed of partisanship. This article is inherently reliable. They state explicitly where they obtained their infomation, and we have corroboration that their interpretation of the emails is correct in its analysis. But if you insist on attacking the DC in an ad hominem fashion, then we can present this to RSN. A waste of time IMO, but that's the obvious next step.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Media sources that meet reasonable standards of journalism do not publish series of articles like that. If we find it comforting to read false information about people we do not like, that right is protected, but is inadequate as a source. Why don't you use real news media, like the main newspapers and television news shows? And if you beleive this story, true or not, is so important, why don't serious news sources cover it? Fox News is willing to publish anything and everything about bad about Democrats, provided it is true. But when even they won't touch a story, one must doubt its authenticity. TFD (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The article in question has all of the hallmarks of a reliable source. A byline, credentialed journalist and editorial oversight. I find it hard to believe that you question whether TheDC filed for a FOIA request and determined the email were related to TNBPP. This is corroborated by a Federal Judge after all. But if you keep blaming the source, I'll write this up at RSN.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

As reported in MMfA, Matthew Boyle, the investigative reporter at the Daily Caller and author of the article, resigned "less than 14 days after his previous employer had all but retracted one of his stories.... This sort of shoddy journalism is commonplace for Boyle." His journalism "has involved inventing congressional testimony and pushing claims for which he admits he has no evidence."[4] TFD (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

So you agree that TheDC does have editorial oversight. Was the article in question retracted or corrected? Not only is the answer no, but the information in the article has been corroborated by a sitting judge on the Federal Circuit.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. but retracting stories only after even right-wing blogs have debunked them is not "editorial oversight". I have no idea what a judge might have said because I have seen no reliable sources. Since MMfA says the writer has fabricated congressional testimony, how can anyone be certain that his reporting is reliable in this case? Why even read this "news" source? TFD (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A blogger for MMFA isnt eminently qualified to make this claim. See you at RSN  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The blogger is the deputy research directer. TFD (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I will send you a courtesy notice after I file a RSN report.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the Daily Caller and the author of this piece (Matthew Boyle) are perhaps best known for pushing the claim that a Democratic Senator patronized underage Dominican prostitutes. Those claims are widely understood to be unsubstantiated or straight-up smears and fabrications which more credible sources wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole (e.g. [5], [6]), but Boyle and the Daily Caller keep pushing them, in service of their partisan aims. This is an author, and a source, with a track record of repeating unsubstantiated smears against political opponents, rather than practicing responsible journalism. Now you want to use this "reliable" source to smear a non-notable private individual, or to claim some sort of nebulous conspiratorial malfeasance which more reputable news sources have somehow failed to find noteworthy? Please let me know when you take this to WP:RS/N. MastCell ^Talk 04:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ive asked you before, exactly who is being smeared? The text I'm talking about mentions no individuals whatsoever except for the congressperson who mentions starting an investigation. Ordinarily I'd be inclined to be wary of partisan sources, but a FOIA document dump whose content has been corroborated as the focus shouldn't be an issue.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I answered that question in a previous post in this thread, but I'll answer it again: the source targets Tracey Schmaler, a spokesperson for DoJ whom the Daily Caller accuses of seeking sympathetic coverage from Media Matters. You've proposed removing the person's name while retaining the unreliable source which accuses her. That may satisfy the letter of WP:BLP, but it utterly disregards the policy's meaning.

Leaving aside BLP, I think any serious editor would see red flags shooting up here. You have a contentious accusation which is found only in partisan media and which has zero weight in reputable non-partisan media. The source pushing this material has a history of very dubious journalistic practices in pursuit of its ideological aims. I understand why RCLC is pushing this - it's in keeping with his entire record as an editor. But I'm not quite clear why you think this material deserves to be featured in a serious encyclopedia article despite having zero weight in reputable independent sources, and why you're unwilling to wait to see whether this "scandal" generates any mention in reputable non-partisan sources before including it here. MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Like it or not, Foxnews is a reliable source which corroborates TDC and they state they have seen the published emails and specifically they state: Emails from late 2010 also reportedly showed Schmaler sending Media Matters information to help challenge claims that the department dealt lightly with New Black Panther members who allegedly intimidated voters in Philadelphia in 2008. Are we not to take Fox's interpretation at face value? Or are they too "partisan" as well?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fox News does not corroborate the Daily Caller story, it merely reports their analysis.[7] (The term reportedly makes that explicit.) Hence we still need to establish that the Daily Caller story has sufficient weight to be included. Nothing in the article btw mentions the New Black Panthers, which is the subject of the article, and is therefore off-topic. TFD (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that The Blaze, and was reported by Fox News has covered the cooberation between the DoJ and MMfA, and it has provided a link to the emails which were released in the FOIA, which has been watermarked by the Daily Caller. Therefore, Fox News corroborated the report from the Daily Caller. Again, I don't like it is not a reason for exclusion. The wording by LGR removes any BLP issues IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to come to an agreement anytime soon. I've already drafted a RSN post and will notify everyone here after I post. Regarding BLP, even though the text doesn't specfically mention Schmaler by name, IMO it wouldn't be a BLP issue if we did. Is it contentious that a director of public affiars for the DOJ had communications with a media outlet in order to influence perspective? That is after all the purpose of public affairs.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The Blaze is another garbage news source that does not meet rs. Fox News did not report anything they merely Do you ever read real news sources? And what does any of this have to do with the New Black Panthers? TFD (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with TFD's opinion on The Blaze. Additionally, please see WP:AVOIDYOU (what news sources I read are my own business and have absolutely no impact on this discussion).

As I said before, I cannot answer why other news organizations did not report on the documents the Daily Caller received using a FOIA request, what I can show is that the original documents show that the event did occur, that secondary sources did report what the documents stated. I could opine why they might not have wanted to report on the findings unearthed by the Daily Caller in the month leading to the general election, but this is not a forum.

This does have impact on the subject of the article as it shows how the DoJ was attempting to manipulate the media's coverage of the subject. It could also be said that this content could also have a small section at the MMfA article as well.

Again, there are no BLP issues here, and the content should be restored.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see anything in these sources about the New Black Panthers, the subject of the article. As for my comment on sources, if one wants to edit articles in a neutral, factual manner, one should use reliable mainstream sources, not Glenn Beck's writings. The problem is not what people like him believe, but that their facts are often wrong and their interpretations are ignored in mainstream sources, including writings by conservative academics. TFD (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I for one have read the cited sources, and the NBPP was mentioned in all of them, so I'm not sure why you claim otherwise.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not like to spend a lot of time reading the echo chamber because it makes me feel like throwing up. The first source presented by RightCowlLeftCoast, from the Daily Caller, "Emails reveal Justice Dept. regularly enlists Media Matters to spin press"[8] does not mention the New Black Panthers at all. So that I do not have to vomit by reading all the sources, could you please provide one that supports your view. TFD (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Commenting on the content (or possible lack thereof) of sources in an authoritative manner without having actually read the source is unhelpful to say the least. It appears you are prejudiced against the sources already, and for some reason I doubt that will change. But in the interest of your digestive system, the first two sources at the top of this section will suffice.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to present a source. The source presented by RightCowlLeftCoast does not mention the New Black Panthers. Please do not expect editors to read through twenty sources to find one that is relevant. If you provide a source, I will keep my nausea in check. TFD (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It actually does:

Emails sent in September and November 2010 show Schmaler working with Media Matters staffer Jeremy Holden on attacking news coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation scandal.

— Daily Caller

It actually goes on to repeat the word "New Black Panther" an additional 4 times in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

RSN

little green rosetta has begun a discussion thread on this article at Wikipedia:RSN#New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. TFD (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. I thought I did earlier, but it must have been lost during an edit conflict.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. TFD (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Blaze

Gamaliel removed a reference from the Blaze. I'm not one to crap on a source because they have an obvious bias, but in this case I think it is best we not use this source for now, even though it corroborates the FoxNews source that cites the same information. While TB appears to have some editorial oversight, the author of the article, Jason Howerton has no credentials of a trained journalist that I can discern.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine, with it. Although my opinion The Blaze generally is towards it being an RS, I can understand the concern regarding the author. Plus I provided as many sources as possible.

I am more concern about the wide removal of content, I can understand it per WP:BLPPRIMARY, but did the removing editor look for other reliable sources to replace the sources used? I know that the burden is on the adding editor, but given the contention of this article, if I were to go through all the content in one day that was removed and add reliable sources, I maybe slapped with edit warring or three reversions.

Therefore, it would be something that has to be restored (if possible) over time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of source

Thread retitled from "Removal of an RS".

@Malik Shabazz:,
How is a book published by Simon and Schuster not an rs? The publisher meets WP:IRS, and although the book may have it's own POV, thus making the book fall under WP:BIASED, that does not stop it from being a reliable source; especially considering that all sources have ingrain POVs. The new source changed zero content and further verifies what was already stated in Wikipedia voice content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BIASED carefully, and explain how a book titled Blacklash: How Obama and the Left Are Driving Americans to the Government Plantation is "the best possible source[] for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" or "reliable in the specific context". As you seem to acknowledge, the "source" added nothing to this article and its absence subtracts nothing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see Biased again, the reliable source does as the guideline states, "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.", as it is published by the reputable publisher Simon and Schuster. Now, other sources, with different POVs could be used to further verify the content, but that does not mean that this reliable source cannot or should not be used. By removing the source and calling it not reliable it exerts the bias of the editor removing it, even though that editor may believe it is in the best interest of the article. If one reads the source one will find that it does summarize the subject of this article well, with neutral language:

The DOJ refused to bring charges of voter intimidation against the organization even with video evidence of New Black Panther members intimidating white voters at polling locations. The DOJ under Attorney General Eric Holder settled the voter intimidation case with an injunction against only one of three members of the organization.

Therefore, usage of this reliable source further verifies the content of the article, and is just as reliable as the Washington Times reliable source presently used. There is nothing wrong with providing multiple reliable sources to verify content. It can be done in a non-intrusive way using WP:CITEBUNDLE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that the horrendous incident regarding the NBPP and the Holder/Obama/Democratic Party collusion and response should be included in as much detail as possible provided sources are reliable. Quis separabit? 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, repeatedly referring to Blacklash as a reliable source doesn't make it so. And your notion that the polemic's author writes in neutral language only confirms the strength of your own biases. If you're convinced that Blacklash is a reliable source, take it to WP:RS/N. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:AVOIDYOU.

So then should all books published by Simon and Schuster be considered non-reliable? Or is it cause there is an objection to the author? Is there a litmus test on what authors are acceptable or not acceptable on Wikipedia? Just saying a source is not a reliable source doesn't make it so.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

See Pot, meet kettle. And WP:RS/N is that way. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Simon and Schuster is a commercial and not an academic publisher. That does not necessarily mean their books are unreliable, but it means that it cannot be assumed to have undergone thorough fact checking and/or peer review assure that contents are factual or have scientific credibility. It also means that they can be assumed to publish books that are primarily expressing the personal viewpoint of the author. This combination obviously means that whether any given book published by Simon and Schuster is a reliable source or not can only be judged in the context of a specific book and a specific claim. This given book is clearly an opinion piece expressing a political opinion, it therefore cannot be used as a source for providing a neutral or objective summary of opposing opinions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So the summary of the author, Deneen Borelli, is not reliable because the writer is not an academic, or because the publisher isn't a university publisher? Does that not lead to a bias against non-college/university reliable sources, thus ingraining a POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone advocating the use of a book with a title like that as a reliable source really needs to rethink the reasons they are on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: That is literally judging a book by its cover, not its content. Quis separabit? 01:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

As a librarian I have years of professional experience evaluating books. In that experience, I have found that such a polemical title is almost never an indication of a reliable, quality source. This evening, I have used the same methods and resources that we do to evaluate books professionally to look at this book. First of all, it is not from Simon & Schuster, but Threshold Books, an S&S imprint consisting of low-quality polemical works by authors such as Glenn Beck that are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. I examined the professional literature for book reviews in publications like Publisher's Weekly, Choice, Booklist, and Kirkus Reviews, which are a primary means with which librarians evaluate books. I found no reviews at all, which is generally considered a big red flag for a non-specialty item from a major publisher. I also looked at the author's background and could find no evidence of any professional or academic credentials which would indicate that she had the necessary expertise for this work to be considered a reliable source. So we have an unreviewed book by an obscure activist from an imprint of polemical works, all of which strongly indicate that this should not be considered a reliable source. In my professional opinion this is a clearly inadequate book to be a reliable source and anyone who advocates using it as such really needs to consider if they are committed to the core values of Wikipedia like NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA & Shooting the messenger.

-sigh-

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, the opinion above, gives undue weight to academic reliable sources, and discounts other reliable sources, and also gives undue weight to sources preferred by librarians. Everyone is free to have an opinion, I just disagree with the opinion stated above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives "undue weight" to academic reliable sources. Wikipedia:Five pillars: " All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources". To advocate otherwise is not consistent with the core values of Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I became aware of this discussion because of a message that RightCowLeftCoast left at WT:WikiProject Conservatism. I agree with the edit removing the citation. The source may be a reliable source for opinions, but not for statements of fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Likewise coming here through a notice posted at WT:RIGHT. I agree with MalikShabazz, Gamaliel, Tryptofish, and the others who have pointed out that this is a poor-quality, non-encyclopedic source. It may have some marginal value as an illustration of a hyperpartisan, polemical viewpoint on the subject, but even then its use would be questionable. Responsible editors should be looking for better-quality sources, not trying to shoehorn this one into the article. I share the concerns raised by others about the judgement and competence of editors who believe this to be a serious, reliable encyclopedic source (as it's nowhere near a gray area), but those concerns are best addressed elsewhere. MastCell ^Talk 12:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, WT:RIGHT was not the only wikipedia project which I notified. The indirect accusations against myself,The above, appear to show poor faith, and not good faith of all those who are attempting to abide by the pillar WP:NEU and who are non-liberal. I am sure there are editors who would like non-liberal editors to be banned from Wikipedia, I hope that is not the case here; as if it is, it only furthers the point of those who are critical of Wikipedia as being partisan.

The quote in Gamaliel reply is not my full statement, and takes it out of context, IMHO. Other reliable sources other than academic reliable sources, should be given weight and considered as usable. Not that academic reliable sources should be the only reliable sources used, but non-academic reliable sources should not be discounted either.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The canvassing policy is not satisfied by making a good notification to cancel out a dubious one. In your edit here: [9], you made that strikeout as part of a single edit, so this is not a case of making a comment and then subsequently redacting or revising part of it. "I am sure there are editors who would like non-liberal editors to be banned from Wikipedia" sounds like more than an "indirect" accusation. Me, what I'm interested in is NPOV and RS, and I never said anything about a ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Last I checked Wikiproject Conservatism supports this article, and is a valid Wikiproject. Therefore the appropriate notification there and Wikiproject United States should not be considered dubious. I can state my personal opinion, as freely as others can (and have). Others have stated above that editors shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Either way, that is not the topic here.

My point is that non-academic reliable sources, should not be given less weight than academic reliable sources or librarian preferred reliable sources. And discounting it because of possible POV of the source is IMHO a poor reason not to use a source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate forum to argue for a major policy change. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Scott Hennen

@Malik Shabazz: Inquiry. Where in the reliable source provided does it say that Scott Hennen is a "conservative radio host"? I see you added that in the attribution. I understand teh reasoning behind the attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. However, I don't want to edit war over this, so I am pinging Malik Shabazz here; but unless it is stated in the reference, why include the label?
Where is in this article are individuals referred to as conservative or liberal? Only once when referring to Andrew C. McCarthy, who is described as "other conservatives such as federal prosecutor". No where in the article is an individual specifically referred to as a liberal. Why the double standard?
No where in the article about Abigail Thernstrom does it refer to her as a conservative, so how can McCarthy be referred to as a one of the "other conservatives"?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Scott Hennen is too obscure for a Wikipedia article of his own so I went to his website, where he is described as

Chairman of the Common Sense Club, a daily Tea Party townhall gathering of listeners and on-line viewers who want to help restore our Republic. Join the legions of Freedom loving, Constitution worshiping, God-fearing people that are letting their voices be heard.

For a translation into plain English, I tried the "About this book" link at the Google Books link in the footnote, which says

Scott Hennen—host and founder of the innovative Common Sense Club radio program—shows how everyday Americans just like you are making a difference for our country’s future.

In neutral language, I think he's best described as a "conservative radio host". Unless you insist on attributing this "Tea Party townhall Chairman"'s opinion to "a book"?

Regarding the rest of your message, please take it up with somebody who wrote the article (i.e., not me). If you add polemics as sources, you can't object when their authors are identified by their political slants. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: it would be better to remove all descriptors to those who are the attributed sources of POV. To label Scott Hennen, and to only label conservatives (as is presently the case), showed a bias which creates a non-neutral POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you that people shouldn't be labeled; that's why we have Wikilinks. But I think it does a disservice to readers to say "According to Scott Hennen" when there is no Wikipedia article to link to. It raises questions like "Who is Scott Hennen and why should I care what he has to say?" With respect to other people labeled as conservative, I think there's only one: Andrew C. McCarthy, who is included among "other conservatives" who criticized Abigail Thernstrom's views. If you don't think it's important to describe her critics as conservative, I think you may be missing the point. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please explain to me what the point of labeling Andrew C. McCarthy is. Especially when Abigail Thernstrom is not labelled as conservative, either here or in this article. Why label only conservatives? Labeling only conservatives violates WP:NEU.

Also, since people are looking at this article on the internet, if they are interested in who Scott Hennen is, they can look that up on the internet as well. Same goes with the co-author, or anyone else whose opinion is attributed. Again, to label only conservatives violates NEU and creates an unbalanced presentation of different POVs. It is not like certain organizations are labelled liberal in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The point of saying Hennon is conservative is that only the conservative media deemed it a notably story, the mainstream ignored it. Hennon btw is described as conservative in the Grand Forks Herald.[10] I see nothing wrong when reporting someone's opinion to state either implicitly or explicitly their general views.

I think another problem is that some editors see an equivalency between mainstream and conservative views. There is no equivalency between conservative media and Newsweek, aka the left-wing liberal media.

TFD (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is denying the POV of Hennon, what is at issue is that only conservatives are labelled. If only conservatives are labelled it presents a non-neutral presentation of teh subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

We mention people's ideology when it is relevant. We do not for example say that a scientist who denies the world is flat is a liberal, TFD (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is relevant that someone is a conservative, than it is equally relevant that someone is a liberal. It should not be the case that only one political opinion label is included and not the other when used to describe individuals. Otherwise it violates WP:NEU, and would be the same as using scare quotes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

In this case the mainstream decided the story was boring, while a tiny fringe of "conservatives" found it important. You want us to provide parity between what the extreme Right says and what mainstream sources say. TFD (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a question of WP:WEIGHT, given that the subject has received coverage in certain reliable sources and not others, the weight of those reliable sources that give significant coverage to the subject should be given more weight.

We cannot give weight where no reliable source exists.

This sidesteps the only labeling conservatives issue which is the primary concern I have. As it is bias by labeling.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Conservative?

Thread retitled from "WP:BURDEN is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT".

WP:BURDEN says:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. [Footnote: Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.]

RightCowLeftCoast, if you don't believe I have provided sufficient documentation that Scott Hennen is a conservative radio host, the burden has shifted to you to "articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia". If you don't think the article is neutral, WP:NPOV/N is that way. Deleting it is not the solution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please Malik Shabazz, do not accuse me of something I did not state. This is about lack of verification in the article page itself of those labelled as conservative. The previous only labeling of conservatives is a separate matter. verification was not met in the article; therefore the label was removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Come now. Neither of us is so stupid as to believe you honestly dispute that Hennen is a conservative radio host, that Thernstrom is considered a conservative, or that Thernstrom's view of the NBPP "case" has been criticized by her fellow conservatives. You wrote above that you want to rid the article of the label "conservative", and your edit shows you don't care how nonsensical the article is after you rip it out. The only reason we have this article at all is because conservatives have made a mountain of a molehill, and your attempt to make a bigger mountain of it by portraying it as a nonpartisan outrage is indeed outrageous. Please, please, take the matter to WP:NPOV/N and begone when they laugh away your complaint. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The re-addition of content without providing reliable source(s) to verify it is in opposition to WP:VER.

Stating "begone when they laugh away your complaint" shows bad faith.

The article would read just as well without the labels as with the labels. As there are no reliable sources to verify in the article that the individuals are as labelled, as per the insistence of Malik Shabazz, then it is appropriate to ask for reliable source(s) in the article. Providing sources here in the talk page (for only Hennen) does not verify the content for the readers who are not interested in going to the talk page or not interested in editing Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added a citation to an article from Politico: "A conservative dismisses right-wing Black Panther 'fantasies'". Gamaliel (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt Gamaliel. I have marked it as having failed verification; source does not mention Andrew McCarthy anywhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The citation has nothing to do with McCarthy, as I placed it before his name. It is to substantiate that Thernstrom is conservative and that other conservatives took issue with her approach. Thus I have removed your tag. Also, McCarthy's article now has three citations attesting to the fact that he is a conservative commentator. Gamaliel (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources naming Thernstrom as a conservative. Her article states she is a republican; not all republicans are conservatives. I do not want to get into an edit war, but the source does not verify that Thernstrom is a a conservative, it does verify that "other conservatives", whomever they are, criticized Thernstrom.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you blind man? The Politico article, which is about Thernstrom, is titled "A conservative dismisses right-wing Black Panther 'fantasies'". The first sentence says "Abigail Thernstrom has a reputation as a tough conservative critic of affirmative action and politically correct positions on race." The fourth paragraph starts with Thernstrom saying "My fellow conservatives on the commission". But no, you're right; no reliable sources name Thernstrom as a conservative. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, McCarthy's bio has three sources that identify him as a conservative. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been informed in the past that the headline of an article is not to be considered for statements of fact. I guess I was told wrong. Also per BLP, extraordinary claims require multiple reliable sources. I see that many left-leaning sources refer to Thernstrom as conservative (such as the NYT, Media Matters, Salon), but I am not seeing many conservative sources referring to Thernstrom as a conservative.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Also please keep calm; "you blind man", can be seen as a sign of incivility. Thanks for formatting the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: Please explain your bizarre assertion in your edit summary that "this article does not state that Thernstrom is a conservative". It clearly does, as demonstrated by Malik Shabazz above. Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This article does not state that Thernstrom is a conservative. One source used in this article states that Thernstrom is a conservative, but this article does not (or did not when I made that edit).

This again sidesteps the issue that we are continuing to practice in this article bias by labeling; that only conservatives are being labelled as such.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the article does state that Thernstrom is conservative, and even quotes her as saying that she is. Disputing the obvious is not an appropriate way to fight this other issue that you are annoyed about, it is simply disrupting this article to make a point. Gamaliel (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please excuse me. However, I am not seeing where in this article where Thernstrom is stated to be a conservative.

Also please see WP:AGF accusing me o WP:POINTY fails to do so.

This is a content and verification question.

The WP:BURDEN of the finding reliable sources that say that Thernstrom is a conservative is on the editor who adds the content. Therefore the burden lies with the editor who made this edit. At present Thernstrom is not referred to as a conservative in this article. "other conservatives" makes the assumption that Thernstrom is a conservative, something not verified.

It should go Thernstrom is a conservative. (references) "other conservatives" criticized Thernstrom.(politico source)

Please provide the sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The source has already been provided. WP:POINT is the most charitable explanation that I can find for you continuing to insist the source does not say what it clearly says. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Per BLP, as I understand it, extraordinary claims require multiple reliable source references. This is not done. Please provide multiple reliable sources that state that Thernstrom is a conservative. I do not see Thernstrom referred to as a conservative here or in the individuals biography article.

Moreover, this still sidesteps the neutrality issue that only conservatives are being labeled, which shows bias by labeling.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not an extraordinary claim. It is a perfectly ordinary claim, and that claim has been sourced in her own words from a reliable source, a source that is used regularly in articles about US politics. (I also note that her own article refers to her as a Republican, sourced to her official bio, so the claim that she is conservative is anything but extraordinary.) If you want to discuss this other issue, then start a section and discuss it, but don't disrupt this article by claiming that this ordinary fact is not well-sourced. This is a discussion about sourcing and should not be used as a proxy battle for what you really want to argue about. Gamaliel (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

An individual being a member of the Republican party does not automatically make them a conservative, just like being a member of the Democratic party does not automatically make an individual a liberal. Or are we advocating stereotyping on Wikipedia?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

When did you stop beating your wife? Gamaliel (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Will Gamaliel concede that being a member of the Republican Party does not automatically make an individual a conservative?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Will Gamaliel concede that being a member of the Democratic Party does not automatically make an individual a liberal?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point, you're embarrassing yourself and irritating everyone else. Thernstrom is a conservative; she is described as such both by reliable third-party sources and by her own work. These sources, and others, have been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you refuse to acknowledge their existence. At this point, it's not clear to me whether your behavior stems from a competence issue or from ideologically motivated stonewalling, but regardless it is inappropriate and needs to stop. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

For an individual who holds he mop, the above display of incivility is appalling.

Presently only two individuals are labelled in this article based on ideology. Both are conservatives. This shows a bias in labeling. No one has argued that is not the case. "other conservatives" are not clarified in this article. Who are they? Thernstrom is a member of the Republican Party. Within the body of the National Review source, Thernstrom does not refer to herself as a conservative. It is only in the article title. The Politico source is a single claim not well spelled out in the article itself. Thernstrom's section mentions "other conservatives" without quantifying that Thernstrom is a conservative herself. The burden of included the content is on the individuals who added it. When re-added, no reliable sources were provided, failing WP:VER. I am not going to disparage individuals as the admin above has done, that shows bad faith and incivility.

Wikipedia is suppose to present content neutrally, it is a pillar. As a single editor I cannot change bias presentation of an article if local consensus is to portray the article in a bias matter. Gooday.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we have very different definitions of incivility. You refuse to listen to anyone else, ignore others' comments, disregard sources, and repeat the same arguments endlessly even after they've been shown to be incorrect. That behavior wastes everyone's time and disrespects other editors, and it's deeply uncivil. Everyone else on this talkpage has told you as much, with varying degrees of directness. I'm trying to find language that will actually get through to you and change your uncivil behavior into something more collaborative and collegial. The good-faith explanation for your behavior is a lack of competence. Less charitable explanations would include partisan tendentious editing or worse. Because this is not the first time I've seen you misrepresent sources in a partisan manner or stonewall against well-sourced content, it is hard for me to continue to assume good faith.

I don't think you've convinced anyone else with your complaints of bias, and likewise I think everyone else agrees that the descriptors used in the article are well-sourced and uncontroversial. You can seek additional input via the usual mechanisms, try a different set of arguments, or accept the current consensus. I would strongly discourage you from simply repeating the same unconvincing arguments, and from continued edit-warring and disruptive misuse of tagging. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

We indeed have sources that say the mainstream provided little weight to the story. To reply to your previous comment, we do should mention that commentators are liberals when it is relevant, such as disputes over same sex marriage, the death penalty, abortion or whatever is the wedge issue du jour. More frequently we will mention what type of liberal or conservative they are, e.g., blue dog Democrat or progressive. But I think the conservative media are blowing this out of proportion. TheyThe New Black Panthers are a hate group exercising their protected right of free speech, no different from the Westboro Baptist Church. Their anti-social actions no doubt would not be allowed in any other country. But do the rise to the level of voter suppression such that there would be a reasonable likelihood of conviction? Legal experts say no and base their opinion on their legal training rather than their political beliefs. TFD (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Equating conservative media to a hate group is the opinion of the above editor, and should not play a role as to how we edit here on Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was comparing the New Black Panthers with the Westboro Church - both are considered hate groups by the SPLC. I did not mean to imply that conservative media are a hate group, and have clarified that. TFD (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see.

I don't believe that anyone is saying that The New Black Panthers were not there. However, there was a civil case brought before them, and a default judgement rendered due to failure to appear. This is covered by reliable sources. It is also covered by reliable sources that under the then-new Obama Administration, decided to drop the case. I believe we can agree on those facts?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue is whether the Obama administration was wrong not to prosecute them. The fact is that there was no likelihood of conviction and a conviction would require a change in the attitude of the Supreme Court. No reasonable legal expert has complained about the Justice Department's lack of action. Perhaps you think they should have spent millions and millions of dollars prosecuting three obscure people, only to lose a landmark decision, if the Supreme Court had decided to hear the case. But no reliable sources agree with you. TFD (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't state opinion as fact. Please do not attempt to state my opinion. My opinion, the opinion of TFD, matters not. I did not state anything in my last post that is not factual, or not already in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought your issue was that the government should have prosecuted them. If not, we can close this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What the opinion of the editors of this subject should not matter. So whether the government should or should not have prosecute, what our personal opinions of the subject, does not matter.

The issue is whether content is verified in this specific article, not online, not in another Wikipedia article, but this article. The issue is that only conservatives are labelled, Hennon without reliable sources. It's a WP:VER & a WP:NEU question.

It is not our job as editors to describe group A or B as being in the right or wrong, but state what the sources we find say in a neutral manner. I am of the view point that only labeling conservatives is not being neutral. I am of the view point that including content not verified in this specific article does not meet WP:VER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If the issue of whether or not they should have been prosecuted does not matter, why are we talking about it? TFD (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about it cause there is a neutrality issue.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of tag

The removal of a tag, notifying readers of an ongoing, and active discussion, was improper.
I refuse to be drawn into an edit war over this. The individual, Thernstrom, is not identified by multiple reliable sources in this article as a conservative. The individual is not identified in their article by multiple reliable sources as a conservative.
There is a verification that conservatives criticized the actions of Thernstrom. But this article does not mention who those conservatives in the Politico source are, just gives "other conservatives", without verifying the extraordinary claim that Thernstrom is a conservative.
Therefore, it is proper to tag to notify readers of the ongoing discussion, and a Template:Who tag would be proper as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You say you won't be drawn into an edit war, and yet you're the one who keeps edit-warring over it. Curious.

You describe the assertion that Thernstrom is a conservative as an extraordinary claim, when she identifies herself that way in the source. Even more curious.

It seems to me that somebody here is unable or unwilling to get the point. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thernstrom most certainly is conservative and it is not an extraordinary claim. TFD (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

And what is the point of not wanting to improve the article Mshabazz?

The issue is that only conservatives are labeled in this article, creating bias in labeling.

Am I wrong?

The point is Thernstrom is only identified as a member of the Republican party in their Wikipedia article, and no secondary or tertiary sources (multiple preferred) in this article identify the subject as being a conservative. I can identify myself as a tree, that doesn't make it true.

Moreover, the sentence that we're discussing is WP:SYNTH. The Politico article, does not appear to mention the individual mentioned later in the sentence, which is verified by another source. I tried to modify it in the past so it wasn't a snythesized sentence, but was reverted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We mention they are conservatives because prosecution was a conservative issue. I imagine if there were a similar issue taken up by liberals, we would mention that too. TFD (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

12 September 2015

Thread retitled from "Nice....".

So I recently thought to point out on this talk page that for all the news "coverage" of this incident, nobody thought to ask those New Black Panther members why were they there -- which is true: go check all those links on the main article to see for yourself. Also that same "coverage" likewise failed to note how that particular section of Philadelphia had a prior history of widespread intimidation of Black voters, the most bizarre being this: Salon - Voter Terrorism. (And just in case someone wants to blow off a Salon link, that incident was also described more officially here) And again, all I did was point this out on this talk page.

However, this was quickly removed by a, umm...., let's all him a "Guardian of Truthiness," and he left this, umm..., let's say "not entirely accurate" post on my non-existant home page:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You might note that my edit and its removal doesn't even show up now in this page's history. This is a reminder of why all Wikipedia articles even touching upon "controversial" topics are so toxic to anyone even simply just wanting to point out issues, however pertinent, on the article's Talk page. As the header says, nice.... -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, your edit does show up in the article's history, and it was removed because we do not allow personal commentary in encyclopedia articles. Do you have suggested edit that incorporates this material in an appropriate way? Gamaliel (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

?! That original posting was intended for the Talk page, and not the article page. I have no idea what happened. I was bouncing between pages to check references, but....I still don't see how I would end up posting to the article page. Sorry for the screw-up if it was my fault, but...truth is that a section close to what I had inadvertently posted would have made the article far more informative, and that the response I got was still obnoxious and unhelpful. The above post contains my basic points: the news coverage on this was pretty awful, especially in missing basics like interviews with the main parties involved, the two New Black Panther Party members at the polling station, and context, as in how that area of Philly had prior, much more serious issues of voter intimidation targeting Black voters. Also you would think that a small army of black vans driven by white guys pretending to be election officials in order to intimidate and misinform Black voters in a Black neighborhood would get slightly more press coverage than a couple of Black guys mysteriously standing in front of a polling station serving mostly Black voters, but no. Look at the date of the Salon article -- that came nearly a year after the business with the fake election officials, and there is little other mention of it outside of that NAACP/PFAW report, which also appears a year later. With the decline in journalism and Wikipedia's very loose definition of a "reliable source," any editors with non-encyclopedic agendas can manipulate Wikipedia articles on "controversies" by simply picking from a plethora of very badly researched, but still technically "reliable" sources to justify their edits.

In any case, if you genuinely want to improve the article, well.... just add a reference to the troubled history of that area in regards to intimidation and dirty tricks involving Black voters. It would be original research to explicitly state that this may have been a reason for the presence of the New Black Panthers members at the polling station, but it would be helpful to provide some needed context by mentioning past voting issues in that area. As far as there being apparently no interviews with the involved NBP members, it's really a Wikipedia judgement call as to whether pointing out how there were no interviews is original research. And that's pretty much all I have to say and wanted to say. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The best way to insure the improvements you want show up in the article are to add them yourself. If you have any questions about editing I'll be glad to answer them. Gamaliel (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I am a latecomer and have had no role on this talkpage discussion but People for the American Way is a hyperpartisan interest group and lobby, and is no more "official" than Salon.com, which is just a much snarkier version of PFAW. Quis separabit? 17:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I just did a Google search for intimidation of African-American voters in Philadelphia using slightly different wordings, including the name Katz (the name of the purported evil Republican malefactor of the piece) and I cannot even find a corroborating genuine or reliable source (i.e. non-Salon, non-PFAW) for the entire story. Again, it refers to 2003 but there still should be something. Of course, what does pop up in any amalgamation of Philadelphia and voter intimidation (what Salon & PFAW allege from a hapless Republican candidate -- one of whose campaign offices was attacked with an "unlit Molotov cocktail") is the New Black Panther Party story, which should never fade from the public consciousness notwithstanding its irritant quality to a large segment of American society. Quis separabit? 17:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've had nothing headaches dealing with Wikipedia articles on "controversial" issues thanks to right wing/libertarian editors and their armies of sock puppets. That may seem like a bad faith characterization, but....just look above at the response by "Quis separabit?" -- he's likely about as much "a latecomer and have had no role on this talkpage discussion" as I am a talking dog. He attacks the NAACP report by labeling the co-authors, "People for the American Way" as a "hyperpartisan interest group" and then posts a lot of rambling nonsense. And especially note how he/it completely ignores the NAACP's involvement in the report. Would it have helped if I had posted this version on Fairvote.org? Or this 2004 NY Times article that mentions upcoming GOP plans at voter suppression -- aka "challenging" -- in that same area of Philly? Probably not and chances are that if I even attempt to start a discussion to include my points on the main page, "people" like him would just swarm in to edit war things to a standstill. And I speak from eye-rolling experience.

My probable brainfart in posting to the wrong page aside, all I wanted to do was point out that this is yet another bad, misinformative Wikipedia article due to its reliance on bad, poorly researched (if researched at all) news reports. Go back to the original video that started this mess: the "media" people pretend they are walking into a threatening situation, even though you just see the normal polling station stuff aside from the two New Black Panthers: people hanging around, mostly white, some on their phones, including one dude in particular who looks very much like a GOP poll "monitor," one older black man chilling, and one black woman walking away like she just voted. Yet this magically became a huge controversy because....the media and the GOP love a good controversy (although for different reasons) even fake ones, perhaps? Actually, looking at that video more carefully, if I had to take an educated guess on what really happened, given the sorry history of voter intimidation by Republicans in that area, those New Black Panthers were there to intimidate those GOP poll "monitors" from getting too aggressive in "challenging" the credentials of black voters. But I'm just a random Internet guy, so what do I know? Whatever, this is really all non-Wikipedic stuff by the rules, so I'll leave things at that. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Other editors are going to have different points of view, that's just how Wikipedia works. Your voice is just as valid as his here. Gamaliel (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120517032048/http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/bio/ to http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What did they do?

Reading the article, I was hoping to find an answer to that question. What, exactly, did these guy DO? Stand there and yell at some people? The Department of Justice, Congress, and the President were involved in this. Is there something more to it than that? Because it's hard to believe that that's it. Am I missing something? Carlo (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)