Talk:White student unions

Deletion of contents

Someone has deleted almost the entire contents of the page, whoever this was we do not want to start an edit war, please renter the text and have a discussion on what needs to be removedShannonfraser (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Its the other way round. You make a case here for any disputed text ----Snowded ^TALK 14:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You cannot start a war you will be kicked off of wikipedia, please lets have some dialogue. The white student unions are not all stating they represent schools, they just exist and you do not have evidence for that Shannonfraser (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD, you have been reverted you DISCUSS ----Snowded ^TALK 14:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I started this page to talk about all White student unions whether they are university-affiliated or not, by changing the definition to say that all white student unions are claiming to be university affiliated when they aren't it is simply wrong. If you are removing my definition, please be respectful and remove your own for the time being. I'm thinking we say white student unions are simply unions of white student and not add any other detail until we can come to an agreement. Shannonfraser (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make two different pages, one for unions which are claiming to represent universities and one for white student unions. If you are amiable to that perhaps you can start your own with that verbiage in the title, what do you think?Shannonfraser (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about what's going on here. The article has been hacked to nothing. I removed the WP:QUOTEFARM section that was totally inappropriate, but there should be a section describing what they are per RS - what about The Independent article? Where is the part about how some had to take their Facebook pages down? —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned as well, Snowded removed 90% of the text and I think we need to add back in a lot of information. The sections on the 2015 emergence of facebook pages and the list of student unions in the US, Canada and Austrailia was also removed. What I'm understanding from Snowded is that because the unions were not approved by the universities that they do not actually exist...as if the name being close to the university names is an issue. Legally is is not. What do you suggest we do here, it seems as if he should create his own site on approved unions and we should just write about WSUs in generalShannonfraser (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What we need to do is find reliable sources (newspapers, websites, TV coverage etc) talking about them. We can't use the unions themselves (WP:PRIMARY) or blogs to describe them. I'm not sure why the list of various unions was nearly all removed. We can use primary sources for those IMO - that just confirms they exist. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

please stop hacking this article, the moderators restored it today. you are gong to end up getting kicked off wikipediaShannonfraser (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry who are these 'moderators'? Is that some new class of wikipedia editor? ----Snowded ^TALK 20:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

As i understand it was brought before the neutral point of view board, so please stop removing it, this is becoming an edit war Shannonfraser (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Here are the dispute resolution guidelines It very clearly says not to just delete all text, to discuss your edits and of that fails use moderators. Please reverse your deletions.Shannonfraser (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Snowded:, please stop removing reliably sourced information. I don't have a problem with removing info sourced from Facebook, but you're deleting content from TIME magazine, NY Times, etc. Please help contribute to make the page more balanced, but just mass deleting everything is not helpful. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

nothing was sourced from facebook, is there any way to get the other information back. The added universities from Austrailia were sources from dailymail.uk.co, which is just as reputable as your American sources.Shannonfraser (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion , please stop removing content without discussion. We have already had a moderator restore lost content and we do not want to go through another arbitration process. Regulations state that mass deleting is inappropriate and that we must talk about changes156.34.2.147 (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Aquillion, the majority of the list of universities was approved by the neutral perspective review board. The citations show that the universities protested the pages and labeled them hoaxes because they were not university-sanctioned, not because they do not exist. The assumption was that all universities were responding to apost by Anglin to create them but many have said they were not created in response to this. You will need to add the list back. You also are not able to just delete portions of text. The warning at the top of the page states that thisis prohibited. We can, however, have a dialogue. Please restore your deletions and discuss or I will see arbitration again.Shannonfraser (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Aquillion, please stop this edit war and discuss, you can get kicked off of Wikipedia for this type of warringShannonfraser (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC) The moderators have already merged two pages one on the pages themselves and one on union. They have determined that the unions exist for the purposes of writing about them. You are rehashing an issue which has been thoroughly discussed and resolved and will end up being kicked off wikipedia.Shannonfraser (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

We can discuss it, but your reverts restored several factual inaccuracies and WP:NPOV / WP:TONE / WP:UNDUE issues (and I'll point out, as I said, that "written by a moderator" is certainly not a reason to keep any particular version.) Key problems with your edits include:

• You describe the pages as "without apparent white supremacist leanings", but the sources for that section say that they are a hoax created by a white supremacist website. You can mention that some of the people who run those facebook pages have denied this connection, but numerous sources report Anglin's call to arms as the reason these pages appeared; saying "without apparent white supremacist leanings" is misusing the source (it is in fact saying the exact opposite of what the source says.) It's clear that you disagree with the news articles saying that this is a hoax, and that you feel the sources connecting the pages to Anglin are wrong (and that they should give the anonymous denials more weight) -- but our job is to go by the sources; and the sources overwhelmingly say that they are hoaxes. Therefore, we need to describe the rash of Facebook pages as eg. "generally reported as a hoax originating from white supremacist website; but many of the pages have denied this" (though we also have to mention that the makers of the pages have refused to provide evidence that they're actually students at the schools in question, since it's something the sources for their denials highlighted prominently.) We don't remove or downplay something that the sources have reported as a fact simply because some people have denied it; instead, we cover both the mainstream coverage and the denials.

The moderator and neutrality board described them as without white supremacist leanings, there are both ones with white supremacist leanings and those without, i don't know much about the white supremacist ones and we need to include more about them, I suggest two sections one for WS and one non-WS. Shannonfraser (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC). The white supremacist likely took credit for some or issued a request of followers after the creation of legit ones. It is an assumption to say all group refused to give proof of student status, when they gave interviews some were likely askedShannonfraser (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Likewise, the vast majority of reliable sources that have covered the topic have described them as hoaxes created in response to Anglin's request; we have to go with what the sources say. We can report that people have disagreed with it, but it needs to be central to our coverage of the topic and belongs in the lead, because it is central to its coverage.

There are interviews with some suggesting these are not hoaxes. The way the word hoax is being used is unofficial or not condoned by the universities but the WSU's still exist if they are communicating their mandates. This issue was resolved with moderators. Please read the history first and do not accuse me of my wording since the trajectory of this was determined by the neutrality board. I was also ok with having a separate page for confirmed unions and a separate page for the appearance of the pages and that was turned down Shannonfraser (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many of the paragraphs I removed relied heavily original research -- they bring up many points about eg. the Black Lives Matter movement or statements by random professors that you object to using sources that do not connect them at all to the White Student Unions Facebook pages. We have to rely on what sources say; if they don't mention White Student Unions, then they don't belong here. You can't list a bunch of racially-charged articles and then argue yourself that they're the reason for this; you need sources making that connection directly.

The environment in which these student unions were created is relevant to the understanding of why they exist, again read the history that called for more background information. If you do not start obeying the rules you will be kicked off wikipedia. Мандичка is the moderator and you have to read what he has said below. I think we need to have other people weigh in on the problems you have before you remove my content on background so no one can see it to comment on Shannonfraser (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)By massive blocks of text are you referring to the two paragraphs I salvaged and are under the environment section here for discussion? I hardly think they are as large as you paint themShannonfraser (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many of the others focused extreme WP:UNDUE weight on a few facebook posts. While we can summarize their views, the number of quotes you put in the article raised WP:QUOTEFARM issues. Even when you have someone making the connection I referred to above, devoting multiple paragraphs to detailed quotes from people expressing their broad, sweeping views about racial issues in America is not appropriate for this page. We can devote a sentence or two to saying eg. the people behind the facebook pages have said they're motivated by this and this and this, while other people analyzing the pages have said that and that and that; but this isn't the place for the massive blocks of quotes about racial issues that you added over the last few days.

There are many pages on wikipedia with multiple quotes, you cannot remove text without discussion or simply because you think it is too much, especially when others can no longer see it to agree with me or you. As long as it is cited properly by mainstream news you cannot just remove it.Shannonfraser (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• The list (as I mentioned down below) is a problem because it strips out the nuances in coverage in terms of how most of the listed pages lack credibility -- many of them are described in the sources as crude copy-pastes with no evidence that they were created by students of the schools in question. And, again, we need to go with the sources on this; presenting them in a way that makes them look "official" or real is a violation of WP:NPOV. Even with the disclaimer at the top, the list effectively came across as a list of actual white student unions, when the sources are careful to make clear that these are mostly likely to be just random facebook pages. Most of the stuff I removed was stuff you recently added over the past few days; as such, you're the one who's supposed to get consensus to include it (which I don't see here), rather than just reverting to keep it in place. And you need to provide content-based reasons for your version; "a moderator wrote this" isn't a meaningful objection. And while you said this was discussed, I don't really see significant discussion about most of my concerns on this page. --Aquillion (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The majority of the list has been approved by the neutrality board because the fact that the pages were posted is reflected int he sources. Though the sources call it a hoax, they are referring, if you read the article, to hoax as unofficial or not condoned by the universities. It does not stop the students from setting them up and while some may be dummies, no news article cites proof. All we know is there are lots of quotes by leaders saying that theirs are not. That is precisely why we must leave in the quotes from leaders. Again, this issue has been resolved, read below and learn the rulesShannonfraser (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Aquillion, please make your comments in an appropriate take section, this is getting out of control and the moderators will have to come clean up the page. If you continue not to obey the rules they will kick you off. Please complete a tutorial on how to edit and comment. Return the page to its previous state and sign all of your posts with 4xtilda.Shannonfraser (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Pleas put the above comments into the right sections to keep things tidy.Shannonfraser (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Мандичка, Aquillion has removed 50% of the text. Some important elements include the reasons for forming the WSU's safe spaces for white people and stigmatization and silencing or white people (which is now abridged and I'd like to keep it in at least in this new form), also the environment in which they formed (black lives matter), the academic response quotes from professors (those who condone WSU's and those who don't), and the list of WSUs (they don't have to be listed as universities but use WSU names even if the are similar to the university). The environment is very important here, it is no wonder WSU's have formed with black lives matter and a few professors calling for death to white people or self-genocide to remove the white race, professors making claims unsubstantiated that white people started slavey, and protesters attempting to rename buildings for black panthers and shutting down presidential debates and travel. People are feeling scared and editors on here want to reduce all indication of this.Shannonfraser (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Catch 22, stubborness

I;d like to address the catch 22, that it seems as if someone can just delete material even if it's cited properly and then prevent anyone from putting it back in simply because they don't like the subject or are trying to silence information on a topic. Is that how this works and how do you override someone or multiple people deleting large tracts of information and then just repeating over and over again they don't think it was appropriate? Essentially they get their way and no one can do anything?Shannonfraser (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Restoring this article

It is important per Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guideline that this article be edited in a fair and neutral manner, going by the reliable sources.

Reliable sources

• The New York Times ‘White Student Union’ Groups Set Off Concerns at Campuses
• TIME ‘White Student Union’ Launches at Georgia State University
• Washington Post: More than 30 purported ‘White Student Unions’ pop up across the country
• VICE: White Student Union
• Washington Post: ‘White Student Union’ challenges Black Lives Matter at University of Illinois
• The Independent ‘White student union’ formed to ‘organise against black terrorism’ at University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
• Huffington Post Southern Poverty Law Center Investigates Founder Behind 'White Student Union' in Georgia
• ABC News Facebook Pages Purporting To Represent 'White Student Unions' Spark Backlash On College Campuses
• USA Today White Student Union Facebook pages spread nationwide
• MSNBC University of Illinois condemns ‘white student union’ Facebook page
• Boston Globe Harvard investigating ‘White Student Union’ Facebook page
• Christian Science Monitor 'White Student Union' sites roil more than 30 US college campuses
• Santa Barbara Independent ‘UCSB White Student Union’ Plans Demonstration, Generates Backlash

You don't have to endorse the subject to edit the article fairly. Hacking it down to two lines is not the right way to handle this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I wrote the 2015 White Student Union Emergence article which I think used fairly reliable articles from news and tv stations and the universities themselves, i would love to just put that information into this page but im afraid to change anything like showded will get me ckiccicked off wikipediaShannonfraser (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• The second article is more about an event (based on the title), but we need to centralize it one article. We can always change the title later. What I'm going to do is ask people from the Neutral Point of View message board and for some help in summarizing what's going on, and see if we can help you source this article and get it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. I'll try to help too but I'm slammed today. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Intro

I think it is biased to say that a white student union claims to represent the interests of white students on campus because that is not true of all of them. I am going to try to eliminate any bias in my speech but i expect you to do the sameShannonfraser (talk)

How about this: White Studen Unions are student unions. They may represent many political perspectives and student interests. Shannonfraser (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC) They may or may not be university affiliated.Shannonfraser (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC) What do you think of this? If you take issue, please be specific about why.Shannonfraser (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been reduced to shell article because little or nothing is referenced. It might be a candidate for deletion. To make an definition stick you need a secondary source ----Snowded ^TALK 15:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

given as though there are not readily available definitions, perhaps we have to come to an agreement on this?Shannonfraser (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC). Please offer your suggestionShannonfraser (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What about this: "White Student Unions, like other student unions, represent the interests of their constituents and groups may have varying goals and agendas." is this ok for you Snowded? Shannonfraser (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Is this ok for everyone? I'd like to make a change but people keep reverting itShannonfraser (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless we put in something about why the new Wsu's exist (and not just some of them which are racist but showing that some are more about feeling silenced), we can't say they only claim to represent the interests of whit students on campus, that is biased language. IF we were talking about unions in general we'd say they are intended to represent the voices of their constituents or union members, not suggest they are frauds.142.134.184.36 (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that most reliable sources say that they the new Facebook pages are unconfirmed at best and hoaxes at worst. We can report this as a claim (and say that some of the people behind the Facebook pages have said otherwise), but given the coverage, we can only report specific organizations as if they are real (that is, as if they have an existence outside of a Facebook page, or are run by actual students of that school) when there's a source that specifically says so. Most coverage is very careful to say that these are unconfirmed Facebook pages, and eg. taking something a source describes as an unconfirmed facebook posting and presenting it as "NYU students say this..." or "The leader of an NYU WCU says this..." is original research. We need to stick to what the sources say. (Now, some WCU's might be confirmed, and we can talk about them in that sense. But we have to be extremely cautious with ones that aren't, and only describe them the way the sources do.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The pages say they are hoaxes because the universities did not approve them. The articles talking about them as hoaxes do not generally talk to the members about their mandates but when they do the membrs say their mandates confirming they exist. We cannot pretend they don;t exist because hoax has been defined as unofficial. This argument has been hashed and rehashed. This is why the article which talked about the occurrence of the pages as an incident was removed and the material was combined in with this one which talked about them in the definitive. We can't keep having this argument and making two pages and combining them over and over and over. We are sticking to what sources say, if you'd read them you'd know there are pages that talk to leaders and the majority that say they are hoaxes simply spoke with universities to confirm if they wee university sanctioned. have you read them all?Shannonfraser (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to try and make the intro sound more neutral and to include some understanding that some white student unions have expressed in interviews that they are not white supremacist. Please discussShannonfraser (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

History

Please amend title "White separatist origins", unless you know what each unions stems from you can't say that.Shannonfraser (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

please also cite where you say white student unions stem from those old racist ones you citeShannonfraser (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Please make distinction between WSUs that stem from this line of thought and those that are reactionary toward the social justice movement that sometimes vilifies and shames white people (not sure materials exist on either). Many have nothing to do with that racist crap, they can also be reactions from white students to being told they should be ashamed of anything that looks white. Just because something has the same name doesn't mean its the same thing. Shannonfraser (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Please remove this section and put it in a section for that one racist one you mention. but then we also have to allow sections for other white student unions to write their intentions. not all are the same and do not deserve to be painted with the same brushShannonfraser (talk)

Please also define what you mean by white supremacist, are you referring to KKK like actions where people want an arian race and are willing to be violent to achieve it or are referring to student who want their classmates to stop calling them whities or telling them to wear confederate Halloween costumes because its their supposed culture, yelling at them if they get called reverse racists for said comments, or yelling check your privilege or microaggressions when white student try to disagree with them. these are two very different groups of people. some current student unions are like the ones you mention and others are NOT.Shannonfraser (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

when the second half of the 2015 wsu section was removed so too was the proof that supported the rest of that paragraph. we need to put in the statements from wsu leaders stating what their new wsu's are about, giving voice to people who feel like their views are being invalidated and silenced. Id like you to put the statements by NUY and UCB leaders back in, what do you think?Shannonfraser (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm trying to discuss the history of the White Student Union movement. It did begin with racism years ago, but that died out. The new pages and 2015 movement don't have any apparent ties to racism. I think we should put statements back in - I'm not sure which ones got deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking better, still need to have some more insight on what the new WSUs are after: a voice and safe space against mounting white shaming and reverse racism and claims reverse racism doesn't exist (or redefining racism with the old definition of structural racism).

I am confused on when can someone start adding to an article if there is no response from the talk page on if they can or can't do something? I'll just go ahead and do it and then people can mention if they don't like it?Shannonfraser (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

2014-2015 So far I have included an abridged section which talks about all three issues by WSUs of safe spaces, stigmatization and silencing to show there ware some that are not white supremacist while also leaving your content on white supremacists as well. I did not know that Towson leader was a white supremacist, so thanks for adding. I'd like to work more collaborativly in the future. Please let me know what you think and we can discuss without deleting eachothers content immediatly.Shannonfraser (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I do think we still need to talk about the environment in whcih these unions were formed to give context to why they came about. While some may have been from Anglins people, I do not think they all are. Other countries do not have the same race dynamic that the US has and I do not think, after reading so many articles, that all of them were created from the same spirit.Shannonfraser (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

environment You removed a section on the environment in which the new student unions were formed which speaks to why they may have been formed. I think this is important. Here ar ethe main points I think you need to put back. I am ok wth paring down the text so long as it's essence is not lost.Shannonfraser (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Requests for safe spaces, are also coming about in the midst of Black Lives Matter protests and some WSU leaders, like those at Central Florida University, are claiming that protesters are exhibiting “explicit hostility to white students, faculty, and culture.” Black student protesters at Berkley are demanding a university building be renamed for Black Panther on FBI terror listand Black Lives Matter protesters have been calling for the killing of white people, rioting, interrupting presidential campaign talks,and closing down transportation. Professor Adam Kotsko of ShirmerCollege, has likewise claimed, that white people today are "complicit in slavery" and should "commit suicide." This is a stark reminder of Harvard professor, Noel Ignatiev's, call for white people to commit "cultural genocide" and breed with people of color to eradicate the white race.
• This protest against stigmatization of white people and white culture, comes amidst a number of comments from professors about the white race. Emory University Professor, George Yancy, declared, that white people are inherently racist, University of Memphis professor, Zandria Robinson states, that whiteness is terror and Boston University's Saida Grundy claimed, that white people created intergenerational slavery and that white males are America's problem population.

References

Reaction section

Aquillion, you removed this quote and I think it needs to go back in: “There are black student unions, Asian student unions, but for some reason people react in a very negative way against a white student union. They assume that it is racist, that there’s something inherently wrong with it,” Duchesne said.Shannonfraser (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind your changes where you say the people who established the pages, please don't take this to mean that I think you should change it but it does sound like you are using specific words for a specific reason like you think they aren't students. Technically you are correct, we don't know who made them but it looks like you are trying to prove a point with an article which is intended to be explanatory. It's like your attempting to draw conclusions that people can easily wonder about on their own from the information providedShannonfraser (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC) If an article says the union said X, then we are at liberty to assume the union exists.Shannonfraser (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Aquillion, you added this sentence and it repeats the samei information in the paragraph at the top of this section. "News sources have identified the sudden creation of numerous Facebook pages claiming to represent white student unions as a result of Anglin's call on The Daily Stormer." Please remove duplicate information. Repeating yourself over and over to make a point just makes the ariticle messy.Shannonfraser (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Aquillion, you have made the reaction section to the 2014-2015 WSUs alone, can you please change the name back making it more general in nature or discuss before making changes. Feel free to include reaction to the older WSU's in this section as well. Again you are slowly changing each and every thing in the entire article.Shannonfraser (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

List of unions

perhaps we start by just linking to ones on facebook is that ok, just to get us going? I did not originally link to facebook because i thought that was bad to link there but I know a number of unions on there which are not represented here, may i include them? Shannonfraser (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel that the list at the end is appropriate. Going by most sources (eg. [here]), the majority of these are not actual organizations, just facebook groups created in response to Anglin's call to action in The Daily Stormer. Some people disagree with that assessment, and that's fine (we can cover their disagreement); it's also possible that some of these organizations are comparatively real and unrelated to Anglin, while others are just hoaxes. But listing them all like that feels like it gives them a degree of legitimacy that the sources don't support -- in most cases, the source used for including something on the list described it outright as a hoax. We can quote and describe the views of individual groups (provided we don't give them WP:UNDUE weight relative to the comparatively vast amount of reliable coverage that describes the phenomenon as a hoax originating from the Daily Stormer), but listing all of them equally without those qualifiers strikes me as both WP:UNDUE and a violation of WP:TONE (in that the list implicitly strips away the tone of the original sources, which are almost uniformly dismissive.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Rules state that so long as one cites mainstream news the citations are just fine. They show that the pages existed. We are not trying to prove that they are condoned by the university just that people have created groups and what the mandates are for those which are providing interviews. Some say they are not related Anglin, some may be but you need to have an interview with them to find out. If you have that information please include it. We do not know if Anglin is taking credit here or if he inspired some and if these came after legitimate ones. Shannonfraser (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

But the sources are extremely skeptical, and the list omits that skepticism. For example, they say things like: "As the Western White Student Union Facebook page continues to stir controversy and draw condemnation, there’s increasing evidence that dozens of similar sites at universities in Canada and the United States created in the last week are the work of Internet trolls now sitting back and watching the chaos they’ve caused." And, likewise: "The New York Daily News reports that users on the prankster imageboard 4chan may have been responsible for the faux student groups. An anonymous post on the site Sunday called for users to create “European students union” pages for “the most leftist colleges and universities in the western world.” And, likewise, The Guardian says "Given the rapid speed with which they have emerged, some have questioned whether the groups are really created by students." And it adds: "Some of the recent pages seem more likely than others to be fake. A recent graduate of NYU, who didn’t want to give his name out of fear of online reprisals, said that when he started engaging with posters on the NYU WSU page, he noticed many had online ties to the white supremacist website Stormfront, and were far from New York City, in places like Atlanta and Portland, Maine. “I think that it probably did originate on Stormfront,” he said, “and got picked up by people on 4chan who just get amusement out of riling up ‘social justice warriors’, as they call them.”" What the sources say isn't that they're not endorsed; it's that they were very likely not created by students who go to those colleges at all -- that they're entirely hoaxes from beginning to end. Listing every random unconfirmed Facebook page in an official-looking list like that omits this key context; it doesn't make sense to create a list of every unsubstantiated claim on Facebook, after all. (In fact, as I typed that, I realized that many sources cite 4chan as a likely source for the pages, yet the article doesn't mention that part yet, so I went ahead and added it.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, if things are cited properly you cannot just delete them. Just because something isn't condoned by a university doesn't make it fake. It means a human being created it and the pages have large numbers of followers on facebook. They exist, they cannot be hoaxes if they exist, it's merely who will recognize it. Even the anonymous movement had a facebook page. This is becoming ridiculous and virtually impossible to write about so people understand the point that this movement is making. It does not omit context because that context is written above. This issue has already been dealt with, please read talk page. Again please put text back in, we do not want to be deleting each others information repetitively. If you do not have the text I can do this for you. We can always talk about the white supremacist ones as well, you do not have to paint everyone with the same racist brushShannonfraser (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Aquillion, if you want I am ok with changing the names of schools as they were before, i actually had them listed by the name of their WSU before, what do you think? We need to show which schools had reported WSU's and the page used to say reportedly before you deleted it Shannonfraser (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External references or links

Aquillion, when you touched up the link I think you accidentally removed the text link to the chronicle article which states that the article has a list of the facebook pages. This note needs to be included or people will not know they are there so they can see them for themselves. I left the reformatted and relabeled link as is and put the note after it. Shannonfraser (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality of references

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Linking to facebook to show a union exists, is that ok by you or you consider that a poor reference?Shannonfraser (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Linking to newspaper articles which discuss the union, university reaction etc. is that ok?Shannonfraser (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If these are alright i can add in anything with these types of reference?Shannonfraser (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A newspaper report from other than a tabloid is a reliable source in many cases. Read the policy its all written down and other editors should not have to explain things to you that are readily available ----Snowded ^TALK 17:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your verifying for me, I'm just trying to work collaboratively so as to engender good will and peace between us, I hope you can see my verifications in that spirit. I didn't want to put anything else up until I got your ok on it.Shannonfraser (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Facebook pages can be put up by anyone. So far as I know, student unions need university approval, so the only reliable source might be the university. Doug Weller (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I see the conflict here, you see it as a union only if the university sanctions it? The unions still exists and still have a name which is legal so it seems important to not say they are university unions as your new title suggests but to just say these are unions which have come about. If I put in unions and link them to their facebooks or news paper articles talking about them will you be ok or do you insist they be approved by the college because I think that is overstepping.Shannonfraser (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Facebook pages are not a reliable source. Newspapers may be see (per previous comment WP:RS Please do your home work before making proposals ----Snowded ^TALK 17:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a matter of not doing homework, please do not be condescending. Normally I agree, but this shows the unions exist by going right to the source, their own pages. I am fine not using them so as not to cause an argument, I asked about these sources to make peace with you. As you must know since you've done your homework, the rules are not exactShannonfraser (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page was approved when it was put up, this means that it was at least of similar quality to other pages. To allow some pages and not others of the same quality is biased. I think perhaps we should bring in an arbitrator?Shannonfraser (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I just went to your talk page to add a welcome notice but I see someone else already has. I suggest you spend some time reading that and looking at other articles. It will make your life and that of other editors you work with easy if the you master the basics. Arbitration is something that would only be sought for long running disputes with behaviour issues. It is not for content disputes. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Who approved your page? I don't see the evidence. I see a fairly automatic welcoem. And Snowded is right, arbitration is not appropriate (speaking as an Arbitrator) and it is only used to deal with serious problems of editor conduct. Doug Weller (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

How would I know that, that is was an auto welcome?Shannonfraser (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to start over, I'm sorry i suggested arbitration and was very very wrong about the potential for arbitration here. I would like you to know that I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Let's work together on how we can accurately define this issue and make it a productive Wikipedia page. Shannonfraser (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree Shannonfraser. See my list above of reliable sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And now we have 2015 White Student Union Emergence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An article on this might be worthwhile, but as it is really mainly about Facebook pages I'm not convinced the title is correct, and some of the sources aren't represented adequately. I also don't trust Breitbart.

Note that we've had White Student Union for some time. Doug Weller (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• We can't have this. Article needs to be speedily deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for causing the confusion, I dont mind whichever article title you wish to have 'white student unions' or theother one, i think whote student unions is a good title but im worried that because they werent approved by their institutions like snowded stated that i can't do that, so i wrote about the pages themselves in the other articleShannonfraser (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Don't worry, we'll figure it out. We just need to work on one article first and then we'll decide the title. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue representation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How do we talk about this issue. the White Student Union is one thing that no one can argue with, it exists. The only reason this issue is not being talked about is because people can say the pages weren't approved by the universities but they still exist!Shannonfraser (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Existence versus allegations of existence

Aquillion, you have changed the language through out this article to say 'people who claim they are leaders of these union' etc. We cannot editorializze like this, if an article says a union leader said something we need to go with what the article is saying, they have accepted that a union leader has said it. Please remove the editorializing where articles have mentioned unionleadersShannonfraser (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to be clear in this article that most of these organizations don't really exist and are merely fictional "groups" that only exist as Facebook pages or allegations in other media. Even a cursory glance at the sources confirms this fact. (I am not asserting that online groups are not genuine groups or communities but that many of these are not actual groups but fictional or aspirational organizations with some clearly being reactionary or provocative stunts.) ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There are white student unions and they do exist...think about any time there has been fear of coming out and saying something aloud, people have remained anonymous. Think of the anonymous movement, there was still a Wikipedia page for it even though people didn't use their real names. No one said it didn't exist. There are also somewhere their founders have given interviews. Some even with reputable newspapers. I'd love to include some of these. Then there are a lot of other groups who have given interviews with their schools but Wiki wont allow them as sources. It doesn't mean they don't matter. If you'll let me I'll include anything I can from a mainstream newspaper.Shannonfraser (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Also there was a page about the emergence of these pages but the moderators deemed it was better to treat them as if they existed and merge them with info on older white student unions than to have a page which was more about the pages going up liek an event. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_White_Student_Union_Emergence Shannonfraser (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of the sources, though, describe it as a purely Facebook phenomenon; the majority of the sources in the article are careful to say that all they're describing are a number of unconfirmed Facebook pages from people claiming to be students of the Universities in question. We have to be similarly cautious. Not all of them are hoaxes, perhaps, but when the sources just say "X was posted to an unconfirmed facebook page", we have to use similarly-cautious wording and avoid presenting unconfirmed Facebook pages as definitely representing real-world organizations or actual students. Also, you seem to misunderstand the reason for the deletion of that page; it was deleted under WP:G7 because the author requested it. Either way, content decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus-building rather than by "moderators." --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Most sources in on something can be incorrect especially if they have only defined hoax by whether the universities say it's an approved union or not. We have to go with the sources who actually use quotes from the unions. Just because the anonymous movement was anonymous didn't mean they didn't exist, just because black lives matter is anonymous and not condoned by any specific organization doesnt mean we can just say they are a hoax. Please be respectful and restore content.Shannonfraser (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Moderators and neutrality boards

@Shannonfraser: Wikipedia has no moderators. We do have Administrators such as myself who have access to software tools that we can use for various purposes, including blocking editors, deleting pages, certain types of assistance with page moves, etc. What we don't do is rule on content. Mo one editing this article has had the authority to approve anything, so please don't suggest that. By "neutrality board" I presume you mean the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard and this discussion. It also hasn't approved anything. We do have something called the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. To use that all the parties need to agree and the dispute needs to be presented in a manageable fashion. Note that "This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy." Doug Weller talk 13:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read conversation on the talk board where a moderator or administrator rather , forgive me if I am using incorrect language, sealed up some old conversations and had content approved by the neutrality board. They then rebuilt the page which has been repetitively deleted. you will see when you read the history of the talk pageShannonfraser (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion - Shannonfraser is new obviously and when I closed out the above conversations (we had way too many going about the same thing) she assumed I was a moderator (since she is used to forum discussions). I explained that experienced users sometimes do maintenance type things like that. I had also appealed for help on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard asking for help when this article was first created because I was afraid this article was going to be unfairly attacked based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So that should explain why she was confused. :-) —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much Мандичка for explainingShannonfraser (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)