Talk:David Sanders (biologist)

Removal of updates

A user has twice now removed recent edits I made to expand this article. The current draft ignores the most newsworthy actions taken by the subject and so my edits were intended to address that. All my edits have proper sources and adhered to wikipedia guidelines. If any editors disagree, please add your own additions to my edits but do not remove them and call them "vandalism" for no reason. 2600:1015:B012:6A61:3416:38DE:429B:4153 (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The revision by editor 2600:1015:B05A:B32F:7083:2D04:41D8:DC5  appears to be a

deliberate attempt by a politically motivated operative to insert deceptive, nonneutral

and inflammatory text into a Wikipedia page of a candidate immediately before an

election.

Please find detailed examples below.

“In 2017, Sanders attempted to pass2017, Sanders attempt to pass a resolution

declaring West Lafayette a sanctuary city, or what Sanders called a a a sanctuary

city, or what Sanders called a sanctuary city, or what Sanders called a "machaseh" —

that is, a refuge, for immigrants.”

replaced

“In his role as City Councilor Sanders sponsored a resolution declaring West

Lafayette a "machaseh" — that is, a refuge for immigrants.”

1. It was not an “attempt.” The resolution passed.

2. It did not declare West Lafayette a sanctuary city, which would be illegal in

Indiana. The change in the extensive revision deliberately uses misleading and

inflammatory language.

“That same year Sanders received national attention for accusing pro-life activists of

child pornography because they did not get permission form the fetus before sharing its

naked photograph.”

1. “The article citation is not evidence of “national attention” nor is it even from a

reliable source. It is from a highly biased opinion-based online publication.

2. Sanders did not accuse “pro-life activists of child pornography.” See the video.

He said that if the group that went around showing fetuses believed they were

children, then they should consider showing them child pornography.

3. The debate had nothing to do with Sanders’ role as City Councilor but centered

about what science had to say about when life began—he was invited as a

scientist under what he said were false pretenses.

“Following Indiana's strict abortion law, he attempted to get West Lafayette to use

taxpayer dollars to pay for women to travel out of state for abortions. When that failed,

he said he would donate his salary for anyone who needed an abortion.”

Sanders did not attempt “to get West Lafayette to use taxpayer dollars to pay for women

to travel out of state.” He looked into the possibility of doing so. The attempt did not

then “fail.” He did not say that he would “donate his salary for anyone who needed an

abortion.” Again, the author of the revision does everything to present Sanders in the

worst light from a voter’s standpoint. Here is the relevant excerpt from the minutes

 “Councilor Sanders stated that given recent changes in Indiana law, he has

discussed with people in administration about the possibility of the City

addressing travel costs for pregnancy- related healthcare that will no longer be

available in the State of Indiana. It is not a simple issue to resolve, but he has not

given up on finding a solution for City employees who may find themselves in

need of such healthcare. In the interim, he will be making a public offer. While

noting that he thinks Councilors should be compensated well so that people who

are not well off have the opportunity to serve their communities, he has always

donated all of his salary as a Councilor to non-profits or charity. At this time, as a

temporary measure, if there are City employees who need to travel out of state to

obtain pregnancy-related healthcare they can no longer receive here, then he will

be helping to cover transportation costs.

https://westlafayette.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=westlafayette_5a590e03f7ed7a25b2074c6f54a873e3.pdf

“In 2017, Sanders took a knee during a city council meeting immediately after the

pledge of allegiance. The meeting was well attended by police officers because of

awards that were being given to law enforcement that evening.

This is neither worthy of being part of a Wikipedia page, includes inflammatory and

irrelevant content “The meeting was well attended by police officers because of awards

that were being given to law enforcement that evening,” and lacks the context that both

the mayors of West Lafayette and Lafayette (both former police officers), subsequently

took a knee as well https://www.purdueexponent.org/city_state/image_04f2be92-a3aa-11ea-bec5-3fde16a70277.html

“In 2021, Sanders pushed an effort that would have fined religious leaders for talking to

youth about homosexuality if it was determined they were attempting to push them

away from same sex attraction. The effort was opposed by local religious organizations

and was not supported by national LGBT groups because they determined it was on

shaky legal footing.”

It is not true that the ordinance “would have fined religious leaders for talking to youth

about homosexuality.” That is a distortion pushed by opponents of the ordinance. The

ordinance using language derived from legislation that has passed around the United

States would have banned conversion therapy and included a specific First Amendment

exclusion. Again, the purpose of the language of the revision is to inflame voters in an

upcoming election.

“Sanders was also the sponsor of an ordinance that passed the West Lafayette City

Council banning facial recognition surveillance technology in pursuit of suspected

criminals” etc.

Replaced

“Sanders was also the sponsor of an ordinance that passed the West Lafayette City

Council banning facial recognition surveillance technology.”

The ordinance states nothing about “pursuit of suspected criminals,” but is a ban on all

government use of facial recognition surveillance technology. Again the editor

responsible for the revision is using inflammatory language to sway voters in an

upcoming election. The earlier text had sufficient information and was appropriately

neutral.

“Sanders drew criticism from the West Lafayette Mayor and fellow Democratic

colleagues for his treatment of Rolls Royce business leaders at a council meeting where

it was discussed whether to give a tax abatement to the company in exchange for a

major investment into the community. Sanders criticized the proposed research facility,

which would help the U.S. compete with China's military,”

1. Completely lacks context. Sanders opposed the tax abatements, because he

considered the declaration of an Economic Revitalization Zone necessary for the

tax abatement was inconsistent with Indiana law and that Rolls Royce had had

the biggest ever UK fine for bribery and corruption.

2. China is nowhere mentioned in the minutes of the meeting. This is an editorial

comment of a political operative. Again the slanted view of the editor of the

revision is designed towards inflaming voters not informing Wikipedia readers.

https://westlafayette.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=westlafayette_c2c03fac2a3c76e52e8b5bbf587058a5.pdf

In summary, the revision is from a document designed with political talking points to

attack a living person facing an upcoming election and should not be included on a

Wikipedia page. 2001:BF8:200:396:29E0:27EC:131F:5687 (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022

the troll came back please delete the portions underneath political career Emmyarmstrong (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Aoidh (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about Removal of Edits

@Drmies Why did you delete all of the edits that I made to this article? I did not disrupt the work of any previous editors. I only improved them so that they more closely aligned with their sources and showed better relevance. Why did you delete my edits without giving specific reasons? Can you please revert your edit? Pattdavid (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• What's with all the bold print, Pattdavid? Well, I don't think you improved anything (and you added MOS violations); I think you removed a whole bunch of verified content without giving a proper reason. "These changes preserve important information concerning Mr. Sanders' scientific career and political career while also deleting words, phrases, and sentences that violate Wikipedia's neutrality standard" doesn't cut it: I believe that it was your edit that violated our neutrality policy. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sorry I didn't mean to be rude with the bold print, that's just my way of highlighting my main question.

  Here are some ways I thought that the previous version violated the neutrality policy:

  - The "Abortion Debate" section only had one source, and that source is a self-described conservative website, not a reliable, independent source.

  - The paragraph about the conversion therapy legislation under "West Lafayette City Council" includes language making a claim about the legislation's legal footing, even though the source says nothing about that.

  - The last paragraph under "West Lafayette City Council" fails to use an impartial tone with the phrase "West Lafayette taxpayer dollars", and it fails to mention that (according to the sources) his exploration was just for city employees, not for any women.

  I can send several more examples of different parts of the article, but I first want to ask: Don't these suggestions seems reasonable??? Pattdavid (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  -Good point that the abortion offer was only for city employees. I'll correct that.

  -The source literally uses the word "shaky legal footing" and then links to another source to back it up. I'll add the second source as well.

  -On the abortion debate section, I'm not aware of a policy requiring more than one source, nor do I agree that that source is insufficient but there are others sources including the video. I'll add another source. JA1776 (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Guidlines literally say, "In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." For this reason, I really think the abortion debate section needs to be removed. It is entirely based on the Campus Reform article, as it is not independent. It has a political agenda. Pattdavid (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  @JA1776 @Drmies Would you both agree that Wikipedia is not the place to promote political agendas/messaging?

  There was recently a mailer ad funded by the Indiana Republican State Committee that said the following about David Sanders:

  - "Supports weak borders and tried to turn West Lafayette into a sanctuary city."

  - "Tried to stop a job-creator from coming to Indiana because of its ties to our military."

  - "Took a knee at a city council meeting on a night a police officer was honored"

  - "Opposes Purdue's tuition freeze"

  If you want me to try to send a picture of this ad, I can. You can probably see that much of this language was added to this page in recent days. My point is: In the past few days, the entire reason why certain users have tried to add this language to Mr. Sanders' Wikipedia page is to get this Wikipedia page to align with the Indiana Republican Party's messaging. Are you not concerned with Wikipedia being used to reflect political advertising messaging six days before an election? Isn't this a valid reason to suspend some of this biased messaging from this page? Pattdavid (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2022

Remove the portions under "West Lafayette City Council" and "Abortion Debate"

These claims are poorly sourced and intentionally placed in coordination with a political mailer that went out in the article subject's home state. Dr. Sanders also happens to be running for a state legislative office right now.

Regardless of the content, based on the poor sourcing and timing before an election, this section falls woefully short of Wikipedia's community standards. Kittyprincess95 (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Aoidh (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what @Kittyprincess95 is proposing, especially with deleting the "Abortion Debate" section since it does not have a reliable source and isn't relevant. TO anyone who may disagree, I ask: Why is this abortion debate included and not *everything else* Sanders has said in debates/interviews in his lifetime?

Any objections? If not, can we go ahead and make the edit? Pattdavid (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

New Edits

I just made several edits that don't remove any information, but just change wordings to make the article have a more neutral tone, which is necessary under Wikipedia guidelines. If you disagree with any of my edits, please discuss it with me in chat rather than entirely reverting all of my edits. Pattdavid (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Abortion debate

I came here due to this article being listed at the biography of living persons noticeboard. I removed the abortion debate section at the end of the article per the policy governing biographies of living people. YouTube as a self-published source is generally inappropriate for BLPs, and Campus Reform in my opinion, fails to qualify as a reliable source. If proper sourcing is found I suppose a neutrally worded mention might be appropriate depending on how the sourcing describes it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, @Xymmax. It's an interesting question because although I agree that Campus Reform is not the best source and I'd prefer this to be based on a more credible one, I'm not convinced that it's an insufficient source on a case by case basis. And in this case, I think it's relevant that the comments are not in dispute and the YouTube video, which has 17,000 views, appears unedited. I think it comes down to the question of whether Campus Reform, in reporting on this debate has engaged in Tabloid Journalism as described in the guidance on BLP articles, which reads "The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism". When I read the tabloid journalism article, I don't think it's describing the Campus Reform story used as the source. Right leaning yes, gossip no. They clearly didn't make up the comments and the comments seem to have caused quite a stir in some circles as evidenced by the alternative sources, all of which I think are inferior to Campus Reform. Those sources include, American Thinker, LifeNews.com, Rightwingnews.com, The Blaze, Breitbart, and Christiantimes.com. JA1776 (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Remember the standard for BLP sources is higher than for regular articles. This type of YouTube video won't make the cut. As for Campus Reform, their website lists the names of their editors, which is good, but they don't indicate that they have an editorial board, and I cannot find that they have ever published a retraction; these things would tend to show editorial control and accountability. In their favor, I did find one story with a corrected update, so far that's the only one. BLPs should use "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:SOURCES; I don't think that they're there. However, I could not find that Campus Reform has been considered over at the reliable sources noticeboard, perhaps you want to check with there? But either way, without additional non-YouTube sourcing I doubt this makes it back in. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Good comments and insights. There are certainly more examples of corrections. I've posted it as a topic of discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks for the tip. JA1776 (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Xymmax, I fully agree with your edit. If there are no better sources, there's no notoriety worth noting here. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)