Talk:Paradox of tolerance

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paradox of tolerance article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Introductory Wording

The tolerance paradox arises from a problem that a tolerant person might be antagonistic toward intolerance, hence intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.
Should be worded like this:
The tolerance paradox arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.
hence: as a consequence; for this reason.
I didn't want to say "is a problem that arises" as that would not be from a NPOV.

Unverified Twitter User As Source`

My edit to remove a poorly sourced reference was reverted, with the user challenging my edit citing https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

The reference I removed is from an unverified social media account on Twitter and does not appear to be citing any published sources and is acting as a primary source. I believe the use of an unverified tweet violates the following standards:

From https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Self-published sources

   Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[g] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.[2] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Original research The no original research policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:

   All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.

From https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

User-generated content

   Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites.

   Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Discogs, Facebook, Famous Birthdays, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, Know Your Meme, ODMP, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, WhoSampled, and Wikip

If the user is quoting a published, reliable source, the citation should be updated to reference that source. Happy to discuss further, but I strongly challenge the validity of reversion under the "Assume good faith" rule. TrussedTurkey (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Otuọcha I will not immediately revert and start an edit war, but I would appreciate more clarification on why my edit was reverted. TrussedTurkey (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrussedTurkey, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions. Well, as a new user, there should be every chance of editing focus using WP: GNG. However, here we have three types of sources which are primary, secondary and tertiary. The Twitter source you removed was reverted because there is a rule on self published source per WP: EXPERTSPS which states;

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Here, the Twitter account was quite trafficked enough that it belongs to an expert on the subject of the article that is non-living and as thus, considered reliable (although it is better to cite web since some of the Twitter/ Socials that belongs to subject matter experts are unverified). I hope you have gotten the reason. All the best and Cheers! Otuọcha (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Karl Popper's definition of "intolerance" be given?

I think it would be a good idea to add it to the beginning of the article, since it makes it easier to understand what the paradox is about. Popper used to define intolerance as the attitude or refusal to rationally discuss a point of view, as well as his attempt to impose it through violence or other methods. A direct quote from one of his books would suffice. ComradeHektor (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]