User talk:91.125.23.152

February 2024

Hello, I'm Yoshi24517. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kermit Roosevelt Jr., but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 22:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kermit Roosevelt Jr.. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not lie through your teeth and claim that information I wrote from the sources I got it from wasn't direct proof of terrorism

What he did was the dictionary definition of terrorism. I have provided the sources. This is not speculation, this is not commentary, this is the correct word to describe his actions. Ironically, in denying the theDICTIONARY because of your extreme bias, it is you who has completely violated the neutral point of view policy expected from an encyclopedia.

If Kermit Roosevelt was brown and Arab and did the exact same actions to the UK, the Wikipedia article would call him a terrorist. That's becuase he would be a terrorist.

Just because he's a white person and he did terrorism to brown people doesn't mean he's not a terrorist. Until you learn to be objective don't hassle me again with your smug arrogance and leave my fully evidenced and sourced edits alone. 91.125.23.152 (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to summarize the literature. If the literature says someone is a terrorist, then we tell Wikipedia readers he is a terrorist. Roosevelt is NOT categorized or described as a terrorist in the literature—not explicitly with that exact word. That's why folks are reverting your addition. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

So in your eyes if someone kills someone and a book says they killed someone, you can't call them a murderer until a book says so?

That's not how anything works. The book clearly describes that he did the definition of terrorism, repeatedly, as a career, in fact that's almost all he did. His actions are quite clearly that of a terrorist and if you were to summerize the literature the best word to describe it would simply be "terrorism". That means he is a terrorist. It is bizarre and political to refuse to call a spade and spade just because English speaking pro western authors refuse to use the word terrorist to describe an American terrorist just because he's a white American and not a brown Arab with an AK, when describing blatantly terrorist acts. 91.125.23.152 (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(passing-by editor) I mean you can say that, just not in Wikipedia, because the standard for Wikipedia article is to be a reflection of what reliable sources are saying, just different/summarized enough to not be copyright violation.

If all reliable sources say that the moon is actually a giant ball of cotton candy, then that is precisely what Wikipedia will say, if one reliable source says something else then the standard is that we point that out in the article - but otherwise, examining the moon with our eyeballs would be WP:Original Research and studying footage and measurements of the moon to reach another conclusion would be WP:Synthesis, both of which are things against our policy.

See also MOS:TERRORIST.

– 143.208.236.146 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Wheres the line in the rules which says Wikipedia is called "CIA APPROVED PHRASING ENCYCLOPEDIA"?

A summary of those words is terrorist. The original text need to contain the word terrorist for them to be called a terrorist if the source describes a terrorist. Which it does, almost exclusively in fact, almost no actions which took place in Chapter 11 of that book weren't terrorism. But on "CIA APPROVED PHRASING ENCYCLOPEDIA" when it's convenient for the narrative you don't get to summarise accurately, it's better to just ignore the entire paragraph which can only be summerised as terrorism instead because we wouldn't want people learning the truth now would we? 91.125.23.152 (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If what you got from my comment was that Wikipedia bows to the CIA instead of "Write what the sources are saying, in the proportions that they are saying", then I'm not really seeing how you're going to convince others to write the content you want.

But alas, I said what I said, you're welcome to pretend that it is impossible to add the content you want because you can't think of how to do so without labelling that person as a terrorist in the first sentence. I think I've said my piece. – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Summerise a killing without saying kill. 91.125.23.152 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, what do the sources say happened? Like I said, it's not our business to come up with ways to describe the thing, it's only our business to reflect how said thing is being described already.

News says ___ is a murderer, person was convicted as a murderer, we say they are a murderer - news doesn't say ___ is a murderer, but reports on the killing, person was convicted of killing, we say those things, we don't call them murderer. – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

---