User talk:Dewen12

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Van Jones appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Having a master's degree in journalism and many year's experience, this article is neutral. It reports precisely the state of dispute between the parties: Van Jones, the organization he founded, and the Glenn Beck program. It describes truthfully important aspects of Mr. Jones' political point of view as he himself has stated it. It explains that due to his influence on important and current public policy, this is salient information. It does not delete any other information about Mr. Jones. It provides ample citations (of the many that confirm the same information), which was your first objection even though the first posting also contained multiple citations. Perhaps, as the Jungians would say, you are seeing this contribution from your own non-neutral point of view. I do not know. But I do know your reference to "rephrase" is cryptic. Rephrase what? Given that this submission honestly notes the controversies involved, perhaps it should be left to intelligent readers to come to their own conclusions. Thank you.

Your desired paragraph

By his own account and international reporting, Jones evolved as a "roudy [Black] nationalist" collaborating as an avowed Communist with radical Marxists and Maoists.

• The article says that he was part of a socialist organization which read the work of Marx and Lenin in his youth. I added that to the section on his youth, with the source you cited. The word 'radical' is an emotionally weighted word, not neutral. 'Marxists and Maoists' doesn't seem to accurately paraphrase what that section of the article says.

Appointed as a so-called "green czar" among the officials President Obama has installed in his government avoiding advice and consent of the Senate ,

• The article already discusses his White House position. "So-called" is a word which makes a value judgement, not neutral. 'Avoiding advice and consent of the Senate' is your own analysis, not verifiable fact. The source you cite is a blog, and so not usable.

Jones was reported in August 2009 when a Black activist organization he founded called "Color of Change" , began pressuring companies to stop advertising with the popular Glenn Beck cable TV show.

• This is interesting, and might be a useful addition to the article. But your only cited source is WorldNetDaily, which is not a reliable source, both because it has a strong bias against the subject, and also because it publishes incorrect or inaccurate information too often for Wikipedia to be able to use it as verification of facts. I'd be interested in adding a paragraph about this if it has been discussed in a more reliable source.

This occurred after Beck reported Jone's involvement in the "Apollo Alliance," where Beck cited Jones as a key architect of so-called "stimulus" and "cap and trade" legislation -- both highly controversial programs reported by the Congressional Budget as likely sources of deficits and job loss.

• There are no independent sources here. You've linked to the congressional budget, but not to the coverage of this matter in independent sources. Again you use the non-neutral phrase "so-called."

Irrespective of partisan views on these issues, concerns now arise that suppression of this reporting (including removal of carefully cited information from Wikipedia due to alleged lack of documentation), has a chilling effect on freedom of the press and ultimately representative government.

• This entire sentence is your personal analysis, and does not contain any verifiable facts. It is, in its entirety, a violation of WP:NPOV.

In addition to these problems, you've dropped the paragraph into the middle of the introduction in a way that interferes with the readability of the article- an article needs to be organized in a way that would make sense to a reader from beginning to end. I hope this helps you understand why this paragraph simply won't work in the way you have written it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

You have removed my comments in reply. Here were my previous comments in reply:

Thanks for your feedback. ... For reference, you are publishing many things about Mr. Jones which are from "interested" and biased sources in his favor. These things apparently do not trouble you, so you impute reliability to them that may or may not be warranted. This may stand as long as the information is, in fact, true. Rather than take the time to dissect them myself I have, fairly and honestly, left them in place. As to your opinion about what may be "reliable sources," (noting that I am an independent who has voted often across party lines), I am noting an increasingly shrill and disturbing tendency for some antagonists in public debate simply to impugn the motives or honesty of media outlets in toto simply because the accuser objects to what they see as the editorial stance of the medium. This applies to the New York Times just as does your reference to WorldNetDaily. While I do not regularly resort to WorldNetDaily, with whose editorial opinions you apparently disagree, it is in fact operated by highly experienced journalists who conduct thorough research and reputable journalism. By the way, the issue is whether indeed these were merely aspects of his youth, as you assert yourself with no evidence, or aspects of his ongoing perspective that is germane to thinking citizens however much this irritates you. The word "radical" that you qustion is an exact quotation of his own words. As to whether the notation about concerns arising about Mr. Jones and his allies censoring discussion, this is not simply my analysis. It is exactly the basis for considerable dispute by many now with Mr. Jones and the organization he spawned. It is quite factual to state so and can be documented even beyond the citations I have already provided. As to readability, in the midst of the existing paeon to Mr. Jones, there is nowhere mentioned that he is engaged in highly controversial matters. This is salient and deserves notice, not omitted entirely or buried well "below the fold." More to come. I had asked early on if you did not think it was appropriate to allow intelligent readers to arrive at their own conclusions. I do. Apparently, you do not.

---

Dear Ms. FisherQueen. Let me add the following: you identify yourself as an activist and Democrat. So I understand that you are biased toward removing any information, however true and germane to public discussion, that you believe casts a shadow on your fellow traveler Mr. Jones. There is not a single statement I added which is not factual, pertinent and well documented in many sources. You appear to believe that any source stating a fact which disturbs you is, by definition, an "unreliable source." I do not, however, see WorldNetDaily listed in the Wikipedia "blacklist," albeit due to your actions it has been interesting to learn that such a "blacklist" exists. We shall be interested to see how Wikipedia handles this matter. Since you have made an avocation of Wikipedia in behalf of a number of ideological favorites (well documented in your profile unless you now erase it as well), you will perhaps know the system (perhaps equally versed in Orwell?). I have not. But I think in principle that it is worth learning the Wikipedia process and pursuing this. Your valiant finger may remain in the dike against truthful reporting about matters that themselves highlight the issue of political suppression of opposing speech. Thank you for your enlightening censorship. Time for formal dispute resolution.

You appear to think that 'formal dispute resolution' is something which I would avoid. On the contrary, I have already asked for a third opinion at WP:3O. User:Rkmlai looked at the article and agreed that the paragraph you have written is a violation of WP:NPOV, but you ignored his opinion and undid his edit to the article. Since you aren't willing to agree to participate in the third-opinion process, I requested more eyes to review your contribution at the neutral point of view noticeboard, to get more opinions and develop a consensus on the question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the WorldNetDaily- I just went to their front page, and four of their top five stories today are about how Obama was not born in the United States and is not really President. Are you sure you want to claim them as a reliable source? If the information you were using them to source- describing the "Color of Change" organization- is important, it has probably been reported also in sources that everyone would agree were reliable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you welcome scrutiny. I have not in the least expected you to avoid formal dispute resolution (in truth, that is exactly what I thought you would do, steal the march in righteous indignation), so again your own projections color your imputations to arrive at false conclusions. Naturally, you are already plugged-into the Wikipedia realm, having struck your claim to authoring numbers of their articles (whose qualities we can deal with separately). But to the point: I have not myself seen any information about this other determination you cite nor the qualifications of the person you cite. As to your second point, the issue we are discussing is information about Mr. Jones, not Mr. Obama (no doubt his separate issues will be dissected in their own right for years to come). Without that distraction, since that is not my topic, tell me exactly what facts are incorrect in the paragraph that I posted about Mr. Jones. In fact, tell me exactly what in the WorldNetDaily reference (only one of many that can be provided for the point cited) that you claim to be false. Having ensconced yourself as a semi-professional Wikipedia-ist, you don't seem to realize how transparent is your tactic of simply declaring that any source that displeases you is, by definition, unreliable. Makes me wonder whether your skimming through "Chaucer" and "Ruby Fruit Jungle" (both good works, by the way) didn't leave you enough time for other disciplines. As to the discipline of respecting the truth in open debate in a Republic still not subjected to the powers of FisherQueen and Van Jones, can you again please tell me precisely which facts in my submission are untrue. Please provide information concerning the "third party" determinations you cite unless wearing the "leather hood" is mandatory. I presume Wikipedia is not a "Star Chamber," but you may convince me otherwise. Always good to have these candid chats. How can we resolve this unless there is candor, yes? It will be interesting to learn when the Freedom of Information Act works its wonders (assuming the law is obeyed) how FisherQueen will have portrayed this "fishy" information. But I digress ... Sincerely, Your pal, American Citizen of Independent Politics, Three University Degrees and Nearly 40 Years Professional Experience Who Believes Neither Your Bias Nor Discomfort With Opposing Views Qualifies You to Censor Others Who Are Reporting Truthful, Salient Information and Wonder Why You Are Unwilling to Let Readers Decide for Themselves

You've concentrated on several things that aren't important.

• Your qualifications are not important to the question of whether this paragraph meets Wikipedia's rules or not. I have qualifications which I wouldn't bother to mention, since they aren't relevant to the question at hand. And, of course, not everyone who claims to have qualifications actually has them.
• The question of the quality of other articles I've worked on is not relevant to the question of whether this paragraph meets Wikipedia's rules or not. I've done work that I'm very proud of, and also work that came early in my time at Wikipedia and that I've never bothered to go back and improve, but that doesn't relate to this paragraph.
• Which specific facts in the WND article I think are incorrect isn't relevant, since the problem is that WND itself is biased, and any important facts will also be reported in neutral sources. The relevance of Obama is that WND is reporting that he was not born in the United States, which has been widely and thoroughly debunked in unbiased sources, and so it seems that WND does not have accurate fact-checking, and thus cannot be relied upon as a source of accurate information on any subject.
• The length of time I've been at Wikipedia, and my status as an administrator, is relevant only in that I know the rules more thoroughly than you do, since I've been working with them longer, and it would be nice if you would believe me about them, or read them for yourself when I offer links- but it isn't relevant to the question of whether this paragraph is written from a neutral point of view or not; if you had been here for a decade and today were my first day, this paragraph would still break that rule.
• I cannot think of any way in which the Freedom of Information Act would be relevant to this discussion in any way whatsoever. If you are requesting information from some government entity, though, it would in general not be added to a Wikipedia article until it has been published in a reliable source like a newspaper or magazine- the information you'd get is doubtless accurate, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a first publisher of new ideas, and doesn't permit original research.

What is relevant is whether this paragraph is phrased in a way that is fully neutral, not biased toward any conclusion: it is not. Another relevant question is whether the facts in this paragraph are cited by sources that would meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources: they are, for the most part, not, and those that are, I've already added to the article. You asked which facts I think are accurate and inaccurate, and which sections I think are phrased in a way that is biased toward a conclusion, but I've already answered that above, and it isn't convenient for me to retype my answer- it is still on this talk page if you'd like to see it again.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Friendly warning

I am an administrator at Wikipedia, but I haven't used any of my administrator abilities in this matter- I haven't protected the page from being edited, nor have I blocked you from editing. However, you've now had the neutral point of view policy explained to you as clearly as I am able, you've had an opportunity to read a clear explanation of what is not neutral about your desired addition, and you've had two independent editors confirm that your desired edits don't meet the neutral point of view policy. You aren't just disagreeing with me, you're breaking one of Wikipedia's most important rules. I want you to understand that, because people who break the rules even after they've had ample opportunity to understand them are often blocked from making further edits. There's a big difference between a new user who is unfamiliar with the rules, and a user who knows the rules but either isn't able to understand them or isn't willing to follow them. Since I'm involved in this disagreement, I won't block you from editing no matter what you do. However, it is entirely possible that some other administrator- maybe even one who is an American Republican- will block you for refusing to stop adding biased information to the encyclopedia. This isn't a threat, it's a friendly warning, because I would hate for you to be blocked without understanding that it's a probable outcome. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A Friendly Reply =

Again, Friendly Warner (we shudder), you have removed not only the paragraph but my last comment to you. No better way to win an argument than to bind and gag the other person, yes? On that, it appears, you and Mr. Jones agree, as have so many communist governments. Let me post it here again for the record. Thank you for your friendliness. I suppose that your citation of two shadowy others in the Bureau of Wikipedia Orthodoxy must trump the nearly dozen PhDs on this end who find your arguments unable to sustain a sophomore thesis. But amusing, nevertheless. I won't bother to see what you delete next, as the point has been made, and all the transactions have been captured verbatim. Do with Wikipedia what you will. Van Jones thanks you, Cheerio

Ah, a final conversation. I'll be brief, as I have a seminar to conduct in a few minutes. You're partly right concerning knowledge of your qualifications, except that in a legitimate scholarly or professional journalistic environment, it would be quite pertinent to know whether an editor has shown consistent bias. You have, not only in this discussion but in a number of other places. What is, indeed, more important (at least to me) is your censorship of the truth. I find it refreshingly candid that you show your hand directly: you state outright that whether specific facts are correct is irrelevant (at least to you), but that you simply declare a source "unreliable." (This is exactly among the points my writing about Soviet suppression of the press during the Czech Invasion concerned.) As to WND and its conservative editorial policy, I note your preferred article has such samples as "The Huffington Post," a notoriously liberal source about which you feel no such compunctions. You're right: you know the Wikipedia procedures. (You also know, by the way, exactly what I mean by FOIA, though it is consistent with your approach to deny it.) On the whole, it is remarkable on a topic concerning Mr. Jones and his cohorts seeking to suppress free press that an attempt to report about it in carefully researched and factual terms on Wikipedia should itself be censored by such bald political bias. I suppose, for example, were you to play your same role in China today, you would not find it "fully neutral" to report that the Chinese Communist Government (is it of interest, do you wonder, that Mr. Jones is a communist?) slaughtered unarmed civilians in Tiananmen Square. And if this fact were reported in WorldNetDaily, you would not, by your own words, care whether it was true, but that you find the source "unreliable," your codeword for politically inconvenient. That is indeed the underpinning of your other articles as well, of which you are adamantly proud. (For that, I would certainly not recommend that you seek a degree from this university.) I've followed this conversation just as far as I had intended. You have provided interesting input of interest to media, journalism faculty, graduate students and others. Others may pursue this. Fare well, mademoiselle FisherQueen With Her Finger So-to-Speak in the Censorship Dike

I don't think there's anything new that I can say. It's true that I happen to be a Democrat, but I work hard to avoid putting bias into articles, and I've removed bias toward the left from articles just as I've removed bias from the right. No bias is allowed in a Wikipedia article. You seem determined to believe that I'm pushing my own point of view, when in fact I have no point of view regarding Van Jones- I had never heard his name before I encountered your changes during a routine patrol of recent changes, and I still don't know anything more about him than I've read in the sources you gave, which isn't very much. I've explained the neutral point of view rule to you, and since you say you have a degree in journalism, I know you understand what that is and how to do it. I've explained what will happen if you keep breaking the rule. You're going to have to make your own decision from here, regarding whether you'll write in a neutral way to make the encyclopedia better (in which case, you will be welcome at Wikipedia), whether you'll decide you don't want to write in a neutral way and stop editing Wikipedia (which is a choice you are allowed to make), or whether you'll continue writing in a biased way and get blocked. Whichever way you go, I'll respect your choice. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice of ANI discussion

After noticing that you have again restored the paragraph under discussion, I have opened a discussion regarding your recent actions at [the administrators' noticeboard]. You have a right to participate in that discussion if you choose. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent insertion of invalidly-sourced information at a biography of a living person (Van Jones). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 23:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)