Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:55, 13 February 2012

January 2012

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Reductio ad Hitlerum, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Misplaced Pages:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi thanks. See my contribution on the talk page there. -- Honorsteem (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your argument; sure, eugenics is a bad thing and it is churlish to dismiss debate of it as "reductio ad Hitlerum". All I'm drawing your attention to is the need for clarity and sourcing - a Misplaced Pages article shouldn't say "there has been criticism, concern and trouble regarding this subject, but we're not going to tell you where", it should say "person X has criticised it, group Y is concerned about it, and newspaper Z regarded it as 'troubling'". WP:WEASEL has a bit more about this. It's our duty to the reader to tell them where a reaction is coming from, and if it's seeming to come from nowhere (either because it's the opinion of the editor writing the sentence, or because it's "common sense"), we need to take a look through some newspapers and find someone who's actually said it. Does this sound reasonable? --McGeddon (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I'd add that the article doesn't really need a "criticism" section - reductio ad Hitlerum is clearly presented as a "fallacy" throughout, rather than a useful and ironclad argumentative tool. --McGeddon (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I was more referring to the using of the term. If someone says "X is like the nazi's" - where X is a valid point, and then the opponent else says, "Hah! RaH!" - then the discussion is terminated. -- 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, people can incorrectly mistake a reasonable argument for a reductio ad Hitlerum (just as a stupid person can misidentify any argument to be any fallacy in the book), but as I say, you'll need to provide a source that's considered this particular instance remarkable, if it's going to be written about in an encyclopedia. --McGeddon (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about living persons, as you did to Daniel Pipes‎. Thank you. Jayjg 00:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a straight from a quote from Pipes, so I dont get your poor reference-objection and I re-added it. I'm sorry it is in Dutch, but Google translate might help you. -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

See also http://www.danielpipes.org/7888/stand-with-geert-wilders

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Misplaced Pages page, as you did at Daniel Pipes. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Jayjg 17:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time bringing this under my intention. Could you maybe expand on why you think it might be libel and why the source is not okay? Also, no need to threat with blocking, lets keep it polite, shall we? -- Honorsteem (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you carefully read WP:BLP? Which phrase in this article do you believe supports the claim you made regarding Pipes? Jayjg 21:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Pipes, die gekant is tegen een Palestijnse staat en actievoert voor een militaire aanval op Iran, zegt dat hij het afgelopen jaar een „een bedrag van zes cijfers’’ heeft opgehaald voor Wilders in de VS." -- Honorsteem (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

But the claim you attributed to that source was "Pipes is generally assumed to be behind private donors of Geert Wilders's Dutch political Party for Freedom". The source says nothing like that; it just claims that "six figures" (i.e. at least $100,000) was raised for Wilders in the United States. Pipes himself (in the link you brought) says the Middle East Forum's Legal Project raised funds for Wilder's legal defense - again, nothing whatsoever like your claim. Jayjg 16:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on Jayjg, cut me some slack. "Nothing whatsoever"? The money was raised for foundation "friends of Gert Wilders", only one of the things it does is pay Wilders' defense. In my world, +100.000 dollar for a foreign political figure (Gert Wilders IS the Party for Freedom) is encyclopedic. We just need to see what would be the best way to phrase it, or do you see that differently? -- Honorsteem (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You claimed that "Pipes is generally assumed to be behind private donors". The source says nothing like that. You wrote that the donors were supporting his Party for Freedom. The source says nothing like that. Where does the source say Pipes is behind the private donors, and where does it say it's for Wilders' political party? It says nothing of the sort! Let's be clear: the Party for Freedom is somewhat controversial, so where are the multiple reliable sources backing this up? Jayjg 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, although I really believe you are being overly strict. Pipes clearly supported Geert Wilders, his Middle East Forum Legal Project gathered money for the the "Geert Wilders defense fund", which in Dutch is plainly called "Friends of Geert Wilders" and for example Sam van Rooy, a former employee of the PVV was a regular translator for Pipes' Dutch website. So there is a clear link. Also, NRC quoted Pipes, confirming he gathered donations. So, text proposal:

"Pipes, ao. through his Middle East Forum, fundraised for Geert Wilders during his trial".

Honorsteem, the article is not a reliable source. For example, it claims that Daniel Pipes had an annual income of 235,000 over 2008 while the second document at the bottom clearly reveals that this is the organizational income of the Middle East Forum over the said period. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That, my friend, is what we call Original Research. NRC Handelsblad is a reliable source. If they make a mistake, in Misplaced Pages we write "NRC Handelsblad wrote that Pipes earned $ 235.000". But for those figures I'm sure there better reliable sources. And, anyway, that is not the fact being discussed in this threat, but thank you.

The article engages in original research when it makes claims that are not supported in the included source. You engaged in original research when you introduced statements into our Daniel Pipes entry that are not supported by the source. I read the article from a to z and concluded that it is not a reliable source as it engages in original research. Mind you, I did not write this in any article. Also I did not make any claims about the journalists, editors, or newspaper. You claim that utterly confused information can be included in a biography of a living person, however Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information and its editors have ethical obligations as detailed in our policies and guidelines. gidonb (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have some spare time, do try to spend it on understanding the No Original Research policy (helpful link for your convenience: WP:NOR). It might make you seem less silly. Have a nice day! -- Honorsteem (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Honorsteem, there seems to be a confusion here between Pipes and the Middle East Forum. Pipes did found the MEF and is its director, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing, any more than Edward H. Crane is identical to the Cato Institute, or John Cavanagh is identical to the Institute for Policy Studies or Transnational Institute. Jayjg 22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I mistook you for a reasonable editor, but you don't seem to be. I'll copy this whole threat to the Daniel Pipes talk pages, and leave it at that. Have a nice day. -- Honorsteem (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the 15 trillion will not be confused to be the personal debt of President Barack Obama. gidonb (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Honorsteem (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

1. (Dutch) http://vorige.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2544752.ece/Partners_Wilders_in_VS_verdienen_aan_acties_tegen_moslimextremisme - Pipes is quoted saying he collected in 2009 a 6-digit figure for the party of Wilders.