Talk:Hamilton, Texas

Sign

Datagoat, thanks for your contribution, but I'm sorry to say, the section is clearly not in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. According to the cited Washington Post article, Stanford claims the officer said she could be arrested, but the city denied it. You can't only write her side of the story. Neither side mentioned possible "charges of child pornography", so you can't write that either. The article says nothing about possible charges against police or city officials, so writing that represents your own analysis, which is against Wikipedia's "no original research" policy, which bars "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". In other words, it's not acceptable to write anything that is based on your own personal opinion.

In any case, even if it was written from a neutral point of view, this story does not belong in this article. It is a short-term event, a minor news story, that will not have any lasting effect in the future; a month from now, nobody will be talking about it. Including the story on the Wikipedia page about the city of Hamilton is against the policy of what Wikipedia is not, specifically, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", which says among other things: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I'm going to remove the section again, and I'm letting you know that you don't have the required consensus to add it. If you don't agree, rather than just adding it back again, please follow the appropriate procedures of dispute resolution, thanks. If you have any questions or comments, you can add them below this line. --IamNotU (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Begin message

How do I protest this? I have donated to the Wikimedia Foundation before, and I have softened my post as much as I believe that I can. A police officer, with the backing of local government, has been accused of trespassing, theft, and pressuring a citizen under color of law. There is ample evidence of this. I have now submitted edits three times, each time making my post more charitable to Republicans. What do you value more -- truth or "balance"? Why are you so willing to whitewash a major story? Could you help me re-write this story to meet your standards in a way that is still truthful? If so, I would greatly appreciate it. If not, you, and Wikipedia are part of the problem, and you'll never see another donation from me again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datagoat (talk • contribs) 03:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Datagoat, thank-you very much for replying, I appreciate it! First let me say that I understand your feelings about this story, and I'm sympathetic. Also, I don't represent Wikipedia, I'm just another volunteer editor like yourself. Everyone is encouraged to edit Wikipedia, and I'm happy that you've taken the time to make an account and begin editing, in good faith. Nevertheless, there are many (many!) policies and guidelines that define what Wikipedia is, and how it works. They're not my standards, they've been developed by the community through years of discussion and consensus. To answer your question, "How do I protest this?" - it starts by doing exactly this, discussing it on the talk page, and working towards consensus, which is described as "addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." It took me years before I felt I had a reasonably good understanding of those policies, so as a new editor, you may need to have some patience, and expect to be disappointed when people revert your edits, citing what seems to be a dense web of rules.

The primary principles of Wikipedia are the "Five Pillars", from which all other rules are derived. The First Pillar is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That is explained largely by defining what Wikipedia is not. Most relevant here is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it doesn't report news stories, it is not investigative journalism: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", over years, decades, and centuries. "Timely news subjects" are usually not suitable, and "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Ten years from now, will the people of Hamilton, Texas, still talk about Kavanaugh's confirmation, and the #METOO movement? Yes. Will they still talk about Stanford's yard sign, and a cop who probably overstepped his authority and bullied her into taking it down because the neighbors complained? No. It was news because it was a "sign of the times". It is undue weight to include it in the long-term historical record of the city of Hamilton.

Also relevant is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox - it is not a platform for advocacy of any cause or great truth, for activism or righting great wrongs, no matter how important and justified it may be. There are many venues for that, blogs, forums, letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines, and so on. Wikipedia is not one of them. This is related to the Second Pillar: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: "we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

But again, even if the section was re-written to conform to the NPOV policy (which user Vermont has already worked on), as a timely news subject it doesn't belong in this article. Since I don't want to participate in an edit war with you, (as it's grounds for being blocked from editing), I ask you to remove the section from the article. If you still don't agree, I guess we will move forward with the steps toward the formal dispute resolution process, the first of which is third opinion. Let me know what you think. --IamNotU (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

When I first became aware of the content you added to this article, I reworded it without reading the source thoroughly, just as a preliminary removal of some of the more obvious bias. I have since read the source in full.

I will proceed to go through the text you added, and then your comment above.

Firstly, the sentence "Rather than face arrest and charges of child pornography, which the officer threatened her with, Stanford told the officer to take the sign." There is no reliable source saying officers threatened her with arrest; Stanford is claiming that. It cannot be taken as fact. Furthermore, nothing is mentioned of charges of child pornography. Rather, that is an inference you are drawing from the source, which is not how Wikipedia works; Wikipedia is a tertiary source based off of reliable sources, and everything said must have also been said and supported in those reliable, secondary sources. Stanford isn't a reliable, secondary source.

You wrote "The story made national news." This doesn't need to be in the article. Many things make national news, and I can still guarantee that a few years from now the content you added will no longer be remembered. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. If you want to attempt to influence political change and opinion, this is not the place to do it.

You wrote "No charges have been filed against the officer or city officials for trespassing, theft, or violation of constitutional rights under the color of law." This is what is referred to as original research, and it's not permitted. Nowhere in the source does it mention charging the officer or city officials, or those charges which you mention. It is quite clearly biased towards Stanford, implying that Stanford was ultimately in the right and giving reasons as to why (trespassing, theft, 1st amendment violation, etc.), which is not how Wikipedia works. We don't make arguments in articles, or try to prove some concept or political idea.

Onto your comment. Firstly, I'd like you to be aware that threatening to stop donating to the Wikimedia Foundation will not give you the ability to circumvent policy and insert biased content into articles. In regards to the police officer which you say is being accused of "trespassing, theft, and pressuring a citizen under color of law", the source which you cite does not mention this. Anyways, it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia article; it's not a large enough issue or one that will remain prevalent for very long. Rather, it belongs in local news or on Facebook. You wrote "I have now submitted edits three times, each time making my post more charitable to Republicans." There's no need to make it more charitable towards any one ideological group. Quite simply, just write what is supported by the source, and nothing else, in a neutral tone. "What do you value more -- truth or "balance"?" Balance. "Why are you so willing to whitewash a major story?" This isn't whitewashing. I have absolutely no idea of the ethnicity of any of the participants, nor would it matter if I did know. This may be a major story in the moment, but not in the long-term, and thus should not be reflected in the Wikipedia article. Your last sentence I find concerning, "If not, you, and Wikipedia are part of the problem, and you'll never see another donation from me again." Political views should not be overrepresented in any article, including your political views. In this paragraph you added, it gave undue weight to Stanford's side of the issue.

I oppose including this content in the article. If you have any questions in regard to my statements, feel free to reply here. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a major story, it's a very isolated incident that occurred in a small town. Once. This is not a newspaper. Widespread continuing coverage does not exist because it cannot. It cannot because it's news. News reporting is a primary source. We do not include information based solely on primary sources. If someone came along a year from now and wrote an in-depth analysis of the incident (an example might be a write-up in a criminal justice textbook), then we could cover it. And BTW, if you think you can buy a place to expound your position by donating to Wikipedia, you have no clue what you were donating to, and I'm certain your donation will not be missed. John from Idegon (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)