User talk:Metatrain
Welcome![edit]
|
Introduction to contentious topics[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Beccaynr (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
March 2024[edit]
Hello, I'm Beccaynr. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Death of Nex Benedict seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Also, the article talk page has discussion about the bodycam video as a source, e.g. Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Original_research. Proposals for expansion of the article, preferably with independent and reliable secondary sources, can be made at the article talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure how it "seemed" less than neutral (in fact, that assessment seems rather subjective). However, my information came straight from this MotherJones article: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/02/nex-benedict-trans-oklahoma-bullying-bathroom-bills-police-body-cam/
- For example, from the news article:
- 1) "In the video, Nex—dressed in a black t-shirt and cargo pants, their dark hair cut short—tells the officer “I got jumped” and that they didn’t know the three freshman girls who hurt them until that week."
- 2) "During the ensuing hospital interview, the police officer tells Nex and Benedict that the school was supposed to have contacted the police immediately after the fight. But he also advised that it might not be in their their best interests to pursue criminal charges, since Nex could be seen as having started the physical fight."
- The phrasing that I used in my edit was intended to mirror the language from the news article so as to communicate accurately and clarify details that seemed somewhat misleading in the previous version.
- As I have now proven that my edits were accurate and came directly from a qualified news source, I would appreciate if they were restored so that the public record could reflect greater accuracy. If you have suggestions as to edits that might make it not "seem less than neutral," I would be happy to review those as well. Metatrain (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Neutral point of view"
means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Your edit [1] did not cite WP:MOTHERJONES nor appear to reflect what you quote above; instead your edit appears to have added unsourced content, removed sourced content, and appears to editorialize. I suggest making a proposal on the article Talk page; these are contentious topics that have been subject to substantial discussion, and we have core content policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V, as well as WP:BLP policy to consider when developing content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Neutral point of view"