Talk:Rand Paul/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Same-sex marriage

Here are the two versions:

Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.

and

Paul opposes same-sex marriage and believes it should be made illegal at the state level.

Looking at our sources, it appears that the first version is inaccurate and violates WP:BLP.

I'll explain by example. Let's say I tell you that I personally oppose abortion. It would be entirely consistent for me to say that, despite this, I support a woman's legal right to choose to have an abortion.

That's what it sounds like when we say Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage. But it's not accurate; he supports laws against same-sex marriage. He wants these laws to be at the state level, not the federal level, due to his general opposition to the power of federal government. But his opposition manifests itself in endorsing laws, so it's not just personal. He doesn't neutrally want the states to decide, he wants the states to decide to make same-sex marriage illegal.

The first version is therefore inaccurate and we can't keep it. This applies for identical material in Political positions of Rand Paul. MilesMoney (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In the future, please do not make new sections for topics already being discussed. You're familiar with TPs (over half of your edits are on TPs), and should no this. Second, Paul states later in the source that he supports states doing whatever they want. Some states (like Kentucky) support one thing, some support another. And that is all fine and dandy. PrairieKid (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We both wrote in parallel, not seeing the other's post.

In any case, Paul endorses laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky. This means he is legally opposed, not personally opposed. You are violating WP:BLP. MilesMoney (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This is from the NYT.

A fervent opponent of big government, Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states.

I think this is pretty clear, the edit by PrairieKid most closely follows the source, the edit proposed by MM is a violation of Original Research. Arzel (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that he doesn't want federal laws about same-sex marriage, whether pro or con. It's just as clear that he wants state laws against same-sex marriage, which means that his opposition is legal, not personal. Please make an argument whose conclusion is relevant to the content of this article. MilesMoney (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

From Fox, the other source in that section.

PAUL: You know, I think it's a really complicated issue. I've always said that the states have a right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. Marriage has been a state issue for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Sounds pretty personal to me since he said "I do believe in traditional marriage". I don't know why you feel the need to try and change what people actually say. Please make an argument that is relevant to the sources. Arzel (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I explained above what personal opposition it. Your own quote shows that he is legally opposed to it in Kentucky. This means that it is not personal opposition, so you are supporting the violation of BLP. MilesMoney (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As an example, this article correctly states that he is personally but not legally opposed to MJ. This is how the distinction is made in our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That article is a summary of the Fox source and does not support your POV. Why do you feel the need to change the words of a living person? Your reasoning here only strengthens my argument regarding Bernstein. I find it most ironic that you say using the actual words of Paul is a violation of BLP. Arzel (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how a personal opposition leads to endorsing laws. When you can do that, you will have my attention. Until then... MilesMoney (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You are past the point of WP:HEAR. We have two sources which clearly state Paul's position, your attempt to change or modify that statement is disruptive and a violation of WP:SYNTH. Arzel (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember when I asked you to explain how personal opposition leads to endorsing laws? Remember when you didn't? Exactly. MilesMoney (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to try and explain or modify the opinions or statements of a BLP. Remember when I said just say what he said? Remember when you ignored that and gave your interpretation of what he said? Arzel (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're mistaken on all counts. We are here to accurately summarize the statements of Rand Paul. Feel free to point out any inaccuracy in my summary. MilesMoney (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles, time to give up. I'm sorry. Consensus (and the facts) are not on your side. PrairieKid (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to give up, you're free to. However, neither of you has pointed out any inaccuracy in my summary, so I see no reason to stop. MilesMoney (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are familiar with WP:TE. That is one reason to stop, perhaps. - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit has us reporting that "Paul does not support same-sex marriage". In fact, if you follow the related WP:BLPN thread, you'll see that it quotes the New York Times as saying:

A fervent opponent of big government, Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states.

Paul opposes same-sex marriage, which is a lot stronger than not supporting it. Amazingly, we went from sugar-coating all the way to whitewashing. MilesMoney (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Give it a break; whitewashing? Support is an antonym of Oppose. To "not support" something is the same as to "oppose" that thing. That said, since the source says oppose, we should use the wording of the source. I'll let someone else make the change so that it does not appear to be edit-warring. Arzel (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not the wording, it's the concept.

You can oppose, support or remain neutral. If you don't support, you could either be opposing or remaining neutral. But we know that he actively opposes, so suggesting neutrality is inaccurate.

It is not edit-warring to make a change in agreement with consensus. Contrast this with the edit we're talking about, which was made by someone who hasn't discussed it before or after. MilesMoney (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just merged this section, which was headed "Massive understatement" and began with MilesMoney's message of 06:31, 27 October 2013. There was no need to start a new section about the same subject matter within 24 hours of a prior section being opened. The only possible purpose was to enable a point-y/drama-laden entry in the table of contents. - Sitush (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PrairieKid and Arzel. The sources clearly say he opposes same sex marriage, but feels the decision on legality should be left up to the states. He is a member of the federal government. He is not advocating for legal action at the level he works at, and also said he is okay with other states legalizing same-sex marriage. In my view, any other interpretation is original research and a BLP violation. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If you visit WP:BLPN, you'll see that we have a reliable source that contradicts your view by stating that Paul endorsed the federal amendment against same-sex marriage. MilesMoney (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul opposes gay marriage as a matter of policy

Why exactly are people accusing Miles of tendentious editing? Paul is a federalist who does not believe in imposing national solutions to these issues. However, he opposes gay marriage both personally and as a matter of policy. Wanting to outlaw gay marriage is not incompatible with wanting to let the states decide. This is clear as day from numerous RS. His grounds for supporting federalism on the issue, incidentally, are pragmatic. According to On the Issues, he used to support the Federal Marriage Amendment as recently as 2010 (1), and said in 2013 putting the issue at the state level gives opponents of SSM a chance to uphold traditional marriage (i.e. ban gay marriage) in "25 to 30" states, and keep the debate alive (2). Steeletrap (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's important to remember that there is a main article on the Political positions of Rand Paul. The article on Rand Paul should just have a brief summary of his political positions. Instead, right now it has more on gay marriage than the main article does. It seems like the main points are:

1. He has generally opposed a federal definition of marriage, believing it is better to let individual states decide.

2. Paul personally believes in a traditional definition of marriage

3. He has supported efforts on the state level to define it as such.

If there is agreement on those points, it seems like that could be conveyed in a sentence or two and anything else could go in the other article. - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion of RS-sourced material

Here (1) User:Arzel deletes a lot of material, added by multiple users, sourced by multiple high quality RS. His justification is a vague (and therefore, unhelpful) statement of "NPOV." He made no elaboration upon what this was supposed to mean.

Because Arzel was not specific, it's impossible to know what the basis of his "NPOV" criticism is. The material deleted describes Paul's strong personal views on gay marriage, using his own words (that he "doesn't understand" gay marriage, quoted and covered in multiple RS). Also deleted was the bestiality joke he made to Glenn Beck, which received national attention and controversy, covered in dozens of RS, and therefore deserves to be covered (Rick Santorum's similar gaffe receives extensive treatment in his article). Since it's a sensitive topic, I'm happy to directly quote Paul's joke without elaboration, or adopt alternative paraphrases of his remarks. But I simply can't see the justification for deleting it wholesale.

I'm by no means anti-Rand Paul. I dislike him on a lot of issues and admire him on others (his views on mandatory minimums, drones and the drug war very much enhance our national discourse). I am genuinely puzzled by the claim that my contributions to the article, entirely accurately representing his statements on marriage (an issue that receives loads of media coverage, yet in this article gets far less attention than Paul's anti-choice views) are being criticized as biased. Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this was not a Mass Deletion. Try not to make hyperbolic statements. The first section (not added by you) makes a preposterous notion that we have to WP:ATTRIB Paul's opinion. In attempt to try and point out that the NYT is unreliable (good luck with that, even if I agree it is biased). Unfortunately we have Paul's own clear words from a secondary source which make the attribution unneeded. However, then the other editor goes further in trying to say that Paul is a hypocrite with the use of "Despite his commitment to state's rights on the issue,", which is really just a "However," and ties it to another source. This is a clear violation of NPOV. The section that you added is a common POV attack that you see on WP. This is a section on his political positions. This is not a section for editors to attack his positions, that is what Blogs are for. You clearly have a lot of disdain for Paul regarding this issue, which makes it hard to not see this as anything more than trying to make a political point about Paul. Arzel (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to chime in here and note that Paul never uses the word bestiality. That is a faulty interpretation of his original statement, which the Post article corrected in its headline, despite the fact that the link is still to the original headline. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is his speech writer

I don't have the rights to edit the main page, but could someone who does, add in the fact that Politico has found TWO more instances of Rand Paul speeches having plagiarized passages. This time the passages are not from Wikipedia, but from other news sources. See here. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/rand-paul-pledges-caution-wikipedia-entry-gattaca-99208.html

My guess is that as soon as someone skilled at text search algorithms does thorough comparison of his speeches with Google searches they are going to find a WEALTH of examples. So keeping this story up-to-date will be important.

• • • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffwinchell (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/28/watch-rand-paul-uses-gattaca-and-my-left-foot-to-argue-against-scientific-advancement/

Note the direct quotes from the Gattaca article. Hcobb (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that several people created a new section, "Allegations of plagiarism", which was then deleted in its entirety, and then restored. Time for discussion per WP:BRD. I wonder if there might be some kind of middle ground here. Maybe a sentence could be added to Political positions, under the abortion section, saying something like

• option 1: "In October 2013 Paul invoked the dystopian film Gattaca to imply that a pro-life position could lead to eugenics." (no mention of Wikipedia)
• option 2: "In October 2013 Paul invoked the dystopian film Gattaca to imply that a pro-life position could lead to eugenics; in his speech he used excerpts from the Wikipedia article about the film near-verbatim without attribution." (mention of Wikipedia and implication but not actual accusation of plagiarism)

Andrew Kaczynski has shown that Paul also used text almost verbatim from a different Wikipedia article in a different speech on a completely different subject, apparently without attribution. That's apart from the fact that borrowing material without attribution is not a political position. So putting this information in the political positions section would be inappropriate. Dezastru (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost verbatim apparently without attribution? I think you need a stronger platform than this to get into a tizzy. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that we're the source of his Random sayings notable? Hcobb (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What a joke. I find it ironic that WP is basically a repository of non-attributed statements. The issue about gattaca is simply stupid. The whole premise of the film is well known, to say that this is plagiarized from WP is laughable at best since if the information was to be attributed anywhere it would go to the original source. You do realize that no content on WP is owned by WP. There is no reason to cite WP for anything, although I know that some people do. If you want to attribute something on WP to someone else, than it should go to the source of the content, not WP. On top of this, you have nothing more than liberal talking heads criticizing someone that they already don't like. Bio's are not a place for political attacks. If people have a problem with his position, that is something worth discussing, but to load up an article on partisan controversy like this...well you could have an article tens of pages long with all kinds of political opinion and complaints. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia does not need attribution. It was a speech, not a graded essay (for which attribution is required only by the teacher/school, not Wikipedia). Now, unless we're going to start finding and then listing every instance of "plagiarism" from Wiki that has ever occurred in any political speech, I think this event is basically meaningless. It is highly unlikely that Rand Paul sat down and wrote the speech himself, but even if he did, outside of continual or substantial media coverage, I don't really see the point in adding it to his biography (unless, as mentioned before, we start doing it for every speech, presentation etc.). This is a biography for an encyclopedia, not a page for commenting, listing, or critiquing every single thing the subject matter does. Coinmanj (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not up to us to judge what we think should be notable, but only to determine what is notable based on the coverage from reliable sources. At first, I thought this was being blown out of proportion and only talked about on liberal sources, but it looks like it's getting bigger coverage now. His local paper is reporting on it and saying "how Paul handles the issue could determine whether the allegations impact his potential plans for a 2016 presidential bid." - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The information will be included or omitted here, not based on whether WE think it is important or trivial, but based on what kind of coverage it gets. If it had gone no further than the original disclosure by an admittedly partisan source, we would not include it here. But it has gone national and mainstream. See USA Today, Washington Post, etc. This kind of significant coverage requires some kind of coverage here specifically about the plagiarism issue. In my comment launching this section I thought we could get by with a mention under "political positions," but it has gone way beyond that. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Those "National sources" are simply reporting on Maddow allegation against Paul. When a national TV figure accuses a Senator of Plagarism, chances are it will get some covereage. FTR, WP is an open content, it is not possible to plagarise in the same manner. Also, Paul has not presented the basic premise as his own, he did give the movies credit for the ideas. This is little more than partisan bitching. Maddow apparently does not have an argument against the basic logic of Paul so she tries to cloud the message by claiming Plagarism. Additionally, this really needs to go into the political positions. It is vastly undue weight to have its own section. Arzel (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The degree of weight is determined by the degree of coverage; by the time USAToday gets into the act (and interviews a plagiarism expert and two professors to expand on the issue), it has obviously become a significant story. As for the "plagiarism" issue, it's not a matter of copyright; as you point out Wikipedia is open content. The issue is that (as one writer pointed out) any junior high student knows that you're not supposed to directly copy from the encyclopedia or any other source and pass it off as your own work. One would expect a U.S. Senator (or his speechwriters) to know better. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Another case of plagiarism: Paul Has Given Speeches Plagiarized From Wikipedia Before Great50 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And here is coverage from the Courier-Journal, so a reliable source that we can't dismiss as partisan.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We need to be very careful about describing this in a NPOV. Are a lot of mainstream sources writing about this issue? If so, I agree it should be included in the article. If not, it shouldn't. The term plagiarism, incidentally, is very loaded and usually appears in the context of academic dishonesty (or fraud in journalism/literature). Steeletrap (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Google news gives a 48 count so far, including HuffPo, MSNBC, Slate, IBTimes, etc. Hcobb (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well in that case it certainly should be covered. He should have done his homework and made the attribution, so it's a fair criticism. But I think some context should be added; I mean really, this isn't the same as a student plagiarizing a paper, since the norm of politics is for other people (usually speechwriters) to write the words politicians speak, and for politicians to speak those words without attribution. Whether or not a sub-section is merited should also be a subject of ongoing debate, depending on how far the coverage extends. (A lot of politicians have been involved in similar controversies; Joe Biden was subject to 'plagiarism' charges in his 1988 presidential run, as was Obama in the 2008 election, yet neither man has a sub-section of his wiki devoted to it.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we might want to evaluate the section as time goes on and see if the incident has legs after a week or a month. But you are wrong about Joe Biden. The Joe Biden plagiarism allegations have extensive Wikipedia coverage - five paragraphs at Joe Biden#1988 presidential campaign, and a very long section at Joe Biden presidential campaign, 1988#Kinnock controversy. That's appropriate, because it was one of the things that derailed his campaign. I could not find anything about the Obama plagiarism claims at Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. That's probably appropriate, because the incident blew over quickly and did not have any lasting impact; his primary rival Hillary Clinton did attempt briefly to make an issue of it, but it didn't gain much traction in the media. It wouldn't hurt to have a sentence about it in the primary campaign article, but its omission is not serious. --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Melanie is right. (Although the Biden bio, in the section on the '88 campaign, devotes approximately seven, not five, paragraphs to issues surrounding allegations of plagiarism. And the Obama 2008 primary campaign article does mention the Obama-Patrick-Clinton kerfuffle. That was a different situation because Obama and Patrick both said Patrick had given Obama permission to use the material and Patrick was an Obama campaign co-chair. Obama also did respond to the criticism, whereas Paul has, so far, said nothing about the allegations in his case.) Obama has been president for nearly 5 years and had been a US senator and a state senator for years before that; Biden had been a US senator for 35 years, as well as a past presidential candidate, and is currently vice-president. So there are naturally going to be some differences in how their bio articles cover information compared to how Paul's article does. Dezastru (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, there it is! Several sentences/half a paragraph at Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008#March primaries. All the more evidence that this incident does deserve a place in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"The norm of politics is for other people (usually speechwriters) to write the words politicians speak, and for politicians to speak those words without attribution" - and for public officials to take responsibility for the words that come out of their mouths, irrespective of whether they wrote the words themselves, just as respectable authors take responsibility for books or articles published under their names even when they have written the works with the assistance of ghostwriters. Dezastru (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

...and that's only fair, because the politicians also take credit for what comes out of their mouths. John F. Kennedy gets credit for "Ask not...", Ronald Reagan gets credit for "Tear down this wall," even though those words were written for them by speechwriters. You say it, you own it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Chris Matthews followed up on the story on October 30, 2013. Great50 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, this certainly does not require a subsection. Lets try to avoid recentism and not add undue weight. Simply having reliable sourcing and being "notable" does not mean a subsection is needed. Having it in the Tenure section is fine. Truthsort (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I find that claims of undue weight or recentism or something else in political BLPs always seem to be the province of POV pushers. It's an immediate and transparent red flag for me. It's also a hard sell for a section this small in an article this large. So, while I realize this BLP is sensitive to political partisans, I just hope folks don't think thinly veiled and specious objections fool anyone. Eds should remember to focus on the project, not their personal agendas. The events in the section are notable, widely reported and reliably sourced and the section itself is balanced and impartial. By definition, those elements merit a subsection for easy access and easy reference, not simply burying them in some much larger section. If nothing else, the very fact that the story involves Wikipedia itself should make it a notable one to all editors. X4n6 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

How about you assume good faith and quit acting as if there is a politically motivated reason for this. Your comments on the talk page and edit summary show a blatant lack of civility on your part. Paul's comments on the civil rights act were far more notable than this and there is no section for it. Truthsort (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight: because I call out your WP:TE and now your clear 3RR vio here, here, here, I'm guilty of failing to show good faith? And where is your good faith? More to the point, why don't you demonstrate good faith and civility? I just call balls and strikes. Your complaint about some other remarks that Paul has made, just proves the point and exposes your clear bias. Do not try to use WP to be an apologist for your partisan viewpoints. If you are offended by me calling you an agenda pusher, then stop pushing your agenda - it's that simple. And stop edit warring or you will find yourself blocked. The same applies for WP:POV vios. X4n6 (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Creating a separate section for this is not in fitting with the rest of the article or Wikipedia guidelines. It'll probably need to be cut down eventually as there are too many extraneous details in there, but that can wait. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact the current material in this article is shorter and provides far less detail than the comparable material at Joe Biden#1988 presidential campaign, Joe Biden presidential campaign, 1988#Kinnock controversy, and Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008#March primaries. So presumably including this kind of material, in at least this much depth, is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. If the objection is to having it as a named section, where should it go instead? Maybe a "controversies" section? --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The incident has now made the New York Times.[2] That should help settle the question of whether it is noteworthy. I think we should insert the NYT reference into the article in place of some of the weaker references (we don't need a dozen). --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I already included the New York Times piece in the section. I also included the LA Times and USA Today. It also already had the Washington Post. But yes, certainly the Louisville, Ky Courier could go. But the significant major national media coverage makes it impossible to ignore. X4n6 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

POV trimming of article content

Lately there has been a rash of editors 'rescuing' the article, as they see it, from additions of superfluous content. This has involved a substantial amount of trimming of material or arguing against additions of material. Curiously, the only material being trimmed or blocked is that which the editors view as being negative about Paul. One participant on this Talk page, for example, objected to inclusion of information on the allegations of plagiarism because "This is a biography for an encyclopedia, not a page for commenting, listing, or critiquing every single thing the subject matter does." It has been argued that covering the allegations of plagiarism amounts to placing "undue weight" on the topic.

Why aren't editors trimming the mention of the fact that Paul was on the swim team in high school? Or that he scored at he 90th percentile on the Medical College Admissions Test? Or that he traveled "as far as Montanta" to campaign for his father in 1988? Or that the Senate committees he has served on are mentioned in the article twice, within a single overall section of the article? Or that he wears hearing aids in both ears? Why was it so important that the article mention that Paul's wife was living and working in Atlanta when they met? Or that Paul worked at Gilbert Graves Clinic before opening his own practice?

Now we have an invocation of "one source for each sentence is fine. It is informative enough for the sentence that is being sourced" to justify removing citations for information about the allegations of plagiarism, while it's just fine for the article to have 3 citations to support "his wife shortened it [his name] to 'Rand'" and 3 citations to support a statement that his Senate campaign announcement was reported in the media. As far as I am aware, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that limits sourcing to one citation per sentence.

If editors are removing content out of genuine concern about improving the quality of the article, let's see that spirit applied in a more even-handed, NPOV way. Dezastru (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Give the hyperbole a break Dezastru. As for NPOV, you seem incapable. Arzel (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. All it needs is a Funnel plot. MilesMoney (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Nail on the head, Dezastru. It appears the clear remedy for all the policy shopping of late, is to apply those policies - however wrongly applied - to the entire article, consistently and uniformly throughout. Once the result becomes clear, editors may well rethink that approach. X4n6 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Dezastru and X4n6, please don't advocate disrupting the article to make a point. And all of you, please stop talking about other editors and focus on the article. We appear to have a pretty well accepted and neutral treatment right now so I'm not sure there is much more to say. Dezastru, what specifically are you recommending? That the recently deleted multiple citations be added back? They were probably not adding much and their removal is not important, unless someone is claiming that the information is not adequately supported, and I haven't heard anyone say that. The content, and the existence of reliable sources supporting the content, are what matters. And the multiple references are all listed at the top of this talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

MelanieN, I am not advocating disrupting the article to make a point. I am asking editors to apply the same standards to all the material in the article when they make revisions. You cannot claim to be editing neutrally when the only time you insist on excluding information from the article is when the content in question might be perceived as being negative about the article's subject. I agree with you that we appear to have a neutral treatment right now – you wrote that after I had restored some citations that had been deleted by another editor who had left an accomanying edit comment saying that only one citation per sentence was appropriate.
I don't know what list of articles you are talking about at the top of the page; perhaps you are confusing this page with a different one. Dezastru (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right; the media listings are at the page Talk:Gattaca because that is the Wikipedia article they are about. My mistake. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

MelanieN, Dezastru makes a perfectly reasonable point about balance. My point simply, is that if certain policies are going to be applied to this article - whether they are accurately applied or not - then those policies must be uniformly applied. There is nothing disruptive about that. To the contrary, that is merely objective consistency. Additionally, removing multiple sources for an edit only makes it easier later to challenge the source and remove the edit. Leaving the multiple sources intact bolsters the substance of the edit and supports the argument that multiple RS found it important enough to report.X4n6 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to giving multiple Reliable Sources for information - especially information with BLP implications. So if you want to put back the multiple sources it should be OK IMO. It doesn't lengthen the article any to have multiple sources. Is that all we are fighting about here? The deletion of the extra sources? --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)