Hello, I'm Wpscatter. I noticed that you recently removed content from Armie Hammer without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. WPscatter t/c 01:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Armie Hammer. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. All of your edits are trying to downplay the controversy and are not sourced reliably. Thank you. CureComet (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi… The changes I made were to tone down the overly sensationalised description of these allegations against man’s life. The sources removed are not reputable nor are adding to the quite graphic and explicit descriptions on this page. This is not the appropriate forum for this discussion of unverified accusations. After almost two years, we are not here to continue to perpetuate the allegations even the alleged victim is trying to move away from and have removed from various locations on social media. Barkingbard (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to "tone down overly sensationalized descriptions" from reliable sources. To do so would in fact run counter to maintaining a neutral point of view. And it does not matter if he or the victims are "trying to move away from" the accusations - they happened and were covered by major media outlets. They belong on the page. See also An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. WPscatter t/c 03:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok… I can see that. The other references added by me that were removed were more reputable sources. Can I re add them to give a more rounded view of the allegations?? The sources are less tabloid than already sourced page six. Barkingbard (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful not to conflate a neutral point of view with a more rounded one. Wikipedia often makes (or rather, repeats) value judgements—good and bad—if there are an overwhelming amount of sources available that make those judgements. Wikipedia is not censored, and your note on your user page about "keeping things age appropriate" is slightly alarming.
- Given that your edits have already been reverted a couple times you may have better luck if you take the new sources to the talk page. In situations like this, whether information is due for inclusion in the article can depend a lot on the quantity of sources available. For example (and this isn't necessarily true here) if there are 20 articles detailing the allegations and one op-ed that says the allegations are overblown, that would almost definitely not belong in the article. So getting consensus before adding them would be a good thing to do. WPscatter t/c 03:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice and feedback. I am new to editing and come from an Education background. So for me facts matter but I can see your advice as a sound method to ensure the content is soundly reviewed before addition.
I am still troubled by some of the content which appear quiet triggering and salacious. How does Wikipedia manage these sort of challenges. Barkingbard (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with you that facts matter in the grand scheme of things, but on Wikipedia, if it isn't reported by a reliable source (preferably a secondary one), it doesn't belong in an article. Editors cannot add original research to articles, nor can they draw conclusions based on multiple different sources. This means that, perhaps surprisingly or frustratingly, material being true is not necessarily enough to allow it in a Wikipedia article.
- As for things that are triggering, again I agree that there are places where content warnings are helpful and necessary, but Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable, and per policy we do not add content warnings or censor such content. WPscatter t/c 04:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for this discussion. I had completely ‘the wrong end of the stick’ when it comes to editing. I will use the discussion pages and then see if my changes are deemed appropriate.
Thanks again for correcting my misassumptions about my role as an editor. I have learnt a lot from this great discussion. Barkingbard (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
