Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

The Family International

There is a discussion on the Family International’s talk page (section "Cult vs. New religious movement (again)") as to whether it should be labelled as a “cult” or as a “new religious movement”.

The word "cult" has been named as one of Wikipedia’s “words to watch”, as an example of a word that is “best avoided” and cannot be used without an in-text attribution. According to Wikipedia's definition of "cult", it is “considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices.” Because of this, the term has long been abandoned in academia, and the neutral term of “new religious movement” is used instead.

Since academic sources consistently call this organization a “new religious movement”, and sources that call it a “cult” are generally biased and focus on negative and controversial aspects of the group, I believe that the organization should be labelled as a “new religious organization”, in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies regarding a NPOV, Words to Watch, and academic sources.

However, another editor believes that the organization should be primarily referred to as a cult, since this term is used in certain unspecified sources. So far, we have not been able to come to an agreement. Theobvioushero (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Support use of the term "cult". GPinkerton (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that academic sources have replaced the word cult with new religious movement? TFD (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Couple of things: Firstly the sources currently used to support the word cult are not remotely scholarly and are openly biased. They need to be removed from the lead; but there is no reason they cannot be contextually used elsewhere in the body. Secondly there are undoubtedly scholarly sources which refer to the subject as a cult (e.g.), and there are other scholarly sources which explicitly deny it is a cult and refer to it as a movement (e.g.) Thirdly, there is no reason it has to be a dichotomy. Just state that it has been variously defined as a cult, movement... whatever else you find. But cult is frequent in the literature, so it has to be in there in the first couple of sentences. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, but want to note that contemporary scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a "cult" are uncommon and use this word in the sociological sense, rather than the sense used by the general public. I agree though that we should mention that they have been called a "cult" in the introduction as long as we include an in-text attribution, in accordance with the “words to watch” policy, rather than presenting it as an objective fact. For example, "They have been accused of being a cult by counter-cult organizations such as ICSA and the Cult Education Institute." Theobvioushero (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources published via university presses are usually acceptable. If sources also call it a NRM (it is likely applicable as a more general category), it would be possible to mention both NRM and to say that it has also been described as a cult (although avoiding to mention specific people as if it was a minor opinion). —PaleoNeonate – 16:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To quote from one of the sources I presented earlier, “the sociological concept of a cult, as a certain type of religious innovation, has not retained its morally neutral meaning in the arena of public discourse…. For this reason, the morally neutral term of new religious movements (NRM’s) has come to replace the pejorative label of ‘cults’ in the lexicon of most social science scholars of new religions.” Theobvioushero (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Simply put, GPinkerton has repeatedly asserted that the term "cult" is biased, while providing nothing to back that up. Editor also claims all sources referring to it as a cult are biased and therefore should be dismissed. Sources use both "cult" and "new religious movement" to refer to the group, so both terms are appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion is taking one bias and merely replacing it with one in the other direction. It's not clear why you consider a link to a google scholar search of "the family international" evidence that references are uncommon; I appended the world "cult" to your search and 344 results were returned. As I already stated in my reply above, I agree that it's fair to say that "they have been described" or "defined" as a cult, as a NRM, etc, rather than stating it as fact in WP voice. But the word "accused" is not neutral. They have been described as a cult in the academic literature, and frequently in mainstream news sources (recently by BBC, The Times, The Guardian) not just by "counter-cult organizations". Cambial foliage❧ 00:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

344 is still a small percentage of the total (2,740) though, and the vast majority of those sources do not call the organization a “cult”, but use the term in a different way. Academic sources point out that “most social science scholars of new religions” do not use the term “cult”; that the term “new religious movement” has been the “preferred” term of religious scholars since the early 1970’s; and that "the term 'new religions' would virtually replace 'cult’" by the end of the 1970’s.

I don’t see any issue with using the term “described” rather than “accused” though, and agree that it is also be appropriate to mention news sources that have used that term; it would just would require additional citations. For example, "They have been described as a cult by counter-cult organizations and various news organizations such as the BBC, New York Times, and the Guardian.” This point can be expanded on in the “reception” section, and uncontroversial terms such as “new religious movement”, “group” and “organization” can be used to refer to the group generally without the need for in-text attributions. Theobvioushero (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s better if we don’t have an extended exercise in sophistry; nor will doing so support your case. The only place I mentioned appending "cult" to your search for "the family international", was in the context of pointing out the shortcomings of your citing such a search as evidence that scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a "cult" are uncommon. It isn't evidence for that. If I were looking to cite google searches as evidence for the counterfactual ("scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a cult are common") I would have substituted "children of god"+ cult and pointed toward the ~16,000 results. I didn't do that, because search result numbers alone are not evidence to buttress either POV, nor would they form a method of framing a NPOV if they were. Stick to actual evidence, not google search pages.

It's true that scholars in different fields have different words for things, sometimes for non-academic reasons. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology puts the issue with regards to movements neatly: "Most NRMs would fit into the sociological category of either sect or cult, but scholars came to favor the term NRM in order to avoid the pejorative overtones associated in the public mind with these labels." WP:LABEL, which I assume is what you were intending to cite in your OP, states that words like cult are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The argument you are trying to make has no basis in the policies used to determine content on WP. There is no suggestion in the MOS, nor in any policy, that we should censor academically published use of specific words because they have fallen out of fashion amongst scholars in certain disciplines. If numerous scholars have stated that the subject of the article is a cult – and a brief perusal of the contents of some of the 16,000+ g scholar results on the subject indicate that numerous scholars have done so, including recently – then the article should state as much.

Finally, the notion that "new religious movement" is somehow neutral takes as a given your POV that the subject is a religious organization. Clearly, that is part of the controversy and resistance to your proposed changes, and given that so many sources from reliable news media and scholarship refer to it as a "cult", using "new religious movement" as a pretended neutral term does not produce a NPOV. “New religious movement” must instead be listed as one of the various definitions it has been given by scholars, and perhaps by reliable news sources (though in a brief search I couldn't find the latter; every news source referred to the organization as a cult, not as a religious movement, new or otherwise). Cambial foliage❧ 23:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

We can disregard the Google Scholar searches if you do not believe they are productive. I want to make sure that they do not distract from the scholarly citations that I also provided. According to the academic sources, "new religious movement/new religion" is a "morally neutral" term that has been "almost unanimously adopted" by scholars in order to avoid the terms "cult" and "sect." It is currently "the generally accepted term" for such groups, and has "virtually replace[d]" the word "cult" in academia. To clarify, I am not saying that the term "cult" should be censored, just that it needs in-text attributions, due to its "pejorative" connotations.

I have never heard anyone deny that the Family International is a religious group. From what I have seen, those who prefer to call it a "cult" do not believe that terms such as "religious organization" or "new religious movement" are inaccurate. Instead, they prefer "cult" because it is a more specific term. Who are you referring to that denies this group is a religious organization? Theobvioushero (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not saying that the term "cult" should be censored, just that it needs in-text attributions – so we agree that in the lead paragraph it should state that scholars and media organisations have described it as both a cult and a new religious movement, with some specific examples.

The subject of the article is the Children of God/The Family, not two sociologists’ views about what is or is not “morally neutral”. For the same reason, what an encyclopaedia, or an undergraduate writing a term paper, thinks is generally true, does not countervail the widespread use of the term cult in this specific instance. Are you suggesting that a cult and a new religious movement are the same thing? If so, your proposed changes and this thread is a waste of time. If not, in a situation where many scholars call it one thing, while many scholars, media, and NGOs call it something different, choosing one over the other as a neutral term is not a NPOV. A neutral term would be something which is a category into which both terms clearly fall – i.e. a “movement”, or a “group”, or an “organization”. It doesn’t say very much because it’s designed not to, in order to be neutral. We don’t give more weight to one set of scholars because they represent the POV you happen to prefer.

First couple of pages of results of news organizations which refer to it as a cult, with no mention of religion: Cambial foliage❧ 11:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"Cult" should be used for deviants. Generally speaking Theosophists, despite their weird beliefs, aren't deviants. Generally speaking monks, despite their professed celibacy, aren't deviants. I think there is enough evidence to say that TFI is a group of deviants, rather than a group of decently behaving people who happen to have other religious opinions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I'm not the one making the call, WP:RS make the call. And even if we don't use the word "cult" our article about TFI is pretty unflattering for them. The RS speak about pervasive sexual abuse of children. Don't you think that's deviant? I mean Catholics and Protestants still have a dogma that child abuse is not done. TFI apparently had a dogma that encouraged child abuse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What I think is irrelevant, have the courts said they all deviant? BLP protect everyone even people accused of being pedos.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No one has been convicted of pedophilla, abuse, or any other crime. They also ended their controversial practices 25 years ago.

I think that Cambial Yellowing and I are actually close to agreement. It seems like we both believe that the word "cult" should be included in the article, but would need in-text attributions.

Our disagreement now is if the it is controversial to call it a religious organization. If the term is controversial, it should have an in-text attribution as well. However, the links he gave do not deny that they are a religious organization. They simply don't use the term because they focus on other topics instead. It seems to me like they are clearly a religious group, with well defined religious and practices that influence all other aspects of the organization, and I have never heard any argument to the contrary. If there are people that deny that this is a religious organization, then they should be cited, but if not, then the term is uncontroversial. Theobvioushero (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that where stating that scholars have described it as a new religious movement, no specific individual in-text examples are needed. Whether the subject is "deviant" is not relevant. Whether it is controversial to call it a religious organisation is not relevant. Whether a phrase is "morally neutral" is not relevant. The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss how to maintain a neutral point of view, specifically and exclusively the understanding of that phrase laid out in the principles of WP:NPOV. For the reasons already given in my last post, which subsequent commentary has not affected, stating that the subject is a "religious organisation" in WP voice does not maintain NPOV. Cambial foliage❧ 13:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Recheck

can you tell me if this edit by this guy breaches pov rule for wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&diff=979414452&oldid=979248952 Baratiiman (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Baratiiman, personally, I can see both sides of this argument. However he explicitly states that there is no evidence of this being taken in Isfahan. HeartGlow ^(talk) 03:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• again HeartGlow30797 Pahlevun showing he won't need NPOV
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&diff=979907351&oldid=979881663
• Baratiiman (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fashion_in_Iran&diff=980451588&oldid=980441033 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yousef_Tabatabai_Nejad&diff=980451190&oldid=980427046 Baratiiman (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Iran&oldid=prev&diff=980594867 Baratiiman (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&type=revision&diff=980594777&oldid=980594561 Baratiiman (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Addressing bias (Robert E. Lee Academy)

To Whom it may concern: There is currently an ongoing dispute regarding NPOV of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee_Academy You can see it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_E._Lee_Academy

or in the revision history. I left a lot of edits requests for BillHPike, Jacona but those editors ignored most of my reasoning. I think the editors are clearly biased and cannot edit the page from the NPOV. Here is the proof of their bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Billhpike/Archive_4 The section “Rober E. Lee Academy “ Jakona (the editor heavily involved in the editing) cites: “I believe that the article is WP:NPOV because it doesn't delve sufficiently into the white supremacy. The naming of the school for Lee, a man who was famous as a traitor to the U.S., a slaveholder, and a particularly violent one, and an emblem of white power needs far more attention. Some of this can be found here. More about Lee as a slaveholder, torturer, murderer, traitor, and symbol of white supremacy is easily sourced.” Question: how the person who edit encyclopedia can neutrally edit the page on the same topic? While Robert E. Lee page is balanced and neutral, this cannot be said about the school.

The most important thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_addressing_bias

Due to the bias, the editors refuse to see the positive changes for the school for the last years and use the information in the sources selectively to reflect their bias opinion. Even a request to change the page name by using proper sources, was rejected. I’m asking non-biased editors to come and read the Talk page and check the page for neutrality.

Disclaimer: I also have a conflict of interest and I admitted it on my talk page. I only asked for the edits requests according to the Wikipedia policy. Fritzsmith20 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• • "Balanced and neutral" does not mean complimentary. It is well-sourced that Lee was a slaveholder who violently beat his slaves until their flesh was a blood pulp and poured brine on their wounds. He was a traitor to the United States and is frequently used as a symbol of repression of African-Americans. In contrast to the verbage above, Lee's page discusses his slaveholding, his brutality towards slaves, and more.
  • It appears that the editors idea of "neutral" point of view is actually the idea to whitewash the article of any factual history.
  • While User talk:Fritzsmith20 claims the school has changed it's name, and even provided a source, I checked court records and found that there is a different corporation of that name elsewhere in the state that uses the "new" name, and has for decades. The newspaper articles about the subject stated that they were changing the name but hadn't yet done so officially. Based on that, I didn't think it's wise to move the article to the "new" name - they're probably not going to be able to use the new name. If it's appropriate to change the name based on the fact the school changed it on their website and acknowledged the change wasn't yet official, have at it!Jacona (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Jacona, after all what you said on BillHPike’ Talk Page, (see your own words cited above) I doubt that you can edit Lee Academy page without bias and I don’t think it is appropriate to edit on this topic while representing your own ideology. Do you have any conflict of interest related to the subject, such as your friends or relatives related somehow to the topic? If “yes”, please, recognize it as I did on my page and give unbiased editors to do their volunteer work properly.

• • Regarding the school name. Your refusal to update the school page is beyond any reason and looks more like an attempt to use Wikipedia knowledge only to prevent the inevitable. The new school name reflects our policy change and it looks like you feel uncomfortable about it. I have a feeling that you wish to punish the school for its past issues (which were real many years ago but that has changed) and thus refuse to accept the fact that the school is reforming. Our new name change has been well received by parents, students and community and everyone sees it as a positive change. The name has been updated on the website and can be confirmed by secondary sources. Now the name change “officially” as you call it, will happen very soon – with a large non-profit like this, it takes time to make sure everything is done correctly. Hundreds of our students, the school staff and other people in the community already call us “Lee Academy” and that will continue into the future. Our lawyers have told us that even if the name change we record with the state of South Carolina has to be something in the line of "Lee Academy of Bishopville" our dba can easily and legally be "Lee Academy".Fritzsmith20 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that not being a white supremacist is a conflict of interest? Jacona (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fritzsmith20: you still haven't complied with WP:COI despite your obvious close relationship to the school - you are clearly a connected contributor and that should be declared on the talk page of the school as well as on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV policy question, history: Antonius Verancius' quote, which version is more neutral?

I'm having a discussion with another user on which of these 2 versions is more netural:

(A) According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks",[59] while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".

(B) According to Antun Vrančić, Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks". According to the Romanian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that they easily equal all of the others,[59] while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".

This is the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Transylvania#Antonius_Verancius'_quote My diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=979026390&oldid=978024079 His diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=979473136&oldid=979026390

The original text in Latin is the following: Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant." doesn't specify the word "any" in its translation. The word for word translation is as following: qui = who or whom, quamlibet = however, harum = these, facile = easily, magnitudine = size, aequant = match. The word "any" is non existent and not implied by the author.

The other user argues that: Quamlibet means as well "any", to any extent, any degree, "quamlibet harum" in this context appoints this, as the three main nations are listed in the first place, and added one to be mentioned which number may be equal with any of these. While I argue that: Quamlibet does have more meanings depending on context, but the context "quamlibet" is used here doesn't imply the use of quamlibet as "any". This is the debate that scholars had as well. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. Anyway, this doesn't matter that much as our personal opinions on the subject doesn't matter, we only have the sources to work with and through. I just posted this so you know it was already discussed. We have 2 sources contradicting each other and need to find a balance.

The other user argues that: the page has a consensus on the current content sourced. I argue that: the current content is sourced correctly but interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. It is not a problem of sources, both sources are already present in the article, but rather a problem of wording.

I argue that: His edits with language that implied one is objectively correct is clear violation of WP:NEUTRALITY. While I on the other hand, simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources on equal grounds, despite the clean latin version supporting the Romanian translation. He argues that: What you did is the assertion some expressions the sources did not say, on the other hand the last stable version properly summarizes what the sources in fact say, without taking sides.

Eventually, I told him again that: The text you are trying to keep, is worded overwhelmingly in favor of Hungarian historians implying the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one. Clear Hungarian bias. I simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources, and removed the language that implied one is objectively correct. Despite the Romanian version being supported by the clean Latin translation, I did not mention that because of WP:NEUTRALITY. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While as far as I know, only Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. The sources, for both versions, are already listed in the article, but are interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. My job here is not to tell which one is right, I simply list both versions on equal grounds. Unlike you, who wants to list the clearly in favor of the Hungarians version wording. I get that you disagree, but you can't disagree simply on the grounds that you don't like it. Wikipedia is for education not personal opinions. Which is why I believe the only solution is a 3rd opinion.

He argued that: There has been not any bias, sources were cited and summarized (the Romanian and Hungarian interpretations are both identified, in this order), what you do here is pure OR, and yes, your personal opinions should be ignored, which you don't do. I argued that: a version with a wording such as "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", which falsely implies that one is objectively correct, is far from neutral.

What do you think, which version is compliant with WP:NEUTRALITY and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn (talk • contribs) 23:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I see no reason to bring this issue here, which is purely your OR, as it has pointed out in the article's talk page, where anyone interested may see how you ignore important points and refuse to understand our policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, your summarization is as well suffers from all of these. This issue earlier wen't through a noticeboard and both Romanian and Hungarian editors agreed the current (longstanding) version, which in fact summarize what the sources tell us. This user tendentiously failing to recognize this. The Romanian interpretations are summarized - on the first place indeed - the Hungarian in the second place, and only the latter notes about the translation's proper interpretation. We cannot summarize something from a source, which is not stated. This is not (cannot be) a neutrality issue, since both viewpoints are summarized accordingly to the sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC))

The reason to bring this issue here is because we cannot reach consensus by ourselves. Please, specify that the person who "it has pointed out in the article's talk page" was you. I also pointed out violation of WP:NEUTRALITY in the talk page, but I will not talk about myself in 3rd person to make it seem like someone else has said it. If such a noticeboard existed, you gave no link to it, please post a link if it exists. If this is about the discussion above our discussion in the talk page, that discussion did not involve me and was not related to the wording of this parahgraph, which is what our discussion is about. Hypothetical scenario on neutrality: We have source (A) and source (B), source A claims that "the sky is blue", source B claims that "source A claims the sky is blue, however the proper color of the sky is red". We do not pick sides. Which wording is more neutral? To say that source A claims that "the sky is blue" while source B claims that "the sky is red"; or to say that source A claims that "the sky is blue" while source B noted that "however the proper color of the sky is red"? In the 2nd version, I believe the phrasing is clearly in favor of source B and violates WP:NEUTRALITY. Everything I utilized from both sources is something that was started by both sources. That is not how it works. Both viewpoints can be summarized accordingly, but still worded in a non-neutral way. A Wikipedia article is not simply "copy-paste from the source", we add our own words and make our own sentences around it. For example: "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", this sentence is not present in either source. It is a phrase added by the editor. This is where the bias can happen. LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, there is no violation of neutrality, discussed also here and there (along with links) and involved the issues we talk. Your demonstration fails since such like however the proper color of the sky is red does not play, there is no is, but would be, etc. Similarly you utilized things the sources did not say, do not confuse this with close pharaphasing/copyedit.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC))

Yes, we discussed it, and you failed to convince me it isn't, and I failed to convince you it is, that's why we are here. The difference between 'is' and 'would be' is just semantics that doesn't strongly imply the benefit of doubt. When you say "according to John", you are not implying John is objective, when you say "John noted that the proper order would be", you are implying John is objective and right. I already told you that I did not utilize things the sources did not say. Unless you can actually give examples, all you have are empty words with no weight, as usual. Constantly making empty accusation with nothing to back them up will get you nowhere. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"Constantly making empty accusation with nothing to back them up will get you nowhere." -> again, drop such remarks, because the opposite is happening. You believe falsely about something that would be an NPOV issue, although it isn't, and still fail to understand that "John noted that the proper order would be" is describing what's in the source. You did utilize, but we have also discussed this earlier. You lack of the necessary attention to the details.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC))

I won't drop such remarks, because the opposite is not happening. You want evidence that this "Constantly making empty accusation with nothing to back them up will get you nowhere." is ture for you? In an ironic twist of events, look at your quote "argument": "drop such remarks, because the opposite is happening". You made no argument there, you only stated an opinion, a declaration, that's all your stances are in generals, personal opinions with nothing to back them up. Then let's move on to your very next phrase: "You believe falsely about something that would be an NPOV issue, although it isn't", that's it, that was your "argument": "although it isn't". This is one of the many clear cases, but it will make no difference to you. As for the last part, I didn't fail to understand that part, but you're so far off that explaining what the real problem is to you will take another paragraph, I don't know whether you're going for a strawman or genuinely missing the point but just re-read our previous conversation. With all respect, this is your style of debate in general, regardless of your point you have no arguments to support your stance. But you insist on your empty accusation in a WP:BLUDGEON style, and you wonder why I'm here asking for a 3rd opinion. Please, consider your style or reasoning before accusting others that they lack the attention to the details. In a childish naivety, you expect your empty stances to simply be believed, this is not what happens in real life, where you have to back up your stances with evidence and arguments. So naturally, I didn't believe most of the things you said, sorry, but you're not as all knowledgeable and rational as you think you are. Re-read our conversation with that in mind and things will start to make sense for you. As for me, I'm done with this conversation for it's the equivalent of trying to argue with a stone, I'll wait for a 3rd opinion and we can continue from there. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this wall of text is useless, you have to re-read everything if you still don't understand what you fail. WP:COMPETENCE is required, I won't explain something the 11th time when it was already discussed clearly and explained not just in the article's talk page, but here.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC))

Comment: I do not understand what is the core of the debate. I think nobody is willing to read lengthy threads to comment on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The original version of the article is (A), I changed it to (B) arguing that version (A) violates WP:NEUTRALITY. In this instance, there are 2 sources contradicting each other: a Romanian and a Hungarian one. In version (A), the Romanian source is listed first, afterwards the Hungarian version is listed with what I find a non-neutral language: "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be", implying that the Hungarian interpretation is the correct one. In version (B), the original quote of Antun Vrančić that both sources agree upon is listed first, following the point where both sources diverge: with the Romanian source arguing that it means "they easily equal all of the others" while the Hungarian source arguing that it means "they easily equal any of the others in number". Concenring version (A): Another user changed the language to "while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part" but was reverted back to "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part". LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this "Hungarians vs Romanians/Romanians vs Hungarians" approach verified? Are there reliable sources stating that a "Hungarian" and a "Romanian" interpretation exist? I assume there are scholars who translate the Latin text differently. Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't have a specific source to state that a "Hungarian" and a "Romanian" interpretation exists, only the two sources with different translation. Historians Jean W. Sedlar [East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000–1500] and George W. White [Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe] based part of their work on the quote in question as well, so they may have translations of their own for the Latin text, although I don't have the books themselves to verify whether they have indeed made a translation of the Latin text. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

These two authors just directly copied the Romanian sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC))

I see, were their translations the same as the Romanian source or they referenced the Romanian source with its translation? Regardless of whether it was a personal translation of their own that is the same as the Romanian source or making a footnote reference to the Romanian translation, the simple consensus with the Romanian source implies they agree with the Romanian source. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Surely there are other scholars who have translated the relevant passage into English. Before we can choose between A and B, we need to see how C, D, E, F (etc) translate it. It may be that one of the translations you are focused on (either A or B) is an outlier... not in sync with the rest of the academic community. IF so, then that outlier translation can be discarded as being fringe. And IF not, we can describe the debate without it becoming a Hungarian vs Romanian thing. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to choose between A and B, the user fail to understand how sources are summarized, believeing by mistake it would be a neutrality issue, which is not, just and only becuase he fails to understand in one source it is noted what would be the proper translation (which is anyway attributed).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC))

I think Blueboar's advice should be accepted. You probably can find translations in different languages. I am sure, Verancsics's work was translated to German and Slovakian. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a good idea. However, how could we establish what is academic consensus? Considering the way Wikipedia works (as far as I can tell) we can only establish academic consensus if one secondary source directly says that there is an academic consensus on a matter. We could gather different translations from other sources to make a reasonable idea, but even then, wouldn't that technically be OR? Not that I'm against the idea, as we probably have no better choice, just asking for the technicalities. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If academic consensus does not exist, we should not create it. Translations published in reliable sources can hardly be regarded as OR if the core of the debate is the proper translation of a Latin text. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I have no problem to investigate other translations, but I hope you see this misplaced issue, when a user simply does not like what a source tell us, which highlights the translation issue, which is relevant in this particular context of the historiography of this topic, which has an approved history on this matter anyway (i.e. Pascu's recurrent distortions). In other words, more translations does not change or influence the earlier mentioned facts.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC))

Borsoka, the cause of this debate, at least from my part, is not which source is right and wrong, for that is the work of scholarly debate. Although Blueboar's initiative to see whether one of the sources is an outlier not in sync with the rest of the academic community is a good method of solving this issue. My concern however, was with the langauge used by the editor, not with the quotes from the source itself. Which I believe is biased because it implies one source is the correct one. This part: "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part", is neither from the Romanian source or the Hungarian source, it's the editor's own words. KIENGIR's reply to you is a lie, I make no stance on what either source tell us. I would argue that he is projecting, as you can see from his own words: "(i.e. Pascu's recurrent distortions)" he has a clear bias in this issue, strongly believing that one source is in fact the correct one. I have no problem with this, he can have whatever opinion he wants, the problem is that he is trying to insert this strong belief that one source is in fact the correct one in the article. LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think @Borsoka: is able to read sources, and interpret them appropriately. Hence you again boomeranged yourself, and your accusations may be easily disproved.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC))

There are no accusations of the sources themselves (lol), merely a mention of lack of neutrality in the way they are presented. I think he has already read the sources at this point. LordRogalDorn (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You are making accusations, and the point is there is not any lacking neutrality, yes he surely did as he agreed about the longstanding representation.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC))

Can you name the accusations that I make? Wrong, the point is that there is a lack of neutrality. I will let user Borsoka speak for himself, as he didn't post here any message saying he agrees with either version yet. LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It's evident, you just have read your earlier post. No, there is not, it has been explained more times, btw. the issue's history speak for itself.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC))

I have looked, but still can't find them. You must not know what explaining means then, shouting your opinion does not make it right, let alone when you failed to prove wrong the contradictory opinion. You are right, the issue's history speaks for itself, that's why we're here. Anyway, I hope we can both agree this conversation is not useful in finding a solution, let us stick exclusively to the subject at hand, Antonius Verancius' quote, regardless of what we think the other supposedly did, do you agree? LordRogalDorn (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Then you did not look good. "You must not know what explaining means then, shouting your opinion does not make it right, let alone when you failed to prove wrong the contradictory opinion." -> Sorry, this is an issue with you again, not me, you are the one failing to understand appropriately things, even when more editors explained to you something you still recurrently continue bludgeoning. No, the issue's history imply the opposite, that the presence here is useless.

let us stick exclusively to the subject -> I've been always, you are spreading and rendering a discussion that should have been already stopped, since everywhere it turned to help you to understand some things, which you reject, hence the conversations became a case study how you cannot deal with an editor regardless how you wish to help him if he is not willing to understand basic things which others possibly far more earlier. Highly extensive information is present already in two talk pages, no need for further repetitions.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC))

• Quick question... are either of the two sources under discussion translating directly from Latin into English? Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The Romanian source is in English and the Hungarian source is in Hungarian. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar and Borsoka, it has been 10 days since you requested we find other sources. So far we've found 2 other sources: Jean W. Sedlar and George W. White, using same interpretation as the Romanian version in their works. And no other sources using the Hungarian version. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you refer to the pages where Sedlar and White refer to Verancius/Verantius/Verancsis? Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have their books [[1]], user KIENGIR said that the two authors directly copied the Romanian sources [[2]] so I assume he has the books and looked it up. The only thing I could find about them was on Wikipedia, that Jean W. Sedlar argues there were 66% Romanians in 1241 and George W. White argues there were 60% Romanians in 1600. Which does seem to confirm what KIENGIR said, for it implies they agreed with with the Romanian version of Antun Vrančić's quote. Since according to the Romanian version 'easily equal (all of) the others' means >50% Romanians in 1549-1551 (Pop Ioan Aurel and Ioan Bolovan), while according to the Hungarian version 'easily equal the others' means >25% Romanians in 1549-1551 (Károly Nyárády R). LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

So you cannot prove that either Sedlar or White refers to Verancius. In this case, we should ignore them as a source for the proper translation of Verancius' text. Borsoka (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping KIENGIR can prove based on his sayings. Ok, that means we have no other sources after 10 days, chances are we aren't going to find other sources. Should we only stick to attempting to create a neutral langauge used by the editor while posting both quotes from both sources? Both versions (A) and (B) use the same quotes from the Romanian version and Hungarian version. The difference is that the meaning of "all any of the others" is not mentioned in version (A), despite being presented in the article and source, see the demograhpics table. And (A) has impartial wording such as" while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", the are noted part falsely implies that this one is objectively correct, it is far from neutral. I attempted to fix this with version (B). Which states both sources with their differences. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Quite interesting why you feel the need/think repeating the nth time your point of view? People can read. Only you think it is a neutrality issue which is not, we don't need to choose on your interpretations, just because you don't like the summarization of one source, a scholarly opinion, shall it be Romanian or Hungarian, it is an opinion, and they are represented as they are, and since both viewpoints are respresented, it fully complies with neutrality. Also opinions on the Daco-Roman theory or the Immigrationist theory are described/summarized, and we don't remove any content based on just because anyone would see some implications on it. It is irrelevant personally what it implies to you, that is what part of scholars said from the subject.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC))

People can read, you cannot. Since we cannot find other sources, I suggested we go back to the initial idea of judging which diff is more neutral, this is very different from repeating my point of view. Only you said and keep repeating the nth time that this is not a neutrality issue which it is. If you'd pay attention, you would know that one of the 2 (A) and (B) is your interpretation. Just because you think the summarization of one of the contradictory sources is correct, a scholarly opinion, shall it be Romanian or Hungarian, it is an opinion, you must respresent both scholarly opinions on equal grounds in the Wikipedia article regardless of your personal preference. It's not enough that both viewpoints are respresented for neutrality, they have to be respresented fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. That's what neutrality is about.

Again misleading and fallacious argumentation, when have I removed any content from the Daco-Roman theory or the Immigrationist theory page? go ahead and post the diffs. But you won't, because "it's self-evident", in honest translation "I can't, because there aren't any". Nor have I removed any content from the summarization of one source in this case for that matter. Hence you again boomeranged yourself, and your accusations may be easily disproved. LordRogalDorn (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I see, so in case I cannot read, but people do, why you think if you repeat the same x time will change something? Why you think in every post of yours you have to describe a narrative although everything may be read above? The scholarly interpretation is not my interpretation, and both scholarly opinions is represented on equal grounds, fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, accusing me with any personal viewpoint when indeed you have it, won't help. Again misleading and fallacious argumentation - Really? Who said you removed anything? (that's all about paying attention, and a perfect demonstration of your nonsensical way of argumentation, as your accusations are mostly a copy-paste of what you have been told earlier). Just stop this WP:BLUDGEONING.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC))

You might as well ask yourself that, for my "repetition" is merely the same reply to the same accusations you keep making. Although everything may be read above, you failed to get the point, I described the narrative to show you the fallacy of your accusation, which you again failed to notice as evidenced by your "why you think if you repeat the same x time" despite me clearly telling you that "I suggested we go back to the initial idea". Whether you fail to WP:LISTEN or don't want to listen is really your problem, but if you wouldn't keep accusing me "just because you don't like the summarization of one source" despite me constantly telling you that I did not dislike them, I wouldn't have to redescribe the narrative to show your faults. Exactly, the scholarly interpretation is not your interpretation. But you insist that any change to your text outside what the source says must be "because I don't like what the other source says". Unfortunately, both scholarly opinions are not represented on equal grounds, fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, and going for a mirror/inverse accusation when indeed you have it, won't help.

You: "Also opinions on the Daco-Roman theory or the Immigrationist theory are described/summarized, and we don't remove any content based on just because anyone would see some implications on it."

Also you: "Really? Who said you removed anything?"

If you asked why I keep descrbing the narrative, this is why. You would deny even the most basic things, despite them being easily available above. Why would you tell me this? Why bring up the Daco-Roman theory or the Immigrationist theory on a subject that has nothing to do with it? And why say after a comma that we don't remove any content (...) despite me not doing that? Obviously because you're fallaciously trying to imply that I did it. So I had to call you out for it.

Anyway, I won't engage in this pointlessly long charade anymore, I know that arguing with you leads nowhere and most of the time is spent debunking false accusations rather than talking about the subject itself, so excuse me but I will wait for 3rd opinions, as this is why we are here. LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Amazing try, since you are the one who is performing repetitive and long walloftext, despite your narratives are already readable in multiple editions (if anyone want to go back, just scrolls up), it has nothing to with me (inverting accusations are useless, everyone may see the situation anway, recurrently copy-pasting my sentences back are very lame). You again repeat your point of view, which anyway did not tell anything new, your are preaching your belief as fact, which is not (the source given, it is approriately summarized, you don't like one part of the scholaly opinion of it)."You would deny even the most basic things" is again not on me, this is just boring. Once you tell me I cannot read, on the contrary in the same blurb, you don't read appropriately what I have written, don't you think others won't notice these very embarassing contradictions? And you even try to explain out yourself from this, I just told an example, did not imply anything/anyone specific ("we", e.g.), so it is again just a boomerang fail. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC))

Ok, let's WP:DROPTHESTICK. Blueboar and Borsoka, we were unable to find any other translations, what else can we do? If everything else fails, I suggest we go back to the initial idea of judging which diff is more neutral, or if we can't agree on version (A) or (B), we can create together a new version with a neutral wording, a version that we can all agree is not misleading in favor of one side or another. What do you think about this one?

According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".

LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Your "Hungarians vs Romanians" approach could hardly be verified. I think this discussion should be closed. Nobody is willing to read lengthy texts. Sorry, I stop commenting on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Very well, fair point. For the record, it's not my "Hungarians vs Romanians" approach as it was already present in the article. LordRogalDorn (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The new proposal here resembles much with one of the alternatives - having a very little grammatical issues which does not influence the main meaning -, as I see the it is noted is the difference. As I demonstrated earlier, in case a narrative desribes Opinion X and after Opinion Y, and in both cases According to is preceding any opininon, the further content could be anything, that's why it is a particular opinion, it cannot harm neutrality/neutral wording. In case there would be a Saxon interpretation, and it would be attested like "According to the Saxon interpretations, it is noted that Transylvania should be part of the Holy Roman Empire because anyway Vrancic described a Saxon supermajority", regardless how the one would jugde the validity or realistic being of the Saxon opinion, regardless what it would imply to the reader, it would be just the Saxon opinion. But since this opinion is attributed, it cannot harm NPOV. Conclusively, as I pointed out earlier, altering/censoring anyside's opinion by taste is not an option, hence this issue has never been a neutrality issue, and I as well agree this discussion should be just closed.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC))

Genetically modified food controversies

This is not my field, but edits to the article appear to have introduced a strong bias in favour of the views of GMO organisations. There are some strong claims, with links to questionable surveys funded by big GM players.

I have added a section in talk - but do not feel qualified enough to review the content as it stands. Bear in mind that, at first, it may appear to be fairly written; source tracing and analysis begins to uncover the bias.

Personally I feel that there is little room for statements as ‘fact’’, on a controversial subject - especially in an article supposed to be depicting the controversy; unless those facts concern the controversy rather than the positions taken by the parties to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 (talk • contribs)

I have a strong background in genetically modified organisms and medicine. I've actually genetically modified species before. The science behind genetically modified foods is strong because the techniques used are safe. Also, the genes that are being introduced into foods is done by a process called transgenesis; which means that the genes already existed in organisms that are already in human diets and put into a different species. This means that the GMO foods are getting genes that have been vetted for quite some time.

Lastly, the scientific basis for why GMO is that the genes eventually leads to protein. DNA -> RNA -> usable protein (the central dogma of Biology). You body does an awesome job of breaking down proteins to the point that they are nonfunctional while they're in your stomach. In essence, it's next to impossible for these proteins from genetic modification will cause you harm.Axelremain (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I've alerted 20040302 to the discretionary sanctions in this topic, especially on WP:ASPERSIONS with the comment this article is currently a thinly veiled attempt by the GM lobby to argue the GM case. For anyone not familiar, we had a DS-enforced WP:GMORFC a while ago when it comes to neutrality of content (e.g., scientific consensus and the public perception mismatch with it) while dealing with WP:FRINGE points of view. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

User:AxelRemain seems to have missed my point. The article (and the responses above) depict the issues of the argument, not the argument itself. When we describe a conflict in an encyclopaedia we don’t try to determine who is right! It’s ludicrous. The point is to explain the conflict, describe the antagonists, and understand - at the very least empathise with their motives for investing in the conflict. The article mentioned here does none of that. Moreover, the attacks above seem to imply that my views are somehow WP:FRINGE yet all I have argued is that 1) the arguments are in the wrong place, and 2) the sources of those arguments are clearly backed, and owned by, one of the antagonists. My own view - that the source used comes across more as pseudoscientific claptrap written to impress investors and legislators - may well be seen to be fringe by those who defend such a position - but do you not find it interesting that articles such as “The more favorable attitude of the citizens toward GMOs supports a new regulatory framework in the European Union” are not being covered by the press? No press releases for this sort of thing - because the media is not the intended audience. 20040302 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Axelremain and Kingofaces43 have it right. We don't give equal validity to fringe views alongside science. And the scientific consensus is clear. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Peer reviewed sources are not psuedoscientific claptrap written to impress investors and legislators. If there's a peer reviewed source that demostrates observable detriment to genetically modified organisms I'd be happy to read that and change my view. So far, I've seen thousands of articles pointing in the direction that there are no negative side effects to eating GMO foods. I'll also reference back to my original post that describes why, from a basic science point of view, of why the theory behind GMO causing caustic side effects lacks merit. Axelremain (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There doesn’t seem to be a consensus that there’s a consensus on GMOs: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

The arguments given above concern whether or not GMOs can be eaten safely. But no mention is given of devastating economic, environmental, or social impacts that -at least some - GMO practices have already shown. I say “there’s an ongoing debate concerning GMOs”, and I am told “it’s safe to eat GMO food” Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 (talk • contribs)

First, please WP:SIGN your comments so others don't have to do that for you (and read WP:THREAD). Please keep in mind Wikipedia is not the place to WP:SOAPBOX against scientific consensus on topics like GMOs, etc.

The Hilbeck source you now mention was already dealt with at WP:GMORFC and discounted as very WP:UNDUE akin to cherry-picking those that claim no consensus in the climate change denial subject. Likewise, you seem to be going on a tangent about the arguments about the consensus being backed financially. As mentioned at the article talk page, the source you are criticizing doesn't even appear to exist at the article. There doesn't appear to be a specific content issue to address on the article talk page, so it's not clear why this noticeboard was opened. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally we would treat a review study published by Springer as the final word on whether or not there was consensus among scientists. If it's wrong, then it should have been retracted, or at least we could find reliable source that say it is wrong or more recent review studies that come to different conclusions.

GMO at present is used almost exclusively to produce animal feed, cooking oil and high fructose corn syrup in the U.S., the production is heavily subsidized and contributes to the obesity epidemic. Most production relies on Round Up fertilizer which according to U.S. courts are carcinogenic. The technology is being expanded to Atlantic salmon which has had a devastating impact on coastal regions. Yet none of this is mentioned in the article because the non-GMO versions of these products have the same negative consequences.

We also know that Monsanto had a policy of paying supposedly independent voices to defend GMO and trash anyone who criticized them. Bayer, which bought Monsanto, subsequently revealed and stopped the program. Some of the independent voices were previously involved in defending the safety of tobacco products and in climate change denial. Yet none of that is mentioned in the article.

There are of course conspiracy theorists who have made unfounded claims against Monsanto and GMO. Per weight, we should not give them equal validity.

TFD (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally we would treat a review study published by Springer as the final word on whether or not there was consensus among scientists. Not when there are numerous other reviews and statements from scientific societies saying something else. And no, being wrong does not mean it will necessarily be retracted. By your logic, any so-called review article, so long as it was published by an academic publisher (not automatically a green light), could overrule any other set of sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A review study is "an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic." Since determining the current understanding of the topic is the major goal, if it gets it wrong it's a fatal error and it should be withdrawn. Failing that one would expect that its conclusions would be challenged in scientific publications. I did say that we could also look at other reviews, particularly those published after this one. But AFAIK, there are no other similar independent studies. Instead we relied on the expertise of editors such as yourself to tell us that they were aware of the relevant literature and found that there was a consensus. Incidentally, it's offensive to repeat my words. I have the cognitive ability to read what I posted without your repeating it for me. TFD (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My quote of you wasn't for you. And I know what the purpose of a review article is supposed to be. The fact is, though, that non-withdrawn fringe "reviews" published by academic publishers do exist. [3] I'm not saying that Environmental Sciences Europe is as disreputable as Homeopathy, but I am showing that it is wrong that non-withdrawn reviews necessarily carry much weight. The crucial factor is what other reviews and scientific society statements say. And that was established at WP:GMORFC. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The homeopathy article is not a traditional review article. Its authors examine a number of recent papers, conduct experiments and form a hypothesis. All kinds of wacky theories and unexpected results of experiments are published in academic journals which is why we rely on review studies to "summarize[] the current state of understanding on a topic." Ironically the homeopathy article does not say that there is a lack of consensus among scientists about homeopathy. That would be false and would warrant retraction from even a homeopathy journal.

You keep saying that there are independent review studies in academic journals that say there is a consensus about the safety of GMO foods. But no one has presented one.

Note also that lack of consensus does not mean that much credence is given to the opposing view, just that it has some credence.

TFD (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

TFD, this is getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory at this point as it's not focused on specific content, but do read WP:GMORFC as you are severely mischaracterizing what editors have done (and some of your views here were not considered WP:DUE there). If you want to claim no one has presented independent sources, that time has long passed and is ignoring all the work other editors have done in that area providing just that. Remember that due weight was the relevant policy at that RfC. We can't cherry-pick a single review like that against all the other independent sources from major scientific organizations and reviews (climate change denial again as an example of why that isn't done). There's no need to rehash that further though since the RfC is long complete and nothing has really changed in the literature since to refute it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No it's not getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory since I am not publishing my own thoughts and analyses or new information. I have no opinion and have expressed no opinion on the safety of GMO products. This is WP:NPOVN which is the appropriate forum for discussing the neutrality of articles. In other words, you are unable to provide any review studies about the safety of GMO and instead refer to earlier conversations. I'll take that as your answer.

The climate change denial actually cites a review, "Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015." If climate change deniers said it was cherry-picked then I would ask them to present an alternative review that came to different conclusions. Cherry picking means to search for examples that support one's conclusions. The proper approach, which both the Climate Change Denial article and I follow is to look for sources without prejudice and accurately reflect them. It's not as if I neglected any review studies. I asked you to provide any and you are unwilling or unable to do so.

Incidentally, I did not participate in WP:GMORFC so please don't imply that I did. No idea what you mean by my ideas were not considered WP:DUE. WP:DUE refers to article content not arguments about content.

TFD (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It is well into WP:NOTFORUM territory because the matter has already been decided at WP:GMORFC, so there are no changes to discuss, even though you continue to imply that the scientific consensus around the safety of GMOs doesn't exist. I thought about posting some reviews, but decided against it as it would imply that something remains to be established. The sources are right there at WP:GMORFC. If you will refuse to hear that, well, I've done my part.

The review of studies about denialism doesn't fit in here, and your analogy of "if climate change deniers said it was cherry-picked" has it backwards. The point is that climate change deniers seize on small portions of the literature to claim that no scientific consensus exists, and that GMO safety deniers do the same. It is the GMO safety deniers who are engaging in the cherry picking.

And as for WP:DUE, I think it's clear that the point is that material that denies there is a scientific consensus was determined not to have due weight at GMORFC, and that arguing that same way now is arguing for undue weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't continue to imply that the scientific consensus around the safety of GMOs doesn't exist, I merely stated that the only review study presented says that. Articles should not be based on our personal opinions, but on what reliable sources say, whether or not we agree with them.

While one editor who voted against the proposal in WP:GMORFC mentioned the Hilbeck study, it does not appear to have been discussed.

Since the RfC, Bayer (which bought Monsanto) was settled for claims that Round up caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bayer has also confirmed that Monsanto hired scientists to prepare reports that said GMO was safe and paid people to defend them on the internet.

The final thing I would mention about the RfC is that it is rare for discretionary sanctions to cover content rather than behavioral disputes.

So it seems that there is good reason to revisit the RfC. I have asked here for someone to provide a definitive academic review study that says there is consensus about the safety of GMO and have been assured they exist but will not be provided.

I certainly don't want to open an RfC that has no chance of success. Bear in mind that they occupy a great deal of time for all concerned. So before I do that I would like to ask you once again to show that the review study has been debunked or that subsequent review studies have come to different conclusions.

TFD (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• The well-sourced science around GMO safety has not AIUI changed since that mega RFC. If users want to discuss the rumours &c. around the "dangers" of GMOs they'd best be discussed in context at the GMO conspiracy theories article. The OP seems to be advocating for WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@TFD: You are completely on the wrong track here. Also, you wrote a misleading sentence above. Since you do not like being told what you wrote, I cannot tell you which sentence it is, but scientific questions are definitely not decided by lawyers. (That would be horrible.) Roundup (herbicide)#Carcinogenicity tells you what you need to know; ignore the primary sources quoted there, concentrate on what the scientific bodies say.

And yes, the analogy to climate change denial is fully justified. Pseudoscience inspired by political opinion, just the opinion in question is different. Even the rhetorics is the same:

"This is not my field, but" - just like Republican know-nothings saying "I'm not a scientist, but". Why don't people see that the less they know about a subject, the less their opinion is likely to be correct? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

When I edit articles, I look for academic review studies and textbooks to determine the weight of expert opinion. What I have found is different from the conclusions of the 2016 RfC. If you can point to a review study that came to a different conclusion or cite textbooks that support your position, then that would help me. I don't really think the comparison with Republicans is accurate. They don't look at review studies and textbooks and in fact ask us to reject them, instead citing isolated studies. TFD (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, on one side, we have (among other things) this 2016 Consensus Study Report from the National Academy of Sciences: Many reviews have indicated that foods from GE crops are as safe as foods from non-GE crops, but the committee re-examined the original studies of this subject. The design and analysis of many animal-feeding studies were not optimal, but the large number of experimental studies provided reasonable evidence that animals were not harmed by eating food derived from GE crops. Additionally, long-term data on livestock health before and after the introduction of GE crops showed no adverse effects associated with GE crops. The committee also examined epidemiological data on incidence of cancers and other human-health problems over time and found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops. And this statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, referring to multiple other scientific societies: The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques. (Though from 2012, if the scientific consensus had actually changed since then, we would see a retraction or updated contradictory opinion from one or more of these societies. No such statement exists.)

On the anti-GMO side, we have this Hilbeck et al. "review" published in Environmental Sciences Europe, a pay-to-publish journal that published without any peer-review the discredited Séralini paper after it was retracted from a reputable journal. The "review" cites the Séralini paper approvingly.

So, for good reason, the Hilbeck et al. paper carried little weight at GMORFC. A paper published in an ideologically-slanted journal by a small group of activist scientists cannot rebut the findings of numerous scientific societies as they each reviewed the studies and reviews in this area.

Here's how politically motivated science denial works. (1) Start with an ideology (pro-corporate for climate change denial or anti-corporate for GMO safety denial, though more on that in a bit), (2) reject the science, (3) fund organizations staffed by activists and sympathetic fringe scientists, (4) seize on contrary research (whether from those organizations or elsewhere), (5) claim that a scientific consensus does not exist. That is the obfuscation that occurs relating to climate change and GMOs. And as for bringing up corporations like Monsanto, editors may be interested in comparing the size of the organic food industry to that of biotech companies. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Added more links. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall read the material you provided and get back to you. TFD (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Andy Ngo a "journalist" - RFC notice

A RfC has been opened is asking to revisit this question, should Andy Ngo be described as a journalist in wikivoice in the lead sentence of the article. In related discussions what other terms may be OK in wiki or attributed voice. Editors have suggested "writer" and "provocateur" be included in the lead in Wiki voice. Discussion here Talk:Andy_Ngo#RFC:_"journalist". Springee (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification about an RfC on Infobox Chinese at Democratic Progressive Party

There is an RfC here about whether Democratic Progressive Party should be one of the MOS:CHINA exceptions to including both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese in the {{Infobox Chinese}}. Part of it concerns whether inclusion/exclusion satisfies WP:NPOV. The participation of interested editors is appreciated. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

White supremacy and the Proud Boys

There is an ongoing debate about how best to reflect the Proud Boys connections to white supremacy (sources). While it's broadly represented on reliable secondary sources that the Proud Boys have affiliations to white supremacists and have been involved in white supremacy (a Proud Boy member organised the Unite the Right rally where a white supremacist drove through a group of counter-protesters etc), the group's website officially rejects racism and their chairman, Enrique Tarrio, is a black Cuban-American. The main issues is if it is a NPOV and sourcing issue to qualify statements about white supremacy with a mention of Tarrio's ethnicity? I mention sourcing because this Daily Beast article appears to be the only source that explicitly parallels Tarrio's ethnicity to the group's broad affiliations with white supremacy, so WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE may be of relevance.

For context about the status quo, the article's lead currently says that the Proud Boys are "affiliated" with white supremacists, with the body saying:

Some men who are not white, including the group's chairman Enrique Tarrio, have joined the Proud Boys, drawn by the organization's advocacy for men, anti-immigrant stance, and embrace of violence. Officially, the Proud Boys condemn racism, with Tarrio stating that the group has "longstanding regulations prohibiting racist, white supremacist or violent activity". However, the ADL has deemed the group as having antisemitic, Islamophobic and racist views, with the group known to threaten, intimidate or violently assault anti-racism protesters. The group has claimed there is an "inherent superiority of the West", going to great lengths to mask members' connections to white supremacy.

ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Calling the MRA movement "advocacy for men" is pretty laughable on its face. It's a misogynist movement, not "advocacy for men". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely a failure of some kind to constantly qualify statements about the group with "but they put a token (Tokenism) guy Enrique Tarrio a faux leadership position". Especially considering the stuff said and the positions set for the group by the original group founder Gavin McInnes. Tarrio's presence is an example of the "black friend defense"; the group is still racist, and by all accounts McInnes is still in charge (quotation from article: "On 21 November 2018, shortly after news broke that the FBI had reportedly classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group with ties to white nationalists, McInnes said that his lawyers had advised him that quitting might help the nine members being prosecuted for the incidents in October and he said "this is 100% a legal gesture, and it is 100% about alleviating sentencing", and said it was a "'stepping down gesture', in quotation marks.")2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A number of far right groups officially renounce racism or fascism but it's cosmetic rather than genuine. I think it is important to reflect what reliable sources say about them, rather than give equal validity with what they say about themselves. I would say something like, "the Proud Boys is a white supremacist group that tries to present an image of racial diversity." As you pointed out, news media routinely refer to them as white supremacist. I have always taken the view that news reporters do not have the expertise to make this determination. But presumably they don't do this themselves but get the information from academic sources and groups such as the ADL and SPLC. So it needs stronger sourcing than media usage. But media usage does show that it's not an unusual description. The term "Western chauvinism" is a clear giveaway. Western means white. And there's a long history of racists showing admiration for some minority groups.

The current U.S. presidential election has brought the group to the forefront. It's probably best to wait until after the election to resolve it.

TFD (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• A group officially rejecting racism or having a black chairman aren't adequate reasons to ignore or downplay strong WP:RS sourcing describing them as white supremacist; the first one is a violation of the WP:ABOUTSELF prohibition on using a source for "unduly self-serving" claims about themselves, while the second argument is WP:OR. If the statements about themselves and the arguments you are talking about are significant, there should be high-quality sources covering them of comparable weight to the ones describing them as white supremacist. If we can't find such sources, then presenting the question as seriously in doubt would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, not NPOV; NPOV means accurately stating what the sources, as a whole, say about them. --Aquillion (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That's just one facet of it. Sources should be selected and used, ideally so it represents how things are perceived world wide. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A common issue with this and other extremist groups they tend to co-exist with such as Rose City Antifa, Antifa (United States) is sources are gathered to support opinion statement of facts. Such as as saying "far right" and citing a bunch of sources. Common argument in these articles are far right vs right; far left vs left. It can be avoided by saying some sources describe them as far right, some describe them as right. WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:V and WP:YESPOV are worth reading. Graywalls (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• It would probably be best to note that the group is widely viewed as white supremacists and then find a good source to say why. Also, ABOUTSELF should allow posting of the group's denial and it appears that a number of RS have said the group denies the claim. Specific responses to accusations against individuals or organizations are not violations of ABOUTSELF. The fact that the Daily Beast looked into the subject suggests it probably is due for inclusion but with limited weight. A number of recent articles have noted both the white supremacist links and that the leader is cuban-american [[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]]. It should be clear that sources haven't taken this as proof that the ties to white supremacist don't exist and details as to what the ties are would better inform the reader as to why the group is seen as such regardless of the ethnicity of various members. Springee (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Just to draw this conversation together, it sounds like we're all in agreement that chiefly, the label white supremacy is well-grounded in reliable sources, and that the groups official rejection of racism should be attributed and mentioned per WP:ABOUTSELF. Does that sound right to everyone? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the denials are more pro-forma than real and may be unduly self-serving. For instance, in the latest escapade with the #proudboys hashtag, the public statements were clearly contradicted by the behavior of the group's official parler account (run by Tarrios himself). This is now reflected in the article but it's a consistent pattern for the group to issue self-serving denials that are contradicted by their own actions and language before or after a specific event. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. I think that if no one has any objections, it'd be best to include a short neutral statement like The Proud Boys have a history of contradictory self-published claims, and should normally be attributed in-line for any self-serving statements or statements with any connection to any other party. to the talk header (possibly in the FAQ, maybe as a standalone {{Tmbox}})? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B074:56CF:36AE:9C24 (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• ItsPugle, I would not mention it, per Mandy Rice-Davies: "well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"

  It always comes across as "we're not white supremacists, we just think people with brown skin should go back where they came from and leave us alone with this land we stole from the Native Americans and built with the labor of slaves". I may be paraphrasing. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: Can you give a quick look at the {{Tmbox}} that I added to Talk:Proud Boys? I do think that it's necessary since the very very vast plethora of requested edits to the article is either using OR or the Proud Boys' statements, but I don't want to in itself be a POV issue. I've tried to write the box as neutral as possible while still conveying the need, but I fear that it'll be spun out to a claim of censorship of Proud Boys or something stupid like that. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 00:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  ItsPugle, Like. I am sure we will refine the exact text over time, but that is a decent summary as I see it. Others may, of course, disagree. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: Yeah, exactly. Ryk72 had a few ideas of how we might improve it, but I think we need to find a balance between the authority of the current one and the [[User_talk:ItsPugle#T:PB_Tmbox|more gentle version on my talk page}}. I fear it might be a sort of thing that there's innately going to be a tad bit of POV regardless... ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

ADL says members of varying ethnicity, Hosang who is cited as calling them fascist despite only saying they approach fascism calls them multi cultural. I think it would be best if we're not going to stick with the ADL or SLPC description as the lede as is the case with the vast majority of right wing hate groups, would be to say some call them white supremacist despite having members of varying ethnicity, being multicultural and having a black cuban leader. If further RS material pops up citing tokenism then it should be included-RS material to this effect does not exist despite aspersions to it being posted over and over and over again. Lastly, despite RS sources using white supremacist label more recently, it is still like fascist the minority POV as portrayed in the RS. THey are most commonly referred to as a far right wing hate group and that is probably because that is the description from the SLPC. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2461:5DFD:6A2C:87C5 (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As per the discussion and sources in the article, the consensus amongst sources is that the group has significant ties to white supremacy, and as explained in the article's lead, the group does officially reject racism. The Hosang sources explicitly calls them a proto-fascist group, too (relevant quotation viewable in the citation). With their leader being a black Cuban-American, this has often been brought up in discussion, and it is considered original research to say they aren't based on that (without sources), and there is no evidence that this official appointment reflects any ideological changes with several reliable sources, including the FBI, highlighting their white supremacist connections. We would only mention in the article that Tarrio's appointment is tokenism is if that is commonly covered in reliable sources. Do you have any evidence that there is a consensus amongst independent reliable sources that the Proud Boys are not fascist? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought this thread was asking about using the term “white supremacist”, not about the term “fascist”? These two terms are not identical. Not all white supremacists are fascists, and not all fascists are white supremacists. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears the PB's have been posting to Parler, Reddit and probably their various private forums trying to get their members to come to the site and repeat centrally provided talking points over and over again. Some of them are a bit more "screamy" than others, some a bit more sea lioning than others. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The lack of assumption of good faith on this topic with the continued warrantless attacks on editors that seek the page to adhere to WP guidelines is in direct violation of WP policy and should cease immediately. I posted the lede should say right wing extremist hate group, something wholly not congruent with the obvious personal attack posted above. I have no issue using ties to white supremacy provided it is weighted properly as most RS do not include that in their description even though it is hardly tenable upon further inspection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B424:DCDD:60B9:9757 (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• The way the group should be presented in the body to be neutral would be something like this order of discussion:
  1. What the group is on paper - its clearly not like a non-profit, but its some type of foundation or organization with a leadership and this needs to be stated upfront and factually. A brief mission statement should be here, why the organization exists.
  2. What the broader public opinion of them are, which is where the white supremacy facets will come into play. This is where attribution and mentioning the ADL and other comments will be mentioned
  3. What the Proud Boys have actually said in response to the public opinion in that they (claim they) are not a group that promotes racism, with brief statements as to why. They clearly are going beyond just denying this but because most everyone else thinks they are in fact racist, we can't give them false balance of coverage, but it is inappropriate not to give them the coverage of why they say they aren't supporting racism, which become obvious on the final point...
  4. Why the media distrust the PB when they say they are not a group promoting racism. In otherwords, the counter-counterarguments to the PB's counterarguments. That does seem to exist separately from the accusations that PB is a group that supports racism.

In this order, you have a logical narrative flow and covers both sides neutrally but with appropriate weight. As that reflects to the lede, the lede should start with the most factual information (what the PB entity actually is) then move to the fact that the group is seen as having ties to white supremacy and far right despite their denials of this position. Ledes of articles need to start from impartial tones with the most objectives/factual information, not the most notable stuff, though what makes a topic notable should be hit by the second or third sentences once the key facts have been doled out. The problem is that editors seem to be racing to include the notable criticism first and forgetting the factual stuff which is absolutely necessary to be put first. --Masem (t) 17:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

In theory, I would agree. The problem is that it is impossible to structure the article in this way. Reliable sources don’t AGREE about what the Proud Boys (as an entity) actually IS. All we have is opinion. To some, it is a fascist white supremacy group. To others, it is a controversial conservative advocacy group, to yet others it is a “western chauvinist fraternity”. Some say it is part of the “men’s rights” movement, others say it isn’t. Which view is correct? THAT depends on who you ask. Again, it is a group that is defined by opinion. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources don't agree then we report their disagreements. We don't cherry-pick to fit some editors political bias, who then goes reverting any change claiming it is against consensus and the reliable sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Somewhere, there has to be something on paper of what the PB is, if they are an organization with leadership. Reading what the SPLC says about them, the shortest factual statement is a "fraternal organization" which is very neutral and objective. Their mission from this would be, "protect and promote western values" by the same [8] So a simple statement would be "The Proud Boys are a fraternal organization established by Gavin McInnes in 2016 to protect and promote western values." Then we lay into the media's criticism: "The group has widely been condemned as supporting far-right and white supremacy..." and so on at that point. That's it, that's all the reworking to hit NPOV at the top and then get into the meat of opinions and commentary that make the group notable. --Masem (t) 19:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Something like that seems like a good idea. Obviously remember that WT:RSP says "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) is one of the most controversially classified sources in this list." -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all I'm saying is that from what NPOV and where WP's impartialness should be, the first statement about the PB should be a brief objective statement of what they are without any view through the opinionated lens, which I think what I stated is correct. (we're not endorsing their mission by stating it that way). We would do the same describing, say, the Shiners or any other similar fraternal group; that brief statement I cannot see how that can be taken as "unduly self-serving". Then after that, its "fair game" to lay into the media's coverage and vast criticism of the group. We can't erase that away at all, but we can establish a more neutral tone to start and give the group at least a brief, reasonable statement of what they were founded as. --Masem (t) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not justify putting a claim in wikivoice in the first sentence of the lead that, according to RS, is a falsehood. The definition of fraternal organization on dictionary.com (a society of men associated in brotherly union, as for mutual aid or benefit) does not include a racist gang, and the purpose for which it was established was not to "protect and promote western values" unless western values here means racism and violence. This proposed sentence is the opposite of "a brief objective statement of what they are". The claim that Proud Boys is a fraternal organization that protects and promotes western values, if in the article at all, needs to be attributed and doesn't belong in the lead. NightHeron (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your WP:OR of them not being a fraternal organization does not overrule WP:NPOV. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not OR. The first sentence in the lead, and in fact any statement that's presented in wikivoice rather than attributed, has to be consistent with RS, and I'm just pointing out that the proposed first sentence is not. Are you claiming that independent RS describe it as a fraternal organization? NightHeron (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

[9] -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I pulled that straight out of SPLC. It's also how they call themselves, and repeated oft by many news sources. Again, its simply describing the group in a neutral term (and seriously, regardless of all that they do, that does seem to be a completely appropriate term to use for them) before launching off into criticism. --Masem (t) 22:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

SPLC is very clear that that's their self-description, and Haaretz also used it as the way they describe themselves. But other RS such as The New York Times use their own terminology, which is certainly not fraternal organization; for example, see [10], where the short description used is extremist organization. According to WP:NPOV, we're not supposed to use political-spin terms, but rather the terms that are most commonly used by independent RS. NightHeron (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

But I would think most editors would recognize that "far right", "white supremacy", "extremist organization" are all political spin terms, especially in light of the recent debates. They're all value-laden labels and lack objective criteria, though as applied to a group and not a BLP, we have a lower bar for inclusion.

That said, this is where I sense too many editors in this convo feel that we must make sure the reader is away this is a bad group. And I don't disagree that at the end of the day, a reader should be walking away from this article with the understanding that the group is readily seen as being associated with far right, white supremacy tones. We absolutely cannot whitewash that away (as I see some newer editors/IPs suggesting). That's staying, as per WEIGHT. But WEIGHT does not override NPOV in terms of Wikivoice's tone and impartiality. We are not here to right great wrongs. Wikivoice cannot start in a stance that is critical of the Proud Boys despite how hated the group is by mass media. This is why the first sentence and how it is approached must start with a minimally objective statement of what the group actually is. And it seems to be best described objectively as a fraternal/men's organization, founded in 2017 by McGinnis to support pro-West views. That's all facially true, and so it is impartial and neutral. And then you can get to the meat that this is very much challenged by the popular media. Its a simple initial detour to set a neutral tone for how the article starts that brings better in line with what NPOV expects. (Consider that the flip side, organizations/groups that are widely praised, or the like, we don't lead their articles in the first sentence with the heaps of praise but simply establish the facts then dig into the positive criticism.) --Masem (t) 22:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your framing problems are betrayed when you use language like "how hated the group is by mass media". The group is not "hated" by "mass media", the consensus of Reliable Sources is overwhelming simply because of the facts. Your framing falls into the category of false balance. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B074:56CF:36AE:9C24 (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What "facts" are at play here? If we're talking about how the group is called far-right, white supremacy, extremist and all that, those are still value-laden labels with subjective criteria which are impossible to prove out, similar to proving out a negative. Wikivoice cannot call them as such as a fact, but we can certainly can and pretty much have to include the media's mass condemnation of the group with those terms, lay out the media's evidence for why they call them that (of which there's numerous pieces) and very little for the PB to explain against that. The false balance would be giving equal air time to the PB to explain their side with the same number of words/etc. A false balance is not giving one or two sentences to explain exactly what they are objectively on paper, particularly in context of NPOV. --Masem (t) 23:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"exactly what they are objectively" is an extremist organization. That's not political spin, it's a fact. The description in your proposed opening sentence of the lead, a fraternal organization formed to protect and promote western values, is political spin. NightHeron (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

An "extremist organization" is still subjective: extremist to whom? And the statement I said is this: "The Proud Boys are a fraternal organization established by Gavin McInnes in 2016 to protect and promote western values." That it is a fraternal or men's organization is very objective - that's the basic structure of the group without applying spin. The statement "established ... to protect and promote western values" is not political spin, that's a factual statement of why it was formed as part of its charter, but obviously that's not how the group behaves. Politically spinning this would be trying to whitewash away the criticism of the press and stick to that, but to briefly mention what its purpose was when founding and then get into the criticism is standard practice for nearly any organization. Neutrality demands that nearly every article about organizations should start with the same type of framing sentence before getting into the meat of the issues with the organization. --Masem (t) 00:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that its version of "western values" has as much relation to the normal definition as scientology's version of "ethics" does to actual ethics, that's a laughable line of argument. Once again this is a false balance argument. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

WP cannot make those judgement calls. Simply presenting the brief, facial reason the group was set up by founders is an objective statement. But I will say we could also write it as "The Proud Boys is a fraternal organization founded by Gavin McInnis in 2017. Purportedly established to protect and promote pro-west values, the Proud Boy are commonly considered to be associated with far-right and white supremacy..." --Masem (t) 04:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"Simply presenting the brief, facial reason the group was set up by founders" is not "an objective statement", it's a failure to account and properly present what is obviously unduly self serving. This is especially true when a group or individual uses dog whistling terms or their own internal definitions of words or phrases such as "western values" that would not be correctly presented if not clarified in text. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, The root claim of "fraternal" seems consistently to be McInnes himself, and should be framed as such, as it is in every source I have seen that eevn mentions it (whihc the vast majority do not). It's not generally covered in high level overviews of the group so would go in the body, not the lead,. anyway. And any such claim would have to include the context that McInness is a racist misoynist Islamophobe according to his own admissions in print. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Concur that "fraternal organization", if included, should be framed as coming from McInnes; as it's attributed in the sources. Also concur that, if included, it should go in the body, not the lead. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, even Fox News, $DEITY help us, calls them a far-right group. Anything else constitutes an outlier, I'd say. The Haaretz source Emir provided says "a far-right, 'western chauvinist' fraternal organization". Nobody puts it first: their defining characteristic is not fraternalism, it's being far-right. There are books sources for them being (or at least claiming to be) a fraternal organization, but as I say the defining and dominant descriptor is far-right group.

At some point dismissing the obvious as political spin slips into denialism. It's hard to find a single mainstream source that does not identify them as far-right - and I suspect that this is primarily because if you cal;l someone fascist, it is often interpreted as invoking Godwin's Law (which, incidentally, is officially suspended for the duration, according to Mike himself). Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We clearly aren't going to ignore that pretty much everyone seems to call PB as far-right, though we still have to recognize the term is a value-laden label and have to speak to it out of wikivoice ("is widely considered far-right" rather than "is far-right"). But that's a minor point to the main issue here in that we need to simply lead off with a brief objective statement of what the PB is free of subjective commentary from any source before getting to the meat of notability. This is the "X is/was a Y" statement I've talked of here, and what's important is that in that statement, "Y" does not need to be why X is notable, but should be an objective characterization of X into some taxonomity of knowledge, with the statement of notability following up after that's been said. This is how is done on almost all other articles, and that should be maintained here. In this case, if we are talking an organization, then calling the PB a "fraternal organization" or a "men's organization" is about the best we can do to fit it into the various classifications of other organizations. After that, the rest of the WEIGHT of media sources are fair game. --Masem (t) 23:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, position on the left-right political axis is a subjective judgment, but when virtually every reliable source is in agreement that the position is at the far right, that becomes a fact. We do not say that the Nazis were "widely identified as far right", that would be very silly. When you look at the Venn diagram of views espoused by the Proud Boys, and especially by McInness when speaking for them, you end up with the intersection of homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, antisemitisim, white supremacy, overt racism against blacks, Puerto Ricans, Asians and open admission of preference for white skin and English speaking. If you can find a single source that would put this collection of views anywhere else on the political spectrum, I'd be very interested to read it. In fact sources use far-right onlyt because they shy away from neo-Nazi. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a whole separate issue related to "virtually every RS says it so it must be fact" in an area where there is no type of scientific process involved (this would be true if we were talking MEDRS or SCIRS sourcing, and there's the whole aspect of not being able to prove a negative), but that's not as relevant to the issue that taking the basis that virtually every RS calls the PB a white suprmacist group which is undeniable and required information to be included, this is still characterizing the group rather than talking about what the group objectively is, which is a distinction we make everywhere else. We don't call Casablanca the greatest film ever as the first thing we say about it nor in wikivoice, for example, because that's characterizing the film, but we do start with establishing what the film is (when it was made, who produced it, who started in it, what it was about), and then move onto the characterization of the film - why its so notable - attributing the mass praise outside of wikivoice. If we are to be keeping to a neutral and impartial tone, we should b keeping the characterization out of the very first sentence or phrase of the lede, but obviously move quickly to it if that is what the group is most notable form; instead, we need to still state the non-characterized factual elements of what this group to set a neutral tone for the article. --Masem (t) 15:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, not really, no. You are really arguing against your own point here: far-right is not like greatest film, it's like great film. Nobody would seriously dispute that Casablanca belongs in the category of great films, just as no source seriously disputes that the Proud Boys belong in the category of far-right. To say that they are the furthest right would be an opinion requiring attribution (we'll always have Patriot Front), but it's still the same old story: a fight for a white homeland and glory. I would be shocked - shocked! - to hear that there are any sources that put them anywhere else. Sourcing for far right is not merely a matter of "round up the usual suspects", after all. Even Fox has called them that as a statement of fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You're still missing my point, that we should be distinguishing statements of objectively what something tangibly is, in terms of how it fits into a classification schema, and what something is characterized as. Doesn't matter if we're talking condemnation, praise, or even mediocracy of characterization, this should be a separate statement from what something actually is when first presented to the reader, because whatever that characterization will affect the tone of the article, and if we're leading with that before anything else, we're not being appropriately impartial and dispassionate in our writing style, even if using appropriate attribution outside of wikivoice. We're normally taking the approach used by academic writings: Most topics we cover are notable for what they are characterized as, and not for what they tangibly are, but we still lead off with discussing these objective bases to establish where that topic sits as a neutral, impartial phrase to frame the content, buld up a narrative, and prepare the reader for what is to come. We normally save the characterization - usually what the topic is notable for - for the second sentence or later in the lede where it naturally flows in that, and thus don't need to step back and awkwardly explain what the topic is without confusing the reader. --Masem (t) 20:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"objectively what something tangibly is, in terms of how it fits into a classification schema" - What the Proud Boys are, tangibly, in classification schema, happens to be "a far-right,[1][2] neo-fascist[3] and male-only organization[4] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.[5][6][7][8][9]". That you don't like it and believe the issue is "how hated the group is by mass media" or some other conspiracy theory, is irrelevant. The reliable sources are quite clear. Wikipedia is not here to whitewash the pages of groups merely because of WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories that there is a secret media conspiracy against them. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

There are several problems with this proposal, chief among them that any mission statement or position statement put out by the Proud Boys is straddling or jumping past the line of unduly self-serving, I personally would say outright dishonest or doubletalk. Starting with "what the group is on paper" is also inconsistent with the pages for other hate groups such as Patriot Prayer, Identity Evropa or the Ku Klux Klan. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that there is nearly universal agreement about what labels apply to these hate groups (in some cases, even agreement among their members), while with Proud Boys there isn’t. Reliable sources DON’T universally agree on what labels apply to them. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Use content with the strongest RS sources- all RS are not created equal- and most to least in the mainstream and add to the article considering greater and lesser weight. The PB website is not a reliable source. If we want to say PB says they are not racist the best source is a secondary source that reports this. Since this is a relatively extraordinary claim given evidence in other RS it should probably be inline cited and attributed. Facists and white supremacists are not the same although they may overlap. Use what the sources say and if the claims seem hard to buy into inline cite and attribute the claim to the group-don't make the claim in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia cites sources that are opinion all the time. That opinion is sometimes blatant sometimes hidden but possible opinion in reliable sources is a given. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The three right wing hate groups above as with most right wing hate groups on WP lede with the SLPC's description. In this case the SLPC labels them a far right extremist hate group or something similar. The majority of RS labels them something along those same lines. Why is WP deciding this time is different and using minority RS opinion over the majority and the exoert notable opinion of the SLPC and ADL as the lede? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B424:DCDD:60B9:9757 (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I agree with that approach, as long as we don't stray too far from WP:SPADE with the primary description: "Proud Boys are a group of young men who enjoy strolls in the spring sunshine while coincidentally armed to the teeth and carrying Confederate flags because they like the colour" isn't going to cut it, as you acknowledge. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The right wing vs. far right argument is a red herring. These terms can be used interchangeably when the context is understood. For example, if someone writes, "neonazis, neofascists and other right-wing groups," it is clear from the context that the other right-right groups aren't moderate Republicans and UK Conservatives. It's similar to if someone referred to the former leaders of East Germany as socialists. It's not that they are saying they are not Communists like the leaders of other Eastern European countries and should be grouped with social democrats, it's just that they are using a different term to mean the same thing. TFD (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Masem is 100% right on how this should be handled. The first sentence should be 100% objective and no matter how much we dislike the subject should not be the sentence where the negativity starts. I also agree with Masem that all articles should be written as if we have no emotional attachment to the subject at all (ie IMPARTIAL). As an encyclopedia we should not be trying to persuade others that this person/group is good or bad. We should simply state the facts. The reader can make up their own mind if they wish. This sort of format isn't something that should be unique to this article. It should basically apply to all articles. It's something that should be done as a mater of principle not just editor preference. Springee (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

In our article on Osama bin Laden the first sentence of the lead describes him as the leader of a "terrorist" organization. So are you suggesting that we should remove that, so that no matter how much we dislike the subject [the first sentence] should not be the sentence where the negativity starts? NightHeron (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Well NightHeron, that's exactly how Whitewashing (censorship) an article works! 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We put terrorist in the first line because that is what makes Bin Laden notable. We can't compare one article to another. Within the first few lines of every article we must indicate where notability lies. All of our articles must present a WP: NPOV; this is applicable to all articles across Wikipedia, and is policy; we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

If you can't understand that the violence/terrorism is what makes the Proud Boys notable, what we have here isn't a policies issue but a WP:COMPETENCE issue, Masem. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, and what makes Proud Boys notable is that they are far-right. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG I'd be surprised if their notability is simply that they are far-right. I haven't looked at the sources much, but I do watch the news and the group has taken far-right to another level; that may be their notability. Just a comment; I'm not disagreeing so much as suggesting there's much more than far-right to describe them and their notability. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, all the things for which they are notable, are subsets of far-right: white nationalist, white supremacist, self-appointed militia, MRA. You're not wrong to say that they have raised it to another level, and I think it would be a serious error to water this down by treating them, as Masem increasingly seems to suggest, as a normal group.

Contemporaneous coverage of the rise of the NSDAP and the Fascisti shows a similar struggle to cope with the brazenness of their agenda, and misguided attempts to frame them as part of normal politics. They are not part of normal politics. They are part of normal neo-fascism. That's not the same thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Guy. I'm very aware of far-right groups. Such groups are decades old in the US with distinct MOs. For that reason whatever is added must about any group must be sourced so that those distinctions are made clear. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, sure - and in the case of Proud Boys, it absolutely is sourced. They are uniformly identified as far-right and misogynist, and containing strong elements of racism. Of course Gavin "at least they're not fucking n[redacted] or Puerto Ricans" McInnes says it's not a racist group. But he is on record as saying "I love being white and I think it’s something to be very proud of . . . . I don’t want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life.". It's hard to describe calling Asian-Americans "slopes" and "rice balls" anything other than racist. And he openly admits that he is Islamophobic.<ref9The America First Fraternity Pledges Trump, NBC News Left Field, Nov. 1, 2017 at 3:17</ref>

So really the only question is: are the Proud Boys less misogynist, racist, Islamophobic and in sundry other ways bigoted, than their founder? The sources suggest, if anything, the opposite.

• Whether they are less or more of anything has to be sourced. Otherwise classic OR. My personal or anyone's personal opinion of this group and how it compares, and believe me I find this kind of thing more than repulsive and their actions unconscionable, can't be confused with how we write articles. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Guy (help! - typo?) 13:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What's actually important on the Bin Laden article is that it starts "was a founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda", with the rest of the phrase of that first sentence being how al-Qaeda is described (note this actually doesn't label Bin Laden directly). The part in quotes is a neutral, impartial identification of who bin Laden, with the second phrase getting to the notable facet of the orgnization. This is completely reasonable and on parity to what I am proposing. --Masem (t) 04:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I was responding to another post rather than to the Bin Laden article and was suggesting that what we put in the first few lines must indicate what is notable rather than what is negative or positive or any other subjective way of judging the subject or article. Whitewashing doesn't enter into the discussion if editors are writing from a NPOV since whitewashing is both a subjective way of writing and a subjective way of describing the content. We can't compare articles in a specific sense although general points might be similar. I think the Bin Laden lead is very well written, by the way, and is a good example of how to deal with notability. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

And I will agree with that, my comment was more to NightHeron's comment suggesting we should remove "terrorist" from it. The lede of bid Laden, outside of a lengthy first sentence, is what I consider the right approach, and can be applied here in the same manner. --Masem (t) 04:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, and the equivalent here would be the reverse (since this is the group): Proud Boys was founded by racist misogynist white supremacist Gavin McInness. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Our article on Osama bin Laden specifically does not describe him as the leader of a terrorist organisation. It describes him as a founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda, designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, and various countries. I concur with Littleolive oil that that is very well written; an excellent example of quality NPOV-aligned attribution. - Ryk72 ^talk 04:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that there's anything wrong with the Osama bin Laden article. I was simply pointing out that, if one accepts Springee's claim that "all articles" (Springee's emphasis) must have first sentences that do not convey anything negative, then the term "terrorist" would have to be removed from the lead sentence on Osama bin Laden. My rhetorical question was a reductio ad absurdum of Springee's statement about all articles. I'm sorry if that was unclear. I was disputing Springee's statement about policy in all articles; I was not advocating any changes in the Osama bin Laden page.

If the lead sentence in the PB article describes PB correctly as an extremist organization characterized by racism and violence, that doesn't necessarily have to be in wikivoice. It could be attributed to the NY Times, SPLC, and numerous other sources. Generally, extensive citations are not needed in the lead, but they're not prohibited either. As pointed out, the "terrorist" designation on Osama bin Laden is attributed. NightHeron (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

But note that the lead sentence already has extensive citations (9 of them). If some editors are squeamish about stating the nature of PB in wikivoice, then some words could be inserted, such as "...is an American political group widely characterized as...". That would be a bit wordy and weasle-ish. Perhaps a better comparison than the Osama bin Laden article would be the Ku Klux Klan article, where the first sentence states in wikivoice that the KKK "is an American white supremacist hate group." We would have to change the KKK article and many others if we were to adopt Springee's policy that all articles should have no negativity in the first sentence. NightHeron (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the bin Laden article would comply with my intent. It's objective in describing bin Laden's role in the organization and, as Masem says, it is the organization that is described as X and all descriptions are attributed to governmental/international organizations. I wasn't previously aware of the bin Laden intro but I think it makes a strong template to follow. I'll leave it to others to figure out how to translate that intro into the PB article. Springee (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the first "sentence" but the first part, where we same "X is/was a Y", or often "X is/was a A, B, and C". Now, that might be one sentence by itself, it might be the first phrase of the first sentence (as in the case of bin Laden), but whatever that is, that should be factual and objective to quickly classify what the topic X is into a taxological or heirarchical position of human knowledge. It also establishes quickly an impartial tone for the article. At this stage of the article it is NOT about identifying why X is notable but basically to quickly establish to the reader what X is. (Remember that notability is a guideline and not policy like NPOV). Then after that it varies depending on the topic, but usually when we talk persons or groups, the next phrase or the next sentence is likely going to stress the reason why we have the article, and that's the notability factor; we're getting to that right away after establishing a fact to build on. In the case of bid Laden, we explain the terrorist nature of the organization he ran as defined by the UN. As I've proposed for the PB, you define them first as a fraternal organization founded by McInnis in 2017 (that's factual), and then go on to explain they claim to be pro-west ideals but are regularly seen by media as a group associated with far right/white supremacy and criticized for that, immediately after that. Now every reader's clear by the end of the second sentence that the group has possibly deceitful purposes, but established in a tone that is dispassionate and impartial from the way the media treats the topic. That's how we are required to write in Wikivoice per NPOV. We are not ignore the RSes, but we are making sure the neutrality and impartiality of the tone of our writing, which also must be kept to, is upheld. --Masem (t) 14:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your original proposal was to replace the first sentence by the sentence The Proud Boys are a fraternal organization established by Gavin McInnes in 2016 to protect and promote western values. This states as a fact in wikivoice that the purpose of establishing PB was quite noble. I see that you've now dropped "to protect and promote western values" from your proposed first sentence. But you still want to keep "fraternal". Why? The current wording "male-only" is clearer; fraternal is less clear, because it often implies other things as well, such as brotherly and comradely.

If we really want to invent a new policy for this article (regarding the absence of negativity in the first sentence [which was Springee's proposal], or at least the absence of negativity stated in wikivoice), then the policy would have to be appled to the Ku Klux Klan article and many others, isn't that right? NightHeron (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with the issues of concern on my initial suggestion, just that "fraternal organization" is used by many good RSes, so it wasn't a term I pulled out of thin air. I understand the concerns, just that it is the focus on some factual statement right up front to establish where in the whole of knowledge the organization sits that is key. We need to stop first and explain what the PB are factually before launching into why its notable. The KKK is a bit different since there's three different versions of it, but I do think its lede sentence can be structured better. But again, lets use bid Laden or (and I'll be the one to evoke Godwin's law here) Adolf Hitler as examples of ledes that lay out the facts before laying out the criticisms that made that person notable or notorious. We have to be dispassionate and it should not be the goal of our writings to get to how "bad" a person or group our the door - that's what causes the lack of impartiality and neutrality in tone. We have to write in a disinterested tone, and many of these articles lack that in the race to include all these criticisms. We have to include them, but they don't have to be featured as soon or predominately as some do present. --Masem (t) 15:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

So now you're really saying that you'd want to change the lead to the KKK article as well. How about the BLP for David Duke? The first sentence there also has some negativity stated in wikivoice.

The reality is that there's no wikipolicy forbidding negativity in wikivoice in the first sentence. You and Springee are proposing a new policy that, if adopted, would have to be applied everywhere and would basically be a whitewashing of articles on Proud Boys, Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, etc. NightHeron (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Because it has been a problem for the last 5-6 years, that due to external events, editors have gotten .. emboldened, I guess? on articles of people/groups associated with the far/alt right to paint them in as bad a picture as possible as allowed by RSes but forgoing what NPOV says in terms of how we write in Wikivoice. (I don't blame them, the situation is very dire and this is a very tempting position to take, so it is only human nature to go this way, coupled with a media that is not letting down on their criticism of these groups or people) Look at any other bio or group article that otherwise not on that side of the spectrum that has been vetted by many eyes, and nearly every such article will start with the factual statement, even for those that are generally universally praised or elevated, and only after getting them sorted into where they fall into the taxonomity of human knowledge, then move on to why they are important and introduce subjective or other forms of praise, criticism or other non-objective facets. (eg Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein, Nelson Mandela, etc. Our articles cannot be "scarlet letters" on these groups even if that is the bulk of their coverage in the media. And again, this is not saying the first sentence wholly has to be this, just the first "X is/was an A, B, and C" phrase, everything beyond that should be clear. As yet another consideration here, this "X is/was an A, B, and C" phrase also now should be matching up with the new short descriptions that are being deployed for search engine purposes among other things, and these absolutely cannot use subjective terms, so all the more importance that the first phrase stay to the objective facts.

What we really need to be doing is thinking, how do we write this to be parallel to all other similar organizations that have been written on WP, and then how to we deviate appropriate to account for the massive criticism they have received? Maintaining the similar structure, tone, and approach to other organization articles where possible with appropriate sourcing is part of neutrality policy, and then we can talk about the WEIGHT of addition material related to the criticism of the group to add atop that. So this means we still need to objective state what the organization is in the lede upfront, and in the body objectively state their history and briefly their claimed purpose and activities (we aren't giving weight to being their real purpose, just what's said on paper), and then we're ready to consider all the calls labeling the PBs as far-right/white supremacy and the like. That's how we should be thinking of these, but instead, most editors appear to think from the last point because that's just where the sourcing clearly is, and not giving the first point any consideration. --Masem (t) 16:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:"to be parallel to all other similar organizations that have been written on WP", it has already been demonstrated above that your proposal is not consistent with other similar organizations that have been written on WP. But just to demonstrate how facially ridiculous your argument is I'll provide some examples here, from organizations or people that are also in Category:Alt-right.

1. Ku Klux Klan - "The Ku Klux Klan (/ˌkuː klʌks ˈklæn, ˌkjuː-/),[a] commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist hate group..."
2. Identity Evropa - "Identity Evropa (/juːˈroʊpə/), rebranded[10] as American Identity Movement in March 2019,[2][11] is an American neo-Nazi[12][13][14] and white supremacist[14][15][16][17][18] organization..."
3. Alt-Right - "The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement..."
4. Richard B. Spencer - "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born 1978) is an American neo-Nazi,[1][2] antisemitic conspiracy theorist and white supremacist..."
5. VDARE - "VDARE is an American website focusing on opposition to immigration to the United States and is associated with white supremacy,[2][3] white nationalism,[4][5][6] and the alt-right.[7][8][9]"
6. Vanguard America - "Vanguard America is an American white supremacist, neo-Nazi, neo-fascist organization. The organization is also a member of the Nationalist Front.[1][2]"
7. National Policy Institute - "The National Policy Institute (NPI) is a white supremacist think tank and lobby group based in Alexandria, Virginia.[1][2][3][4] It lobbies for white supremacists and the alt-right.[5]"
8. New Century Foundation - "The New Century Foundation is a white supremacist[1] organization founded in 1994 by Jared Taylor known primarily for publishing a magazine, American Renaissance, which promotes white supremacy."
9. Northwest Territorial Imperative - "The Northwest Territorial Imperative (often shortened to Northwest Imperative or known simply as the Northwest Front)[2] is a white separatist, neo-Nazi idea that has been popularized since the 1970s–80s by white nationalist, white supremacist and white separatist groups within the United States."
10. League of the South - "The League of the South (LS) is a white nationalist, neo-Confederate, white supremacist organization,[6][7][8][9][10]..."
11. The Daily Stormer - "The Daily Stormer is an American far-right neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and Holocaust denial commentary and message board website that advocates for the genocide of Jews.[1][2][3][4]"

I could make this list even longer but I think the point is made. There does not appear to be any legitimate concern for "consistency with other articles", or any real policy reason to whitewash the lead by starting with the facially false, unduly self serving claims of the Proud Boys organization. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

If those articles have a problem we fix them, we don't ruin another article for in the name of consistency. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you really just suggest that those articles are "ruined"??? The argument made by Masem and Springee was that wording needed to be removed from the Proud Boys lead to be "consistent" with other articles. This is clearly a false argument, as demonstrated by checking "other similar organizations that have been written on WP" (Masem's words).

Also to Masem, if you are going to suggest that the Proud Boys should be listed at List of general fraternities as a "fraternal organization" you're going to need to provide some REALLY good sourcing to back that up. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

First, I never said the wording has to be removed from the lede. That's whitewashing and 100% agreement we can't do that. I am pointing out it should be shifted to slightly later in the lede after establishing the factual placement of the group/person in the taxological knowledge structure. Far far different. Second, in the case of PB, I don't think a "fraternal organization" is necessarily the same as a "fraternity" as we apply that latter term (that's more for college-based groups), but if it is objective founded as a fraternal organization it should be categorized like that. As WP editors, we can't take this type of stance that "oh this group's offensive so it shouldn't belong with the rest of these others". It's similar to the argument happening at Andy Ngo whether he should be called a journalist, with some arguing that calling him a journalist against "actual" journalists like Woodward and Burnstein would be doing a disservice to those journalists. Unfortunately, this is what being neutral and impartial is - we cannot judge in wikivoice, and that's what you're asking us to do. --Masem (t) 17:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, btw, you are proving the point that this is an issue that affects any person/group associated with far/alt-right ideologies. It is nearly impossible to spot check and find examples of the same type of wording of those you give that exist in articles for liberal groups or even for people or groups that are in great regard. I'm sure there's some but it is very difficult to find these, while you can trip over any of these when you go searching for this for people/groups on the far right. Which indicates there's a significant problem here. --Masem (t) 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"It is nearly impossible to spot check and find examples of the same type of wording of those you give that exist in articles for liberal groups..." So, your position here is that you believe that the Proud Boys, and other extremist right-wing groups (up to and including neo-nazi and white supremacist groups) are somehow being done a disservice because they are accurately represented in the lead sentences of articles? This appears to be a false balance ploy, similar to the coining of the term "alt-left" to create a bogeyman. That you cannot find, as you term, "liberal groups" who have "the same type of wording" is more evidence of a specific agenda - especially since if one looks at organizations like the Young Communist League USA one finds them described as "The Young Communist League USA (YCLUSA) is a communist youth organization in the United States", and I think everyone here understands that the term "communist" is understood to carry derogatory connotations by most of the USA no matter where they sit on the political spectrum. The underlying issue you have here is that, factually, left-wing groups tend not to be hate groups or associate with hate groups. That is a factual observation, and attempts to create a false equivalence where none exists in the name of "neutrality" do wikipedia a disservice by creating whitewashed, inaccurate articles. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That example of the Youth Communist League is exactly the same as the bin Laden where he is described as a leader of a militant organization, which in both cases is acceptable because those are objectively what they are. That group is founded on communism , that a fact, so it makes no sense to remove that out of there. With the PB, the issue is that they were founded on pro-West ideas, which is what people do have problems with including as a fact, and I agree in this case deferring this to put it against what they are more publicly seen as is probably more correct. --Masem (t) 18:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

And further, it is the problem that we have created a completely different approach and structure to articles on the far/alt-right than any other ideology. This is not being neutral or impartial. As I said, we should start with trying to write with the same structure and then add on top the WEIGHT of criticism these groups have drawn. This keeps all that is probably in most of these articles in place, but shifts where it is discussed to keep a more impartial tone. --Masem (t) 18:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"pro-West ideas"... No, they were founded as a white supremacist hate group. The "pro-west ideas", "western chauvinism", and other doubletalk terminology designed to obfuscate is unduly self-serving and disingenuous. Your push to whitewash the article in the feigned name of "neutrality" seems to be exactly what is referred to in WP:NPOV's warning that "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance" since the group "purports to be against white supremacy, while overtly promoting the precise theories and narratives that white supremacists are known for." https://www.insider.com/proud-boys-trump-debate-who-what-comments-hate-group-2020-9 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

In wikivoice, we cannot question what McInnis said what he founded the PB as, as that is documented fact, and we certainly cannot said it was founded to promote white supremacy because he never said that. But we can present the fact in wikivoice that the bulk of the media seriously doubt that the "pro-west" goals were the legitimate reason for the group's establishment due to the fact the group engages repeated in far-right/white supremacy activities and behavior. No one is going to be able to prove that unless McInnis self-asserts this, which is unlikely. So to address the false balance argument, that would be stating factually, "PB is a group that promotes pro-west values" without any further clarifiers, as clearly that is disputed. What is not a false balance is stating "PB is a group founded by McInnis to promote pro-west values. The group is frequently criticized for its racism views." or "While the group purports to promote pro-west values, it is frequently called out as racist." Both of these establish why there's a controversy over the group. And both of those do not whitewash anything but maintain neutrality and impartial tone. --Masem (t) 19:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Part of establishing false balance is putting their claims first, and then the overwhelming weight of reliable sources second. Given the imbalance in the case of the Proud Boys, this is definitionally false balance. It's not a 1v1 "he says this, other guy says this" situation - it's the overwhelming weight of reliable sources, against the unduly self-serving claims of the Proud Boys. The impartial description for the Proud Boys should be as the lead currently is, well sourced to multiple reliable sources of high quality that establish what the group really is, not what it duplicitiously claims to be in doubletalk. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a false balance concern about overloading the article with unduly self-serving claims, I agree. That's not what is being called for here at. Identifying briefly what the group can be categorized as based on how it was founded, and the purported reason it was founded, is the farthest from being unduly self-serving. Unduly self-serving would be including their entire mission statement, how the organization works, their internal literature they share with its members and the like (which we know many consider farcical) as to try to demonstrate the group is pro-west, given that nearly no RS goes into any length on this. No one is calling to add these at all.

False balance does not mean that the side with the most weight goes first. That's no where in policy. But we do have policy on our tone to stay neutral and impartial, and that's where presenting brief objective statements before piling on the lengthy amount of criticism is absolutely in line with that. To lead with criticism, even if it is written out of wikivoice with attribution immediately creates a non-encyclopedic tone for these articles and makes them stand out compared to equivalent topics, which is why these are a problem. --Masem (t) 20:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"pro-west" is a doubletalk term that readers will not understand without clarification, and further, no reliable source uses that when describing the group without it being a "the group describes themselves as" quoting that falls under guidelines for unduly self-serving self-published statements. Giving it weight and prominence in the lead is inappropriate. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Doubletalk is a redirect so readers will not understand that without clarification. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that RSes do state that PB claim their group is pro-west, this clearly is not a unduly self-serving statement, since it is being made by 3rd parties. The frequent use by RSes gives actual weight to mention it, but to respect the false balance concern, it needs to be made right up against the assertions the group is far right/white supremacy/racist by the media. Which is all part of the various solutions I've presented. It would be a problem to present "PB is purported to be pro-west" in isolation of anything else. --Masem (t) 20:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, pro-West is code. It means Aryan. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Assuming the RSes point this out, then this can be said "While the group state their are "pro-West", many of their critics state this represens Aryan values and support far right/white supremacy views." or something like that. We know what the cover of the book claims to say, and we know what many many many sources say what is actually in the book but we should still address the fact that the book cover and the contents are far different (which is a point in the RSes that there's a duplicity in how the group presents itself). --Masem (t) 21:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:The reliable sources do NOT state in their own words that the group is "pro-west". At most they repeat that "pro-west" (sometimes "western chauvinist", sometimes other internally defined dog whistling terms) is how the group describes themselves. That's a self-serving claim being given way too much undue weight in your proposals. And yes, Guy is correct: "pro-west" is a dog whistling term with white supremacist connections, the same as nonsense such as "anti-white-guilt" or "white pride". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

A unduly self-serving claim would be one that we would be pulling from the PB's own website or their own social media accounts with no other source talking about it. We do not want to pull from these at all, that's creating the false balance. But when we have RSes talking about what the group has said, even in discussing the dubious nature, these are no longer self-serving claims, they become part of the sourced discussion that is covered by WEIGHT that should be included, framed within the context of these sources doubting that purpose and not factually, of course. To omit when even RSes are discussing those would be actually violating NPOV, but I fully agree framing is very important to avoid claiming these as fact. But I want to stress yet again: Wikivoice cannot judge. We can report the stance of the majority of sources call the pro-west view of the PB as BS and that they are actually far more racist, but there's plenty of reason both from a NPOV/neutrality and from a sourcing stance to include that information briefly and wth the proper framing. --Masem (t) 22:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you have a distorted view of "what can be said in WP:Wikivoice". Your proposal fails to account for clarity, and fails to "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity". The group's self-description and reliable source analysis should be covered in the article body, but it's such a self-serving load of hooey that it belongs at the back of the lead and very carefully worded to make clear that these are the claims only, not backed up in any factual sense. For a good example look at David Duke's lead which waits until the last line before mentioning "western culture" and "traditionalist Christian family values" while making clear that these are in a "what he considers to be" sense rather than the normal definitions. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

A statement like "While the group was purported founded to support pro-West values, it is broadly characterized as a far-right and white supremacy organization by the media and advocacy groups." (What I would propose as the second sentence) is a statement that matches what is said out of many many RSes discussing the PB. Those reliable sources briefly touch on the duplicity of the "pro-West" claim before jumping into why they're a racist group. There is not one iota anything self-serving when RSes are saying that, and framing it using a word like "purportedly" or "claims to be" or any other combination, similar to what the RSes say, avoids stating it as fact in wikivoice. This is comparable to what you're pointing about Duke's lede and "what he considers to be"; we're taking the "pro-West" out of Wikivoice and putting it to a claim the group makes, as stated by RSes covering the group. (That said, Duke's lede has the same overall problem that it bypasses the fundamental "X is a Y" objective statement to get to the scarlet lettering ASAP even if that's what RSes focus on).

Especially when we are trying to cover a topic that is controversial, we should always lede in with a very brief statement of what the controversy is as part of taking a neutral and impartial tone, and which that can usually be done in one sentence. Then you can take WEIGHT into account and go into the added details that one side may have over the other. So it is clear that in the case of the PB, it is not only just that they are racist, but that they adamantly admit they are not racist. Now, very little RS agree with their view, so we can't write much to support that, but we can still address the core issue, their claimed "pro-West" purpose vs their observed actions being taken as racist by nearly everyone else in the world. Remember: we cannot judge, we can only report how the media and other judge, and we have to take a disinterested tone in writing these. It can be hard for groups that are this hated in the world, but we have to try a lot better because if we don't take careful steps now, it will spread further by example. --Masem (t) 23:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem you are arguing that the article should be propaganda - that the article should use the PB’s preferred, euphemistic, silly-formal self-description (the formality of “fraternal organization” is also ‘’a joke’’ - that kind of snark is how they roll.) That is not what Wikipedia does. We want to describe them, not sanitize or platform them - on that, see this ‘’On the Media’’ episode.24.90.99.159 (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem always argues that we put the propaganda first. They did it for Gamergate - so much so that those deplorable fucks refer to them as "Based Masem". Masem will always carry water like this. Keep that in mind while developing consensus. Jorm (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• • Back off the personal attacks, please. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem is making a case based on principle and they are right to do so. The whole encyclopedia would be better for more people writing with this same clarity of principle. Springee (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing on what should be a brief statement to keep the initial tone of the article impartial before you get into everything else that exists already in the article, because we are supposed to be neutral, impartial, and dispassionate about these topics, period. We are supposed to be trying to write this in an academic standard, not a media standard. --Masem (t) 00:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"fascist" is a specific term of art in security/terrorism studies, cf. Hoffman? More than that, the discourse of the SPLC is very much geared towards gov't practitioners and domain experts so it's very specific and uses precisely the words it means to use. Fascism is a salient political characteristic of a movement they would mention if the Proud Boys were clearly characterized under it. It's not something one neglects to mention any more than one would neglect to mention that Nazi Germany was fascist. While it's true that the SPLC has had hiccups in the past, it's way overstating the position to say that it's unreliable. Two points: first, fascist-adjacent is not enough to be fascist (if the claim is even true), any more than is communist-adjacent enough to be communist. Second, far-right populism is compatible with fascism only in the sense that it's a NECESSARY condition. It's not a SUFFICIENT condition. Academic press is not the same as academic -- anyone non-academic can publish (and they definitely do allow conspiracy theorists, e.g. genocide revisionists) and there's no peer review. There is no source by a recognized academic, think-tank, or gov't agency categorizing the hate group of consideration as explicitly fascist. This is a precise categorization, an academic term of art, and cannot be inferred if absent. Non-academics, e.g. every one of the authors of the various forms of fascist sources, incorrectly use terms like this frequently. As for why the sources are not valid note they do not conceive of fascism a la the standard academic conception of the term, i.e. O'Sullivan (1983) or Gilbert's entry (2005) in Honderich's Oxford Companion. Citing them would be like citing popsci articles and one academic press publication using gravity incorrectly and claiming that since no general relativity textbook explicitly called their description wrong their claims are valid. Either find an academic/research org claim or gov't source, or we're citing newsmag articles using "fascist" in a nonsense popsci fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:191E:5CB6:A14D:C35F (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about fascism and PBs??? --Masem (t) 01:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I think it was a general comment on the article rather than a direct reply to your points. - Ryk72 ^talk 01:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm:I was not aware of this but having googled it and read up on it I see what you mean. Thank you for helping me make sense of what wasn't making sense. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FD59:4855:C8D6:F3B9 (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not a place to vent your views on the Gamergate debate/discussion. Masem is just trying to write logically instead of unneutral propaganda. The project would be a better with more editors like them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly? Do you consider the first sentences in the leads of Proud Boys (current version), Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, etc. to be unneutral propaganda?? NightHeron (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the difference... Duke (as an individual) and the KKK (as an organization) openly admit to being white supremacist... However, the Proud Boys explicitly deny that label. I feel that the ledes of Duke and KKK articles are therefore neutral, while the lead of the Proud Boys article is not. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Literally from the David Duke article, "An ADL profile of Duke states: "Although Duke denies that he is a white supremacist and avoids the term in public speeches and writings, the policies and positions he advocates state clearly that white people are the only ones morally qualified to determine the rights that should apply to other ethnic groups."[5]" @Blueboar: you really made a poor argument that showed you haven't even read the articles or the wikipedia guidelines. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2C26:E795:C811:3DED (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, "Masem is just trying to write logically instead of unneutral propaganda is an inversion. The sentence ought to be "Masem is trying to write unneutral propaganda instead of trying to write logically" given their consistent trying to over-weight unduly self-serving WP:ABOUTSELF statements while minimizing reliable sources. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2C26:E795:C811:3DED (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, Emir of Wikipedia, So you're saying that the first sentence of the lead of a BLP or an article about an organization must not contain anything that the subject of the article would disagree with? Thus, the first sentence must sound like the beginning of a puff-piece; the non-puff-piece content can come in only after the first sentence. That's an interesting proposal, but it's not consistent with Wikipedia policy, it's not what neutrality normally means, and if you propose such a policy change in an RfC, my guess is that it will not garner much support from other editors. NightHeron (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That’s not what either has said. Please stop trying to put words in the mouths of those you disagree with. Are you aware that Masem has been involved in crafting the NPOV policy for about 15 years now?... he knows what it says because he helped WRITE a lot of it. More importantly, he knows the INTENT behind what is written. His take is spot on. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I just re-read their comments and yes, that's EXACTLY what they are saying. And after rereading the policy pages, it's pretty clear Masem is misrepresenting them. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:ACBB:DDDC:F690:A1EA (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

As a thought. The first paragraph perhaps even the first sentence of the lead should indicate notability. I'm not convinced that the explanatory statement or mission statement PB have posted about themselves is what makes this group notable. Nor do I think calling the group far-right indicates notability. I suspect there are multiple far-right groups meeting in the living rooms (or basements) of American homes. What makes this group notable when others are not? It is important and necessary to outline how the group sees itself, and although the PB website is a primary source, (this is an accepted use of primary sourcing), however placement of that source/content is not the primary issue in the lead nor are concerns about whitewashing or negativity The primary issue is placement and agreement of what is notable, whatever that is. Focus on whitewashing and negativity are not where attention has to be in constructing the lead for a neutral article. Notability which may be either negative or positive or a combination of other factors is the primary issue. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

They are notable because they are "a far-right,[1][2] neo-fascist[3] and male-only organization[4] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.[5][6][7][8][9]". Consistent with similar other entries on Wikipedia that were posted earlier. " It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable..."

1. It establishes the topic as being the Proud Boys organization.
2. It establishes the context: they are a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only organization.
3. It establishes the reason for notability: they promote and engage in political violence in the United States and Canada.

This opening sentence is very consistent with the policy written at WP:LEAD. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:ACBB:DDDC:F690:A1EA (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The lede section must identify why a topic is notable, but it says nothing about the lede sentence doing that job. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. which is exactly what is still being proposed. And as per MOS:LEAD, Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. --Masem (t) 01:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the lede section is multiple paragraphs in this case, destroys that completely disingenuous argument that the first sentence is somehow "overloaded." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:ACBB:DDDC:F690:A1EA (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Of the most recent list of right wing hate groups posted, eight use the SLPC description as the lede, two others use an RS version of it and the last notably doesn't cite the SLPC at all. Neither the SLPC or ADL purposely label this group: fascist, white surpremacist or racist. While the ADL notes mutiple ethnicities, using these labels anywhere else but in the body of the page does not reflect WP:BESTSOURCES. Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Instead going with the claims of among others non expert, non peer reveiwed souurces like Vitolo Hadid a woman recently busted for race misappropration. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:49C6:4C51:38BB:C569 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

All I was pointing out is that the page you pointed to does not say that we must include why a topic is notable in the first sentence of the lede, but somewhere in the first few sentences of the lead. We certainly do not want to bury why a topic is notable, particularly like the PBs, beyond the 2nd or 3rd sentence at most, but its not required to be in the first as you asserted. --Masem (t) 02:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Likewise the current lede and these various updated versions of it do not reflect what the majority of RS refer to this group, the maority of editors who have chimed in over the course of the past year. Why not share exactly what is so special about this particular right wing extremist hate group, that WP precedent, balance, best sources and the majority of the editors chiming in should be superceded? Lacking substantive reason which hasn't forth come in year, the first paragraph should be entirely SLPC and ADL, the second paragraph should be their denials and the rest can be filled in with the factually incorrect fascist or contradictory among the academic press sources neo and proto fascist(both words of no academic standing), the racist claims and the rest of the non notable minority opinion.2601:46:C801:B1F0:49C6:4C51:38BB:C569 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

How exactly does the current lead (not a lede, which is a news-style introduction) not reflect the consensus from RS? Also, the lead is meant to summarise the entire article, not just disagreements over classifications. Basing an entire third of the lead on two sources, although both are very reliable, is undue weight when compared to the mammoth number of sources that agree on other classifications such as white supremacist. Similarly, the terms neo- and proto-fascist do in fact hold academic merit: see the 16,400 scholarly sources that use the term "neo-fascist", for example. Similarly, do you have any evidence that the classification of the group is a minority viewpoint? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That in now way shape or form "destroys" the argument. It just means that there are multiple paragraphs in lead, which may or may not be a separate issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: That's exactly how the lead is written. The first sentence sums up the critical foundations of the group. The second sentence explains the significant secondary classification of white supremacy; the third, fourth, and fifth explaining the group's creation and leadership. The first sentence is not overloaded at all. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is perhaps important: while the article covers the RS's broad coverage of the "critical foundations of the group" (the far right/white supremacy/racism aspects), which absolutely has appropriate WEIGHT to be a predominate part of the article and cannot be removed, the point that is still missing as an encyclopedia is the basic factual aspects about the group. Who founded them, when, for what purpose (on its face value, without any judgment calls) and the like, as that is what the critical foundation builds upon. That's why we have to start by treating these subjects from more in the academic sense and not from how the media treats them, and that's being dispassionate about the fact this group is as "bad" as we all know they seem to present themselves. Doesn't mean we're whitewashing that media criticism, because that's why we have an article on them, but its how we write about that. As I've said before, this same principle applies across the board: we don't write gushingly about people, groups, or other things that are universally beloved with that type of praise kicking off in the lede sentence but usually some sentences later. Articles on past "villains" in mankind's history are also similarly tame in how they do not vilify the person the first sentence but establish their objective position in history before going on to explain why they villified. It is only these people and groups on the far/alt-right that have this problem with their neutrality in ledes and often into the bodies and its usually argued "but that's how the RSes present them!" We still have to follow the RSes for the bulk of the content, but we cannot take the tone of the RSes and still must maintain that of a neutral academic work. In a case like PB, it will still mean by the end of the second sentence of the lede we're still getting right to the point of explaining their criticism tied to far right/white suprmacy, no question, but establishing what we can say of the group facturally at least tones the article to a more impartial level comparable to every other article on WP. --Masem (t) 14:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: The trouble with your proposed sentence is that it is not factual or impartial to describe the group as a "fraternal organization" (a term that brings to mind the Boy Scouts, university fraternities, and the Rotary Club) that was set up for the noble purpose of protecting and promoting Western values. Your sentence is consistent with PB's self-description, but it conveys the exact opposite of what the vast majority of RS say about the group. You repeatedly claim that the first sentence that's currently there is not factual, but it seems that the only reason you're giving is that it doesn't agree with the group's political-spin self-description. NightHeron (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I will concede that "fraternal organization" appears only to be their label and nothing official, as I've found nothing official to what they actually are registered as (if they are even registered). But I would stress that "men's organization" as an objective term applies still.

I had a longer writeup but I realized the crux comes down to understanding that we want to separate the objective terminology of the group from the characterization of the group made by the media sources. We should never lede off with that characterization, per NPOV, no matter how universal that is. We need to say in an encycopedic fashion what type of group this is (not how the group is characterized) and then we can move into the notability factors that include its characterization. With the above change, something like "The Proud Boys is an American men's organization founded by McInnis in 2017. Though purportedly created as a fraternal organization to "promote and protect pro-West values" (SPLC source), the group's purpose is often challenged, and is broadly considered to be associated with far right and white supremacy movements. etc..." (or something like that). Still hits the key required notes, still denotes what is BS from the PBs, but keeps the tone neutral. --Masem (t) 18:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We should never lede off with that characterization, per NPOV, no matter how universal that is. That is absurd and entirely against policy. We should always (without exception) lead with the most important facts and descriptor of the subject according to reliable sources. If those sources say that the most important fact is that it is a white supremacist organization, then we must lead with that, and trying to put your "thumb" on the scale to downplay that aspect solely because you, personally, do not feel that those sources are being "objective" is a severe NPOV violation. Neutrality means accurately reflecting what the sources say, fullstop. --Aquillion (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That is absolutely not what I am trying to do and I am getting sick of people trying to second guess what I am suggesting here. First, neutrality is more than just making sure we reflect what is in the sources, it also about the tone and language choice we use to present the topic and this is part of that requirement (WP:IMPARTIAL), which means we don't take the same tone as the sources and that we may have work material around in a different set of presentation that the sources use. Second, I've said repeatedly I'm not talking of any whitewashing of the existing criticism of the group but this is all characterization of the group before anyone has actually said what it is, and as an encyclopedia, we should be starting with the basic facts and building on that, not trying to work like a newspaper where starting with those basic facts would be burying the lede. Putting the basic "X is a Y" statement at the start before jumping into characterization, the condemnation of the group by the media, drastically improves the impartial tone of the article off the bat with minimal other changes, and that's all that practically has to be done. It is not like the article has to be rebuilt from scratch. Doing this will get the impartial tone that I've stated, but will still show clearly to the reader that the group is dubious and highly contentious with its activities, leaving them to judge the rest themselves. --Masem (t) 23:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If those sources say that the most important fact is that it is a white supremacist organization... The sourcing for that, at least as linked above, appears weak. Either the sources attribute as opinion (to various agencies & advocacy groups), or they couch it as "with ties to" or they're passing mentions, or they require interpretation to get there. If the condition is not met, then... Neutrality means accurately reflecting what the sources say, fullstop. If "reflecting" is a euphemism for "repeating", then... no, not really. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• But we determine the basic facts and what the topic is according to the sources. What you are doing is saying "no, no, I find this part controversial, so we need to push it down in the lead." However, WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL do not state that we base such decisions on "how Masem views the topic", but on how it is represented in the preponderance of sources. And those sources treat the fact that the Proud Boys is a white supremacist organization as an uncontroversial statement of objective fact that is essential to understanding the topic as a whole. Therefore, saying so immediately is an impartial treatment of the topic, while hemming and hewing is presenting an unacceptably WP:POV-tainted view. We absolutely should start with an objective and impartial "X is a Y" statement; that is what describing them as a white supremacist organization is - that is, based on sources, perhaps the single most important objective fact about the organization. and therefore needs to be the most prominent one in the lead. Wikipedia is not censored; we do not hide or downplay facts that some people might find objectionable. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

And those sources treat the fact that the Proud Boys is a white supremacist organization as an uncontroversial statement of objective fact that is essential to understanding the topic as a whole. Which sources? Because, as I outlined in my previous comment, the sources linked above certainly don't. If there are better sources, then lets have them, so we can all move on. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

No I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the article should be written logically and encyclopedic. The article should cover "disagreements" if they are from WP:RSs, but that doesn't mean they should leave "agreements" to the last sentence of the article either. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Should? Should requires consensus. I'm having a very hard time understanding what you're trying to say because the points you're making are entangled in syntax/grammatical problems. There is no requirement to express notability in the first sentence. There is no consensus on what is actually notable about this particular group. But notability must be clearly highlighted and one way of doing that is to indicate notability in the first few lines. I'm just not sure what is being said here, though. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: As far as I can parse it, this IP (2601:46:...) is suggesting that the current lede does not accurately reflect the balance of viewpoints in reliable sources - that the view of the SPLC & ADL is not to describe the article subject as "white supremacist" or "white nationalist", but simply as "far-right", etc - and that this viewpoint is being excluded or played down in favour of other viewpoints. They also suggest that the viewpoint which is being favoured in the lead sentence/section is a minority view in the best sources. The other IP (2601:2C0:...) is suggesting that the article subject is the whole box & dice of deplores, including "white supremacist/nationalist", and so we should just say it. Hopefully that helps. If I've got it wrong, either IP should feel free to correct me. - Ryk72 ^talk 04:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

On quick review, IP 2601:46:... seems to have a point about at least some of the sourcing for the lead sentence. This[11] is in an academic journal, but it's an article about rhetoric & demagoguery, not about politics or history or any of the topic areas for which there would be some expertise in categorising or labelling political groups; and it's written by a graduate student. This[12] is an editorial; and mentions the Proud Boys exactly once, in passing. These might be accurate, but they're not exactly reliable in this context; nor the best sources. This[13] says "protofascist", not "neo-fascist"; there is a difference between those terms. This[14] doesn't seem to support the text that its used as a reference for. - Ryk72 ^talk 04:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ryk72: If an article was admitted into such a prominent journal and published, it shouldn't be up to us to decide that the article is not valid simply based on the author's qualifications. Also, how does demagoguery, which literally means the "political activity or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people" not relate to politics? It's effectively a branch of populism. And that editorial was authored by Peter McLaren, a hugely notable scholar; the number of mentions is hardly relevant to the accuracy of their labels. While I agree that there are better sources to be used, these sources are reliable, independent sources, and they support the classifications they follow. And how does the BBC article that starts with "The five men identify as members of the "Proud Boys", a right-wing group with chapters in the US and Canada." not support the statement that the Proud Boys exist in the US and Canada? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

i) We commonly decide that certain sources are not good to reference certain content, for any number of reasons; including the qualifications of the author, the field of the journal, and the nature of the referenced academic article - WP:MEDRS possibly being the epitome of this. For CV Haddad's article: It's an article about rhetoric, in a journal about rhetoric, written by a grad student. It's not the best source for political labels, particularly for a strong, and contested, label in the lead sentence. And has anyone involved in these discussions read anything more than the abstract? Does Haddad say anything more about this particular label, or is it just used as an introductory statement? a passing mention? ii) Editorials are reliable for attributed opinion only. See: WP:RSOPINION. We're using it to reference a statement of fact - again, a strong, and contested, label. ii.b) McLaren, whose field is listed as Education, Critical Pedagogy, Marxist humanism, is also outside his wheelhouse here. iii) Passing mentions are not (charitably we might include "necessarily") reliable. They tend not to have been tested by the academic or journalistic process, but to be something which has been accepted by the authors on faith. See: WP:RSCONTEXT. They're also prone to WP:CITOGENESIS, which looks to be an issue with some of the content in this article - sources with passing mentions, likely created based on Wikipedia content, later used to backfill that same, previously unsourced, content. If there are better sources to be used, then we should use them, and move towards a better article; one that is more robust to challenges. While we use lower quality sources, we are open to criticism, and for that criticism to be, in some part at least, valid. Hence: 2601:46:... has a point. z) I think we may have been using the BBC article for something more when I checked. - Ryk72 ^talk 11:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

At this point what is probably needed is a discussion, or RFC, on the newly proposed "rule" by the likes of Masem and Springee that somehow nothing that the subject of an article disagrees with (no matter how disingenuous or unduly self serving the statements by the subject may have proven to be) may be allowed into the first sentence of an article. As long as we're having to deal with people just making up nonexistent rules out of whole cloth... 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That's deeply misrepresentative. Neither of those two editors have suggested that nothing that the subject of an article disagrees with may be allowed into the first sentence of an article, nor anything that could reasonably be construed as such. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That's deeply dishonest, both of them have, right on this page.

1. "The first sentence should be 100% objective and no matter how much we dislike the subject should not be the sentence where the negativity starts" - Springee
2. "We should never lede off with that characterization, per NPOV, no matter how universal that is." - Masem, literally saying that to be "neutral" we have to ignore WP:SPADE.

Don't piss on my leg and try to tell me it's raining. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neither of those are equivalent to nothing that the subject of an article disagrees with (no matter how disingenuous or unduly self serving the statements by the subject may have proven to be) may be allowed into the first sentence of an article. And I think you'll find that's not my piss. - Ryk72 ^talk 03:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, both NightHeron and Aquillon have noted that these two individuals are trying to make up a new policy that doesn't exist, that would have to be applied to many other articles (including a set that per Masem's own argument I pointed out!!!), above. So I don't think I'm out of line at this point saying that if this needs to be settled, fine, wikipedia should actually have the discussion on whether that new policy should be invented or not. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Creating new policy is not done lightly. Even quite simple changes to an existing policy can require a lot of discussion and time, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

I don't think anyone, though, is trying to create a new policy. Everyone here is trying to understand how to interpret the policy we have in play here. I'd suggest that what Masem is saying, and I apologize for speaking for him, is that criticism of the article topic should not be placed in the first line. Generally, it's a good idea to describe the topic/subject so the reader knows what is being criticized before actually adding that criticism. Criticism must be anchored-something must exist and be described in order to be criticized. This is logical. For example, first I describe the rattlesnake then I can go on to discuss the dangers the animal creates for human beings. It makes no logical sense to describe the danger before we know what is actually dangerous. As a very simplistic example: Logical progression-This snake is a kind of reptile. The bite of this snake is poisonous... or....Not so logical: The bite of this snake is poisonous. This snake is a kind of reptile. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

So, this definitely matches your proposal then @Littleolive oil: "The Proud Boys are a far-right,[1][2] neo-fascist[3] and male-only organization[4] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada." It describes the rattlesnake, then discusses the danger the rattlesnake creates for human beings. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I first describe the more general, the snake is a reptile, then go on to describe criticism of the snake. You are jumping right into the danger the snake represents and part of that is your opinion that the rattlesnake implies negativity, but in fact it doesn't. I agree with Masem below. You are trying to flag this article to immediately present the criticism of the group. There is no one that dislikes this kind of group more than me, but we are writing and encyclopedia and I am not allowed to voice my opinion in the first line in a way that defies the logic a writer must bring to an article. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no way we can approach any topic like that on WP, that's outright a neutrality violation, see WP:OUTRAGE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. PB may be the worst possible human beings on the planet, but we are still an encyclopedia and we still have to write with a certain decorum of impartiality if we are going to call ourselves neutral and impartial. --Masem (t) 05:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You were the one who proposed checking similar articles and you're still grossly making nonsense up. I see Jorm was very right. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:What the hell, I'll even quote your own words yet again and repeat myself. "to be parallel to all other similar organizations that have been written on WP", it has already been demonstrated above that your proposal is not consistent with other similar organizations that have been written on WP. Examples here, from organizations or people that are also in Category:Alt-right.

1. Ku Klux Klan - "The Ku Klux Klan (/ˌkuː klʌks ˈklæn, ˌkjuː-/),[a] commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist hate group..."
2. Identity Evropa - "Identity Evropa (/juːˈroʊpə/), rebranded[10] as American Identity Movement in March 2019,[2][11] is an American neo-Nazi[12][13][14] and white supremacist[14][15][16][17][18] organization..."
3. Alt-Right - "The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement..."
4. Richard B. Spencer - "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born 1978) is an American neo-Nazi,[1][2] antisemitic conspiracy theorist and white supremacist..."
5. VDARE - "VDARE is an American website focusing on opposition to immigration to the United States and is associated with white supremacy,[2][3] white nationalism,[4][5][6] and the alt-right.[7][8][9]"
6. Vanguard America - "Vanguard America is an American white supremacist, neo-Nazi, neo-fascist organization. The organization is also a member of the Nationalist Front.[1][2]"
7. National Policy Institute - "The National Policy Institute (NPI) is a white supremacist think tank and lobby group based in Alexandria, Virginia.[1][2][3][4] It lobbies for white supremacists and the alt-right.[5]"
8. New Century Foundation - "The New Century Foundation is a white supremacist[1] organization founded in 1994 by Jared Taylor known primarily for publishing a magazine, American Renaissance, which promotes white supremacy."
9. Northwest Territorial Imperative - "The Northwest Territorial Imperative (often shortened to Northwest Imperative or known simply as the Northwest Front)[2] is a white separatist, neo-Nazi idea that has been popularized since the 1970s–80s by white nationalist, white supremacist and white separatist groups within the United States."
10. League of the South - "The League of the South (LS) is a white nationalist, neo-Confederate, white supremacist organization,[6][7][8][9][10]..."
11. The Daily Stormer - "The Daily Stormer is an American far-right neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and Holocaust denial commentary and message board website that advocates for the genocide of Jews.[1][2][3][4]"

I could make this list even longer but I think the point is made. There does not appear to be any legitimate concern for "consistency with other articles", or any real policy reason to whitewash the lead by starting with the facially false, unduly self serving claims of the Proud Boys organization.2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

As I have pointed out several times in this, this is a problem specific to any person or group associated with the far or alt right on WP within the five to six years, and no where else. You're not comparing to other organizations outside of that group, which is where the issue is. I've given my reasons for it, a combination of external political climate outside of our control, and human nature to want to be critical of these groups on WP. No where else on WP do we have any type of articles written this way. You sorta prove my point that this is a problem specific to this topic area, and not the usual way we write articles on WP. I understand the far/alt right is a serious issue and we should not be given them a platform on WP for their vies, and I am not suggesting anything like that at all, but simply what tone we take with these. --Masem (t) 06:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"No where else on WP do we have any type of articles written this way" you claim falsely, and in previous responses I have linked another article as well from a different category. And you have made it very plain that you are not neutral as you claim, but rather operate out of sympathy for the Proud Boys when you make statements like the following:

1. "It can be hard for groups that are this hated in the world"
2. "how the media treats them"
3. "despite how hated the group is by mass media"

What these show is that your goal is, in fact, to have the article whitewashed by treating the Proud Boys as if there is some kind of conspiracy against them. This is about as far from WP:IMPARTIAL or WP:NEUTRAL as could be. Further, your claim that there is a "problem specific to this topic area", and your earlier claim that one could not similarly check 'liberal' groups, are ridiculous. The leads of John Brown Anti-Klan Committee, The Camden 28, Black Revolutionary Assault Team have similar openings, as do non-American organization pages such as Irish People's Liberation Organisation or Saor Éire (1967–75) linking to the specific movements they are members of just as the Proud Boys are part of the far-right and neo-fascist movements. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

None of the those leads have anywhere close to the use of subjective language that this article or the list you provide have. In particular, there's no value-laden labels being used in those lead sentences. They're not all perfect (the Black Revolutionary Assault Team is a bit off) but these are tame compared to what's being presented here. --Masem (t) 07:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"subjective language" is not a synonym for "the consensus of how reliable sources describe the group." You're being dishonest again. The language in the lead is there sourced to multiple reliable sources because that is the language that reliable sources use to describe what the group actually is. You keep trying to insist that the group's unduly self-serving claims about itself go first, due to a clearly demonstrated agenda as quoted above from yoour own words. Again, if a group is described as "communist", in the USA that's probably "subjective language" in that most of the USA understands negative connotations to "communism" and "socialism" ever since the 1950s and the Red Scare, but it can at the same time be 100% accurate. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is, that's all describing how the group is characterized which of course we have to cover, but it is not what the group is tangibly - are they a non-profit , are they a formal organization, are they a chapter-based system, etc.? The very basic who/what/when/where that you'd expect at the start of any encyclopedic article before we get into characterizing that topic. That's the distinction I'm making here. And again, the fact that these are elements we can source to third-party reliable sources, not from the PB's themselves, eliminates any issue with those being "unduly self-serving claims", because they simply can't be when filtered through a third-party RS. --Masem (t) 16:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, no personal attacks. I have zero sympathy for PB or any groups on the far-right. I *am* all for a impartial and neutral wikivoice that we're support to maintain for all articles even those that may cause WP:OUTRAGE. Do not mix trying to argue for a neutral voice with trying to side with these groups. Those are very much different things. --Masem (t) 17:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Three citations of your own words above show that you are in fact trying to side with the Proud Boys and create a narrative claiming that they are somehow victims, that the media is against them, and that "It can be hard for groups that are this hated in the world." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPADE is an essay while things like like WP:IMPARTIAL and MOS:LEDE are policy and guideline, and thus have more weight. --Masem (t) 03:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC): BTW, Masem is completley uninvolved in this topic or any of the related stuff. You all take a look at Adolf Hitler and Nazi Party. They're not written anything like Proud Boys. Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Ironically I think Adolf Hitler (WP:GOODARTICLE) and the Nazi Party are probably two of the most widely hated things on Wikipedia, and yet there leads are better than others like the PB's. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I think this is, once again, getting way out of hand and off topic. This seems to have become saturated with personal opinions, somewhat tangential comparisons to other articles, and is not absent with personal attacks. There seem to be suggestions of how to approach this, which then others are trying to take as policy proposals, with semantics being lost within. While NPOV/N is meant to be used to discuss neutrality issues, a lot of what is being discussed here like new policies and random interpretations of existing policies being passed off as convention when they're not. As a note, any claims about conventions or consensuses from other articles should be made with links to specific discussions that have taken place, not just to articles - the inclusion or exclusion of content without discussion does not constitute a consensus. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Add: This discussion has become permeated with personal attacks which is unacceptable. I've seen editors blocked for a week for calling others liars; I'd be really careful. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Proposal: no consensus. Per my comment above and the general lack of any agreement, I propose that this be closed with no consensus. This would therefore default back to the status quo and the local consensus that's been build on the Proud Boys' article talk page, which I think will just need formalising in the near future. That is not to say that the article's lead cannot be improved, but a lot of what is happening here is so far removed from the article that it's not practical or effective in actually coming to a conclusion about what needs to happen.ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  @ItsPugle: As you were involved in this matter I am not sure if it is appropriate for you to propose that. Some might also see it as an attempt to WP:Supervote. -- Please do not ping on reply. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely get what you're saying, but I really don't mean to be trying to supervote here. This is just a bit of a proposal, so if people think there's still a reasonable chance of a consensus, or think that there's an existing consensus somewhere in the rubble, that's perfectly fine. And as I said, this isn't to say that there isn't an issue or anything - I'm perfectly happy (and probably think it would be good) to have a bit more of a moderated discussion on the article's talk page to formalise a consensus. I reached out to an admin for a bit of guidance about what could be a good way to do this, so I'll see what they come back with and maybe go from there? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, that sounds good. Let's hope the admin can help sort this out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay! So the admin's just said that at this stage, we have enough of a consensus that we can probably remove the sort of original research and opinion edit requests that we normally get under WP:FORUM (see: Special:Diff/982778570 and Special:Diff/982609813 etc). They said they would suggest a RfC, which is happening, so hopefully that doesn't end up like this again 😂 By the looks of where the RfC is right now, and this unreverted diff, it looks like we're come to a consensus (lord knows how we got here). It might be a bit of a waiting game for a while to see what happens, but I think the RfC is going to be the end of these shenanigans! ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No it's not, the robustness of the status quo will be challenged regularly. As it should be given it's epic weakness.

To sum up the cite bomb by Davide King

Vitolo-Hadad a recently disgraced grad student teacher with no expertise of any sort in the field claims they are advancing a facist politic.

Mcclaren-an academic scholar in unrelated fields but at least explicitly calls them neo fascist.

Alvarez her first book. It is about violence against women. An anthropology and sociology professor at New Mexico Highlands University. One has to buy the book to see what she does or does not label this group.

Daou is a partisan having worked for Kerry, Clinton et al who's notability is political blogging.

Sernau is a sociology professor at UCSB. The book Social Inequality in a Global Age provides a sociological framework for analyzing inequality within the United States. Again, one has to buy the book to see what he does or does not label this group.

Hosang the closest thing to an RS here-says nothing of neo fascism and concludes with this group approaches fascism.

Kutner-is a research consultant with degrees in psychology and communications. She calls herself The Proud Boys Whisperer. Fairly heavily conflicted as her vocation is tracking The Proud Boys. That said her material is relatively interesting. "Scholars can think of cryptofascism as Fascism 2.0." She is already inventing the next fake moniker. This neither introduces them as fascists nor concludes with them being fascist. Although she defines fascism herself at one point, completely lacking the central tenants of dictatorial and immense cental control in such a manner so as to include this group. Her primary contention is cypto fascist or fascist but preyending not to be. Using that as a basis, one can attribute anything. The entire point of this paper is to try and prove that they use fascist techniques to recruit new candidates.

Willfred Reilly a professor with a PHD in political science who's research focuses on empirical testing of political claims- that about 10% to 20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, Although it is of the we don't like, won't cover this therefore it didn't happen MSM material, Kutner took offense and responded with largely victims identifying with their attackers.

These are not notable scholarly academics as a whole, they do not call them fascist or neo fascist as a whole and weighting their opinion over the SLPC and ADL is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:1C62:B9D7:AE9A:BEB0 (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please start signing your comments - people using WP:REPLYLINK aren't able to reply using the software, which is quite annoying and takes a considerably longer time. Claiming that a source is invalid because "one has to buy the book to see what he does or does not label this group" goes against existing policy: offline sources are just as valid as any other source. You also seem to be trying to dismiss evidence from very well respected and competent academics and scholars just because the entire publication is not about the Proud Boys, which is somewhat absurd. A lot of what has been listed here appears to me to be nothing but your personal opinion about sources (some of which aren't actually cited), and seems to want to not include content supported by a plethora of sources because one specific source you prefer does not say it. It seems a bit to me like you're trying to discredit other sources to force the sources you personally prefer, which happen to use more soft language about the group, to be used. Also, please see my comment on the RfC about censorship and undue weight/lack of balance. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I forget from time to time, my apologies to all of those adversely effected. I will try to do a better job remembering in the future. Thank you for formatting it properly. I'm not dismissing the sources that are inaccessible to me but for example New Mexico Highlands University is not Harvard. If they were very well respected and competent academic scholar sources, there would be no need to actually read the underlying material. If they were very well respected and competent academic sources they would reach the same conclusion instead of each one accessible to me largely reaching different conclusions. I don't have to read the ADL or SLPC as they are language specific domain experts. This is a matter of fact not opinion, they are either fascist or not and there is no adjacent fascism. It is softer, not more soft and leading with an extreme right wing hate group seems harsher to me than incorrectly labeling them fascists. I took the time to read through the material that was available to me and summarized it above. You continue to repeat this charade as if they authored the Oxford dictionary. I do not like to cast doubt, but I highly doubt anyone else bothered to read anything but the buzzwords if even that much. If the status quo is it, there will be deservedly frequent challenges.

Maybe you answered one of the great mysteries here, the minority opinion as exhibited by the number of editors having voiced their opinion on the talk page over the course of the last year actually considers it more pejorative to call them fascists? That's interesting as the avg right wing hate group would significantly prefer that over being labeled a hate group by the SLPC, in essence denying them access to banking, social media etc......calling them fascists results in nothing but me wasting endless time pointing out over and over again that it is factually incorrect. I see no messages from you. I'm going to pretend that it was something complimentary and not another point towards inhibiting discourse. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:1C62:B9D7:AE9A:BEB0 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

RfC on Talk

See talk:Proud Boys. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Weird discussion at Talk:Hamas#Edit request

I asked for a copyedit to a locked article, and was answered by condescension, accusations of "POV pushing", and WP:WALLS of irrelevant material. Input welcome. François Robere (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait 3 days and then edit it yourself.Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Or... we can discuss it now. How 'bout that? François Robere (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You asked for input. Not my fault if you don't like it.Selfstudier (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Your input was limited to "you're POV pushing", "I don't want to discuss it", and "you can do it yourself". That's not constructive. François Robere (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Your input was limited to "do it my way"...about 7 or 8 times I think.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah... what? François Robere (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There, some quote marks.Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Someone should close this...NOSNOW.Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I asked for a copyedit. You and Nishidani accused me of "POV pushing" because of the existing version, which I didn't write. Letting you get away with spurious accusations isn't "do it my way", it's "stop playing games". François Robere (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and Anti-racism

A while back an editor edited the two above articles to include claims that Blumenbach, an anthropologist who is now best known for his white supremacist theories on race, was actually an early proponent of scientific anti-racism. To support this claim they cited a few sources which at best seem to claim that Blumenbach is not quite as racist as he's commonly assumed to be. (He certainly didn't consider himself racist, but a benevolent helper to these poor degenerate races, but given that white supremacist simply means that one believes whites are the superior race, I don't know why calling him one should be controversial.) They also created a large section in the article arguing in a rather unencyclopedic tone that modern perspective of his theories as having advanced white supremacy are due to mistranslations of his work, rather than due to the fact that he clearly, uncontroversial believed that non-white races were inferior to his own. When I removed these claims, a new editor began reverting me and has been disinterested in engaging on the talk page. Thoughts on how better to use these sources, if they're needed at all? It doesn't seem to be a particularly widespread belief, and including a long defense of Blumenbach and the uncritical claim that he 'considered an early pioneer of scientific anti-racism' seems like undue weight. Vary | (Talk) 23:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You may want to take another look.

• Gould, Stephen Jay (October 31, 1994). "The Geometer of Race". Discover. ...Blumenbach was the least racist and most genial of all Enlightenment thinkers. How peculiar that the man most committed to human unity, and to inconsequential moral and intellectual differences among groups, should have changed the mental geometry of human order to a scheme that has served racism ever since.

Can dig up more if needed. fiveby(zero) 00:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I understand that he was not a hateful person, but it is quite a significant stretch to call him an early proponent of scientific anti-racism (even the quote you suggest acknowledges that was not his legacy,) and the argumentative tone of the long digression insisting that those who find his theories about race white supremacist are just misunderstanding him seems very unencyclopedic in tone to me. Vary | (Talk) 00:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think your first characterization was off the mark, but missed scientific anti-racism. Is that even a term that should be used? I only see it in the index of the cited work. generally considered an early pioneer in what is now called scientific anti-racism does absolutely need some good sources. I don't think scientific anti-racism is generally considered a real thing, let alone with 'pioneers'. fiveby(zero) 01:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti-racist work in the sciences is a thing, at least, but Blumenbach wouldn't have even had a concept of it, much less been a proponent of it, so a few authors who say he wasn't personally racist don't justify the much stronger claims being made in the article. Vary | (Talk) 03:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Baháʼí prophecies

The Baháʼí prophecies use to have this openning:

The writings of founding members of the Baháʼí Faith include predictions of future events, the most specific of which are related to the rise and fall of leaders and organizations. Most of these can be found in Baháʼu'lláh's tablets to the kings and rulers of the world and in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.[1]

I changed to:

The writings of founding members of the Baháʼí Faith include alleged predictions of future events. The most specific predictions are related to the alleged rise and fall of leaders and organizations. Most of these can be found in Baháʼu'lláh's tablets to the kings and rulers of the world and in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.[1]

But user Cuñado has insistently reverted it with no reason given in the Talk page. Several users had pointed out problems of neutrality on the article. I'm not saying that my redaction is perfect, can be improved, but certainly that as the article is in its present form is clearly endorsing the idea that the Bahai' prophecies were correct and accurately predicted world events. Of course this is doubtful but in any case is not how Wikipedia should present the issue. Other articles about prophecies like the Prophecy of the Popes present a more clear skepticism while other like Prophecy in the Seventh-day Adventist Church contantly mention that is what Adventist believe or claim, not presenting them as fact value. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that brief discussion was happening in the edit summaries, and neither of us were using the talk page. As I mentioned here: "saying that someone made a prophecy is not saying that prophecies are real". All you did was add "alleged" in a few places and it ruined the flow of writing (and unnecessary). Third party sources in the article use the same terminology of "prophecy" for the same thing. Anyway I agree that the article could use a more neutral tone, and I'll try to fix it up. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want to get on someone about NPOV, look at Bible prophecy: "the passages of the Bible that reflect communications from God to humans through prophets". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really seeing much of an issue with the original text quoted above. Saying that predictions or prophecies were made does not imply that they were accurate, correct or divinely inspired. I don't think we need "alleged" here. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current redaction made by Cuñado, I think is objective enough as it is. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Regan Russell

I've reviewed the article, edits, and talk regarding Regan Russell.

I find that much of the information regarding her death and the response to it is missing, and that over time much of the information, references, and facts have been dismissed under the pretense of neutrality or cross-promotion.

I can say, as a member of her family, that she would absolutely want these groups associated with her death as they were parties to what happened and ultimately what has followed, which has largely included a response from those who seek to use her death to advance Bill 156, an AGGAG law in Canada, not just those from the animal rights community.

Essentially, I find it concerning that an article that has a clear error in it currently, and several errors in the previous versions that are related to a lack of reading comprehension of the articles they are sourced from, is the article people are reading with regard to Regan.

Several facts have been suppressed, such as the fact that the counter-protests were a direct response to her death and began with disparaging her with signs that claimed she commit suicide.

Before her death, much of these things were not happening, nor were protests in Niagara-on-the-Lake of major note until those being protested against attended the above counter protests with the offending signs in an attempt to antagonize their opposition.

Promotion is not an issue because these groups, events, etc are all directly relevant to her death. Furthermore, she would hope her death would have some impact on the momentum in the movement she supported, but of course we must remain neutral here on Wikiepdia.

I sincerely hope more seasoned, professional editors, will properly cite the material available and cited over time and write a proper article which states both sides of the controversy surrounding her death.

So far, it has been an article rife with edits and cuts of information, which has been greatly frustrating to watch over time as an internet-savvy member of her family.

Sincerely,

Joshua Powell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning the use of "pappu" to insult Rahul Gandhi

"Pappu", a Hindi term meaning something like "not-very-bright young boy", has been widely used to insult Rahul Gandhi, one of the most prominent politicians in India; it has now become a significant facet of his public image. This is substantiated in at least a hundred reliable sources; I've provided a selection in Talk:Pappu#Sources and am happy to provide more if it matters.

Recently, I added this fact to Pappu, but was reverted. I then started a discussion a discussion on the talk page, where most participants opposed my edit on the grounds that (1) it would violate the BLP policy, (2) journalistic sources were insufficient to substantiate the fact, and (3) such insults, as "propaganda" and "political gaming" should not be mentioned on Wikipedia.

The question here: would it be undue weight to devote a few sentences or, at most, a paragraph to this insult and its evolution on Pappu or in a "public perception" section on Rahul Gandhi?—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya8795, NeilN, Anupmehra, Katyaan, Vigyani, Vaibhavafro, DESiegel, Akhiljaxxn, RegentsPark, Kautilya3, 25 Cents FC, Fylindfotberserk, and WhatamIdoing: since you have either participated in or been invited to a previous discussion of this topic, I am inviting you to this one too.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

All seems a bit trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not just a random nickname; it's part of a broader narrative that he's a political lightweight who has only become a leader because he's part of a huge Indian political dynasty. And, probably more importantly, reliable sources consider it significant enough to mention it over and over again.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Then it is appropriate in his article, but not in an article that is not about him. In the grand scheme of things this is not its sole, main or even majority use.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that this is its majority use. If you asked random people in India to name a person known as "pappu", I think Rahul Gandhi would be by far the most common answer (obviously my sense is not a reliable source, but I think the volume of sources using the nickname backs me up). But in any case, most of Pappu is a list of people known by that name, and at least mentioning that Rahul Gandhi is one of them seems totally appropriate.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"Notable people named Pappu", that his not his name.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I went through several dozen Google News articles. With three exceptions, every headline that referred only to Pappu (i.e., not a first and last name) was about Rahul Gandhi. Those three exceptions were about a child raped in the 1970s (preasumably the child's full legal name isn't given for privacy reasons), a traditional food dish with the same name (think Johnny and Johnnycake), and an unrelated politician who was being accused of similar behavior. AFAICT sources really are using this primarily to refer to Rahul Gandhi. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

One of the basic principles of NPOV is do not state opinions as facts. The OP seems unable to distinguish between the two. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My edit which started this discussion said: "In politics, pappu has come to be an insulting nickname for Rahul Gandhi." This is a fact. Many people do call him "pappu" (I don't). What would violate NPOV is taking a side on whether the nickname is fair or unfair.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

But is it its sole use, or just one of many uses?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Does it need to be? Karen (slang)#Examples doesn't seem to be any the worse off for naming several people who acquired that nickname. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Compare that to what the Washington Post wrote:

BJP leaders called him “pappu” — a Hindi term for a well-meaning but dimwitted little boy.

That is how an OPINION is stated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really? We WP:ASSERT facts, including facts about opinions, but we don't assert opinions themselves. "In politics, pappu has come to be an insulting nickname for Rahul Gandhi" is not an opinion: it is a fact that this person is called this name. "BJP leaders called him "pappu"" is not an opinion: it is a fact that these people call this person this name.

An opinion – which we would not put in the article – would sound something like "Rahul Gandhi doesn't deserve to be called Pappu by his political opponents". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Since I've been pinged. Generally, derogatory political nicknames should be avoided because they are, um, political. The exception is if it is explicitly included in an article or list on derogatory political nicknames. If you want to start an article List of derogatory political nicknames in India, assuming all this is well sourced (I haven't checked), and assuming that there are other such nicknames (I don't know), that would probably be ok. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark, what would you advise editors of Brenda? The article describes it as an "irreverent" nickname for Elizabeth II. Would you remove it because that article isn't exclusively about derogatory nicknames? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)