Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 104

Archive 100

←

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

→

Archive 110

Muhajir people article

The article on Muhajirs (Pakistan) has been subject to massive edit wars going back years, mostly to do with POV pushing and inserting of promotional edits. This article has been semi-protected at least twice from IPs in the past year because of this. Now, registered users are resuming these promotional edits in violation of NPOV and sourcing them to mostly personal commentaries as well as to sources that contradict the claims of Muhajirs being an "ethnicity." Additionally there is vandalism of reliably sourced edits in order to give Urdu-speaking muhajirs priority over non-urdu ones. To give the main example, here is a promotional paragraph on the intro cited to unreliable sources, at least one which contradicts the claims of Muhajirs being an "ethnicity." Have a look please:

"The Muhajirs are the most educated, and affluent ethnic group in Pakistan. Because of this, they constituted a influential community in the earlier years of post-partition Pakistan."

As you can see the above text is highly promotional. The current editor repeatedly inserting promotional edits while removing reliably sourced edits such as the infobox seems to have a opinionated connection to the subject as seen on their profile page. Sylvester Millner (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I have provided citation for both education and affluence in the article FLA-ALP-1 (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

References

There's also the issue of misrepresenting sources. The previous article lead introduces Muhajirs to be multi-ethnic and multi-lingual. Now this misleading intro, in contrast to sources, claims them to be an ethnicity and speaking one language while being able to speak other languages, rather than those "other languages" being their native language. Please review the quoted text first and see the sources as well as the misquoting of sources.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: as the admin who semi-protected this article, can you please have a look.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I was just trying to stop the disruption. It's up to y'all to determine the correct version. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bishonen: do you know anyone who can provide the needed insight and/or corrective action? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Way above my paygrade, sorry. Bishonen | tålk 08:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC).

@RegentsPark:-- same question -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sylvester Millner: Have you tried discussing content and sourcing on the talk page? Or with the "current editor?" -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Have you expertise re: South Asian social groups? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Not enough to immediately know what's right here; I would need to evaluate what the sources say vs what's being stuck in the article, and I've no time, sorry. Barely had time for Wikipedia this past week. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I took a quick look and it is going to be really hard for anyone to figure this out. I must say though that, since the Mujahir refers to people who migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition, it seems logical that they will be of many different ethnicities since the migrations were from many different parts of India. Unless I've misunderstood this entirely. I also notice that the main editors involved are apparently deeply interested only in this topic. Not that there's anything wrong with that! --RegentsPark (comment) 19:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra I do not have time to get into rest of difference of opinions. Here I would like to comment as far as above quoted contested sentence is concerned it is likely to be contextual to the next sentence. What it needs is quotations from the citation to see if it supports the statement. If sources mean to say some thing like ".. At the time of partition/ independence, the Muhajirs were the most educated .. hence influential in that era" (emphasis on past tense) would sound factual and not promotional to me if supported by properly sourced citation.

As stated earlier my above comment is limited to above discussed sentence only. The other user seem to be @ article t/p much before this user IMO they give more time @ t/p point by point discussion. Bookku (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra, yes I have. It's on the article talk page. I also notified them of this discussion. We currently have an issue of not just citing personal commentaries and other unreliable sources, but now even misrepresenting sources. For example the infobox citations. None of the sources claim Gujarati, Rajesthani or any other are "defunct languages" spoken by the Muhajirs. See and tell me if I missed anything. The user also displays a phony award on their profile related to the subject, apparently given by themselves. Is that even allowed? They even seem to have a POV connection with the subject from their profile, which I linked here. Have a look. User:RegentsPark, I've edited a number of South Asian topics since I joined. This article is one of them. Right now the main issue is the reliability/neutrality and correct representation of the sources, which the current user is seems to be connected to by the looks of their profile. Also I need someone to look at the article intro which I pasted above and bolded in black. It seems like unreliable POV texts and sources. Not at all NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvester Millner (talk • contribs) 03:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The defunct citation in provided in the linguistic groups section. I have provided two for gujaratis and one for the other small groups. FLA-ALP-1 (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Btw what was the reason behind the vandalism edits on this page? Removing POV by undoing copyedits? FLA-ALP-1 (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

There was no "vandalism" but removing POV and restoring reliably sourced edits. Your current edit that Gujarati, Rajesthani, East Punjabi Punjabi are "defunct" is not supported by the sources. The lead edit is obviously promotional and needs to be removed as well. It's not reliably sourced.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Jewish collaboration

The article Collaboration with the Axis powers has a section on Jewish collaboration that deals exclusively with individual Polish Jews. I am not an expert in this history but this seems undue. The article is oversize and we're removing entire regions and countries. Eyes welcome. Elinruby (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

When dealing with "overized articles", content, particularly if referenced, generally should be not removed, but moved (merged/split). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free. Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Where did you move this section? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC

It was moved to Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany, which was formerly a redirect - although at a glance I'd say article / stub is in terrible shape (because the section that was moved into it was in pretty bad shape.) The first sentence is a particular problem due to misusing a source that probably isn't good enough for that statement in the first place. --Aquillion (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know, look who is on the talk page. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty bad article as it is now, the Jewish collaboration needs to be put in some context. Naming persons such Gancwajch and Rumkowski in one sentence, on the same level without any context is misleading and in my personal opinion harmful for Rumkowski. Marcelus (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparently these individuals have been dead too long for it to be a BLP violation. At least, I got shut down at BLPN when I tried to raise the issue there. The people who said this are probably right; I don't usually do anything with BLPs. Nonetheless, I would not like it if my grandfather were called a collaborator.

It's even worse than that, though. Piotrus and I agreed on moving the text to the former redirect rather than simply removing it, in my case because my focus is on the broader article but hey, if it could be fixed, then fine. But somebody else felt I wasn't complying fast enough and reverted the text back in and refused to remove it again. So all this badly sourced UNDUE (see current RSN thread) is now in Wikipedia *twice* and nobody but me is working on it. And I am sure as squeak not the person to determine whether Jan Grabowski is correct about whether pretty much the only source that isn't getting scoffed at at RSN, failing verification or in Polish only is a fringe theory.

(a little later) in fairness, some fail verification and some cannot be verified on Google. Those two may we'll be fine. Elinruby (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The article deals with organized collaboration and/or collaboration on a massive scale; the cases covered in the "Jewish collaboration" section are mostly individuals and local crime organizations, so questions of DUE-ness are due. In addition, the section is poorly-sourced (see article and talk). François Robere (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that, if the same level of detail were to be adopted for other categories (listing individuals) then some sections would have to be a dozen screens long. Marcelus (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly we shouldn’t list every individual, but some individuals’ collaboration might be particularly noteworthy, so removing ALL content about individuals would create its own problems. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I added a couple of sentences about a Hungarian general who made a secret side deal that sucked Hungary into the war on the Nazi side. I think he should be an exception because look at how much power he apparently had, but somebody else objected on the basis that Hungary joined the Axis. However it hadn't yet, until this guy made his secret deal and the prime minister committed suicide, so think he's a valid exception. There's another definition of collaboration in the lede of Wartime collaboration that I agree with, that basically says that the power or influence of the person is a factor. I probably should add it t to this article.

Lord HeeHaw might be another exception based on influence, but there were probably enough people like him for an article specifically about them, I dunno. All these things are discussable, especially now that I've started to try to address all the volunteers in name only, another huge problem, and another editor has split off collaboration with Japan and is working on untangling all that stuff. Bottom line we are less stressed for space now that we were the last time I commented on this, and If you want to add Lord HeeHaw in a section that could be split off later, I guess that's OK. But if you do, I am adding Louis-Ferdinand Céline, who was also notorious. And wasn't there a Tokyo Rose? Too tired to opine on this right now. Elinruby (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I could use some backup please. Somebody please review the work I've done in the dedicated section at Collaboration with the Axis powers. I've checked the sourcing since I tried to delete the section and no, I still don't think the scolding I got was well-founded (see lengthy archived talk page threads), and I narrowly avoided a three-month block the last time I touched Poland in the Holocaust, for allegedly white-washing Nazis or some such. (see Azov Battalion) Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Villages of Romania

For most countries of the world, Wikipedia accepts articles for villages of these countries. There are categories for these villages in Bangladesh or North Macedonia., However there is an exception which covers the two Romanian talking countries Romania the Republic of Moldova. I would expect Wikipedia to apply the same rules to Kall countries. There should not be second hand countries having villages unworthy to have a separate article. All information regarding these villages are included in the articles if the communes in which they are included. This is incorrect as communes are administrative units, whereas villages are settlements. I suggest that there should be a consistent approach with the same rules applicable all countries of the world/ At present the same rule is applied to big countries, such as Russia, and small countries such a Liechtenstein. What is wrong with Romania and the Republic of Moldova?Afil (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not an NPOV dispute. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)

The mentioned article cites the historian Hasanli, who possesses a clear conflict of interest as he openly disavows the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide, [1] which has been widely acknowledged by the scholarly community. Furthermore, considering the ongoing hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is pertinent to note that Hasanli served the Azerbaijani government for a decade. Given his evident partiality towards one side, it is advisable to exclude him from the page's sources as his inclusion would compromise the objectivity and credibility of the encyclopedia. Therefore, I strongly advise against using such sources that lack neutrality and undermine the scholarly standards expected in an encyclopedia.Nocturnal781 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Posted this in the wrong board. Please disregard.Nocturnal781 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

2024 Republican Party presidential primaries

I tried raising this at the talk page but got no response.

The lead is primarily trivia about Donald Trump's run that seems inappropriate for a general article on the 2024 Primary. As I noted on the talk pages, the content about him is almost two-thirds to equal length of previous Republican primary leads.

Looking further today, the Vice President speculation section isnt much better as it is focused again on Donald Trump.

Think as it stands, this page does not comply with NPOV, so coming here for additional eyes, rather than slapping a tag on the page. Slywriter (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO the 3rd paragraph of the lede should be chopped outright. "If this", "If that", just dumb speculative trivia. Also remove Tucker Carlson form the list of declined candidates, his comments about "running" should not be taken at face value. He's a pundit Zaathras (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the latter part of that comment. Tucker Carlson is in the "Declined to be candidates" section and has been listed there for a while. Do you take him at face value when he says he won't run for president? If not, that would imply that you think that he might run for president. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A Fox News pundit was never a serious candidate. Carlson "declining" to run is as meaningful as me saying I'm not running for the spot. Zaathras (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, not the same at all. Carlson is a public figure. Many people thought The Apprentice host was not a serious candidate either and then he became president. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a case where waiting for the situation to be better resolved would help write that level of detail in the lede. At this point, there's only two affirmed candidates (Trump and Haley) along with the strong indicators that DeSantis will also be running. And that's all that's needed. Explaining details around any of those can be discussed in some depth in the body, but at this point, that lede is just far too long for as little is known. Masem (t) 17:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that the time has come for this article to be re-written (and trimmed). Now that we are beginning to get “official” candidates, we can cut back on some of the more speculative content (such as listing people who might run… we can always add them back if they do decide to run). I would also cut the “declined to run” section entirely (its undue fluff and a lot of these were never serious contenders). Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess it's not surprising that Wikipedia has fandom-level intricate detail in an article like this ("politics is sports for nerds" as they say). It was created before there were any candidates in the running, and there's still only two (one of which is a massive media magnet and a former president, so it's not surprising more of the coverage is about him). Thoughts: cut out the "declined" section entirely (anyone can be asked if they want to be president; that doesn't mean it should be included here when they say no). Cut the "potential" section or transform it into a single sentence of prose elsewhere. Don't know why we need vice presidential speculation before there are even candidates for the primary. Cut endorsements of people who aren't even running yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

LA Times in Chloe Cole article in regards to the Kaiser lawsuit

There is currently a discussion at Chloe Cole#LA Times lawsuit opinion on whether the LA Times, which provides both Cole and this specific lawsuit WP:SIGCOV is WP:DUE source for the following paragraph:

Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik described the lawsuit as "part of a concerted right-wing attack on LGBTQ rights, in which the health of transgender youth is exploited as a pretext for bans on gender-affirming care" and stated it "incorporates what seem to be misleading or inaccurate descriptions of developments in the gender dysphoria treatment field."

This was originally listed at WP:RSN#LA Times in Chloe Cole article in regards to the Kaiser lawsuit which concluded it was a question for here. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• honestly I think the entire article in its current state needs attention from uninvolved editors experienced with NPOV and FRINGE. I just looked through it and there's not a single reference to any criticisms this activist has had. I'm not going to repeat anything that has already been said, but in my assessment it's highly unlikely that a notable activist on such a highly controversial topic hasn't received a single criticism throughout her career, and I think that's a stronger sign that something is off here than any individual discussion I could point to. I'm mostly staying out of it because I'm even less experienced than the editor above me and honestly I don't need a 600 page ANI discussion in my life, but it's becoming a problem and shutting up about it is not the way to solve that problem. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree we need outside editors who have a demonstrated proficiency in WP generally, but especially NPOV & FRINGE. Content that does not reflect the subject's self perception is near absent due to lack of consensus for inclusion, generally concerns citing NPOV. As a warning, there is quite the lengthy talk page. Filiforme1312 (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia article on lab leak theory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory

The starting paragraph states without any proof that "Most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis". I am not aware of any such survey to make such a conclusion. Given that this article is such an important one, I don't think such strong assertions should be made without any evidence to back it up.

The source points to Gorski's article but there is nothing to back this claim in the article itself.

I hope given the importance of this article, this sentence will be edited as it is clearly not neutral. 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

There's more sources in the article, the summary at the top is supposed to summarize the article. I hope this isn't people responding to the FBI. Please note it is the CIA who deal with foreign stuff not the FBI and they are both to a quite large extent political in their 'findings'. The CDC and peer reviewed articles are the right place to look at. If you want a less scientific take have a look at the Snopes articles on this. In June 2021 they were saying the lab theory should be properly investigated, but then in July they had moved to why scientists didn't think it came from a lab, and then to why occams razor has not shifted in favor of a lab release. Factcheck.org says similarly. The sentence is neutral given the reliable sources. Personally I guess there there is a vague chance of a leak even with the evidence against but if it did it was some precursor a long time before and was nowhere near so infectious until it mutated in the general population into the very infectious form, probably in November 2019. NadVolum (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

OP anon was blocked shortly after making this section for WP:NOTHERE, completely ignoring WP:RS/V, bludgeoning discussions, violating WP:TPG, etc. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it is probably wrong but I definitely wouldn't start classifying the lab theory as pseudoscience or extraordinary in any way. There hasn't been full access to everything and there's lots of unanswered questions. Just that having the FBI's unsupported word is about as lame as I can think of and I practically count it as evidence of the opposite of what it says. NadVolum (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russ Baker

Russ Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Family of Secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Russ Baker has argued in an article on his website (and presumably as User:69.203.117.207 and User:172.56.160.210 on Talk:Russ Baker[2]) that Wikipedia editors have cherry-picked sources to negatively describe his journalistic approach and his book Family of Secrets. The second story in today's issue of The Signpost written by Andreas also discusses this matter. I will send pointers to this discussion at the relevant talk pages, as well as WP:FTN as the book describes a possible fringe theory. -Location (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC) [edited to include additional IP - 20:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)]

I don't think Baker's claims have much merit. He seems to be upset that Wikipedia doesn't treat his article as a hagiography.The negative material is well sourced and I don't think it is undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a WP:COIN posting is probably in order, if the IP doesn't want to admit to any COI. And therefore a lil notice on the talk page of those pages and a request that this person not edit the article directly. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think an article subject complaining about their biography is a COIN issue. This happens all the time and is usually handled at BLPN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Hemiauchenia that Baker's complaints lack merit and that his aim is hagiography, not neutrality. The article subject has actively participated in the article over the years and is unhappy that he has not gotten his way. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this detail about his first performance WP:DUE for the body of Laurence Olivier?

See this discussion on the talk page.

Summary of the discussion: In December 2022, I added (underlined): his first stage appearance was in a sketch called The Unfailing Instinct at the Brighton Hippodrome in August 1925. He tripped and fell on his face during the performance. Today, a user removed these 10 words with the edit summary: trimming unencyclopaedic trivia.

Here are all the high quality sources which describe this event and how it impacted Olivier's career:

Donald Spoto's 1941 biography (page 44): After four weeks on tour with this trifle in Manchester, Liverpool and Brighton, his salary of two pounds was slightly augmented when he was asked to be assistant stage manager and play the silent policeman in a melodrama, The Ghost Train, in which ‘Miller had scored a great success in London. No such success was Olivier’s: the Brighton drama correspondent alluded to him only to note his unintentionally dramatic entry onstage.. Heedless of the stage manager’s warning about the set’s raised doorsill, Olivier reduced a tense scene to giddy farce as he tripped, sliding precariously toward the footlights. He fared no better in his next employment..." Anthony Holden's 1947 biography (page 326): Twenty-two years his junior, Joan Plowright was young enough to be Olivier's daughter, precisely the role she played at the Palace Theatre, taking over the part of Jean Rice from Dorothy Tutin....Though she too was married - to the actor Roger Gage - there followed a "euphoric" progress through Glasgow, Edinburgh and Oxford to the Brighton Hippodrome - the scene of Olivier's first professional stage entrance, flat on his face, over thirty years before." John Cottrell's 1975 biography (page 34): "That summer Olivier made his first professional stage appearance since leaving drama school, and he literally fell flat on his face. The occasion was a sketch called Unfailing Instinct, put on as a curtain- raiser before a Brighton Hippodrome production of Arthur Ridley's new play The Ghost Train. Again and again the eighteen-year-old novice had been warned about the importance of lifting his feet as he came on stage via a door built into the scenery on a wooden base. It made not a dime's worth of difference. On the cue for his entrance he stumbled stupidly into the base of the door frame and plunged head- first into the footlights with sufficient impact to earn his first, brief notice as a pro: "Mr. Laurence Olivier made a good deal out of a rather small part." Francis Beckett's 2005 biography (page 16): "[His first performance was also] one of the most dramatic: he fell headlong, his face coming to rest in the footlights. There was a torrent of laughter from the packed house, and when he eventually left the stage, they gave him a round of applause." Terry Coleman's 2006 biography (Pages 25, 485): "The first time he appeared on stage as an actor, in public, was at the Brigthon Hippodrome at a charity gala at the beginning of August 1925, and it was in music hall, and he fell flat on his face...Olivier was in the one straight act of the evening, a short curtain-raising sketch called The Unfailing Instinct."" It's also mentioned prominently in this New York Times review of Olivier's 1985 Autobiography Confessions of an Actor: "In 1925 he made his first appearance on a professional stage, on a variety bill in Brighton, and he made his entrance by tripping over the sill of a door in the scenery. He sailed through the air right into the footlights, and the accident provoked the largest laugh he has ever received in his life as an actor."

The user who removed (User:SchroCat) has further said: We are not writing a book-length biography, we are writing a summary of his career.

So I ask you, NPOVN, is this information DUE inclusion? Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This is a minor content dispute, somewhat outside the remit of NPOV. There is a talk page thread on this already, so it seems a little pointless (and crossing into Wikipedia:Forum shopping) to have a second thread opened after only three and a half hours of the first one opening. - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:DUE is a subsection of WP:NPOV. It's entirely within policy to advertise discussions at the appropriate noticeboard, and not forum shopping if the summary is worded neutrally. Do you have suggestions for how to phrase the above to make it more neutral?

  Outside (uninvolved) participation is one of the best ways to resolve a dispute. So far, everyone who has commented was intimately involved in prior disputes on that talk page. I'd like some outside eyes on this. In fact, this is exactly the course of action recommended by WP:DR "at any time". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Drop the stick and walk away? Stop wasting people's times by stonewalling over inappropriate nonsense in a biography? Shades of the Rylance debacle, but we should be grateful you're not misrepresenting sources this time. - SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Please restrict comments about user conduct to user talk, where such comments are on topic. Posting such irrelevant things here only serves to distract from any productive discussions of content, and your repeated posting of such things is part of why I've advertised here for outside (unbiased) input. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You asked a question, I answered. I was however wrong to say you haven't misrepresented the sources though: to try and claim that any of these justify your rather odd conclusion that the show "how it impacted Olivier's career" is another stretch beyond all comprehension. - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

There are several ways I think these sources (and others) do so:

1. This was the first of many times Olivier's clumsiness would show in his career, but one of the only times it was audience-facing. This is remarked in several other sources in addition to the many mentions of his falls or accidents above.
2. It was his first professional performance, and a hit to his ego that he got such laughter out of a crowd he never got in any other role. NYT and otheres remarked on this above, not the least of which was Olivier himself in his Autobiography.
3. It was his first performance, and a story he told often to show humility. For a man whose most famous roles are his psychologically intense Shakespeare productions, this moment in his career that he (by his own admission and as described in secondary sources above) often thinks about, serves as an interesting foil to this characterization.
4. It happened in the same town that he eventually came to live in for most of his life (Brighton). His biographies remarked on this fact in direct reference to where he brought his last wife, and lived out his golden years.

I think I would expand on this in one additional sentence using the sources I've linked, but I'm content with only the 10 word mention as sufficient. It's far from Trivia, he dedicated 5 of his 330 pages in his autobiography to it (~1.6% by word count). The NYT includes it in a 60-word mention in a review that's only 1780 words (3%). We can manage to include 10 words.

Sources

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You’re missing the point—and the mark—by some distance. I’m not sure you fully grasp what an encyclopaedic biography is. Still, having the same discussion in two places is a waste of time and effort, so I won’t continue here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem UNdue. Sennalen (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparently these supposed ten words are supposed to convey the long winded nonsense spread over four points, (“golden years”? What ludicrous waffle). The ten words tell readers nothing about Olivier, his career, his abilities or his acting. They are unencyclopaedic trivia. - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems overly harsh... Its clearly not trivia, although you might be able to convincingly argue that it is unencyclopaedic (you have not yet done so). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think those 10 words should appear in the article without more. You could expand to explain why the incident matters and how it affected Olivier's future career, or you could remove the ten words. I'd prefer the former.—S Marshall T/C 17:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Race privilege

A fairly new article, I'm concerned that this isn't written from a NPOV and relies on disproportionate weight in order to make certain statements, particularly against Japanese people. Indeed, I removed one statement that I found to be particularly egregious. While I am reluctant to comment on editors themselves, the creator of this article has expressed strong nationalist views around South Korea and has admitted they have a negative view of Japanese people, so I'd like to request more eyes on this article, please. — Czello 13:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I can't see where any of the sources use the phrase "race privilege" at all, leading me to believe this is just WP:OR designed to grind an axe around Japanese people. — Czello 13:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it discrimination to judge my editing with my user page? You wouldn't have doubted my editing if I hadn't revealed on the user page that I was a resistance nationalist. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I would have certainly still brought the case here - but some of your personal statements about the Japanese and Chinese does lend credence to what I'm saying above. Normally I would certainly comment on contributions, not contributors, but you have been explicit in your dislike of the Japanese. — Czello 13:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The article seems to be entirely OR and is not suitable for mainspace. @Mureungdowon: Are you willing to draftify your article so you can work on devloping it and getting feedback from other editors? The alternative is likely deletion. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's an acceptable feedback, I'll accept it. However, there is racial privilege similar to the white privilege Japanese have in their relationship with Korean/Chinese other Asians. The content must be supplemented in the article about this part. It would be nice if other users who are interested in social justice could add it to the article. Mureungdowon (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that "Racial privilege" is a term that isn't in any of the sources. As far as I can see this topic is WP:OR. That's why you should take this back to draft format to expand on it. — Czello 14:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind if you move the article to draft right now. However, I hope you don't doubt my editing too much. Mureungdowon (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like a lot of what you're talking about is covered in Racism in Japan. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not discrimination. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_privilege#the_section_on_%22Japanese_ethnic_privilege%22_smells_like_WP:SYNTH I believe Binksternet is more aware of Japanese ethnic privileges. I want more professional users than me to add content related to the 'sensual feeling of racial superiority' that modern Japanese feel toward other Asians (especially Koreans and Chinese) in the article. However, if such content is not added, I hope that the contents I wrote will be maintained. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Mureungdowon: There's already an article about this topic at Racism in Japan. If there's a significant omission, then it can be corrected by using WP:Reliable sources that provide the information. We don't come up with our own conclusions based on what we think is true, we don't use Wikipedia articles to promote social justice, and we do not under any circumstances express contempt or dislike for racial or ethnic groups. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the same user arguing an academic featured in the Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea article's race is worth mentioning because "There is really no racial discrimination against the Japanese in South Korea" Tdmurlock (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a translator error. There is racism against the Japanese in South Korea. But it is insignificant compared to discrimination against other Asian races, and rather there are more Japanese ethnic privileges that offset it. The problem is that when we say anti-Japanese sentiment, Westerners users take it as racism. For example, South Koreans demanding compensation from the Japanese government, victims of the past World War II or anti-Japanese sentiment by South Korean feminists are not racist. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

In South Korea, the term 'anti-Japanese' (반일) is not necessarily about the Japanese race. For example, what the article "Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States" deals with is mostly racism against the Japanese. However, the "anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea" focuses on diplomatic conflicts with Japan and historical independence movements in South Korea, rather than racism against Japanese people. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

More importantly, 반일 generally does not mean racism. Racism against Japanese in South Korea is called 혐일. However, English language does not distinguish the two. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

See Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. This category is not used only for Korean racism against Japanese people. It is even used in articles unrelated to Korean racism, such as Yasukuni shrine, Japanese war crimes, events related to Japan's attempts to colonize Korea, or articles related to law, which Japan has done unilaterally wrong. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This category is not used only for Korean racism against Japanese people. It is even used in articles unrelated to Korean racism, such as Yasukuni shrine, ... Why?! Rotary Engine ^talk 01:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

In South Korea, the term "anti-Japan" is not used exclusively for racism. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much that those articles aren't examples of "anti-Japanese racism", but that they aren't examples of any definition of "anti-Japan", and they aren't... you know... in Korea. Reliable sources do not describe Nippon Steel, Mitsubishi Group, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as being "Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea", and yet, somehow, they're all in that category. There's been a failure, by some editors, somewhen, to understand WP:Categorization. "Category:Anti-Fooness in Barland" isn't mean to include everything that makes some Barlanders upset at Foo. Rotary Engine ^talk 03:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

And to get back on point (perhaps): Concur with Tdmurlock on excluding non-Korean race Japanese-born naturalized South Korean as a descriptor for Yuji Hosaka at the article Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea; if it's an attempt to add or remove validity, then it's a Genetic fallacy; if not, it's an irrelevance. Rotary Engine ^talk 03:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Cluttered article with an overkill of citations and a refusal by editors to come to a neutral consensus in Arshtins

This article is cluttered with sources and quotes from 2 nations claiming a historical tribe that belonged to both of the peoples (Chechens & Ingush), there were a lot of edit wars on this article, some sources are way too biased, i proposed to make the article more neutral in the talk page by deleting most of the text in the "Ethnicity" section and only adding them as references in a text that could be written like this:

"some authors refer to Orstkhoy as Chechen (references), while some authors refer to them as Ingush (references) but most agree that the tribe belongs to both nations as Orstkhoy are one of the 9 historical Chechen Tukkhums and one of the 7 historical Ingush Shahars"

This was met with disapproval and claims of Orstkhoy being "more Ingush" than Chechen and accusations against me trying to put Chechens in first place (even though i just proposed we write the names of the nations alphabetically). What is worse is that one side cherrypick sources that promote their case while trying to downplay the other side. This kind of attitude only invites edit wars (which has been fought on that article many times). This tribe the article is about is an integral part of both nations, therefore in my opinion it should be neutral and not be cluttered with dozens of sources from both sides.

If this is the wrong noticeboard or if i didn't do this correctly then please correct me because it's the first time i'm using this noticeboard. Goddard2000 (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You did this fine. Did you notify the other editors on their talk pages? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No i didn't, was i supposed to? i told them that i would notify the admins. Should i tag them i here? Goddard2000 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You should post the following template on their talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NPOVN-notice LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Right apologies @LegalSmeagolian is it alright if i just tag them in here? like so @Muqale @WikiEditor1234567123 ? Goddard2000 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the before and after version of a vandalization where someone from Ingushetia deleted a neutral headline and removed Chechens while only adding Ingush. here

After the article was vandalized another account added back Chechens but put them above the new Ingush section. here

After some time @WikiEditor1234567123 decided that this should be in chronological order [3]

If this isn't edit warring and trying to push for their nation to be above then i don't know what it is. Wikieditor and Tovbulatov might've not done it for that reason, and i don't want to make this discussion more toxic but whoever the IP belonged to clearly did it out of malice and to put his nation first. I'm only writing this now so i could add the diffs, so people could get the full picture. My only proposition is that we return to the version that was before the IP account vandalized the page (with more info ofc like i proposed above). Goddard2000 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hello, in no way am I taking sides here, but I would like to emphasize that before the article was edited by this IP address, the article did not represent anything, there was not a single authoritative source and the article looked pro-Chechen, I don’t understand where you are saw Vandalism. I noticed that this IP address changed the article and made it in the style of a Russian article, which also mentions that Orstkhoy is a Chechen tukkhum. Targimhoï (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hello Targimhoi, the original one sources Jaimoukha i believe and it was weak, but i am talking about the headline which was neutral. The text itself i have said many times that we could've fixed like i proposed above in my first post. IP account in no way changed the article and made it in the style of a Russian article, he removed everything related to Chechens, and only added Ingush, he even removed the neutral headline solely for the reason that it mentioned Chechens first. Why else would one remove it? Goddard2000 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  LegalSmeagolian, I have not made a single edit on the Orstkhoy article and am being accused of edit-warring. I was tagged in the talk page and simply discussed the article and ly point of view. Muqale (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't accuse you of edit warring, i specifically mentioned Wikieditor, IP adress and Tovbulatov. I tagged you in here because you were involved in the discussion of the talk page. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

DRASTIC

An editor is saying that WP:NPOV requires us to include a particular sentence from a source. The disputed sentence is Members of DRASTIC have engaged in personal attacks against virologists and epidemiologists on Twitter, falsely accusing some of working for the Chinese Communist Party. See proposed deletion here[4] and talk page discussion [5]. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to those who responded. Readers of this noticeboard are invited to return to the DRASTIC page and assess whether or not, in light of the discussion, the contested statement should remain in the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Should Moldovan be removed as a language in Moldova?

There is an RFC at Talk:Moldova#RFC: Should Moldovan be removed as a language in Moldova that may be of interest to those here. Posted here per guidance at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC.  // Timothy :: talk  15:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested Move of Revolution of Dignity

There is a requested move at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity that may be of interest to this noticeboard. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning Taiwan’s lack of international recognition in the lead of it’s article

The articles of all countries that lack international recognition such as Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus and others all of them have their status as being “unrecognized by international community” or “partially recognized” with mentioning the number of countries that recognizes them. With Taiwan being the only exception. Which is weird and reflect Eurocentric bias because countries like Kosovo and sahrawi arab republic have even more international recognition than Taiwan and recognized by 101 and 45 UN member states respectively, while Taiwan which is recognized by only 13 UN member states have this significant information forcefully omitted from the lead. Something which I believe should be mentioned in the lead to make Taiwan like all other countries that lack international recognition and not making it a special status, a status that is even more special than countries that enjoy much more international recognition as if there are double standards.

Before making any edit. First i started a talk in Taiwan’s talks page and initially reached consensus with the one i was arguing with here to add the fact of Taiwan’s lack of international recognition, which I did here [1] and here [2], later on, a user started a disruptive edit warring [3] [5] [4] using an RFC that says that we should refer to Taiwan as a “country” instead of a “state” as an argument, then after that another user made disruptive editing [6] saying in his edit summary “no it’s recognized as a country” (as if i denied Taiwan’s statehood). This all happened before anyone of these disruptive editors go to the talks page. But later on one of them started joining the talks. And i would like you to check their arguments and how many times each one of them changed his argument to a non-related another argument each time i reply to a one and how many time they make irrelevant arguments (i.e “Taiwan is a country !”). i hope this noticeboard solve the problem and help achieving the neutrality of wikipedia and the article. Stephan rostie (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no requirement that all pages look the same. It's lack of recognition is mentioned at the end of the lead with proper context. It look pretty neutral to me. NadVolum (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The OP wants more input. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the current situation of the article is probably fine. The lead already has a lengthy paragraph that explains the political situation of Taiwan, it's not necessary to put that in the first sentence. Also, I think it might be helpful to review this RFC. Just two years ago, the community considered this very issue and overwhelmingly decided that the article doesn't need to mention Taiwan's status in the first paragraph. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems reasonable for the paragraph on the political status to include a count of coutries recongizing it. Sennalen (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

A count of what sort of recognition? Diplomatic? Cultural? Financial? Political? Military? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Whatever goes for other partially recognized states. Sennalen (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no agreed upon definition of a partially recognized state, thats why our coverage of them has been a contentious issue since the very beginning. Note that our page on partially recognized states takes a rather idiosyncratic perspective in that it only considers diplomatic recognition and takes an absolutist stance on it. Note that this is *not* the standard the OP is using, if so they would have mentioned all the articles for partially recognized states which fit that definition and are on that page (like China and South Korea) where we make no note of it at all in their intros. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that either was is fine. But the current status of Taiwan is a gorilla in the living room regarding Taiwan. The lead covers the details regarding that but never really states it in summary form. IMO a statement in summary form somewhere in the lead would be a good addition. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure those are comparable, Taiwan is a top 25 economy... Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus combined have less than 10% of Taiwan's GDP. I'd also point out that you appear to be confusing a lack of recognition with a lack of diplomatic recognition, those are not the same thing... For example if we look at Great Britain's relationship with Taiwan we find that the UK recognizes them on a cultural, political, economic, financial, social, educational, intelligence, and military level but not a diplomatic level (example of the political, military, and economic ties from yesterday's paper [6])... Now note that of all of those forms of recognition diplomatic is actually the least important but from your proposed version the reader would be left with the impression that diplomatic recognition *is* recognition and not *part* of recognition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• All the LEAD needs to say is that Taiwan’s status is “a matter of debate” (or something similar). The details belong in the body text. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan is a top 25 economy. We are not talking about taiwan’s economy, this have nothing to do with the debate. We are talking about the fact of Taiwan’s lack of international recognition that can be even said that Taiwan is not recognized by roughly all the international community.

the UK recognizes them on a cultural, political, economic, financial, social, educational, intelligence, and military level. Prove the existence of such things like “economic recognition”, “education recognition”, “financial recognition” and provide sources that such terms even exist first. Then come and continue the debate. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

So diplomatic recognition exists but no other forms of recognition do? I'm not familiar with that school of international relations theory, what is it called? Note that in the British example its illegal for Britain to export weapons or most weapons components to China (has been since Tiananmen) so per your logic of diplomatic recognition being recognition how is it legal for British firms to sell arms to Taiwan? The only way they are able to sell arms to Taiwan is if they recognize them as an independent country when it comes to trade and military affairs, which they do. Same goes for the US, its illegal for US firms to sell arms to China, but we sell arms to Taiwan all the time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with recognition, or the Contras would have been an independent country. And that is entirely OR. OR and wrong, but for our purposes we can just call it OR. nableezy - 19:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you misremember the Iran-Contra affair, it was arms sold to Iran (like China under an arms embargo) which broke the relevant laws not the funds (specifically not arms) supplied to the Contras (in a very weird full circle way its actually KMT dictatorship era Taiwan which the Contras buy a lot of their arms from, the T65 assault rifle is emblematic as a Contra weapon for a reason). The US did not supply significant weaponry to the Contras, we're talking grey origin (clandestine) small arms not openly acknowledged sales of fighters and destroyers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh I didnt say anything about Iran-Contra? The CIA was arming the Contras prior to the Boland Amendment (and after for that matter), and helping with their drug trafficking, along with arming any number of other non-state actors over the years, independent of the Iran-Contra affair. Recognition as a state has never been a requirement for the US or any other country to arm some group. Or another example, Operation Cyclone. Or Timber Sycamore. The US has a long history of arming groups it has never recognized as a state. nableezy - 19:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating opinion, I like how you completely ignore the nuanced argument I just made in favor of an anti-imperialist rant. I take it you support changing the lead of Palestine to "Palestine, is a partially recognized state located in the Southern Levant, Western Asia." for consistencies sake? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Lol anti-imperialist rant? Are you serious? By demonstrating how wrong your unsourced OR is? Sorry I guess? Palestine is recognized by 138 other states. Israel by 165. Taiwan is recognized by 13. One of these things is not like the other. You didnt make a nuanced argument, you made a factually incorrect claim, and now are blustering and making personal attacks. Have fun with that. nableezy - 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

They would all appear to be the same in that the number is only part of the number of total states. All three of those are partially recognized in the diplomatic sense, so why would we treat one of them differently? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

lol. The US is not recognized by 4 member states of the UN. But to you thats the same as Taiwan. Good luck with that argument. Somebody missed the orders of magnitude lesson in math it seems. nableezy - 20:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There are not orders of magnitude in "partially." The three rhetorical levels of that turn of speech are none, partial, and all. Anything which is more than none and less than all is partial. You aren't objecting to the OP naming Kosovo as a state with partial recognition, is there a reason why? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Why would I? It is partially recognized, with a bit over half the UN member states recognizing it. You are making an absurd argument here, but fine. How about instead of partially recognized we instead say largely unrecognized? Or widely unrecognized? Those would apply to Taiwan, and can easily be sourced (largely unrecognized, widely unrecognized). Or would you rather continue making things up about how if the US trades arms with somebody that means they recognize it as a state? nableezy - 20:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If my argument is absurd why is the Czech Prime Minister talking about "good economic, educational, and research relations with democratic Taiwan"? It seems like the idea that there are multiple forms of recognition is accepted by everyone besides a handful of wikipedia editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

OR. Having relations with some entity is not recognition as a state. And there is no source saying there are multiple forms of recognition, there is just you making it up on Wikipedia. nableezy - 20:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a Noticeboard, the original research policy does not appear to apply to anything you and I are saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The idea that there are multiple forms of recognition is accepted by everyone besides a handful of wikipedia editors. is an invention by yourself, and it cant be used as the basis as an argument on Wikipedia as it is both wrong and OR. nableezy - 21:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Stephan rostie: if you're still wondering about the nuances of recognition can I recommend this [7] article? "The hitch is that the Czech government never agreed to adhere to the one-China principle. Instead, according to the website of the Czech embassy in China, the Czech Republic adopts a one-China policy. Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala reiterated Prague’s position in response to China’s criticism. "Czechia respects and represents its own one-China policy,” Fiala said, according to a Jan. 31 Associated Press report. “As a sovereign country it is us who decide whom we call or whom we meet.” He added that “we traditionally have good economic, educational, and research relations with democratic Taiwan.” The Czech Republic’s one-China policy mirrors that of the EU, which has long recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China while simultaneously developing strong relations with Taiwan." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

How about something roughly like this early in the lead but not in the first sentence?: "China emphatically claims that Taiwan is a part of China; many countries deal with Taiwan as a separate entity in many respects without officially recognizing it as being a separate country." North8000 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• It is a massive failing of WP:WEIGHT to not include that Taiwan is largely unrecognized as a state in the opening sentences of the article. That is among the most significant aspects of the ROC, that it has lost the recognition of most of the world as a state (hell its literally in the news right now how that continues) as other states have switched their recognition to the PRC. nableezy - 20:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

My idea attempts to do that. Which covers the country status issue but in context which is particularly important in this case. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Im not a big fan of that formulation. Just say the facts, facts that are easily sourced and widely accepted outside of a cohort of passionate Wikipedia editors. Taiwan is largely unrecognized as a state as most states have shifted their recognition to the PRC, while many countries maintain some level of relations with Taiwan, including military and economic ties. nableezy - 20:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes we get it... You are opposed to the longstanding consensus on how we treat Taiwan... But that doesn't mean you get to misrepresent that consensus as "a cohort of passionate Wikipedia editors" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting anything. See also WP:CCC. Right now, on this board, it appears to be just you making novel interpretations that sources do not support regarding Taiwan's lack of international recognition. nableezy - 21:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read through this noticeboard conversation again before you make any more misrepresentations. This will be my last comment on the matter, I wish you the best of luck in your editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ive read it, including the multiple times you just made things up. If that method of arguing ends then great. nableezy - 21:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no “long standing consensus” regarding this, the community never discussed mentioning taiwan’s lack of international recognition before i noted it recently. Stephan rostie (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope, its been discussed dozens of times across well over a decade (the standing consensus can be found here [8]: "There is a strong consensus against mentioning the status of Taiwan's international recognition in the first paragraph. WP:SNOW applies." etc. I take it you haven't yet figured out what a talk page archive is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

China emphatically claims that Taiwan is a part of China;. There is just a small problem with this, which is that it’s not only china that claims that Taiwan is part of china, the overwhelming majority of world countries and international organizations (i.e UN) recognize Taiwan as part of china. That’s why calling it “china claims” is inaccurate as it gives an impression that china is the odd one and that it’s only china that holds this view, whereas the reality is the opposite. Stephan rostie (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That isn't true, most countries follow a One China Policy which does not recognize Taiwan as part of China. The one that recognizes Taiwan as part of China is the One Chine Principle which is followed by a minority of countries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No most countries are ambiguous as to whether or not they consider Taiwan a part of China. Nearly all countries however recognize the PRC as a sovereign state and do not recognize the ROC as such. And it is astonishing that Wikipedia is burying the lead on that to appeal to the sensitivities of a group of editors and not simply following the sources. nableezy - 21:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I know I said I wasn't going to post again but if a country is ambiguous about whether or not they consider Taiwan a part of China they do not recognize Taiwan as part of China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not what ambiguous means, and that has no bearing on the fact they do not recognize Taiwan as a state. nableezy - 22:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but no, apart from the western so called “one china policy”, UN and overwhelming majority of the world countries recognize Taiwan as integral part of china. Stephan rostie (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

My attempt as a solution was only that. But it covered the two big realities, the country status and that many countries deal with Taiwan as a separate entity in many respects. IMO highlighting only the former in any summary would be POV. And focusing on it being in the very first sentence of the article IMHO would also be POV. Finally, the lead is an editor-created summary of the article.Sources don't say what should be in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article and so it's not correct to imply that any choice there represents a failure to follow sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thats what WP:WEIGHT is about, following the weight sources give a topic in our articles. Taiwan's lack of recognition is among the most pertinent and widely discussed facts about it. nableezy - 22:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with you on that. IMO by a mile, the tensions with China, fears of an invasion and other countries' involvement in relation to those two things get by far the most coverage. On a second note, wp:weight relates primarily to coverage in the article, and the guidelines for leads define how the lead is drawn from that coverage. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Should the article Conservatism have a section on Reactionism?

The discussion is here: Talk:Conservatism#Reactionism.

Some folks have argued that reactionsim has nothing to do with conservatism, and therefore doesn't belong in the article at all. Others have argued for retaining a section that includes discussion of the debate over the relationship between the two concepts. There has been some edit warring and open canvassing. More uninvolved / clueful editors would be helpful here. Generalrelative (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

Issue is which word to use in the lead, referring to the idea of a lab leak. Talk page discussion is here. Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#"Say" or "Speculate". Adoring nanny (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion now also includes the issue of whether or not MOS:SAY applies to scientific sources. For this reason, additional input could be helpful. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of criticism on Donald Trump indictment

Please review those edits. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I did, what is the issue? Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Removal of sourced content. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's premature to bring an editing dispute to a noticeboard before the discussion can happen on the article's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just trying to publicize the discussion. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You are forum shopping. Please do not do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Ironically, this is only having the effect of WP:CANVASSING a bunch of people who are likely to disagree with them about their edits (like myself). Dunning-Kruger at its finest... --Jayron32 18:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We have yet another DJ article? Sigh. I'm certain the criticism section is going to be warranted but it would probably be best to worry about it after at least 24 hr have past. Perhaps the whole article should be delayed for a month or year so we can write it with something that resembles hindsight... Springee (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You might have heard, but an ex-president was indicted yesterday. A WP:DELAY makes no sense since it's quite clearly significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Springee, I am normally very much with you on the "there's no rush" approach, but unfortunately, I think this one is big enough that we don't really have a choice. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Well aware of it. I'm not sure the contents have been relieved yet. I understand this certainly is going to be NOTABLE in the future. I'm just thinking there is no hurry and we could avoid some of the early fights/arguments if we could all agree to hold off for a bit. Simply put, we can't write a good article at this time since don't have enough information. BTW, is Trump the most documented person on Wikipedia? Springee (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's notable now. Indictment of Donald Trump is already in decent shape, despite some problems with speculation. Trump is certainly documented in the RS a lot, so he's documented a lot here too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, we have (and will get a lot more) speculation about what might happen. We can wait until we see what does happen. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

While this is clearly a significant topic, the need to push commentary and criticism from other parties into this article at this time is far too soon per RECENTISM. The opinions floating around that are widely published are from the most disparate parts of the debate around Trump, and thus, from a 60,000 ft view, practically impossible to know what is best to include that is not objectively related to the indictment. Masem (t) 04:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears that there is disagreement about whether criticism of Donald Trump should be included in the article about his indictment. Some editors believe that it is premature to include such information, while others believe that it is notable and relevant. Ultimately, the decision about whether to include criticism in the article should be made through discussion and consensus on the article's talk page. Infinity Knight (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ise Grand Shrine

The introductory section on this page was recently expanded to introduce a vague description of some alleged controversies that list nothing specific whatsoever, rely on a single source in Japanese and point to general controversies from Japan's imperial era. I find this to be an egregious pushing of a point of view that's given undue weight. In my original removal of the content I compared this to a hypothetical listing of controversies related to Islam and Catholicism on pages of religious sites in Mecca or Rome. This page is about an ancient shrine in Japan, and unlike the more obviously controversial Yasukuni Shrine, nothing suggests this shrine has any notable controversy surrounding it. A vague protest about Japan's past policies could be attached to pretty much any historical object in the country but that would be a frivolous thing to do in an encyclopedia. The opposing editor is not budging and his reversal of my removal is not properly explained, mentions Italian salutes in a non-sequitur manner. This is leading to an edit war and I request a discussion to resolve it. I'll notify the other editor. Killuminator (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Kenta Izumi's visit to the Ise Grand Shrine was also controversial within the CDPJ. It is controversial that politicians visit Ise Grand Shrine, at least in Japan. Mureungdowon (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the implementation of the Wikipedia policy known as MOS:TERRORIST, as it pertains to Shamil Basayev

I am currently involved in a dispute on the talk page of Shamil Basayev. In my, as well as User:Ola Tønningsberg, understanding of the manual of style(MOS:TERRORIST), this is correct implentation, as is seen in the lead of the Shamil Basayev article:

He ordered the Budyonnovsk hospital raid, Beslan school siege[4] and was responsible for numerous attacks on security forces in and around Chechnya[5][6][7] and also masterminded the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis and the 2004 Russian aircraft bombings. ABC News described him as "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world."[8]

This is because MOS:TERRORIST states:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

The quote from ABC news is in my estimation the correct implementation In-text attribution. I am therefore proposing to remove the word 'terrorist' in the first paragraph of the article, as the in-text attribution/quote from ABC news is more encyclopedic, and in line with the guidelines on Wikipedia. User:Chaheel Riens seems to have a more unconventional interpretation of MOS:TERRORIST. Admin @El C: also questioned if User:Chaheel Riens is familiar with MOS:TERRORIST, in another noticeboard thread that pertains to this same dispute(altough another, now resolved issue.)

(Sextus Caedicius (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC))

I agree. We need exceptional reasons to label someone a terrorist. The fact that they have engaged in terrorist actions is not sufficient. TFD (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Once again, Sextus, you seem to be arguing for inclusion. not removal:

• The quote from ABC news is in my estimation the correct implementation In-text attribution - which is, as you know - "ABC News described him as "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world". I'm with you on this. It's a quote in the lede which is corroborated by the article itself. Quotes in the lede do not need sources, as the lede is to be a summary of the (sourced) material in the article, but in this case it's sourced there as well.

However, the point - which has always been the case - is that the article makes multiple mention of him being a terrorist, labelled as a terrorist, and taking part in terrorist activities. Not only that, but we also have the quote from his interview where he describes himself as a terrorist.

We have both quoted from MOS:TERRORIST, and the interpretation is the same: in which case use in-text attribution - which has been done. Please clarify why you feel that there has been no attribution in the text of the article to support this. The term "terrorist" and variants are used 31 times within the article, including sources with titles and content of:

• "The day I met the terrorist mastermind - SHAMIL BASAYEV, a Chechen warlord and Russia’s most wanted terrorist..."[9]
• "Shamil Basayev: Death of a Terrorist"[10]
• and of course the quote from Basayev himself: "I admit, I'm a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist ... but what would you call them?"[11]

Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional - link to the discussion (such as it was) over where Sextus unnecessarily raised the topic at AN/I[12]. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm pleased that I created this thread in this noticeboard, I am of the conviction that you are making no effort whatsoever to understand my, and other editor's stances'. You just keep telling me what it seems that I'm arguing for, as though I don't perfectly understand my own argument to begin with, you have done it here, here, as well as in this very thread.

I have tried to explain to you that this is not a dispute for whether he was a terrorist or not, neither is it an dispute about what the RS say, but rather what the correct way to implement MOS: TERRORIST is. Let me illustrate for you how MOS: TERRORIST is implemented in other Wikipedia articles, where the RS report that person in question have engaged/affiliated in/with terrorism.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's first paragraph in lede:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (Arabic: أبو بكر البغدادي, romanized: ʾAbū Bakr al-Baḡdādī; born Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Ali Muhammad al-Badri al-Samarrai (Arabic: إبراهيم عواد إبراهيم علي محمد البدري السامرائي, romanized: ʾIbrāhīm ʿAwwād ʾIbrāhīm ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Badrī as-Sāmarrāʾī); 28 July 1971[2] – 27 October 2019), was an Iraqi militant and the first caliph[a] of the Islamic State, who ruled as the dictator of its territories from 2014 until his death in 2019.

Nathan Yellin-Mor, who was the leader of Lehi(many RS accuses them of engaging in terrorism), this is the first paragraph of the lede in his article:

Nathan Yellin-Mor (Hebrew: נתן ילין-מור, Nathan Friedman-Yellin; 28 June 1913 – 18 February 1980) was a Revisionist Zionist activist, Lehi leader and Israeli politician. In later years, he became a leader of the Israeli peace camp, a pacifist who supported negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization and concessions in the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Osama bin Laden's first paragraph in the lede:

Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (Arabic: أسا‌مة بن محمد بن عو‌ض بن لا‌د‌ن, romanized: Usāmah ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAwaḍ ibn Lādin; 10 March 1957[6] – 2 May 2011[7]) was a Saudi Arabian-born[8] militant[9] and founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda. The group is designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, and various countries. Under bin Laden, al-Qaeda was responsible for the September 11 attacks in the United States and many other mass-casualty attacks worldwide.[10][11][12]

Notice a pattern? These articles don't start with: "X was a (insert occupation), and terrorist" as it is currently done in the case of Shamil Basayev, but rather have the RS claim that they were a terrorist/affiliated with terrorist organizations, somewhere lower down in the lede or article. Which is exactly the format that myself, as well as other editors find the most correct to apply to Shamil Basayev, per the reasons given in my explanation above. Do you still have any questions?

(Sextus Caedicius (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC))

WP:OTHER - as I pointed out. Let me illustrate for you what MOS:TERRORIST states: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

You agree that there is in-text attribution - ergo criteria has been met. Whether it conforms to other articles is irrelevant, and an argument that should be avoided as it dilutes your case. If your argument rests primarily on how other articles are portrayed, then by definition your argument for how this article is portrayed is weak. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a correct reading of that guideline. That guideline isn't saying as long as you use in-text attribution, then you can also call someone a terrorist in wikivoice. It's saying that when you refer to someone as a terrorist, you should do so with attribution, and not in wikivoice (and you should also have strong sourcing to back up such a label)

I think that guidance is correct - there's no compelling reason to be calling someone a terrorist in wikivoice - it sounds odd and it's an imprecise and arguably subjective label, and it doesn't provide any new information besides what could be done in a more precise and encyclopedic manner with description and attribution. Tristario (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

1. MOS:TERRORIST is a question of style that should not be considered inviolable. An overwhelming perponderance of WP:RS substantiating the label of terrorist should be sufficient for WP:YESPOV, especially a documented pattern of seeking indiscriminate civilian deaths. I would question the decision not to label bin Laden a terrorist.
2. Shamil Basayev operated mainly as a military officer in a war of independence / on behalf of a quasi-state against uniformed combatants. His responsibility for civilian deaths in the Beslan school siege is disputed. The burden of proof for WP:YESPOV is not met.

Sennalen (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me. I'll give Chaheel the benefit of the doubt and believe that he thinks that MOS:TERRORIST is saying that if there is sufficient sourcing, then you can ignore using the in-text attribution, as is seen by his messages here and here, and the one above this message aswell. Otherwise it's just vandalism at this point. What MOS:TERRORIST is actually saying is that IF there is enough sources, then you use the in-text attribution, which is already done as Sextus showed, although Chaheel insists that having simply "terrorist" in the opening sentence is in accordance with this rule. Even his participation and blame in many of the attacks he claimed responsibility for is questioned like user Sennalen mentioned above. If an editor came along and added several places that he's a freedom fighter, would that suddenly become acceptable to have in the opening line? I don't think so, nor do I believe it's acceptable the way it is now either. On another note, since Chaheel mentioned WP:OTHER, I must assert that this is not a case of WP:OTHER. I've explained to him before that WP:OTHER is generally about deleting and creation of articles, not about mimicking the style of it. It is very common courtesy and even encouraged on Wikipedia to look at good articles to mimic their style and tone.Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Chaheel on the broader point: because MOS:LABEL can't override core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V, sufficiently overwhelming sourcing for a contentious label can require us to use such a label to refer to a person in Wikivoice despite MOS:LABEL. (The description calls it out explicitly in the case of "pseudoscience" but it's not exclusive to that particular label.) But that's rare, and reserved mostly for cases such as Richard B. Spencer ("neo-Nazi" and "white supremacist") or Jim Jones ("cult leader") where the label is not only overwhelmingly sourced but a major part of the subject's notability. (Osama bin Laden would be such a case, so I'm surprised that his article goes out of his way to avoid it.)

However in this case, I don't think that level of sourcing exists, so I do think you should attribute the label here. Loki (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, not WP:OTHER. OTHERSTUFF exists for exactly this argument, and as I point out elsewhere, relying upon how another article looks to define content of another argument is inherently weak. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay about deletion discussions, and also that isn't the argument people are making here. People (including me) are pointing out that WP:LABEL, a guideline, says that for labels like this attribution should be used, and it requires very strong sourcing, amongst other points Tristario (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT - too many topics with too-similar names. One of the examples used in arguments to avoid is this very consideration: Remove Article y doesn't mention this, so article x shouldn't either. Nobody has yet explained why the current sourcing is insufficient. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Gays Against Groomers

This page is revoltingly out of line with so many of Wikipedia's rules, and I have fruitlessly tried for weeks to fix it on the talk page: Talk:Gays Against Groomers

Most glaringly, the article uses biased sources to present contentious claims in Wikivoice. Even setting aside the heightened requirements for claims about living persons and groups of living persons, WP:BIASED makes it clear that claims made by biased sources should be attributed to them in the text.

The article boldly labels the group as far-right and anti-LGBT, and although it does not make it clear which citations support these claims (violating WP:V), checking the small handful of references to arguably neutral sources reveals no such substantiation for them.

The majority of the article's references are by The Advocate, LGBTQ Nation, Media Matters for America, and The Daily Dot; the latter two are explicitly recognized to require contentious claims on WP:RSP. Oktayey (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Two notes: First, it would be good to get a wider range of sources in the article. I don't necessarily mean a wider range of perspectives (which is secondary) or that we should be providing a WP:FALSEBALANCE, but it's not ideal for any article (especially on a controversial topic) to rely on just a handful of sources. I thought the claim above that The majority of the article's references.. might be an exaggeration, but it doesn't appear to be.

Second, just looking at the article history, I do see some concerning edits by Oktayey. For example, preempting the kind of description used by several of the cited sources with a "dissenting source" directly in the lead, when that dissenting source is not really a dissenting source (it just doesn't include their activities in that first sentence). Or replacing a summary of how reliable sources characterize their activities with a quote from how the organization describes its own activities. There's a place for "what they see as indoctrination" or somesuch in the article, but we should be characterizing it first and foremost how the cited sources characterize it (and the summary of cited sources may change somewhat if there are additional good sources that can be brought in).

As for the far-right and anti-LGBTQ labels, based on my cursory look at the sources, I suspect there's more likely to be consensus among the sourcing for [something like] the latter than the former, but a narrow question like that, combined with available sourcing, sounds like a sensible topic for an WP:RFC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate your input, but I'd like to respond to a few points here.

In the first edit of mine you mention, I placed the claim from the 'dissenting' source first because the LA Times by far the most reputable of the sources describing the group's ideological position according to WP:RSP (I chose to cite the Seattle Times mirror because the LA Times is paywalled).

As for the substance of the source's claim, I think the author's description of GAG as a "small LGBT group" directly supports the claim that GAG is an LGBT group, and thus, precluded from being anti-LGBT.

Regarding the third edit, it was a hasty attempt at substituting a claim that's entirely unsupported by the provided source—nowhere does it say that GAG "opposes LGBT representation in schools", or anything to that effect. I was sure to avoid presenting the phrase in WP:WIKIVOICE by putting it in quotes to reflect the source—I figured that, while imperfect, it was a stark improvement over leaving in what appears to be [[WP:OR|original research].

Again, thanks for your attention! Oktayey (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"I think the author's description of GAG as a "small LGBT group" directly supports the claim that GAG is an LGBT group, and thus, precluded from being anti-LGBT" Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Internalized jeez. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This group seems to be precisely what the reliable sources describe them as. No issues here. Zaathras (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same group, Gays Against Groomers? From what I've seen from them, they don't appear to me at all far-right or anti-LGBT. Oktayey (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Uhhh, all of the reliable sources call them far-right and anti-LGBT, all of their talking points are far-right and anti-LGBT, and all of the accounts they follow or share on social media are far-right and anti-LGBT. Woodroar (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Judging by what I've personally seen, every one of those claims is untrue. As for the first one specifically, the LA Times, which is in very good standing on WP:RSP, labels GAG "a small LGBT group". The edit I made adding that source to the article was reverted. Oktayey (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't base content on what contributors claim to have 'personally seen'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally I have concerns about @Oktayey's ability to look at this group with a NPOV. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I have similar feelings about other editors, but I don't go around trying to smear them for it. I know that simply slinging around accusations of personal bias isn't only unproductive, but also irrelevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't care about the personal views of its contributors—only the integrity of their contributions. Oktayey (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It is quite relevant if personal bias causes an editor to refuse to accept what reliable sources say about a topic, and the editor continues to insist WP goes against RS in how it portrays a group. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue it's never relevant. In a case where an editor is so blinded by their bias that they fail to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, their bias may be the cause of the issue, but it isn't the issue itself—the issue being the violation of the rules. Wikipedia has no rule against being personally biased, for better or for worse. Oktayey (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That is not what I was arguing, and to imply such is incredibly disingenuous. Oktayey (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please go back and read the rules a bit more carefully. If we are going to talk about bias, lets begin at the beginning. Here are some quotes from gaysagainstgroomers.com

"An entire generation of children are being used as lab rats and destroyed by the radical Alphabet Mafia"

"What we are witnessing is mass scale child abuse being perpetrated on an entire generation, and we will no longer sit by and watch it happen. It is going to take those of us from within the community to finally put an end to this insanity, and that's exactly what we're going to do"...

...And here is an article from The Intercept that mentions them. I think you may need to reevaluate why you are here. DN (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you quoted GAG themselves—drawing personal conclusions from their words is WP:OR, and so is impermissible for inclusion on Wikipedia.

As for The Intercept, WP:RSP explicitly acknowledges it is a biased source, and so its claims must be supplemented with WP:INTEXT attributions, not presented in WP:WIKIVOICE. Oktayey (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that we have a bunch of other reliable sources referring to them as anti-LGBTQ. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BIASED specifically acknowledges that for Wikipedia's purposes, "reliable" doesn't mean "unbiased", and it then makes clear that claims by biased sources should be attributed to them in the text, not presented in WP:WIKIVOICE. Oktayey (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yet again you need to WP:LISTEN. See this source, which is not biased, referring to them as anti-LGBTQ. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't that one of the references on GAG's article? I assumed because it's, for whatever reason, ineligible for use on Wikipedia. Oktayey (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I asked about this source in a conversation you were taking part in on the GAG talk page yesterday. Until now you've not actually said anything about it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just incorporated the TIME source into the article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that—I've been a bit overwhelmed lately. It seems like there's been a minor explosion of commentary from different editors on this debacle. Oktayey (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This page is revoltingly out of line with so many of Wikipedia's rules, as this claim has been soundly rejected, I believe we're done here. All that's going on now are back-and-forth that aren't moving the needle.Zaathras (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This does seem like one of those inconsistencies in how people use language when talking about a controversial group or for that matter grouping people. It certainly seems odd to suggest a group that, if the name is correct, consists of gays would be against the entire class of "gays, lesbians, bisexuals, queers and transsexuals". I do get that people have generally combined their interests and often their interest are common. Thus we have a label that is generalized and any organization that opposes a part of the interests of that grouping are given the "anti-" label even if they include members of that group. Are the same labels applied to lesbians who don't want to include trans-women (is there such a named group)? Regardless, this certainly seems like a contradiction. I suspect if the group in question were less controversial the sources we use to report on such groups would be more accurate in their labeling. I will note that sources like The Advocate, LGBTQ Nation, MM4A and The DD are not likely to be overly specific or sympathetic in their coverage of the group. While they may be factually correct, we should be very careful about bias and that can include how they label the group. It also might be helpful to do a general article search and see how often the label is used, not just that we can find the label when doing a keyword search (no idea how the original sources were found). I'm not familiar with GAG other than their very provocative name and an assumption regarding what they are advocating against. Springee (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that on Wikipedia we like to use LGBTQ to denote a single group. While there are cases where that is useful, it is a category defined more by what people are not (straight) than by what they are. This seems like a case where it should be split up, as (at least at first glance) it appears to be an LGB anti-T group. (Yes, I know drag performance is not directly transexualism, but the T often covers a range of chromosomes-versus-clothing situations.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Or RS are saying they suffer from a kind of uncle tomism, or self-loathing. Or maybe they are "pro-gay" in private but are opposed to it in public. Or that they do not hate the sinner, bit hate the sin (or they are gay but not practising).

At the end of the day they say it, we cannot try and guess why. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

RE:: @Slatersteven's comments are wholly OR and weasel-worded.

Accusing the group of "kind of uncle tomism, or self-loathing. Or maybe they are "pro-gay" in private but are opposed to it in public. Or that they do not hate the sinner, bit hate the sin (or they are gay but not practising)" is absurd, cites no references whatever (just "RS") and would not be tolerated on Wikipedia if used, say, against African-American members of the Republican Party or "detransitioners" speaking out against gender dysphoria-related surgeries on minors (although that vile screed is used in real-life partisan hatemongering and dog whistling by the rabidly radical "media" cited as "reliable" sources for calling Gays Against Groomers "far-right" or "anti-LGBTQ"). 107.127.46.30 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you misread the comment. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we say it, I am saying we do not know why RS say something, as there are many explanations. You are correct it is OR, so is the argument I was responding to, I am pointing out (by demonstration) why we only go by what RS say, why we do not make assumptions about why RS say it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Compromised (book) -- article

This article should be locked and reviewed by administrators. Mass of inflammatory and weasel-worded text removed but will probably be restored. Unclear why it is even an article in its own right as it is hardly a book of either national or international renown. Should be cut down to essentials and made part of Peter Strzok's article.

Sincerely yours. 65.88.88.54 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ummm....WTF? No way. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (books). So it looks like we should keep this article. But whether it’s written properly is another matter. See WP:SUBPOV. Also see the separate section below about this book, at this noticeboard. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't about an article on the topic of "whether or not Trump is compromised". It's about a book. The focus should be more on the book than its topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Las Anod conflict

2023 Las Anod conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have just semi-protected this page and partially blocked the two main editors from it for two weeks. There is probably a need for experienced additional eyes to ensure a neutral point of view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the talk, we've found sources passing WP:VERIFY that contradict the article. MathAfrique (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please carefully read the discussion so as to be able to incorporate all the sources and take an WP:NPOV position. MathAfrique (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This page is about a current conflict involving war crimes. The article now misinforms readers that the Somaliland Army is fighting Al-Shabaab group which is false per talk. Can people kindly review the RfC?

Will be crossposting to Somaliland and current events projects, but avoiding Somalia project because that won't make NPOV problem worse. MathAfrique (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The page got another WP:EDITWAR hit by two users, @ToBeFree:.

Shall I post it in WP:ANI or are you able to police WP:EDITWAR personally? MathAfrique (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll ask Jacob300 to provide a reason for their revert in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Twitter Files - Conflict

The last sentence in the lead is a summary of two sources directly copied from the body. The summary of the two sources leave out the "left" wing claims which appears to be WP:UNBALANCED and WP:NPOV. I've added a POV template and have asked for additional feedback in the talk page on the dispute. The diff in dispute is here. The talk page dispute may be found on the talk page. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Question about content forking

Suppose Wikipedia has a neutral article on a particular subject, and Wikipedia also has a separate article about a book about that subject which takes a one-sided point of view. Is it consistent with NPOV and with WP:Content forking for the article about the book to go into one-sided detail about the subject of the neutral Wikipedia article on that subject?

I ask because the article about a book —- Compromised (book) —- has substantial overlap with the article Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation). The book "recaps the full arc of Crossfire Hurricane", according to Politico.[13]

P.S. Note that there is a separate section at this noticeboard that mentions this same book (but does not raise the content-forking issue). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Article content need not be neutral. It is editors who must edit neutrally. To remain neutral, we should document the POV of the author as they wrote the book. He builds a case for why he thinks Trump is compromised. We shouldn't let editorial POV interfere in that matter. That would violate NPOV. The two articles are different, and that's okay.

If this were a fringe subject, and it isn't, then there would be fringe/pseudoscientific/conspiratorial claims, and we would be obligated to present the balancing views from mainstream RS. We would not allow false information to stand alone. We would neutrally document it, but add what mainstream sources say. That is not an issue here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• In an article about a book, it is appropriate to summarize the key points of what the book says. However, the key word in that is: “summarize”. We should not go into details. The majority of the article space should be devoted to reviews of the book - ie what others say about the book (not what they say about the topic of the book). Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  • That is an area for improvement with this one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I notice that WP:SUBPOV says, “Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Criticism of the Bible, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects.” So if we’re going to keep an article like this, and do more than summarize it, then maybe we would have to present or mention alternative views that are at least as prominent as Strzok’s views? Which may be a good reason to be much more brief about Strzok’s views. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
    • As I wrote above, this isn't about an article on the topic of "whether or not Trump is compromised". It's about a book. The focus should be more on the book than its topic. As SUBPOV says, "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view." This is about the book, and it is about the POV of the author and his book. It can certainly "cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view" as long as it remains focused on the book, and doesn't become an illegitimate misuse to make it about the topic. We have actual non-book articles for that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. The book in question is a primary source for purposes of the Wikipedia article about the book. Primary sources are not essential in a situation like this, where hundreds of reliable secondary sources exist. I substantially edited this article yesterday to remove entire paragraphs that relied solely upon the primary source. Even if those removed paragraphs had used secondary sources too, they still would have needed content and themes found in our Crossfire Hurricane article on the same subject for context and balance per WP:SUBPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Two rhoughts:

1. This is not content forking, so forget anything related to that topic.
2. SUBPOV says the opposite. Single POV articles are allowed, but they may mention other articles.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:SUBPOV is titled "Articles whose subject is a point of view (POV)". You don't think that applies to Compromised (book)? WP:SUBPOV is part of the guideline on content forking. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't. The subject is a book, not the content of the book. The point of SUBPOV is that we should not have two articles on the same subject. A book is another matter entirely. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You're editing a content guideline in the middle of a content discussion? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit to the guideline, because it doesn't make sense to me. Why would a Wikipedia article about creationism have to discuss "articles on other appropriate points of view" such as evolution, but a Wikipedia article about a book about creationism would not have to do so? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Because RS's do not support creationism, RS's support evolution. Anything RS supported can be included in much more detail. Something fringe can still be covered if secondary sources though. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that a Wikipedia article about a book on creationism doesn’t have to mention the mainstream evolution POV “because RS's do not support creationism”. But that reason seems much more like a reason to mention the mainstream evolution POV than to not mention it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the point is that a properly written article about a book should clearly attribute the book's POV to the book itself in its summary. Compromised (in its current form) does that now. The earlier version was not an article about a book, it was an article making the book's arguments on its behalf, which made it seem like a POV fork. Now that the article is cleaned up, is there any point to the discussion here? Schazjmd (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

So can all of those arguments made on behalf of the book be restored merely by attributing them all in a clear way to the book itself? I don’t think so, assuming no secondary sources are used and WP:SUBPOV is not applied. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Chad Weininger

This biography of a politician who was running for mayor of Green Bay is smarmy, poorly-organized and mediocre at best. It seems to have been written or shaped by his campaign staff. (He lost, a few days ago.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

One of the editors is called 2772GB as in February 7, 1972, Green Bay -- Weininger's dob and pob. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

EMDR and pseudoscience

I would like some outside eyes on the page for EMDR. I'm currently involved in a content dispute because I believe the local consensus of the page has significant NPOV issues.

EMDR is a therapy originally/mainly intended for PTSD. For its core treatment modality of "treating PTSD in adults", it's recommended with various degrees of confidence by several large professional organizations. So for instance: the WHO recommends it with moderate evidence for adults with PTSD as of 2013, the APA conditionally recommends it but lists it among a "core set of evidence-based psychotherapies for adults with PTSD" as of 2022, a 2017 joint report by the US VA/DoD calls it one of "the trauma-focused psychotherapies with the strongest evidence from clinical trials", and it's recommended by the UK's NICE in this 2017 report and Australia's NHMRC in this 2013 report.

However, there are also a bunch of expert criticisms of EMDR and particularly of its proposed theoretical mechanisms. So for instance, the WHO in the same report also says "relative to CBT, the underlying theoretical treatment mechanisms of EMDR are still largely speculative and this has been a source of controversy", and it's certainly not only the WHO that says this: we have several other sources for this general criticism, along with the related criticism that the eye movement part of EMDR has much less evidence than the treatment as a whole. There are also other expert critics who will go even further and call EMDR "pseudoscience" (see also) or a "purple hat therapy" (i.e. that it's irrelevant junk added to a known effective treatment).

These stronger criticisms haven't been echoed by large organizations, but nonetheless they're very prominently featured in the article, and the apparent consensus of the field that EMDR is overall an effective evidence-based treatment is heavily downplayed.

I believe this to be a big violation of WP:WEIGHT and therefore of WP:NPOV, but every time so far I try to raise these concerns on the talk page, the local consensus doesn't budge on their insistence on featuring the opinions of individual critics over the opinions of big professional organizations. (Heck, they keep on reverting me adding the NHMRC source at all.) So I'm appealing to this noticeboard: what is the most neutral way to describe all this info, and is it reflected in the current article? Loki (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

see WP:FORUMSHOP. Of the half-dozen or so noticeboard posts and RfCs made about this, the one with most participation still running is at WP:FT/N#EMDR. Bon courage (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, that post has had no participation (other than a WP:NOTFORUM comment you resurrected for some reason) for about three weeks now. It's only a week away from being archived. The discussion with the actual most participation by far is the one on the talk page, which has been going more or less continuously for the past week.

Second of all, do you have a response to any of my actual arguments? Loki (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

There was no WP:NOTFORUM comment. You just falsely called it that and deleted it.[14] Removing other editors' comments, in an apparent attempt to further your own agenda, is just more disruption. Bon courage (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

As the purpose of this discussion was to get more eyes on this topic, I will simply let everyone else decide whether someone saying in all lower case you are damaging wiki credibility and value with this article in its current form. it would be better to delete it is WP:NOTFORUM or not. Loki (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh boy, now they're saying things like Evidence-based is not an antonym for 'pseudoscience'. Scientific evidence of effectiveness doesn't rule out pseudoscience over at the talk page. Loki (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don't take other people's comments out of context like that. I know it is tempting to try to win an argument by misrepresenting the other side, but it only works if your audience is very, very lazy. The point is that you are taking sources that don't say anything about whether EMDR's unique elements are pseudoscientific and using them to claim that EMDR isn't pseudoscientific.

No one is arguing that EMDR isn't effective. Since it's CBT plus some extra stuff, and CBT is effective, it is obviously effective. The point is that CBT's effectiveness does not mean that EMDR's added stuff cannot be pseudoscientific, as you well know, since we've gone around on this many times. MrOllie (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You say No one is arguing that EMDR isn't effective but the article currently doesn't say that clearly, and attempts to say that clearly get reverted as "whitewashing". The article currently claims at several points that EMDR as a whole is pseudoscientific, not just the contentious aspects of it.

Furthermore, no source says that it is CBT plus some extra stuff in those words. What some sources say is that parts of it are very similar to CBT, and those similarities to CBT are likely to be responsible for most or all of EMDR's effectiveness. But other sources disagree: for instance, we have a 2013 meta-analysis that concludes the eye movements are effective, and a NYT source that's currently not in the article where one of the early critics of EMDR (McNally) says outright he thinks the eye movements add to EMDR's effectiveness, as well as several scientific sources offering various claimed explanations for why the eye movements are effective. These certainly don't represent a consensus in the field any more than the "it's entirely a purple hat" people do, of course, but the fact that they exist means that saying outright that "it's CBT plus some extra stuff" is at least still contentious scientifically.

And even besides that, the strongest sources making the claim that EMDR's effectiveness stems from its similarities to CBT also do not claim that EMDR is pseudoscientific! In fact, exactly the opposite: the NHMRC mentions that large parts of EMDR's effectiveness are likely to be because of its similarities to CBT and yet also gives EMDR its highest grade for evidence! Loki (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent WP:MEDRS scholarship[15] is actually rather equivocal about whether EMDR is effective. Sources that address the pseudoscience aspect are however unequivocal in judging that it is pseudoscientific. It's basically just standard therapy with some dumb stuff added on (shifty eyes, forehead tapping, whatever). So yeah, Wikipedia needs to reflect the sources rather than reasoning that some magically "cancel out" others. Note the OP has already been advised, at ANI and elsewhere, to drop this. Bon courage (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

One recent meta-analysis that finds many studies on EMDR have a risk of bias does not contradict every other piece of research and professional recommendation in the field.

Furthermore, you're simply wrong about "sources that address the pseudoscience aspect". Did you even read the original comment in this thread? Many large professional organizations call EMDR evidence-based, some emphatically so. Even on the issue of whether the eye-movements are effective, the sources are mixed: there's a 2013 meta-analysis that finds that they are effective, and we also have a NYT interview with a previously critical expert who says that he believes that they are effective as well.

Or in other words, when you say Wikipedia needs to reflect the sources, you necessarily mean that claims of pseudoscience need to be given less WP:WEIGHT in the article than they currently do, because the sources taken as a whole simply do not give those claims very much weight. Loki (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It's an up-to-date systematic review in an on-point, MEDLINE-indexed journal. That's at the top of the sourcing pyramid. Why do I get the curious feeling that you don't like any source which calls EMDR into question? We also have several solid academic books going into detail about the pseudoscience stuff, so we're good there too. Bon courage (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's a very high quality source, in an area where there are many other very high quality sources. Certainly it deserves a lot of WP:WEIGHT, but not so much weight it swamps all those WP:MEDORG sources all by itself. (And furthermore, it doesn't even find EMDR not effective. It finds that EMDR is effective, but only before removing sources that have more than a low risk of bias.)

Listen, I am going to disengage from this discussion for about another day, because the whole point was to get more eyes on EMDR. Neither me nor you nor MrOllie are "more eyes", we're the same damn people who have been arguing about this for nearly a month now. Loki (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Most editors just wisely WP:COAL. Your arguments are anti-policy so shopping them around everywhere is just getting increasingly disruptive. You've already been given sage advice[16] on how to proceed. Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Constitution of the United States

The ongoing debate on Talk:Constitution of the United States could use some more input to bring these extremely drawn out discussions to a close. The question seems to currently center around who "the people" were and whether the constitution represented them, and what the due weight is for varying points of view on that among experts. These discussions have already attracted admin attention and they are getting a little stale. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

More eyes needed at COVID-19 lab leak theory

Two discussions could use some input. Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Lanzhou_brucellosis_lab_leak and Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Another revert that describes material from the Washington Post as "fringe". Adoring nanny (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet another post by this editor to this noticeboard about lab leak stuff. None of these posts have followed the instructions at the top of the page (which is probably why they get no traction). Bon courage (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The post seems to be inline with WP:APPNOTE, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

SADF Operation Reindeer

Could I please get a neutral observer to take a look at what is developing into an edit war on these two pages: Operation Reindeer and 44 Parachute Brigade (South Africa)? Please look at Talk:Operation Reindeer#Changes to avoid "Glorifying War Crimes" to see my attempt to start a conversation and then at Talk:44 Parachute Brigade (South Africa)#Low quality of the article for the response. The edit history should show everything else that is neeeded. Much appreciated. BoonDock (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Aghlabids

Some users, mostly @R Prazeres and @M.Bitton, have been WP:STONEWALLING the Aghlabids page for quite a few months by trying to hide as much as possible in the infobox the fact that Sardinia is not generally recognized as having been part of the Aghlabid-controlled territories. This goes from blocking every edit on the image's caption (even writing that adding "possible" to it it's OR) and editing it after a consensus was reached and then claiming that that was the consensus and, most importantly, using a map that's an intentional misrepresentation of the source it was allegedly taken from. I will paste here a comment I've already made on the talk page where I explained why:

The authors, at page 24, actually wrote: "The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab occupation of Sicily that was to last more than 250 years and raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy." They clearly only talk about "raiding" Sardinia, while the occupation is only limited to Sicily. Their map there (which is the one that was supposedly used as a source for the one in the infobox) represents Sardinia not with the same colours as northern Africa and Sicily, but with the combination that (in the map legend in page 12) is reserved to non-Muslim "contested/shared over time" lands. In this case, like the text in that same page clarifies, the "contested" means just raids and failed conquering attempts.

I have the book so, if necessary and ok with Wikipedia's policies, I can upload the two pages on imgur or somewhere else and link them here, or give you any other kind of confirmation about that. On that same talk page, the two users (one of which, @M.Bitton, has been already blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and nationalist POV-related edit warring) deny that, even thought it's an objective fact, and @R Prazeres is using the argument that the OR map it's allegedly partially supported by other ones (near-identical ones), which is WP:SYNTH. The situation clearly needs an outside intervention. L2212 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you don't agree with the consensus and what's in the published map doesn't give you the right to whinge about it for months on end. Since you're clearly assuming bad faith and started casting aspersions, I suggest you do the correct thing and take your so-called concerns and chances to WP:ANI (unless of course, you're scared that the others would actually see you for what you are). M.Bitton (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I absolutely have the right to point out anything that's wrong, and "months on end"? The only reason why this is still going on it's because you decided to abandon the discussion back then, while not changing your problematic behaviour (including your lack of WP:Civility and your tendency to give ultimatums to people like you own Wikipedia) at all. Anyway, I will bring this to WP:ANI if this will be ignored/will go nowhere, I didn't do it now simply because, like it's written there at the top of the page, you should try other dispute resolution methods (like this one) before that. L2212 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I've had enough of this nonsense. Take it to ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Glorification of apartheid-era violent atrocities

It came to my attention that @BoonDock is involved in various articles covering apartheid-era South African military units and operations. Some of these articles are badly sourced. Either overrelying on a very limited number of sources and / or relying on sources that are biased due to their personal involvement within the apartheid era military.

In one such article, the attempt is being made to present a war crime, that has been condemned by the UN Security Council for it's atrocious nature, as a regular military operation against "combatants", when in reality the majority of victims in the destroyed camp were found to be defenseless women and children.

My attempts to improve this article and rid it of hate speech, defamation of the dead and inaccurate information, that seeks to glorify this war crime, were met with hostility by @BoonDock, who keeps reverting the article to the previous problematic state, while failing to acknowledge WP:NPOV and not providing any reasonable way forward.

I have reason to believe that the author is bent on promoting his views irregardless of the facts established by independent researchers and historians, which characterize the event as an atrocity against civilian refugees, with only a small number of armed cadres of the SWAPO liberation movement being present at the Cassinga transit camp, that served to process refugees fleeing apartheid occupation in then South-West Africa on their way to safer regions in the Luanda region of Angola. CraigoGiarco (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

To those observing, this is the response from this editor to being told that his edits didn't meet a Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#SADF Operation Reindeer This should show clearly that his intention is promote his particular point of view, with no regard for neutrality. I'm ignoring the outright nonsense of his ad hominem attacks. BoonDock (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

CraigoGiarco, it is not hate speech, defamation, or glorification of war crimes to coldly/emotionlessly describe military actions. You're expected to describe them like that. Editors have been banned for leveling allegations of hate speech over disagreements like this. You should never call something an "atrocity" in wikivoice, and multiple editors have challenged your edits. If you want to expose evildoers to the world, there are many places to do this. Wikipedia is not one of them. I'm getting the impression of a WP:SPA/WP:NOTHERE issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

What you're saying is absolutely 100% not true. We describe the Wounded Knee Massacre as a massacre in Wikivoice because the sources do too. We in fact have a whole List of Indian massacres. Many of these were described as battles by the US government and some have some sources still claiming they were a battle, but we don't describe them as such because WP:FALSEBALANCE is not how WP:NPOV works. Loki (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Upon looking at the proposed paragraphs on the talk page of Operation Reindeer and the state of both articles overall, I am at least very suspicious of BoonDock's preferred version. Here's my reasoning:

• A problem common to both versions is that the only source listed in the paragraph is a man who fought on the South African side of the fighting. This extreme reliance on a single source also makes it difficult to neutrally determine what's going on here. However, the fact that the source would tend to be WP:BIASED towards the South African side tends to make me suspect that BoonDock's version is overly sympathetic to the South Africans, and that better sourcing is needed.
• BoonDock's preferred version contains the line As to how many people died in the raid and whether there were women and children killed during the raid depends on whose side one wants to listen too [sic]. This feels all kinds of off to me and strikes me as highly likely to be a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE.
• There really is a UN Security Council resolution condemning the South African government action. The UN here is a much more neutral source as to the nature of this than Willem Steenkamp, so this also tends to make me suspicious of BoonDock's version.
• The article on the Battle of Cassinga, a part of the raid, has at least somewhat better sourcing than the article on the operation overall. It's also ambiguous as to whether this is a war crime or not. But it at least gives good reasons to suspect that it was not in fact a military operation.
• The casualty counts listed are very heavily skewed: the SWAPO side had at least hundreds of casualties while the South African side had only 7 killed. In fact they're so skewed that it's hard for me to imagine that the SWAPO side put up any significant resistance.

Now, is any of this fully determinative? No, absolutely not. This is all circumstantial, and because of the lack of good sources here, it's hard to say for sure that BoonDock's version is wrong, just that it seems suspicious to me. So my concrete advice for CraigoGiargo is to go find better sources to add to the article. If "independent researchers and historians" believe it's a massacre, then surely you should be able to find some and post what they say about it, right? Loki (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

In response @LokiTheLiar:

1. This is not "MY" version.What I tried to do was to preserve the status quo ante while the issue was discussed. I haven't given my point of view anywhere in the discussion because I was under the impression we were supposed to strive for a neutral point of view. My expectation was that in the discussion, the actual viewpoints could be discussed and a balanced wording determined. That was something that @CraigoGiarco was not prepared to countenance, insisting that only HIS version should be what the article should say and not being prepared to enter into ANY discussion on the matter at all until I brought the issue here.

2. Steenkamp is recognised in South Africa as the definitive reliable source by combatants from both sides of the fight. He is widely cited and quoted by academics and historians. His access to military records, especially at the time, was unprecedented and gave his writings a legitimacy that few others had. This is something that could have been debated in the talk page, and should have, with multiple editors weighing in comparing him as a source to others. It's not a unilateral decision by a single editor to attack a source because it contradicts their narrative view. He might well be right, but it's not his decision to make unilaterally.

3. The casualty counts are skewed for reasons of military competence as well as available reliable sources. That's sourceable and citable. Also something for the talk page.

My initial point remains though that the article should remain at the status quo ante until there is consensus. Issues of defamation or libel of me should also draw censure, but I'm not going to hold my breath. BoonDock (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved opinion): A brief visit to google books indicated me availability of substantial literature on the subject and most of recent literature is not taken into account even in bibliography sections.

.. Steenkamp is recognised in South Africa as the definitive reliable source by combatants from both sides of the fight. ..

I checked only one academic source Baines, Gary. South Africa's 'Border War': Contested Narratives and Conflicting Memories. United Kingdom, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014. Gary Baines seem to have different opinion on Steenkamp than claimed above.

About conflicts I suppose having regularly updated bibliography sections with separate section for academic research literature may help keep things best possible clear.

Bookku (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, Baines did have a different opinion, but it is/was part of the debate. BoonDock (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC on how to describe DRASTIC over at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory§ RfC: How should we describe DRASTIC?. Thanks! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

A problem with a claim about a political figure

Well there is this Romanian Politician, Mircea Diaconu. On his page there is a claim that doesn't seem to be supported by given source and another editor keeps refusing to change it, reverts my change constantly and doesn't motivate his point. I will really apreciate a third opinion on this.

Here is the Talk page: Talk:Mircea_Diaconu DiGrande (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we will need input from some editors who speak Romanian for this. Category:Romanian_Wikipedians would be a place to look. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania is another place you could ask and probably the best. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, the problem really has to do with neutrality, I honestly don't know, I haven't came apon a situation like this before. Over all the text discused can be translated well even with say google translate. The other person just doesn't want to admit the source doesn't support the claim he makes. DiGrande (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The source in question reads, in translation:

agriculture is on Mircea Diaconu's list of electoral promises, most likely because he is counting on the rural vote. His proposal is "aggregation into large agricultural areas", a phrase that was intensively used by Ion Iliescu, at the time when he opposed the restitution of lands confiscated by the communist regime. Like Ion Iliescu, but also like the vast majority of Social Democratic leaders, Mircea Diaconu pleads for the unification of the small properties that were revived after the year 2000.

I render this as:

“His policies were seemingly targeted at a rural electorate and recalled those of the 1990s and early 2000s, when Ion Iliescu was president.”

I don’t think this is especially controversial. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

my take on it is:

"His policies have been described as similar to those of the 1990s and early 2000s, when Ion Iliescu was president."

Beacause the article doesn't suggest that Diaconu had done anything with the intent to apeal to any voter base. "Targeted" is definetly the wrong word there and this claim definetly wasn't made nor proven by the source given to it.

The other user is just head strong and wants to have final say with minimal effort given in arguing his position or even trying to look for alternative posts. Just look up the talk page, he says "seems like a fair asumtion"...

To not speak of the fact my version was left as the official one by him for 2 months untill he just decided to swich it back to what he wrote... I'm definetly doubting his neutrality or goodwill at this point. DiGrande (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, the article does suggest Diaconu appealed to a rural voter base, by focusing on land reform. The article specifically states that he courted/counted on/targeted (whatever, same thing) the rural vote. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Leo Frank short-description

In this edit @1Trevorr replaced the use of "lynching victim" in the Frank article's short-description with "convicted murderer."

Our reliable sources say that Frank was both a convicted murderer, and a lynching victim. It was reverted by @Beyond My Ken. Seeing that it is objectively true that Frank was both a lynching victim, and a convicted murderer, I made a compromise between the two: I edited it so that Frank is both a convicted murderer, and a lynching victim. @1Trevorr did not seem to have a problem with this, but @Beyond My Ken and @DeCausa did, and the latter reverted it in this edit.

I brought it up with them on the talk page. They both conceded that Leo Frank was a convicted murderer, but claimed that it was biased to mention it in the short-description, as well as evidence of one's antisemitism. @Beyond My Ken, without consensus, then changed the short-description again, omitting convicted-murderer, and adding that Frank was wrongfully convicted. This goes against Wikipedia guidelines for short-descriptions: they are supposed to use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional. That Frank was wrongfully convicted is both controversial and judgemental--that he was convicted of murder and lynched is not.

Furthermore, @Beyond My Ken and @DeCausa claimed that the onus was not on them to make consensus, because they already had it; but they have so far been the only editors to support their additions, and @1Trevorr and I have both opposed it. If I am doing math correctly, that seems to be a draw. When I tried to change it back to what it had previously been before any of us had touched it, BMK changed it back to his new verison.

It is one thing to disagree with the addition of "convicted murderer", though I think it is ridiculous to do so, as this is an objective fact backed up by reliable sources already used within the article; that he was wrongfully convicted is not an objective fact, and Wikipedia's guidelines suggest against making judgements like these in short-descriptions.

But the two of them have also made new additions to the article, without consensus.

I'd like to ask, which is evidence of controversial, judgmental, POV bias: the claim that Frank was a "lynching victim and a convicted murderer", or that he was a "wrongfully convicted lynching victim"? @DeCausa and @Beyond My Ken are alleging that it is the former. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that ITrevorr has been indeffed for Jew-baiting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Harry Silbelius is clearly a POV editor, whose only purpose at Leo Frank is to present the subject in the worst possible light. Thus he wants the SD to say "convicted murderer", without mentioning the fact that the overwhelming consensus of subject experts is that Frank was wrongfully convicted. HS's short description would leave the reader with a distorted and incomplete impression of Frank, while the one he opposes touches all the pertinent points of a significant event in American history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Saying someone is a convicted murderer implies that they committed murder. In this case the mainstream view is that Frank was wrongfully convicted and so we should not imply he was guilty. TFD (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

As BMK says. This article is a target for some fairly unsavoury POVs. More of an ANI issue than this noticeboard. DeCausa (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Would the subject be notable if they weren't lynched? I would tend to think the lynching part is what is most significant. Springee (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes he'd still be notable (high profile case, trial, appeals, wrongful conviction), but the lynching is significant. The current short description does seem to be hitting the highlights, but it's pretty long. I don't think that's a concern for this noticeboard, but while I'm here I might as well throw out the 36-character "Man wrongfully convicted and lynched". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If people think that's better, I can live with it. I do realize that the current one is kind of long for an SD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Although in bio SD's typically there's some indication of nationality and dating. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Just to note here that a brand-spanking new editor -- account created just hours ago and headed straight for the article talk page -- has shown up to support Harry Sibelius. At first I suspected a possible sockpuppet, but they say on their talk page "The Leo Frank case was resently brought to my attention..." [17], so it's somewhat more likely that off-wiki canvassing has brought a WP:MEATPUPPET into the discussion. It would be useful if the editors who expressed opinions here would also do so on the article talk page, so the question of where consensus lies could be clearer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  See User talk:1Trevorr#Leo Frank Doug Weller talk 14:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken et al; the short description should not describe someone as a "convicted murderer" when the consensus is that the conviction was unjust. Mackensen (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Kansas SB 180 - Women's Bill of Rights

Please see the talk page here, where I dissect the current article and propose a nonbiased restructuring that can more easily be expanded upon. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sex verification in sports

The article in my opinion has severe NPOV issues. The majority of content added in recent years seems to have been added by student editors doing a Wiki Education assigment. I have outlined my concerns in a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks, 86.50.118.50 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You are supposed to propose your edits in order to successfully pursue content dispute. Orientls (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur that the article in its current form has large amounts of bias and is therefore not an accurate overview of the subject. Parts are grammatically unwieldy which overall detracts from the article's readability. Unfortunately, I have a dispute of my own on similar grounds for a related subject. This seems to be a common theme. As such, I am not able to propose corrections to the article at this time, but I would be happy to review proposed edits that will bring the article to a more neutral point. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Chinese imperialism

I refer to the Chinese imperialism article which redirected to Chinese expansionism until early this year. My main concerns is that it contains original research trying to concoct a notion of "Chinese imperialism" but several of the claims are either unsourced or does not match what the source says. Others seem to be taken from articles such as Debt-trap diplomacy and Belt and Road Initiative with all the opposing views taken out.

• The intro claims that Wolf warrior diplomacy and Chinese intelligence activity abroad are examples of Chinese imperialism, with no sourcing and no further mentions. These are foreign diplomatic issues and not inherently "imperialism", and neither Wikipedia articles mentions "imperialism" at all.
• It also cites the Uyghur genocide as an example of Chinese imperialism, yet according to the sources cited, they are opinion articles calling out the hypocrisy of critics of US imperialism who blindly defend Chinese human rights violations.
• The history section cites the Belt and Road Initiative as an example of "imperialism". Again the issue is heavily debated, and I added some opposing views from the corresponding article to balance it out.
• The history section also cites Territorial disputes in the South China Sea as an example of "imperialism", citing dubious sources such as the Communist Party of the Philippines, and a partisan US think tank which offers nothing concrete other than common US complaints about China.
• The cultural imperialism section cites Confucius Institutes as "imperialism", based on an opinion article that mentioned it once as a throwaway line.
• The political imperialism section cites Chinese censorship abroad as "imperialism", yet the first article talks nothing about imperialism, and the second article seems to cited the first but added the imperialism label with qualification.
• The section about Chinese military bases contains original research speculating about China having more bases, even though the corresponding article talks about China's difficulties in opening a second base. There is also a false comparison between Chinese foreign aid and US military bases, whereas the editorial by the Economist talks about recommended Western response and stated that Chinese bases need not to be seen as a threat. Again, none of the articles mentioned anything about "imperialism".

While I do think some sections can be salvaged and/or potentially merged with Chinese expansionism, such as the views section, the article as it currently stands is more like a coatrack of that one with many unverifiable claims of "Chinese imperialism" GeneralBay (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the article appears to be synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

There are massive WP:OR/WP:NPOV issues here. We don't get to claim that foreign policy actions and cultural exchange are "imperialism" just because a handful of partisan commentators have used the term. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be removed. The terms 'Chinese imperialism' are used a lot in South Korea. Chinese imperialism exists. Even if it's not imperialism in the classical sense, the terms that are actually used Mureungdowon (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I have already mentioned it might be too much on the territority part at its talk page, but for the rest:

• Replyed at its talkpage.
• Replyed at its talkpage.
• No disagreements on this.
• Now here comes the most confusing part for me, first, I don't know anything about that the United States accuses China of its being imperialism (and why it's problematic), please show me other sources or how. Second, I don't cite CPP's primary sources, instead what I've cited is from the Diplomat, as far as I know Wikipedia:UNDUE applys when there are opposing views from other Wikipedia:RS, please show me one.
• No disagreements on this and I have stated about this on its talkpage.
• I don't know why there's a question here, if it adds an incorrect label then IMO it's other medias' missions to show disagreements, but not from a Wikipedia user. Be amnesia.
• Replyed at its talkpage.

I certainly admit, de jure, that the article is quite a synthesis, yet again, my architecture reference is American imperialism, so I don't know what to do to make it not being OR/NPOV/synthesis (especially regarding that article has never been put into NPOV as much as this one), and I hope User:AndyTheGrump and User:Thebiguglyalien can explain a little more on this issue, regards, ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 23:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems that Chinese imperialism and American imperialism suffer from a lot of the same issues. They're essentially WP:POVFORKs of Foreign policy of China (which is woefully underdeveloped) and Foreign policy of the United States (which also suffers from some of these same issues). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

cc User:Rauisuchian. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 23:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a big topic, so I can't write a full response right now, but I'd bring up a few major points. First, the article is about the concept that can be named "Chinese imperialism" (but could also be renamed something else) not about the literal term "Chinese imperialism" as it is an encyclopedia not dictionary. All of the topics currently in the article, tend to be discussed in the same vein in many of the same RS articles. So let's ignore the name temporarily and just look at the article subject as whole. How many news articles mention at the same time, at least 80% of the contents of the article -- the overseas espionage, the territorial expansionism, the censorship abroad, Uyghur genocide, etc. -- all at the same time in the same article. A huge portion do, probably the majority of RS articles that mentions China foreign interference, will at least mention a summarized sentence of most of the other topics. This can be seen by checking the sources already in the wiki article and googling or just watching for the next time Reuters/BBC/Guardian mentions China foreign interference. Do most RS's connect PRC's interference in other sovereign countries with its dictatorship, yes, almost all do even if they call it "assertive actions by China" and other editorial decisions of what to refer to it as. What does this mean for the article, it means we should focus less on checking and checking a specific literal term/text string and instead see what the cited RS articles are talking about. The second major point is the essay WP:NOTOR. It's not synthesis to bring up a definition or point in one source, and then elucidate details in another so long as they are separate statements cited properly. Outside of international relations/politics/geopolitics... many many articles are challenged and weakened by talk page editors who say, every single source must use the exact same verbiage as the title to talk about the concept. That would only apply in the case of WP:WORDISSUBJECT which is not the matter of concern here. A final point for now, let's say we were to be pedantic about terminology over content -- if so, the dictionary definition of imperialism is "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force" and many of the supposedly "iffy" inclusions in this article easily fall under that. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Your reasoning is bizarre. "Imperialism" is a contentious word and due care must be given when used per MOS:WTW. An assertive foreign policy does not necessarily equal to imperialism - spying, censorship, territorial disputes and such were done by numerous countries throughout history, and that doesn't make all of them imperial powers. This is a violation WP:NOR, a major WP policy, period. In contrast you're using an essay that has not been vetted by the WP community.--GeneralBay (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Very major WP:SYNTH & WP:OR issues. I checked all the citations. A large majority of the sources that are used to support the "Chinese imperialism" claim, never actually use that word (or colonial, colonization, or related words). Of the sources that do use either those terms, a large majority are opinion pieces. Article could be deleted without a merge; many of these sources don't use the term expansion(ism/ist) either, and there are too many opinion pieces, which shouldn't be used on such a topic. DFlhb (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC in Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory

Please see: Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory#RfC about the article title. -Location (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Philippines and the Spratly Islands

The lead on Philippines and the Spratly Islands currently reads Philippines and the Spratly Islands – this article discusses the policies, activities and history of the Republic of the Philippines in the Spratly Islands from the Philippine perspective. Non-Philippine viewpoints regarding Philippine occupation of several islands are currently not included in this article., which set off my NPOV alarm, but I don't know enough about the subject to evaluate what's going on, so would appreciate further input. Is this a fork of Spratly Islands dispute or just an inappropriately worded lead? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow. This is a classic WP:POVFORK. I'm actually shocked that this article has survived for fifteen years. There was an AFD 11 years ago, here. I'm not sure what is written here that couldn't be written in the main Spratly Islands article. --Jayron32 14:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if that would all fit on Spratly Islands, but certainly the article in its current form is very poor. CMD (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add "controversial" to the lead-in sentence

I've tried a few edits in the last week on The 1619 Project. If you are unaware of it, the article as is does a pretty good job showing why it is surrounded in controversy. I recommend reading through the article first to see all the things going on there.

Being that it is controversial, wanting to give drive-by readers the service of knowing that quickly, and in keeping with a very common convention on WP, I endeavored to add that to the first sentence. At the moment, the first sentence reads: The 1619 Project is a long-form journalism endeavor developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones,...

I first tried The 1619 Project is a widely criticized ... with an accompanying talk explainer diff where I discuss reasons and suggest other versions would be reasonable to me. This was was reverted [18]. The discussion spun off somewhere else pretty quick, but the feedback I did get was That tilts the article in a nonneutral way. The second paragraph explains the context, and that is plenty early in the article. After a few days I decided to try the softer version The 1619 Project is a controversial... [19]. Also reverted with the previous criticism repeated verbatim (and also used to justify a revert of two other unrelated edits).

I want to put the word "controversial" in the first sentence. I also think "widely criticized" or similar applies. Based on "historical revisionism" likened to pseudoscience in WP:Fringesubjects it would be due weight to say so prominently. There's other edits I've made that were also reverted and I've made talk messages about it. If that is interesting please discuss on the talk page instead. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Just looks like you're attempting unsourced POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Please consider this is the lede, not the body. Numerous sources in the body heavily criticize the project and actions taken regarding the project. The lede summarizes the body. As such, no I'm not "sourcing" it because that's not how ledes work. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The lede already notes there is some criticism and controversy. You wanting the opening line to say it IS controversial as a literal statement of fact is a no-go. Zaathras (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Why? I want it a certain way, yes, but that's not my reasoning given here and on the talk page. Don't we all want pages a certain way? 142.115.142.4 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

And it's not some criticism. Just read the article. There's almost only criticism for it's factual accuracy and historical analysis, questions surrounding NYT's journalistic procedure in making and promoting it (from their own staff even), and stark political reactions that have lawmakers addressing it explicitly in new laws to counteract the push from other lawmakers trying to put it in schools.

It IS controversial, literal statement of fact. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, "controversial" is specifically mentioned as an example of a contentious label. We say what the controversy is without using the word "controversy". On a quick read through, I think the article does. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me this. It definitely requires me to re-evaluate. That page does say are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. So it's not a hard-no rule, but does define well when it should be used. 1. Widely used by RS, and 2. Use in-text attribution. Does that mean it would still work if several sources calling it controversial were cited? Even in the lede? (aside, it's a bit of an unfortunate policy, since left leaning media has a habit of calling lots of things controversial, when really they mean its just not a left leaning thing, not that there's any real controversy over it. Maybe that's why it's considered a value-laden label.) 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe that you're getting Historical negationism (which is where the link at WP:Fringesubjects goes) and Historical revisionism (which is what the 1619 project has been argued to be by commentators) confused. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No, not confused. I apparently misread it. I think the point being made on the page still applies if it really did say revisionism instead of negationism. That is to say, I don't see this as affecting my cite of that policy to support my edit preference. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

In my experience the term "historical revisionism" is used quite often to refer to what is actually historical negationism. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This article seems to portray the subject in a pretty fair, though awkward, way to me. Don't you think that you are overthinking how important it would be to put the "controversial" word in the first paragraph of the lead? I know that sometimes we can underestimate how smart Wikipedia's readers are (e.g. "they only read the lead", "they only read the summary on google", "they never scroll down", etc.), but editing Wikipedia with this mentality is unevitably bad for the website and our mental health. And most of the times we are wrong, most readers are pretty smart. 🔥 22spears 🔥 05:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've come to accept your point here. It's not really that important in this case, and MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, shown to me by Muboshgu above, makes it clear that such language needs a stronger than typical reason when used. The article, overall, does show clearly the controversy. But yes, awkwardly written. I see this disjointed writing on the most controversial topics, which sucks because those need the best clarity. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

These labels are pointless. Who criticised it? What did they criticise? What was the response? This is the kind of stuff that can't be encapsulated in an empty cliché like "controversial". The lead already covers all of it with precision, and the body provides comprehensive details for those who care. The label adds nothing, but it would increase readers' doubts about our neutrality and credibility, leading them to downplay all the criticism of 1619 rather than considering both sides thoughtfully. DFlhb (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely right, the guideline referenced above says, “Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies.” There’s no reason to make an exception here AFAIK. The solution is to try and encapsulate why it’s controversial into a short and concise statement that actually informs rather than states an opinion (held widely or not); that would be okay in the lead, if it can be done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, criticism is not controversy. Sometimes "controversy" is used to denote POV, e.g. we have a whole page called Hunter Biden laptop controversy that one day will be moved to Hunter Biden laptop hoax, the only controversy being its nightly coverage on Fox News TV long after it was debunked. Example #2 we have a page List of controversies involving The New York Times, which gets new additions, sometimes daily, of whatever's in the trough on the aggrieved Republican mass media. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that WP:Talk page guidelines “apply not only to article discussion pages but everywhere editors interact, such as deletion discussions and noticeboards.”. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Pithily linking a behavioral guideline to an experienced editor is akin to templating a regular. This is unnecessarily antagonistic in a discussion such as this. Be better. Zaathras (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

We are to write articles in a neutral, dispassionate, and impartial tone. The first sentence specifically should be free of any type of subjective commentary, so it is inappropriate to force "controversy" in the lede. Later in the lede it can be described as controversial but should be in context, why it is controversial. --Masem (t) 13:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Masem, what's your thinking on the question that often arises: Do we need (multiple) sources that specifically state that there is controversy, or can we infer it as OR from the narratives in the sources? SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

We need sources to say it is a controversy. What often is the case is that we have sources that are critical of some group, but just because there is large-scale criticism doesn't make it controversial. Masem (t) 17:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The Kerala Story issue

Upcoming film The Kerala Story has neutrality issues. Recently, it was cleanup by User:The Doom Patrol, mostly for WP:VOICE. For now, MOS:FILM structure is not followed and has undue weight on controversy. The film's story is based an actual incident where four women from Kerala joined ISIS. There have been 60-70 cases from Kerala. But as per a character from the teaser, about 32,000 have been recruited within the film's universe. That stirred political controversy. Numerical accuracy should be discussed, "specifically" about the figure "32,000" with reliable sources and correct attributions, without generalizing the whole film. But certain editors took advantage on the discrepancy to make blanket statements and to label the film and filmmakers with political allegations without attribution and with undue weight, and has tone issues. Please review the article sources for NPOV issue in presentation. 137.97.114.182 (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

NPOV issues for John Anthony Castro

The page was initially created using an excessive number of primary sources, and I have already requested a cleanup on the BLP Noticeboard. However, the NPOV issue persists, as the editor Morbidthoughts focused on removing primary sources but also requested a neutrality check. Upon revisiting the page, I found that:

The article predominantly relies on primary sources for presenting information in Wikivoice. The issues related to living persons, and WP:NPOV remain unresolved. Many claims appear overstated or biased.

In more detail:

The lead section omits the subject's occupation as a politician, yet includes the phrase "tax consultant who has unsuccessfully run for several political offices," which can be confusing. Is the subject a non-notable tax consultant, a politician, or both? What is their notability? Is it for filing a lawsuit against Trump? It is evident that simply running a few obscure political campaigns with no media coverage other than primary sources does not warrant a dedicated page. The early life and education section relies on primary sources, with other contentious information selectively retrieved. The subject's career mostly comprises controversial information that demands further verification, seemingly violating BLP guidelines. The inclusion of an electoral history that does not enhance Wikipedia's value is questionable. It is clear that this was not a significant political campaign, and it is unclear why any Wikipedia editor would create these tables.

Other issues: 1) Ref-bombing with a lot of primary sources. 2) Extensive use of "claims" and "not fully verified information" in biography that led to a very poorly written article. 3) Most of the sources I examined, many sources are self-published, redundant, promotional, or repeating the same news (redundant). Also, extreme overuse of the primary sources that lead to specific opinions and original research (at best). 4) The page appeared shortly after the person became known in the media for filing the lawsuit against the former U.S. President Donald Trump 5) The article represents "original research" at best. MartinPict (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

All of the preceding, vague and un-diffed assertions appear to be completely incorrect. Since there are no diffs I won't bother with a point-by-point rebuttal as it's only possible to rebut evidence, not the absence of evidence.
Just to clarify, and so that does not sound unduly harsh, I do appreciate MartinPict bringing this to our attention and am not trying to castigate them for the form of this OP. At the point of their first edit to this article, 90% (by byte-size) of their lifetime Talk page edits were to the Talk page of this single article so, in a spirit of WP:NOBITING, I'll definitely keep an open mind in case they are able to provide diffs in a future comment. Chetsford (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oregon Forest Resources Institute

The Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) article describes it incorrectly at the top of the article as a "forestry trade association" and "de facto lobbying organization.” The Oregon Forest Resources Institute is neither. It’s a state agency that supports Oregon’s forest products industry through forest education programs for the public, K-12 teachers and students, and forest landowners. This article appears to be written as an attack on OFRI from detractors of the Institute. I represent OFRI and therefore have a conflict of interest, but I believe the most recent editors of the page have a conflict of interest as well and have been citing selective details from several-years-old media coverage of the agency to paint it in a negative light. The article is not written from a neutral point of view at all. Take a look at the talk for more details about our concerns with the way this article about our organization is written. == Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. @Jonesey95 @Silikonz @Tedder @Cyrius @WikiDan61 Jane at OFRI (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

If the issue is citing selective details from several-years-old media coverage of the agency it would be helpful if you posted more recent coverage which you feel better reflects contemporary activities, I will note though that having searched for sources the vast majority of the coverage of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute appears to be negative so the NPOV is going to be on the negative side. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't get covered by the media very often and the vast majority of recent coverage relates to an audit we underwent and our agency's response to it. I've cited this article, which is our most recent media coverage, a couple times on the OFRI Talk page but it has yet to be cited. I've also sought to correct the record about a bill in the Oregon Legislature that would have cut our funding that ultimately died. The Wikipedia article does not state that the bill died. Lastly, our website appears a couple of times in the citations but neither of the links work. When I've asked for those links to be updated with functioning links, I'm told to provide third-party sources. All I'm trying to do is fix broken links. Jane at OFRI (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Here's an article that provides some missing context to the lobbying section with regards to the bill that passed the Oregon House but died in the Oregon Senate:

"The controversy also spurred the introduction of a bill that would have eliminated OFRI, but it was later amended to cutting the agency’s budget by two-thirds.

The proposal, House Bill 2357, passed the House, 32-27, but died in the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee when the legislature adjourned..." Jane at OFRI (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Coronation of Charles III and Camilla has an RFC

Coronation of Charles III and Camilla has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

An RfC about a tag with a question posed in the negative (which has already seemingly confused respondents). A new low. Bon courage (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Article about website Numbeo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The current article looks like being completely biased, someone with the neutral point of view should come and fix the article. More retails on Talk:Numbeo this is one of the generated ChatGPT articles:

ChatGPT output
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Numbeo is a crowd-sourced database and online platform that provides information about the cost of living, quality of life, crime rates, health care, traffic, and other indicators for cities and countries around the world. The website was launched in 2009 by Mladen Adamovic, a Serbian-born computer engineer and economist, and is based in Belgrade, Serbia. Numbeo allows users to compare various aspects of life in different cities and countries by providing data on a wide range of topics. These include the cost of housing, transportation, food, and entertainment; pollution levels; crime rates; traffic congestion; health care quality; and more. Users can also contribute to the website by submitting their own data on these topics, which is then used to update and improve the database. One of the unique features of Numbeo is its crowd-sourcing model. Rather than relying on government statistics or other official sources, Numbeo gathers data from individual users who live or have lived in the places they are reporting on. This approach allows for more detailed and up-to-date information than would be possible through traditional sources. In addition to its data-gathering features, Numbeo also provides tools for users to analyze and visualize the data. Users can create custom charts and graphs to compare different cities or countries, and can also use the site's cost-of-living calculator to estimate the cost of living in different locations. Numbeo has become a popular resource for people who are considering relocating or traveling to different parts of the world. The site's data has been cited by news organizations, academic researchers, and government agencies, and it has been featured in publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Economist. While Numbeo's data is based on user contributions and is therefore subject to some degree of variability and potential bias, the site's methodology and transparency have been praised by many. The site's founder has stated that the goal of Numbeo is to provide accurate and useful information to help people make informed decisions about where to live, work, and travel.

Mladen.adamovic (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT output is in no shape or form remotely acceptable as a source for articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested having its article being an advertorial for your company. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yikes, that discussion has been bludgeoned to death, I have no real interest in joining it at this point in time. I like my organs free of blunt force trauma, thank you. Sincerely hope that LLMs don't make even more people think "press release" is an appropriate style or tone for an encyclopedia article.

Slow down a bit and give people a bit of time to read things, and use that time to put forward a more solid argument, and maybe you'll see things work out the way you want to. If you act like you own the article, people are just going to react to that instead. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Sino-Soviet_border_conflict#China was able to deter the Soviet Union

Hello,

User @Crows Yang has recently added the following statement to the Sino-Soviet border conflict: "On the other hand, China did succeed to show its ability of deterring Soviet Union with the conventional military capabilities.".

As I have stated on the talk page,

This statement obviously doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.". Deterring somebody from something implies that one wanted to do something in first place which is not really a proven fact.

In my opinion this statement belongs to the article's Aftermath section and should be rewritten to display that is is an opinion of particular author. Instead of participating in discussion user @Crows Yang tried to remove the template. I tried to do the change myself but it was reverted by the same user. I would like to hear the opinion of community on whether this statement constitutes a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy or not and whether my edit should be implemented or not.

Thanks! DestructibleTimes (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Sino-Soviet_border_conflict#China was able to deter the Soviet Union #Soviet Victory

Hello, User @DestructibleTimes has recently accused of my edition of leaving the following statement to the Sino-Soviet border conflict :"On the other hand, China did succeed to show its ability of deterring Soviet Union with the conventional military capabilities". He said this statement does not satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias beacuse it was someone's personal opinion, which could not be taken as fact. Please allow me to explain,first of all, this statement is cited from a very reliable source published by University Press. According to Wiki's policy here, editors are not disallowed to cite someone's opinion as long as the source is reliable. Second, all the sources displayed on the article and even entire Wiki at large actually consist of opinions. User @DestructibleTimes used two sources to prove that the victory of the conflict should belong to Soviet Union. There are big flaws with these sources. One flaw is that the sources he listed there do not specify the victor of the entire conflict. On other flaw is that the statement of these sources claiming Soviet Victory is also someone's own opinion. There are a lot of other sources that contrarily claim Chinese victory, indicating at least one fact, the result of this conflict is highly contraversial, and thus should not be concluded as either side's victory. In this sense, I don't see any difference between the source I cite and the sources used by user DestructibleTimes. Third, about "deterring" itself, user @DestructibleTimes insisted on saying that "deterring sb from doing sth" was not a proven fact, thus should not appear at where it is located now. First of all, if "deterring sb from doing sth" can't be viewed as proven fact, nor is "Soviet Victory". Second, "deterring sb" could have been fact, like the US successfully deterred Soviet Union in the Cuban missile crisis, Soviet Union successfully deterred Japan from invading Far East with the battle of Khalkhin Gol. Why could these two been taken as facts? Because the enemies did not end up doing anything further to achieve its original goal. In this case, China's deterring Soviet Union could be a fact because Soviet Union did not attack China's nuclear facilities in Xinjiang, did not launch a nuclear strike on China. We all know there's a fact that Soviet Union was known to be a extremely agressive empire with its invasion of Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia (1968), Somalia (1977), Afghanistan (1980s). There was no reason for Soviet Union to tolerate China's aggressiveness in Sino-Soviet Conflict, but eventually it did. Why? Can Soviet's tolerance of China's altitude be explained by China's huge military capability? I won't be certain, but there's a strong posibility, China was unlike the nations such as Poland, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan. So in this sense, I don't see any problems to list it as one of the results of the Sino Soviet conflict. They can stay where they are now, but user DestructibleTimes insisted on removing it (including the template) to aftermatch, which does not make any sense. Dear Community, I do need your help to uphold the justice. Thank you very much! Crows Yang (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Reality check: Kosovo

No disputes in progress afaik. I came across the following in the above article, which seems pretty non-neutral, but I don't know enough about the topic to assess the neutrality of the text, or know how to fix it. Input appreciated.

Due to very high birth rates, the proportion of Albanians increased from 75% to over 90%. In contrast, the number of Serbs barely increased, and in fact dropped from 15% to 8% of the total population, since many Serbs departed from Kosovo as a response to the tight economic climate and increased incidents with their Albanian neighbours. While there was tension, charges of "genocide" and planned harassment have been debunked as an excuse to revoke Kosovo's autonomy. For example, in 1986 the Serbian Orthodox Church published an official claim that Kosovo Serbs were being subjected to an Albanian program of 'genocide'.[93] Even though they were disproved by police statistics,[93][page needed] they received wide attention in the Serbian press and that led to further ethnic problems and eventual removal of Kosovo's status.

Elinruby (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Nothing unneutral about it. It's similar (in fact it's almost a complete match) to the white genocide conspiracy. Long story short, the Serbian orthodox church falsely claimed that there was an ongoing genocide against Serbs in order to rile up the Serbian population against Albanians. We'd be remiss to say it any other way.

2601:18F:107F:E2A0:384A:8E5C:1142:F274 (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying that this is nothing but the truth and there was no genocide? Elinruby (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The reference used has some pages available via google. See page 216 and the notes on page 227. I feel that more could be gleaned from 215, but it's not available. The work has reviews and appears reliable. The current text is poor and I'm guessing the bolden text is more hyperbolic than the original, but the source does state the 'genocide' didn't happen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both. Apparently I need more reading in this topic area; glad I asked. Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

NPOV - Ultra-processed foods

I have added a NPOV-template to Ulta-processed food. This is a very controversial topic in some food/nutrition discussions, and being neutral is therefore quite difficult. The article however is written in a way to largely ignore criticism and indeed dismiss it in a way that might not be helpful ("Most published criticisms of NOVA has come from authors associated in some way with the manufacturers of ultra-processed food, their representative organisations, or organisations they support") as it is more complex. Even authors who fall into this category might have sensible arguments and should be represented. Ggck2 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

In my understanding it's quite complicated because initially the term was a bit fringe with just a few researchers using it and making some over-startling claims; but over the years it went more mainstream. Without a source providing an overview of this transition it's gonna be tricky. Good luck! Bon courage (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I think a problem is that there is no source that both "sides" would agree on to be neutral. One reason is that most food scientists don't like the term as it is too unspecific and many nutrition scientists who have been involved in processing are also sceptical (but they have usually been involved with industry). I'm sure this is not the only article with such a problem - how does one solve this? Ggck2 (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re: the E. Jean Carroll verdict at Talk:Donald Trump

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

NPOV:Talk:Arvind Kejriwal (Assistance needed)

Requesting users to have a look @ the article Arvind Kejriwal (recent article history). Edit difs by @Kridha checkout edit history of user kridha . Seems stripping the article of all the well sourced critical parts failing WP:NPOVHOW* , the response from other side looks like WP:STONEWALL effectively leading to obscurantism. Requesting inputs and help in sorting out the issues so as to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV

• WP:NPOVHOW:

  .. Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ..

@Kridha isn't replying in consensus.he didn't participate in DRN consensus also.checkout discussion on talk page and DRN request.

@Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians.

He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like

Public image of Narendra Modi#Criticism and controversies, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Criticism, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar#Controversies, Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Controversies, T. Rajaiah#Controversies, Mulayam Singh Yadav#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies. 

And @Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha

• edit 1 - in which he removed from lawsuits section on 06 September 2022
• edit 2 - in which he removed on 6 September 2022
• edit 3 - in which he removed on 16 September 2022
• edit 4 - in which he removed whole criticism section on 4 may 2023
• edit 5 - in which he remove whole lawsuits section on 4 may 2023
• edit 6 - in this he remove
• edit 7 in which he remove

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Nyovuu (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Patrick Moore (consultant)

There is a discussion at Patrick Moore (consultant)#The adverb "falsely" is biased language.

Is the following text consistent with Wikipedia:TONE: "[Moore] has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change."

TONE says, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published."

In my opinion, reasonably informed readers know that there is scientific evidence for climate change and don't need continual reminders. Not only is it patronizing and unneccessary, but the polemical tone could make readers question the neutrality and accuracy of the article.

Also, there is a long sentence at the end of the lead of Patrick Moore (consultant), explaining why his opinions are wrong. None of the sources used mention Moore. Is this an example of synthesis? TFD (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

If the sentence is poorly sourced, which is the issue I brought up on the talk page, then it should be removed and tone won't matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue is whether the wording is biased, not whether it is accurate. If one could find the exact wording in a reliable but biased source, the issue of tone would still have to addressed. TFD (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see a tone problem. We say similar things about a lot of people for a wide range of issues. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Ayacucho massacre

Ayacucho massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are diverging views regarding what NPOV might look like in this article about recent political violence in Peru. Issues are currently being discussed on the talk page here and here. More eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the name of "Ayacucho riots" since the name of "Ayacucho Massacre" is too reductionist and biased. Not all media nor a majority refer to the event as a "massacre". The repression by the police and the army happened in the context of violent protests when protestors tried to reach and take a whole airport, event that is barely covered in specifically the English Wikipedia but good sourced in the Spanish version. Reliable source and even some articles sourced in the page to call it a "massacre" also describe the prior events as riots or protests that led the "massacre" to happen, or the attempt to take over the airport

----

Sources already used in the article to call them "massacre" that also refer to the events as riots/protests/violence:

- [20] "El día más sangriento fue este jueves. La violencia se desató en Ayacucho, la región más golpeada por el terrorismo entre los años ochenta y noventa. Un pueblo que convive en un eterno fuego cruzado y al que le es muy difícil respirar paz."

- [21] "La presidenta Dina Boluarte declaró el estado de emergencia por 30 días frente a las manifestaciones y disturbios de los últimos días en distintas ciudades de Perú.

- [22] "De acuerdo con el informe, el día más sangriento fue el jueves pasado, primera jornada de vigencia del estado de emergencia (sitio) en todo el país, con nueve defunciones. Ese día, la mayor violencia se desató en Ayacucho, la región más golpeada por la acción de los grupos remanentes de la organización terrorista Sendero Luminoso." (Note that the article refers to the Shining Path as "terrorist" instead of guerrilla, like the original author of the page doesn't want to include because POV)

- [23] "Entrada la tarde, se registraron actos vandálicos y disturbios mancharon las movilizaciones pacíficas que realizaban los ciudadanos en Ayacucho. Atacaron e incendiaron el local de la Corte Superior, en plena plaza de Huamanga y que recién había refaccionado el ingreso. También incendiaron el local de la Sunarp, Ministerio Público y Telefónica, dejando un saldo de 8 heridos"

----

The original author of the article also like to distort some sources cited while also cherry-picking sources that fit his POV while omitting others that are essential and used in the Spanish Version of the article. For example: the source [24] from Infobae, page that is cited a lot in this article, is sourced in es.wikipedia in the following sentence: "The next day, the consequences of what happened and the lack of a police and military presence in the city led to acts of vandalism, such as looting and burning several unprotected public buildings (traslated)", but @WMrapids uses the same source for claiming the following: "The following day, the repression by the police and military led to new acts of vandalism, such as looting and burning of various unprotected public buildings". Another example is with [25] and [26], source which @WMrapids source to claim the following "During the presidencies of Ollanta Humala, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski and Martín Vizcarra, the right-wing Congress led by the daughter of the former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori, Keiko Fujimori, obstructed many of the actions attempted by those presidents". The inclusion of "right-wing" in the first source is never mentioned and in the second source is only used to refer to Bolsonaro (not even Peruvian) or the candidate to presidency Keiko Fujimori. Term is never mentioned to refer to the congress. Other of those fake claims are "On that day, demonstrations took place in Ayacucho and the situation intensified when the military deployed helicopters to fire at protesters, who later tried to take over the city's airport, which was defended by the Peruvian Army and the National Police of Peru". Neither of the sources claim that the protests intensified after the army deployed helicopters, and in fact, sources cited in the article while recognize the protests started peacefully [27] [28], neither of those claims that the protests intensified after the army deployed helicopters. In fact, one of the sources used by the editor claims that the helicopters appeared during noon "Todos los que estuvieron en Huamanga ese día escucharon los helicópteros y el incesante sonido de las balas, desde el mediodía hasta el anochecer." [29].

----

Now my concern is that when I tried to add information directly extracted from the Spanish Wikipedia, the user called @Generalrelative deleted all the info I added without any reason except "POV-Pushing", but when @WMrapids added tons of distorded information, he just stayed quiet. Each time I want to add at least some words to the article, this user, which have no authority over me, reverts each of my edits, like if I was blocked or something (and he even doesn't let me post in his talk page since he deletes any talk I want to make to him). Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

PS: About the last point, he keeps reverting every single edit I've made even tho he just claimed that there's only one point that concerns him, not all my edits should be reverted Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

1) It's not only me. Two other users have recently alerted you on your talk page about the impression you're giving of editing with a strong POV about this and related topics.

2) It's not just "one point", but rather the broad tenor of your edits that concerns me. As I said on the article talk page, the content you are seeking to add "contains many elements which appear to be geared toward altering the POV of the article". That would be fine if the status quo was somehow inconsistent with sources, and you were bringing it into line with them, but instead I'm seeing what appears to me to be a highly selective reading.

3) Not a huge deal, but I use they/them pronouns, not he/him.

Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're going only focus on my last point? The POV used in the page. About "1" Ponyo reverted because I deleted the whole "history of Ayacucho" section, which then never complained about my other edit. About "2" most of my edits were literally corrections of the sources cited (As I said in my second point) or added more data information like quantity of military troops deployed and harmed in the infobox. Didn't pretend to change POV. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for me to debate you. It's a place to invite others to weigh in. Whether or not you "pretended" to change the POV of the article, it is evident that you did. The question for the community to decide is whether those changes are WP:DUE. Generalrelative (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If we are discussing the article title, multiple sources called it a massacre while the The New York Times plainly stated "[Protesters] were unarmed and, as stipulated in military protocols, posed no 'imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm,' to officers or anyone else when they were shot". So, the title seems pretty concise, unless you want to describe it as "Peruvian Army's killing of civilians in Ayacucho" (though not as concise because that has happened before) or something similar. The main story here is not that protesters tried to occupy an airport where helicopters were deployed to fire tear gas at them; the story is the army shot dozens of civilians. There is no question if this was justifiable; the shootings were not only morally reprehensible, but were also illegal under Peruvian law as specified by The New York Times. So, it can be understood why neutrality could be an issue in this situation. Regarding the events at the airport, we can add more information if they are properly sourced and I will take a look at the Spanish article myself to see what is applicable.--WMrapids (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the point that it was not a massacre. The context where they happened were directly violent protests, even if they started peacefully. Occupying an airport is far from being peaceful and it should be reported like it was in the Spanish Wikipedia. Here is reduced as a if it was common or something unimportant. Yes, the police also had a violent reaction but the POV in This Just blames the Army. In that case at least add the infobox of civil conflict since it reports the organizations that promoted the protests and the PNP, and the number of soldiers harmed, which, again, is ignored in the version 2800:4B0:441E:5FA:C51:750D:A4E2:1BEE (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the Spanish article, the English article is much better. The Spanish article has no information about the investigations, the introduction does not mention anything about the use of force or any deaths, if anything, there are more neutrality issues with the Spanish article. The Spanish article oddly mentions a method of transporting protesters by vans, though this is only mentioned in a source in a quote that is mentioning a rumor. Also, no mention in the Spanish article that the protesters did not have firearms. Anyways, whatever was useful in the Spanish article has been placed.--WMrapids (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not surprising that some of the Spanish sources, if they're politically aligned with those who took power in Peru, would report on the official version of events and not seriously question its veracity. Such sources are not RS for this article, although they might be for other purposes. In contrast, The New York Times, as far as I'm aware, has no political alignment with either side in the dispute and is an independent reliable source.

There's a long history of horrendous human rights abuses by the Peruvian military, especially during the long counter-insurgency of the 1980s and 1990s and especially in Quechua-speaking regions like Ayacucho. The Ayacucho massacre is consistent with this history. NightHeron (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not just this article that has a "biased" point of view, the issue is that ALL or most of the articles dedicated to the subject do. To give an example, one of the users mentioned by Alejandro created an article titled "Fujimorist propaganda, which was labeled after a few days as violating various policies and guidelines. And if you don't, by reading all these articles in a row, you are creating a pro-insurgency and anti-government narrative (and I'm not a supporter of Boluarte, but clearly this stopped being peaceful protests a long time ago). Another example I could give is the article on Peruvian protests in 2022-2023, which until I added the IACHR source did not contain any mention of the violence of the protesters. Just compare that with what the Political Crisis in Bolivia article says, which in my opinion is one of the least biased that Wikipedia has and the difference in dates is not very long.

Also, another thing that I have noticed is that they try to link everything to Fujimorismo, which in the Peruvian context is exactly the same as linking anyone to Sendero Luminoso or MOVADEF; it is a political accusation. Since Fujimori fell, this political sector has always been marginal and they have never had a majority in Congress at any time (that is another insinuation in which the current articles lie), they have always had the judiciary against them. And at the population level it has had the same rejection as the left. If you want, soon we will talk more specifically about that. In other words, to say that power and the establishment are Fujimoristas is to understand nothing of the history of Peru (or to be too involved in left-wing propaganda).

This would be in summary what I would comment on the matter. And just compare this with for example the articles dedicated to Venezuela. It's not just a problem with this particular item. Armando AZ (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Armando AZ: Bold statement with assuming the motives and methods of people protesting (and of Wikipedia users). Also, thank you for the false equivalence with this: "they try to link everything to Fujimorismo, which in the Peruvian context is exactly the same as linking anyone to Sendero Luminoso or MOVADEF; it is a political accusation". If you were to look at the sources (or even the Constitution of Peru), you could see that the current economic and political systems of Peru were developed during the Fujimori government. Another statement you make: "Since Fujimori fell, this political sector has always been marginal and they have never had a majority in Congress at any time (that is another insinuation in which the current articles lie)"; the Associated Press states "Fuerza Popular (Fujimorists) captured a majority in congress. ... its legislators have earned a reputation as hardline obstructionists for blocking initiatives popular with Peruvians aimed at curbing the nation’s rampant corruption". So, should we believe you or the Associated Press?--WMrapids (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't believe me, believe the elections. Fuerza Popular only got 13% of the votes in the first round Armando AZ (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are very clever in ignoring the matter of judicial persecution against Alberto Fujimori, or the conclusions reached by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Here I leave the source of the first thing: https://elcomercio.pe/elecciones-2020/alberto-fujimori-las-cinco-sentencias-que-el-expresidente-recibio-noticia/

The implications that you are giving make no sense with the recent history of Peru. Only recently has broad sectors of society opposed Pedro Castillo, and Congress has always opposed all presidents, count PPK or Martín Vizcarra for example. Armando AZ (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Wanted to let you know that the user(s) pushing this have been banned due to using socks and pushing POV WP:Fringe info.--WMrapids (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the heads-up. Generalrelative (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Also, the other user POV-pushing in this article was indefinitely blocked due to WP:NOTHERE. So both users who were mainly involved in this discussion have now been blocked. WMrapids (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I was sorry to see that you were harassed. Generalrelative (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern, I appreciate it. Just have to trust the process… :) WMrapids (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)