Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

American Legion

American Legion has some POV problems. I have tried to fix many of them, but I do not live in the USA so it would be nice if someone who does can take a look at it.

Polygnotus (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Bump. Polygnotus (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it NPOV or UNDUE to include basic details about the ownership of Reform UK in the main articles including those of MPs?

User:Czello and I are having a very collegial discussion about their edits here[1] where I added details about the ownership of the party, including the its share holders and also added "Reform UK is a limited company (Reform UK Party Limited) controlled by Nigel Farage." to the lead. This is a unique situation in the UK and little known I believe, and I think it is relevant and important for the sake of transparency. It's an uncontested fact, stated on their web pages and by Farage himself as well as reliable sources. I've told Czello I'm posting here and would like other opinions. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, on their page, but we did not need it on every page. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems entirely undue in bios of the MPs. Do WP:RS even mention this when discussing them? We don't discuss the complex relationship between the Labour Party and Trade unions in articles on their MPs, or the equally-convoluted relationship between local Conservative Associations and the broader party in tory MP bios. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That's entirely different. Those relationships don't involve legal ownership. I don't understand how they can be compared. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This feels like coat racking unless that ownership issue is specifically discussed in context of the MP biography. — Masem (t) 16:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

On main page, sure, not on the others unless RS are explicitly linking them to the fact for some reason. Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Presumably it's ok on the BLPs of the shareholders? Doug Weller talk 16:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, as its still not about Reform. After all (other stuff alert) I am unsure this is a common practice to list a person's share holdings. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Nigel Farage's page lists share holdings (other than these). Doug Weller talk 17:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And I can't understand why an article about an officer of the party shouldn't mention that they also own shares in it. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

So not then, its not usual. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to mention this in the articles about the party and about Farage himself as we do have RS describing the "unusual arrangement." I don't think it should be mentioned in the articles about other members of the party, unless RS overwhelmingly do so. Alaexis_¿question? 17:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I am in opposition to mentioning it for the reasons I laid out here, but to summarise:

• It is, ultimately, WP:UNDUE. McMurdock is one of their MPs, but is not a shareholder or otherwise seemingly involved in the mechanics of how the party runs.
• Talking about the technicalities of how the party runs, no matter how different to regular parties, it outside of the scope of his article. If anyone wants to learn how it works, they can visit the Reform UK article page.
• Fundamentally, the article is about McMurdock – not the stocks and shares of his party.
• We do not mention the internal mechanics of other political parties on their respective MPs' pages.
• The sources do not mention McMurdock at all, which indicates that how the party runs is not notable in relation to McMurdock himself. (As a general rule of thumb, if a source doesn't mention the subject then it's probably there to support something that shouldn't be there.)
• I am, however, in favour of mentioning such a system on the Reform UK page and on the pages of Farage and Tice (each of whom own shares in Reform), as these seem more relevant.

Also worth mentioning DeFacto is also in opposition (pinging per WP:APPNOTE), although this user is currently under a short block. — Czello ^(music) 18:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

In the article for the party and maybe to a smaller extent in the article for Farage himself, but I don't think it's necessary not repeat it in every MP's article. That is unless secondary sources make note of it in relation to the specific subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

So besides Farage, the only other shareholder with an article is Richard Tice who is mentioned in several sources. Thanks guys. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

From the sources I've seen I'd think Farage and Tice would be fine because of their roles in the party, their shareholdings and the unusual relationship. I'd probably steer away from other MPs though unless there was something more in RS. I'd think the party's article should be fine too, again given the unusual set-up and that it is well covered in RS. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur that we should include this in the articles about the party and about Farage himself and Tice and any other co-owners. But I don't think it should be mentioned in the articles about other members of the party, unless RS overwhelmingly do so. The arrangement is extraordinary and goes a long way to explain Farage and Tice's effective, total control of the party.Pincrete (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

The article is subject to an ongoing edit war which I am involved in, but not the primary instigator. The current point of contention is the first sentence, for which I've submitted an RfC. It's my understanding that there are some differences between the meaning of Srebrenica massacre / Srebrenica genocide and between proposed terms in the opening sentence to qualify it as any of massacre, genocidal massacre, and/or genocidal killings. There are implications to the edit war which violates NPOV by way of introducing terms which exclude the totality of what is meant by these terms and appear to objectively lessen the totality of crimes denoted by the terms. In particular, the opposite party has for multiple days now been submitting a revert which would exclude rape and deportation. I previously notified an administrator who is aware of the edit warring but may not of their own volition have time to address it. 122141510 (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510 has now left the project, but any opinions about the defining sentence would be welcome. Pincrete (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Do sources mention rape and deportation as a part of mens rea and is it true that you have tried to exclude those from the article text? Trimpops2 (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the place for detailed discussion of the topic, but crudely yes (sources cover rape and deportation), not AFAIK (as a part of mens rea), no I've certainly never tried to exclude the 'additional horrors' from the article. Pincrete (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Doping in China

Raised at ANI. Looks like there is a NPOV problem at Doping in China. Some eyes on this would be good. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Will second this, I think we need more eyes on the article and it's talk page. A lot of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TAGTEAM. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I support more eyes on this too. You are also directly involved in the dispute, Allan Nonymous, (not an unrelated third-party) and have not yet responded to concerns and proposals raised by me and MingScribe1368 on the Talk page. As the two of us are willing to compromise, I suggest you do so as well to settle the dispute. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about material at Sigma Nu

More participation at Talk:Sigma Nu#Inclusion of Mateer would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ll have a look. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Positions on reproductive rights

I have encountered a user who is repeatedly changing "anti-abortion" to "pro-life" in a biographical article. I feel sure that this terminology must have been discussed somewhere but cannot find a specific guideline. Does one exist, or does some past discussion exist? Whasha (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

See [2]. NightHeron (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There generally is consensus on Wikipedia to use the terms "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" and avoid the "pro-*" terms. NicolausPrime (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's some more discussions: [3] [4]. NicolausPrime (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Considering that I am this editor and I was NOT notified of this discussion, may I ask what the penalty is for not obeying the bold, bright red text at the top of this article? Because editor Whasha has done so. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Whasha: as noted at the top of this page, you are required to notify any editor who is subject of discussion here. I have notified TanRabbitry for you, even though they are already aware of the discussion. No further action is required at this time but remember to notify users of discussions you start about them on this and similar noticeboards in the future. Polyamorph (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I would also add that it is this editor who has been changing the article from its status quo, not the other way around, as well as engaging in personal attacks. TanRabbitry (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Bloating and neutrality, largely in Scottish articles

This comes from a discussion at WikiProject Scotland, initially about Bloating in Gaels articles, which are, variously, cluttered with excessive examples and detail, lengthy quotes, excessive background material and diversions into peripheral and off-topic material. They feature superfluous interludes of praise or contempt for individuals, institutions and sources, and excessive material about their bona fides or nefarious activities, relationship to other notable figures, often in matters not connected with the article subject.

It became apparent that this may have a significant neutrality aspect, with the bloat an effort to build some sort of a case about the subject, packing in as much evidence as available. Dòmhnall Ruadh Chorùna, Iain Lom, Catholic Church in Scotland, Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair, Morar, Loch Morar, Eigg and Whiggism have been noted in the discussion but perhaps an example to highlight is Alexander Cameron (priest) as this is being edited heavily at present.

Even at the point of creation from draft the article was tagged with Comment: Also not written in a neutral, encyclopaediac tone. Please add sources and fix the tone. The article has expanded greatly in the intervening years but in the same vein.

The initial draft was by User:KSC-C1 who displays stylistic similarities with the editor currently acive, User:K1ngstowngalway1, who has been promoting contested material from KSC's draft, about the Knights of Saint Columba (the source of the user name, KSC?). (User:Kingstowngalway seems to be another earlier identity FWIW.) There has been minimal engagement on talk pages by the editor (one post at the Project thread, one at the Cameron article) and re-insertion of material without consensus gained. Edit summaries are rare. Self-published and primary sources are a feature, as is editorialising.

What is a detached impression of the Cameron article, in terms of neutrality? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A couple of fresh illustrations. This material (mentioned above) has been contested and removed, pending consensus, at the subject’s article, with no engagement at talk by the editor. Despite this, it has just been dropped in to a related article. Part of a trend of the editor copying the same lengthy passages of background/case-supporting material into multiple articles. Also, this WP:SYNTHesised essay, regarding the active absence of the subject from popular culture, none of the sources even mentioning them, as far as I can tell. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is, after all, a collaborative project and some editors have different styles of how to process and organize facts and how to write articles than others do. That being said, some editors also have areas of special interest that they care passionately about, in the case of this editor Celtic studies and the revival of threatened heritage languages. Sometimes, such revivals may be aided by carefully researching the literary canon in those languages and spreading awareness of a threatened language's most iconic poets and writers. The facts at hand regarding figures like Alexander Cameron are particularly important due to those seeking to tell his story and promote his canonization. In that event he will belong to all Catholics worldwide, rather than the mere 13% of the population that identifies as Catholic in Scotland. The facts regarding such individuals are important and do at times affect all of our emotions, although we all try to keep them in check to the best of our ability and write in as detached a manner as humanly possible. Historical context is equally important and can lead to subjects a certain other editor prefers to treat as irrelevant and tear articles in progress to shreds rather than allow. The writer of this post has often found that at times the facts he puts on this site, however well researched in reputable sources or objectively presented they may be, have been objected to and been the cause of attacks like this one by other editors who do not like the effects that those facts are having on public discourse. In this particular case, the editor raising these concerns is very resistant to facts, however reputable their sources may be, regarding the history and past religious persecution of both Catholics and Episcopalians in Scotland or of behavior that would be grounds for court martial proceedings in the modern British armed forces. Facts about Scottish Gaelic literature that might lead to greater interest in learning the language worldwide also seem to threaten the feelings of the editor raising these concerns. The writer's efforts to engage with him in the past have proven fruitless, as the writer's words are taken out of context and weaponized. When dealing with such a person, the only winning move is not to play that game. This writer is okay with other editors adding new information or removing and replacing parts of articles to correct errors this writer may have made, but not with gutting articles completely. Censorship, intimidation, and cancel culture are what the editor raising these concerns seeks. Rules exist only for others and not for the editor raising these concerns. Let the other editor do their own research and cease to trouble those who can prove what they say.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"The facts at hand regarding figures like Alexander Cameron are particularly important due to those seeking to tell his story and promote his canonization. In that event he will belong to all Catholics worldwide, rather than the mere 13% of the population that identifies as Catholic in Scotland."

"weaponized" Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Meaning those from the Knights of St Columba at the University of Glasgow who are Mass producing holy cards and urging prayers for his canonization as a Saint and a Martyr. A certain editor keeps preventing this from being even mentioned in the article, no matter how reputable the source.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It shines a light on the way the entire article is written. These subjects "belong to" everyone, not those who you perceive to have a special interest. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

For someone who feels these subjects as belonging to everyone, you sure have a funny way of showing it. You gut them and them cut them well beyond the bare bones, which is NOT the behavior of someone who cares about these subjects. It's the behavior of someone who seeks censorship and control of facts. The fact is that anti-Catholic period sources, such as reports from the local Church of Scotland synods, are used for the article. So are John S. Gibson's descriptions of Captain John Fergussone, alias the "Black Captain of the Forty-Five", as in other ways a very brave and effective naval warfare commander and his pivotal role in the British victory at the Siege of Louisbourg, which similarly add to his complexity. Antagonists with complexity are always far more fascinating, both in fiction and in nonfiction, that one-dimensional, cartoon villains. In fact, Flora MacDonald's account in The Lyon in Mourning of meeting Captain Fergussone for the first time make him seem at first, for all the cruelty, arsons, floggings, lootings, etc., that Bishop Robert Forbes and other historians lay at Fergussone's door, to actually be very normal. And this comes from an oral history collection wherein every allegations was carefully checked and annotated between multiple interviewees, and that you repeatedly have dismissed as mere "Jacobite atrocity propaganda" deleted information coming from it. And as I have slowly acquired additional reputable history books relating to the individuals and to the period, you still fight tooth and nail. You really need to take the advice of William Shatner and get a life.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There was, to my memory, a solitary reference to "Jacobite atrocity propaganda" and not by me but by User:Buidhe. Your reliance on primary material is a major concern but at least as much of the material in dispute is down to its off-topic nature. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if it's published in an oral history collection, I don't think it's encyclopedic to cite various letters and statements from involved parties, especially when, from the tone, the main purpose is to make Jacobite enemies look bad. A related problem is that the editor was coatracking Hanoverian atrocities into tangential articles where they were not verifiably relevant. (t · c) buidhe 01:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I use both primary and scholarly sources while I am editing articles, even though waiting for the necessary books to be delivered to me tends to delay things much longer than I would often like. What you describe as off topic I consider 1. Setting events in their proper historical context for those who may not understand and aiding them with article links. 2. Trying to get to the bottom of what really happened and why, similarly to solving a puzzle. 3. Building an ark for other researchers who may wish to continue digging.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Bishop Robert Forbes also reports countless cases of Hanoverian officers and enlisted men behaving in an antithetical manner to Captain John Fergussone and refusing to follow what would now be termed criminal orders. His research remained unpublished until long after his death, so in my opinion, he was simply seeking the truth with the intention of aiding in future criminal prosecution of those responsible for committing alleged war crimes during the aftermath of the Rising. It never turned out that way, as the regime change that Forbes expected and longed for never took place. He is, however, considered a reputable source by serious academic historians of the Rising, hence John S. Gibson's expressions of regret that Forbes' papers only resurfaced after the death of Sir Walter Scott.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If you cite Forbes' own conclusions I would think that is a better source (although really we should be focusing on scholarly sources from the 20th century or later). The reason why I am critical of reliance on primary sources for history topics is because a historian will go through the primary accounts, cross-check them, and determine what is most likely to be accurate based on a wide range of factors. Wikipedians shouldn't be trying to do that work ourselves because we are not qualified and it is likely to shade into WP:original research. (t · c) buidhe 02:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

With this discussion ongoing and still no engagement at the article discussion you persist to war contested material back! This time to the already turgid lead section, along with note of the existence of a self-published source. You really think this is crucial, the guideline being to contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right venue for this. ANI? DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ive done so here, regarding this last aspect but it occurs to me you may have meant the whole campaign. Could you clarify? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It seems to me you (and Buidhe) are raising what are actually behavioural issues across a number of articles, covering WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:ADVOCACY/POV-pushing and issues around mishandling of sources. I haven't looked in detail into whether what you are saying is justified or not - just that seems to be what you're raising. Is it not? DeCausa (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

So well put I've quoted the above in the repurposing of the report, with your disclaimer regarding no view as to the justification. Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

On reflection though, I think both the behavioural issues and the neutrality issues require resolution. If the former ceased now, we still have numerous imbalanced and impaired articles. I've not been involved in putting forward articles for assessment but have been under the impression this is usually done to formalise improvements. Is it also a suitable way of noting the poor or declining quality of articles? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Gabor and Ataturk

This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It has never been resolved.

Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 autobiography Zsa Zsa Gabor: My Story. This alleged liaison has been in the public discourse ever since. Some additional references:

• "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
• Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
• Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
• Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
• Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
• Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.

A couple of editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. Removing this information violates WP:NOTCENSORED. I have restored it for the time being, but it's bound to get deleted again unless more editors enforce having the content retained. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been two days and still no feedback. As expected, my additions to Ataturk and Gabor's respective pages were reverted. This violates WP:NOTCENSORED, does it not? The reverting editors have argued against including the information because it is a claim not a fact. We're talking about a relationship from the early-to mid-'30s, long before tabloids and social media existed. Ataturk has been dead since 1938. So of course there aren't going to be receipts. Gabor's account is the only thing to go by, and many publications have long accepted it. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It has now been 17 days and still none of you have joined the discussion. Please give input so this debate doesn't go dormant yet again. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Letby: wrongfully convicted?

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Lucy Letby#Grossly WP:UNDUE: Doubts about conviction section that would benefit from more input from uninvolved editors. Some1 (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Belarus' (current?) participation in the war in Ukraine

There is a discussion on whether or not to include Belarus in the infobox in Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please do check it out if you're interested. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Kris Kristofferson

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Kris Kristofferson#Lyme disease - revisited on whether or not we should include the subject's lyme disease diagnosis, as well as the wording, NPOV and due weight regarding said diagnosis. Please participate if you're interested. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Melki Sedek Huang

Was it sexual assault? A government conspiracy? Should we describe people as a sexual assaulter in the lead? Opinions vary. In any case, this article needs to be rewritten by someone who speaks the Indonesian language(s). Polygnotus (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Existential risk studies

I need some editor to review if there is a NPOV issue in Existential risk studies, the mark has been added after an exhaustive discussion but I dont think the contesting editors have succeed in providing any reliable source contradicting the current representation or indicating any single sentence that goes against sources and would need reformulation. Thanks. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In my view, no, there is no significant NPOV issue in the article. There is a Debate section (which could be renamed to Criticism) that focuses on cricizing the concept, and the article is in substantial part based on a source that is independent and critical to it: Beard and Torres 2020. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Chris Oyakhilome

Faith healer, prosperity preacher, conspiracy theorist and weirdo. Polygnotus (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Chinese State Media

Forgive me if this is covered elsewhere, I could not find a discussion.

User:Aquillion proposes "If a source is generally unreliable then it usually isn't reliable for establishing WP:WEIGHT, either, which makes it very difficult to use for anything nontrivial without a secondary source." This is from Global Times as primary source for editorial comment on WSJ controversy

However this seems be assuming Chinese State media operate like Western media with some room for editorial independence, and so their editorial stance does not mirror the state. As covered in Party media takes the party's last name, China's media does not operate that way: "All the work by the party's media must reflect the party's will, safeguard the party's authority, and safeguard the party's unity, They must love the party, protect the party, and closely align themselves with the party leadership in thought, politics and action."

The alignment of State Media to the party view is why journalists covering china cite Global Times, and why I have used their articles as secondary sources. I feel it would be better if Global Times were to be cited as the primary source for its opinions, despite the publications depreciation and unreliability for factual claims.

More generally: as China's state media speaks for the state, can it be assumed that there is no WP:WEIGHT on sources like Global Times if the Chinese state view is important? Is there a wikipedia policy that guides the use and interpretation of media sources in different regions of the world to reflect their different environments?

14.201.39.78 (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Consider the amount of stuff that is published by the Chinese state media. Yes, of course they ultimately take marching orders from the government, but the directness with which any individual thing they say reflects a specific instruction from the government varies; and the extent to which something reflects a major position taken by the Chinese government vs. some middle-manager or a rando editor of no real significance shrugging and going "I guess saying this is what will put the government in the best light" also varies. Not everything comes from the top. My objection is that highlighting something carries the implication that it's important in a way that it might not actually be. If people are allowed to take every random quote from anywhere in the massive amount of material published by the Chinese state media and implicitly present it as the Chinese state position, we're effectively allowing editors to weave their own narratives about what the Chinese state position is, because they can pick and choose what they're highlighting. They may not even realize they're doing this; to them, they found some key thing that nobody else noticed and are now spreading the news. But that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work - if some quote is truly a revealing key aspect that sheds light on the overarching direction of the Chinese government, some secondary source will have discussed it in that way. Of course WP:WEIGHT is more complex and situational than even WP:RS, so I'm not saying it could never be used, just that it's important to be careful to avoid a situation where we have editors basically creating new takes, stories and narratives and inserting them into articles by choosing what they highlight from the vast amount of primary material available on a topic. --Aquillion (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Aquillion. I think you are saying that depricated State Media is sometimes citable on Wikipedia. Editors should not have the discretion to choose, but should look to existing use by trusted secondary sources. Having a secondary source use the citation and describe the citation as being the view of State Media will indicate WP:WEIGHT to other Wikipedia editors. Depricated state media opinions are not citable in general though.

If that's correct, then you have convinced me.

What I struggle with is the use of a single citation to meet both the user and editor expectations. Users are expecting a citation to show the quote in its original form so they can verify it and understand context, as per the discussion in WP:WHYCITE . They're not expecting to see the quote in a secondary source, which is what editors may want to establish for WP:WEIGHT. 14.201.39.78 (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest to those here

There is a discussion here about moving Politicization of Middle Eastern food to Israeli appropriation of Arab cuisine. Valereee (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

POV-pushing by User:Hystricidae21

Hystricidae21 has been adding essay-like content promoting a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist POV to various articles. I have reverted a few of his additions, but he's been at it for a whole year and, while some of it was immediately reverted, much of it went unnoticed. For example, Compulsory cartel contained several paragraphs claiming (in Wikivoice) that public healthcare was "economic totalitarianism" for the better part of a year. I have warned him on his talk page that this is completely unacceptable and asked him to familiarize himself with WP:NPOV.

Due to the extent of his activities, I don't know if I am qualified to handle this by myself. Should I just revert everything to the latest version before he made any edits? Some of his changes may be good, but there's so much to go through, and what about later changes by other people? Un assiolo (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

take it to wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV-pushing by User:Hystricidae21 --Un assiolo (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Herrenvolk democracy

There is currently a discussion concerning whether or not it is appropriate to display the flag of Israel on this article. Experienced editors are invited to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Jim Long

Jim Long hagiographic trash. Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) & Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)

There is a problem of neutrality in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis).

See: Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024

Since both Samasthas of AP (Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) and EK Sunnis (Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) have the same name, founder and the same history until the split in 1989, both should be presented equally, in their respective articles.

For that I humbly request you to undo this edit. Moreover both Samasthas should be named exactly the same except two letters of "AP" and "EK". What should I do to do that because there is already a request to rename (Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024)? In addition, my request to rename and move them to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) has been removed. If you would like to know more or have any doubt, let me know. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have informed Spworld2 about this discussion. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources that say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was not founded in 1989

The following sources say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration, which means Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was not founded in 1989 when the split happened.

• The Hindu says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centenary. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• onmanorama.com says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• The New Indian Express says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• The website of MediaOne says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• The Times of India says about the inauguration of 99th foundation day of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• Manorama News says about beginning of the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• PressReader says about Kanthapuram claiming to be the original one, and about justifying with the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• Mathrubhumi says about the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• Madhyamam says about the promulgation of the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• malabarnews.com says about the promulgation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• ETV Bharat says about the declaration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus ETV Bharat like several others have accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) to celebrate the centennial.
• Kasargod Vartha says about the promulgation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.

So articles on respective Samasthas should be treated equally in terms of the time of formation, the founder, and the rest of things until the split in 1989, everywhere including in the infobox. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:

• Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (Samastha) was formed in 1926[5] [[6][7][8].

• In 1986, under the leadership of Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar some ideological differences A new organization was formed by Separated from the Old Samastha [9]

• The Old Samastha remained the same. Those who Separated from the Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (old Samastha) call it EK Samastha

• But in Kerala, the Old Samastha established in 1926 is known as Samasta. In 1986, the Old Samastha Separated from and the new organization came to be known as A.P Samastha (Samastha (AP Faction)), other name like: Kanthapuram faction'

• Editor @ Neutralhappy, the information in Old Samastha is written in A.P Samastha (Samastha (AP Faction)) and the year it was formed, this is wrong writing, for which news links are used without many source.

This editor (@ Neutralhappy) gives importance to this page only, (Samastha (AP Faction)) writes the entire page as advertisement WP:PROMOTION, and people write their own for the editor (@ Neutralhappy) (WP:CONFLICT). seems like ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources that say about the split of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama in 1989

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama, founded in 1926 was, according to several sources (1—The New Indian Express, 2—The Hindu, 3—Scroll.in, 4—onmanorama.com, 5—News18, 6—Deccan Chronicle, 7—Dool News [Wikipedia page], 8— Southlive, 9—Samakalika Malayalam [Wikipedia page]), split in 1989 into two organisations exactly with the same name the organisation had before the split. Looking at the term split linguistically, it means all the new ones formed after the split have a shared history, thus a common time of formation. Thus both Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) are to be treated in Wikipedia equally in terms of their name, their time of formation, the founder and the rest of the matter pior to the split.

Two Samasthas of EK and EK faction Sunnis claim theirs is the real Samastha. That means both do not agree the other one is real. There is a source which says the AP faction claims theirs is the real Samastha. Perod Abdurahman Saqafi, secretary of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), says in a Malayalam YouTube video that the Samastha in the registrar office is that of the AP faction. Note that according to the AP faction, Samastha was not split but reorganised in 1989. Neutralhappy (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

We can see the English Wikipedia page for Samakalika Malayalam Varika here. Neutralhappy (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Spworld2 clearly appears to have WP:CONFLICT since Spworld2 is presenting the view of EK Sunnis in wikivoice. That too without considering neutrality and due weight. Both Samasthas claim the real Samastha. But Spworld2 is presenting the view of EK Samastha only in Wikivoice. Spworld2 also seems to have high level of hatred towards AP Sunnis. Spworld2 has added content in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) that is not present in the source Spworld2 cited for. Spworld2 appears to be ready get blocked or banned because of his WP:CONFLICT for an indefinite period. Even the source Spworld2 cited in the above comment/reply does not say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was founded in 1989. Spworld2 also added the year 1989 as the year of formation in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) adding a source that does not say about the formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) but the split of Samastha in 1989. I have no official membership of any organisation. I do not even have closeness to any local leaders of any organisation. I have no close connection to the topic I am editing. I am not editing any part of Wikipedia because I am asked to, or I am offered to be paid for. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not a Sunni, but I know Sunni Islam. I don't support religions, But learning about religions,

I am not interested in any organization. You write about an organization first without copying from other organizations. AP Samastha was formed in 1986 No matter how many people claim that sea water is sweet, sea water is actually salty

Sponsored links, no matter how many links are not sourced AP Samastha ( Samastha (AP Faction) ) was founded in 1986 by Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar Spworld2 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we cannot add unsourced content. You have added unsourced content. You keep saying AP Samastha formed in 1989 without citing a source. The sources that you cited do not support your claim. You clearly have WP:CONFLICT. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Only people associated with EK Samastha claim EK Samastha is the real one. The same thing is seen in Spworld2. I have seen Mujahids say "Chelari Samastha" and Jamate-Islami says "Samastha (Kanthapuram faction)". Thus it seems non-Sunni Muslims in Kerala have accepted the right of both Samasthas to claim the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1989. Because of this edit by Spworld2, we can understand Spworld2 really belongs to those associated with EK Samastha or those who are paid to edit. Spworld2 also has created a page for the promotion of 100th anniversary of EK Samastha. Moreover, Spworld2, nominated the article on AP Samastha for deletion because of Soworld2's WP:CONFLICT of interest. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I note this wording "... the Samasta , had to face two splits in its history . The first split , that occurred in 1967 , did not do much harm to the Organization . But the split in 1989 divided the Samasta vertically into two , and placed it into a quandary . [...] For the 1989 split , A.P. Aboobacker Musaliar , an eloquent orator , organizer , shrewed leader , generally known as Kantapuram , gave the leadership . It is said that the split was purely on petty personal interest .3 The sudden growth of S.S.Y.S. , under the stewardship of Kantapuram frightened the parent body . Every attempt to bring the youth body under the control of the Samasta failed . Without the consent of the parent or- ganization , S.S.Y.S. held a mammoth Conference at Ernakulam in 1989 and this ultimately led to the ousting of those who cooperated with the controversial conference . In retaliation , those who were ousted formed a body with the same name and elected a President for their group which completed the split . Subsequently they founded theirown Ulama organisation and various sub organisations to streamline their activities. The aftermath of the split was that it triggered a series of violent clashes and civil and criminal litigation over the control of the religious proper- ties and institutions all over Malabar.33 For the new group the split was an ideological one . They stated that the split was nothing but the last device in their fight against the lenient attitude taken by the official wing of the Samasta towards the anti - Sunni organizations forgetting their responsibility of safeguarding the Sunnah.34 Whatever be the reasons for the split , the consequences of this ramifications and the damage it caused to the Muslim social fabric are deeper and wider than it seems outwardly." (Islam in Kerala: Groups and Movements in the 20th Century (pp. 141-142)). The choice here would be to either split the articles in three, with one article covering the history up to 1989 and in the two other recognize that both factions consider 1926 as the founding date. Or considering the AP Samastha as the splinter group (which this book seems to back) but acknowledge that the AP Samastha considers itself as the legit inheritor of the original Samastha. --Soman (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable comment by Soman.

As for the so-called split in 1967, this source says about the "resignation" and thus not a split according to this Malayalam Wikipedia article, while this source says clearly about walking out and the formation of a new organisation, which in turn means not a split in 1967 according to this The New Indian Express source. Note that the name of the author of the news article is not given; thus non-experts also could be the author having bias while also having less competency because of not conducting interviews of leaders of both Samasthas (who have the most authoritative knowledge about the incidents) or witnesses. M. Abdul Salam is not apparently a witness to the incidents. If M. Abdul Salam says the AP faction formed parallel ("their own") organisations, it is misleading because both the AP and EK factions apparently claim the legacy of the SYS formed before the Samastha's split of 1989, (claims by EK faction: 1; claims by AP faction: 1, 2), the organisation for the youth. Besides, SKSSF of the EK faction was founded, after the Samastha's split in 1989; while its AP faction counterpart, SSF, had been formed, well before the same split. SSF and SKSSF are for students. It is especially noteworthy since both these two types of organisations (for the youth and students) are apparently the most visible ones of both Samasthas, because some jubilees or anniversaries of these organisations—SYS (AP faction) [1], SYS (EK faction), SSF [1] and SKSSF [1]—are conducted. However, there could be any organisation, such as Samastha Kerala Sunni Vidhyabhyasa Board, formed by the AP faction directly as a result of the 1989 Samastha split. Hence what the author can only do legitimately is to present different opinions, which could be done by relying on witnesses. Furthermore, the M. Abdul Salam's book seems to be too old (published in 1998), probably at a time when there was much more hatred and conflict between the AP and EK factions so that the EK faction would likely say the EK faction ousted the AP faction leaders from Samastha besides other things. In addition, it seems the author wrote the book based on EK faction's claims. In my opinion, the book is not reliable due to lack of neutrality, maybe because it is not (if it is so) presenting the views of witnesses from both sides.

A source of The Hindu does not say Kerala Samasthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama is a Samastha. In addition, another source of The Hindu says about only two organisations known as Samastha:

A group of Sunni leaders led by Aboobacker Musliar had broken away from the Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama following organisational disagreement in 1989 and given shape to a Samastha of their own. Since then, the State has had two Samasthas known after their leaders.

That means only two organisations are known as "Samastha". Above all, Najeeb Moulavi, a prominent leader of Kerala Samasthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama, in this this Malayalam YouTube video at the 38:00 mark, says the president of Samastha left Samastha and Kerala Samsthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama was founded.

As a side note, this The New Indian Express source says:

He (Kanthapuram) said had they gone after the controversies over the Samastha in the last several years, the community would not have made any advancements in education.

That means the AP faction is not as strong as the EK faction in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. The EK faction is so assertive in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 that they conducted the centenary declaration conference in Bengaluru, which is outside Kerala, while the EK Samastha's name includes "Kerala" and the full name as per the EK Samastha's website means "All Kerala Ulama Organisation"; after the promulgation conference by the AP faction in Kasaragod. This difference in the attitude of the AP faction and the EK faction would make writers on the subject more biased towards EK faction's claims, since the writers become more exposed to the claims of the EK faction. The EK faction now says AP faction leaders left the Samastha, rather than saying the Samastha ousted the AP faction leaders.

As for the matter of the ousting, it is worth reading what this The New Indian Express report says:

... Thangal (Jifri Muthukoya Thangal) said those are the people who left the organisation and started parallel activities.

According to the AP faction, both the claims that the AP faction leaders were ousted and that the AP faction leaders left Samastha are false (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha); instead, the AP faction says 11 people, (including later leaders of the Samastha led by Kanthapuram), walked out of a Samastha meeting, not Samastha, disagreeing to give consent to a demand seeking to give E. K. Aboobacker Musliyar the unchecked authority in advance to alter the minutes in whatever way. Later, according to the AP faction, (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha), the Samastha was reorganised, not split; and still, according to the AP faction, (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha), the Samastha in the registrar office is that of the AP faction.

Remedy

In conclusion, I recommend both Samasthas be treated equally in terms of the name, the founder, and the rest of things until the split in 1989; everywhere, including in the infobox. This is to keep neutrality, and to relieve both Samasthas of likely embarrassment, in case it turns out that a particular Samastha has been in the government records as the successor of the Samastha founded in 1926, all this while. The best option is to avoid stating, the disputed matter until the split in 1989, without the attribution. Neutralhappy (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Dinosaur! (1985 film)

There is a dispute at Talk:Dinosaur! (1985 film) as to whether commentary about inaccuracies in the film (which do not have a citation) should be in the article. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Operation Hiram

Hey, I'm involved in an edit war over using the term "massacres" in the introductory statement of this article. This military operation included numerous massacres with overwhelmingly civilian casualties and severe crimes convicted by Israeli courts. Historians and sources widely describe it as involving mass killings and massacres. These massacres are cited overwhelmingly in the article (where a massacres section is present) and have been a talk page debate since ten years with the other side not responding.

I think it's important to evoke these points with the current socio-political situation in the article's concerned countries as objectivity and historal accuracy is an important vector for solidarity and peace. 10:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC) GLaTrace (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have just added the Arbpia/CT templates to that article and awareness notices at your talk page.

PerWP:ARBECR, you are only permitted to make edit requests at article talk pages in the topic area. That would exclude this post for example.

Thanks for your attention. Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

There are lenghty and recurring debates about the neutrality of the article on Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. A short discussion once had begun here on the noticeboard. Vells (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of those debates are knee-jerk reactions to the word 'pseudoscientific' and the 'Accuracy and validity' section. Both are very well supported by reliable sources which are accurately summarized. It comes up a lot on the talk page because there is a vocal minority who is unhappy with the mainstream opinion on this. But the existence of that vocal minority does not mean there is a true neutrality issue here. MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie, Of course you're suppose to say so since you're among the fervent suppressors of the opposite opinions. You mentioned of mainstream opinion but ciations from peer-reviewed sources for the oposite opinions were regularly ignored or suppressed or removed. Even APA dictionary doesnot mention anything remotely similar to your comments so I highly doubt that "mainstream opinion" in your comments is the correct choice of words, not to mention a lot of citations from the main article are from media sources which are quite flimpsy, including statements without backing up data. NgHanoi (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The article's sources could, as always, be organized and summarized better, but that wouldn't make this topic any less pseudoscientific. These kinds of conspiratorial assumptions of bad faith sure don't help. If anything, the recent awareness of the replication crisis has encouraged more scrutiny and skepticism from the mainstream. The 'citations from peer-reviewed sources' mentioned on the article's talk page have included Frontiers in Psychology and others which shouldn't be cited at all. There is also a walled-garden issue, as the Myers–Briggs construct is controlled and promoted by the Myers–Briggs Foundation. Grayfell (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have to resort to predatory journals to find notionally peer reviewed sources to cite, then your position is not mainstream. Remsense ‥ 论 06:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

World Professional Association for Transgender Health

I am currently in a dispute with another editor who reverted my addition of critical information about the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). This information was reported by reliable and well-respected sources such as The Economist and The New York Times, both of which are listed as generally reliable at WP:RSP.

Specifically, The Economist details how WPATH leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews they had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University. Additionally, both The Economist and The New York Times report that WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/health/transgender-surgery-biden.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/health/transgender-minors-surgeries.html, https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/27/research-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated). The editor who reverted my edits argues that the information from The Economist and The New York Times is WP:UNDUE and falls under WP:NOTNEWS , despite the fact that these issues have been widely discussed in other mainstream media, as demonstrated in our talk page discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health#Reversion_of_objective_edit).

The current article about WPATH reads more like a corporate page at the moment, rather than a neutral Wikipedia article, as it contains none of the relevant critical information about the organization, even though controversies involving WPATH have been reported by highly reliable sources. I am seeking consensus on the notability of the reporting by these cited news outlets, with the aim of determining whether this information should be included in the article. I would greatly appreciate it if other Wikipedia editors could review this issue and share their opinions. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Which source says that "WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers

The New York Times:

Health officials in the Biden administration pressed an international group of medical experts to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors, according to newly unsealed court documents. Age minimums, officials feared, could fuel growing political opposition to such treatments. Email excerpts from members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health recount how staff for Adm. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services and herself a transgender woman, urged them to drop the proposed limits from the group’s guidelines and apparently succeeded. [10]

The Economist:

Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care. [11] Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The NYT is saying "apparently succeeded", and Economist pieces should be presented with attribution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The NYT piece is already included on the SOC8 article, as it dealt with the SOC recommendations specifically, which is why it belongs there, not on the WPATH article, as I already explained on the article talk page. - An earlier draft would have required several years of transgender identity before an adolescent could begin treatment. After criticism from transgender advocates, this provision was removed in the final release. Despite the criticism, transgender youths wishing to be treated are still required to undergo a "comprehensive diagnostic assessment".[18] from the SOC8 page. Raladic (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM states you probably shouldn't do a whole section straight up called criticism.

It could probably be part of a section called Research activities? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

also, seems like there is a discussion already about it on the Talk Page and that the objected material is included in Standards_of_Care_for_the_Health_of_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse_People#Version_8. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Bluethricecreamman, I certainly don't mind such a title (Research activities). Certainly the criticism header was a bit on the nose, even if it's substantively apt. Although that was not cited as the sole reason for reversion.

This information isn't included in another article. In fact, it concerns WPATH directly as well as its activities. It is not about SOC, but rather how WPATH's activities were influenced by external parties, and how WPATH has interfered with Hopkins University reviews. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sean Waltz O'Connell- you did not properly notify me of this discussion as is highlighted in bold as a mandatory step at the top of this noticeboard. Please remember to do so next time, I just found this discussion by chance.

As for the content in question, I don't think there's much more to expand on as the other users here have already explained in addition to my explanation on the article talk page itself. As it stands, no other reliable media has picked up the allegation of the reverted content other than the Economist who levied it, which makes it first-hand news, so lasting notability has not been proven for an allegation, so it falls under WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't appear WP:DUE, especially not in WP:CRITS form. The New York times piece about an early draft potentially changing age requirements is included on the SOC8 article, as I have already explained, as it was about the SOC specifically, not WPATH. Raladic (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Raladic I notified you about the NPOV page in our talk before I posted here, however you are correct and I'll take care to tag appropriately in future - Thanks for the reminder.

The information from the NYT and The Economist are specifically about WPATH making recommendations under pressure from an official, and that concerns WPATH, not the SOC.

That information is not reflected in any article. The SOC article that you refer to cites another NYT article from 2022, and does not reflect the recent controversy reported by the NYT and the Economist that only came to light a month ago. As for the information about WPATH meddling with the John Hopkins reviews, reported by the Economist, it's been widely covered & discussed in the mainstream media. The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Guardian published op-eds discussing the controversy. While the op-eds cannot be used for statements of facts, they can be used for statements of opinions, and the fact that major news outlets have dedicated so much space to the discussion of the story reported by the Economist clearly illustrates that it garnered nationwide attention.

For example, an op-ed in The Washington Post directly cites the Economist article:

"Last week, The Economist reported that other documents unsealed in the Alabama case suggest something has gone wrong at WPATH itself, which reportedly commissioned evidence reviews from Johns Hopkins University, then tried to meddle with the result. Internal communications suggest that research should be 'thoroughly scrutinized to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense.' Now, assuming this is true, I’m sure WPATH sincerely believed it was doing its best for gender-dysphoric kids. But such meddling makes it harder to find out whether the group is right about that." [12]

Similarly, an op-ed from The New York Times notes:

"The World Professional Association for Transgender Health... blocked publication of a Johns Hopkins systematic review it had commissioned that also found scant evidence in favor of the gender-affirming approach. Recently released emails show that WPATH leaders told researchers that their work should 'not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense.'"

[13]

Another op-ed in The Guardian states:

"Evidence has since emerged suggesting that WPATH actually tried to suppress the systematic reviews that it commissioned from Johns Hopkins University because the results undermined its preferred approach... WPATH was pressured by the Biden administration to remove minimum ages for treatment from its 2022 standards of care." [14]

Furthermore, The New York Sun also covered the story in its report:

"WPATH wielded a heavy hand after it in 2018 commissioned from evidence-based medicine experts at Johns Hopkins University a series of systematic literature reviews... After some of the Hopkins teams’ findings raised concerns among WPATH leadership that they might 'negatively affect the provision of transgender health care,' WPATH compromised the independence of the Hopkins researchers."

[15]

The above pieces show that the information shared by the Economist led to a substantial debate in the media, which firmly illustrates the notability of the topic and importance of its reflection in the article about the WPATH. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any of that supports a statement of fact in wiki-voice. It seems you're main point is that some mention is due in the WPATH article. Would you be amenable to an attributed version? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes I believe an attributed version would be fine. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers What thoughts do you have on the best way to phrase an attributed version to the article, omitting the criticism header and so on? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

1) The new NYT article is still about the same thing, they very article you linked says The draft guidelines, released in late 2021, recommended lowering the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies. - the guidelines it is talking about is the SOC8, so this is the very same topic that is in fact already covered at the SOC8 article. I do not know how to make this any more clear, so please listen.

2)The Hopkins story that is WP:ALLEGED by the Economist was not picked up by any other media. Op-eds are not "substantial debate in the media", they are opinion from individuals, some newspapers just allow those with little (or no) editorial oversight. It gets even more problematic when one of them is cited to a tracked anti-trans hate group (SEGM) as I had already explained. So at best, an attributed sentence of "An article in the Economist alleged influence on a study." or something along those lines. But again, it even that looks questionable to be WP:DUE at this moment in time to even say this under our WP:NOTNEWS policy. So I'd say we should wait to see if any other reliable media actually picks up, as Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, so we are not rushed to add one news piece. Our inclusion criteria on Wikipedia are based on policy, especially scrutinized so in WP:CTOP areas. Raladic (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The latest NYT article reports that SOC was developed under political pressure. That information was not available in 2022, and is not reflected in another article. That surely rebuts the assertion made in your previous message. I have listened very carefully to what you have said, with due regard, but this is not about the SOC, the controversy is about how that SOC was developed by WPATH. It is a different story that made its way to the media only now. The two stories are dissimilar in time line, and in specific scope. The Guardian does not cite SEGM, as I already mentioned in our talk page discussion. It makes no mention of that organization, and only links to a repost of the Economist article at SEGM website, probably because the original Economist article is paywalled.This is the SEGM link [https://segm.org/The-Economist-WPATH-Research-Trans-Medicine-Manipulated] As one can plainly see, it contains nothing but the full repost of the Economist article.

I believe we can report the NYT and the Economist stories with attribution to those news outlets, because those are very reputable and trusted sources known for fact checking and accuracy. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, the NYT story is ABOUT the standards of care, so they belong on the standards of care article, you are free to expand that paragraph there at the SOC article if there is new relevant content, but it already seems sufficiently WP:SUMMARIZEd with what is there, even if that other source is from two years ago. It's inherently about the same core issue. A by-setence of "some of the draft guidelines may have been influenced by political pressure" or something along the lines maybe (which again, would still be fairly small given that they didn't appear to have made it out of the draft after the criticism that is already in the article into the final version of the SOC8).

As for the Economist - Guardian quote stop your WP:OR on "because they are paywalled" - the Guardian links to SEGM in the citation of it - Evidence has since emerged suggesting that WPATH actually tried to suppress the systematic reviews that it commissioned from Johns Hopkins, that means, they cited SEGM, full-stop, anything else is irrelevant and is you own original thought. Note that Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV is strict, especially around criticism that doesn't seem to be widely repeated such as is the care here, other than with the Guardian linking it to an anti-trans hate group, then it makes the inclusion really hard to argue on being DUE at the moment. Please note Wikipedia is not here as a platform to right great wrongs. The fact that the Economist article itself used slur language, in the last paragraph they refer to a trans woman using a slurred term (see Trans_woman#Terminology for more context), is a whole separate question that we haven't even addressed on the motivation of the original article itself. Raladic (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point you are simply repeating your argument that the information from the latest NYT article is covered in another Wikipedia article, when it is clearly not. I do not see any mention of the pressure from the official in the article that you refer to. Also, as a a long time editor you must be well aware that WP:OR does not apply to the talk page discussion, but you keep bringing it up for some reason. Anyone can check the SEGM link and see what it is. It does not contain any information produced by SEGM itself, it is a simple repost. And lastly, there is a consensus to consider the Economist to be a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. It is a well respected source known for fact checking and accuracy. This is not a place to challenge that. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The NYT did not say "WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official", they said WPATH removed minimum age requirements which is something Rachel Levine (who, for the record, has absolutely no power over WPATH) made a recommendation in support of. They say James Cantor (who is as WP:FRINGE as it gets in the field of trans healthcare and not WP:DUE in the slightest) levied the charges of politics driving their decisions, and the president of WPATH denied them.

Moreover, the article actually says the American Academy of Pediatrics warned WPATH it would not endorse the SOC with age minimums because "the [AAP]’s policies did not recommend restrictions based on age for surgeries" (because there is no other field of medicine which sets age limits on surgeries deemed medically necessary). So this is not "Levine forced WPATH to remove age minimums", it's "highly reputable medical organizations and health directors argued such minimums were unscientific and WPATH discussed it internally and agreed".

The Economist is an opinion piece, only covered by other opinion pieces and unreliable sources, neither of which lend any evidence the allegations are due. The fact that they gave SEGM permission to repost it in full is concerning in itself. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The NYT report says:

"Health officials in the Biden administration pressed an international group of medical experts to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors"

The Economist:

"Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care"

We must report the information strictly in accordance with what the sources say. And they discuss pressure from an official. Whether Levine has power over WPATH is not up to us to decide. And the Economist is not an

opinion piece. It is not identified as such by the Economist, and for example an op-ed in the Washington Post says "Last week, The Economist reported", so that firmly indicates in writing that it is an actual report by the Economist. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP: The Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice with no byline, with a few featured commentary pieces by pseudonymous bylines That link is to WP:RSOPINION. WRT the WAPO, "op-ed A cited op-ed B therefore op-ed B is not an op-ed" is not a policy based argument.

That leaves us with the NYT. A source saying "A recommended B do C; B later did C" is not one saying "B did C because of A". Especially because, as I noted, the AAP explicitly warned WPATH about age minimums, the NYT notes it was internally discussed, the president denied it, and the person who says that was a political decision and not a scientific one is WP:FRINGE.

WPATH has an FAQ on the SOC8[16]:

• Minimum ages for providing gender-affirming medical care were removed from the SOC-8 and replaced by strengthened criteria to help codify the framework that enables every TGD adolescent the opportunity to get their appropriate medical needs met at the appropriate time; these changes to the SOC-8 reflect the fact that one-size-fits-all health care models, especially transgender care, are not accurate or appropriate for every individual person.
• Prior to its September 2022 release, WPATH announced a public open comment period to the draft SOC-8 in December 2021 through January 2022. This comment period allowed input and feedback from professionals in the field from around the world who were concerned that the listing of ages would lead to further limitations to care by creating or reinforcing arbitrary boundaries to care and/or by ignoring possible contributing health factors including mental health, family support, or other individual health needs. After comments were reviewed and discussed by chapter authors and co-chairs, it was determined that the specific ages would be removed to ensure greater access to care for more people

WPATH had an open consultation. Levine was one of many who responded. Others responded. WPATH made a choice they agreed with. A WP:FRINGE activist didn't like that and screamed "politics!". WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. We can write somewhere "the SOC 8 dropped age requirements for surgery after a public consultation" - we don't have to put in "James Cantor complained about it" (WP:UNDUE per WP:FRINGE), "Levine encouraged them to do it" (per WP:NOTNEWS, and the fact that the more important thing is "the AAP warned them they'd withdraw support without it"), or "Levine made them do it" (because that's only said in an op-ed), Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP, The Economist publishes articles exclusively in editorial voice, yet is a reliable source nonetheless. As such, The Economist cannot be discounted because of the manner of presentation of its material, as it would mean that we should not use any Economist article, and that would be against the established consensus. If you believe that the Economist articles are not acceptable for use in Wikipedia, you should challenge that at WP:RSP. But I checked the last RFC, and the closing statement clearly discourages any attempts to discount the Economist from use in this topic area, and there is a mention of WP:DUE there as well. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 393#RfC: The Economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#RfC:_The_Economist

As for the NYT, I have already quoted what it writes, please take the time to check. Otherwise, In short, it says that an official pressed WPATH to drop the age limit. The rest is your personal interpretation that we cannot use in the article. We must stick to what the sources write, and 2 highly reliable sources support this information. That makes it WP:DUE. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I will say it again - please listen. You have now been told by multiple experienced editors the specific policy based reasons for why something is DUE or UNDUE on a specific article and yet, you keep going off on unrelated tangents. The policies we cited are irrespective of reliability. The Economist story is undue on the WPATH article per WP:NOTNEWS.

And again, the age limit story from the NYT is ABOUT the SOC8, so it is undue on the WPATH article, so it belongs at the SOC article instead, where it already is and as I already said above - so they belong on the standards of care article, you are free to expand that paragraph there at the SOC article if there is new relevant content - so please stop beating on with the same argument. Raladic (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This just seems like POV pushing, particularly from the followup responses. One of the sources given is a blatant op-ed and the other is discussing a decision made that involved multiple groups and people and was done after another major scientific organization (the AAP) said they should do it. Silverseren^C 15:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Replying to OP: since this material would be about how WPATH carried out and interpreted medical research, this is a medical topic, and as such sources cited should follow the WP:MEDRS guideline. While mainstream journalism is a reliable source in some topic areas, community consensus is that medical topics require a higher level of expertise. Rather than cite opinion pieces published in The New York Times or The Economist (which are in any case subject to WP:NEWSOPED)), content should be based on material published by professional expert sources such as medical journals, standard textbooks, or national or international expert bodies. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input. However, I would like to clarify a few points. The New York Times articles in question are not opinion pieces. Additionally, WPATH is an organization, not a specific medical treatment or medicine, which means it does not fall strictly under the category of a medical topic as defined by WP.

  Furthermore, WP:MEDPOP

  states that 'the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article.' The information in question pertains to current affairs and historical context related to WPATH, and therefore, the sources cited are appropriate under these guidelines." Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:MEDRS does not only apply to treatments, it applies to all biomedical information. And as you can clearly see on that page, information which (if true) would affect or imply conclusions about biomedical information is typically itself treated like biomedical information. Loki (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I see what you are considering, however it's a bit of a reach & not substantive. WP:BMI does not mention institutions or professional organizations among what constitutes biomedical information. In addition, WP:NOTBMI states that medical ethics are not biomedical information: Discussions about the ethics of a treatment, publication, set of rules or practices, or the handling of an event clearly do not constitute biomedical information. WPATH interfering with Hopkins University reports and making decisions under external pressure are exactly ethical issues. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As per advice, I have asked for clarity on The Economist on WP:RSN Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Palestinian suicide terrorism#Requested move 21 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Palestinian suicide terrorism#Requested move 21 August 2024 that may be of interest to readers of this noticeboards. TarnishedPath^talk 09:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Sources and Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike

Feedback on what the reliable sources allow us to say in an NPOV fashion about the motivations and goals of Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike is requested at: Talk:Mahatma Gandhi RfC on Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Islamic Human Rights Commission

• Islamic Human Rights Commission (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Article looks like it is being turned into an Islamist propaganda piece. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

it seems fine. Exactly what is the issue? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The changes. The attack of the IHRC against Charlie Hebdo has been removed from the lead, and criticism has been framed as "neoconservative" or (in the case of the addition in the lead) qualified by counter-criticism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

its in the article. the question i need to ask is if a specific incident belongs in WP:LEDE.

Maybe you can summarize all the controversies IHRC has been in/accused of into a single sentence or two? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Changes like this shouldn't be done by non-EC editors. Per ARBCOM's definition, the article is probably in the area of conflict (broadly interpreted), but even if it isn't, the particular change falls under edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that seems like an expansion of the definition to a charity that seems to do a lot. This goes to the broader question, if the article mentions Israel-Palestine once in a subsection, or it is only partially related, is all of the article affected by ARBPIA definition?

It seems like related content definition is the one definition that applies, in the ARBCOM you linked, in which case the non-EC editor should probably be warned about ARBPIA restrictions on the israel-Palestine specific content they edit in the article, but they should be allowed to engage on the other content and edit that. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The PIA scope is relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted (not only the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). A lot of IHRC's advocacy relates to this broader conflict, and the article mentions Israel numerous times. Even if the article wasn't considered in the topic area, the edit above would be. For example, military supply flights from the USA to Israel is about the Israeli-Lebanese conflict, as the added source mentions.

@JamieJamalBond: please make sure you're familiar with the WP:PIA rules. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, the portion that relates to ARBPIA probably should not be editted by a non-ECP account. What I mean to say is that much (possibly most) of the article is not related to Israel and should be accessible to non-ECP editors to edit. And it seems 90% of the edits by new editor is non-Israel/Palestine related and should be fine. Let's not Wikipedia:BITE the newcomer because a small portion of the article is a bureaucratic minefield. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hob, I highly recommend starting a discussion on the Talk Page if you think there is an issue, and doing WP:BRD or whatever other option there is. You haven't done that and since there is no discussion, other editor is probably operating under WP:SILENCE is consensus. I know its the weakest form of consensus, but you need to propose specific issues and specific points of disagreement they need to tackle to avoid the article becoming "an Islamist propaganda piece" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, pinging @JamieJamalBond, since it seems nobody bothered to ping them that this convo was happening... Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the ping. JamieJamalBond (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom

An article has recently been created about this rather contentious topic. It would be good for the article to be looked over by experienced editors to make sure that it is balanced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to suggest that there are very good grounds to argue that no article under that particular title could ever be balanced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There's clearly a notable topic here given the coverage in reliable sources, but I agree that the title is not ideal (though any title for this article is likely to be contentious). This is an incredibly hard topic to write about neutrally due to the wildly conflicting coverage of reliable sources on the issue. I think this might be better merged into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

agreed. There was a version of the article, especially near its creation, that correctly describes it as a moral panic, but its current shape is more a far-right conspiracy cobbled together with poor sourcing.

At this point, a completely new article is worth bringing up. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Read through it and put my say in the AfD. The original version of this article was about a moral panic, but another editor turned it into racialized bunk. Gave my thoughts about a WP:TNT at this point with how poorly its been made and thoroughly turned into a racialized dog whistle. At least 40+ of the sourcing is just random local crime reports used to suggest that because it occurred in city x, that it means its widespread in city x. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am baffled to see that no one does the obivous when an article about a moral panic is repurposed (= hijacked) for moral panic mongering: immediately revert to the last best version per WP:ONUS. Of course we have articles about tropes and moral panics when there is WP:SIGCOV about them, but obviously they shouldn't propagate the inside view, and what's worse, stay for weeks in that condition and thus let WP become a soapbox for right-wing propaganda. @AndyTheGrump is right, we could then think about a better title, but community attention can go faster ways than an AfD when it comes to remove bunk when it so obivously flies into our faces. –Austronesier (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's because the idea that "Muslim grooming gangs" really exist is mainstream in UK public discourse where many English-speaking Wikipedia editors are based. It's a bit like how Armenian genocide denial is mainstream in Turkey despite the overwhelming consensus of academics so the Turkish Wikipedia article on the topic is consequently wishy-washy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The List of settlements with cases section looks very OR to me. NicolausPrime (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Paris Olympics

I'm aware that China had tied with the US for gold medals in the Olympics but finished second overall. I expected the Olympic article to include this in the lead. This information is important, even if it makes some uncomfortable. Initially, the lead had a straightforward and neutral mention of the top medal-winning countries. However, another editor, Pizzigs, unnecessarily altered it by undermining the mention of China, making it harder to understand.[17] It seemed like they were really singling out and trying to diminish the importance of China's achievement. I reverted the change [18] and improved clarity[19], but Pizzigs kept reverting to a "downgraded" version, focusing only on that particular sentence.

Only later, they try to argue that mentioning the second-place country isn't even relevant or needed and trimmed it entirely.[20] I disagree, as we've consistently mentioned the top 3 countries in the last 5 Olympics, and 'it seems against NPOV to now suddenly stop that trend in order to not acknowledge how close China was to the US this year.' My edit version here is neutral and factual [21], and I believe it should remain. Pizzig constantly targets that version but his argument against mentioning China's tie with the US appears to reflect a reluctance to acknowledge this significant detail, which isn't in line with maintaining an informative and neutral encyclopedia. They are persistently arguing that we should not include info that China tied with US on gold for this olympics and claims it's irrelevant to be included in lead, and also that it's false info despite China gold tie with US is well supported by major media.[22][23][24][25]Evibeforpoli (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Also despite it's just a straightforward fact that China tied with US on golds and both countries are equal on that. Pizzig constantly needs to change articles to add in that China came second in the gold medal count. I also had to revert that too.[26] This shouldn't even be an edit war over this as it's obviously the facts. Yet I am getting tired of having to deal with same editors in past few weeks, who can't accept that media reports that both countries tied in gold medals, but that they need to add in disruptive statements that contradict what the majority of media all say. It's not neutral to add in China came second on specifically gold medal tally when that is misleading at best and an absurd gaslighting at worst.[27] Evibeforpoli (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)