Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 82

Archive 75

←

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

NPOV in possibly contentious labels, X vs far-X etc

I'm posting this question based on a discussion I've found my self drawn into related to One America News Network [[1]]. There is a related RSN discussion here [[2]]. My interest in the topic is because I'm seeing a pattern that I've seen in other examples where editors are trying to decide how to label an article subject. The examples I've typically seen are if a subject should be called "Right-wing" or "Far-Right". I suspect there are plenty of similar cases with things like "minority POV" vs "fringe POV" etc. Often it seems the choice is made by which ever faction has the most editors vs via any logical method. Sources can range from relatively objective sources about the subject to very partisan/biased sources that mention the subject in passing but are primarily about something other than the Wiki-article subject. Should we give more weight to sources about the subject vs sources that just mention the subject in passing? How many examples of use do we need to decide a label sticks? For example if we find 10 sources that refer to something as "Far-..." is that enough to decide it's "far-..."? What if other sources just call it "..."? Do 10 sources that call it "..." balance out those that call it "far..."? I'm interested in soliciting opinions because this sort of things comes up frequently on many topics.

My opinion:

We should generally leave these labels to sources that are both reliable (and specifically not biased/partisan against the subject) and about the subject. Sources that introduce the article subject in passing are not the best source for such labels since they are typically not providing evidence to directly support such a label.

We need to be careful saying, in effect, I've found 10 sources that call this "far-right". Let's also assume those sources are relatively neutral and not too far into commentary. Is that sufficient? It's easy to do an affirmative keyword search "Subject" + "far-right". It's harder to do a keyword search for all the cases where it's called anything other than "far-right". Thus just because we have 10 hits doesn't mean that label is used by the majority or even plurality of sources. Conversely, its not clear what label a source that used no label would apply. For this reason I would caution against assuming that just because examples can be found it represents the optimum label.

It's always best to err on the side of the less contentious label. Minority over fringe, "left" over "far-left". This is especially true when things are being labeled in Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Springee, the main problems here are:

1. Far-right is a subset of right so "right" does not contradict "far-right", but is frequently claimed to do so.
2. The Overton window is approaching escape velocity. Ideas that were lunatic fringe in Reagan's time are now considered too soft.
3. According to the right generally and the far-right especially, your test of bias / partisanship would exclude everything other than the right wing media bubble. Academic journals using the term are part of the liberal takeover of academia, and mainstream is the opposite not of fringe but of conservative.

How on earth are we supposed to separate the genuinely insane - the Dinesh d'Souzas and Alex Joneses - from the merely rabid? Guy (help!) 21:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I appreciate that you are answering the question in context of why it's being asked but I was hoping for a more holistic discussion. I'm asking in the same vein as a question I asked a while back regarding "reciprocity of weight". Effectively what is a principle we should follow rather than going with editorial gut + weight of numbers. The problem with weight of numbers is how do we decide if this is "neutral" or simply the 5 tigers and 2 llamas voting on what's for dinner? Either way, thanks for the input. I'm not sure if I will get much more. Springee (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Springee, yes, that is a fair point, and there is of course no objective standard. But there are ideas that are clearly identified with the far right. White nationalism, for example, and any normalisation or promotion of that. Guy (help!) 18:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't believe that this question can be answered as posed, and one of the main reasons for that is that the same editors who demand strictly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty, mutually exclusive categories along the political spectrum tend to the same editors who insist that otherwise reliable sources be discounted because of these editors' subjective perceptions of media as "biased". In this context, the only alternative to editorial gut + weight of numbers is an endless parade of original research and moving goalposts, which would be the inevitable result of any pseudo-"principle" in this domain. Newimpartial (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Since this is a discussion there isn't really a reason to "oppose" anything. What you seem to be doing is linking behaviors you see in those who often oppose your POV to if you think a set of arguments are sound. Certainly you can make the case that the concept is unworkable as written but remember this is something that, as I've described, can be applied equally left or right or north or south. Yes, the context that has me thinking about it is a debate to which you are a party. However it certainly could apply in other cases. Still, in the end what you are saying is might is right, numbers are what should matter. Springee (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No, Springee, I am not saying that "might is right" nor am I basing my evaluation of behaviours on "my POV". What I am saying is that when I see editors grasping for a rule about political spectrum labels, they are overwhelming likely to do so when they personally object to the use of a particular label in a particular case, have another preferred label they would use in that case, and have a personal preference for the sources who use their preferred label over the sources using the label to which they object. They also often argue that the label they oppose carries an (undeserved?) social stigma, and often insist that when sources use one label (or use it most often) then this is evidence that other labels do not apply or should not be used in the WP article on the subject to which/whom the label is applied.

This is not an argument on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT derived from my own POV; it is an observation based on a large number of discussions in which I have seen this strategy used. I have therefore concluded that the strategy of "defining principles" will never work for political labels because it is actually invoked as a pivot to shut down policy-based discussion, and I can't see how it would be used other than as an end run around policy. I am not an adherent of "gut plus numbers" - I prefer policy (especially RS and BLP policy) - but I have learned that it takes gut plus numbers to enforce policy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That still boils down to you would rather base your argument on your gut vs policy. I'm not going to say your gut is wrong but it's not really a transferable plan. Springee (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If more clarity is required, my argument is based on policy, notably RS, NPOV and BLP. People looking for "principles" about political labels are, in my experience, trying to do an end run around policy. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion is also based on RS, NPOV and BLP. Funny that. I'm suggesting we try to establish what RSs say and how often they use the terms. The how often part is critical for NPOV since we shouldn't suggest a less often used descriptor is the most widely used. BLP, where applicable, says we should avoid contentious labels unless firmly established. Thus we prefer "left" vs "far-left" when there is a dispute. It also suggests that in cases like this we should go for attribution rather than Wiki-voice. Springee (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

None of those suggestions are "based on" NPOV; they are all based on idiosyncratic personal preferences. Using frequency of appearance to decide on labels, rather than quality of souecing, is directly contrary to policy. And treating "far right" as a "contentious" label rather than descriptive seems to me to be assuming the thing that needs to be proved. All this from an editor who uses first page ghits to make assertions about frequency! Newimpartial (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

So if NPR calls an organization "conservative", NBC calls it "right-wing" and CBS calls it "far-right" how would you decide which is the consensus label? I agree we can't always treat sources with the same deference. If a respected academic explains with evidence why a particular politician is "moderate right" while a reporter say the politician is "far-right" I thick we would both agree the academic with supporting evidence gets more weight. But when the news sources are all generally reliable and they all apply the label without additional evidence, well it's kind of hard to decide which one should be given more weight and without any supporting evidence none should get much weight. Springee (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

And this is where I get back to oppose - in matters of judgement, it is not our role as editors to evaluate labels by "supporting evidence": that is OR and typically leads, once again, to meandering, goalpost-moving discussions about Nazis. Nor is it our job to "decide which is the consensus label", as if there shouldn't be more than one. In cases where none of them has been disputed - and the failure of an RS to use a label should not necessarily be taken as contesting said label - our job is to apply all the relevant labels within the rules of good prose style and sensitivity to context. If what you wanted from this discussion was an actual, policy-based rule for the application of political labels, there it is. Newimpartial (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"it is not our role as editors to evaluate labels by "supporting evidence"". OK, if that is true then why pick label A vs B or C? Using attribution and saying the source has been described as A, B and C avoids having to make such a judgement call. Also, OR specifically does not apply to editorial discussions, only facts that make it to an article. So, if editors insist on including a single label at the expense of others then we certainly can engage in OR when deciding between A, B and C. Springee (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• We do have the principle that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources”. And I would say that labeling someone “far” or “extreme” anything (left or right) is fairly extraordinary. So, I would expect the sourcing to be above average in quality to justify using such labels in WP’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

As it relates to the topic that caused me to ponder the question, I don't think this quite rises to "extraordinary". First, in this specific case the "far-right" label was used at least some of the time by reliable news sites (Washinton Post, ABC News etc), not just the sites that tend to blend reporting, commentary and advocacy in various ratios (Vox, Vanity Fair). However, when ~1/2 the descriptors are A, and only 25% are B I have to ask why we should pick B as the one given in Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Journalists are not experts in political classifications. Often they use short hand which may not reflect academic descriptions. For example, Barry Goldwater was often described as far right when in fact he was merely on the extreme right of elected legislators in his time. I would not use the term far right except to describe organizations that have connections to historical fascism or similar groups such as the KKK. OAN is not far right, it is a right-wing organization that promotes conspiracy theories and publishes stories of dubious authenticity. I prefer right-wing over conservative, since the term historically refers to an ideology that supported aristocratic privilege over capitalism. In the U.S., it includes mainstream Republicans and even some Democrats.

While it is often assumed that there is symmetry between left and right, that's not actually true. While many people call themselves left-wing, no sane people call themselves right-wing. They call themselves conservative, center right, liberal, moderate, or say the political spectrum is meaningless. And there are no groups one might call far left that are more precisely defined using more specific descriptions.

TFD (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense. The first part regarding journalists and political classifications is one I think it really important. Far to often we base if someone/thing is a "far-right" journalist, publication etc not on a really solid review of their stated/acted upon goals/policies etc but on what journalists say they are. None of this speaks to the reliability of the source. Putting the shoe on the other foot, a left leaning reporter producing a story claiming that pharma companies could cure cancer but they don't because there is too much money in treating the disease doesn't really show themselves to be "far-left" vs just wacko. Springee (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say, yes use, bit do not state it as fact unless a preponderance of top line RS say it. But it that means case by case and subjectiveness. I am not wholly happy with that, but would be less happy not calling a spade a spade in the name of false POV adherence.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• support. The policy is already very cautious about the use of value-laden labels. I think what Springee suggests is a fair interpretation of the policy. Wikipedia shouldn't engage in name-calling. Heptor (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - We should simply reflect what is written in the highest quality sources. There is nothing faulty about describing certain people, organizations, or parties as far-left or far-right because they promote viewpoints that are far beyond mainstream thought. I would be alarmed if we started neutralizing adjectives used by reliable sources to make them non-offensive. The fact that sources make passing reference to such labels means that they probably don't consider them to be in serious dispute, and neither should we. I also agree with JzG's comments entirely. - MrX 🖋 14:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

But that isn't how it works in practice. Rather than including an attributed lists of descriptors or picking the most commonly used, we frequently see editors pick the one that seems to fit their opinion on the subject and justify it with finding reliable sources that say the same. If 50% of sources use term A, 25% use B, 15% use C and 10% use others, why would we pick B instead of A or present A and B as if they were used equally? Furthermore, we should be careful about allowing sources to apply labels without justification as that may be the opinion of a writer rather than an evidence based assessment. Really, we should be putting the evidence in the body of the article rather than trying to label the subject before a reader gets into the article. Is Wikipedia supposed to be pushing readers in a direction or following RS's once a clear consensus is established? Springee (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to jump on this last point here with the stance I've stated before that editors tend to make articles on some people and groups into "scarlet letters" as to document every bad thing or to make them look as bad as possible since the sourcing seems to be there. Editors are often far too eager to find the worst they possibly can about groups that generally are looked on negatively by the public. I've seen several cases in the past where editors argue "Well, here's 5 high-quality RSes that say X is far-right so we must identify them as that", which is poor logic here. Similar "hunting and pecking" for justification of such labels is also frequently used. It should be nearly plainly obvious when such labels should be used in high-visibility in articles (like, in the lede) when it is near impossible to find sourcing on that person/group and not trip over that label - this requires a plethora of sources across multiple sources to be there, and ideally over a long period of time (to avoid RECENTISM/NOT#NEWS) and that a plurality of those sources are using the sources. (eg as a rough example, tying Alex Jones to conspiracy theories seems reasonable as the # of hits of "Alex Jones" "conspiracy" is about 25% of the total hits of "Alex Jones" alone.) If that's not possible, then we have to consider these as major opinions that should be included per UNDUE but with appropriate attribution and impartialness. This applies not only to just whether any label is appropriate, but the distinction between labels too, such as right, alt-right, and far-right. We're an encyclopedia, not a politican or ideological tool. This is not saying we can't use the extreme labels like far-right but the proof they apply better be unquestionable in the sources, and not just a random sampling of a few. --Masem (t) 16:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

And I will jump in to point out that what is supposed to matter by policy is not the quantity of sources employing a certain label, but what is done by the highest-quality sources available. And what we often find in real discussions of this are interventions like this one or this one, which seek to dismiss or discount the evidence from higher-quality sources to emphasize what is stated in "conservative" or self-published ones. Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I have still seen editor hunt and peck from WaPost, NYtimes, and those high quality sources to find a handful of articles that support a label, to assert that we should force that label, when in the larger pool of higher quality sources, those handful of articles are a minority, or come as a result of a single event and are not used over a long period of time. There's no issue if the label is used frequently by high-quality sources a good %age of the time as to not be able to argue UNDUE at all. When the hunting and pecking comes into play, then its not that the label can't be included but it better be written into articles as a less common, attributed view and treated that way. --Masem (t) 17:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Masem, sure. But the distinction between the right and the far right is a valid and important one. There was a war and everything.

The real problem here is that much of what was the mainstream right has now adopted far-right positions. I find it difficult to see this as a problem best solved by not following sources that call it what it is. And then there's the problem of the moderate centre-right Democratic party being castigated as "radical far-left Democrats". Guy (help!) 16:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Which also comes down to the RECENTISM problem. Arguable, the current US political climate is so charged since 2015ish that we should really wait until this period of time is more in the history books to write how certain people and groups were seen, when there's a chance for the political spectrum to normalize back to the middle. Obviously, this is near impossible for a volunteer driven project to do, so the next best thing is to have editors just be fully aware how easy it is by human nature to look for and write the worst about the worst, and instead step back, make sure it is justified (including if the far-right is the label that's actually used more frequently than just right or alt-right) and all that. It just seems today so many editors want to rush to the most extreme labels if they can find a few sources that toss them in and use them , and use them in the most predominate way (lede sentences, all that) that is against the concept of NPOV. It's being more conservative (in thought process, not political spectrum) for inclusion of these. --Masem (t) 17:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Masem, this is very true - unfortunately we are in the business of documenting history in real time. It may be worth exploring whether there are makers that are uncontroversial. I would say that anyone pushing white nationalism, for example, is likely to be viewed by consensus as far-right. Ditto neo-Nazism. Guy (help!) 18:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

We're in the business of summarizing history in real-time. There's a difference between simple documentation and summarization, which requires stepping back and looking at the topic from a high-level view, which editor often forget. "Oh, here's a piece of criticism on a topic X, must rush to include it!" is too common and is not how we are to operate, this is a constant struggle for BLP itself (see, for example, current issue related to accusations made against Joe Biden). Same applies to rush to include labels. When it is clear that we cannot summarize without including that label because we're tripping over it in the high quality sources, that's that fine. That's not usually what's happening though. --Masem (t) 18:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Masem, well, yes, but by that standard we'd have referred to Mussolini and Hitler in the 1930s as right-wing, on the basis that not every source identified them as far-right authoritarians. Some things are not that hard to settle, and the distinction is valid and worthwhile. Failing to distinguish right wing and far right leaves us deprived of ways of distinguishing the extent of support and influence of Richard Spencer or Gavin MacInness, and Joe Rogan, or Rand Paul.

I do understand the problem. The label is considered dishonourable. Like neo-Nazi. Perhaps people who don't want to be labelled neo-Nazis should hold back on shouting antisemitic slogans at marches. Perhaps people who don't want to be called far-right should not advocate white nationalism. Maybe it is not, in the end, our problem to fix (though of course it is a problem for us). Guy (help!) 18:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not the label itself, but the sourcing prevelence to be able to support the label. Even your statement above gets into a stance I have seen too many editors take: they do not particularly care for a certain politican , journalist, analyst, or other public pundant, and so manipulate sources to incorporate labels to justify that. (This also works the other direction, when an editor is trying to show a person or topic they do particularly care is the "best" by similar source manipulation). If a label really does apply, it should not require an extensive exercise in source review, so that impartially it is clear it applies. The label doesn't have to be used in every source about the topic, but it should be frequently enough. If you have to justify a label by pulling out the few RD that support it when most REes otherwise dont, they then is where you may need to step back and ask yourself how actually we can cover the person or group impartially. And further there different degrees to which this would apply depending on the quality of sourcing too. --Masem (t) 11:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Also it is not in any part of WP's function as to try to distinguish, for example, "Richard Spencer or Gavin MacInness, and Joe Rogan, or Rand Paul". We as editors that follow world news and have our opinions on these matter may be able to feel that we need to mark divisions between these people, but we have to make sure that the sources support that ability for us, and not let personal assessment drive it. Otherwise, asking WP to distinguish such is a "righting great wrongs" issue and not appropriate. Also, this also make the assumption that "far right" is necessarily bad. I'm not saying being "far right" is necessarily good, and there's generally more bad stuff associated with that label, but just being a label should not be taken as a judgement call that the person/group is "bad", or vice versa, otherwise we're back at "righting great wrongs" against. The only real place that WP has a reasonability to make sure it is distinguish between "good" and "bad" is in the medical science areas related to fringe theories, as per MEDRS. We are not going to let bad medical advice be allowed to be left as bad medical advice (long-standard consensus and policy), and WP goes to efforts to make sure that when such fringe theories are incorporated into articles that they are clearly identified as fringe and are not accepted by the scientific/medical community. --Masem (t) 15:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: In practice, we should be evaluating sources on their quality, the relevance to the subject, the context, and other factors. Counting the number of occurrence is a factor, but not the most important. Also, in the case of OANN, which is what this is really about, they evolved over the past couple of years to become a shill for Trump trying to out flank Fox News on the right. Are we going to pretend that Chanel Rion's didn't ask Trump "Do you consider the use of the term ‘Chinese food’ racist?" during a COVID-19 press briefing? - MrX 🖋 17:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. So how do we decide a particular mention in the WashPo that calls a subject "far-right" is higher quality than an NPR article that calls the subject "conservative"? I'm certainly not suggesting we treat a count by VOX or HuffPo as the same as an NPR article. We also have the question of if the article was "about the subject" or just "mentioned the subject". I would put more weight into what an NPR article on [subject] calls the subject vs what a NYT writer calls [subject] in a two sentence mention in the middle of a longer article. Your COVID-19 example isn't clear in context of this discussion. Anyway, I think Masen has a strong handle on the issue and I share their concerns. Springee (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

But Springee, you are still presenting the issue as if editors were facing a mutually-exclusive choice of labels, which is ridiculous not policy-compliant. Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

First, while the genesis of this question is the OAN topic, this is a generalized question so we can't assume a specific thing is happening at the article level. Second, I agree they aren't mutually exclusive but the question regarding what labels should be applied in Wiki-voice is still very real. If 50% of sources call something A, well then we can probably use A in wikivoice. If only 25% call it B then we should probably attribute. I get that "left" and "far-left" are aren't mutually exclusive ideas but we also shouldn't assume that readers will take them to be the same. Our intros often don't support these labels so it's generally better to avoid strong labels in the lead and save that stuff for the body where evidence can join it. Again, Mansen is very right that often articles like this read as if the authors want to discredit the subject rather than are dispassionate descriptors of the subject. Springee (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Good question Springee.I hope by now you realize that "conservative" and "far-right" are not mutually exclusive. It's not an either/or proposition. The way we determine how much weight we assign to sources, for example in your WaPo vs. NPR scenario, is though consensus. Individual editors have to evaluate sources through the lens of their own experience, knowledge, values, and bias and arrive at a judgement. If a consensus emerges from those individual judgements, then we have an editorial decision. If not, we try something else. - MrX 🖋 19:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I've never assumed them to be exclusive but "far-" is often used as a way to indicate the target's views, thinking, etc can be dismissed out of hand. Springee (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. "Far-right" or "Far-left" are editorial statements and possibly pejorative statements forbidden by WP:WIAPA if and when used to describe another person or to disparage that person's views. In this discussion we've already seen use of the term "Far-right" defended by an editor who also used the terms "insane" and "rabid". Guy, if you're neither a forensic psychologist, a physician, virologist nor a veterinarian, your use of those terms as justification for calling other people "Far-right" already violates WP:WIAPA. Please stop. --loupgarous (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  Vfrickey, I am going by reliable sources. Jones, for example, claimed that it's a form of psychosis that makes him promote the crazy shit he does. Guy (help!) 16:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, Who's "Jones" and why is Jones a WP:RS? Who's "him"? And to what "crazy shit" are you referring? --loupgarous (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  That's like saying that "blue" is an editorial statement when referring to the color of the sky. Far-right and far-left have objective political meanings. By the way, WP:WIAPA relates to editor conduct not article content. Obviously we should not refer to other editors as far-right or far-left, and I don't think anyone has proposed that we should. - MrX 🖋 17:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – There has been discussion here and at the OANN TP from which this sprang about the same source using multiple terms, conservative, right, far-right, in different articles. I don’t see this as a problem. Most news articles are about a particular event; and the wording used is selected based on the context of that article. The fact that a specific source uses the narrow term far-right in some articles and the umbrella term right in other articles, does not mean they are rejecting the term far-right. They likely just didn’t see the need to use the more detailed term for an article where it didn’t matter. An encyclopedia article about an organization takes a broader view and should contain more detail. It is rarely about a single event. So, we should use the more detailed, more informative terminology if it is adequately reflected in high-quality RS. Clearly it must appear in multiple, quality RS. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support I disagree with that "Far right" and "Far left" have objective political meanings. They are, by their scalar nature measuring distance along an ideological line, and inevitably involve the making of a judgement. Guy made my point for me:

  ::How on earth are we supposed to separate the genuinely insane - the Dinesh d'Souzas and Alex Joneses - from the merely rabid? Guy (help!) 21:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  To Guy's credit, he lent some nuance to his view a sentence further down in the discusssion:

  ::::Springee, yes, that is a fair point, and there is of course no objective standard. But there are ideas that are clearly identified with the far right. White nationalism, for example, and any normalisation or promotion of that. Guy

  I agree with him there, that there is no objective standard. '

Mother Jones, Reason and National Review all have their own take on "far right" and "far left", as do all journals and newspapers with a strong editorial policy. My concern is by deciding which of a plethora of WP:RS definitions of "far right" and "far left" we are to use, we're lending wikivoice to their chosen ideology - in strong contradiction to WP:NPOV.

I'd be willing to support a standard of practice where we (as editors) say "In a April 2020 editorial, the New York Times denounced President Trump's supporters as belonging to the far-right," with, of course, an inline citation following. That economically removes doubt as to who believes who is "far-right" and allows the reader to decide the trustworthiness of that statement. --loupgarous (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Attribution is appropriate if sources variously discribe something as far-right and centrist, or far-left and conservative. However, if different sources describe something as far-right and conservative, or far-left and liberal, there is no dispute that requires attribution, per WP:YESPOV. - MrX 🖋 19:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

MrX, exactly. All we require is a number of mainstream sources that say far-X, and none that actually repudiate it, because far-X is a subset of X. Guy (help!) 19:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

A hypothetical: A reasonable survey of high quality RSes over a 2 year period for a certain group show it nearly always labeled "right" and/or "conservative" with none calling it central or left (eg: calling the group "right" from sources is obvious). But of those sources, only a fraction use "far-right" to describe the group. Let's say there's 50 such total sources: If only one source uses far-right of those 50, this may be where we'd not include that per UNDUE, while if 25 (half of them) use it, its clearly DUE. What's necessary, sort of, is getting an idea where we'd be comfortable between NPOV and UNDUE of when it's appropriate to include with attribution, and where it may even override the "right" descriptor. And I know that question simplifies which sources we talk about, as not all sources even high-quality are created equal. What I do want to stress is that when we want to switch from "Right" to "far-right" should be because there's reasonable wide agreement in the sources. And that does require not picking and choosing sources but a full survey to make that distinction, which often is not done. But doing such a survey on a talk page to prove it out should be sufficient to stop such editing warring concerns over this. --Masem (t) 19:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, journalists often use the term far right loosely. In articles I have been involved in, we've always used political science textbooks or academic articles or for recently formed groups expert opinion. The term would include groups that developed out of historical fascism or racist groups, such as the BNP, EDL and BF in the UK or the KKK or Aryan Nations in the US. Their relative position in the political spectrum is a red herring. Unlike liberals, communists, etc., there is no other term used for this political family. TFD (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• In a BLP, it is fine to note who says what about the subject... we can say that “X considers Y to be a LABEL” (assuming X is noteworthy enough for their opinion to be included in the first place). What we should NOT do is present the label as fact, in WP’s voice (as in “Y is a LABEL”). ALL labels should be attributed (in text) to those that use them. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hunan201p's neutral point of view

User:Hunan201p keeps having countless disputes with everyone, manipulating wiki rules, remove every edit he disagrees with, he seems to do whatever he wants. Here are things that have a problem of neutral point of view ; Removing important essential text from the references he sourced, placing unverified date sources and 14th century historian references above 13th century dated historians, replacing a text from a original sourced reference with another reference that doesn't match. I asked him times and times but again he doesn't answer any of my questions in my talk page. He is fully aware of WP:NOR , WP:NPOV but doesn't care and have been doing this since March.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Physical_appearance ( Current version of his edits remains unchanged)

Placing historical century dates wrong and upside down

In the Georgian Royal Annals, Genghis Khan is described as a large, good-looking man, with red hair.[103] <--- No date provided, no verification and but places it above 13th century descriptions.

23:23, 22 March 2020 <----- Here you can see him placing this description with a unverified date above the description of Genghis Khan by Zhao Hong (1221) and Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani (born 1193 ), both which are 12-13th century historian.

British historian Frank McLynn describes Genghis Khan as a good-looking man with red hair.[104] <--- Again, placing 14th century historian above 13th century historians.

17:37, 20 April 2020 <----- He even said " Added McLynn reference to Rashid paragraph". And for anyone who search Rashid-al-Din (1247 -1318 ) shows he is a 14th century historian, his reference is from Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh, and like it created stated written at the start of the 14th century.

Removing some essential text from the references he cited and cherrypicking only the parts he wants

Although the factual nature of this statement is controversial, the Persian historian Rashid al-Din said that Genghis Khan and his male-line ancestors were tall, and red-haired. He also said that they had blue-green eyes, and that they had long beards.[99] <----- This was his original edit which

04:19, 17 March 2020 <--- His original references and edit he made, very clearly is exactly from the same study of Lkhagvasuren, Gavaachimed; Shin, Heejin; et al. (September 14, 2016). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023095/

The Persian historian Rashid al-Din stated in his 14th-century Jami' al-tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) that Genghis Khan and his male-line ancestors were tall, and red-haired.....[109] " <--- He removed the important parts.

16:22, 20 April 2020 <--- He removed the beginning of the text that says " Although the factual nature of this statement is controversial " and replaced it with a Frank McLynn reference that doesn't translate to his original reference.

Refuse to verify, refuse to explain his removal

(Dating maintenance tags: <----- this was sent by User:AnomieBOT to verify the original reference he used

14:15, 15 April 2020 <--- He wrote here date=April 2020 next to his link

Removed verification tag erroneously placed on bluelinked reference to PLOSone study <----- Hunan201p said, which is a lie. He was not able to provide a verification link for what Rashid al-Din said.

23:39, 22 April 2020 <--- For the entire week, he did not provide and finally decides to REMOVE what AnomieBOT requested.

Hunan201p is clearly having a neutral point of view so I ping @DIYeditor and Doug Weller: to please help out. Hunan201p currently have endless disputes with many respected editor and just removes what he doesn't like. He is obviously having a neutral point of view Queenplz (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The "verification needed" tag, added inside the </ref> tag by Tobby72, was erroneous. No verification was needed as a blue link was already given to Lkhavasuren's 2016 paper, published by PLOSone. You do not get to put "verification needed" tags on bluelinked papers published by such high quality journals, just because you don't like their content. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

{Ping|User:Hemiauchenia}} Thoughs? Please give me some advice on how to deal with this. You seem to know a lot. Is Hunan201p having a neutral point of view ? I would like to know please Queenplz (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe Queenplz was trying to correctly ping editors @Hemiauchenia: and @DIYeditor: in helping her with dealing Hunan201's problematic behaviours, in the Genghis Khan article, but her ping din't work out as well. I currently also have the same problem with Hunan201p in the blonde article, and is blantantly committing POV, NPOV, WEASEAL, FRINGE THEORIES by including mythical and unconfirmed historical figures as blond and also ethnic groups that don't correspond with modern ethnic groups. He also have reported me, Tobby72, Queenplz Qiushufang in sockpuppet investigation and tried to link me up with them weeks ago, after I told him to explain why he keeps including unconfirmed myths as facts. Is Hunan201p the only editor that can ge away with editing the way he likes ? I believe wikipedia reputation could suffer because Hunan201p is always having disputes with other editors and gets away with doing what he wants.Shinoshijak (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for help Shinoshijak. I think we should directly send a message on their user's page instead if the ping doesn't work properly Queenplz (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree with that. In case the ping doesn't work properly (some complain it doesn't), send a notification to their talk page instead. Shinoshijak (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Considering that he is claiming that the obviously mythological Huangdi is a real person I think he has some strong fringe opinions. Though looking at the talk page there's sockpuppet investigations as well? He seems to be engaging in civil and somewhat good faith discussions on the relevant talk pages, so I have no further comment on the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Huangdi is not an "obviously mythological" figure, and neither is Bodonchar, or any of the people Queenplz has mentioned. Huangdi was a real individual and is considered to have had blond hair by elite historians/linguists such as Victor Mair and Tsung-Tung Chang. Try critiquing the cited material I've posted instead of my opinions (which are of no significance on Wikipedia.) - Hunan201p (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Huangdi is estimated to have reigned at around 2500 BC, 500 years before the first start of Chinese Civilisation in the Xia Dynasty, picking two scholars out of a hat without citations does not represent scholarly concensus. American scholar Mark Edward Lewis says "modern scholars of myth generally agree that the sage kings [including Huangdi] were partially humanized transformations of earlier, supernatural beings who figured in shamanistic rituals, cosmogonic myths or tales of the origins of tribes and clans." Again why would Huangdi be blonde when the phenotype for Asian people is black hair? Saying that Huangi is a real person appears to be a minority opinion in modern scholarship on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

We must be living in different realities; I provided multiple citations with bluelinked references at Yellow Emperor and I think most admins will see them there. Tsung-Tung Chang says that Huangdi was an Indo-European "foreigner" in East Asia, and had the appearance of Northern Europeans (page 35). Victor Mair (1994) tells us ""Recent scholars have argued, on the basis of archaeology and historical linguistics, that he may have had "yellow" (blond) hair." In another reference he offers "Blond Deus" as another interpretation of the epithet "Huangdi" These are not fringe theories but viable scholarly opinions offered from high quality sources. Nowhere have I given them undue weight.

Blond hair is present in archaeological fossils in China dating back to 2500BCE, and in Asia (Afontova Gora) dating back to 15000BCE. It is also attributed in Asian historical documents to groups like the Mongols, the Xiongnu, etc. P.S. you altered that Mark Lewis snippet from page 556 of Early Chinese Religion, which does not contain the words "including Huangdi". You should have noted that this was your insertion in to the Mark Lewis quote, especiallyn since it's incorrect POV (Huangdin was not one of the three sage kings but one of five legendary emporers. Huangdi was a real man, and several scholars believe he is linked to foreign migrations of Indo Europeans in to what is now China. That's not a minority view but actually quite a prominent scholarly perspective, which has been strengthened in recent years by archaeological evidence. - Hunan201p (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think providing a noticeboard discussion for Hunan's previous previous behavior is necessary for context, [3]] from what I can gather, Hunan is confrontational and not always right, but some of the users who oppose him also have fringe views regarding ethnic topics and the users arguing against him on the noticeboard discussion (Leppaberry-123 and DerekHistorian) are banned sockpuppets so it's not like he's the clear sole bad actor in any of these situations, and often is cleaning up Nationalist OR garbage, though I admit I lack the expertise to assess the relative merits of the claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: What about Hunan201's edit on the section of Genghis Khan physical appearance ? Hunan201p keeps removing my edits, but always avoiding my same questions on talk pages. For example he edited at the top, he edited In the Georgian Royal Annals, Genghis Khan is described as a large, good-looking man, with red hair.[106] Similarily, British historian Frank McLynn describes Genghis Khan as a good-looking man with red hair.[107]. inside the section he places them above 12-13th century historians and 13th century descriptions of Zhao Hong and and Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani. For the Georgian Royal Annals, he does't provide a date verification and doesn't mention what century it is. The wikipedia page of the Georgian Royal Annals itselfs says authenicity in doubt and written by aynoumous authors. With Frank Mclynn quotes, Hunan201p clearly said it's a interpretation from a Rashid al-Din reference which is 14th century, which says Again according to legend, the original Mongols....., it doesn't say red hair. He than removes every references of other historians from the 14th century and other modern historians that claimed Rashid al-Din mythicized the clan of Genghis Khan. Also he selectively removed a section (the bolded part) which from the Lkhagvasuren (2016) reference which said Although the factual nature of this statement is controversial. The Persian historian Rashid al-Din stated in his 14th-century Jami' al-tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) that Genghis Khan and his male-line ancestors were tall, and red-haired. He also said that they had blue-green eyes, and that they had long beards.[111][112] Rashid noted that Kublai Khan, Genghis' grandson, did not inherit the red hair.[113]. This is from the Lkhagvasuren (2016), he keeps this source/reference in his edit while removing out some of the essential parts from his references to manipulate the outcome. How is this not a neutral point of view ? I think a lot of people should know about this. Hunan201p is currently in dispute with 3-4 editors like Trynnamakedollar said. Hunan201p basically does what he wants on wikipedia. I think a lot of people a going to know how bias the Genghis Khan page is as soon as they look at the references, which is very obviously manipulated by him on purpose Queenplz (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing on the Wikipedia article of The Georgian Chronicles that says the authenticity of the Georgian Chronicles is in doubt. What it does say is that one author, Ivane Javakhishvili, has casted aspersions on the authenticity of the early Georgian chronicle installments from the mid-1st millennium. The authenticity of the later installments, including the one that mentions Genghis Khan, have never been questioned by anyone. Others, including Stephen Rapp, who is cited in the authenticity section of that article, have defended those earlier books in the Georgian Chronicles. You even falsified Rapp's reference (which you have never even read before), by posting it in the Genghis Khan article after your BS lie that the authenticity of The Georgian Chronicles is considered "controversial". In fact, the entire work is considered valuable for historical insight by the majority of historians, and as Rapp and myself note, continues to be cited in works of our time; and no one has ever questioned the authenticity of the later components (in which statements about Genghis Khan are made).

You falsified every reference you posted at that page by implying things they never said. You're grasping for straws and pushing POV edits that clutter the article, which is exactly replicated in this clusterf*** of a noticeboard post. - Hunan201p (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Note to all editors/admins: Queenplz did not inform me of this noticeboard discussion before or after creating it. It was not until April 28th that Hemiauchenia did so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p#Notice_of_neutral_point_of_view_noticeboard_discussion - Hunan201p (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I did state in the edit summary on blonde wiki page (00:33, 27 April 2020) to come to the noticeboard, glad you are here now but you still avoided the majority of my questions‎ just like in talk pages, and now even here you do the same. I will ask again, this is the last time. If you choose not to answer I take it you don't know how to. Regardless of the authencity of the Georgian Royal Annals you still need to give a date for this: Genghis Khan is described as a large, good-looking man, with red hair.[106] You need to give evidence that the Georgian Royal Annals is even older than Jami' al-tawarikh, older than Zhao Hong (1221) and 13th century Persian chronicler Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani. Rergarding the authencity, it says nothing about the accuracy of Mongols or Genghis Khan, only for Khazars, Turks.

I also want to know why you decided to keep this reference (Molecular Genealogy of a Mongol Queen's Family and Her Possible Kinship with Genghis Khan(2016) and put in next to Rashid noted that Kublai Khan, Genghis' grandson, did not inherit the red hair. You also kept most of the text from the beginning but you removed this "Although the factual nature of this statement is controversial" (which is from the beginning of the first sentence of the rest of the text you edited).

I also want to know why you used this Frank McLynn as reference for the text you you took from Molecular Genealogy of a Mongol Queen's Family and Her Possible Kinship with Genghis Khan(2016)? Your quotes from Frank McLynn Again according to legend, the original Mongols were said to have been tall and bearded with light-coloured hair and blue eyes, but by systematic intermarriage they emerged as the people so well known for their short stature, black hair and black eyes." <------------- It says nothing about red hair, Genghis Khan or his descendants having red hair, original Mongols could mean any century of Mongols and with your von Erdmann, Franz (1862) "the father of Temujin, Yesugei Baghatur, would give his sons the nickname: Kiyat-Borjigin, because they were Kiyat and Borjigin, in other words, men with a greenish-blue eye. They were extraordinarily brave and courageous, so that their masculine bravery has become a proverb - So far Rashid-al-din. " <---- Nothing about Genghis Khan being tall, long bearded.

You keep mentioning the rules a lot to other wiki users but here NPOV (Neutral Point of View) show you are not representing views fairly and not without bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view

1) Avoid stating opinions as facts 2) Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. 3) Prefer nonjudgmental language. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. 4) Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. Queenplz (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"I did state in the edit summary on blonde wiki page (00:33, 27 April 2020) to come to the noticeboard, glad you are here now"

That is not the appropriate procedure for notifying someone of a noticeboard discussion. You are required to notify all relevant parties on their talk page, with a link to the discussion, not in an edit summary with no link. I have exhaustively addressed your infinite babbling about nothing. - Hunan201p (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Is failure to mention niche detail an issue of neutrality?

If a certain issue is shown not to be present at all in every one of several biographies of a subject editors have found and reviewed, but is discussed in another work where the subject is mentioned in passing, does it relate to the article being neutral nor not? This is a bit vague, I know, so let me give an example. Subject XYZ has been written up in a number of academic works, and we have found close to 10 reliable biographies of his life, ranging from a page-long treatment to article length (20 pages). None of those biographies discuss his attitude or actions towards Foo group in a specific period of his life. However, in a number of reliable sources dedicated to the issues related to the Foo group, he is mentioned in passing as having spoken about that group, occasionally in a manner that has caused controversy and led to some criticism. One editor, A, who recently expanded the article on subject XYZ is claiming that the issue, as not mentioned at all in any biography of the subject, is too niche to be discussed in the article, and that discussing this issue at any length, or possibly at all, would cause the article to be non-neutral due to WP:UNDUE. Another editor, B, demands that this topic should be written up in the body of the article on subject XYZ, preferably in a paragraph or even a section, and demands that the article is tagged with a POV template until their demands are met (that editor did not edit the article extensively, nor did they attempt to write such a section themselves). What about the viability of the {{POV}}? Currently the article does not discuss the issue sufficiently to appease editor B, who has added the POV tag, which has then been removed by editor A, as well as another editor C. Editor B claims that the tag should remain until the issue is discussed in the article at more length. Should the tag be restored? What should be done? An WP:RFC about whether the issue is UNDUE or not? Is this even an issue of neutrality? At what point is a topic too minor to be an issue? Is not being discussed in any biography of a subject a valid argument to claim that the article is neutral without mentioning this issue, and would be non-neutral if it was to be discussed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "abstract" examples being brought here is of much help for fine-tuning the policy. Has the issue you describe been discussed at WP:NPOVN? And if so, has that resulted in a clear indication that current guidance provided by the policy page would be insufficient to handle the case? Examples similar to what you describe have, for example, been handled for the Prem Rawat and Lech Wałęsa articles (to name only a few that come to mind), without it being immediately clear that additional WP:NPOV instructions would have helped either. The first one of these has, for example, gone through a few ArbCom cycles, but I can't recall anyone complaining that lack of clarity in the WP:NPOV policy would have been at the root of the problem. Oops, this is WP:NPOVN page, confused I thought it was the WT:NPOV page (I have both on my watchlist). Bringing "abstract" examples here is of course also not likely to help in any case. Either there is a concrete discussion you'd like to have help on, then state it, but discussing in the abstract would usually be hardly helpful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC) 10:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Context is all "and Bert Terrible wears shows made by pygmies in tou tous" might not really be all that relevant if Bert Terrible is noted for being a cat confuser.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This page summary looks like a violation of NPOV, I believe personal opinions used

Hi everyone,

I want to make sure Wikipedia stays a place for facts alone and a reliable source. There is an article beginning that in my judgment violates neutral point of view, by means of stating opinions as facts. It's stated for Neutral point of view on Wikipedia to "Avoid stating opinions as facts."

The page for the movie God's Not Dead 2 states this on top:

"... It is a sequel to the 2014 film God's Not Dead, continuing its themes of the Christian persecution complex and two-dimensional stereotypes of atheists.[5] It follows a high school teacher facing a court case that could end her career, after having answered a student's question about Jesus- an apparent inversion of historical cases of prosecution of science teachers over the teaching of evolution.[6] It presents an evangelical perspective on the separation of church and state that is "wholly divorced from any rational understanding of the topic".[1]"

I believe saying that it has two-dimensional stereotypes is opinion, not fact. Also I believe saying it has the theme of a Christian persecution complex is definitely negative, and again I think stating the movie has it is opinion not fact. Lastly I think saying it's "wholly divorced from any rational understanding of the topic" is again definitely an opinion, and also quite negative. Frankly I think it makes the movie look bad overall too.

I believe as a whole this puts opinion as fact and also could make people who do like this movie (every movie has fans and critics) feel unwelcome. I also wanted to state this was in the introduction of the page. That section is for summary and I believe should at least be cautious if it's going to include cited opinions, only do so if truly necessary and relevant, and should state them clearly as opinions.

Opinions can be listed as opinions on Wikipedia, but I think the source of the opinion has to be stated. Only one piece of this, the "rational understanding" part, is in quotes, with a source not explained in text (footnote only).

What does everyone think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.13.139 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is an extension of the discussion over at Talk:God's_Not_Dead_2#Recent_edits Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. Any reasonable reader would understand that the passage is describing opinions expressed in the film, particularly when part of the text is in "quotes." Any further mention that this is opinion rather than fact would have the effect of denigrating the opinions expressed. TFD (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"continuing its themes of the Christian persecution complex and two-dimensional stereotypes of atheists." The definite article wrong there, because it makes Wikipedia say there is complex. Need to be clear movie content is opinion of movie maker!--KasiaNL (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Mortara case

Incipient NPOV dispute at Talk:Mortara case#One source issues. What exactly constitutes a fact vs. an opinion, and if it is the latter, should it be attributed to the scholarly authors? Is the fact even credible based on the chain of attribution and my personal incredulity? Elizium23 (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

What is dispute? Are you contesting that the kidnapping of a six-year old was shameful?--KasiaNL (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

KasiaNL, perhaps instead of forming an emotional opinion on the event you can comment on forming better neutrality in the dispute at hand. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Kidnapping is shameful, almost obvious. But article use good source: San Diego Law Review. Source writes that.--KasiaNL (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

KasiaNL, the trouble is that the scholars in the source relied on a single primary source, The Atlantic, which in turn relied on a single ultra-liberal scholar's opinion on how the Church feels about the event, and extrapolated that to something all Catholics must feel. I am doubtful that that is good scholarship. Elizium23 (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Usually when scholars seek to represent a consensus or survey opinions, they do so in a broad sense, sampling multiple opinions, citing multiple scholars who have done the legwork, and so forth. So you can see why I feel it is poor scholarship to fail to do these things and then state someone's biased opinion as fact. Elizium23 (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think neutrality problem is we do not write Catholics think today this shameful. Need to separate shameful past from present. Pope Francis would never in thousand years do something like Pope Pius IX did!--KasiaNL (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

KasiaNL, first of all, you call it "kidnapping" but that is rather willful bending of the facts. Children are taken away from parents all the time by the state, it's called "Child Protective Services". That is routine, for the good of the children, and definitely not kidnapping.

Secondly, the article DOES say that today's Catholics think it is shameful. That is exactly the problem: this is a poorly sourced assertion, and I contend that it is demonstrably false.

Thirdly, I don't care what Pope Francis would or wouldn't do, this is a historical fact, based partly on the Papal States which no longer exist: Pope Francis would be wholly unable to remove a child from an Italian household, because he holds no temporal power there. Elizium23 (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The child here was taken away on the basis that a former servant furtively baptized him and that the family was Jewish, that is not "Child Protective Services" in any regular meaning.--KasiaNL (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It was legal and legitimate function of government in the Papal States at the time, so to term it "kidnapping" is applying a modern POV that is not deserved by the players in the historical event. Elizium23 (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Was Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany from Poland legal and legitimate at the time? Page titled, rightly so, as kidnapping!--KasiaNL (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Long-term issues at Habesha peoples

I'm seeing a pattern of (I believe) POV-pushing at Habesha peoples. I think this has gone on for at least a year or two, but I'm only noticing after more closely watching the history of the article for the past month or so. I've previously raised my concerns at Talk:Habesha peoples. There appears to be an effort to document how the term "Habesha" has grown more inclusive of Ethiopians and Eritreans in general, rather than its older, more exclusive meaning of (for example) Amharic-, Tigrinya- and Agaw-speaking peoples. I'm not objecting to nor disputing that, per se. The problem is that HoAHabesha and (to a lesser extent) Llakew18 are doing so by adding content that suits their effort, while citing sources that don't actually (or at best, partially) back up their content. For example, the same content was added three times, each time citing a different source(s) when I raised an issue with the previous citation(s):

1. 23:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC) IP user adds content in front of an existing inline citation that doesn't corroborate the new text
2. 15:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC) IP user reintroduces same content, this time citing a different source, but one that doesn't corroborate the addition
3. 17:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC) HoAHabesha reintroduces the same content, citing numerous references including a malformed citation (twice), a problematic reference that I'd already mentioned at Talk:Habesha peoples (see following), and the same reference that the IP user had cited in edit #2.

More recently, Llakew18 added content along with a citation of a new source, 02:06, 16 April 2020‎, but the citation didn't corroborate the text. (Although, it did corroborate something that HoAHabesha had tried to add earlier, and as it was otherwise a useful reference, I left it in place after clarifying the context.)

In one case, a citation was constructed to appear as though it appeared in an academic journal.

1. Originally, blocked user Hoaeter added a link to a blog post in the "Further reading" section: 21:27, 1 October 2018‎.
2. This got reverted a few times (by Turtlewong) after which  192.5.215.225 (talk) added it again: 14:26, 10 October 2018‎ 192.5.215.225
3. Then blocked sockpuppet Hoaeter1 added it again: 23:10, 19 October 2018‎.
4. HoAHabesha added it again a few weeks later: 00:21, 2 December 2018‎.
5. HoAHabesha then made an inline citation to this, except now specifying its ostensible publication in the International Journal of Ethiopian Studies; at the same time HoAHabesha introduced contentious verbiage (MOS:WTW) such as "ultra-nationalist" and "ultra-neo-conservative": 22:35, 22 February 2019.

The appearance in the academic journal is highly doubtful at best, and I had previously raised my concerns about it (along with the content citing it) at Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2020/June#Synthesis, POV. From there, I summoned Doug Weller who had previously interacted with HoAHabesha concerning this same article. But that was before I saw this overlap between HoAHabesha, Hoaeter/Hoaeter1, and 192.5.215.225, which I only noticed in the course of writing up this report. (I had already suspected that HoAHabesha had edited from 192.5.215.225; see also Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2020/May#Source redux.)

I'm aware of varying definitions of "Habesha", though also in the context of people who don't consider themselves to be included -- in the newer context of the article, they might be considered nationalists, hence another aspect of the POV issue.

Over the course of writing this report I see that this is deeper and has gone on longer than I'd initially noticed. At this point I am not sure whether this report belongs here, or WP:NORN (where I had brought this earlier), or WP:SPI, or WP:LTA — or all the above. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

: Hey, here is the main issue, because this "Habesha" identity is fluid and an ever changing concept from one context to another and between individual sub-groups and in some cases shows similarities to a sub-culture. Academia has barley not cought up with the different uses. All I know is that either you have to be in the culture, or have to rely on non-traditional sources to give this pan-ethnic group justice in how it is described. What I've seen from my time editing Wikipedia and how I've seen the various re-occurring editors edit (just look at the talk page from past months and years in the Archive), I can easily tell if the editor is relying on various authentic sources that show different perspectives of identity or if the editor is using a outdated sources filled with pejorative terms, that don't take into consideration how the word is used within the culture, nor how the current generation self-identifies with it. So what I would say is that in order to get this issue over with, we editors need to make a consensus to lax the rules on the use of non-academic journal sources, show all the sides of this, let the reader make their own conclusions of what all of these various meanings mean, and give this cultural group's article some justice. I've see how pages about movies and tv shows have lax rules on sources (that they don't have to use academic journals), lets just make an exception to people groups that don't have as much information about them in academic journals. And lets just move on with this. Llakew18 (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with the article discussing the fluidity of the Habesha identity. The problem I have is editors citing sources, or in HoAHabesha's case fabricating one, whether or not they have anything to do with what they're writing. Regardless of the editors' intent, it comes off as "Let's write what we want, throw a couple of possibly related citations in with it, and see what sticks." And I can't see how using language like "ultra-nationalist" or "ultra-neo-conservative" (without citing a source to support these assertions) to describe opposing views is anything but POV-pushing. (And, again, I had gone into these issues at Talk:Habesha peoples.) I, for one, won't consent to bending Wikipedia's rules on verifiability and neutrality. I'm not here to compromise on that. I'm here to get help stopping this long-term editing pattern in this article. If someone wants to hash out what Habesha means without being encumbered by these rules, then I'd suggest there are other venues outside of Wikipedia for that. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

How Am I A SocPuppet ? 

I literally see multiple re-occurring editors that state similar points with each other all over pages that I have edited. I even sometimes click on the contributions link and put in the editors' user names or IP addresses to look for other similar pages that the editors have edited that I am interested in to edit. I do this all the time looking for things I want to edit. Along the way, I see multiple re-occurring editors that each time, I notice the same admins, the same admins I even recognize you User talk:Gyrofrog a lot over here to as well. When I see a sentence made by another editor that sounds weird, I rearrange or paraphrase it so it can sound better, that might also be why you think that I might have been a Sockpuppet. I like to edit certain topics that I know about and I click on the previous contributions of other editors to find other pages that are interesting to edit, so can you just remove this SocPuppet accusation, and can I just get back to editing without this looming over my head? Llakew18 (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think your question regarding this issue is better suited for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter (where I've already responded). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

As for the statement that you need to be part of the culture or have lax rules and use non-traditional sources, that's unacceptable. Note that the comparison with articles on movies and tv shows is meaningless, we still need reliably published sources for those, but obviously not academic ones because reporting on a movie is not an academic endeavour. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked them both as socks and struck through Llakew18's edits above. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Now that I've looked further back in the article's edit history, I now believe this goes back to 2017, when there was an actual user named Habesha Union, not just the name of the blog that was being cited here. I've re-opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Now I am wondering if this behavior, at least as meatpuppetry, goes all the way back to EthiopianHabesha, who was topic-banned in Feb. 2017 from editing any Horn of Africa-related articles. The Habesha Union account was created ca. 5 months after the topic ban. Here I will point out that the events leading up to and including EthiopianHabesha's topic ban discussion exasperated everyone (incl. Doug; sorry I brought it up again) who had tried to assist, and most if not all of the accounts involved in the dispute(s) leading up to it have been blocked and/or banned. One of the suggestions that came out of that was to add the entire topic area to WP:ACDS. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Links violating NPOV in see also section

I am having a NPOV dispute with User:Horse Eye Jack about linking articles in see also section (User talk:Pahlevun#WP:coatrack/Talk:Hostage diplomacy#NPOV). Horse Eye Jack wants to add Hostage diplomacy as a link in see also section of almost every article about people arrested in Iran, while I think see also sections are being used as a "hook" to "hang" irrelevant, undue or biased material there, and a way to evade providing reliable sources in the body that do mention that certain person as part of a hostage diplomacy campaign. I believe this addition pushes a certain POV (suggesting the person accused with crimes is innocent). Any thoughts? Pahlevun (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t be hyperbolic, three articles out of dozens (List of foreign nationals detained in Iran) or hundreds (if you want to count Iranian citizens under those arrested in Iran) is not "almost every article about people arrested in Iran.” I have tried to engage with you constructively but your refusal to cite even a broad section of NPOV which supports your argument is getting a little frustrating, you can’t just use NPOV as some sort of trump card and define it however you like it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't come here to ask if I thought those discussions were going to reach a conclusion, when you refuse to provide sources. I'm fed up with endless discussions and I need to hear other opinions. Pahlevun (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Its been sourced to The Daily Telegraph, a WP:RS, this entire time. You have decided to reject [4][5] their RS status for unclear reasons. I also added an article from a second WP:RS to the section in an attempt to assuage your concerns, but seriously even that was unnecessary as the original source is a WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion over the lead section of Ufology

There is an ongoing discussion over the lead section of the article on Ufology here: Talk:Ufology#Lead_Section Few editors are participating and some additional reviews would be appreciated to ensure the lead of this WP:FRINGE topic represents it accurately and with an appropriate NPOV. Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Taiwan, "country" or "state"

There has been continued discussion and failure to reach consensus on whether Taiwan should be called a "country" or "state" on the Taiwan article: Talk:Taiwan#Taiwan...is_a_country? I've opened an RfC to come to consensus. User:Stephen Balaban - 09:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone will ever come to any kind of concensus on that. There are too many partisan users, and I have to imagine bickering about the status of Taiwan is something that has been happening on and off on wikipedia since its inception. Any definitive result would likely have to be enforced by the arbitration committee. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Dear colleagues, edit warring and other nonsense has erupted at the Joe Biden article. The matter of contention relates to various recent allegations of inappropriate social and sexual conduct. Any fresh eyes on that article would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing says "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief." Describing changes other editors wish to make as "nonsense" is deprecated there.

Parts of the article Joe Biden touching on allegations of Biden's inappropriate sexual conduct at present use smaller text size, less article space and in other ways deemphasize allegations of Biden's conduct compared to the section given similar allegations directed at, say, Brett Kavanaugh. If it was WP:DUE to devote ten paragraphs to Christine Blasey Ford's accusations alone under a large type heading "Sexual assault allegations" in the Kavanaugh article, it's an indication that WP:NPOV requires the same treatment of Tara Reade's accusations of Joe Biden.

The article as it exists is bloated with laudatory material about Mr. Biden that is WP:UNDUE, while soft-pedaling Biden's more recent gaffes on the campaign trail. For these and other reasons, the article is being evaluated as to whether it should lose its Good Article listing. --loupgarous (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I referred to edit-warring as nonsense. Seems uncontroversial. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV regarding 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography controversy

Pulitzer Prize are a renowned international award. As per wikipedia policy, this article not in the wikipedia. Beacuse the sources are not strong about this controversy, some political leaders comment in the news only. There is WP:NPOV#Impartial_tone, WP:NPOV#Bias_in_sources, WP:NPOV#Balancing_different_views issues. Jubair Sayeed Linas (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. The place to discuss this first, is on the Talk page of the article, and I see you've already begun a discussion there, giving your side of the controvery. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Content disagreement at Democratic Socialists of America

Non-admin close - "There's a legitimate content issue here worthy of attention." No, content issues are handled on the article talk page or other places; this is the place for viewpoint issues. --Calton | Talk 06:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At Democratic Socialists of America, there has been a prolonged dispute over a single sentence regarding an incident at a convention documented in multiple reliable sources. This began with a discussion of over-reliance on primary sources throughout the article and insufficient use of secondary sources, especially those with critical content. In a section on the group's views on Israel, the article previously noted that, following the passage of a resolution by the organization endorsing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel, a number of attendees broke into a chant, "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free." The chant was recorded in a video posted to social media. Two news organizations picked up on this and reported the story: The Times of Israel and The Daily Beast. The Times of Israel is a highly circulated Israeli newspaper staffed by generally prominent journalists and has been responsible for high-quality investigative reporting. The Daily Beast is recognized at WP:RSP as reliable. With these two sources, the content clearly meets WP:DUE. The Daily Beast also offered background on why this particular chant is controversial: it is interpreted by some as calling for the end of Israel. The Times of Israel also noted an alternative interpretation, that it simply calls for the end of the occupation. Both of these were noted in the prior version of the article. This content was removed by @Objective3000:, based on the argument that it is an NPOV violation, essentially because this editor believes the journalist to be incorrect. Editor casts doubt on the reporting, saying It obviously states well more than that. It suggests that the DSA supports something that they haven't said they support without a wit of context. Not indicating that a tiny fraction of people cheered something is.... a couple tables out of 700 delegates, and we don't even know if they were delegates. Seriously, what is the purpose of telling people that they support things they don't support? Gross WP:NPOV violation. Just leave it all out as it doesn't match any facts.. The sources do not indicate a "tiny fraction" of supporters participated in the chant, they said "a number." About the interpretation of the chant, which these sources offered a summary of, O3000 said, You should remove that. Palestinian’s deny that is the meaning.. Forcing meaning into someone’s words that they say doesn’t exist is not acceptable. Applying one man’s opinion in a speech to an entire society and to anonymous people is unacceptable. referring to the journalist. Again, I don't see why the opinion of one journalist about what the slogan means has any weight. justifying removal. This amounts to an NPOV content dispute on its face, but I believe that the arguments above reflect a lack of adherence to NPOV by the editors removing the material, not the opinions expressed in reliable sources. A core tenet of WP:NPOV is that reliable sources are allowed to have opinions, but editors are not. The reasoning accompanying repeated removal of this text gets this backwards, IMO, and I'm seeking community input on this disagreement. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC) I’ve been greatly confused by the behavior of Objective3000 here. Rather than go by sources, he seems to more or less be making personal reasons as to why he disagrees with them. The sources are notable, the material is noteworthy - there’s no reason not to include. Toa Nidhiki05 02:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC) NPOV does not mean that every fact or observation reported in a reliable source can be or should be included in every relevant article. Instead it means that only the facts and opinions found significant in the body of literature should be included. If the reporters from CNN and other mainline U.S. media did not find something significant enough to mention, then it lacks weight for inclusion. Furthermore, inclusion of the Haaretz reporter's opinion on the meaning of the slogan is undue. She thinks it means that Jews would be stripped of citizenship and deported. Another interpretation is that Palestinians born in or descended from people born in what is today Israel would receive equal rights. It's a complex issue best explained in articles about the Israel/Palestine issue. What readers need to know is that the DSA convention overwhelmingly decided to adopt BDS. Different political groups take different positions on different issues. That's why most countries have more than one political party. Controversial issues in the U.S. today include the death penalty, same sex marriage, immigration, tariffs, relations with Russia and China, middle east wars, global warming, minimum wages, college debt and on and on. We don't need the explain the pros and cons of all these positions in every political article. TFD (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC) You clearly do not have consensus for a contentious, negative suggestion that this organization favors the elimination of Israel despite the fact they have never made any such statement. Indeed, the vote by the organization wasn't even about the existence of Israel. In fact, a handful of people among 700 delegates, who may not even have been delegates, do not speak for the organization -- and we don't even know who they were or what they meant. This extraordinary suggestion should not remain without consensus. This is a serious NPOV violation. And please do not attempt to provide my side of a discussion. O3000 (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Nowhere in the article did the content assert that "the organization favors the elimination of Israel." The article did note that a number of members of the organization chanted a controversial Palestinian nationalistic slogan at a conference, which some have interpreted as calling for the elimination of Israel, and others have noted as being more of a "resistance" slogan. Both of these interpretations were offered in the two sources I cited above and were included in the article with citation to same. Arguments that the journalist is "wrong" and that the coverage is "unfair" is what contradicts NPOV here, because it is based on editor's personal opinions, not reliable sources. NPOV requires we describe disputes, not engage in them. That's exactly what the article does, but editors at the talk page keep insisting on making ideological or substantively debating the content, and presenting that as a reason for removal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Again, please stop posting what you think is my position or the position of other editors that disagree with you. Seriously, you just quoted me saying "wrong" and "unfair" when I haven't used either word a single time. It's very difficult to have a discussion that constantly includes straw men. Do you think this is useful? Tired of this and going to bed. O3000 (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Editors are allowed to use judgment to determine whether reports may be inaccurate and exclude them. WP:REDFLAG is a perfect example of a policy that requires editors to do that. Fortunately if we follow NPOV we don't need to worry, because we are not supposed to include opinions that are ignored in the body of reliable sources. Furthermore, your argument is that we are not explicitly saying that the SDA wants to wipe Israel off the map, merely implying that it is a possibility. It's like Trump saying that Cruz looked like the Zodiac killer and the Zodiac killer has never been caught, then insisting that he wasn't saying Cruz was the Zodiac, merely asking a question. It's innuendo and while it is certainly used effectively by politicians, it's not encyclopedic writing. TFD (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Spare the analogies, because that's not my argument, that was a meaning of the slogan provided in the source, and that's not "innuendo." The language in the article was totally consistent with and closely adhered to the information provided in the sources, and you have presented no evidence that either of these reliable sources, one of which is listed at RSP, somehow got it wrong. You can't criticize the source for drawing a conclusion or considering something controversial because you disagree with it. WP:NPOV. It is a fact that the group was recorded chanting the slogan. It is also a fact that the slogan is controversial, and these sources explained why. Anyone can have an opinion about what's "encyclopedic" and what's not, but when that's selectively applied only to content covering controversies that is 1) reliably sourced and 2) sourced to multiple reliable sources, that's a problem. Multiple editors have observed that the arguments here are overtly political and assert personal opinions as superior to those of sources. This is exactly the opposite of following NPOV. The threshold for weight is not suddenly CNN and "the vast majority of coverage" for a single sentence, especially when the vast majority of the article already relies on primary or other lower-tier sources (which these are not -- both are established and recognized, and DB is on RSP). Objective3000 has suggested I mischaracterized their arguments, but just look at the quotes above and the comments in the thread. The editor takes issue with the underlying information and disputes inclusion solely on that basis. It's a violation of WP's fundamental NPOV policy when every editor with an opinion decides what's "encyclopedic" and who's wrong or right based on their own opinions, and not based on WP policy and coverage in reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Cmt I'll note that the arguments here are demonstrating the same non-NPOV reasoning at the talk page. The arguments are not Wikieditor is misrepresnting what this source said, it's the source is being unfair to the subject by bringing this up and/or criticizing them for it. This is clearly not a proper application of WP:NPOV. WP:NEUTRALEDIT is a helpful reference here: We do not document exclusively neutral facts or opinions, we write about all facts and opinions neutrally. The expression "neutral point of view" is misleading because NPOV refers to an editorial attitude and mindset; it is not a true "point of view". It refers primarily to editorial behavior, and relatedly to aspects of how editors present biased content. Editors must not allow their biases to non-neutrally affect whether or how they include, delete, or present biased content and sources. They must not introduce editorial bias, but must include and preserve content bias, while remaining neutral in how they do it. No one has disputed that the language matter-of-factly addressed the information in the underlying sources and that both sources are reliable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC) For the third time, stop trying to present other editors' arguments. Your claim that no one has disputed the sources is false. You have repeatedly stated that The Times of Israel is RS. I asked you then and ask again, why do you say this? I can find no consensus that it is to be used for Israeli-Palestinian conflict information. Your second source is The Daily Beast. According to perennial, it is considered biased or opinionated by most editors. These sources are not acceptable for such an exceptional claim. Where is the mainstream press? And then there's the claim in WikiVoice: a number of DSA members were recorded in a video posted to social media chanting.... What number? There were 697 delegates and who knows how many others. But, the video only shows a handful of people chanting with the others sitting mute. The text suggests that the DSA wants the elimination of Israel within 1967 lines. The DSA has never suggested anything of the sort. This is highly misleading. We are here to document, not push a POV. O3000 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC) I agree with O3000 that inclusion of the claim about the chant is undue. It is not surprising that a small number of pro-Israeli journalists tried to read a far-fetched interpretation into chanting by some people at a DSA meeting. The real issue that the Israeli government and its supporters are concerned about is support for the Boycott, Divertiture, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and they consistently promote the false allegation that supporters of BDS are anti-semitic and opposed to the existence of Israel. Claims of that sort are extraordinary, and should not be included in articles unless reported by unbiased mainstream journalists. NightHeron (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Mainstream, yes... unbiased, no. Sources are allowed to have a bias. ALL sources have a bias. Indeed the distinction between “mainstream“ and “fringe“ is DEFINED BY bias (with mainstream supporting the majority view, and the fringe view rejecting it). Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC) It runs up against the usual fringe problem of sources with no bias not covering what is a non-event from an unbiased viewpoint. So you get left with only biased sources pushing their own agenda. The idea that chanting that particular slogan is a call by the DSA for the elimination of Israel is laughable in that context (it would be different coming from a bunch of Palestinians protesting in Palestine, before they were shot that is) but it serves the Israeli POV. I have no issue with including that some members on the successful passing of the resolution chanted in celebration, its a fact that is well recorded. The Israeli-supported line that this is support by the convention for the elimination of Israel, even by implication/association, is not a widely covered or widely held view. And while a RS is an RS, those are opinions of the writers, not facts. And not even surprising opinions given the sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC) The number of comments continuing to violate NPOV by editors here is astounding. NPOV is to describe debates, not engage in them, as I've already said, and editors here are doing the opposite. @NightHeron: Believes the real issue is the Israeli government, and ignores all relevant reporting from reliable sources, which are "Israeli" and therefore wrong. Not only is this incorrect on the facts, this comment reveals a deep-seated bias and an inability to edit neutrally, and obviously has no bearing on the discussion at hand. It is a fact that the slogan, "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free" is controversial for the reasons the source described, that it is interpreted as calling for the elimination of Israel from the river to the sea. It is also noted as a resistance call against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. This goes fare beyond the sources I provided. This is not unlike the controversy with Marc Lamont Hill, a commentator (From CNN) who said the slogan at a speech and was subsequently fired. MLH denied that he meant to suggest violence or the elimination of Israel. The slogan was interpreted as offensive for the same reasons that the two sources I provided summarized (they did not invent this controversy, and they are not offering an interpretation not already widely recognized). Regardless, it was the focus of intense media coverage, and resulted in MLH's departure from CNN. This is all noted on his page. Here, editors are making ideological arguments why that interpretation of the slogan is unfair, even though it is established in reliable sources far beyond the two I provided. I will further note that at the DSA page, the vast majority of it is sourced to DSA content from the website or other sources closely associated with it. Of course, none of this was challenged by the editors above, only when we have actual reliable secondary sources touching on issues that they have strong political opinions about do these contentious debates start. This is clearly in violation of the text & spirit of NPOV, especially regarding the content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Wikieditor19920: Your tactic seems to be to put words into other editors' mouths and then argue against them. I did not say that the "real issue is the Israeli government" or that sources that are Israeli are "therefore wrong," as you misquote me as saying. Nor am I "engaging in debate." Don't presume to know what other editors think. As it happens, I don't even support BDS (just for your information, although that's irrelevant). But I think that Wikipedia should be very careful about giving credence to scurrilous accusations against supporters of BDS that come from highly opinionated sources. Your accusation that I have a deep-seated bias seems to be a case of what psychologists call projection. NightHeron (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC) A quote from your post: The real issue that the Israeli government and its supporters are concerned about is support for the Boycott, Divertiture, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and they consistently promote the false allegation that supporters of BDS are anti-semitic and opposed to the existence of Israel. This is what you posted to an NPOV noticeboard -- an ideological screed/diversion with no references to sources, policy, or the relevant content of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC) One of the reasons to be careful about sourcing an allegation that DSA members believe something offensive about Israel is that there's a concerted campaign going on to discredit the BDS movement, put pressure on US universities to censor BDS-advocacy, and slander BDS activists by accusing them of anti-semitism and opposition to Israel's existence. Whether one agrees or disagrees with BDS, or whether one agrees or disagrees with Israeli policies toward Palestinians, Wikipedia should not include extraordinary claims in the article unless they're extensively covered by mainstream sources. NightHeron (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Once again, you are misrepresenting what other editors are saying and debating straw men. O3000 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Objective3000 Do not make a bad-faith accusation of straw men again. For someone who repeatedly claims FOC, you show no interest in following that policy. Rules for thee but not for me. NightHeron, this is not an appropriate forum to debate BDS, DSA, or any aspect of the political issue you just described. This is precisely the problem. The characterization of the slogan as controversial is documented in numerous reliable and mainstream sources. This is just one side of the dispute, of course. Are there differing interpretations? Yes. Both were covered in the article. It's not our job to assert one as correct and the other as incorrect. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC) I have responded directly to points made on this page. You repeatedly complain about "strawmen" when I describe your position, but that's all you argue against. Other editors have acknowledged that your arguments have been inappropriately political. If you want to offer a POLICY BASED reply, go ahead, but stop responding with little rejoinders and false statements. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC) I stand by my arguments as I stated them -- not as you interpret them. You have not shown the cites to be from WP:RS for this addition, that the inclusion is WP:DUE or that the inclusion is WP:NPOV. When a couple of biased sources publish something; but our top-line RS in both print and broadcast make no mention of the event (a brief chant by a handful of anonymous people interpreted in an extremely negative manner by biased sources) then we have a problem. That's what WP:REDFLAG is about. And keep in mind your recent reminder at AE to WP:FOC. O3000 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Again, the hypocrisy is astonishing. Engage with other editors as you want to be treated. Do not make repeated accusations of strawmen or other personal criticisms. You suggest I have not shown either cite to be reliable. This is, again, patently false. The Daily Beast is noted as reliable at RSP. Times of Israel is cited extensively in Wikipedia, it's staff and board members include prominent journalists, and it has been responsible for high-profile breaking news investigations in Israeli. All of these are traditional hallmarks of reliability, yet your arguments continue to characterize this source as biased and/or untrustworthy which you dispute by pointing out the fact that the title has the word "Israel" and is therefore biased and/or untrustworthy without providing any reasonable explanation why. "A brief chant" is your characterization, not that of a source, as is "extremely negative," since the Times of Israel acknowledged differing interpretations of the chant. "Anonymous people" is a misnomer: they were reported to be DSA members, based on their presence at the conference at participation at the vote by DSA to pass a resolution (typically a responsibility performed by members). All of these arguments you pose are incredibly misleading. The chant is controversial, as shown by the Marc Lamont Hill controversy over essentially the same subject matter. Nothing about this is "exceptional" and multiple reliable sources have been provided. Sources are allowed to state opinions, including those you might personally disagree with. Editors are not allowed to inject their personal opinions into articles through selective omission of material or by bludgeoning talk pages or noticeboards with ideological rants. I've said what I have to say on this matter.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Comment Objective3000 is clearly continuing to make arguments in the same vein at the talk page, and I will not continue responding because the exchange obviously goes nowhere. Editor is now making slight nods to policy but this is disingenuous. The dispute seems to center on the interpretation of the slogan "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." Editors assert that these two reliable sources are wrong for noting the controversial history of this statement (Because the Daily Beast , or suggesting that they alone view the slogan as controversial. Apparently the sources are "Israeli" means they are biased and or untrustworthy. However, the phrase has a history of controversy that goes well beyond these two sources, which merely summarized the history. Editors are simply arguing that interpretations of the phrase as offensive are wrong. This is classic NPOV-violating behavior: engaging in a substantive dispute rather than adhering to what sources say. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC) According to Perennial sources, most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Such sources are iffy when reporting exceptional claims, and should not be used without mainstream sources. The Israel Times is not in perennial sources, and RSN discussion clearly show that there is no consensus on reliability. Extremely negative is obvious according to your own sources. Anonymous people is correct. Who were they? How do you know they were DSA delegates? How do you know they voted? Why do you keep bringing up Marc Lamont Hill. He has nothing to do with this article. Nothing whatsoever. I am relying on experts as to what the chant meant. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my interpretation as I can’t have the faintest idea what anonymous people meant by it and therefore have no personal interpretation. You stated: which you dispute by pointing out the fact that the title has the word "Israel" and is therefore biased and/or untrustworthy.. Enough of being polite. That’s a goddamn lie. Retract this immediately and don’t you ever make a false accusation like that again. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC) @Objective3000: The interpretation of the slogan is indeed negative according to some reliable sources, and that's allowed. The CNN Marc Lamont Hill piece shows that controversies surrounding this slogan extend beyond this limited instance and are not limited to these two sources. (I'll note that NightHeron suggested the sources were "pro-Israeli" -- the piece in the Daily Beast is by Abraham Riesman, a Brooklyn-based reporter.Whatever "experts" you want to claim agree with you assertion that the slogan doesn't mean X, it doesn't matter, because there are obviously differing views on it (both of which were noted in the article) and we are obligated to describe disputes, not engage in them. It's too bad you're now "done being polite," but it's difficult to notice. You repeatedly claim that Times of Israel is biased, slanted, that it's reporting is libelous, and yes, we do have editorial discretion. Something The Times appears to have lacked in this instance. This is not a productive discussion on reliability, this is you repeatedly denigrating a source as biased with no evidence other than you disagree with its reporting and seem to be operating on a presumption that it is biased. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Everything I have said about the Times of Israel is based on it not being in perennial sources and based on reviewing RSN archives. I have stated this a few times. I have never even slightly indicated I have a problem with the word Israel in its title. Your accusation is a goddamn lie. Retract it immediately. O3000 (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC) RSP is not an exhaustive list of all reliable publications and non-inclusion on that list does not rule out reliability. You cited a discussion from RSN where the primary argument against it was that it is an Israeli publication and is therefore biased on I/P subjects and said it was "heavily slanted" in this instance. I inferred that you were adopting the argument at RSN. If you merely meant to note that that conversation existed, it might be helpful to elaborate why you believe Times of Israel is inappropriate to cover this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC) How many times do I have to explain the same thing? The first time you brought it up as a cite on the article TP, you claimed it was RS and I asked why you believed this. The RSN discussion is very lengthy and there was no consensus. In a recent TP discussion on another article, you said about another source: "If it's not considered a reliable source, it isn't considered a reliable source." O3000 (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC) I struck the comment and am perfectly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, this is a wholesale diversion from the central issue. Multiple reliable sources have reported on this matter. Your belief that these sources are wrong and vague accusations of bias is not an appropriate reason for removal. Again, NPOV requires we describe disputes, not engage in them. There is a dispute over the meaning of the slogan, and some sources note that it has a negative connotation. This is allowed when it adheres to a reliable sources. You cannot remove reference to this viewpoint because you disagree with it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC) More WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLUDGEON. Once again you misinterpret and make false claims. I stand by my edits, which are policy based. Nowhere did I engage in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is boring. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC) WP:FOC. This issue remains unresolved. Here is a quote from the above user about why they removed this material: negative suggestion that this organization favors the elimination of Israel despite the fact they have never made any such statement. Indeed, the vote by the organization wasn't Indeed, the vote by the organization wasn't even about the existence of Israel. In fact, a handful of people among 700 delegates, who may not even have been delegates, do not speak for the organization. This is baselessly casting doubt on reporting: According to reports, this took place at a convention for the organization and was attended by delegates. This is the reporting. "A handful" is this user's characterization (this user previously demanded specificity as to the precise number of people chanting, a transparent WP:STONEWALLING tactic), not the sources. Multiple reports that its members, after voting on a resolution, chanted a controversial slogan that has been interpreted, according to reliable sources, as either 1) calling for the elimination of Israel or 2) protesting the Israeli occupation of the WB. Both were noted in the article. This is not a "strawman," these are the comments that this user has made on this page and the other talk page. A few editors here have noted this, and some have simply said they agree with the ideological arguments about BDS and "pro-Israel" sources offering criticisms or viewpoints they believe to be wrong or unfair. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC) You must stop claiming that other editors said things they never said. You do this constantly. Please learn to not speak for other editors. I never asked for a precise number, or anything like that. And taking a paragraph out of a very lengthy discussion is not helpful. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC) I have not yet discovered how to respond to these arguments without being accused of strawmanning or misrepresenting your position, so I apologize for experimenting with direct quotes. Maybe diffs? The sources and article said "a number of," and as I understand it you want it to say "a tiny fraction" even though that's not what the sources say. At the DSA page, you then repeatedly added the quantify[6] inline tag to the line about the chant asking for a specific percentile and raised the same issue at the talk page [7]. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC) No, I didn't say to add "a tiny fraction" to the text either. This is pointless. O3000 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC) You just said the number of participants in the chant was a "tiny fraction," which is made up from whole cloth and is not in any RS reporting, and that the whole sentence should be removed because a "number of" is "weaselly," despite it being exactly the term the source uses. Right. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC) You simply don't understand what I and others have said, no matter how many times we repeat it. O3000 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC) I pulled the language "tiny fraction" from your remarks on this page referring to the number of participants in the chant and small fraction at the DSA talk page.. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Somebody close this. No chance it will ever do anything but waste time. O3000 (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Disagree. There's a legitimate content issue here worthy of attention, and your initial removal was premised on this being an NPOV violation.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ross Ulbricht

Dealing with an editor who is trying to gloss over Ross Ulbricht, the creator of darknet market Silk Road. WHS Dad (and to a lesser extent at this time NeutralInfo) has taken it upon themselves to describe Ross in the first line of the article as an 'entrepreneur.'

Ulbricht is a libertarian who tried to characterize Silk Road, which was mostly used for selling illegal drugs, as a social experiment of a market with no regulations, and WHS is parroting this line. Their rationale, posted on the talk page as well as edit descriptions, is that describing him in a way that acknowledges he's best known for illegal activity (the previous description of Ulbricht was as a 'convict,' possibly done by someone who just didn't want to call him a drug trafficker) constitutes an unfair lean towards "Government Point Of View." Instead, WHS is treating him like a legitimate businessman.

Left a reply to WHS' rationale on the talk page. Given their last edit consisted of parroting the talking points of Ulbricht's family/advocates' website, I don't think they'll listen. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia normally describe criminals as entrepreneurs? I think not.--KasiaNL (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• If this continues you can request a partial block or topic ban. This is a WP:SPA/WP:RGW issue. Guy (help!) 07:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Also a WP:GS/Crypto issue - David Gerard (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Federalist and coronovirus

In March and April 2020, The Federalist (website) wrote articles denouncing coronovirus social distancing measures as an attempt to intentionally destroy the U.S. economy for political reasons, and temporarily had their twitter account suspended for promoting fringe ideas about coronovirus that contradicted public health experts. There is some content to this effect under the subsection heading "Coronavirus pandemic misinformation". In order to satisfy concerns that the heading violates NPOV, does the word "Alleged" need to be added to the subsection heading, i.e., "Alleged Coronavirus pandemic misinformation"? AzureCitizen (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No. The views are clearly unanimous among experts and reliable sources that this group disseminated false information. Alleged is only appropriate where there is legitimate doubt as to the accusation. WP:ALLEGED. Only fringe views and sources challenge these conclusions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the above, It is not alleged it is misinformation, that might well kill. And even if NPOV might apply I would invoke wp:iar, our job is to give people accurate information, not pander to the egos of the great and silly.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

IAR not necessary, rules are sensible enough so that we don't have to give credence to loons. WP:FRINGE Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Just hedging my bets, this is the kind of dangerous loony fringe pseudoscience that actually really does matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, we don't need to say "alleged" here anymore than we say "alleged round earth disinformation" about a flat earth site. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No need for 'alleged'. It's a violation of FRINGE not to described the misinfo as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV regarding live person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sears

Lack of Neutrality Alert regarding live person - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sears

I made changes to a page and an administrator Doug_Weller removed it - and told me to go to NPOV page, so I'm here.

Here is the diff page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Sears&diff=prev&oldid=933843714

The information that I object to:

[The book was described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as "an anti-LGBT call to arms that links homosexuality to pedophilia and other 'disordered sexual behavior.'"[8]]

in context is contentious regarding the author of the book briefly mentioned, Alan Sears, especially when the quotation is merely an opinion. Putting a negative statement about a live person, without providing a balance on the other side or any contrary viewpoint is not permissible. We need to be more cautious about posting regarding live persons.

The reliable sources says about using SPLC "Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." The BLP requires a neutral point of view (NPOV) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons I submit that the statement about Alan Sears is not from a neutral point of view, as it does not present any information about the book other than that one quote. NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately... all the significant views ... on a topic." Also: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)...." The choice of words in the post about Alan Sears's book is one-sided and is not neutral.

--Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

So do you have another side to present?Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The opinion is attributed, so the material is in compliance with the RSP recommendation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but lets give them a chance to present their evidance.Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Attributed to a respected source. I don’t see a problem, and haven’t seen anyone come up with a respected source that says otherwise. I am a bit confused that you say you made changes to the page and Doug removed. I think Doug reverted edits by Suncrow, who is indeffed. O3000 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• This is not really a “living person” issue. The text in question relates to a BOOK that Sears wrote, not Sears himself. Negative book reviews (opinions) are fine as long as we attribute the reviewer (in this case the SPLC). If there are positive reviews those can also be added with attribution). Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ihaveadreamagain:, "merely an opinion"? What does that even mean? And NPOV does not apply to sentences. If we followed your advice we'd have to gut a lot of articles. Doug Weller talk 05:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• SPLC is important. Sources cover SPLC labeling ADF as hate group: [8][9][10].--KasiaNL (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's accurate to say NPOV doesn't apply to sentences. I see what this is getting at, but WP:IMPARTIAL requires a neutral tone for all prose. Regardless, I don't see this particular sentence as being badly written. It matter-of-factly states the SLPC's characterization with an attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought BLP applied to content (including even single words, let alone sentences. If I wrote "and I think Bert Terrible eats babies" that would be both one sentence and a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll strike that, Slatersteven's example is convincing. I meant that a sentence doesn't have to be neutral. "Creationist science is a form of pseudoscience" isn't as neutral as "Creationist science may be a form of pseudoscience", but we don't have to say "may be". Doug Weller talk 10:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• If we are to leave that sentence, that keeps getting longer, then what descriptor can we use for the SPLC to show which way it leans so that readers who are unfamiliar with the SPLC can decide its weight: Can we use the words from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources "As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source" -- to show context? --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

It keeps getting longer because every time I try to find anything about it its negative.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The SPLC is biased against hate groups. No, we cannot use those words. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. We can, and did, attribute it as called for by Perennial sources. O3000 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

-- It seems we could at least label SPLC left-leaning, liberal or at least the most neutral term, "activist." The paragraph about the book tells readers nothing about the book other than what an activist group thinks. I thought Wikipedia was to inform not to sway. And, we're getting into the "hate group" debate, which is not what Wikipedia is for, so i would strike that "SPLC is biased against hate groups" -- which is circular anyway, as they define "hate groups." --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

If you're saying that being against hate groups means you are liberal or left-leaning, that would be an opinion and not a neutral point of view. O3000 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It would also need a source saying they are.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

-- I understand. I easily found a reliable source, The Hill, which states "The Southern Poverty Law Center, an activist group tracking hate groups in the U.S...." -- so we should be able to add that label before SPLC, as "activist" is used to describe organizations that are on various sides of issue advocacy and action. It has no negative connotation, but would help clarify that the SPLC is a private organization and not as some may think, merely a law firm or an agency. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

link?Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Alas, it has come to have a negative connotation by many. O3000 (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

-- Activism -- I see no negative connotation here and we could add this Wikipedia link to explain. BTW, I put The Hill link that I was missing, above. Even in that context there is nothing negative behind the word in the article.

  I'd like to add that and move on to other articles. :) --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

Deep state in the United States NPOV

The article already has both conspiratorial and non-conspiratorial theories of the Deep State in the United States complete with accepted, consensus RS. Editors are POV pushing that only material that supports conspiratorial theories should be on the page and are resisting the elaboration of non-conspiratorial variants that are already accepted in the text. RFC tried and failed to resolve the issue. TMLutas (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The NPOV notice has been improperly removed. I let that go a few weeks ago for a different NPOV request and instead went to a fruitless, RfC process that resolved nothing. I request sanctions proper to the situation at Deep State in the United States. TMLutas (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

1. This isn't a place to "request sanctions," WP:AE and WP:ANI are thataway. 2. The idea that there is some sort of organized anti-Trump conspiracy in the federal government is indeed dismissed by reliable sources as a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not actually challenging that Deep State is often a label attached to conspiracies. The problem is that Deep State is a catchall label for a bunch of things, most conspiracy, some not, and breaking out the serious academic work on double government and other Deep State theories from the fever swamp stuff is worthwhile work but can't happen when any further mention is met with "that doesn't belong here, it's solely a conspiracy theory" which is not supported by the article. That's POV pushing and why the NPOV tag went up in the first place. I do want to thank you for the proper place to put the sanctions request. I'm not in a particular hurry to request sanctions but the idea that you can't put an NPOV tag up without consensus but can remove one after a month of discussion and debate leads to no change in the commitment to POV pushing has to either get addressed or the NPOV tag instructions need editing. TMLutas (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

TMLutas has refused to show where there is a consensus on the article's talk page for a NPOV tag, and yet refuses to remove the tag he placed on the article. At this moment, that tag represents nothing except TMLutas' own personal point of view that the article is biased. The tag should be removed until soomeone gets a consensus for the tag to be placed on the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the tag. TMLutas, an RfC is not "fruitless" just because it is going against your position. O3000 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The tag is normally not placed by consensus but removed by consensus. TMLutas (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

East Stratcom Task Force

Could editors please take a look at the East StratCom Task Force article, particularly with regard to the Criticism section? It appears that an SPA has reverted their material (or parts thereof) back into the article several times now. In the longer term, some watchers would probably also be helpful. Sunrise (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Magic (supernatural)

There is a pov pushing attempt trying to take sourced content of that article related with religion and other spiritual beliefs. A WP:POVFORK was created [11] with that purpose and despite that there was consensus in the talk page that the relevant content should be in the original article, there is an attempt [12] to delete both the content moved from the fork and the tags noting the problem under the rationale that the article was "stable form for well over a year now". Rupert Loup (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterisation of the events taking place. Since yesterday, Rupert Loup has tried to make mass additions and alterations to the Magic (supernatural) article and has edit warred to restore these once they were removed as per WP:BRD ([13], [14], [15]). As far as I can tell, this editor have never before had any involvement with said article. The page itself has been in a fairly stable form for over a year now; part of Rupert's additions (although by no means all) include material that was removed from the article well over a year ago for simply being irrelevant or otherwise problematic (at which point some of it was moved into Concepts of magic per society, which Rupert has recently turned into a redirect back to Magic (supernatural)). Aside from the fact that I believe their actions represent WP:Disruptive editing and in no way improve the Magic (supernatural) article, I don't think this is a relevant situation for the NPOV noticeboard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting." Your edits are disruptive and you keep POV forking. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The alleged POVForking which you accuse me of took place in January 2018 so the fact that it is only raising eyebrows now seems odd. I say allegedly because moving some text into Concepts of magic per society was more about trying to split the Magic (supernatural) article which had become unwieldy and had been used as a dumping ground for almost any and all information that any interested editor thought vaguely relevant to the topic of magic. If you want to reinstate some of that material, you are more than welcome to present your argument at the Talk Page. However, please do not edit war and make unfair accusations while doing so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"Vaguely relevant to the topic of magic" that's your POV but I don't see concensus for that in the talk page, in fact I see the opposite. WP:POVFORK is specific in that subject, I ask for intervention of other editors here. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"I don't, however, think that you will be able to do that, because I don't think it's the case. Magic is a Western concept. That's just a fact." [16] Again, read WP:NPOV. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Rupert that this is a POV push by Midnightblueowl. I have been a long time editor of this article and Midnightblueowl has been a staunch defender of their POV for a long time.

The particular POV they are defending is a semantic argument wherein they claim that because the English word magic wasn't found in ancient societies it is impossible that magic was a concept in those societies. This position is not supported by the sources, ample of which have been provided to counter their claim. It seems to me that they are misinterpreting sources and synthesizing a view based on this misinterpretation. For example, they misinterpreted a source that says that Europe's concept of magic evolved with the rise of Christianity as saying that the concept of magic arose in Europe. However they have refused to accept any input or other sources and have reworked the entire article to support this misinterpretation. Please see the talk page for details.

The fork in question did happen in 2018, without consensus. The reason this hasn't been undone is that Midnightblueowl staunchly defends this page making it difficult to work with them. They often assert that "this page has been stable for some time now" as if this is a valid argument for not making edits. I believe the page has been stable because of how ardently they defend it. I hadn't changed it as I was taking a wikibreak because I was sick of how horrid editing had become due to a prevalence of this kind of behavior. I came back when Rupert pinged previous editors of the page to review the situation, at which time Midnightblueowl's response was a claim of canvassing. They have exhibited this tendency to ad hominem and wikilawyering if they don't get their way for some time now.

I believe Midnightblueowl is a well intentioned, enthusiastic editor and I would be happy to work with them again on the article if they can agree to abide by the sources and back away from their ownership behavior. Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: While I totally disagree with Rupert loup bringing back "magick" as a term, I also don't think Midnightblueowl's heavily sociological view of "magic" is comprehensive. To be clear, I think it's an important perspective, and I'm glad Midnightblueowl has introduced it and tightened the article, as well as removed some of the sketchier sources used elsewhere... but... it is just one facet of how magic is viewed, and a heavily academic one. It's certainly not close to what you'd get from "actual" practitioners in the sense of people who go to neopagan stores and buy books. Also agree with Rupert loup that attempting to claim magic is solely a Western idea created comparatively recently is off too - sure, other cultures meant different things by magic and called it different terms, but if nothing else, people have back-connected these things to "magic". It is, at the very least, respectable to mention that happened and go into some detail, even if it comes with a large disclaimer of "Mesopatamian divination was its own thing that later practitioners of magic identified as doing something similar" or the like. Isn't it possible that both sides can be happy here? Keep all of the academic, sociological stuff introduced by Midnightblueowl and also include the other cultures info from Rupert and older revisions of the page? (Also agree with Morgan Leigh that "this page has been stable for a long time now" is not a reason to leave it as such. Midnight is very persistent, which can be good, but can also just mean you've scared off opposition. From afar, I don't really agree with many of the edits you made to the likes of Magic and religion, say. That said, while I mildly disagree, an active editor "caring" and maintaining the page is more important than disagreement, so please don't take this as an attempt to scare you off, Midnightblowowl - your contributions are valuable.) SnowFire (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your thoughts, SnowFire. If you have the time and inclination, why not join us over at the Magic (supernatural) talk page on discussing some of the ways to improve the article? The more the merrier. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment from Dispute resolution noticeboard. A dispute resolution thread was filed at DRN and has been closed because the dispute is being addressed here. Either NPOVN or DRN is a reasonable forum for this matter, and this was filed first. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Freudian pictures

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.

---

• Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An image of Sigmund Freud is included in both these articles. In one the caption is "Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis", in the other it additionally says "Bieber and his colleagues discuss Freud's views".

Freud, a Victorian, apparently believed that homosexuality was aberrant. I think most of us will be aware that Freud had many idiosyncratic opinions on sex that were bound up in the fashion for psychoanalysis, but are not nowe considered scientific. The question is whether including a photograph of a distinguished-looking Freud as "the founder of psychoanalysis" lends undue weight to his outdated views on homosexuality in the context of authors writing in the 1960s.

The argument is that a (captioned) photograph of Freud does not imply any conferral of legitimacy. I dispute this. Freud is dramatically more famous than any of the article subjects or the other sources and influences discussed, and the lay reader probably doesn't know that psychoanalysis is disputed and several of Freud's ideas are no longer accepted: he has the status of quite probably the best-known figure in the entire history of mental health in terms of name recognition. I see this as asymmetric and likely to imply a degree of support that is absent from the actual subject matter of these books, which promote conversion therapy (a pseudoscience whose promotion is actually illegal in several jurisdictions due to the harms it inflicts). It is hard to see how a lay reader will fail to infer from the link to Freud that the idea of homosexuality as aberrant is a part of mainstream psychological practice, rather than what it is, an idiosyncratic and outmoded personal opinion on the part of an influential but scientifically controversial figure. Guy (help!) 21:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, psychologist here. It's inappropriate to include those photos on reparative therapy-relate pages, as Freud didn't believe in it. His views on homosexuality were actually progressive for the time that he lived in. We have a whole page that covers this: Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Both of those articles are about post-Freudian ideas, so including his picture is an WP:OR Appeal to authority. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• An image of Freud is simply an image of Freud. It does not lend weight to any view of any kind. The images are entirely appropriate, since Freud definitely was an influence on the authors of the books in question, and it is false to suggest otherwise. JzG's claim that "the lay reader probably doesn't know that psychoanalysis is disputed" is both totally unsupported by evidence and also utterly insulting to the intelligence of Wikipedia's readers. There is a WP:FORUMSHOP issue here: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages...". JzG started a basically identical discussion at WP:ANI. As this thread is an instance of forum shopping, it should be closed forthwith. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2020 (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.

Toxic masculinity Neutrality Dispute

Link to discussion

There is a dispute over the neutrality of the page Toxic_masculinity, over whether or not to include a particular phrase in the heading. One user is arguing that we should include the phrase "The use of the term has come under scrutiny for the implied meaning that gender-related issues are caused by inherent male traits, an idea that has been criticized by Michael Salter, a professor of Criminology at the University of New South Wales" (with a citation to the article written by said professor), as seen here. Another editor is arguing that this phrase - and any mention of the use of term being disputed - should be entirely excluded from the heading. Discussion on the topic failed, and the page is now protected until the dispute is resolved. EditSafe (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion did not "fail"; rather, EditSafe tried to force certain content into the article (Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4) in order to include "both sides of the argument", later clarifying that they meant to "include differing views when there is significant disagreement", which seems like saying the same thing in different words. I explained that NPOV means representing viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", and not in proportion to the level of agreement or disagreement. EditSafe still hasn't shown how any policy supports their claim of "bias" in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC) (edited 19:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC))

My argument, as I explained on the talk page, is that the Atlantic piece by Michael Salter is a primary source for any criticism of the term "toxic masculinity" by Salter himself, and that we should stick to secondary sources, and scholarly ones where possible. Otherwise the article becomes just another back-and-forth compendium of popular media commentary, which has latched on to this topic of late. Besides, any "criticism" should be described in the body before it's added the lead section (or at least in the same edit). Putting "criticism" in the lead section alone would unbalance the article. Honestly, we don't even need the Salter piece for "criticism" of the topic, since there's a university textbook chapter in The Palgrave Handbook of Male Psychology and Mental Health that criticizes the concept quite harshly (arguably making several strawman arguments about the concept and its use, as well as equivocating on the meaning of "masculinity", which should give one pause before citing it uncritically). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like WP:SELFPUB applies here for the Salter opinion piece. Salter is a professor at a prominent Australian university. Google Scholar shows that he is well cited and has published works in recognized periodicals. This appears to make him enough of an expert on the subject matter to satisfy WP:RS. Whether his commentary belongs in the lead is a closer question, but I don't see it as inappropriate or WP:UNDUE to include his views on the subject in the article, and NPOV probably weighs in favor of inclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich has also "published works in recognized periodicals". How does Salter's work in the area of social media and criminology make him an "expert on the subject matter"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, 1) whose work in the relevant field 2) has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The "Toxic masculinity" concept is almost certainly within the broader field of sociology, and this professor has published and been cited in relevant works in that field. If Newt Gingrich or anyone else meets the criteria for SELFPUB, they can be considered an expert. Are you trying to exclude this material because you don't like this person's opinion or because you don't think the elements of WP:SELFPUB are met? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion here between sociology and criminology. While the latter includes aspects of the former, they're not the same thing. While Salter has written journal articles about "geek masculinity" and online harassment, as well as the "construction of masculinities" within violence-prevention programs, it's unclear how well this overlaps with the sociological concept of toxic masculinity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

So he's written journal articles on masculinity and is a sociology professor. His university bio indicates expertise in criminology and social sciences. I really don't see what I'm missing here. You guys (excuse the term) can hash whether he's undue for the lead but it seems like relevant content for the article and appears to meet WP:SELFPUB. I'm all for rigor, but I don't like all this parsing and hairsplitting when it's selectively applied. This article links out to numerous writers and pieces of seemingly equivalent weight and reliability (opinion pieces by academics, professors and such, written in various news columns), and I don't see why this one stands out as unsuited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Wikieditor19920. I think it's been well established at this point that the inclusion of Salter's work is appropriate, and as such we need to focus our discussion more on whether or not its appropriate to include in the header. As brought up by User:Wikieditor19920 the article contains several sources of seemingly equivalent weight and reliability. Further, the article contains many uncited claims both in the body and in the header. The header has four sections of text, none of which relate to the controversy or opposition to the use of the term, so to maintain better neutrality, I still hold that it's important to reinstate the removed sentence. Since we've determined that the source and its content is appropriate to use in the article, and considering how the header has no information relating to the claims supported by the source, I maintain that reinstating the removed phrase from the header is appropriate. EditSafe (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: once again, you seem to be confusing criminology with sociology. Where do you see Salter listed as a "sociology professor"? The article "links out" to various opinion pieces precisely because they are unsuitable as direct sources. Where do you see any equivalent sources (opinion columns etc.) being cited for the authors' opinions? @EditSafe: this is begging the question. If there is a "controversy" among scholars, the existing sources say little about it. Once again, neutrality means summarizing the predominant views of reliable sources, not trying to balance the "sides". I've had a hand in most of the text that's in the article, and I think it's very well cited. Which statements are un-cited? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Eric Anderson, who seems to be a notable sociologist of gender, apparently (non-RS) doesn't like the concept of toxic masculinity and thinks it's non-academic, so his 2019 Men and Masculinities published by Routledge (ISBN 9781138081819) or previous papers would probably be a place to start looking for better critical sources. Though I think The Atlantic source discussed here is acceptable as well. Currently the article doesn't have a critical word, and if/when criticism exists in reliable sources, some weight should be given. Although I think Sangdeboeuf is displaying some WP:OWN behavior in the article (219 edits), I agree with him that the lead is not the place to start covering critical views of the term. However, this shouldn't be out of the question by any means, if more substantial text is written with high-quality sources in other section. --Pudeo (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm truly sorry you find my 219 edits to be a form of ownership, but I thought that was called "contributing to the encyclopedia". I'm not sure the Atlantic piece is necessarily reliable in this context. None of the other popular-media references in the article are used as primary sources for someone's opinion. If it were published in the print magazine, maybe, but the Salter piece is from the online publication, which has a different editor than the print version and lacks the print magazine's reputation and history. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead is a summery of the article, thus it should only be there if there is a significant material (in OUR article) about this criticism. If there is we do not need quotes or extensive commentary in the lead, that should go in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I see a Time and a Vice piece cited in this article. Let's not be so high and mighty. "Toxic masculinity" is a popularized term that some academics have given weight to with peer reviewed articles offering different interpretations. This is not neuroscience. Michael Salter is a published academic who has written on issues of gender, masculinity, and gender violence. It's ridiculous to sit and act like "Toxic masculinity" is some distinct field where we can't include anything not published in a prestigious academic journal (which this guy is, according to Google Scholar and his bio). I think the WP:OWN reference by Pudeo was not to the number of edits by SDB, but by the fact that this user has been heavily involved in editing all aspects of this article and is sort of lording over other users who try to make reasonable additions, which by all appearances this is. I agree it seems unsuited for the lead but I do not think it consistent with NPOV to try and purge it from the body entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

So how much do we say about this in the body?Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think a brief mention, probably no more than a sentence, with an in-text attribution (Michael Salter, professor at X, said...) is fine. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

And how do you "summarise" one sentence, with a single word?Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure there are multiple appropriate ways to include the material, and this is my suggestion. My position here is that I believe the source meets reliability standards and inclusion is probably a positive thing for the overall neutrality of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not disputing inclusion, but it cannot go in the lead if its not in the body, and the lead is a summery.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I said it's appropriate to include it in the body but maybe not the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be inappropriate to include in the lead, considering that its inclusion in the body is valid and that the article is relatively short. I think that adding information from this source expands the article's scope enough to warrant inclusion in the header. I believe that one quick sentence cited by two sources (Salter and Anderson) is appropriate, considering that these sources are among the most reliable provided, and that they increase the scope of the article. The use of the term is contradicted by reliable sources as mentioned above, although most publications seem to be okay with its use. Similarly, including one sentence about it in the header along with a couple sentences in the body will expand the article to show that this contradiction exists, while still showing that most publications are okay with or support the use of the term. I think that this fits perfectly with the guidelines on due weight. EditSafe (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we all know you think the inclusion is "valid" and the source is "reliable". The discussion is not a poll or a vote. What you need to explain is why you think so, based on what sources and policy actually say. "Increas[ing] the scope of the article" is not the locus of this dispute. Whether any sources "contradict" the use of the term doesn't address the prominence of those viewpoints, as WP:WEIGHT requires. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to the previous replies. There seems to be consensus among everyone except for you that the Salter piece is acceptable. I know that this isn't a poll; I never claimed or implied it was, but you don't seem to want to listen to anyone else, so we are eventually going to need to move on from this argument about reliability. EditSafe (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I'll wait for a more experienced and uninvolved user to judge the level of consensus here, thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I see a Time and a Vice piece cited in this article. Let's not be so high and mighty. If you actually read and understood the article, you'd know that the Time essay by another recognized scholar is used for a basic, factual statement about how the concept is used in psychology. The Vice article is a third-party reference supporting a statement by John Stoltenberg. We already have a source for that from NYU press, so I think the Vice reference could be simply cut. Once again, Where do you see any similar sources being cited for the authors' opinions (or "criticism", as phrased here)?

'Toxic masculinity' is a popularized term that some academics have given weight to with peer reviewed articles offering different interpretations. "Meme" is another term from academia that was "popularized" online. That doesn't mean we suddenly favor popular sources over academic ones. Raewyn Connell wrote about "toxic" masculine behaviors in a 2005 academic journal article, well before the current popular usage. And of course Michael Kimmel documented its original usage in an academic work from 1995. In any case, academic sources are generally the most reliable.

This is not neuroscience. Michael Salter is a published academic who has written on issues of gender, masculinity, and gender violence. You're evading the question. Where do you see him listed as a professor of sociology as you claimed? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As discussed, the fact that Salter's piece was published in the The Atlantic doesn't make it a popular piece. In addressing reliability, we look to the credentials of the author. He seems to be an established academic as well. Criminology is a sub-field within sociology, so this distinction you are trying to draw -- apparently as evidence he's not a relevant expert? Is sort of much ado about nothing. He has also written and been published on relevant topic areas, i.e. gender violence, masculinity, violence in men, all of which touches directly on the page's subject matter. I do not think relevance is really at issue here and WP:SELFPUB is clearly met. I'm going to step back on the where or how this should be included, but, as I've stated, I believe NPOV permits, and probably favors, inclusion. This is a really straightforward issue and not one I'm interested in seeing litigated over pages and pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The Atlantic is a general-interest, mass-media publication. It's not a peer-reviewed academic source. Yes, criminology is a sub-field within sociology. That doesn't make a criminologist an expert in men's studies or sociology of gender, any more than it makes a professor of geodynamics an expert in biostratigraphy, or a professor of particle physics an expert in atmospheric physics. They are different areas of study within a broader field. Obviously not everyone believes it's as "straightforward" as you do. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If we're treating the source as "self-published" by a subject-matter expert (and therefore somehow equivalent to a peer-reviewed academic source?), should we also include William Ming Liu's opinion that Donald Trump "embod[ies] toxic masculinity", based on his essay in Time? If not, why not? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, but he has published on the subject of masculinity, gender, gender violence, has he not? And reliability is not limited to peer-reviewed journals. To repeat, a self published expert is an acceptable source. WP:SELFPUB is only relevant when we are looking at a column, opinion piece, or source not published in a peer-reviewed journal. All that's required is that the author of the article have otherwise been published in respected independent publications, which he has, on relevant subject matter. As to your last hypothetical, I think that's a separate issue, and a question of how much you want to make the article about Donald Trump. WML seems to also be reliable per SELFPUB. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that SELFPUB also says, "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." We don't have an independent source for Salter's criticism or Liu's opinion; therefore I think caution is more than warranted. Do we really want an encyclopedia article composed of dueling op-eds? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not "dueling op-eds," it's dueling experts, and considering both are published academics, and I think the latter is fine. Caution means reviewing the author's background rather than haphazardly posting from someone's blog. We've done our diligence here and confirmed that Salter is a published academic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As for "independence," if all we're doing is offering one experts opinion, that sort of renders the "independence" issue unnecessary as long as proper in-text attribution is provided. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you're conflating "academic" with "subject-matter expert". A number of academics are known for being cranks in matters outside their area of expertise (Freeman Dyson is a good example). "Caution" means exactly what WP:SELFPUB says: seeing if the information has been published in independent, reliable sources. Independence is necessary to avoid giving undue weight to non-mainstream opinions (unless you think in-text attribution is all that's needed to include Dyson's opinion in our article on global warming.

As for Liu's opinion being a separate issue, no, it's an example of how to apply your reasoning about the Salter piece in other cases. Where have I ever suggested even mentioning Trump in the article? On the contrary, this may be more a question of how much you're willing to stretch the meaning of policies and guidelines to include criticism of a topic you dislike. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether or not we like the term. If anything, you seem to be biased by your approval of the term. As several of us have argued, Salter is a "subject-matter expert", as you claim he isn't, as he has published repeatedly about masculinity. You seem to be waiting for anyone to make a slight error in their speech, looking to quote a single word or phrase from their reply to prove them wrong, but this isn't going to get anywhere; You aren't changing anyone's mind by doing so. It would be more useful for you to listen to us and the points we have made repeatedly throughout this discussion rather than trying to make it look like we're saying what we aren't in order to get your way. EditSafe (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Since you seem to use the word "biased" for anything you disagree with, I'm not too concerned with what you think about my frame of mind. But since you're weighing in on an exchange between me and Wikieditor19920, feel free to address my other point. Namely, should we also cite Liu as a subject-matter expert for the statement that "Donald Trump embodies extreme (toxic) masculinity"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC) (edited 02:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, this may be more a question of how much you're willing to stretch the meaning of policies and guidelines to include criticism of a topic you dislike. Uncalled for. You are repeatedly misconstruing policy and the issues (the "dueling op-eds" is a clever example, and totally misrepresents what we're discussing) to exclude an opinion for unclear reasons. We've established that Salter has published pieces in reliable, independent, academic sources on masculinity/gender/gender violence. This is enough to make him a subject-matter expert for this article, and his commentary seems relevant. Relentlessly and endlessly arguing against inclusion of opinions you don't like is disruptive an non-compliant with NPOV. EditSafe was right to bring this up here, and I see the issue. I'm not changing my stance on this, and I believe inclusion is clearly permitted. For factual issues like the history of the term toxic masculinity, I would view a secondary source as better. For stances that are strictly his opinion, with in-text attribution, finding an independent source is less of a concern. This is a sensible application of policy, not a stretch. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a separate issue, and a question of how much you want to make the article about Donald Trump. Uncalled-for indeed.

You are repeatedly misconstruing policy and the issues...to exclude an opinion for unclear reasons. I quoted the very same policy as you (WP:SELFPUB) to show that independent sources are better according to the policy. Your argument that actually, we don't need an independent source because it's just Salter's opinion (if anything, that would call for more caution, not less) is not based on any policy I'm aware of. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a common-sense reading of that policy. What would the "independent confirmation" be of the opinion of a single academic? That's more of a WEIGHT issue, than a reliability one. I agree with you on the second point to a limited extent: Statements of fact about toxic masculinity and its history should be supported with independent sources. The Salter piece, on its own, doesn't meet that standard. For more interpretive content, i.e. his opinions and musings on the subject, it seems relevant to include a brief reference if to offer a more diverse array of opinions in the article as a whole. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That's more of a WEIGHT issue, than a reliability one. That's the point I've been making: that Salter's opinion, based on an essay from a general-interest news website, is unduly weighted in the article, and that back-and-forth commentary from similar sources would result in a bad article structure that wouldn't add to a meaningful understanding of the topic (which was my point in referring to "dueling op-eds"). Our goal should be to reflect the predominant views of the most reliable sources, not a diverse array of opinions; that's the same error EditSafe made with their "differing views" comment.

My own common-sense reading of the policy says we should stick to "independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy [with] a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments", which generally means avoiding mass-media commentary unless otherwise mentioned in more reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I know that you're interested in debating every angle, but others find it argumentative and exhausting. WP:SELFPUB offers a specific carveout, which Salter meets. We don't only need to use to academic journals on this subject. The Atlantic Piece for Salter is fine for inclusion for analysis and commentary. A broader diversity of views will help, not hurt, the article and bring it into better compliance with NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

On further review, I think that WP:NEWSBLOG might be another, possibly more relevant policy. The same analysis applies: we have to look to the background of the author, which I think is appropriate here. The Atlantic is a reliable publication, and "Toxic masculinity" is an academic concept with popular usage as well. I think that policy allows these types of sources to be used, and I don't see a brief mention as long as the publication is reliable and the author has a background relevant to the topic that there is an undue weight issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm very sorry you find it "exhausting" to support your position according to policies and guidelines. And I thought that was how we settled disputes!

The Atlantic is a multi-platform publisher. The website and magazine have different content and editors. On what basis do you conclude that the website is a reliable publication, full stop?

I think that policy allows these types of sources to be used – that isn't the locus of this dispute. Nevertheless, I'm fine with using the source for uncontroversial, factual statements. It only leads to an unencyclopedic structure and undue weight when we start using it as a primary source for the author's opinion. Where does NPOV say anything about diversity of views? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Like we've said, using The Atlantic as a source in this case meets WP:SELFPUB. See above for explanation. Also, NPOV states that "it is important to account for all significant viewpoints". EditSafe (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The key word there is significant. If the critique of the term toxic masculinity by this "well cited" professor at a "prominent" university is so "significant", why isn't it published in a peer-reviewed journal like his other work? See above for explanation of where SELFPUB says to "exercise caution" with sources like these. Also, just to be clear, are we saying SELFPUB applies to Liu's essay as well, or just Salter's? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As we've said before, half of the sources already in the article are equally or less valid than Salter's work, so if you want to rule out Salter's work because it's no published in a peer-reviewed journal, then we also should remove all the other sources that don't meet this criteria, which is about half of the article. As for Liu's work, if you really want to include it then we can discuss that in another section, however seeing that its primary focus is on Donald Trump, I don't see its relevance to the article. EditSafe (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Who's "we"? If you think any of the sources in the article are being used inappropriately, feel free to bring it up on the talk page. Sources can be more or less reliable depending on context. As I've stated, none of the other mass-media sources are used as primary sources for the authors' opinions or "criticism". The rationale for including Salter's "criticism" has so far been that he's an academic who has published in peer-reviewed journals. The fact that this particular criticism wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal means it's less "significant" than his academic work, let alone the various academic sources that use or discuss the term without mentioning "criticism". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"We" refers to me and Wikieditor19920, who have both brought up these points repeatedly. I and Wikieditor19920 have both already discussed these points you are trying to bring up again about the reliability of Salter's work. He is an academic who has written extensively about masculinity, and is established in this field. I don't think that anybody is arguing that his work for the Atlantic is as reliable as if he were to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, but do to the countless points we've brought up before, his work for the Atlantic is still reliable enough to warrant inclusion in this article. EditSafe (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

One again, I'm not disputing the Atlantic source for uncontroversial factual statements. I'm saying that using this one article as a primary source creates various problems with article structure, balance, and weight. Instead of just repeating your opinion that the source is reliable enough, you could try addressing the substance of these concerns. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have addressed "the substance of these concerns". I am not repeating an opinion, I am repeating Wikipedia's guidelines. You still have not provided reason for it not to be a primary source, other than what has already been addressed by me and other contributors.EditSafe (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

To repeat, we should stick to secondary sources, and scholarly ones where possible...None of the other popular-media references in the article are used as primary sources for someone's opinion...It only leads to an unencyclopedic structure and undue weight when we start using [the Atlantic piece] as a primary source for the author's opinion. These concerns are all based on NPOV policy. Where did you or the other contributors "address" these concerns, and where did you cite policies and/or guidelines? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be selectively applying Wikipedia's guidelines to whatever best promotes your opinions, which goes against NPOV. If you honestly don't know where we addressed these concerns and where we cited Wikipedia's guidelines, I recommend you to re-read the previous responses. EditSafe (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sword of the Spirit NPOV Dispute

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.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is section header of discussion.The discussion is about the topic Arbitrarily0. Thank you. --Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is section header of discussion.The discussion is about the topic Sword_of_the_Spirit. Thank you. --Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello I am currently having what I believe to be a NPOV dispute with user Arbitrarily0 regarding recent edit to page Sword of the Spirit.

The edit made is here.

Page creator has been continuously reverting edits claiming that edit is original research (which has been disputed) and is not relevant (which has been disputed) and is not eloquent enough (which has been disputed). The original reversion is here.

Notably the page creator has also removed a section of the page created by their selves here to which my edit specifically pertains.

User has since taken a third opinion and had me banned from editing for 2 weeks for replacing the edit with comment on talk pages.

I am concerned there is a conflict of interest here, perhaps corporate vanity, and that the user is deliberately misrepresenting my edits (strategic removal of own content, repeated claim of original research where multiple mainstream news sources are cited, unverifiable content by page creator etc.).

The discussion is found here.

I believe my edit is well sourced and contains significant information regarding a significant aspect of the organisation Sword of the Spirit and Servants of the Word history and should be included. I believe if there is an issue with the eloquence or sources then a 'cleanup' should be done rather than categorical removal.

I am concerned that the repeated stonewall deletion of edits, misrepresentation and strategic removal of own content represents a Non-Neutral Viewpoint here and I am seeking an Admin to investigate and help resolve.

• Comment For context, the third opinion offered at the talk page by an uninvolved editor agreed the text was not appropriate for several reasons. Linn reverted it back into the article anyway, for which she is now blocked from editing it for two weeks. WP:SPA is also a concern. Number 57 15:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This is indeed my first edit. I noticed the page contained unverifiable information and that I had verifiable sources containing further information on the Page Topic that was not included. I do fully intend to add further information on the Sword of the Spirit, Servants of the Word and Word of God Community which I would love to contribute also so I would assert that this is not a single purpose account.

Apologies if reposting edits is a faux pas here. I had assumed that user deleting these articles was perhaps doing so out of Non Neutral Point of View. If a ban is n order for this then that is not contested. I do believe my edit was relevant, verifiable and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 May 2020 (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.

Macuto Bay raid

Hello all! Would just like some assistance with the Macuto Bay raid, another controversial Venezuelan article. We seem to have the same group of users working on the page and disputes are getting more nasty (legal threats, etc.), so it would be a good idea to have more pairs of eyes monitoring the article in order to keep it as NPOV and lawful as possible. Thank you.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A thread in the AN/I has been started and can be consulted as reference. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

RfCs at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

There are two separate RfCs at Rupert Sheldrake. The first asks if we should change the opening sentence of the lede to something more readable that preserves the essence of the existing content. The second centers around the question of reducing repetition in the remainder of the lede. Your input is appreciated! HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Undemocratic elections in authoritarian states

There are all kinds of authoritarian systems that run elections that are not free and fair, in part for regimes to appear to be democratic legitimate when they are not. Wikipedia appears to have a problem in terms of lending legitimacy to these elections by failing to clearly describe them as non-democratic. A typical page for an authoritarian election simply says that "X accused it of being non-democratic. Y defended the election." There is an enormous academic literature out there that lists and covers elections run by authoritarians. This literature should be used to clearly label these faux elections as non-democratic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

First, the tone "should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." Second, there's a continuum between democratic and non-democratic elections. TFD (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

For example, is a US presidential election with voter-suppression and with the winner in the electoral college being the loser in popular votes a democratic or non-democratic election? NightHeron (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

While there is indeed a continuum between "democratic" and "undemocratic," there are clear-cut cases of undemocratic "elections," such as in North Korea. If there is something which falls into a gray area where there is considerable disagreement, that can surely be reflected in those articles. But I don't think it follows that clearly undemocratic elections should not be described as such with proper attribution to the academic literature Snooganssnoogans suggests. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend compiling the sources you have and using them as needed. At the risk of stating the obvious, academic sources are going to be far more reliable than most types of accusations or counter-accusations, to the point that those other statements may not have enough weight to be included at all. Also, if Y is someone affiliated with the government in question, then their claims are not relevant and can just be removed under WP:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. That said, since I assume you're anticipating opposition, I'd recommend starting by strengthening general articles as much as possible. That way, all the best sources would be gathered and organized in the same place, and you'd have good overall summaries to refer to in discussions. Sunrise (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Extremely controversial and possibly irrelevant biased POV material on Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Hello everyone, I have attempted to start a discussion in the talk page of the article and no responses have been given (ignored). I have marked the article with a POV template and have posted a RFC a while ago and still no change. I'll explain the issues: 1) the article is clearly a POV fork due to the fact that it seems to try to only give negative view points and used biased sources, and the article gets away from the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints article. 2) the title itself violated the policy of POV titles 3) there are "beliefs" that are written about that were never officially adopted, and were later repudiated (the people who suggested these beliefs in the church were speaking of opinion and it never represented the views of the mentioned church). 4) critics are used and directly quoted using extremely argumentative and controversial quotes (ie. "the critic so and so said 'this church stinks'" etc.) without there being any evidence provided, and really just being an opinion.

I am open to any feedback/criticisms of my actions so long as alternative actions and evidence/explanations are given. Thank you for your time, PeanutHat (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Concerning 1) and 2), note that Wikipedia has articles Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Christianity, so there's nothing wrong with having such an article. Concerning 3) and 4), you could propose changes in specific wording or suggest that certain content is inappropriate or poorly sourced and explain why on the article's talk-page. But I don't see any general NPOV problem. NightHeron (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In six weeks, you have drawn only two comments, both of which disagreed. Obviously, a criticism article is going to sound negative. But, as explained to you, that doesn't necessarily make it a POV fork. Criticism of the Catholic Church is more negative, due to its history. As NightHeron said, you might try making specific suggestions. Meanwhile, I've removed the POV tag. O3000 (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"Awards" lists

• List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I could use some help with this article (and there are related once for other performers) - EdJohnston has the same problem I think. Superfan editors keep reinserting vast swathes of non-notable "awards" that have no reliable independent secondary sources - mainly PR stunts designed to promote the company making the "award". The absolute bare minimum we require to include a disputed award would be a reliable independent secondary source that discusses it. There's virtually no engagement on Talk, and most of them have no edits outside their narrow area of fandom. Their perspective is that removing non-notable awards is "ruining the page". Given that some of the disruption started right about the time Beyhiveboys started kvetching about his partial block, I suspect off-wiki solicitation. It could really do with ECP for a while to get them to engage. Guy (help!) 09:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We now have a draft guideline on this at Wikipedia:Awards and accolades Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• With all due respect, most of the non-notable awards there are with valid sources and is existing to the page of some artists like Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey. The editor deleted too many awards (568 down to 316), what I am asking for is fairness. If you can delete those ¨non-notable awards¨ on Beyonce´s page, why not do it on the page of the other artists who got the same? Also, I was the one who got block while the person who started the edit warring still got access to the page, where is fairness in that part? Thank you Beyhiveboys (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Dawkins

On Richard Dawkins there seems to be a tendency to marginalise some of his controversial comments by placing them in a seperate article Political views of Richard Dawkins. There are comments that have been cherry picked for the main article and the controversial comments have been left in the Political views article. An example is the line:

Dawkins identifies as a feminist. He has said that feminism is "enormously important" and "a political movement that deserves to be supported".

However many of his comments have lead to widespread condemnation by feminist groups such as his comments about Rebecca Watson and his comments about rape. These are not even mentioned in the main article despite the high profile nature of his comments and the significant controversy they caused. --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Piers Robinson

Could do with a few more eyes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I gave up when it became clear that the discussion was degenerating into the standard "BLP protections don't apply to bad people" arguments. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

New religious movement Falun Gong and its many media and political extensions

Many readers here are likely aware of the numerous hot topics surrounding the financial and far-right political activities of the new religious movement Falun Gong, particularly among its extensions, including Falun Gong media branch The Epoch Times, performance art branch Shen Yun, and other, lesser known arms, such as the Society of Classical Poets. These topics have received increased media attention since 2016.

What may surprise readers is that English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article somehow mentions absolutely none of this. Given how high-profile these topics have become within the past few years and the account activity occurring around it and related articles, this really needs more eyes.

I've highlighted several recent media sources discussing these topics at this thread. I think this particular discussion would benefit a lot from editors from this board. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong isn't a "new" religious movement (or at least, it's been around for decades). Talk:Falun Gong#About that second paragraph appears to also be a relevant discussion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Freedom House Nations in Transit 2020 report

I believe we have a neutrality issue in Poland. I wanted to include the following paragraph in Poland#Government and politics (I inserted something similar to Hungary#Government and politics with no resistance), but was reverted twice:[17][18]

According to Freedom House's Nations in Transit 2020 report, "the quality of democratic governance in Poland continued to deteriorate in 2019, marking [its] fourth consecutive year of decline and its lowest score in [the report]. The most negatively affected areas were the judiciary, local democratic governance, and the pluralism of civil society."

References

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Poland#Freedom House report. François Robere (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Several points. If you are mentioning a report, you should say something about its authors. If you don't, the implication is that it is the correct assesment and no reasonable person could disagree. If that's the case, you don't need to mention Freedom House in the text. Also, saying that the quality continued to deteriorate doesn't tell us much if we don't know what level it was at to begin with. Did it go from outstanding to almost outstanding or from really bad to even worse? Finally, we should avoid direct quotes unless there is something particularly significant about the actual phrasing used. TFD (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll address all of your points if the text is allowed back there. Do you think it's WP:DUE where I put it? It's fairly widely cited.[19][20][21][22] François Robere (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The proposed text is perfectly fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I placed the text into the History of Poland in the contemporary section instead. That section may be used more for discussing the issue rather than in Poland article which is more of a summary of current governmental structures and government type. The Freedom House report did highlight that though the situation deteriorated heavily, democracy is still intact. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: What does that have to do with history? The whole point of the report is to provide a summary of current events.

The Freedom House report did highlight that though the situation deteriorated heavily, democracy is still intact Where? François Robere (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces, Snooganssnoogans, and Oliszydlowski: At the moment there are four discussions (!) about this text[23][24][25] yet it does not appear anywhere. Anyone would like to weight in on why? It's clearly WP:RELIABLE and WP:NOTABLE,[26][27][28][29] and the overall subject is WP:DUE.[30][31][32] François Robere (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The only issue is whether this is DUE or UNDUE, as the source is reliable (although should be attributed). The question is wider, since if we add this to Polish article I think this (summary of FH report) should also be added to others. Have you tried adding it to US or France or Russia? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I've done better: I've added it to Hungary and Viktor Orbán without so much as a peep. François Robere (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• It's undue the Poland article at the moment, because nothing much has happened yet. The report says (I paraphrase) that the county is moving towards... or in danger of.... If Poland indeed changes categories in the future, then an addition to this effect would likely be due. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Christ - King of Poland?

Some time ago the Polish parliament declared Jesus Christ "King of Poland". A "coronation" was held, which was attended by the Polish President and Prime Minister. This was covered in various outlets, both in Poland and abroad.[33][34][35][36] Poland is a deeply religious country (see Religion in Poland), and as it turns out this idea of crowning Jesus or Mary has a history going back at least 370 years, to the Lwów Oath.

Seeing as this was endorsed by parliament and attended by senior political figures, it seems to merit a mention in Poland#Religion. I've tried making the change, but it was reverted.[37] Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Poland#Jesus Christ King of Poland?. François Robere (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming disruptive and is starting to border on trolling, as one editor already tried to adjust the article's Infobox to include the King of Poland as the head of state, apparently based on talk page discussion. Perhaps this discussion should be escalated to an admin board. Poland is NOT a constitutional monarchy, so the talk of including this symbolic parliamentary resolution (not sure user François Robere understands the difference between types of legislation - resolutions vs. laws) is ridiculous (this did not change the nature of Poland's government, or restored the monarchy, it was a simple honorary and symbolic resolution). Also, I would have to argue that user François Robere's approach and comments were key in exacerbating this issue, this coupled with his recent (and rather crude) comments about the Trump administration on the Talk:History of Poland page, only confirms a lack of merit in these discussions. Again, based on the fact that Poland is NOT a constitutional monarchy, you can't argue that Poland has a king, and persistent arguments to include this reference can be construed as disruptive. Also, the sarcastic language used in this discussion, is starting to border on ridicule of religion. --E-960 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with E-960. This very clearly doesn’t belong in a high level article such as Poland (or anywhere else), the sources are borderline, the way it’s presented is over the top POV, there’s no consensus for it (aside from the usual Icewhiz sock puppetry), and it’s clearly not an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. This has become a WP:TENDENTIOUS violation of WP:POINT, and I’d advise Francois Robere to WP:DROPTHESTICK.17:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 17:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems very tendentious now, this was a small symbolic vote which has no effect on Poland or its model of government and has no place in the main article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: I've only opened this thread because you haven't addressed several issues:

1. This isn't about Poland's system of government (as I've suggested several times, so please spare the straw man), but about the role of religion in Poland. Poland is majority religious (94%) and Catholic (92%), and this is an extreme expression of this. As such, putting it in Poland#Religion was DUE.
2. The fact that it is merely declaratory has no bearing on whether we should reference it. We have a lot of articles about purely declaratory resolutions (eg. National bird of the United States, Mother's Day, Honorary Citizen of Europe). You suggested these are the same,[38] so why shouldn't we even mention this one?
3. @Volunteer Marek: you suggested that this is ridiculous and hence UNDUE, but the fact that it passed parliament, was attended by the most senior politicians in the country and mentioned in many outlets suggests otherwise.
4. @MyMoloboaccount: Where would you suggest we put it? I'm open to suggestions.

The point of this thread is to solicit comments from uninvolved editors, seeing as the discussion on the main TP stalled without resolving all of the issues. If uninvolved editors reject this then that's fine with me; but ignoring, insulting and admonishing editors who don't agree with you,[39] while overlooking the lavish suggestions of those who do[40] does not strike me as the right way to conduct a discussion. François Robere (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn’t the same as “mother’s day” (lol) and the very fact you’re reduced to making ridiculous arguments like that kind of shows that you’ve crossed the line into tendentiousness and disruption. Volunteer Marek 18:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Take it up with E-960, not me: parliaments pass random resolutions just about anything, such as national this or that day, or honorary so and so, etc. François Robere (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

afaict, he’s not the one comparing this to Mother’s Day. You are. This is like insisting that National Bowling Day absolutely MUST be included in the article United States because the US Congress passed such a resolution. It’s so ridiculous that it brings WP:NOTHERE into play. Volunteer Marek 19:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Did the American President and WH Chief of Staff attend National Garlic Day events along with top garlic growers from across the country?

And don't twist my words. I didn't say it "MUST be included in the main", I said it's DUE somewhere and suggested alternatives.[41] François Robere (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, this would be a good time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, April Fools is gone. What are we discussing here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m not very good at creating links but long story short should this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poland&diff=959411028&oldid=959383488 be in the Poland article.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Disputed village being stated as in one of the two countries

Demchok is a village in the eponymous Demchok sector, which is part of a border dispute between China and India. Multiple reliable sources say that the entire Demchok sector is administered by China and multiple reliable sources say that the entire Demchok sector is administered by India.

The lead of the article on the village of Demchok was changed to say (diff):

Demchok is a village and military encampment in the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh, India

Is this neutral? In my understanding, disputed areas should not assert a claim one way or the other, as is done in high-traffic articles on disputed areas like Western Sahara, Spratly Islands, and Senkaku Islands.

The relevant discussion is here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I would word it "Demchok is a village and military encampment in the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh, whose ownership is disputed between Indian and china".Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: A related follow-up proposal is at Talk:Demchok#Merger proposal. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Seeking moderation of the article on Reishi / Ganoderma lucidum.

The Chinese names and perspective are in violation of Wikipedia's global perspective. The common name in every country (but China) is Reishi and the scientific name is Ganoderma lucidum. Article is written like an advertisement of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Thanks.-wikiNoob

IP user, you're wrong anyway. I've been calling it a slightly different version ("lingzhu") for years because that is what they call it in Thailand, which the last time I checked is not and has never been part of China. Just move on. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Reishi is just the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese characters 霊芝, namely our língzhī, a Chinese sound imitated in many Asian countries through the use of it among members of the Chinese diaspora as a traditional medicine (hence the Thai form likewise derived from China via its Chinese immigrants). Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Handling variant dates of birth at Chick Webb article

I am on mobile so apologies in advance for limitations. Talk:Chick_Webb#Webbs_B-date could use some input. Numerous RS give different years of birth so how best to treat in the lead without POV. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)