Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

Neutral POV for Christine Lagarde Bio

Christine Lagarde is a convicted criminal. This is an important fact that is highly visible in the bios of other criminals. After making the relevant update, the page has been locked and reverted to the biased POV language that omits her criminal conviction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonQalg (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Christine Lagarde. Describing someone as a "criminal" in the first sentence of their article should only be done for people who are most well known for being criminals (for example, Jack the Ripper or Bernie Madoff). It should not be in the first sentence of an article for someone most well known for other things but happens to have been convicted of a crime at some point. Given that this is an article of a living person, there is a high level of scrutiny in what is added, and locking the page was within reason. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This could probably do with more sets of eyes, I've cross posted to BLPN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I came here from the BLP noticeboard. I think that introducing her as a convicted criminal would be a WP:BLP violation, as it is implying that's the primary or one of the primary things she is known for in reliable sources, which is not true Tristario (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that is totally true. Looking through articles via Google News for the last year, you can find she is most noted for her work at the ECB. Brianp2022 (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg (book)

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Geysirhead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Came across this new article today. Sourcing seems terrible; not sure if there's notability on the book in general but taking it to NPOVN over the tone. These Wikivoiced gems jumped out at me: F. William Engdahl deliveres a scrupulous and well-documented analysis of “grass roots” decarbonization movement published in New Eastern Outlook, and cites Morningstar's book, which tries to expose the "bluff" of climate correctness. and The book also stresses the possible global consequences of Greta. An example quote from the book is.....

Bad enough that the editor's other contributions should be reviewed IMHO, but I'd like to hear their explanation and other editors' thoughts. Notification diff. VQuakr (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm tempted to CSD as an attack page. That lede is full of primary sourced attacks without any coverage from Reliable Sources and misuses the intelligencer article by not attributing statement concerning the advisors by a right wing politician. It also appears to misuse the paper located at scienzaenrete as the "momnger" line there is not attributed to the book but to a now unavailable article on another site. Kommersant is used to make a "probably" statement that at minimum requires attribution. Finally, Enghdahl is embellished as already noted. I'm sure the book is notable but this is not a neutral article Slywriter (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for listing the problems in the article. Non-netrality was not my intention. The problems are corrected so far. Geysirhead (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit to add: The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg (book). VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No evidence is provided that this self-published work is at all notable, even as a FRINGE work. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Green Imperialism

Green Imperialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've just found this, and see serious issues with it regarding compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:OR policy. What do others think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The topic seems to have academic coverage but the sourcing in the article at present leaves some questions. Masem (t) 01:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No doubt about some WP:BIASED sources. This epithet is used by radical centrists, conservatives, libertarians and some classical marxists. Geysirhead (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems that there was consensus to convert eco-imperialism into a redirect, but it was revived by Geysirhead. After the restoration was reverted, Geysirhead revived it again and then did a copy-paste move to Green imperialism. There do seem to be some serious POV issues; it seems to be giving implicit support to what is at best controversial and at worst WP:FRINGE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is about a derogatory epithet. I did correct it in the lede. Basically, when you look into German Wikipedia for Ökologischer Imperialismus, you read that Ecological Imperialism can be either "Imperialism, which improves environment but hinders human development" or "Imperialism, which exploits environment of colonies". Geysirhead (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The translated lede from dewiki:

"Ecological imperialism or environmental imperialism is generally understood as measures adopted by states or organizations and imposed on other states that have a negative impact on the environment.

Environmental and development organizations understand it to mean the increasing ecological degradation in developing countries, the cause of which is said to be the excessive consumption of resources in industrialized countries and the unfair world trade system, which favors the displacement of environmental damage.

Another meaning primarily involves the accusation of using environmental policy to enforce power or economic policy interests at the expense of the so-called Third World." Geysirhead (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

de.wikipedia has it's own standards. They don't apply here. And adding 'derogatory epithet' to an unbalanced article doesn't make it balanced. Especially when the article engages in blatant WP:OR to provide supposed examples - not of an 'epithet' but of 'green imperialism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There was no imperativ to overtake the standards from dewiki. Of cause, they don't apply here. The article from dewiki is actually writen like a dictionary entry including two separate topics. WP:NOTDICTIONARY We have to split the two topics in two article on the enwiki, as it The article is well balanced and describes the terms used for certain type of behavior of Global North towards Global South in reliable sources. There is no original work, but actual references to sources which use this actual epithet or similar epithets. In essence, the article describes critisism of the behavior, whereby SGD13 is put ahead of SGD1. And these are ligitimate fears! source e.g.. Geysirhead (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Your personal opinion as to what constitute 'legitimate fears' is of no relevance here. And as I have noted on the article talk page, [1] the lede and the article appear to be discussing two different things. Is it supposed to be about an 'epithet', or about legitimate critique of aspects of global 'green' policy? If it is the former, where are the sources discussing the terms use as an epithet? And if it is the latter, why is it solely built around sources critical of 'green imperialism' (as defined in differing and often contradictory terms in the sources), while containing absolutely nothing as a response to such arguments? The article isn't 'well balanced' it is an opinion piece constructed from disparate sources with the intention of advancing an argument. It is a gross oversimplification of a complex subject, and a violation of WP:NPOPV policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"And adding 'derogatory epithet' to an unbalanced article doesn't make it balanced." does not make sense. "Whore" is deregatory epithet for prostitution, but just for balance, we say that prostitution is also something good? I could find only one public opinion survey on green imperialism, which is mentioned in the article. Geysirhead (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If I want lessons on what makes sense, I'll find someone better qualified to comment on the subject than the person responsible for writing A 1990s worldwide survey "Bicycles, Yes — Cheap Shoes, No" by WorldPaper showed that 66% of the participants did not agree to perceive debt-for-nature swaps as eco-colonialism. Whatever it is trying to say, it entirely fails... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll find someone better qualified Thank you for the derogatory but still more constructive comment! Concrete comment is much more pleasant than the previous boiler-plate prosa so often used in wikipedia discussions. I did correct it. Believe me or not, you will find mostly global North residents here on wikipedia, the rest is silenced by poverty. People living in slams don't use wikipedia so often. Geysirhead (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Please note that 'detrimal' isn't a word. And despite your edit, the section still makes little sense. Though why a single opinion poll from over thirty years ago is seen as relevant to the article I have little idea.

And please don't make insulting assumptions about my level of knowledge, or of my personal opinion on topics. As I have already noted, this is a complex issue, and vacuous posturing about 'slums' (not 'slams'...) achieves nothing. Articles should be written about topics, not Google-mined phrases, and our readers deserve better than this concoction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeatedly insulting Geysirhead and Geysirhead's English failures is not helping the discussion here. I find Geysirhead's writing understandable but not perfectly understandable. Certainly the article needs help with grammar.

I will read more seriously when I have time but I see nothing horribly POV in the article. I agree in principle that adding 'derogatory epithet' to an otherwise POV article would not be sufficient if that is what is occurring here. I haven't read enough to say anything more. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Human rights in Ukraine

The above page definitely needs more watchers. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill

More participants would be welcome at Talk:Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill#Bias in this article. The discussion is not currently productive. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

In short these claim of not being neutral are ludicrous. There are attempts to insert celebrities and other unasked for interventions into the article. There are also attempts to use tabloid language to single out one party in the parliament, and complaints that how all members voted is included, as some sort of cover up. It is a laundry list of complaints against the pushing of a certain POV being removed. The claims of not being neutral are ludicrous. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sweet, you may want to put down that boomerang. Your bias and agenda are quite evident. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Please explain why you consider that the various wordings which I have criticised are neutral. For instance:

Why is it neutral to exclude comments by the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

Why, when the Guardian [2] refers to ‘the biggest ever backbench revolt’ and the BBC writes an article [3] and comments That number of rebels would cost the SNP-Green administration its majority, if they were to join a united opposition - an unnerving prospect for any government is it neutral to exclude this event from mention in the article?

Why is it neutral to change the comment made by Reem Alaslem from Reem Alaslem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, expressed fears the proposals could be abused by predatory men. to Reem Alaslem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, gave an opinion against the proposals., but to give the comment by Victor Madrigal-Borloz in full?

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not engage in journalism. I suggest you watch out for the Boomerang as you try and make out that 7 out of 64 is worth pushing for so hard with inflammatory POV whipping tabloid language. The EHRC have nothing to do with these proposals and their input was not asked for. They are also notorious for being bad actors on trans issues as shown on the other talk page. As for the UN I’d delete both but if they are to be included Wikipedia is not a platform for dogwhistle transphobia and anti-trans rhetoric, which was not asked for, which is what is trying to be crowbarred into the article. In short Wikipedia is not a newspaper and editors must not write article as if it was tabloid journalism. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Prime (sports drink)

Could other contributors familiar on Wikipedia policy on article neutrality (along with appropriate sourcing etc) please take a look at Prime (sports drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There have been endemic issues with unsourced and questionably-sourced promotional content in the article, and a recent contributor, User:Toby Farman, seems insistent on filling the article with content sourced to Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, the Sun etc, along with a complete list of ingredients, a 'sponsorship' sourced to a YouTube group run by one of the drink's creators, and other questionable content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern about the page Prime (sports drink).

• I recognize content sourced to Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, the Sun is not ideal, therefore any other contributors willing to provide other references would be beneficial.
• The full list of ingredients as sourced from the website, along with nutritional info, is designed to match the precedent set by the page Powerade.
• The sponsorship of the Sidemen Charity Match in 2022 was a significant sponsorship.

TobyFarman! 18:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Farman (talk • contribs)

Firstly, if you wish to add content, it is your responsibility to find proper sourcing when asked, not anyone else's. Secondly, using content from an article clearly marked as improperly sourced and promotional as a justification for adding content to another article is questionable, to say the least. And lastly, the Sidemen Charity Match was organised by a YouTube group run in part by KSI, one of the founders of Prime. How exactly is sponsoring your own organisation 'notable'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

ATG is biased (WP:BIAS) therefore shouldn't be editing the page. TobyFarman! 09:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Farman (talk • contribs)

Are you trying to get yourself blocked?: AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Try not being so rude in the future.

The page had significant issues before I began editing it.

My main question to you is, do you agree that the competition and ingredients section match the precedent set by the page Powerade? TobyFarman! 15:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Farman (talk • contribs)

Regarding rudeness, see [4] and [5]. Accusing experienced contributors of 'bias' because they understand Wikipedia policy better than you is a sure-fire way to encourage the sort of response you have been getting. As for 'precedent', Wikipedia doesn't work like that. There are a great many poor articles: their existence is no reason to create more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Incidentally, the Powerade products list had been tagged for maintenance for years, and I blanked it. WP:NOTCATALOG applies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Diagolon

Diagolon is a Canadian alt-right extremist militia that has been making news in 2022 and the article about it has also been a bit of a magnet for WP:SPA type edits, consequently the page is protected.

There is a bit of a content dispute happening and some more eyes on the article and helping us reach consensus would be welcomed. There is more background on the talk page. CT55555(talk) 20:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The question here is, is this organisation separately notable from Jeremy MacKenzie (activist)? Most the coverage seems to revolve around him, and I wouldn't oppose a redirect to that article. Wikipedia doesn't need an article on every small far-right fringe movement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, my cursory review is leading me in the direction of Hemiauchenia's proposed solution; I am not sure we need two separate articles for founder and group. Then again I am often wrong. Happy Holidays to all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This organization is more than just the leader. And it meets the criteria WP:GNG based on the significant coverage:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/what-is-the-diagolon-extremist-group-and-what-does-it-want-1.5785646

https://globalnews.ca/news/8621125/canadian-anti-hate-network-concerned-diagolon-coutts-border-protest-diagolon/

Meanwhile the leader is notable in the news for quite a few gun related issues, not all associated with the org.

So I think they both clearly merit articles. News about both is very much ongoing and with various court cases coming up, both are likely to be expanding in the short term future. CT55555(talk) 20:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure this is a valid argument to make, but maybe merging the two will make the subject easier to maintain overall? I don't have a strong opinion here on merge/not-merge based on notability: I touched this article some time ago but found the tone of/interaction with other editors troubling and walked away fast. Just glad to see y'all are on it, in any case. — LumonRedacts 05:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Died Suddenly (2022 film)

Died Suddenly (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have just semi-protected this article for a year; there may be neutrality issues remaining. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 191 Using "Person-hour" in place of "Man-hour"

WP:GNL calls for gender neutral language, in which case "man-hour" is the proper noun, and does not fall within the guidelines. Man-hour already holds a gender neutral definition and has been used for centuries to describe the definition. Simply changing the name because it has "man" in the word is WP:NPOV and adds to Ideological bias of Wikipedia, since it is not based in reality. If the consensus is promote political language, then I suggest an edit to man-hour, to "person-hour" to align with the Wikipedia consensus. When I asked for source documentation proving that person-hour is a common term, I was handed an opinion article from an editor, and warned to fall in line" is this really what Wikipedia is about? Jonchache (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"Man-power" is the standard term and should be used in articles. Trying to apply "person-hour" feels like a very strained reading of WP:GNL. However, I don't see how this is an issue of NPOV or ideological bias rather than a linguistic variant (albeit an unorthodox one). I'd also note that you're coming off as rather hostile, which is not a great way to approach these things. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree I needed to take a moment before posting. sorry about that. The editors that reverted me said: "Person-hours (PH) has been the industry standard term within the aerospace industry since at least the 1980s when accounting for the number of hours allocated or actually expended on aircraft maintenance tasks. The term "man hours" has been considered obsolete in aerospace for at least 40 years, so this is not new and not at all anything political. If anything Wikipedia has been slow to catch-up on this sort of industry use of terminology." and linked [6]This as the source. Jonchache (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Also personal source: I am in the aerospace industry, and have never heard person-hour used before seeing this Wiki page. Jonchache (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece written by an executive that doesn't appear to be a significant figure in the field, and it even says that "man hour" is still the standard term. I suspect whoever linked that to you only read the headline without doing their due diligence by checking the source or confirming that it actually makes the claim they're saying it does. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on how I can solve this dispute peacefully/professionally? I seem to be going against the consensus of a group of editors. Jonchache (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Generally the answer is to open the discussion more broadly to the community so more users can give input, which is essentially what you've done here. On Wikipedia, no user has any more authority than another, it's about what the community as a whole agrees upon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yea, "person-hour" is not a widely-accepted or used word. Some things like "manpower", "man-hour", they just are what they are. They really have nothing to do with a gender imbalance in the way "fireman" did, for example. Zaathras (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Being a new editor, yes I joined to edit that to "man-hour" (silly me) I accidentally blew the 3 edit rule, but it did force me to read all of the information on GNL, NPOV, and other editing guidelines, I still believe that "Man-hour" is the most proper noun to use in the article. with at least 3 editors, and one admin telling me that I have gone against the consensus, and that I was close to ban, I figured I would elevate the dispute, and landed here. I'm still unaware of how to solve this properly, any help would be appreciated. Jonchache (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

A google books search shows aerospace-related content back as far as 1981 using "person hour". As far as I can tell, "man hour" is still more common, but "person hour" is also used, and if the consensus on that article is to use the gender-neutral version, I don't see how you can "solve" it to your satisfaction. Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Replace person hour with man hour, and the books date back farther, and are more plentiful. Jonchache (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

So? The use of the term isn't incorrect. Your preference is "man hour", but if the other editors on that article disagree, then you lack consensus to make that change. Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

By what you have said, then it is nothing but mob rule, and whoever brings the most friends wins, that's not that way a professionally written page should be written. Though it is true what they say, history is written by the victorious. Jonchache (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on its policies and guidelines, not mob rule. The other editors have pointed out MOS:GNL, but you seem to feel it doesn't apply (I'm not clear why) It would be one thing if one choice was incorrect/inaccurate and the other was correct. In this case, however, neither is wrong. "Person-hour" is an acceptable word, just as "man-hour" is. Schazjmd (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Has there been an actual discussion on the talk page of that article about this wording? If there hasn't, then the only consensus was WP:SILENCE, which is void as soon as someone challenges it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

See discussion at User talk:Jonchache. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think Jonchache was right to bring the discussion to the community. It doesn't seem there's a pre-established consensus on this particular wording, and a user talk page is not a suitable place to establish it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In this specific case, why not replace the term with "labor hours", avoiding the whole mess of if a term has been degraded or if its replacement us strained? Masem (t) 00:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a great compromise. I was going to suggest "work hours", but I'd be happy with either. According to Ngrams (which is admittedly a rough measuring tool), either of these would be preferable to man hour and person hour if we're going off of recent use. Man hour is the best option by far if we're going off overall use, but I think language on Wikipedia should be contemporary when possible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

WP cannot be proactive on language choices...we need to be following when sources switch, not lead them. Masem (t) 00:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Surely you mean labour hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Clearly whichever version is appropriate to the established English variant in use. Masem (t) 13:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Assuming humo(u)r? The article has the {{Use mdy dates|date=April 2012}} & {{Use American English|date=February 2022}} templates, so it would be "labor". Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The consensus prior to the edit made, and I would say "snuck in" from 02:45, 18 October 2022‎ Meleager91 talk contribs‎ 53,260 bytes −113‎ ce, was "man hour" the edit was to clean up the grammar on the page, however the editor also changed man- to person-, which is not a word. It would be the same as switching "manipulation" to "personipulation" A word is a word, no matter how much it offends your point of view. Man-hour is the common term used in the aerospace industry (and all other labor driven industries) to describe the given definition, and remains the neutral point of view. Jonchache (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Let us be wholly consistent, and replace all instances of manifold and manifest with personifold and personifest. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you're hilarious. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

What is life, with no humor? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It's what we're experiencing now, because you're not funny. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget manhole Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why this is an NPOV issue more than a style issue, but I do think that the more natural English style-choice here is "man-hours", which appears to be the term more frequently used in sources that describes this event. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

As an observer up to now - to me the issue is not which phrase is correct, but how the decision to change from phrase "A" to phrase "B" is being made. This is obviously a contentious issue, and thus needs discussion - but Jonchache was very obviously edit-warring to keep his their preferred and proposed version in place while discussion is ongoing. That's a separate issue that needs addressing, although I note that they haven't re-edited since I level-4 warned them.

In fact, I note with disappointment that several other editors are also changing the established version to the proposed version. Given that those involved are all fairly experienced and should know about BRD, and general etiquette - all they have to do is wait for the conclusion. For the record, I agree that "person-hours" is not the best term to use, but I also agree that it's the term in current use, and as there have been several alternatives, until one that has consensus is found - the original stays in place. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Man-hour was the original. just because it was changed and missed by editors (with a certain point of view) does not make it right to stand today, thus the discussion. Man-hour is a proper noun, person-hour is not. Jonchache (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected, was typing in a rush. I have edited my comment above to take that into account. However, my main point still stands - that the original version should stay in place while an alternative is discussed. I am against "person-hour" as I don't see it as a GNL violation, and see it as an unnecessary change.

PS: Please note my comment directed to you on your talk page, re impersonating an admin. Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, Jonchache, that you keep using the term "proper noun" in an incorrect way. "Man-hour" is not a proper noun. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You are right, I should use "a more proper noun than". Jonchache (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

the original, prior to October 2022, was "man-hour" Jonchache (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that this discussion is ongoing at Talk:American Airlines Flight 191. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: section on Ukrainian forces

I'd welcome more contributions to the discussions going on at Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine:

• Shall the article have a section on sexual violence committed by Ukrainian armed forces and law enforcement? The section, which was present in the first version of the article [7], has been repeatedly removed [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and restored [16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. The last version of it can be read here: [23].
• Related to the above: shall the category:Ukrainian war crimes be included in the article?

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This is yet another instance of Gitz6666 engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and not respecting consensus. (Also failing to notify relevant discussing of his posting here) Volunteer Marek 17:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Should the article have such section and the category?. I think the answer is no because the most recent UN report on October 18 [24] blames only Russian army of committing the significant sexual violence. One can also check the original of the report [25] (pages 16-18 in English version). Importantly, this most recent report also summarizes their findings from previous reports. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Was this a notable subject of itself rather than another example of wartime sexual violence? Do we have sources specifically on the topic? I don't think the citations there support it being a separate topic. I'd have thought this should be a section in something else like war crimes in the war in Ukraine. NadVolum (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Sexual violence is always significant; the question here is whether its mention is WP:DUE. The October 18th report isn't a summary of all events throughout the war, but specific to "late February and March 2022 in the four provinces of Kyiv, Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Sumy" (p. 2 here). Other reports covering the period from the beginning of February to the end of October [26][27] do mention "forced nudity" and "threats of sexual violence" by Ukrainian forces. I don't think it's even remotely comparable to what Russian soldiers have been documented committing, but it is mentioned. François Robere (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not object (and never objected) to mentioning such materials on the page if they are on the subject of the page, sourced to a couple of independent RS, and describe specific cases of violence, i.e. the sources tell what exactly had happen, where and when, or reliable statistical data, etc. I also do not mind creating a section if there is enough materials for the section. But at the very least, such section should be properly titled, i.e. if the source say it was committed by civilians, police and territorial forces, this should not be titled "Ukrainian forces" which translated in the context of the page as "Ukrainian army". Something like "Vigilante justice" would be a better title, but then it would probably belong to another page. That is all I am saying here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• How is this even a debate? Has there been a war in history in which sexual violence has been perpetrated by only one side? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

1) Probably and 2) why is that even relevant? Volunteer Marek 04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Except that Ukraine hasn't invaded Russia. I really don't think this deserves a separate page. NadVolum (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That usually depends on the territory, i.e. the invading army usually commits such crimes on the territory of another occupied country. Armies usually commit few rapes of "their own people" on their own territory. This is true even with regard to Russian/Soviet army: most rapes were committed in Germany, even though such cases were documented everywhere. For the same reason, all such cases I know about during Second Chechen War, were committed by Russian forces, e.g. rape by Yuri Budanov, etc. But this is just a matter of sourcing. If there were many well covered and documented cases by any side, that would deserve a section. Looking at the proper sources, such as the most recent official report by UN (see above [28]), one can see that it includes (pages 16-18) a number of specific verified cases with details, all of which are crimes by Russian forces, which is not so surprising based on the trend described above. These cases do not include the alleged threat to a single soldier, which appears in the first diffs by Gitz. This is probably another "fake". My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That would then be another "fake" made by the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, since they were the ones who spread the news here (para. 44); the video is still visible on youtube [29][30], although I've reported it as abusive multiple times. Obviously, most of the sexual war crimes in Ukraine were committed by Russian soldiers, but there are also well-documented cases of sexual violence committed by Ukrainian soldiers and policemen, and I see no good reason not to report them in the dedicated article. The 18 October report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine does not invalidate/refute/disprove the 29 June report (para. 102) and the 27 September report (para. 54) of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said, this claim does not appear in the latest (October) report by the same organization, a report that also summarizes their previous reports. But even in the earlier reports, it only says: "HRMMU has also received an allegation of CRSV perpetrated by Ukrainian forces, when a captured Russian military member was threatened with castration on camera". This "received allegation" is very different from specific cases that have been confirmed and mentioned in the latest report. No, checking various YouTube records is not our responsibility, and they are primary sources anyway. Yes, this is something highly doubtful and poorly documented in sources. And you started this thread to enforce inclusion of such "facts"... My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Now, speaking about their report on June 29 [31] which does not appear in your diffs above brought to his noticeboard, it says something entirely different ("Out of 108 allegations, OHCHR verified 23 cases" and so on). Is that enough to create such subsection and make such category? I would say no because we need description of specific cases to create such section, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about their report published on September 27 [32] (pages 21-22), which also does not appear in your diffs in the beginning of this thread, they mention specific cases of such crimes only by Russian forces. They do mention several cases by Ukrainian forces, but do not provide any details, such as where and when each of the alleged episodes had happen. Again, this is not enough for creating such section on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean this is not enough? We don't need more information, let alone more sexual abuses - we report the information we have. The section on "Ukrainian forces" (last version: [33]) had perfectly verifiable and relevant contents. Nonetheless, it has been removed eight times from the article starting from April 2022. Three editors, who have always collaborated closely with one another, have achieved a result that strongly affects the neutrality of the article, and I would like to know - not specifically from you, but also from other uninvolved editors - if this is acceptable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no meaningful statistical data on this subject (the small numbers of cases are not representative and essentially meaningless at this point), although there are no doubts that the rapes by Russian forces are happening on a large scale, generally speaking. Therefore, the page should focus on well sourced and widely publicized specific cases at this point (that is what the most recent UN reports do). My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should publush the information we have (specific cases). I only object to publishing the information we don't have: mass rape used as a weapon of war. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine is a combatant nation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If WP:RS talk about Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine committed by Ukrainian forces NPOV does not give us any other option other than to cover it, I'm not saying we make a false equivalence but your argument is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen written on wikipedia by an experienced editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thing is RS don't really talk about such. There's some reallllllyyyy big stretching going on to make it seem like some do but even there it's a mention or two of a possibility or such. Volunteer Marek 04:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think their point is simply that it's Russian soldiers on Ukrainian territory, terrorizing Ukrainians rather than vice versa so of course it makes sense that almost all if not all cases of sexual violence are going to be perpetrated by Russians. Maybe at some point Ukraine will start its march on Moscow or whatever and then maybe things will change but for now there's nothing surprising about this. Volunteer Marek 04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing surprising about this, right - the only surprising thing is that you and your posse want to prevent us from reporting on sexual violence perpetrated by the Ukrainian forces, at least until Ukraine starts its march on Moscow. Another surprising thing is this: [34]. I don't even understand the point of removing the tag:POV while discussions are ongoing both here and on the article talkpage. Since there is no consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved (Template:POV#When_to_remove) I believe this already qualifies as sanctionable behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

the only surprising thing is that you and your posse… Why should I even bother replying to an obnoxious comment like that? Unless you strike the personal attacks there’s no point in discussing this with you. Volunteer Marek 17:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Well I don't think the citations justified setting up the article in the first place. But as to your point there is the question of weight, I would be just silly to go around complaining that the pond in my back yard should be included as a lake in Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the pond in the back yard should not be included as a lake, but it should probably be included as a pond. Given that there have been at least 11 documented cases of people being forcebly stripped and publicly beaten with sticks, as reported in the international media [35], in dozens of Ukrainian outlets and in no less than three reports of OHCHR/HRMMU, it is not such an insignificant pond after all, and certainly not a pleasant one for those who suffered that treatment. Verifiable information on Wikipedia and public scrutiny on these practices would not be a bad thing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Volunteer Marek 17:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no mention of sexual violence in your citation. And the lead section citation of the articlewhich is supposed to give it notability deals with sexual violence as one of a number of things rather thn specifically, that's why I was saying the article shouldn't exist, it should be part of the Ukrine war crimes artice. That's what the citation there was talking about. NadVolum (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain the logic of this to me? Even in civil wars and domestic security operations sexual violence occurs. In a war like the one in Ukraine we would expect Ukrainian forces to commit violence including of a sexual nature against collaborators and those they viewed as traitors. I have an academic background in torture and other violence in conflict and I'm just having a real hard time squaring what you guys are saying with reality and the literature. On the specific NPOV point if WP:RS have "a mention or two of a possibility or such" then our article should as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Meaning they would rape collaborators and traitors? Yes, sure, that would worth inclusion to the page if reliably sourced and documented as specific incidents that occur in certain time and places. But of course we should also follow the WP:NPOV on the page, i.e. we should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So, what are "the significant views"? Nearly all publications on this subject say something like this, i.e. "UN official: Russia using rape as war strategy in Ukraine", with supporting links to [36] ("UN panel reports Ukrainian children have been raped, tortured by Russian forces"), etc. So, whatever these sources say, we should fairly summarize them. And the "significant view" here is that nearly all crimes of this nature have been committed by Russian forces. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Objectively there is no such thing as a traitor, that's purely POV dependent. Having the vast majority of the article focus on Russian actions does not preclude a section talking about Ukrainian actions, even if only to note that there haven't been comparable atrocities. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Sure, one can have such section if there are enough well-sourced materials for the section (which I do not see at this point) and there is WP:Consensus to create such section. But not like this (1st diff in this thread), i.e. a single "allegation", while only 23 of 108 allegations have been confirmed later, according to their next report. Moreover, the cited source does not say what exactly had happen even in this single case, where and when. One should also prefer using the most recent UN reports, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The diff you shared shows tha article as it was on 18 April 2022: an excellent stub (actually more than a stub) created by Boud. Then the article was expanded by multiple users. The last version of the controversial section - the one worth discussing - is this: [37] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

That latest version says: "Since the beginning of the Russian invasion, videos circulated on social media and local media outlets showing people believed to be "marauders", bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators being tied to electricity poles or trees and beaten in public. Perpetrators were civilians, police officers and members of the territorial defence.." OK, there are two three serious problems here. (1) Yes, being tied and beaten is a vigilante justice and a human rights violation, but hardly anything of sexual nature (arguably does not belong to the page), and (2) if some or most of the perpetrators were civilians and police officers, why this is framed as crimes by Ukrainian army? But again, I agree that such section could be included if properly written, well sourced and supported by consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Third problem. It says "videos circulated on social media and local media outlets showing...". This is a textbook example of unreliable information that can not be trusted (especially in the context of war) and should not be included in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

1) The OHCHR says that these incidents qualify as sexual violence when the victims are stripped naked, and their opinion on this is more significant than yours ("hardly anything of sexual nature"); 2) "Forces" includes both "armed forces" and "police forces", and the subject of the article is sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which doesn't necessarily have to be perpetrated by soliders: policemen and civilians can also commit conflict-related sexual violence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Well you've resoundingly won that argument... Any other questions My very best wishes? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see any justification in excluding the reports by well-respected international organisations on sexual violence attributed to Ukrainian authorities/security forces. The proportions of attention should respect WP:DUE: that doesn't mean zero sentences/paragraphs on the quantitatively/qualitatively less significant incidents of sexual violence. More reports are available now since my initial stub, but unless the more recent reports directly contradict the earlier ones, we cannot infer that the older reports are considered wrong by the same organisations. I explained quantitatively on 18 April 2022 (numbers of sections, paragraphs, sentences) what seemed to follow WP:DUE based on the 26 March 2022 report available at that time. Boud (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• This seems like a topic that RECENTISM applies...we are not going to have any clear picture of much of what is going on beyond the major offenses in the war to try to be documenting from spotty accounts and weaker RSes. We do not need to be instantly up to date and it is far better to.hold off until a better picture of events can be documented from RSes, which may be months or years from now. --Masem (t) 20:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Allegations of CIA drug trafficking

An editor is repeatedly misquoting a source Talk:Allegations of CIA drug trafficking#Poppy cultivation and I would like to not edit war over this. User:Rja13ww33 has changed statements of fact to a quote and an editorialized quote at that. In the source the CIA's actions in the Afghan opium trade are said to be "documented." This is a statement of fact and not one person's opinion. Rja13ww33 claims that A direct quote is always best.[38] and I have pointed out[39] that is not correct.

Additionally this is a good time to talk about the bias of the title: It is inappropriate to include the word "allegations" because this article contains proven facts. Allegations are appropriate to include but are secondary to the subject of the article. The current title incorrectly describes all of its contents as mere allegations. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The source does not support what you wrote in the article. Though they would have been better off without using quotation marks, Rja13ww33's revision is more in line with the source, and they were correct to change it. Regarding the title of the article, it appears that this is the title that was decided upon during the article's AfD, and it is entirely appropriate in line with how Wikipedia handles allegations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

In what way does the source not support my version? When is it ever appropriate to add an editorialized version of a quote and not an actual quote?

Are you really talking about AfD from 10.5 years ago? Invasive Spices (talk) 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The relevant passage in the source:

Following earlier patterns, Washington looked the other way when CIA-backed Afghan insurgents battling the Soviets in the 1980s were involved in cultivating and smuggling opium poppies to help fund their cause. This was the CIA’s biggest covert operation since Vietnam, and once again, the opium trade was one of the biggest winners. As McCoy (2003, p. 18) summarizes, “To fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA, working through Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence, backed Afghan warlords who used the Agency’s arms, logistics, and protection to become major drug lords.”

Your edit said in wikivoice that the CIA was supporting drug smuggling through the Pakistan ISI. The source says that the CIA worked with the Pakistan ISI to provide support to Afghan insurgents that also received funding from drug smuggling, and it quotes McCoy's opinion on the matter. Rja13ww33 fixed this by attributing the opinion to McCoy through an exact quote by McCoy lifted verbatim from the source. Personally, I think that even this was generous, as I probably would've reverted your edit for misrepresenting the source. Your edit omitted context that changed the meaning, while theirs was an exact quote with attribution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's start with the obvious problem. Thebiguglyalien do you understand that Rja13ww33's is presenting edited quotes as verbatim quotes? Do you understand that Rja13ww33 has done so again below? I told you this above and you ignored it. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Is any of this sinking in yet? I don't mean to be rude here (we are to AGF and so forth) but is English your first language? I'm trying to guess what the disconnect is. Very simply, here is what you added to the article: "During the 1980s the CIA worked through the Pakistan ISI to support Afghan cultivation of opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) and smuggling of the product.". Here is what the source says (word for word): As McCoy (2003, p. 18) summarizes, “To fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA, through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, backed Afghan warlords who used the Agency’s arms, logistics, and protection to become major drug lords.”

Obviously there is quite a difference between those two statements.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Telling me the sky is chartreuse is not going to work. You have again presented an edited quote. I am aware that this is Wikipedia and everyone argues without reading sources but they will if I repeatedly point it out. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 December 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is it a "edited quote" when it is verbatim from the source? I'm still waiting to hear that one.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I see one comment here, and another at the article talk page, where Rja13ww33 left out the word "working" in "...the CIA, working through Pakistan's...". The block quote they added above appears correct, as does the text they actually added to the article, so I'm not seeing the problem. Invasive Spices, it might help if you actually explained exactly what difference you see between the original quote and what Rja13ww33 is saying. Squeakachu (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I side with Rja13ww33 on this one. First of all, the quote is verbatim from the source. (The word "To" was changed to "to", so perhaps that is part of the objection.) Secondly, the idea that the CIA trafficked drugs or facilitated drug trafficking is a contentious claim that requires attribution. For instance, the United States Department of State, Inspector General of the CIA, United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (i.e. the Church Committee) looked at McCoy's earlier, but similar claims about the CIA during the Vietnam War and found them to be unsubstantiated. - Location (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

the idea that the CIA trafficked drugs or facilitated drug trafficking is a contentious claim It is not if we have WP:RS which demonstrate it is true. We do. My original edit included precisely that. If we have opposing WP:RS we could (must) present the controversy. I would not disagree. We would do that using both sources but no one has provided any such. We cannot present Andreas's facts as if they are McCoy's unsupported speculation.

that requires attribution. To repeat: no attribution is required because we have Andreas WP:RS. I am not opposed to attribution however and in fact the prominent attribution of this statement in Andreas may justify such prominent attribution in our article. However Rja13ww33 did not just attribute. Rja13ww33 changed a WP:PARAPHRASE of several Andreas paragraphs to a quote.

I hate to be pedantic but why would anyone cite sources on Wikipedia if they are of no consequence and A direct quote is always best.[40]? Quotes are almost never used.[41] Andreas is there for a reason. What is the reason?

Rja13ww33's edit removes the context: The source is not McCoy but a prestigious independent source which cites McCoy as one among his many sources. Our opinion is decided by WP:V. I hate to debate WP:V here as if WP:V can be ignored.

For instance…earlier, but similar claims…found them to be unsubstantiated. I will not address other matters in other articles with different sources. Afghan opium is Afghan opium. Other matters do not justify removing context and presenting cited facts as if they are uncited baseless quotes from McCoy. These situations are not analogous because this has not been found to be unsubstantiated by anyone, in fact it is substantiated by Andreas.

We can see from User talk:Rja13ww33 that this user has a history – for years – of WP:POV edit warring on this and related articles. Looking at Special:Contributions/Rja13ww33 shows exclusively POV edit warring on this and related articles. That editor is a WP:SPA or close to it. That is not a history of neutrality.

My aim is this: the over all thrust of my edit was to WP:PARAPHRASE several paragraphs from Andreas – because that excludes other material, because Wikipedia is written by its editors, because WP is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of quotes, WP is not Wikiquote – and to include the commodity in trade, opium. Opium is the thing in question and I want to distinguish it from several other commodities which could be implied by the quote alone. (Especially Cannabis.) What Thebiguglyalien said above is strange and obviously not correct: removing context and replacing it with a quote does not add context, and Rja13ww33's edit is misleading because it removes the context which shows McCoy is supported by Andreas. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You're getting caught up on this quote thing, but that's not the issue here. You came to your own conclusions that were not supported by the source, and you inserted those conclusions into the article rather than summarizing what the source says. They were removed and replaced with a direct quote that more plainly states the allegation being made. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You've now got 4 people telling you that you are wrong. The only thing the source says regarding the Afghan opium trade in the 80's is what I quoted. (A direct quote.) Nothing in the source backs what you said about the CIA supporting Mujahadeen drug production.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Wikiislam

Hi, in the lead of the Wikipedia article of Wikiislam, the first description of the site is that it is Islamophobic. I don't think this is in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy because similarly if some books claim Muhammad as anti-christ or false prophet, should we label him as such in the lead of the article of him? I don't think so. Can neutral editors give your opinion? LiuWu87 (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems a lot of the sourcing describes them as "anti-Islam" or similar, rather than using the specific word "Islamophobic". It's a website which is dedicated to the POV that basically "Islam is bad" (which "anti-Islam" better describes) not the POV "I hate Muslims" (which "Islamophobic" better describes). Additionally, per MOS:LABEL, we can't call things x-phobic in wikivoice, as it's an inherently opinionated, value-laden label. I would suggest someone start an RfC on that. Endwise (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There are more characterizations of WikiIslam as "anti-Muslim" than merely "anti-Islam" in the sources cited in the article. Snuish (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see, half of the citations are either written by Göran Larsson (theologian) or citing him. And Larsson, in the 2007 paper, following what he describes as the work of the Runnymede Trust, appears to use "anti-Muslim" and "Islamophobic" differently. From the "Is WikiIslam an expression of Islamphobia?" section of that work, he seems to be saying that he is not able to describe the website itself as Islamophobic:

Therefore, in order to call WikiIslam a “purely” Islamophobic site, it would be necessary to scrutinise all web pages linked to this site thoroughly, which I have not done for this article... when information is made public on the Internet, the “owner” often loses his or her control over the posted data, especially since a homepage, or any information posted on the Internet for that matter, can be linked to an immense number of homepages, forums and portals, including WikiIslam. From this point of view, it becomes much more difficult to argue that all information posted on WikiIslam is Islamophobic by nature.

Also, if you read them, citations 3, 6, and 8 pretty clearly appear not to describe the website as Islamophobic. Endwise (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The text that you quoted is referenced in the article in footnote d. There are scholarly references that indicate Larsson concluded that the website was Islamophobic, though he doesn't call it a "purely" Islamophobic website. "Larsson argues that WikiIslam takes a closed attitude in its understanding of Islam, and so should be seen as an Islamophobic web portal." Tsuria, Ruth (2013-01-01). "The video Three Things About Islam: Islamophobia online or a religious dialogue". Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis. 25: 225. doi:10.30674/scripta.67442. ISSN 2343-4937. There also have been extensive discussions on the talk page of the article regarding the use of the term. I personally have suggested sticking to "anti-Muslim"; on the other hand, numerous editors have had no issue with the use of the term "Islamophobic" since they consider it synonymous. Snuish (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anti-Muslim is appropriate either, because the term means someone who is anti the followers of Islam, whereas from what I've seen on their website, they instead call Muslims to wake up and leave Islam, because some of its teachings they consider incompatible with human rights and common sense. Thus anti-Islam is more appropriate but I remain unsure whether it is neutral to label them as such in the lead. LiuWu87 (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Your personal assessment of the website is irrelevant per WP:OR. Snuish (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It still doesn't change the fact that being critical of Islam or anti-Islam is not the same as being anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. LiuWu87 (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I entirely agree with that. "Anti-Islam" and being "critical of Islam" is not the same as being anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. So we can rely on at least four or five authors that unequivocally describe the website as "Islamophobic" or "anti-Muslim" in multiple works. Snuish (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

About 4 of the sources are from Goran Larsson or citing him. Weirdly, I don’t see him anywhere clearly stating that the site is an islamophobic wiki. Only other person (Tsuria Ruth) who you quoted her saying "Larsson argues that WikiIslam takes a closed attitude in its understanding of Islam, and so should be seen as an Islamophobic web portal."

I’m not sure if the part “so should be seen as an Islamophobic web portal." is from Larsson, but rather only Ruth’s personal conclusion. And as per WP:Voice, it shouldn’t be stated in Wikipedia’s voice.

Also the direct quotation of source no. [6]: “American Muslim organizations use new media both to address issues internal to their community and to counter growing anti-Muslim sentiment. For example, in 2005, Wiki Islam debuted, claiming to provide a 'politically incorrect' alternative to Wikipedia.”

You can’t just make a conclusion based on that that the site is Islamophobic. That’s original research.

also no. [7]

“Anti-Muslim rhetoric on internet sites such as WikiIslam.net”

if a book says

“anti-Semitic rhetoric on Facebook.”

does that mean that Facebook is an anti-semitic site? nope. Also that’s original research.

Also for source no. [8], can you give a direct quotation? LiuWu87 (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Larsson (2007) states:

pg. 62: In relation to the criteria set up by the Runnymede Trust..., it should be quite easy to label most of the material published on WikiIslam as expressions of Islamophobia.

pgs. 63-64: The internet hub WikiIslam shows that new information and communication technologies can be used to publish and spread anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions. And although WikiIslam is an illustrative case study, it is evident that Muslims themselves can also use the internet to combat opinions and voices that are perceived to be Islamophobic.

pg. 64: WikiIslam is, of course, also partial being strongly anti-Muslims and anti-Islam.

Ruth's conclusion is published in a scholarly peer-reviewed work and can be used here. Given the quotes above, her conclusion regarding Larsson (2007) is also undoubtedly correct.

Larsson also calls WikiIslam an anti-Muslim website or webpage in works from 2014 and 2018, respectively. Enstedt & Larsson (2013) states that WikiIslam is "often perceived as being anti-Muslim, if not Islamophobic" and constitutes an "important element in an Islamophobic world view."

Khan (2015), i.e., citation 6, is citing WikiIslam as an example of anti-Muslim sentiment. There's no original research there.

Regarding your example using Facebook, you're correct. However, we're not taking any leaps in logic using Enstedt's 2017 work given what that his 2013 work states, as cited above. Citation 8 was added by user TrangaBellam, and I do not have full access to it. Snuish (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Still, they’re opinions. Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV states that:

Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

So it shouldn’t be written in the lead that “Wikiislam is anti-Muslim or Islamophobic site, blah… blah…” even if someone claims it as widespread view, but it could be written somewhere below that“Larsson says that, “in order to call WikiIslam a “purely” Islamophobic site, it would be necessary to scrutinise all web pages linked to this site thoroughly, which I have not done for this article”” LiuWu87 (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Is your position that "anti-Muslim" requires in-text attribution? I don't think you'll find support for that position. Identical arguments have been made before. I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make with the quote from Larsson. Finally, if the intro said, "WikiIslam is wiki focused on the criticism of Islam," would that require in-text attribution, or could it be said in Wikipedia's voice? Snuish (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps that’s because the user being silenced (banned) so they can’t give any more arguments. LiuWu87 (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, and I think this is a form of ad hominem, where the credibility of the site is downplayed rather than refuting what the site is saying. LiuWu87 (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)— LiuWu87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• All the citations that are given for "Islamophobic" say something more to the effect of "critical of Islam", which is not precisely the same as Islamophobic. The first sentence should confine itself to saying "critical of Islam". That's unless other sources are produced, but even then it would probably only be appropriate as an attributed opinion. Sennalen (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• All the citations? Which sources precisely are you using to support that reading? Snuish (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
• That is a verifiably false statement. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:WikiIslam. Snuish (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here. A preponderance of reliable sources (academic scholarship) support the label. To shy away wil be to encourage WP:FALSEBALANCE. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  That being said, I do not offer any opposition if the qualifier is replaced with "anti-Muslim" as TryKid suggests below. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to "WikiIslam is an anti-Muslim and anti-Islam wiki. The website, which has often been perceived as Islamophobic, was founded by Ali Sina in 2006 and acquired by the Ex-Muslims of North America in 2015." Thoughts? Snuish (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• I find the MOS:LABEL argument convincing—the guideline asks for in-text attribution for value-laden terms. It's not a false balance isssue, nobody seems to be disputing any specific accusation or asking for "but others praise WikiIslam". Using -phobic words in wikivoice is rather strange. Wikipedia does not call J. K. Rowling "transphobic" in its own voice even once, and does not use the word "homophobia" or "homophobic" in the article for conversion therapy, and so on. Osama bin Laden, perhaps the most "terrorist" of the terrorists in Western imagination, is called a militant rather than a terrorist on his Wikipedia page (though this one might be going a bit too far). WikiIslam is pretty clearly prejudiced against Muslims, and Wikipedia should clearly note that, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to mirror the specific, value-laden language used. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Do you consider the terms "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Semitic" to also be value-laden? The latter is frequently used in wikivoice. I have been unsure about where Wikipedia draws the line with MOS:LABEL. Snuish (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  No, anti-muslim would be a straightforward description of the website, if the sources call it so. It would not be something that requiring an in-text attribution if well sourced, which it does appear to be. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  I do not believe that reliable sources are anonymous that "Rowling is transphobic" though Vanamonde93 will know better. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Unanimous? Not at this time, they aren't; but then Rowling's views on transgender people have become a matter of public debate only recently, and scholarly sources are still catching up. I don't think that's a reasonable comparison, though. We don't have a blanket policy on labels; where labels are supported by the preponderance of reliable sources, we should use them in Wikipedia's voice; where there's some support in RS, but not universal support, we should provide in-text attribution. What we've done on other pages really isn't at issue (TB, I suspect you know this, I'm addressing everyone above me). What do the sources say about Wikiislam? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  What we've done on other pages, specially "high level", well visited, well edited, argued over pages, is important here, even if not specifically at issue right now—looking at global applications of policy is how we determine what the global consensus is, rather than deciding how the policy is interpreted on the fly on each article, case-by-case basis. The sources cited above seem to agree that WikiIslam is anti-Muslim, definitely anti-Islam, and some sources do seem to use the label of "Islamophobic". And as far as I have known, the policy requires in-text attribution for the last one. If this was not how the policy is interpreted and implemented, our articles on Scientology, Heaven's Gate (religious group), Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi would not be the way the are, despite the preponderance of sources labelling the first two cults, and the last two terrorists. The article for LGB Alliance, widely described as transphobic, does not use the label without in-text attribution—the issue was discussed at the talk page, and the wider issue at many other talk pages over the years, and this is the consensus, as far as I know. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for considering this so carefully. I appreciate that you've scrutinized the sources closely and have revised the introduction accordingly. "Anti-Muslim" is the most common descriptor for WikiIslam in the sources, though some do use "Islamophobic." I want to note that Love jihad uses "Islamophobic" in a similar fashion in the lead, though I don't have a sense of how common "Islamophobic" or "anti-Muslim" have been in the sources cited in that article. Snuish (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some cherrypicking in the sourcing, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. These books (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) mention Wikiislam, some use it as a source, but no one describes it as an anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, Islamophobic, etc. One of them describe the site as “a community-edited based website that focuses on the critique of Islam, while also allowing pro-Islamic responses in separate articles.”

I think that kind of description is more appropriate for wiki voice, and more in line with the NPOV wikipedia policy. LiuWu87 (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

All of the books you cited are either self-published or published by a vanity press. WP:SELFPUB would apply. Snuish (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

can you prove that, for every each of them? LiuWu87 (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

What is an 'economist'?

There is an issue on the Jared Bernstein biography, certain editors insisting on labeling this guy an economist. As I have explained on the talk page, JB has no doctorate in economics, does not publish economics research in mainline journals, does not teach economics at any college or university and essentially has no claim to this title other than the fact that he's hired by left-wing politicians and think tanks to act in this capacity. He is essentially a labor activist employed in the interests of big labor unions and certain industry groups affiliated with the Economic Policy Institute.

What is the criteria for professional titles like 'economist'? The defense I received in talk was that "he is an economist, but not an academic economist". This raises several questions.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, someone is an economist if reliable sources generally refer to them as an economist. In this case, they do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Really? What 'reliable sources' and what makes them reliable? What is generally regarded as a 'reliable source' for an academic discipline is an actual academic source and not popular press. So in this case they [reliable sources] don't describe JB as any such thing. Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

And where on that page can I find the criteria for professional titles? When someone is labeled a 'scientist', 'historian' or 'economist' it is implied that this individual publishes research in this field, and that further implies mainstream research in sources recognized as mainstream by the encyclopedia. I am not being unreasonable here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not write original content about what we consider things to be or not be. We summarize what can be found in other sources, even if we don't think it's what they should be saying. You've been here for a few years now, and you've been informed many times of why your approach to editing is inappropriate. If you are not able to read the relevant policy pages and develop an understanding of how Wikipedia works after all this time, there is not much else we can do for you. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I've become quite a student of how bias on this encyclopedia works. If journalists call someone an economist than Wikipedia calls him an economist, even though he's not. I wonder if you apply this same standard to scientists? "He's an oil executive with a degree in business but the Wall Street Journal calls this guy a climate scientist so let's just run with it." I'm guessing not. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't confuse the Journal's news side (which is a WP:RS and does not engage in climate change denial) with the Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal (which is not a WP:RS and does engage in climate change denial). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I stopped reading at "left-wing politicians". Next? SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

As I explained to someone else, this isn't a 'left' or 'right' issue. This is about a political partisan who is employed by other political partisans to perform economic research for partisan purposes. Economics, like other academic disciplines, isn't (and shouldn't be) 'left' or 'right'. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This displays a worrying lack of knowledge when it comes to the history of the academic discipline of economics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Can’t speak to other fields, but non-academics who write books on historical subjects are routinely labeled as “Historians”… although we sometimes include caveats to indicate their non-academic status (“amateur historian”, etc). Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  Are they? I would object to that too. This encyclopedia parades itself as a "mainstream encyclopedia" but that's clearly not the case in these instances. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  And one last point I'll add -there are people who aren't academics but publish historical, economic or scientific research in reliable sources and are cited by other historians, scientists, economists etc. But that is not the case here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Well I think of practically all think tanks as anti-academic as they start with the conclusion they want to push. But I agree we've got to stick by the sources in Wikipedia. At the level Jared Bernstein works economics is pretty much a soft science like history so we can't say they are definitely right or wrong and there's no absolute standards. NadVolum (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

In that sense, most academics are non-academic. Bernstein is a policy guy and sometime pundit. In that role, he functions similarly to the current-day iteration of former Treasury Secretary and deposed Harvard president Larry Summers and many others whose views are widely published but are not stated (and likely not founded) with any academic rigor. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The neutrality of "academics" is a myth. They have strong personal opinions on their subjects, and this is great. That is why journals from Current Opinion (Elsevier) series are very popular and helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Accusing academics of having 'motivations' is one of the laziest populist tropes possible. Yes, they have opinions, often strong personal opinions, about their subjects; anything written by a human will be biased in that regard. But there is a great gulf between having an opinion or bias and being paid to put out research that is deliberately skewed to confirm someone's (or some group's) a priori assumptions. Jared Bernstein's work falls into the second category and that's primarily why he isn't published in any credible journals for economics. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That's quite a postmodern perspective you've taken -everything is subjective no right or wrong.

Actually there is such a thing as structured analysis in both history and economics and economics is far more empirical than history (you can make testable claims that can be supported or disproven by observation). Bernstein is not paid to carry out objective research; he is employed by think tanks that manipulate data to promote a particular narrative in defense of certain unions and industry groups. This is not what economists do. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That's nice, and there's a good chance you're right. But none of that matters. If reliable sources said that Bernstein was a quantum physicist, a comic book superhero, or the King of England, then that's how we would describe him on his article. We don't get to decide who or what people are. This is an encyclopedia, so it simply repeats what others say, right or wrong. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, and I suppose the issue is over what constitutes a reliable source for this sort of thing. If the policy of the encyclopedia is that anyone can be a scientist, historian or economist if enough media call them that, then I suppose I have no argument. Jared Bernstein is indeed referred to as an 'economist' in sources that are not reliable sources for economics, but may be reliable for other topics of news or politics. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not at all what I said. Just because we can't properly check what those type economists say against reality doesn't mean climate change isn't happening. And your structured analysis is good for academic status but it is nowhere near sufficient for actually figuring things out, do you really think if we just did structured analysis of climate change we would be any further forward with it? For this we've got to just follow what the sources say, no OR into what a 'real' economists do. If you really think you've got a point you can raise an RfC on whether he really is an economist and see if enough people agree in this case. I very much doubt you'd get consensus though. NadVolum (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't like to venture into these comparisons; economics is not a 'hard science' like climatology. Climatology, like other hard sciences, operates on the principal of probabilistic induction, which is possible because they are using established laws of cause and effect as a basis of this induction. Economics doesn't operate that way; history much less so and is really a branch of the humanities.

In any event, economics and history still have rules and methodologies and there very much is an actual standard for research publishing, which the subject of this article doesn't meet. But I can see I am overruled here so I should probably just drop it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• We've beat this issue to death on the topic "Is Elon Musk an engineer?" with the perennial conclusion as I remember it being basically: "If WP:RS say they are then they are" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  So I've learned. Alright, so it is. Thanks for clarifying this everyone. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. Note, neither John Stuart Mill nor John Maynard Keynes had Econ degrees or any other prior distinction other than their tripartate monickers. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, which is why I also specified that there are non-academic economists who may not have degrees but still publish in credible economics journals where they are cited and taken seriously. As the father of Keynesianism, which was mainstream macroeconomic theory in the mid 20th Century, we know that Keynes has/had notability as an economist.

• This individual falls short of all these qualifications, but I understand the sourcing policy on here (though I don't personally agree with it). Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

In general, I personally agree that contemporary people who do not hold doctorates and publish in a field should not be considered academic professionals in that field, and that professions like "engineer" or "scientist" or "linguist" should be restricted to academics so that we don't run into the issues of biased/ignorant media granting expert authority to non-experts. I also believe that while we're tied up by what sources call someone, there really ought to be some consideration when there is an absence of academics discussing someone's work.

However, in this case, there is a very reasonable assertion of expertise in economics given Bernstein's PhD in social welfare, which is tightly interlinked with economic policy, and the fact that he does in fact publish journal articles and scholarly book chapters in relevant fields. He has multiple research papers spanning nearly 30 years in labor markets, public policy, wage inequality, unemployment, trade deficit, etc. So calling him an "economist" is not unwarranted. JoelleJay (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what professions in the US have any sort of official recognition like the title of engineer being porotected in Germany or gaining chartered status in the UK. A person can still get recognized for something they don't have formal training and expertise in but that sort of qualification does cut out a lot of the corner cases. NadVolum (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say that anyone working for a reputable organization providing economic advice is an economist. But the criterion for Wikipedia is how they are usually described in reliable sources. While I accept that news sources lack expertise for many classifications, there is no agreed definition and so we have to look at usage. It's like the term writer. Strictly speaking, all of us are writers, because we are writing comments on this page. But we normally would only apply the term to someone who wrote for an occupation.

Berstein wrote for Economic Policy Institute, was Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor to the Vice-President and is a member of the Council of Economic Advisers to the president. So it is accurate to say he is an economist since he is practicing as one. There is no licence required.

Economics is not a neutral discipline. The economic views two most famous modern economists, Keynes and Friedman, cannot be separated from their political views. Faced with the same set of facts, the two economists would have come up with a different analysis and recommendations.

TFD (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The difference in these examples is that Keynes and Friedman adjusted their views to fit the facts, while Bernstein and the Economic Policy Institute adjust the facts to fit their views. There are numerous examples of this so I'm not going to open that can of worms here.

A doctorate in social welfare is substantially removed from a Phd in economics. There is an economic element to social welfare, but there's overlap in a lot of disciplines that do not always translate to expertise. And it's true that Bernstein has published in academic journals before, but they are either cross-disciplinary journals or journals that are characterized as fringe within the economics discipline.

To cite one example here's one of JB's papers[42]. This was published in the journal 'Challenge' which, as the name implies, is a 'heterodox' (read fringe) journal designed to challenge mainstream views and push new Keynesian perspectives[43]. Spend a half hour or so checking the journals Bernstein publishes in and you'll learn that they are predictably fringe, either heterodox journals or journals that allow non-economic scholars to publish in.

I accept the judgement that sources label JB an economist and that it is appropriate to apply this description in the article. But please let's not base this on the rationale that he has sufficient economics training and a history of publishing in this field. Just one glance at the journals he publishes in should ring warning bells as to the nature and depth of his economics knowledge. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I see multiple papers in prestigious economics journals such as American Economic Review and The Review of Economics and Statistics, as well as journals in adjacent fields that are also ranked highly in economics, like Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Welfare economics, minimum wage policy, and employment inequality are absolutely under the purview of "economics". JoelleJay (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

And I think of this 'heterodox' as name calling. Economics is very political at anything but the most basic level. NadVolum (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• As others have said, an economist is someone who has a bunch of reliable sources calling them an economist. If those sources exist, and you think that there's still reason to doubt them, you could try and find other sources clearly contradicting them - when the title is disputed it would have to be attributed. To take an example from above, I would argue that we should attribute or qualify eg. calling Elon Musk an engineer, because while many sources call him that, many others overtly cast doubt on it, making it a disputed opinion and not an uncontested fact. If there's no disagreement among the sources, though, then we have to go with what they say - you can't substitute your personal judgment of what makes someone an economist for theirs. --Aquillion (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  I, again, accept the judgement that the sources determine who's what. I don't agree that academic economics is 'political' as NadVolum asserted. It's politicized, but not political. That means special care should be taken to determine who is and isn't publishing within the mainstream of the discipline, and heterodox journals are by definition fringe. And no, Heterodox economics is not name-calling.

  "..mainstream economics deals with the "rationality–individualism–equilibrium nexus" and heterodox economics is more "radical" in dealing with the "institutions–history–social structure nexus".

  As a mainstream encyclopedia heterodox sources cannot be given equal weight or attention in economics articles, and should probably not be cited at all. This is a problem for an economist like Bernstein who publishes almost entirely on the fringe, although I do see he's managed to slide a paper or two into some mainstream journals.Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (lacking neutrality)

This article N. Chandrababu Naidu was suffering from point of neutrality from long back but there came another user who tried to do the opposite (I meant in the negative way) and retitled all the categories that by looking at the first instance gives a bad impression about the subject. The user has caused such kind of huge disruptive edits lacking neutrality on 2 to 3 pages recently. As an amature I don't know how to restore things on N. Chandrababu Naidu when there are such huge disruptions. Looking for any experienced editors to look in to this and also to ensure that neutrality is present according to Wikipedia guidelines. 456legend(talk) 11:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I got guided to this place from the Teahouse. 456legend(talk) 11:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Also to mention all the previous good faith edits were removed by the user and meanwhile no one reverted them. (unexplained sourced content removal) 456legend(talk) 12:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt whether this is the right place to present this issue or not. I am sorry if this is not the right place to discuss about this.If not then please guide me to the right place.

Thank you 456legend(talk) 12:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You came to the right place to discuss this.

I don't think you mean Alalch E. because that user has made the article mildly less negative. I'm not sure what user you refer to.

I think retitled all the categories means retitled all the WP:SECTIONs. The sections do have some negativity but if the scandals are so severe then that is appropriate. I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject.

Over all I don't see any egregious WP:BLP violations. If the allegations are true they are not inappropriate. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I was referring to the other person Chinnusaikrish. He/she is not at all responding or ready to talk/discuss to reach concensus. And to mention..Alalch E. we are trying to clean it after discussing on the talk page. And coming to allegations, I do agree that it needs to covered if it's severe but the motive of Chinnusaikrish looks different as you observed, severely negative titles, tone similar to personal opinion like using of words, complete, overall, entire. If Chinnusaikrish is ready to reach to concensus it would be better to ensure resolving this content dispute.456legend(talk) 03:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)