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

Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles: NPOV, BLP, NOR and other policy problems

At articles like Karl von Habsburg, we're seeing things like this in the infobox:

Spouse: Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza (m. 1993)
Issue:
 Archduchess Eleonore
 Archduke Ferdinand
 Archduchess Gloria

and similar things throughout the article.

This is a problem under all of at least WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SOAPBOX, and more. These titles are not only not used by these people, they are actually illegal to be used by most of them (other than some of those who have moved, to places that don't care), and for most of these people we have no evidence they actually attempt to use such titles, so we should not be imposing them on these subjects. These titles are basically a fantasy (and some of them appear to be "If this were still real, then so-and-so would have inherited this title from such-and-such" OR conducted by editors. The jurisdictions and legal systems in which they would be real ceased to exist around World War I or a bit later in most places, and countries like the UK where some of this sort of thing still exists do not automatically recognize such titles and honors and yadda yadda of alleged pretenders to extinct sovereignties.

There's a bit of a MOS:FICTION element here, too. For anyone from a deposed formerly royal family who does still assert and use such titles, styles, and honors (and there are a few of them running around; Karl von Habsburg's father was one of them), we have to be clear in our material that this is pretender stuff that most of the world does not take seriously (including people in non-deposed noble families in jurisdictions that still recognize nobility – except inasmuch as they may be looking for a "suitable" marriage partner, though even that stuff is drawing to a close as genetic effects inbreeding (including compounded cousin marriages) are well-studied now, and royal–commoner marriages like those in the recent British royal family have been accepted within those circles and by the public).

I'm not really sure if we just have a problem at a few dozen articles, or if there's a more systemic one that needs to be addressed in a guideline. I suspect the latter. E.g., when I look at List of current pretenders, I see a lot of entries that are people whom various WP editors believe (through various genealogy studies of their own) to be legitimate pretenders, but whom our articles (and more importantly, the reliable sources in them) do not indicate that they are in fact pretenders to (claimants of) the listed thrones, realms, titles, etc.

Let's look just at Karl von Habsburg: "Born a member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, he does not use his ancestral titles, since the use of such titles is now illegal in both Hungary and Austria. ... In 1961, his father, Otto von Habsburg, renounced all claims to the Austrian throne, as a necessary legal condition to being allowed to return to Austria." (What part of "renounced" wasn't clear?) His family has been trying since the 1960s to regain seized assets including estates, but this is not the same thing as being pretenders to the throne and other noble titles and offices and powers. Otto is also the grand master of the Habsburg-Lorraine Order of St. George which is an internal house order of the family (i.e., a private club). It is not the Habsburg Order of St. George (est. 1469); it has only existed since 2008 or 2011 (sources conflict), simply as a means of promoting and awarding pan-Europeanism; and of the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece, which is older but "an honour solely for Catholic royalty and nobility". So, this again is not the same as being a pretender to a throne or the asserter of a title like HI&RH Archduke, etc. The grand-mastering of these orders isn't really any different from chairing the board of directors of a charity or being the executive director of a learned society. It is not even issuance of historical chivalric titles as a pretender-sovereign. (In the first case, it's a recently invented private-sector award by the head of the Habsburg-Lorraine family to [any] recipients for international political do-gooding in the family's eyes, so it's not particularly different in nature from the Nobel Peace Prize or any other award from a family foundation. In the second case, it's simply an internal family matter, of nobles giving titles to related other nobles; it is a private club, albeit an old one and one which long ago meant something legally, under feudal class systems that have long since been abolished in the relevant jurisdictions.)

Much less does any of this stuff amount to an assertion that Karl von Habsburg's son Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg is "Archduke Ferdinand" as our infoboxes are claiming; it's an assertion for which he could be criminally prosecuted. So where is this stuff coming from, and how do we weed it out?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Although I don't have time to go into details, this is definitely a problem and one I have encountered too many times, including this month . I hadn't thought of the legal issue though. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree that there is a systematic issue and a stench of OR around the area. That being said, royal genealogy is a thing and I'm pretty sure there are secondary sources in the area (e.g. Almanach de Gotha), so this is going to get into messy issues of reliability and dueness. The legal issue doesn't seem important though. The anti-dynastic laws might nominally still be on statute books, but they're as archaic and obscure as the claims themselves these days. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Two minds, you cannot (in effect) lose an hereditary title, but if its not used by the holders why should we? Guess it goes back to if its not sourced its OR.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, we can cite and attribute. E.g., "According to the Almanach de Gotha, Pübertus von Dorff is technically the duke of Elbonia by birth, though the duchy was constitutionally abolished in 1893", or whatever. And leave it at that, to the extent practicable. The WP:DUE part in is the latter; various editors are instead dwelling on the noble-family stuff and the dubious title-mongering (which is often something that the subjects themselves are not actually engaged in). And one can lose a hereditary title, in all but a silly personal-fiction sense, if the entitlement to which it refers was abolished or was renounced (both of these conditions apply simultaneously to the von Habsburgs), or successfully usurped. For much better material, see our articles on the current British royal family; they are primarily of Battenberg stock, and renounced their German entitlements a couple of generations ago in order to marry into what remained of the then-current British royal family (which itself was already German-dominated via Nassau, Hanover, Saxe-Coburg, Teck, and other lineages). We are – correctly – not implying that they still have those German titles and styles. But those are very-watchlisted articles, at which more sensible, knowledgeable, and policy-cognizant editors restrain the excesses of overenthusiastic amateur heraldry-mongers. I consider the article Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg a Wikipedia embarrassment. This should be an article about a race-car driver, with a quick mention in a "Personal life" section of his noble-family background. Instead, it's a royal-chaser OR pile, that incidentally gets into his professional career at the bottom of the article kind of as an afterthought. This is unfortunately not a one-off problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Minor points: I don't believe anyone has ever been prosecuted under the various laws banning noble title - not since the French Revolution anyway. I might be wrong, are there examples? Also there is afaik no "Nassau" component at all close to the British royal line - if you are thinking of William & Mary (no, not the college), they had no children. There may well be something much more remote. Not that they are German anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has suffered any legal blowback from this stuff either, but it's certainly statutorily possible in some places. But that's not really the point, which is that we know that various people we're putting these labels on not only aren't making such claims (in some cases because they live in places where doing so would be unlawful), they have in some cases explicitly renounced such titles (either personally themselves, or had a recent ancestor do so, which precludes our our subject renewing such a claim anyway). That is, it's Wikipedians (and some bloggers and low-end journalists cribbing from Wikipedia) who are sticking these titles onto such people as Ferdinand Habsburg. There's a WP:CIRCULAR problem happening here, on top of the central OR/NPoV/BLP/ABOUTSELF/IDENTITY issue. Good point about William and Mary; I'd forgotten their line ended.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time finding sources that refer to von Habsburg's children using the titles. If the terms are not their legal titles anymore, and the titles are not in widespread use according to reliable sources, then I don't see the justification for including them. Eleonore von Habsburg's page seems to deal with the issue more appropriately than the unsourced footnote in Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg, but the uses in the infoboxes are not supported by any of the articles from what I can see, including the children's infoboxes referring to their father. If the use of the titles is not appropriate for the lead of the article, then it is not appropriate in the infoboxes. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• A lot depends on WHERE we are including the title. I don’t have an problem with including a brief mention of the “title” in the body of the text... as long as the historical context of the title can be explained. It certainly should not be used in the article title, or the infobox, as if it were extant. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Just from looking at the Karl von Habsburg article, this is clearly an issue. He's labeled as "Archduke of Austria, Royal Prince of Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia" in the infobox, but he's not. There is no Archduke of Austria, no Prince of Hungary, Bohemia, or Croatia. He's certainly notable on his own merits, but all these titles are nonsense. They should be mentioned in the article, but only as historical curiosities. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  Red Rock Canyon, and the bogus navbox needs to go. Guy (help!) 10:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• In theory, current policy is clear that these titles should not be used (OR, BLP, ect.) That said, this problem is rampant. I have noticed some editors whose only contributions are jamming as many honorifics and titles into articles (especially infoboxes), regardless of factual accuracy. If we can get by without making more policy or guidelines, great, but I think this is a problem that current guidelines could be more direct with. I think it would be beneficial to add a single line to the relevant MOS explicitly stating not to attach theoretical titles to pretenders, but they can be discussed in the article if relevant. That way, when someone inevitably comes along trying to add theoretical titles, they can easily be pointed to the specific line of MOS, as opposed to requiring other editors and admins to explain via broader Wikipedia policies why theoretical titles shouldn't be included. On a similar topic, British courtesy titles are frequently used incorrectly; numerous individuals who never took their courtesy title are being assigned one in their Wikipedia articles. Not pretenders, but they come under a similar umbrella. Editing with Eric (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  Editing with Eric, I will take this up with my school chum Chez HIN HRH The Colonel Count Sir JSJ Tye-Motörhead Neasel. Yes, he really did style himself thus. Guy (help!) 21:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  Good point about courtesy titles. You're right that it's technically different, though posing some similar OR/ABOUTSELF/etc. problems on WP.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish: Would you agree to remove "von", "Archduke" from article titles, first sentences and infoboxes? I think that would be a good start. I've noticed that both Karl Habsburg and Ferdinand Zvonimir Habsburg's German WP pages drop "von", etc., which would be in accordance with their legal names as they were born in Austria/are Austrian residents. The only counter-argument I can think of is WP:COMMONNAME. Daß Wölf 00:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think we'd blanket remove von and the like (van, de, etc. – varies by country/language) from articles of this sort, but should do so on a case-by-case basis, when there's compelling evidence that 1. the subject has dropped it, and 2. sources usually don't use it. While back when Germany and culturally related countries had formal nobility, von conveyed something specific (and legally regulated), for many people today it's just part of their name. That's probably surely less true in Germany, Austria, etc., than in somewhere like the US, Canada, Australia, etc., of course, but some of the original countries still have nobility (e.g. Liechtenstein). And for all I know, use of von or an equivalent might actually be legally banned or otherwise regulated in one jurisdiction but not another. (This isn't my area of expertise; I'm just tired of all the North American and British/Commonwealth "royal fanwanking" leading to shameless OR in our articles. It's an "If even I know this is bullshit ..." kind of situation.)

  In the case of Ferdinand Habsburg, the von should definitely be removed at least from the title (and probably also the lead, barring evidence that it's his legal birth name, or whatever). He doesn't use von, and sources mostly don't use it [1], so it fails various aspects of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOR, WP:ABOUTSELF, MOS:IDENTITY, and WP:BLP. Similarly, we know for a fact that Karl Habsburg renounced the Austrian title, so this archduke stuff cannot apply to him in later life, nor to his son (at all). Honestly, it's kind of weird to me that this has even come up. It's comparable to still referring to Edward, Duke of Windsor, as "King Edward VIII" after he abdicated and became governor of the Bahamas, and calling Wallis Simpson "Queen Wallis" on the basis that the wife of that king must be a queen. It makes almost exactly the same kind of confused not-sense as calling Ferdinand Habsburg the archduke today just because his father was at one time the archduke and Ferdinand is the eldest son. Gaaahhh ....
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  I was actually talking specifically about Austria, which is where the people you mentioned are from. Austria blanket banned all nobility titles (including von) after WWI (except for a short period around Anschluss), see Habsburg Law. While people who would have been nobility if it hadn't been for this law are occasionally referred to by their titles, (some more often than others, e.g. Herbert von Karajan) this is irregular and controversial. I doubt that von is on the birth certificate of any of these people who are still living and were born in Austria. Daß Wölf 20:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Plot summaries

There is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among film fan editors that films can have plot summaries based on personal observations of the movie, with no sources cited. This is usually unproblematic but we have an increasing number of articles on movies whose plot is blatantly dishonest (e.g. Vaxxed, Unplanned, Death of a Nation (2018 film)). In some cases (Vaxxed being an obvious example) we do not fall for this. In others (God's Not Dead (film) for example) we do. Am I the only one who thinks this is a problem? WP:NOR is policy, so surely if a plot section is challenged, independent sources become mandatory, as they do for every other piece of content on Wikipedia? Guy (help!) 00:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Just chiming in that plot summaries not needing sources isn't a local consensus; it's part of the MoS. See WP:FILMPLOT, WP:TVPLOT, and WP:VG/PLOT. JOEBRO64 00:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  TheJoebro64, ah,. the MOS - the perennial excuse for overriding policy in the name of stylistic preference. Thanks for pointing that out. Guy (help!) 11:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  No, the MoS is a guideline that we have to follow. Oh, boo hoo. JOEBRO64 01:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We have to? Why can't it be reconsidered and changed? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• The idea is that per WP:V a reader should be able to review the film and come to the same general summary as we present on a single watchthrough of the film - no multiple viewings, no extra documentaries, etc. Another way to view that is, the film is implicitly a citation for its plot section. That said, we're talking films here that touch on controversial areas that get into fringe topics, and this might be a case where it might be useful to have some placeholder sources for that purposes, but its hard to say. Note that in giving a plot summary, we're not supposed to work to challenge this film (that comes in a Themes or Analysis or Reception section), so like for Vaxxed, I'm not sure about that presentation. We want to present the plot of the work without twisting it in the plot summary, though later through analysis via secondary sources, go on to explain how mistaken it may be. If that makes sense. --Masem (t) 02:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, An example of a para I find troubling, from God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness: After seeking God's help in church through prayer, Dave eventually realizes that his case has only made things worse and that St. James is not the right church for God and his followers. You could defend something along the lines of "after praying, Dave decides to drop the lawsuit..." or something, but to frame this as "seeking god's help through prayer" is to beg pretty much every question in the movie. Guy (help!) 11:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  Unfortnately I've not seen the movie but I can see a difference in the language of "after praying" and "after seeking God's help in prayer" the latter being a more intense/emotional factor. But that said, if the movie doesn't really make that clear, then to try to ascribe more to that is interpretative and then yes, you should stick to the basic "After prayer..." --Masem (t) 13:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

With this edit at WP:TVPLOT last year, Nightscream attempted to address plot sections including material that may be analytical, interpretive or evaluative, stating it "must also be accompanied by secondary sources." I made an edit to it and AussieLegend reverted. As seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 11#Sources in the plot section, the matter went to the talk page, and MapReader ended up removing Nightscream's addition. I certainly understand the argument that plot sections should not dive into analytical, interpretive or evaluative territory (and I endorse that view), but there will be cases where editors interpret a matter differently. In fact, just like viewers watching the story unfold, it's common for editors to interpret scenes differently. To that point, WP:FILMPLOT states, "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section. If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." I think that WP:TVPLOT should include similar guidance. I'll go ahead and alert the WP:Film and WP:TV projects, as well as their guideline talk pages, to this discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I am confused by this point: we have an increasing number of articles on movies whose plot is blatantly dishonest

Movies are fictional (or at least the fictional ones are). God's Not Dead is a fictional story. How much our worldviews (or the views of sources) align with the moral values of a fictional narrative is irrelevant to the job of the article plot summary, which is to summarise the story of the film as the film presents it.

I haven't seen God's Not Dead: A Light in the Darkness, so I can't comment with certainty, but to take the example sentence given: After seeking God's help in church through prayer, Dave eventually realizes that his case has only made things worse and that St. James is not the right church for God and his followers. There might be ways to phrase that better, but I see no POV problem. If that's the story of the film, that's the story of the film. It is not a statement about reality, only an event in the fictional film. The article is not saying God is real any more than the Back to the Future plot summary suggests that time travel is real with statements like "Marty finds himself transported to November 5, 1955". Popcornfud (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have not watched the movie as well, but I don't understand how that quote from the plot violates NPOV. In fact, looking at the overall picture, it seems like JzG is trying to push their POV onto articles about these films. On the talk page for God's Not Dead they claim that "this is being treated as a film, but it's actually proselytisation". This film, as well as the others in the trilogy, fits every definition of a film, and should be treated as such, with the same NPOV as all other film articles. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• In my opinion, and practice, the plot gets sources if the film/show is not widely accessible (i.e. it's obscure or old, not just on cable), if a point needs clarifying (e.g. confusing plots, or plot hole covers), or if it's contentious. Kingsif (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• In most films the plot sections are unproblematic and don't need refs but where there is a dispute refs from reliable sources can sort it out- for example on the Signs film article there was a dispute and edit war over which faith the priest/vicar played by Mel Gibson was, which was resolved by a reference, although the references actually went into the cast section, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Here's my $0.02:

1. Plot summaries for film and television do not "need" to be secondarily sourced if the summaries are "basic" or general descriptions, as per WP:PRIMARY.
2. That said, there is nothing that necessarily "prohibits" the addition of secondary sourcing to a film or TV plot summary (and anyone who tells you that adding such secondary sourcing is "wrong" is flat wrong themselves).

So, I would suggest that, especially for "controversial" films (and TV series), that it would be a good idea to add secondary sourcing to the plot summary as per WP:V... As others have already said, for most movies and TV series, this isn't probably necessary as most plot summaries won't be problematic (and such articles will have plenty of editors watching the articles correcting any mistakes). But in the case of "controversial" films and TV, adding some secondary sourcing would probably be a good idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am responding here per the message alerting me that Popcornfud mentioned me in this discussion. When MapReader removed most of my addition, he did so with the rationale that "Plot sections shouldn't be including analysis or interpretation in the first place." Yes, this is true, but the reason I felt it necessary to include this is because of all the newbies and other non-policy-observing editors who add such material to plot summaries anyway. And believe me, A LOT of them do this. My feeling is that explicitly forbidding this in a guideline that can be cited makes keeping it out easier. I boldly reverted this, but with a tweak that addresses MapReader's point: Any content that is analytical, interpretive or evaluative, should not be in the plot summary, unless it is necessary to clarify an unclear or contentious plot point, in which case it must be accompanied by secondary sources. Nightscream (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t think the above subsequent addition was particularly helpful. The point about excluding analytical material is a repetition of an earlier sentence in the MoS. “Plot point” is ambiguous: some people will read it as “what happened” and others “why it happened”, and “unclear” can be read as the viewer not “understanding” it, thereby fudging the nub of the matter. I left it partly to avoid prolonging the argument, having already boldly edited once, and partly because the secondary source condition does, in practice, deal with 95% of the edit conflicts, since the type of edit that inserts stuff like “Feeling very unhappy about this, Joe....” rarely bothers with a secondary source. Nevertheless it remains my view that a plot section should describe what happens, in the manner of the accessibility voiceover you can often access on streamed TV, and not delve into explaining or analysing characters’ plans, motives or feelings etc. The quote way above is another example - the summary should say what Dave is seen to do and say on screen, not what a viewer speculated that he is “realising” inside his head. I prefer the wording in FILMPLOT since this talks about “clarifications” and is followed by general advice to stick to what happens. So my suggestion would be to remove Nightscream’s words and replace them with the FILMPLOT words. MapReader (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Nightscream, I don't think it was me who you pinged you. Popcornfud (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Nightscream (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Nightscream, MapReader and Masem, the reason I'd made this edit last year is because commentary from the creator can also clear up a matter. This may be a DVD commentary, or something like "HBO's inside the episode segment." As seen here, the latter came up in the case of the whether or not Daenerys had summoned Drogon (her dragon). Many viewers, including reliable source commentators, felt that she summoned Drogon when she closed her eyes, but, according to those who wrote the episode, she closes her eyes to gain some peace as she accepts her fate that she's going to die. Right now, the plot section there simply forgoes mentioning anything about her closing her eyes and summoning Drogon or accepting her fate, which resolves the dispute. But this is an example of viewers/critics seeing something different than the creators intended. In cases like these, are we considering DVD commentary and episode commentary from the creators sources to avoid to help resolve the dispute? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Not for the plot summary, no. The PS should ONLY contain a description of content without any interpretation. Points of clarification can be relegated to other sections, like production sections. Nightscream (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Nightscream, we already sometimes include sources in the plot section for clarification. This is why WP:FILMPLOT states, "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section. If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." And we can see that there are others in this section who agree with going that route when needed. Of course, in-depth material on the disputed aspect should be in a separate section. Your WP:TVPLOT addition also allows for sources in the plot section by stating "unless it is necessary to clarify an unclear or contentious plot point, in which case it must be accompanied by secondary sources." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think every article on a film should have a plot summary. In the case of fringe opinions, such as Death of a Nation (2018 film), we should use wording like "D'Souza claims ..." or "the film alleges that ..." and discuss mainstream backlash to these opinions in a later section. In the case of outright falsehoods and anti-science, such as Vaxxed, we should use stronger wording such as "the film incorrectly purports that ...", with secondary sources to verify that the film's claims are false. — Bilorv (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• If the plot is "blatantly dishonest" just remove it, as per any other form of vandalism on any article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I can see a valid objection here. Lets take "I am Legend" I read the book and say "this is a great book in which A man fights both loneliness and vampires" Barry comes along and says "this is a great book in which A man fights both loneliness and delusions". Both are based on how an interpretation of the plot. Now wp:v covers this to some degree in that it says what a reasonable person would see (thus in my example the novel never says its a delusion, it does say its vampires ergo my version is verifiable). So (in the case of God is not dead) we go with what the film actually claims.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• The plot is the plot. That you disagree with the ideas presented in the film, Guy, does not mean you get to override WP:NPOV as it suits you. We're not "falling" for a film's viewpoint by presenting it as it is presented to viewers. There's plenty of room to discuss how it's received as propaganda in the article. Some of the other examples aren't really the same case, as we're talking about documentaries, in which case you're not really talking about a film plot per say; while most documentaries are often structured narratively, the element that can be controversial and should be sourced is the message itself, and just like any film article with a "themes" section we expect reliable sources to back it up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

In that case we should treat them as we would a newspaper article. We say what it says, they offer the counter points made in RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a point to stress above is "[from] a film's viewpoint". We can't shift that, no matter how much we may disagree. A case in point: Revenge of the Nerds - made in the 80s - has a scene that would be taken as rape today but presented then, in the time of much more lax attitudes about sex as a comedic hijinks. It is not our place - in the plot - to change that, though in any further analysis of the film we can include sourced criticism. If we had, for example, a film that blasted throughout a message of fringe science, we'd have to tell the plot with that fringe science intact and without any criticism towards it in the plot section, but then free to open the floodgates of criticism from RSes about how bad that fringe science is in an analysis section. The only time I think we can diverge from that is in the case of a pure documentary, which we'd treat more as a regular report or source rather than a creative work. There we'd not have a plot section, and instead would be able to do point-by-point criticism if there's sourcing for that. --Masem (t) 15:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think this discussion would be more productive if it was split into "how do we deal with documentaries" and "how do we deal with dramatic works". Vaxxed and Death of a Nation purport to be factual investigations and should be analysed as such. But it would be absurd to write "this did not happen in real life" after every second sentence in the plot summary of Oliver Stone's JFK. At the moment we're trying to apples and oranges. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Reading the MOS I think they seem to apply to fictional works. Where it dopes mention non fiction it talks about format ans style, not content. But yes I agree we need two discussions (and two sets of MOS) as fiction and "fact" (even wrong facts) are not the same thing, and cannot be handled in quite the same way.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think that a plot can be sourced by the movie (or TV show, or book, or ...) itself as long as the plot summary provided is very simple and direct. "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events" is what WP:FILMPLOT says. Many plot summaries are over-written and that's when interpretation, synthesis, original research, and bias start appearing. "A small-town girl meets three magical friends and they embark on an incredible journey that ends in a surprise" is more than adequate. Anything else needs to be cited. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't agree with this. Teaser "summaries" like that are simply advertisements. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

If such a summary is an advertisement, then it would be a very poor one indeed. WP:PLCUT says "The three basic elements of a story are plot, character and theme. Anything that is not necessary for a reader's understanding of these three elements, or is not widely recognized as an integral or iconic part of the work's notability, should not be included in the story." If we expanded on the sentence I gave, then we'd offer references to solidify it. Because only that sentence is supported by the material itself, without biased interpretation or definitive point-of-view. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: are you seriously suggesting that plot summaries should be one sentence long? Or was that just an example of simplicity? Because even then "A small-town girl meets three magical friends and they embark on an incredible journey that ends in a surprise" is not what I would define as simple and objective. El Millo (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying anything longer needs to be cited. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

What would you cite as a reference? Look at FA-Class Blade Runner's plot section, for example. What do you think is "definitive point-of-view" or "biased interpretation" out of everything there? El Millo (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This begs another question on sourcing. Unless you have a fundamentally "important" work such as Blade Runner here, a Shakespeare work, or other work that have been the subject of detailed analysis, it is rare to find sourcing that covers the entire work itself, save for popular serialized TV shows such as Westworld or The Walking Dead. For most films, the best you can source for a plot summary will be the first act from various reviews, but they rarely going into a full plot summary. Same with books, video games, etc. So we'd only be able to get a third of the way though a plot summary with external sourcing. TV shows as those mentioned we can easily source to recaps that are offered by RSes. So we'd be very inconsistent across the board here. That's part of the problem with sourcing plot summaries. --Masem (t) 04:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Masem, And that makes me wonder why we tolerate them. The intersection of things that cannot be verified from reliable independent secondary sources and things that are on Wikipedia should, per policy, be the null set. Guy (help!) 21:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This is why policy WP:NOT#PLOT and guideline WP:WAF establish that we keep plot summaries concise with most contemporary works falling under the MOS of FILM, TV, and VG being under 700 words. The less we allow to be written, the less likely interpretation can happen. But the fact the primary work still exists that can be verified is fine. We want some part of the topic to be covered by independent secondary sources, and for fictional works this will likely be reviews, which may not cover the plot in full but will hit enough sections of the plot to verify it. And this is why we want the plot summary there is to support the reviews, providing the basic details so the review makes sense in context. If a review of Die Hard talks about McClane jumping off the building as the most exciting moment in cinema, and we have nothing in the article that gives that context, that doesnt help the WP reader, but a brief plot summary does. --Masem (t) 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Or another way to put this: There is nothing wrong with editors on WP using primary sources to generate novel content, as long as that content does not synthesis a new point of view. For example, with the COVID situation, I know a lot of editors are cutting the various data and statistics in line with CALC to make graphics and tables not published elsewhere but to help explain the rapid spread. That's all based on the primary data of infected and deaths by country and date, and that's all fine. As long as the source(s) are identified, anyone else in the world can do that. Same with the plot summary. --Masem (t) 22:02, 14 April 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)

"China virus" and "Wuhan virus"

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 has been continuous discussion for about a month over whether the terms "China virus" and "Wuhan virus" should be included in the lead as alternative names for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the cause of COVID-19. The discussion has reached a stalemate. One of the main proponents is a new editor Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs) who has contributed little to wikipedia aside from the topic, and was blocked for edit warring during the early stages of the discussion for repeatedly adding the former term despite oppositon. The main argument used by the proponents in favour is based on its apparent inclusion in newspaper headlines, but while they are using the two words in succession, they clearly aren't being used as a noun, and is simply a result of cramped, condensed nature of the medium, and the terms never appear in the main body of the text. While the terms do have some use on social media, I think their inclusion lends undue weight to a minority viewpoint. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC) The name “China virus” or “Wuhan virus” are inappropriate. The WHO recommends that people should not refer to COVID-19 and other diseases with a “geographic location” or people group Llakew18 (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The WHO has been operating on behalf of China since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak. They likely came to that conclusion because they don't want to offend the Chinese government. Amaroq64 (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that those names have been used but they are also controversial (I'm sure we can find sources to support that last point). Springee (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• No they should not be mentioned in the lede, as these are not proper names. They should be mentioned later in the article and noted as against WHO recommendations and are at this considered derogatory. They are, unfortunately, searchable terms. I note China virus is a disambig page so a reader will see that quickly, whereas "Wuhan virus" is just a redirect. I'd like to see if its possible that when redirected from a specific term if a special box could be displayed to alert the user (here a message that WP follows WHO naming guidelines and does not use "Wuhan virus"), but alternatively, the term could be directly later to where the alternate names are mentioned. --Masem (t) 03:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

They are indeed proper names, and they are not derogatory. Wuhan virus is used globally, including by most Asian countries. China virus/Chinese virus is controversial, but it is not anymore derogatory than Japanese encephalitis virus is. This political correctness is getting out of hand if we have editors attempting to censor names that are in use because they might offend people. Additionally, nothing sourced outside of the context of the WHO should be introduced under the context of the WHO. This is Wikipedia, not WHOpiedia. The WHO itself has been politically biased at times, in that for example it does not recognize the existence of Taiwan. Are we going to delete Taiwan now? Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• The terms are racist and used by racists. Doesn't matter if some of those racists happen to be in "respectable" positions, that doesn't mean we should follow suit. Those terms have already encouraged dumbasses in the general public (and in governments) to think that the virus is restricted to Asia (if not just China) well after it left the country, and has lead to attacks on Asians outside of Asia. The only reason those terms should be noted in the article is to explain how those incorrect usages have caused stupid people to make the situation worse, perhaps with a line in the lede about that. The disambigs and redirects should remain in place, though, in case it leads someone to stop using those terms. Oh, and if anyone ones to say I'm criticizing any particular figure, such an accusation would only demonstrate that your hero is indeed an incompetent racist. My references to racist or just generally stupid persons screwing up organized response to the Rona are generalities that apply to a number of countries. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's be really careful about claiming it's a racist term only used by racists. Early on people didn't know much about the virus other than it originated in a part of China. Early on that was a reasonable description and one used by many with no intent other than clear communication. As the pandemic spread and became a global issue people have evolved what they call it. Some were slower to shift but even that doesn't mean they were racist. Some may use the term with racist intent and after a certain point it was has become clear that the description has fallen into disrepute. [[2]],[[3]] Springee (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree. It's also used among Chinese, particularly those not living in the mainland. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Aside from the issue of racism, there's also the issue of political spin. In the US, according to an article in today's NY Times, a key Republican campaign strategy will be to blame the pandemic on China. In that way they can distract attention from the Trump Administration's tardy and incompetent handling of the pandemic and also appeal to anti-Asian racism among the electorate. So we can expect that the term "China virus" or "Wuhan virus" will be used a lot by the right wing in the US election campaign, but not more broadly. NightHeron (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• No, absolutely not appropriate to mention in the lead per WHO guidelines. — Bilorv (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• WHO's current nomenclature for the causative agent in COVID-19, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a departure from the usual convention for naming new viruses. The geographic location where a new virus was first discovered to exist has generally been used to name that virus (e.g., Reston virus, Ebola virus, marburg virus, Chikungunya virus, Machupo. Nipah Virus, et cetera. But there are many exceptions to the rule. Whether one agrees with WHO's own political stance or their seeming to cave in to pressure from the People's Republic of China on naming the virus are side issues here in wikipedia. We should go with the term used in WP:RS - especially on medical topics.

However, calling "Wuhan virus" a racist term or those who call it that or the "China virus" racist is uncalled for. It's not racist to remark that the virus is regarded in reliable sources as having been first identified in Wuhan, China, and that it follows the same procedure followed in naming, say Reston virus to call Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 "Wuhan virus". Following a viral nomenclature still in use today is not racist. Or has someone repealed WP:AGF? --loupgarous (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Must be an American thing.... interesting read. Definitely not the normal term used around the world.--Moxy 🍁 04:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: posted a belated notification about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#NPOV noticeboard discussion on SARS-CoV-2. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If politicians (mostly with a reputation for creating racial division) are using the names, Wikipedia almost certainly shouldn't be. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• While both were in use during the first weeks, specially "Wuhan virus" and "Wuhan coronavirus", its usage has been reduced dramatically in comparison with the official name and variants of it, and it is fading away. It does not need to stick there forever. We have the redirects just in case someone uses them as search term. If, at some point, we have a section in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 about the history of naming of the virus, I would favor a redirect to the specific naming section. --MarioGom (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree. China Virus is political spin and we should avoid it. Wuhan virus was initial naming and is in line with other virus nomenclature based on origin but is falling out of use. We should keep it in the articles with due weight (not in lead but in a section). The official name is Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) whether some people like it or not. Full name should be used in the article title and lead and abbreviation in all other cases (body and subpages) just like Coronavirus disease 2019 and COVID-19. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Chinese virus/China virus is not political. Or if you are going to claim it is political, then you must acknowledge that all names are political. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is also political in that the WHO did not want to offend China. Wuhan coronavirus/Wuhan virus is indeed in line with other virus nomenclature as well, but one must note that it is still used in reliable sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll restate "more political" and less common so should not be used in the lead as asked by the question. It's fine in a section below if necessary. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Include both Wuhan virus was used officially by the Chinese govt for a month by organizations such as Xinhua as well as major Chinese press. The naming was stopped when China started a PR campaign to distance itself from the virus. China virus has been used by POV in the USA and its use is controversial. Both must be included as they are both encyclopedic and the dispute over naming is part of the notoriety of this virus. Already a huge number of sources for both of these (likely in the hundreds or thousands, beyond our ability to county), thus WP:DUE is clearly met. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: remember the question is only if they should be used in the lead not if they should be removed from the whole article. Does that change your vote? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep in lede per WP:ALTNAME. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Include both, however question is misleading. The discussion never concerned the term Wuhan virus, which is a non-controversial term that was in the article months before the discussion began. The discussion was solely about the addition of China virus, and given that reliable sources and world leaders have used this term in reference to the virus, it should definitely be in the article. Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. However it is not necessarily as popular as Wuhan virus, so it should perhaps be in a separate terminology section. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Question is whether they "should be included in the lead" not in the whole article. I think you agree that NO. But they may and should be in a section. Please clarify for easier vote counting.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Wuhan virus/Wuhan coronavirus should definitely be in the lead. China virus could be in the lead or outside, but it should be mentioned somewhere. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• ”Wuhan virus“ should be included in the lead, as that is used semi-officially by multiple agencies, not just in the US, but outside the US as well. “China virus” is more of a US thing, and can be relegated to being mentioned in passing somewhere outside of the lead. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude per MEDRS: SARS-CoV-2 is a biomedical topic, so WP:MEDRS reigns supreme. Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19#Standard practices makes that doubly so. As of 20:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC) (revision 952347766), the relevant sentence (in the entire article, full stop) cites CNN, Xinhua (??), NPR, NBC, and a paper published in Nature. Only the last comes close to MEDRS compliance.

1. Let me bury the lead: that revision has one hundred and two sources total, counting one generating an error and excluding any "Further reading" and "External links". For convenience, let's say twenty-one (20%, rounding up) fail MEDRS criteria. We've done a great job (so far), but pobody's nerfect. That leaves us with $102-21-5=$ seventy-six robust sources that avoid the names.
2. Let me unearth the lead: the Nature paper was published 24 January 2020. WHO announced the interim name in their 30 January 2020 sitrep. Inclusion needs more than "one reliable source, which had used it before most other names had yet to exist, then stopped using it".

I might hesitate on 5:76 odds. Zero to some positive number leaves me no room to hesitate. Please feel free to argue WP:IAR, but you could go through some dense papers and light naps in the time needed to fight those who disagree with you, those who agree but respect consensus, and the biomedical WikiProjects. Stay well, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Your counting of sources scheme is WP:OR. The use this MEDRS concept is nonsense. We are talking about an ALTNAME. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Include Wuhan virus but not China Virus which is politically controversial and considered derogatory. Its A Trump campaign strategy to blame the pandemic on China and to distract attention from the Trump Administration's own incompetent handling of the pandemic. Its not used internationally and we should not be biased towards one political regime. Wikipedia does not include every controversial/derogatory ALTNAME that a we should not include unless the is a full neutral explanation of who and why if possible. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC) (added after the Summary of consensus was written bellow ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC))

Summary of consensus

This has been open for a while. I think we have clear consensus. Can somebody close this and notify Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19 when they do?

• 12 do not include in lead
• 1 keep both in lead
• 2 keep only wuhan in lead

It seems the majority view is that only the official medical names should be used in the lead but the terms "Wuhan virus" (generally used in the initial phase of the outbreak) and "Chinese Virus" (mostly used for political reasons in the US) could be used in a section on naming history since the controversy seems notable. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved admin close this discussion, per Gtoffoletto's comment above. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

Non-NPOV at Climate Feedback (and budding edit war, poor sources, and more)

• Climate Feedback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Science Feedback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Health Feedback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Yae4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Snooganssnoogans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Emvincent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Connected COI Editor and single purpose account)
• User:Newslinger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:JzG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Personal intro: Anyone can go back through the less than 100 edits, and verify I added favorable information (here, for example), which still remains in the article. You can view the article Talk page where I have tried to start discussions. Trying to support notability, I added a couple less than reliable sources[4], which were later removed (rightfully). I fixed one of those by finding a better source.[5] I have made small corrections to better capture what sources actually said. I have undone my own edits to remove things I added, to be consistent with lessons learned from a "advertisement" Speedy Delete by JzG of another article I created.[6][7]

Issues: (1) Should the article on fact-checking sites Climate/Health/Science Feedback be whitewashed of all criticism, or should mentions of criticisms or mention of a censure for violating the Code of Principles of the "certifying" organization be included? I have added both favorable and unfavorable coverage to the article, but other editors persistently remove even the slightest mentions of criticism, leaving only favorable statements. (2) Is the certifying organization, Poynter/IFCN, "independent" secondary, or "primary" source as Snooganssnoogans' edit summary said when removing criticism in bulk? Note: This was after I already significantly shortened it, after User Talk page discussions with JzG and Newslinger. (3) Should any of the involved editors be given "discretionary sanctions" for conduct?

Background: Climate/Health/Science Feedback are websites, with a browser plugin available, that publish fact-checking reviews online for at least two (broad, multi-disciplinary) areas of science, using volunteer PhD reviewers, with summaries being written by an "editor." It's not clear how many, if any, "editors" are paid staff, versus volunteers. Climate Feedback was started around 2015, and Health Feedback was started around fall 2018. Note ClimateFeedback.org's and HealthFeedback.org's "about" links both go to sciencefeedback.co/about/. These sites are joined at the hip, or at Emmanuel Vincent, who sometimes also writes articles or what some would call posts. Brief summaries are posted both on Science Feedback website, and on Climate or Health Feedback websites, with links to follow back to those sites for more detailed summaries, and Science Feedback site adds (infrequent?) "news & events" summaries posted on ScienceFeedback.co. It is one operation with (at least) 3 websites.

Also, Climate[8][9]/Health[10]/Science[11] Feedback posts about Poynter or IFCN. Poynter/IFCN posts about C/H/S Feedback.[12][13][14] It starts to be unclear who is the publisher/promoter, and who is the "independent" certification or fact-checking organization.

Other interesting relationships, and coverage, or lack of, in WP: Poynter Institute runs the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which annually "certifies" organizations like Climate/Health/Science Feedback (for a fee). Poynter and IFCN also publish newsletter articles or posts. Poynter operates Politifact, but that fact is not mentioned in the Poynter article (where Politifact is mentioned once). Three (of 15) sources in Climate Feedback are from Poynter/IFCN.

Collapse edits and interactions history, and difficult editing environment comments by Yae4

Details of some edits and interactions history: Snooganssnoogans started the article called Climate Feedback in late December 2018. Six weeks later, Citrivescence added the Notability Tag, rightfully. In my opinion, it then looked like a short advertisement. It looks like a longer advertisement today. A few months later, Emvincent, who has a username resembling Climate/Health/Science Feedback's founder, Emmanual Vincent, removed the Notability Tag, and added a couple sources, in April 2019. With one exception, in article edits, EmVincent has only spread Climate Feedback info to articles. One of those sources he added is published by Facebook, is all about Facebook, and only lists "Science Feedback" the parent organization of Climate Feedback in a short line in a pulldown list, under United States; According to Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network, the "certification" review organization, Science Feedback non-profit is registered in France, not in USA (but Vincent is located in California, according to this blog post, so the inconsistency is understandable). The second source added by EmVincent, an Axios post has published a "Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Science Feedback does not have a website." Climate/Health/Science Feedback ARE website operations, centered on ScienceFeedback.co, so this was an appalling error by Axios IMO. Axios general reliability is currently being discussed. This was brought up in January on Talk:Climate_Feedback#Axios_as_a_reliable_source? as a question, with essentially zero discussion occuring - Snooganssnoogans responsed, "Axios is fine." In January I was undecided; now I consider Axios to be generally unreliable, and somewhat better than a Twitter feed. Newslinger created a redirect from Science Feedback to Climate Feedback on October 6, 2019, and added Climate Feedback to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources list on October 16, 2019, saying, it "is a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change" and "Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." I seriously question these statements, because (by my count) only about 16 editors participated, with about 9 clearly favoring, 4 with mixed opinions, 2 opposing, and 1 only commenting without a clear opinion stated. I brought it up on RSPS noticeboard, but the discussion was about other blogs, and Climate/Health/Science Feedback was not really discussed. Health Feedback is still a red link. JzG aka Guy advised attribution for Axios, because they are "with an agenda."[15] So, I added attributions. Snooganssnoogans latest edits removed all Axios attributions, and removed source details, and every bit of criticism. This includes the mention of the fact that (the month before Wikipedia added Climate Feedback to the Reliable Source Perennial Source list), they were censured:Source In September 2019, Climate Feedback's parent non-profit organization, Science Feedback, was censured for failure to declare that two individuals, who assisted Science Feedback in reviewing evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations. This failure "fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories." JzG has done similar, a couple times claiming these are "a different site." Other conduct creating or worsening a "difficult" editing environment: JzG has thrown personal attacks in this article's edit summaries. Snooganssnoogans has thrown personal attacks and accusations in this article's edit summaries. Snooganssnoogans has attacked my integrity in previous Noticeboards and retracted it (see stricken paragraph). -- Yae4 (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor above has gripes about Climate Feedback (a website dedicated to fact-checking media coverage on climate change), and is trying to ruin the article because of these grievances. The bad editing above takes three forms: (i) Attributing every single RS statement of fact about Climate Feedback. This only makes the article unreadable but makes basic uncontested information seem like it's some random person's opinion. (ii) The editor sifts through reviewer assessments of whether Climate Feedback should be certified as a fact-checker in the Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network, and adds every single item from those reviews where Climate Feedback was considered to fall short on Poynter's many evaluation criteria. The conclusion of those reviewer assessments was that Climate Feedback should be certified, yet by adding every single critical item from the reviews (note that gold-standard RS also fell short on some aspects in these reviews), the editor seeks to deceptively portray the organization as if the Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network has problems with the organization, which is a clear NPOV violation. (iii) The editor makes awful edits, partakes in discussions where the problems with his editing are highlighted, but returns later to effectively restore the awful edits again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In no way can this be considered "sifting through assessments."

The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback.(Detailed ARTICLE on an INVESTIGATION into conduct)

-- Yae4 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yae4 is correct that there are NPOV issues here. He is incorrect about the source of those issues. His editing serves, in general, to boost Judith Curry, a prominent figure in the climate change denial movement - a review of Yae4's edits to other climate change related articles will readily reveal a distinct sympathy on his part for the denialist sstandpoint, including creating Mototaka Nakamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Curry has an agenda against the Climate Feedback website, and it is the nexus with Curry that first drew Yae4's edits to my attention.

Yae4's presentation above is, unsurprisingly, incomplete. For example, he highlights Snooganssnoogans' addition of the Facebook source but fails to note that Yae4 tried to remove this entirely but I have subsequently sourced it to a reliable indpeendent source making the explicit link between Facebook and Climate Feeedback. Overall it appears that Yae4 wants to include all critique of Science Feedback on the Climate Feedback article, though some is clearly irrelevant to the Climate Feedback site. I suggested a WP:SPLIT, but Yae4 seems reluctant for some reason.

Also of some relevance: Snooganssnoogans has about 28,000 edits, Newslinger has over 40,000, I have over 130,000. Yae4 has 1,272, and his top edited articles are related to Kali NetHunter and its parent, Offensive Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and to topics related to Judith Curry including Climate Forecast Applications Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - that article I deleted as spam, the spammy nature was the consensus view at DRV, it was then draftified, and guess who moved it back to mainspace? If you said Yae4, you'd be right. Much of this editing is promotional in tone, including adding slogans and marketing claims.

Example:

[16] "In Flood Forecasting: A Global Perspective CFAN's Bangladesh flood timing and flood risk predictions were called "skillful," despite over or under estimates of peak magnitudes."

What the source actually says is:

[for the Brahmaputra River] The timing of flood (the onset and end of the flood period) and forecast flood probabilites were skillful, despite the considerable overestimation or underestimation of peak magnitudes. For the Ganges, forecasts were less skillful after 5-day lead time; [authors' rationalisation]

His edits around Kali strongly suggest a COI. And Emvincent's edits also suggest a COI - at least, the five (of 8, tiotal) that are to article space, over a period from July 2015 to April 2019, which was the last time he edited.

Yae4 is an inexperienced user who seems to be passionate about a small number of topics and who appears to misperceive his own biases as neutrality and to attribute motives to much more experienced editors who are trying to manage the problems he introduces to mainspace. Guy (help!) 12:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Collapse off topic and WP:BLUDGEON responses by Yae4

The discussion should focus on NPOV of the article. I recall seeing somewhere we all know all editors have POVs... To clarify explicitly: Mention of Newslinger above was only to the facts they were the editor/admin who did the redirect and added Climate Feedback to the "generally reliable" source list. My comment was directed to the "consensus" statement. We have disagreed on several issues, but they are a great example of someone who works well collaboratively, while disagreeing politely. That applies to this article as well as generally. They are listed as involved because they also significantly edited this Climate/Health/Science Feedback article. Re Mototaka Nakamura, and the ~14 other new articles I've created in my short editor history: Does it occur to you, assuming good faith and all, this editor may talk with people out in that big real world, know some stuff, and be surprised when something seems notable, but is not found in Wikipedia? Then they go and find sources and makes articles the best they can? It's no coincidence only 2 of those articles were targeted for deletion - the two involving climate change and (3+) well qualified scientists who don't silently go along with "the program." At Kali NetHunter I identified a COI editor, welcomed them to Wikipedia, discussed issues with their userspace draft changes and worked collaboratively to improve the article and address COI and "advertising" concerns. That's me having COI?! Really?? Newslinger was also helpful with moves, merges, and suggestions for Offensive Security and Kali NetHunter as discussed here on their Talk. I also asked their opinion on your massive deletion, and for a second opinion on whether it looks like hounding (but haven't heard back yet). One should compare and contrast Kali NetHunter before your deletions, with a similar article such as LineageOS, which I had in mind as a benchmark. The Speedy Delete Review of CFAN was far less than unanimous, with a few editors agreeing speedy delete was unjustified, and most agreeing bringing it back to Draft was appropriate. [17] Compare CFAN before Speedy delete versus now. After being moved back to Draft, there were mostly format improvements and some reduction in sources, but it's now not very different than before speedily deleted, in terms of overall content and presentation. Note it was Jlevi who first implicitly suggested the CFAN article with a Red link. Specific Fact-checks: "For some reason" not to SPLIT: IMO, it's one small operation/company with a few, inter-connected websites, as stated above already. Two or three stub articles doesn't make sense or seem better than one short-medium length article in this case, to me. Re "he highlights Snooganssnoogans' addition of the Facebook source": It was not Snooganssnoogans who first added the Facebook source. It was connected COI SPA Emvincent (Emmanuel Vincent, founder of Climate/Health/Science Feedback). That is what was highlighted above. Thank you for finally acknowleging that apparent COI by Emvincent. Supposed promotional excerpt at CFAN: I took one favorable word, and one UNfavorable phrase from the source. Looks like balance towards UNfavorable if anything. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, I'm an admin, I am looking at your behaviour. I see an inexperienced editor whose main involvement on Wikipedia has been promotion, who has now blundered into an area where there are more people looking and where promotional content is much less tolerable. As noted above, some of your edits are cherry-picking to the point of being actively misleading, and the POV problems are mainly being inserted by you. Your fixation with Emvincent is particularly unhelpful: that account has made five mainspace edits since registering in 2015, and none in the last year. Guy (help!) 22:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

What is termed personal attacks above appear to be aspersions although they were not thrown without evidence. Your main activities appear to be to promote climate change denialism on Wikipedia and this board may not be the best place to address this problem. —PaleoNeonate – 09:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, "Hall of Shame (or Articles FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists)" on his userpage is something of a red flag... Guy (help!) 11:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Collapse off topic and WP:BLUDGEON responses by Yae4

PaleoNeonate, Please look at the numbers and kindly retract your "main activities" statement. Judith Curry tops the list because climate alarmists would not tolerate even mention of her "Climate Models for the Layman," and linking to it was treated as blasphemy until more experienced, less fanatic, editors stepped in, and it was begrudgingly allowed. Same story now, here with Climate/Health/Science Feedback. JzG aka Guy, Like User:JzG/Politics is a green flag for being Curator for JzG/Guy version of truth. Commitments met? "intention not to use admin powers where I am involved in a dispute," and (not) "to delete speedy candidates on the more contentious categories."[18] -- Yae4 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The way you put it is like if there was no hard evidence that emissions should be reduced, like if it was only political opinions. Use of the "climate alarmist" slogan confirms that, as has already been mentioned above. You're not the first one to push those fringe ideas on Wikipedia, but it's not a platform for such promotion or claiming that all sources are equal (WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:YESPOV are relevant here and part of the WP:NPOV policy that this noticeboard is about, but the WP:ABIAS essay is also useful). You may also want to read Scientific consensus on climate change and its sources. You are already aware of WP:ARBCC, please see section 21.1, everything is important there but I'd like to put some emphasis on 21.1.9-11: "provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints" means that we can have an article about denialism (and we do), not that we must promote it in other articles (relevant: WP:NOT, WP:FRINGELEVEL, WP:PROFRINGE, WP:ONEWAY). If a person or organization is notable enough for an article to persist, reliable sources must be used to cover them rather than fringe or self-published ones (WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:NFRINGE). Sources too involved can only be used to support non-controversial, non self-serving statements (like WP:SELFSOURCE). "In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly, views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated." in relation to climate science, the "authority" are reliable sources by mainstream experts and derivatives (WP:DUE). Please try to understand why a delete consensus is forming at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mototaka Nakamura, or why using this as a source was unacceptable (removed here when I noticed it)... —PaleoNeonate – 15:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, wow, I did not spot that. A self-published evangelical book by a non-notable author promoting climate change denial. That's... WP:CIR levels of special. Guy (help!) 17:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding: WP:ARBPS section 20.1.14. —PaleoNeonate – 15:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Collapse off topic and WP:BLUDGEON responses by Yae4

PaleoNeonate, Re: WP:ARBPS "climate" is not found, and "warming" appears only once in passing. Re: WP:ARBCC "fringe" only appears once: "There are those who would like to turn this into "science vs fringe", but it's not about that at all. Most of the recent conflicts are on BLPs and other pages which are only tangentially related to the science. There is a group of editors who have a strong POV in this area and who generally refuse to allow changes to the status quo, even if those changes are well sourced and necessary for NPOV." So, "fringe" treatment of climate or BLP is not supported by those. Also, we're not talking about science here, except brief mentions in the BLP. 21.1.9-8 Biographies of living people, is most applicable here.. It too is silent on "fringe." skepticalscience self-published (generally unreliable) blog is still widely used. In that context, because WP does not give measurable criteria, it is difficult to judge reliability of any source. The religious book you removed quotes Nakamura, showing he was noticed, but thanks for looking close enough to notice whatever you object to (self-published like SKS, the book title, or maybe you're familiar with the author?). Anyway, the quotes look in line with Nakamura's other coverage and his other writing. The other parts of that book are irrelevant to this article. I'm not arguing it's a good source, but it was a notice. I understand. Nakamura made a splash with his recent book, and no one has pointed to a financial conflict of interest; in fact he addresses his "Confessions" to the public and government funders who supported his decades of work. His existence may feel threatening to some people. It's (supposedly) irrelevant what we think about "the science." It's (supposedly) what "reliable" sources say... but who should we have listened to more - Curry and Nakamura, scientists who said other things may be more important concerns, or Climate Alarmists? Maybe if we'd shifted more funding from climate to biology and medicine, we'd be in better shape today. Finally, none of this seems very relevant to whitewashing, etc. of the article brought up for discussion. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, nice Wikilawyering. Meanwhile, your user page advocates a climate change dneialist trope and your edits also serve to boost climate change denialist figures.

The phrase "climate alarmist" is straight out of the Heartland Institute's climate change denialist playbook, which was itself copied fomr that which the tobacco industry used to hold back action against tobacco smoking.

The most likely outcome if you continue this line of argument is that you'll be topic banned from climate change broadly construed.

Incidentally, very few articles use "skeptical science" as a source. The correct way of checking this is via {{duses}} - see skepticalscience.com  . 39 articles. And actually that's going down, because I am removing them steadily. Guy (help!) 07:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that when better sources are available they should be used instead; WP:PARITY can also be applied where necessary (allowing to use such non-fringe sources). In relation to Yae4's claims, while WP:BLP indeed applies in biographies, it does not invalidate other aforementioned policies: it's not a pass to promote or for advocacy. And yes, climate change denial includes a tradition of pseudoscientific claims and is covered by WP:FRINGE. —PaleoNeonate – 11:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A better source than the certifying organization, which is already cited a few times in the article?

The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback.(Detailed ARTICLE on an INVESTIGATION into conduct)

-- Yae4 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, now might be a good time to drop the stick. You are quote-mining - and pretty egregiously so. Here's the full texct of the findings:

1. The findings of Science Feedback’s fact-check were based on publicly available scientific evidence and as not the result of any bias. The claim that “abortion is never medically necessary” is false and inaccurate.

2. The process used by Science Feedback to select the original claim to review was sound and not the result of any systemic bias, and a review of the 10 last fact-checks indicates no systemic bias in the selection of claims to check.

3. The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback.

So, they did the right thing, for the right reasons, but Poynter considered they should have footnoted the fact that some of the reviewers were associated with advocacy groups and asked them to take that into account in future. This in response to a conservative complaint about a valid and accurate fact-check of a misleading anti-abortion claim entirely unrelated to Climate Feedback. They reviewed ten fact-checks and this was the only one on which they commented. And it's worth pointing out that in polarising topics it may well be hard to find reviewers who have no public position on the issue - certainly virtually all anti-abortion speech or climate change denialism originates with individuals who have a pre-existing commitment to the cause (in the latter case, usually bought and paid for by the fossil fuel lobby).

No reprimands, no removal from the list, no evidence of bias. The factual statement was assessed as 100% correct. And you're trying to portray this as some kind of statement that Climate Feedback is somehow compromised. Nope. Guy (help!) 10:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The above aspersion casting is not consistent with article edits history. I added longer, more complete, excerpts, and you deleted those too. The concluding statement, the bottom line, is significant: the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback. They have been certified annually. When they were certified, the endorsements were balanced with criticisms. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, see WP:STICK. Guy (help!) 21:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Question on RfC/canvassing rules

I started an RfC about a week ago at Talk:Project Veritas#RfC on motives for targeting ACORN and, since no one has commented since then, wanted to post a neutral notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. Although this is the only WikiProject listed at Talk:Project Veritas, I'm concerned this may be perceived as canvassing. Can someone here please give me guidance on whether such a notification would be appropriate? (Disclosure: I work for Project Veritas.) Sal at PV (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It's canvassing if the group/person you're pinging is both uninvolved with the article/dispute in any direct way and more likely to come down on the side you want them to. In this case, it's not egregious, but it would probably fit many people's definition of canvassing, so it was a good call to ask here first. A typical early step when trying to solicit opinions is to ping those who have already been involved with relevant discussions. It looks like the RfC concerns something that had been discussed earlier, so pinging those involved would probably be sensible.

By the way, I was surprised that nobody had commented yet, so I did a little digging and it looks like the bot that tries to recruit randomly selected, uninvolved editors (via the Wikipedia:Feedback request service) has not been doing so lately. Looking into it (but that's a topic for another venue). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issues at Sani Abacha

I have a current disagreement with an editor about the article on Sani Abacha. There seem to be a pro military slant but with poor sources. The issues are WP:V in this diff [19], concerning the use of statesman without incline citation. Then this section using an opinion piece without a reliable secondary source [20] WP:PRIMARY. Lastly, this is poorly sourced [21]. I am close or within 3RR and that is usually my limit but will like someone to take a look at the issues. Alexplaugh12 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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 [[22]]. There is a related RSN discussion here [[23]]. 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)

• 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)

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#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#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)

Epirus article: an implied conclusion not stated by the source

In the history section of Epirus, between 1204 and the Ottoman conquest, there is a sentence that misrepresents the view of the source it is based on and also distorts the position of its scholar, Konstantinos Giakoumis. After my edits were reverted twice, I would appreciate the intervention of a neutral admin, who can possibly thoroughly read the 12-pages long article of Giakoumis, or at least, the below description and make the necessary changes.

1. Here is the existing sentence of the wiki article (in bold, the words that differ from the source):

The oldest reference to Albanians in Epirus is from a Venetian document dating to 1210, which states that "the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians" though a pre-14th century Albanian migration cannot be confirmed.

2. Here is my 2nd edit that was completely reverted ([24] and [25])

Two documented sources from this period mention the presence of Albanians in Epirus, one of which – a Venetian document dating to 1210 – states that "the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians". According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have all along been living together in Epirus, while in the 14th century there is an Albanian mass migration, confirmed by historical accounts.

References

1. A) Nowhere in the article does Giakoumis mention that the Venetian document is the “oldest reference” to Albanians. Instead, he mentions “two documented sources” that also attest the Albanians’ presence in the area, after having mentioned in the previous page “the perennial coexistence of Greek-speaking and Albanian-speaking populations” (quote: The presence of Albanians in the Epeirote lands from the beginning of the thirteenth century is also attested by two documentary sources: the first is a Venetian document of 1210, which states that the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians and the second is letters of the Metropolitan of Naupaktos John Apokaukos to a certain George Dysipati, who was considered to be an ancestor of the famous Shpata family.)

Moreover, he adds 13 Albanian names that are mentioned in an Angevin document of 1304; thus citing 3 references of this people that predate the migrations of the 14th century.

2. B) The subordinate conjunction though (needs a comma before), here used to question the credibility of the above mentioned document and the clause it adds, further implies that a previous migration would be the only way for the document to be true (but that is improbable). Whereas Giakoumis writes (quote from page 176): "Are we obliged to see in this a possible earlier Albanian immigration in the Epeirote lands, as Kostas Komis did in the case of the etymology of the toponym 'Preveza'? I believe that the use of hypothetical immigrations as a basis to interpret sources that indicate the presence of Albanians in the Epeirote lands prior to the thirteenth-fourteenth century is somewhat arbitrary. For it serves the concept of national purity in zones with clear lines of communication, mutual relations (as linguistic research has proved) and common traditions, religion as well as principal language of communication. It is evident that this was the case in a period when co-existence and understanding among people of different nations (in the modern sense of the term) were far better than they are today." Instead of questioning the credibility of the documents, Giakoumis disagrees on using the possible earlier hypothetical migrations, that he sees as serving nationalism (national purity) and stresses on the lines of communication, mutual relations, common traditions and simply put: co-existence.

Even in the very beginning of the article he writes, I quote: "The purpose of this article is to put together recent linguistic and historical studies, in order to challenge the views of 'older' Greek and Albanian scholarship with respect to the presence of a solely Greek or Albanian population in the regions of Epeiros, with specific reference to the district of Dropull in the light of primary sources dealing with the Albanian immigrations of the fourteenth century. It will show that Greek and Albanian-speaking populations had all along been living together in Epeiros, while in the fourteenth century immigrant Albanians migrated into the regions of Gjirokaster."

And in the end he concludes that, I quote: "in the fourteenth century immigrant Albanians taking advantage of the decimation of the local Epeirote population by the Black Death also migrated into the regions of Gjirokaster. Moreover, I suggested that the reactions of local milieux against the new settlers, as expressed by their participation in the campaign of Isau against Gjin Zenebis (1399), should be attributed to the disintegration of the previous local elites rather than to resistence against a 'foreign' invasion."

Thus Albanians seems to have been no foreigners in the area, and the migration is presented as an event that happened due to certain reasons, after a prior presence (all along). The conjunction “though”, used in the sentence of the wikipedia article, gives a disfigured meaning and simply implies that the 14th century migration is actually the first “confirmed” presence of the Albanians in Epirus. An analysis that implies a conclusion not stated by the source. Besides distorting the source, it violates the neutral POV, as it clearly falls in one of this categories that Giakoumis himself mentions in the beginning of his article, I cite: “The issue of the Albanian presence in the lands of Epeiros has long been a point of contention between Greek and Albanian scholarship. On the one hand it is claimed that only in the thirteenth and especially the fourteenth century Albanians originating from the Elbasan region migrated to Epeiros, Macedonia and Thessaly and from there to more distant districts, including Roumeli (central Greece) and the Peloponncse, regions inhabited by Greek populations, and on the other hand that the Albanians have been the indigenous population in Epeiros. It is needless to analyse how this scheme served the idea of national purity in zones claimed by both Greece and Albania in the beginning of the 20th century. [...] The first viewpoint was upheld chiefly by 'older' Greek scholarship, which either disregarded much of the evidence presented in support of the second viewpoint or even manipulated it to fit into its ideological position. [...] The second viewpoint was mostly supported by Albanian historiography which, in contrast, alleged that Epeiros was solely inhabited by Albanians."

2. A) In the light of the content of Giakoumis' article, I would re-frame the wiki article's sentence into this paragraph, with the citations I have attached in the beginning:

Two documented sources from this period mention the presence of Albanians in Epirus, one of which – a Venetian document dating to 1210 – states that "the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians". According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have all along been living together in Epirus, while in the 14th century there is an Albanian mass migration, confirmed by historical accounts.

If, according to the last edit, the clause "According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have all along been living together in Epirus" still is problematic, we can vaguely define it as "According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have been living together before 1210 in Epirus". Empathictrust (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

James M. Buchanan

Encountered while wikilinking. Some sort of avid dispute over a recent book about libertarian economist. Needs someone with enough prior knowledge to judge weight. Elinruby (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elinruby:, I wouldn't call a dispute that's been dormant for nine months exactly "avid". That said, I don't see the need to preserve the disputed "Democracy in Chains" section at all. It's really about another person and its presence in this article is WP:COATRACK at best. I've removed the entire section. If Democracy in Chains is actually notable, then it should be covered in its own article or in an article about its author with both pro and con discussion there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The book is about Buchanan and his purported views and influence. Both the book and the rebuttals of it have been published in prominent outlets and by prominent academics, and both the book and the rebuttals are essentially about Buchanan. It all clearly belongs in the Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it belongs in a Wikipedia article, but it is just an excuse in this article to present one person's criticisms. It does nothing to demonstrate that there is a developed field of criticism of the article subject's economic theories. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The ways that articles are built are piece by piece. It's not reasonable to request that nothing short of "a developed field of criticism" can be added to the article, and that everything short of that (including a highly prominent debate from the last few years by many recognized experts in many high-quality outlets about one particular aspect of Buchanan's career) must be kept out. It certainly has nothing to do with WP:COATRACK. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a good removal. Regardless of the specific content, the length of the section was UNDUE given the total length of the article. As for the specific content, why introduce a book that is critical of the article subject in the first sentence only to spend the rest of the paragraph talking about why the book was a poor quality work? If the book is unreliable why would it be mentioned at all? Springee (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That was pretty much my thought, Springee. Somebody really didn't like that book. I have seen an article or two about it so it's probably notable, but the subject of the article (and book) also won a Nobel prize, so I think weight is the issue but I am pretty far afield from my usual pastures and don't think I can fix it. Given a choice of removing the paragraph or leaving as is, I would choose the former, though, even if I think ideally the book should be mentioned but get less weight than the Nobel...Elinruby (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible POV editing at VirnetX

VirnetX is a short article about a company that has been accused as being a patent troll. Back in 2018 and into this year it was heavily edited by Patent_Facts (talk · contribs) to remove mentions that the company was described as a patent troll. Those edits, and a resulting dispute with other editors, led, at least in part, to Patent_Facts being banned. More recently, 47.35.6.243 (talk · contribs) attempted to delete the patent troll mentions here and here, and after I reverted the new account Patentinvestor (talk · contribs) made edits to try to shape the language of the article in what I consider a very POV light. This edit includes phrases like "The company has also been wrongly [and pejoratively] referred to as a patent troll" and "VirnetX's ability to win in court is a product of superior legal representation...and strong patents."

I attempted to clean up the language to become more NPOV with this edit, which describes the company, notes the accusation of being a patent troll, while also noting the company won various patent litigations. Patentinvestor reverted me, and then I restored my edits while suggesting this should be discussed on the talk page. At this point, I also looked at the page's history and added back some older content that provided more context and history for the company, generally.

Meanwhile, Patentinvestor (talk · contribs) has again partially reverted my attempt to create a more NPOV description. I have avoided reverting again as I don't want to engage in an edit war, but I would appreciate a third opinion on the neutrality of VirnetX. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

++

PatentInvestor here. The phrase "patent troll" is a pejorative and HIGHLY inaccurate term for a company that has developed a product to sell and has every right to protect its patented property in a court of law. Especially with the wide and demeaning use of the phrase in big business supported media and without any sort of definition offered, I'd suggest that it has NO place on a company's Wikipedia page in the first place. If a widely accepted definition of "patent troll" can even be offered that attempts to incorporate VirnetX I feel confident I could prove it inaccurate. I've removed the "superior legal representation comment (as it is self-evident by beating Apple). The patent troll issue is still intact as well.

I'm an investor in VirnetX and make no bones about it. I'm ALL in favor of a NPOV, but I would argue it cannot be done without both sides of the troll narrative being covered (my intent). I question why zim here is even tilting at this particular windmill as it is a little used page about a small company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatentInvestor (talk • contribs)

You being an investor in VirnetX and then subsequently claiming that you are attempting to make the article 'neutral' is laughable, your account username makes it clear that you are a WP:SPA and that you are violating WP:COI guidelines, we aren't stupid, we know that wikipedia is the number two search result on google, and is used for the snippet. Patent troll is a widely recognised term used to refer to companies that hold patents that earn most of their revenue by licensing or litigation, which accurately describes VirnetX. Be happy with your money with Apple. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You thinking that calling anything a troll is neutral is what is laughable and your definition of patent troll is lacking. Here is Wikipedia's opening sentence on "patent troll": "In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art..." Wikipedia even calls it pejorative (which is definitely not neutral). Here is Investopia's definition of "patent troll": "A patent troll is a derogatory term used to describe a company that uses patent infringement claims to win court judgments for profit or to stifle competition." Here's Encyclopedia Britannica: "Patent troll, also called nonpracticing entity or nonproducing entity (NPE), pejorative term for a company..." I'd say a totally uninterested party would side with my version of "neutral" over zims.

One could also say that describing something as "far right" is also derogatory, but if many WP:RS have described it as such, then it is fair for wikipedia to characterize it as such. As an investor in the company you are not an uninterested party, and should have refrained from editing the article directly, instead you should've requested changes on the talk page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph because it is terrible. The sources are shoddy and the statements are in some instances puffery (e.g. "however, that all changed" and "protecting its lawfully issued United States Patents through successful litigation"). For example, Forbes "Contributors" are not reliable sources. Not to mention things like refs being placed before the punctuation which indicate inexpert hands have been editing. I am inclined to restore the prior cited material that said some sources characterize this company as a patent troll. It doesn't matter if "patent troll" is pejorative if we source and attribute it. PatentInvestor please do not edit the article any further as you have a conflict of interest. If you continue to edit it you will probably be blocked. Ditto goes for anyone else who comes along to whitewash the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)