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

Former Ladies of the Supremes

I’ve seen this article with issues. I fixed the article to show like an encyclopedic article, but it seems like it doesn’t look like one, instead of looking like a fanbase wrote the full article. The article is not in chronological order; Before it had “Keeping The Musical Playing - Musical Highlights” and “Forty Years Later - Fantasy Becomes Reality”, I fixed those two sections. I recently put a POV template in the biography section because of all this, and removed “exit member, enter member” because it did not look like anything that belonged in the article. Yes, people should know the members who left and entered (replaced), but I had to merge all of them. Other sections are highlighting their performances, which is really not necessary for anything that is on Wikipedia. So, I wanted to put this on the noticeboard because this article has been poorly written since the past 10 years. I recently replied to an old comment from 15 years ago. Every mention of a member it is like "Former Supreme" and allat. Oldschoollover24 (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I sort of had cleaned up the article a little bit, but I will review it later and come back to add refs. Binksnternet had cleaned up the article, and I had cleaned it up multiple times before they did. I still need help for cleanup. Oldschoollover24 ( chat with me ) 23:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, the article was some material off the Jean Terrell article copied the “FLOS” article TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 11:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I added references, and as of now they have 8 references. I added 7, 4 mostly about Mary Wilson (singer) and the group, also 3 that highly/mostly does have something to do with the group. Someone added a reference from ghostarchive.org, I removed "Former Supreme" or Original, I am still working on it. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 13:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Now 13 refs. Removing template because the article seems to be fixed now. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 05:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed copyright violations, and had the original research tag because I did not know, but the website that looked the same info was deleted. It was directly copied from Wikipedia. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 03:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

Resolved

• Peter Schiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nick McKenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter_Schiff
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1144#MaskedSinger

Current discussion about undue weight found here on the talk page. All relevant parties in that discussion have been notified about this discussion.

I would appreciate more eyes on the article as well as input on the talk page regarding proposed changes. To summarize, the dispute over the investigation and the results of the investigation have been ongoing for several years, so the article has not been stable for a while. This appears to have come to a head in the last month with the end of the civil action in November 2023. The investigation section has grown larger and smaller depending on the various edit wars, with it now composed of about three paragraphs. Proposals on the talk page suggest bringing it down to one paragraph, since the allegations from 2020 have now fallen to the wayside, and Schiff was previously found not guilty of any illegal activity, and in more recent, subsequent civil action against his accusers, Schiff reached a cash settlement which includes the removal of the allegations in broadcast form (and possibly otherwise). It seems odd, therefore, to continue stating these allegations upfront as if they were true, and to continue presenting them in the current format. I believe this section should be minimized and brought up to date, while of course presenting a brief historical overview of the dispute, but in a much more condensed and less accusatory format. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This also concerns Nick McKenzie and has been brought to the attention of both WP:BLP/N and WP:AN/I. All of the accounts engaged in the reverts to introduce non-WP:NPOV edits are not extended confirmed and a lot appear to be WP:SPA. TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I will broaden the scope. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

RfCs

I've started an RfC on this subject at Talk:Peter Schiff#RfC: Peter Schiff - Operation Atlantis investigation and subsequent lawsuit against Australian media. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 11:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've started another RfC regarding this subject at Talk:Nick McKenzie#RfC: Lawsuit between Peter Schiff and Australian media. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 01:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Move to close due to recent events? Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas, yes I believe that's appropriate. TarnishedPath^talk 07:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine

I would like to bring to light some concerns regarding the content and sourcing on the Wikipedia page for the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM). There are several key issues that compromise the page's neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing.

1) Over-Reliance on SPLC as a reliable Source for a controversial topic:

A. Most concerning is the heavy and disproportionate reliance on a single source - the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). As I previously discussed on the Talk page, the SPLC is known to express strong opinions on certain organizations and is defined as "opinionated" and "non-reliable" for the non-extremist organization (and SEMG is not defined as such an organization). Also, using them excessively to characterize another organization directly contradicts Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Reliable sources should provide balance and context, not overwhelmingly advance one perspective.

Furthermore, the SPLC report is used duplicatively within the article, risking the appearance of attempting to unduly amplify criticism rather than fairly represent available evidence. This also violates the prohibition on excessive citation density from a narrow range of sources.

B. There was a discussion on the SEGM's talk page where I informed other editors that the SPLC is an opinion source and cannot be applied voluntarily to SEGM's as it is not defined as an "extremist or hate organization". However, the source has been excessively used on the page mostly by the same editor (talk) who had been previously banned from editing any gender-related topics on Wikipedia as TheTranarchist for abusing Wikipedia policy before. I'm surprised to see that the same editor is back and allowed to edit freely on the same highly controversial topic.

Helpful links:

• Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine
• Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Affiliations
• Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Reception

2) Questionable Use of Science-Based Medicine:

The page also cites Science-Based Medicine, which describes SEGM as a 'transphobic organization'. Given that Science-Based Medicine resembles a blog and Wikipedia’s guidelines on blogs as sources (WP:Blogs as sources) caution against using such sources for factual statements, this raises questions about the reliability of the information presented. Blogs, while sometimes suitable for opinions, should not be the basis for factual claims on Wikipedia.

Helpful links:

• Science-Based Medicine
• Wikipedia:Blogs as sources

3) Misrepresentation of Yale School of Medicine Report:

Lastly, there's a significant issue with how the Yale School of Medicine report is presented. The report, critiquing SEGM, is portrayed as an official stance of the Yale School of Medicine. However, a disclaimer clearly states that it represents individual faculty opinions, not the institution's. This misrepresentation contributes to an unbalanced portrayal of SEGM, misleading readers about the weight and authority of the critique.

The statement on the SEGM's page:

In April, researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report in response to the attacks on transgender healthcare in Arizona and Texas which described the core of SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists acting outside of mainstream scientific consensus and organizations, and help lawmakers criminalize transgender care.

Disclaimer (first page):

This report reflects the academic work of individual Yale faculty and does not represent the views of Yale University, Yale Law School, or Yale School of Medicine.

I believe that presenting this report as representing Yale School of Medicine's official view misleads readers and skews the article's balance.

Helpful links:

• Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Reception
• [1]

(First page, under the authors' list)

These issues collectively suggest that the SEGM's Wikipedia page may not be meeting the site's standards for neutrality and reliable, unbiased information. I bring this to the attention of reviewers and editors for further examination and potential corrective action. Colaheed777 (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Science-Based Medicine: It is a RS. See WP:SBM. Of course, alt-med fans always try to remove it, saying that it is just a blog. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I count eight out of 58 <ref>s in the article are to SPLC, or one of 27 unique references, so how is that "heavy and disproportionate reliance on a single source"? The preponderance of sources available define the SEGM as "outside the medical mainstream" or as "anti-trans activists". That view generally agrees with what SPLC has to say about them, so they don't stand alone in that assessment; it is the majority view. Mathglot (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah SEGM looks like a political/culture-war org dressed up in science-y clothing. Very on trend for the discourse of today, Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that SBM and the SPLC are appropriate here. Moreover, the article text does not portray the Yale researchers' report "as representing Yale School of Medicine's official view". That's simply how one describes work done by people who work at Yale. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that these sources are reliable. The SEGM promotes non-mainstream views and our article correctly reflects that. DFlhb (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If the references to the SPLC are just the number mentioned, then the article can hardly skew towards SPLC, especially when they are one of the main organizations we would expect to report on SEGM. Characterizations here of the SPLC as a source, as stated by the author of this notice, are also not accurate to Wikipedia's guidelines that I am seeing (WP:SPLC). Looking through the most recent archived discussions, there is a general consensus that the SPLC is an important and reliable source, but attribution is sometimes recommended (context matters). I'm not seeing any problematic use of SPLC as a source in the current article on SEGM. Hist9600 (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"The report, critiquing SEGM, is portrayed as an official stance of the Yale School of Medicine." would ironically appear to be a misrepresentation... Surely that is not what you intended and have simply made an error or mistake in representing it that way? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948#RfC on what result is to be entered against the result parameter of the infobox

The RfC question is:

Noting the guidance at MOS:MIL, the template documentation and the Aftermath section of the article (version as at opening the RfC), should the result be: a) Indian victory; b) inconclusive; or, c) See Aftermath section.

There are sources cited to support an Indian victory and an inconclusive/stalemate result. Further participation at the RfC would be appreciated. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Help with removing vandalism

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.

---

Please read the “Help with removing vandalism” section of this talk page.

Talk:Human rights in Vietnam

Thank you! Nepanoin (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Effects of microplastics on human health

This section's neutrality is now being disputed. Are the sources cited in the article not neutral? Jarble (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

At first glance they appear to be neutral, but there may be a few specific sources whoever added the template was referring to. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe they started a discussion on the talk page. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've had a hack at the article, redistributing some 'human health' content (which seemed to be weirdly split between two sections), trimming some primary research and introducing PMID:34185251 as a decent MEDRS giving us a good overview of pretty much the current state of play. Bon courage (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Nick work. Professor Penguino (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Racial identifiers at List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States

Beginning with List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2020, the articles in the law enforcement killings series denote the race of the people involved. My understanding is that the use of racial identifiers is generally discouraged (as described by the WP:R&E essay). Thought I'd post this here to get more eyes on it and see if it's an undue weight issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

For a start, it should be noted that 'Hispanic/Latino' is linguistic/cultural descriptor, and not a 'racial' one. Beyond that, while there are legitimate reasons why one might be interested in such data at a statistical level, it looks problematic in a list like this. And in some cases at least, it appears to be entirely unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The column was added by an inexperienced editor, now gone, here.[2] I suggest we delete it. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Its not a bad idea (there certainly is enough coverage of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States in the context of race), but it doesn't seem practical (at best its an OR headache). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There is probably an article that can be written regarding such killings where race was considered a factor, but in this list, I would agree the racial indications are leaning POV-ish, as there are such killings where race was not a factor at all. Masem (t) 14:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Human rights in the State of Palestine

See this discussion: is this article's style of writing not neutral? Jarble (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

RfCs on OW-JP-AH and WCE-WRD/WCD

According to the current regulation, I notify the following two RfCs:

• RfC on the deprecation of OW-JP-AH — n.b. discussions: 2024, 2021, and the previous ones linked in the perennial sources' list entry.
• RfC to assess the reliability of WCE-WRD/WCD — n.b. before taking part in the RfC, please read the discussions: 2024, 2022-2023, 2018.

Æo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

POV tag in Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel

Some independent voices would be useful to clarify whether or not the {{POV}} tag is appropriate for the article Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.

The article clearly has an overall quality problem, but there doesn't seem to be any editing dispute over POV. As far as I can tell, there have been no attempts by editors to block POVs that are contrary to the main POV presented in the article. In fact, the argument for the POV tag appears to be an argument favouring the {{fringe}} tag, rather than the generic {{POV}} tag. However, there are no known sources presenting the alternative POV, no matter whether it is just "alternative" or rather "mainstream", so arguing for WP:FRINGE would currently depend on unknown sources. Should the article keep the POV tag while waiting for experts to present their alternative or mainstream POVs in WP:RSes? or while waiting for someone to do a major rewrite of the article?

I suggest discussion at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel#Lack of Neutrality/Bias by someone not previously involved in the article. Boud (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Or I guess talk here to keep it at the meta-level of NPOV and separate that from the distraction of the topic of the article itself ...? Up to others to judge. Boud (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism

Your definition is slanderous and liable. President Trump has never stated he intends to disregard the Constitution. Not one supporter of President Trump intends to disregard the Constitution. Your article is biased. It contains false and slanderous personal opinions from uncredited sources. Lies. You allow it to be Locked, which prevents anyone from editing or adding factual resources. 64.32.32.1 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the article Trumpism has a line in the lead saying that Trumpists do not want presidential power to be limited by the Constitution or by the rule of law, but the citation doesn't totally support that (the citation talks about the abstract concept of constitutionalism, which is something else). There's also no corresponding information about this in the body. This seems like an oversight: I'm able to find several sources talking about Trump's calls to disregard the constitution (like this, this, and this). Someone should probably use these to add more information about Trump disregarding the constitution. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Liable as in "Someone is liable to slip on your icy sidewalk"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you want to edit that article, you can, see WP:SILVERLOCK. Of course, other people can also edit the article, and there are some rules. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Michigan GOP is broke. This is why. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war protests

This article now has an {{unbalanced}} tag: does the article have a bias toward pro-Palestine protests that needs to be corrected? Jarble (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Since there does not appear to be any current discussion around the tag, it should probably be removed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

2019 Indian general election

There is a disagreement on the Wikipedia talk page for the 2024 Indian General Election infobox regarding the leader photo. I and another other user have opposing views on whether to display the image of the party president or the prime ministerial candidate. Discussions here. राजकुमार^(talk) 12:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Number 57 has it exactly right. While prime ministers in India are technically chosen by the MPs, the parties usually have a declared candidate before the election, just like the German elections. The main candidates were Modi and Rahul in the 2019 election, and they should be the one listed. Anyway, I'm not sure this is really a NPOV issue, seems to be a more generic content dispute. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC).

@TryKid, I know this but the Indian General Election is not a direct election for the PM nor is its primary focus on the PM post. PM is the most powerful position for any elected member but still PM is an MP. How an MP candidate is the leader of other MP candidates from the same party. All candidates are shortlisted by the Party president who isn't involved in any election. राजकुमार^(talk) 13:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

राजकुमार, sure, that's true for most countries following the parliamentary system, such as Germany, Britain, Bhutan, and of course, India. In pretty much all these cases, we list the pre-declared prime ministerial candidates, not the party bosses/"high command". You can take a look at 2017 British general election or any other example. I don't think the nor is its primary focus on the PM post part is quite true, but it doesn't matter. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure Britain was the right example, I think the "party leaders" there are chosen in some of democratic manner like the US election primaries, and they are always the prime ministerial candidates. I'm not sure on the details. Bhutan, Germany or some other country might be better comparisons, but as far as I know, we list the candidates for the position of the head of government (prime minister, chancellor, etc). It makes sense, since they're the face of their parties and of the election. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I really don't know how to make him understand that infobox carriers the picture of the leader in election pages. @राजकुमार you said How an MP candidate is the leader of other MP candidates from the same party. Well an MP is the leader of other MPs. Have you ever heard a term called Leader of the Parliamentary Party or Leader of the Legislative Party. When the elections conclude all the elected members sit together and elected one among them as their leader of the house. This person is generally the one who is declared PM/CM candidate by the party before the election. Here in this case Modi & Rahul were declared the leader under which their party will fight the 2019 election. Now for 2024 the BJP has declared Modi but Congress hasn't. The day it does that person will replace Kharge. The one under whom election is fought if the leader and not the party president. Both are different. ShaanSengupta^Talk 14:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Stepanakert (CTopic)

@Vanezi Astghik: is removing sourced statements with references without discussion at Stepanakert. [3], [4]. More eyes can be used on this CTopic article to help with BRD.  // Timothy :: talk  16:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly a tendentious editing. The full text of the speech is available here: [5], and the source clearly talks about the former residents of the settlements in question. I believe this should be reported to WP:AE, which is the board that deals with POV editing on contentious topics. Grandmaster 21:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Editors has again removed content.  // Timothy :: talk  00:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Fritz von Opel in various space related articles

Fritz von Opel was the grandson of the founder of the German car maker Opel. Between 1928 and 1929 he funded various publicity stunts involving rocket powered cars, gliders, boats and motorcycles. The Smithsonian History of Space Exploration (2018) on p. 31 contains the following entry on Fritz von Opel “Working with the automobile designer and scion of the Opel car manufacturing dynasty Fritz von Opel (1899-1971) , Valier continued to experiment on and race his rocket powered vehicle. Both men shared an eye for publicity abd rocket powered cars”. This is Fritz von Opel’s only entry in the 400 page Smithsonian history. Michael Neufeld’s Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War (2007, p.92) also contains the following description of Fritz von Opel “…was a dashing playboy in search of publicity and fame and was not committed to spaceflight; he proceeded to use Valier and then push him aside.”

I have noticed lots of space related articles include details on Fritz von Opel, including Space Age, Spaceflight, History of spaceflight, History of rockets Human spaceflight programs, Robert H. Goddard, Robert Esnault-Pelterie, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Virgin Galactic, V-2 rocket, Creation of NASA, Rocket engine, Timeline of private spaceflight, Timeline of rocket and missile technology, Timeline of space exploration, List of aerospace engineers, History of aviation, Spaceport, Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, Heinkel He 17, Liquid rocket propellant and Liquid-propellant rocket. Most of these articles appear to be giving undue weight to Fritz von Opel’s influence in space history. In particular, Robert Esnault-Pelterie’s article includes Fritz von Opel as “…one of the founders of modern rocketry and astronautics, along with the Russian Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the Germans Hermann Oberth, Fritz von Opel, Wernher Von Braun and the American Robert H. Goddard.”

All these entries have been made by a variety of unregistered users including 2003:DF:7707:8287:F0F3:D8D5:C823:B677, 93.237.68.125 and 2A01:599:B21:3AF7:61B9:6E6B:B2AB:40D5 I suspect these are the same editor. I have tried to remove some of these undue inclusions, however they keep getting added back, for example this edit. Seeking other editors opinions on whether the Fritz von Opel details in the above articles are undue and should be either reduced or removed. Ilenart626 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's undue weight. I noticed it before in von Braun and Space Age, but didn't know that it's that widespread. Artem.G (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Similar edits have been made today to the Konstantin Tsiolkovsky article by three new unregistered users 1, 2 and 3. I’m starting to think this is a wp:Sockpuppetry issue. Ilenart626 (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Jai_Shri_Ram#WP:LEAD_consensus

Your eyes and opinions are welcome, the article is spiking again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ram Mandir

There's currently edit warring to remove any mention of the former presence and destruction of the Babri Masjid from the lead of the Ram Mandir article, which has been recently inaugurated. I think that some mention of the mosque and its destruction is clearly due in the lead of the article. The article also has serious issues with the use of non scholarly sources in order to support Hindu claims to the site. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Founding of the Church of England

Several of the articles about specific Anglican church buildings in England contain an infobox line saying "Previous denomination: Catholic Church" or similar. I have been removing these on the grounds of WP:NPOV, since to claim that the denomination has changed is to claim that the Church of England was created after that building was constructed. This led to a small edit war with User:Murgatroyd49 and User:Johnbod, who reverted my deletions (e.g. [6]).

The facts are not in dispute-- only their interpretation. This is a ship of Theseus issue, about what it means for the post-1531 church and the pre-1531 church to be "the same" church.

There are two particular interpretations:

• The modern Church of England was founded in the year 597 by Augustine of Canterbury, and the modern Church of England is that same church; Henry VIII changed its management rather than creating it. Let's call this the 597 view.
• The modern Church of England was founded in the year 1531 by Henry VIII. Let's call this the 1531 view.

To list any previous denomination in an infobox, for a building which was under the control of Rome before 1531 but not since, is to endorse the 1531 view. And endorsing one view over the other is not permissible on Wikipedia.

In the ensuing discussion on Murgatroyd49's talk page ([7]), Murgatroyd49 and Johnbod claimed that the 597 view is a fringe view without modern adherents. They are mistaken. Here are a few examples:

• Podmore, Colin. "Dioceses and Episcopal Sees in England." (2008)[8]: "Augustine can be regarded as the founder of the Church of England as an organized ecclesial structure".
• Giles, Richard (former dean of Philadelphia Cathedral). "Always Open: Being an Anglican Today", ISBN 1461660483 (2005): "...to be an Anglican in England is to belong to an ancient church, the ancient church of that country. This gets up other people’s noses somewhat, but there it is. Even Anglican self-effacement cannot stretch to despising its own birthright, although the ignorance of the media (even of the so-called quality newspapers) misleads many into believing the fable that the Church of England was an invention of Tudor times. It was not, of course, Henry VIII who founded the Church of England, but the unknown missionary who first ran his boat onto its shores in foolhardy eagerness to share the good news of Jesus of Nazareth with the fierce tribesmen of that wild and wet island."
• The Church of England's own page about its history[9]: "...until the Reformation in the 16th century the Church of England accepted the authority of the Pope. At the Reformation the Western Church became divided between those who continued to accept Papal authority and the various Protestant churches that did not. The Church of England was among the churches that broke with Rome."

I want to lay particular stress upon this point: I am not advocating for the 597 view here, merely saying that it is not fringe, and thus the 1531 view cannot be endorsed by Wikipedia. I would really rather settle this amicably without being called names.

This whole business was in November, but Christmas got in the way; apologies to everyone for the delay. Marnanel (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Conversely, to deny there was any "previous denomination" is to endorse the 1531 view, which surely remains the minority, especially if these are the best refs you can find; two pages from the CofE's own website & some American clergyman. Note that the 2nd one does not endorse the 597 view, but what one might call a 266 view - though his talk about "fierce tribesmen of that wild and wet island" strongly suggests he knows nothing of the period. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

1. I repeat, I am not endorsing any view here. I am trying to stop any view from being endorsed.

2. An understanding of the C of E's history which is held by the C of E itself cannot be a fringe opinion.

3. I don't care whether it's a minority opinion. What I'm saying is that it's not a fringe opinion, so under WP:NPOV Wikipedia can neither endorse or deny it.

4. (Not particularly important, but) Richard Giles is English, not American; he's now back in this country and working as a visiting fellow of St John's College, Durham[10]. Marnanel (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I'm a friend of Marnanel's, but disagree with M. about many incidental religious questions such as the minor matter of whether or not there is a God. I have no dog in this particular fight.) I thought I'd look up a few things that might indicate what opinions are commonplace on this. Here's what I found. (I haven't cherry-picked; this is everything I thought of looking at, aside from several books I expected not to contain anything useful that indeed didn't contain anything useful.)

• The definition of "Church of England" in the OED. Begins "The English branch of the Christian Church; (since 1534) spec. that constituted at the Reformation". That "spec." means that "Church of England" has both the more general meaning, applying to "the English branch of the Christian Church" without any particular restrictions as to place, time, theology, etc., and also a more specific one meaning what 1531-ists would call "the Church of England" and 597-ists would call "the Church of England after the Reformation". This doesn't endorse either view, as such, but it seems like evidence that both exist. The first of the three example uses cited by the OED is from the 14th century; the term "the Church of England", or at least "ye chirch of Yngelond", was in use before the Reformation.

• A book called "What Anglicans believe" by David Edwards (a clergyman in the Church of England). "The word 'Anglican' comes from 'English', because the pattern of life in the modern, world-wide Anglican Communion was set by the changes made in the Church of England during the Reformation of the sixteenth century." This only makes sense if "the Church of England" was a thing that existed before the Reformation, underwent changes during that time, and continued to exist afterwards.

• Alister McGrath's "In the beginning: the story of the King James Bible" (McGrath is a professor of historical theology). McGrath seems mostly to be a 597ist: e.g., in his index under "Church of England" there's a sub-entry "formation" pointing to the part of the book describing the English Reformation.

It looks to me as if "the Church of England" is commonly used, including by e.g. its clergy, to refer to an institution understood as continuing through the Reformation rather than created by it. So as far as this point goes I'm in agreement with Marnanel. BUT that isn't quite the actual issue here, and I'm not sure I agree with Marnanel about the issue itself.

• It's widely held by reasonable people (and hence Wikipedia shouldn't take a stance that presumes it's false) that the institution called the Church of England has existed since the time of Augustine. But that institution is not necessarily the same thing as the Christian denomination commonly called the Church of England. It could, it seems to me, be true that some Anglican building (1) has been owned and operated by the Church of England since long before the Reformation, but also (2) is now affiliated with the denomination called the Church of England, and was formerly affiliated with a different denomination called the Roman Catholic Church, and that seeing "Previous denomination: Catholic Church" or the like would be generally understood to mean #2 rather than not-#1. I don't think that holding that the denomination has changed implies holding that the Church of England was recreated rather than reformed in the 16the century.

• But suppose we decide that indeed #2 does imply not-#1. In that case, listing a "Previous denomination" would amount to some sort of endorsement of not-#1, which would be problematically POV-ish. But not listing a "Previous denomination" would also amount to some sort of endorsement of #1, also problematically POV-ish. I suppose maybe that implicit endorsement is weaker and hence less problematic than the explicit endorsement of including a "Previous denomination", but I don't think there's any way to avoid a bit of POV creeping in.

I don't claim to know what the Right Answer is here, but I think it's more complicated than anyone's been saying so far :-). Gareth McCaughan (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, so some of this is duplicating Gareth McCaughan's points, which I largely agree with)

I'd want to back up Marnanel on the points that

• declining to assert something is not to assert the opposite - infoboxes are for brief summaries of uncontroversial information, and leaving something out of one does not assert the inverse of it. (In this case, it's perfectly usual to omit this - I note St Etheldreda's Church, London, which was a Church of England church for about 350 years, doesn't have an entry.)
• asserting that the Church of England was not founded in 1531 is not a fringe position
• it's perfectly reasonable to include an organisation's own view - where that organisation is not a fringe organisation - as evidence that a view about that organisation is not a fringe view (as distinct from evidence that the view is true)

Regarding other sources:

• Encyclopedia Britannica has, "Church of England, English national church that traces its history back to the arrival of Christianity in Britain during the 2nd century. [...] As the successor of the Anglo-Saxon and medieval English church..."
• The Encylopedia of the Early Modern World says: "During the period known as the Reformation, the English Church broke with Rome and underwent major changes in doctrine and liturgy. [...] Henry had always claimed rights of supremacy over the English church, but not at the expense of Rome. In the 1530s, however, Henry asserted that English kings were answerable to no earthly superior. In 1532, he forced his senior clergy to concede that convocation (the provincial assembly) could not make ecclesiastical law without royal assent. Over the next two years, a succession of parliamentary statutes whittled away papal power in England while recognizing the king's right to reform the church, supervise canon law, and correct errors in doctrine. In 1534 the Act of Supremacy pronounced Henry's status as the supreme head of the Church of England. The English church remained Catholic, but the pope was no longer its head—he was now simply the bishop of Rome."
• The Oxford Companion to British History: "The present English church dates from the reintroduction of this Celtic Christianity into Northumbria by Aidan (635) and Roman Christianity into Kent by Augustine (597)."
• The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church article on the Church of England begins "It is impossible to say at what date Christianity was first planted in Great Britain, but the presence of British bishops at the Council of..."

All of these are nuanced, but I think it's fairly clear that, at the least, scholarly views in reliable sources are a lot more complicated than "The Church of England was created brand new in 1531".

I don't know whether I'm fully convinced either way on whether it's useful to include this in the infoboxes, but the question is certainly not a slamdunk against Marnanel's point. TSP (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

New world order (politics) reads like an opinion piece

I was advised to bring this issue up here by the commenter in this talk page thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_world_order_(politics)#c-Doug_Weller-20240121192600-Memotype-20240121182400 —Memotype::T 17:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Um, what specifically is not NPOV? Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Reading the thread linked above, Memotype is apparently not happy that the article mentions the fact that Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman rarely used the phrase “New World Order” in their writings and speeches.

My guess is that this statement was included because conspiracy theorists often claim that they frequently did so. But that is just a guess… we would have to look back in the article history to see when (and under what circumstances) the information was added. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't read like an encyclopedia article about the subject. I looked up this article because I was trying to remember who originally coined the term and the history of it's use, and was immediately confronted with a sermon about how it's not really a big deal and I should stop worrying about it. I just wanted the factual details about the term. —Memotype::T 15:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Answer this instead of circle jerking with the other editors —Memotype::T 01:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, before I get chastised for being "sharp", please note that I didn't use the phrase "circle jerk" much. —Memotype::T 01:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar: The language started out with this edit in 2021. You can see how the language was used at the time and where it was placed. The sentence has migrated and morphed over time.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

At first glance I agreed with Memotype regarding the article. But after a few rereads I think that it's OK. I think that the "didn't use" wording was to clarify that in some cases, the term was applied (only) retroactively, which I think is useful information. I do think that Doug was a bit pointy / escalated a bit in the exchange. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I am curious as to why it skips to Roosevelt, and doesn't comment on whether or not Harding, Coolidge, or Hoover used the phrase or referenced the concept. BD2412 T 03:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@North8000 And yet I suggested that they bring it here and was thanked for the suggestion. Yes, I said "put your money where your mouth is". I said that because I thought that was a good way to encourage them. Maybe I was a bit put off by the comment " And you people wonder why Wikipedia is mocked so harshly as a biased source of information.". Still, if you think it's bad to say that, I'll try to avoid it. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: No biggee either way, but I wouldn't have considered that alone to be pointy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Readers and even editors often start by framing their discussions or questions as complaints or by pointing out their "perception" of flaws. It can be unpleasant in a setting where participants are giving their time and effort without compensation or even the expectation of gratitude. So, if the initiate is giving off a sense of entitlement or baiting, most volunteers will simply ignore them and move on, and justifiably so. DN (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I almost did and wish I had. I probably will next time. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, this whole conversation reads like a masturbation session for a Goa'uld cosplay. "In a setting in which such persons might convene to such regard as to pursue things such as..." Give me a break. The article is very obviously biased and you all need to go outside more often. —Memotype::T 01:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that I didn't suggest that the editors of this page "go outside" much, only once so far. And if you point it out, you're a flat earther. —Memotype::T 02:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It didn't provide me a basic overview of the term and it's history. It clearly reads like an opinion piece. —Memotype::T 01:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Tim Hunt

The article on Tim Hunt, an influential scientist, briefly describes a controversy involving some remarks he made that were characterized as sexist. Only, from a previous version of the page, you wouldn't even know what the remarks were or why they were controversial, just that he was apparently the victim of an "online shaming campaign" that "forced his resignation".

Now, the sources over at Online_shaming#Tim_Hunt_controversy never mention the words "online shaming campaign", as far as I can tell, though they do definitely mention social media backlash against the remarks. They also give a full description of what he's accused to have said, that many female scientists thought it was sexist, and why.

I added the basic details of the controversy and was very quickly reverted by Thomas_Basboll asserting a "long standing consensus" and that any lengthening of the section would not be neutral. I'm very skeptical of these claims and am bringing this to this board because I feel like the main reason what I view as an obviously non-neutral section has been allowed to exist on this page for so long is because nobody's paid attention to it. Loki (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem with any extended coverage of this controversy in the Tim Hunt article of this event is that it inevitably states as fact issues that remained controversial at the time and were never resolved. Even the quote Loki wants to present as what Hunt "said" is only one version of the remarks. But Hunt was definitely and mercilessly shamed (Jon Ronson, who wrote the book on online shaming, thought so[11]). That was the event in Hunt's life that needs to be recorded (because it derailed his life for some time). But nothing more needs to be said; it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to immortalize the most embarrassing things that happen to people online. As an incident of online shaming the details do of course matter and are covered in the linked article.Thomas B (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)