Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 105

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 100

←

Archive 103

→

Ayacucho massacre

There are diverging views regarding what NPOV might look like in this article about recent political violence in Peru. Issues are currently being discussed on the talk page here and here. More eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the name of "Ayacucho riots" since the name of "Ayacucho Massacre" is too reductionist and biased. Not all media nor a majority refer to the event as a "massacre". The repression by the police and the army happened in the context of violent protests when protestors tried to reach and take a whole airport, event that is barely covered in specifically the English Wikipedia but good sourced in the Spanish version. Reliable source and even some articles sourced in the page to call it a "massacre" also describe the prior events as riots or protests that led the "massacre" to happen, or the attempt to take over the airport

----

Sources already used in the article to call them "massacre" that also refer to the events as riots/protests/violence:

- [1] "El día más sangriento fue este jueves. La violencia se desató en Ayacucho, la región más golpeada por el terrorismo entre los años ochenta y noventa. Un pueblo que convive en un eterno fuego cruzado y al que le es muy difícil respirar paz."

- [2] "La presidenta Dina Boluarte declaró el estado de emergencia por 30 días frente a las manifestaciones y disturbios de los últimos días en distintas ciudades de Perú.

- [3] "De acuerdo con el informe, el día más sangriento fue el jueves pasado, primera jornada de vigencia del estado de emergencia (sitio) en todo el país, con nueve defunciones. Ese día, la mayor violencia se desató en Ayacucho, la región más golpeada por la acción de los grupos remanentes de la organización terrorista Sendero Luminoso." (Note that the article refers to the Shining Path as "terrorist" instead of guerrilla, like the original author of the page doesn't want to include because POV)

- [4] "Entrada la tarde, se registraron actos vandálicos y disturbios mancharon las movilizaciones pacíficas que realizaban los ciudadanos en Ayacucho. Atacaron e incendiaron el local de la Corte Superior, en plena plaza de Huamanga y que recién había refaccionado el ingreso. También incendiaron el local de la Sunarp, Ministerio Público y Telefónica, dejando un saldo de 8 heridos"

----

The original author of the article also like to distort some sources cited while also cherry-picking sources that fit his POV while omitting others that are essential and used in the Spanish Version of the article. For example: the source [5] from Infobae, page that is cited a lot in this article, is sourced in es.wikipedia in the following sentence: "The next day, the consequences of what happened and the lack of a police and military presence in the city led to acts of vandalism, such as looting and burning several unprotected public buildings (traslated)", but @WMrapids uses the same source for claiming the following: "The following day, the repression by the police and military led to new acts of vandalism, such as looting and burning of various unprotected public buildings". Another example is with [6] and [7], source which @WMrapids source to claim the following "During the presidencies of Ollanta Humala, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski and Martín Vizcarra, the right-wing Congress led by the daughter of the former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori, Keiko Fujimori, obstructed many of the actions attempted by those presidents". The inclusion of "right-wing" in the first source is never mentioned and in the second source is only used to refer to Bolsonaro (not even Peruvian) or the candidate to presidency Keiko Fujimori. Term is never mentioned to refer to the congress. Other of those fake claims are "On that day, demonstrations took place in Ayacucho and the situation intensified when the military deployed helicopters to fire at protesters, who later tried to take over the city's airport, which was defended by the Peruvian Army and the National Police of Peru". Neither of the sources claim that the protests intensified after the army deployed helicopters, and in fact, sources cited in the article while recognize the protests started peacefully [8] [9], neither of those claims that the protests intensified after the army deployed helicopters. In fact, one of the sources used by the editor claims that the helicopters appeared during noon "Todos los que estuvieron en Huamanga ese día escucharon los helicópteros y el incesante sonido de las balas, desde el mediodía hasta el anochecer." [10].

----

Now my concern is that when I tried to add information directly extracted from the Spanish Wikipedia, the user called @Generalrelative deleted all the info I added without any reason except "POV-Pushing", but when @WMrapids added tons of distorded information, he just stayed quiet. Each time I want to add at least some words to the article, this user, which have no authority over me, reverts each of my edits, like if I was blocked or something (and he even doesn't let me post in his talk page since he deletes any talk I want to make to him). Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

PS: About the last point, he keeps reverting every single edit I've made even tho he just claimed that there's only one point that concerns him, not all my edits should be reverted Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

1) It's not only me. Two other users have recently alerted you on your talk page about the impression you're giving of editing with a strong POV about this and related topics.

2) It's not just "one point", but rather the broad tenor of your edits that concerns me. As I said on the article talk page, the content you are seeking to add "contains many elements which appear to be geared toward altering the POV of the article". That would be fine if the status quo was somehow inconsistent with sources, and you were bringing it into line with them, but instead I'm seeing what appears to me to be a highly selective reading.

3) Not a huge deal, but I use they/them pronouns, not he/him.

Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're going only focus on my last point? The POV used in the page. About "1" Ponyo reverted because I deleted the whole "history of Ayacucho" section, which then never complained about my other edit. About "2" most of my edits were literally corrections of the sources cited (As I said in my second point) or added more data information like quantity of military troops deployed and harmed in the infobox. Didn't pretend to change POV. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for me to debate you. It's a place to invite others to weigh in. Whether or not you "pretended" to change the POV of the article, it is evident that you did. The question for the community to decide is whether those changes are WP:DUE. Generalrelative (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If we are discussing the article title, multiple sources called it a massacre while the The New York Times plainly stated "[Protesters] were unarmed and, as stipulated in military protocols, posed no 'imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm,' to officers or anyone else when they were shot". So, the title seems pretty concise, unless you want to describe it as "Peruvian Army's killing of civilians in Ayacucho" (though not as concise because that has happened before) or something similar. The main story here is not that protesters tried to occupy an airport where helicopters were deployed to fire tear gas at them; the story is the army shot dozens of civilians. There is no question if this was justifiable; the shootings were not only morally reprehensible, but were also illegal under Peruvian law as specified by The New York Times. So, it can be understood why neutrality could be an issue in this situation. Regarding the events at the airport, we can add more information if they are properly sourced and I will take a look at the Spanish article myself to see what is applicable.--WMrapids (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the point that it was not a massacre. The context where they happened were directly violent protests, even if they started peacefully. Occupying an airport is far from being peaceful and it should be reported like it was in the Spanish Wikipedia. Here is reduced as a if it was common or something unimportant. Yes, the police also had a violent reaction but the POV in This Just blames the Army. In that case at least add the infobox of civil conflict since it reports the organizations that promoted the protests and the PNP, and the number of soldiers harmed, which, again, is ignored in the version 2800:4B0:441E:5FA:C51:750D:A4E2:1BEE (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the Spanish article, the English article is much better. The Spanish article has no information about the investigations, the introduction does not mention anything about the use of force or any deaths, if anything, there are more neutrality issues with the Spanish article. The Spanish article oddly mentions a method of transporting protesters by vans, though this is only mentioned in a source in a quote that is mentioning a rumor. Also, no mention in the Spanish article that the protesters did not have firearms. Anyways, whatever was useful in the Spanish article has been placed.--WMrapids (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not surprising that some of the Spanish sources, if they're politically aligned with those who took power in Peru, would report on the official version of events and not seriously question its veracity. Such sources are not RS for this article, although they might be for other purposes. In contrast, The New York Times, as far as I'm aware, has no political alignment with either side in the dispute and is an independent reliable source.

There's a long history of horrendous human rights abuses by the Peruvian military, especially during the long counter-insurgency of the 1980s and 1990s and especially in Quechua-speaking regions like Ayacucho. The Ayacucho massacre is consistent with this history. NightHeron (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not just this article that has a "biased" point of view, the issue is that ALL or most of the articles dedicated to the subject do. To give an example, one of the users mentioned by Alejandro created an article titled "Fujimorist propaganda, which was labeled after a few days as violating various policies and guidelines. And if you don't, by reading all these articles in a row, you are creating a pro-insurgency and anti-government narrative (and I'm not a supporter of Boluarte, but clearly this stopped being peaceful protests a long time ago). Another example I could give is the article on Peruvian protests in 2022-2023, which until I added the IACHR source did not contain any mention of the violence of the protesters. Just compare that with what the Political Crisis in Bolivia article says, which in my opinion is one of the least biased that Wikipedia has and the difference in dates is not very long.

Also, another thing that I have noticed is that they try to link everything to Fujimorismo, which in the Peruvian context is exactly the same as linking anyone to Sendero Luminoso or MOVADEF; it is a political accusation. Since Fujimori fell, this political sector has always been marginal and they have never had a majority in Congress at any time (that is another insinuation in which the current articles lie), they have always had the judiciary against them. And at the population level it has had the same rejection as the left. If you want, soon we will talk more specifically about that. In other words, to say that power and the establishment are Fujimoristas is to understand nothing of the history of Peru (or to be too involved in left-wing propaganda).

This would be in summary what I would comment on the matter. And just compare this with for example the articles dedicated to Venezuela. It's not just a problem with this particular item. Armando AZ (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Armando AZ: Bold statement with assuming the motives and methods of people protesting (and of Wikipedia users). Also, thank you for the false equivalence with this: "they try to link everything to Fujimorismo, which in the Peruvian context is exactly the same as linking anyone to Sendero Luminoso or MOVADEF; it is a political accusation". If you were to look at the sources (or even the Constitution of Peru), you could see that the current economic and political systems of Peru were developed during the Fujimori government. Another statement you make: "Since Fujimori fell, this political sector has always been marginal and they have never had a majority in Congress at any time (that is another insinuation in which the current articles lie)"; the Associated Press states "Fuerza Popular (Fujimorists) captured a majority in congress. ... its legislators have earned a reputation as hardline obstructionists for blocking initiatives popular with Peruvians aimed at curbing the nation’s rampant corruption". So, should we believe you or the Associated Press?--WMrapids (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't believe me, believe the elections. Fuerza Popular only got 13% of the votes in the first round Armando AZ (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are very clever in ignoring the matter of judicial persecution against Alberto Fujimori, or the conclusions reached by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Here I leave the source of the first thing: https://elcomercio.pe/elecciones-2020/alberto-fujimori-las-cinco-sentencias-que-el-expresidente-recibio-noticia/

The implications that you are giving make no sense with the recent history of Peru. Only recently has broad sectors of society opposed Pedro Castillo, and Congress has always opposed all presidents, count PPK or Martín Vizcarra for example. Armando AZ (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Wanted to let you know that the user(s) pushing this have been banned due to using socks and pushing POV WP:Fringe info.--WMrapids (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the heads-up. Generalrelative (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Also, the other user POV-pushing in this article was indefinitely blocked due to WP:NOTHERE. So both users who were mainly involved in this discussion have now been blocked. WMrapids (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I was sorry to see that you were harassed. Generalrelative (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern, I appreciate it. Just have to trust the process… :) WMrapids (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

RFC at October Surprise conspiracy theory

Hello! There has been an RFC at the above page (link to section) concerning the page's title—specifically at issue is whether "conspiracy theory" adheres to NPOV and the merits of other alternatives.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Nipper at Pit bull

There's a recurring (Talk:Pit_bull/Archive_9#Nipper_should_not_be_listed_in_'Notable_pit_bulls'_section/Talk:Pit_bull/Archive_11#Nipper) and somewhat deadlocked discussion on if this dog should be mentioned in the pit bull article, Talk:Pit_bull#Notable_pit_bulls. If you can help, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hitler's Grave

I noticed that the article Hitler's Grave seems to be written with a positive bias towards the film. If anyone can help out and remove said bias from the page, please do so. Thanks! RteeeeKed 💬📖 03:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The more basic problem is that there's nothing there that supports WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that after I posted. It's already been nominated for deletion. RteeeeKed 💬📖 23:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Wikipedia’s Credibility

https://politicalsciencenow.com/how-conflicts-and-population-loss-led-to-the-rise-of-english-wikipedias-credibility/

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Durham special counsel investigation

Right-wing POV pushers trying to push op-ed writers and claiming RS such as NYT and AP pushed a hoax. Andre🚐 00:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have interacted extensively with the editor who placed the POV tag on the article and I am now convinced the POV is not in the article. soibangla (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It actually is, and there are several items called out in the talk page discussion, including one that's under an RfC. Red Slapper (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

op-eds should only be included with strict in-line citations and attribution, if, there is consensus that it has enough WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. WP:FRINGE shouldn't even be considered. DN (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland

This is a fairly fringe organisation, but is described in glowing terms in its lead. What's up with that? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 06:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Not that glowing - there is a reference to paramilitary links. I agree that the second sentence - "It is an organisation of people bonded together to promote the ideals of the Protestant faith" - is a bit disingenuous. Probably should be replaced with something about it being unionist/loyalist/conservative, opposed to Irish nationalism and linked to sectarianism. DeCausa (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Aye, true. That sentence is the one that really struck me as odd. And there's other bits of language that kind of give off true believer vibes. Like, 'On 24 March 2007, about 12,000 Orangemen from Scotland and other parts of the UK marched in Edinburgh to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Acts of Union 1707. This culminated in a rally where its leaders warned members of the danger of the SNP and Scottish independence. The Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland, Ian Wilson, said that "the Union has been good for Scotland and will continue to be good for Scotland".' - that's very much written under the assumption they're correct. Kind of makes me wonder if we're looking at an extreme propoganda piece that got partially fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 07:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep. That sentence in the lead was lifted from their website.[11] I've just taken it out based on WP:COPYVIO. Needs to have something to replace it though. I might take a closer look at the article when I have some time later. DeCausa (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Images in Albania article

Since 2018, there has been a tacit agreement at Albania to have a dual image illustrating the use of minority languages (Greek and Macedonian) in the country [12]. Today, 6 years after he first tried to remove the Greek language sign [13], Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs) has decided to try again, this time keeping only the Macedonian language sign, and removing the Greek language sign [14]. The ostensible reason is to avoid "breaking the text" (by which he means image sandwiching) [15], even though his edit does not resolve the image sandwiching. I tried to resolve the sandwiching issue, to no avail [16]. I opened a talkpage thread [17], from which it is apparent that the claims of image sandwiching are just an excuse to remove the Greek language sign. I find it very POV to leave in one of the minority language signs but to remove the other. Any help in resolving this would be greatly appreciated. In general, this articles suffers from a lot of POV activity, and the more eyes on it the better. Khirurg (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Dawoodi Bohra

The editor (@Ravensfire: who added the tag 3 years ago hasn't had the time to revisit the article after it was changed considerably. Can someone here review the tag's viability?

Here are the original concerns raised:

- The language in the lead "Dawoodi Bohra communities are united by a set of centuries-old principles: an unwavering commitment to the faith; being law-abiding citizens and developing a genuine love for the country in which they live; a belief in the value of society, education, hard work and equal rights; engagement with other faiths; and a responsibility to care for the environment and all creatures that dwell within it." shows the lack of encyclopediac language. Fixed.

- The education section needs a serious pass to cut down on unsourced claims, reduce some of the puffery and bring the tone closer to an encyclopedia. Added inline citation-needed tags, and the text has been scrubbed for weasel words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawoodi_Bohra#Education

- One sign is the use of primary sources in the article, there's more than really should be in the article. If the only source for something is the organization itself, especially if at any level of detail, is questionable. At the time, close to 40% of the article was sourced from thedawoodibohras.com, but that's down to less than 20% (24 / 160 citations). Most thedawoodibohras.com citations aren't necessairly supporting wp:soapbox material but some facts, like the first dawoodi bohra mosque in Africa / Sri Lanka / the West etc.

Thanks.

Talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dawoodi_Bohra#POV_tag Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of that article that's more of a advertisement for the group. The social work and Community centres sections read more as a "rah-rah". I think much of the article is in better shape than several years ago. Ravensfire (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair, but that probably is a {{ad|section}} than NPOV on the whole article, don't you think Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

David Bowie

Is it sound from an NPOV perspective to scrub David Bowie of any mention of alleged rape on the basis that sources be damned the women are liars? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this the NPoV noticeboard, or the 'put the maximum spin on a question without including any specifics or informing those you are in dispute with' noticeboard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the "I can't believe I'm actually had to say this" noticeboard... Context is self evident, I just want more eyes. If I was going to write paragraphs or get people sanctioned I would be at ANI but I don't I just want a single other human being who isn't a David Bowie Superfan to weigh in because I am exhausted. Shockingly thats also only light spin, that is genuinely the argument being made, well actually it was more florid... Not just lies but "confabulates or lies"[18]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, frankly I'm surprised to have to say this, but from your comments on the talk page, and the misunderstanding of policy evident therein, I'd have to suggest that 'more eyes' might very well see things differently from you. You are wrong about WP:OR, you are wrong about WP:CoI, and you seem not to actually understand a key purpose of talk page discussions - which is to assess the credibility of sources. Then again, I would say that, because I've bought a few Bowie albums over the years, and I watched him perform live once (Earls Court, 1978, I believe).

If you want a serious discussion, I suggest you drop the hyperbolae, and address the point being made there - that there seem to be legitimate reasons to question the credibility of the person behind the allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

And our personal beliefs about the credibility of the person behind the allegations has absolutely no bearing on whether coverage of the allegations is due or not... We don't make that call. If reliable sources say that there are legitimate reasons to question the credibility of the person behind the allegations then per NPOV we can say that, its the same as if reliable sources say there aren't legitimate reasons to question the credibility of the person behind the allegations... Its the coverage of the viewpoint that makes due weight not whether or not we agree with the viewpoint. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Even without reading the talk page discussions there, I had a feeling that this was going to be the Lori Mattix allegations. Honestly there is a lot to be sceptical about with regards to Mattix's allegations. Without going into too much detail that's better elaborated and sourced in Mattix's article, there's a lot of inconsistencies with her stories as she has told at least two very different accounts of how her first sexual encounter with Bowie happened, both of which have been disputed by other groupies who were present at the time. It's also disputed, including by what Mattix has said herself, whether her first sexual encounter was with Bowie or Jimmy Page.

I don't think sources be damned the women are liars is a fair and accurate description of either the allegations by Mattix against Bowie, nor the discussion on the article talk page. Even within just Mattix's retelling of the events, there are at least two radically different versions of how she came to be in a hotel room with Bowie. And even if you want to discount the disputes of those versions by Sable Starr and Pamela Des Barres, you still need to reconcile whether Mattix was in a hotel room with Bowie because Bowie's bodyguard brought her to him, or if Mattix was in the hotel room because she snuck into it uninvited. When you by necessity add on the well documented and evidenced relationship between Mattix and Jimmy Page, which also contradicts parts of Mattix's allegations against Bowie, the entire thing becomes a mess of "she said X, which is contradicted where she also said Y, all of which is contradicted by this other person who said Z". Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to reconcile anything, that isn't what we do on wikipedia... Sources are allowed to, and often do, conflict with each other. "she said X, which is contradicted where she also said Y, all of which is contradicted by this other person who said Z" would be WP:OR unless we have a source which says that so I'd say the risk of that occurring without a source is about zero. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out on Talk:David Bowie, WP:OR explicitly states that his policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. It states that for a reason: because we very often have to have discussions as to whether a source is credible. Which may very well involve looking at multiple sources, and drawing our own conclusions if they seem contradictory. If our assessment is that a specific source lacks credibility, we can then chose not to use it at all. And there seem to be very good grounds to question Mattix's accounts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Which source's credibility has been questioned? Mattix is not one of the sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Mattix is the original source of the claim that Bowie committed statutory rape on her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

But she is not the source for wikipedia's purposes, that would be The Guardian, Mic, etc. Whether or not the allegation is true or not it was made and received significant coverage from reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

OK then using your argumentation, of the two versions of Mattix's allegations, the version she Thrillist in 2015, and the version she told Paul Trynka circa 2011, both of which have different dates for when she and Bowie allegedly first slept together (Thrillist recounting states March 1973, Trynka recounting states October 1972), which do you wish to use as the basis for including the allegations in Bowie's article? How are you making that determination without engaging in original research? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Why would we choose a version? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Because otherwise you need to state in our summary of the allegations that there are at two different and mutually exclusive accounts of Mattix and Bowie's first sexual encounter. Which you've already ruled out doing because that would be original research. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

We have a source which says that there are multiple versions, that was mentioned in the removed text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Also there is I believe a third version of this allegation, which Mattix recounted to Peter Gilman in 1986, though that one is much harder to source, but also conflicts with the events of the other two recountings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

'Why would we chose a version'? We don't. If they contradict each other, we are under no obligation to assume either is reliable. And not use either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that the source's aren't reliable or that the stuff covered by the reliable sources isn't due for inclusion? Nobody else has yet made that first argument, those are some pretty darn reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and that is what I'm trying to demonstrate to HEB. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Then we can include all three versions, thats what you do when multiple viewpoints on an event appear in WP:RS. I notice you've only addressed part of the content, do you have an opinion about the Nichols info? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Nichols info? Before this message I don't see the word/name mentioned here or on the article talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph... The very first thing you would have read if you had reviewed the text[19]... The first paragraph is about Nichols, the second paragraph is about Mattix, and the third is about the impact of both on Bowie's legacy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Aah, apologies. It's late and that paragraph had slipped my mind as it hasn't been touched on in the discussion about this section. I've no opinion on it at this time, I might have one tomorrow after I wake up. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Why not just use a modern, reasonable quality source like:

Kelefa Sanneh (2022). Major Labels: A History of Popular Music in Seven Genres. Penguin. ISBN 9780525559610.

which has

... Lori Mattix, who has said that as a fifteen-year-old, she had sexual encounters with David Bowie and Jimmy Page. In a 2015 interview, Mattix confided no regrets, describing her experiences with Bowie as "so beautiful", and saying that she felt "blessed" by Page, even though he had broken her heart. But three years later, amid growing awareness of sexual abuse, Mattix told The Guardian that she was starting to rethink her relationship with Page. "I never thought there was anything wrong with it, but maybe there was" she said. "I don't think underage girls should sleep with guys."

It's in the "Cock Rock" section of Chapter 1 ("Rock") but I don't know the page number. Bon courage (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that this is a question of due weight and framing, two editorial decisions that run smack into the wall of editor bias. No one is seriously disputing the face/premise that Mattix had sex, underage, with rock starts. There is plenty of evidence and reliable sourcing to those allegations and the artists in question. The issue is how much due weight should it deserve in their articles, and how it should be framed. The editorial bias here kicks in in that its a fact having sex (in the UK) with someone under 16 is rape. It doesnt matter if they consent or not, you can be prosecuted even if the person under 16 consents and doesnt want to make a complaint. The only defence is if you have a genuine belief they were over 16 and can make a credible argument for that in court. And it will almost certainly be in court today. 40+ years ago? Not so much. So editors want to frame it as rape. Which is a reasonable enough attitude. We have declared that children under 16 cant consent, so thats the hand we have dealt. The other side of the argument is that its a violation of NPOV to take a strict interpretation of today's current moral and legal framework to justify putting it in the harshest possible (although legally correct) light for incidents that happened decades ago in a cultural mindset where this behaviour was permitted. (Although if anyone thinks that 15 year old girls are not interested in sex these days, I hope you dont have daughters, as you have some nasty shocks coming.)

And this is where taking a neutral approach, leaving personal views aside and taking an analytical look at the references, in detail, *should* inform how the material is included and the due weight applied. Its clearly a fact that to everything regarding consent etc, Mattix is an extremely unreliable witness. Most of the better reliable sources are clear on this, and even the ones that are not give contradictory accounts. This doesnt mean it shouldnt be included, it just means that putting a particular spin on it is problematic. For someone who has a very long career in the public eye, who has never even had a whiff of being prosecuted legally over it, this is a one sentence inclusion with a couple of the better sources at the relevant point in their career timeline with a suitably neutral non-judgemental wording. "At this time X was alleged to have had sex with Y who was Z years old" and thats it. Because there will never be any agreement on the consent, absent any legal case there will never be any justification for a stronger label, and its a footnote in their career of absolutely no lasting impact. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Only in death: a minor is incapable of consenting to an adult, thats the whole point of statutory rape. It doesn't matter what Mattix says, if the act occurred it was nonconsensual by definition. The legal framework hasn't changed, the articles say that it was illegal at the time not that it was legal then but currently illegal. You've also only commented on part of the allegations, only one of the allegations was of child rape, the other was of the rape of an adult woman (and he in fact almost got prosecuted for it, "who has never even had a whiff of being prosecuted legally over it" is just a false statement). Also just to be clear nobody is framing it as rape, we've been very clear that these are alleged rapes which is the neutral wording. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

if the act occurred it was nonconsensual by definition This is the crux of the matter, at least for Bowie's article. Due to the inconsistencies in Mattix's story, with three possible dates and locations for their first sexual encounter, along with the disputed nature of it by other groupies active in the same scene at the time, it is unclear whether or not the act between Mattix and Bowie actually occurred. This is content that I think can be covered in sufficient detail in Mattix's article, but because of the uncertain nature of the allegations cannot be sufficiently covered in Bowie's article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence and reliable sourcing to those allegations and the artists in question. For Mattix and Jimmy Page, I would agree. For Mattix and Bowie however, even leaving aside the three variations of Mattix's recounting of the event in question, other groupies (Sable Starr, Pamela Des Barres) who were active in the scene at the time dispute that Mattix had any sort of sexual relationship with Bowie. While this is content that can be covered in sufficient detail to account for all of the factors that call the allegations into question in Mattix's article, I don't think this is content that can be adequately summarised in Bowie's article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Do they "dispute that Mattix had any sort of sexual relationship with Bowie"? I haven't seen a source which says that, all of the sources presented for their statements so far are from before 2016 so it wouldn't be possible for them to dispute an allegation first made in 2016. It would be especially hard for Starr who died in 2009. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The allegation doesn't originate in 2016. That is just Mattix's most recent and possibly most widely known recounting of it. There's at least four different accounts for their alleged first sexual encounter, with the earliest that I'm aware of being published in 1987. In order from oldest to newest:

A 1986 interview with Peter Gillman, published in the 1987 book Alias David Bowie: a biography, pages 334-335. In this version, Lori, and Sable Starr, had a chance meeting with Bowie at the Rainbow Restaurant on 9 March 1973. In this version, she and Bowie had their first sexual encounter alone that evening, after being invited back to Bowie's hotel room.
A 2010 VH1 documentary called Let's Spend the Night Together, no longer available online. This version is similar to the 1986 interview with Gillman, but omits Starr's involvement entirely. It also alleges that during the concert in Long Beach on 10 March 1973, Bowie shone a spotlight on Mattix and thanked her for being in attendance, though this does not match with any contemporary recordings of that concert.
Paul Trynka's 2011 book Starman: David Bowie - The Definitive Biography, page 209. In this version, Lori and Starr sneaked into Bowie's room at the Beverly Hills Hilton, in October 1972, after having previously been thrown out of Mick Ronson's room. According to this version, Bowie was initially tired, but eventually gave in to the advances of Mattix and Starr and had a threesome with them that evening.
The 2015 Thrillist interview. In this version, Mattix alleges that she first met Bowie in late October 1972 at Rodney Bingenheimer's English Disco, that Bowie asked to take her back to his hotel room, and she refused. Then when Bowie returned in March 1973 for the concert at Long Beach Arena, Bowie's security guard invited her to dinner. Mattix invited Starr to join her, and that they both had sex with Bowie later that evening in Bowie's hotel room.

In answer to your question of do any dispute that Mattix had any sort of sexual relationship with Bowie, the short answer is yes. In the 1997 book Please Kill Me: The uncensored Oral History of Punk (page 137-138), Sable Starr gives her account of when she first met and had sex with Bowie. In this retelling, Starr and Mattix first met with Bowie at the Rainbow in March 1973, but only Starr had sex with Bowie. Mattix was not present at the time, and Starr did not know where she was. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Mattix herself has given conflicting accounts for whether Bowie or Jimmy Page was her first sexual encounter. In an interview with Stephen Davis for Davis' 1985 book Hammer of the Gods: The Led Zeppelin Saga (pages 170-173), Mattix stated that her first sexual encounter was with Jimmy Page during the Led Zeppelin North American Tour 1972, with the encounter happening sometime around 25 June 1972. According to this interview, Mattix was then in a secret relationship with Page for the remainder of 1972, before it became public and for which photographic evidence exists in 1973. That relationship then continued until 1975, when Page started a relationship with Bebe Buell. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that looks like some pretty significant coverage to me... But none of it is a response to the Thrillist allegations which are what we cover in the article. We go with what the more recent reliable sources say, it really doesn't matter what a softball pop biography said in the 1980s. As far as NPOV is concerned it doesn't matter whether the stories are contradictory because it doesn't matter at all whether they are true. We cover all important points of view, we don't have any discretion to exclude significant points of view just because we personally disagree with them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

We go with what the more recent reliable sources say I don't know if that's the case here, and I'm fairly certain that's not what NPOV or RS states. If there is a policy that supports this, could you please link/quote from it? In this content, we're not writing about something like Bowie's sexuality, or gender identity, or health issues, or some other subject that is time relative and where more recently published sources are likely to be more representative of what was occurring in his life at that time. We're discussing something that allegedly happened in either 1972 or 73. If anything, one could I think successfully argue that more recent interviews, like the 2015 Thrillist interview, are less reliable than those given earlier, as the passage of time has a known and measurable effect on the reliability of a person's memories.

It would be a mistake to use the Thrillist account as the one true accounting of this. If Bowie's article is going to include the allegations from Mattix, then to meet the describe disputes, but not engage in them requirement in WP:VOICE, it must contain at minimum an accurate recounting of every version of the allegations by Mattix, because as can clearly be seen she has disputed her own retelling of this several times. Alongside that, that Sable Starr gave a different recounting of the version that Mattix told Gillman must also be included as juxtaposition. However to do this would be exceptionally lengthy in an already lengthy biography. This is I believe content that is best detailed in Mattix' article alone, as in that article sufficient space can be given to detail this in its entirety without putting Bowie's article into WP:SIZESPLIT territory. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Like sideswipe says, if we were to include Mattix in Bowie's article, we would have to contain at minimum an accurate recounting of every version of the allegations by Mattix, because as can clearly be seen she has disputed her own retelling of this several times. Yet you clearly disagree. You seem to have an obsession with needing a source that explicitly says "these claims are false", when in this very specific instance, that just won't happen. You need a whole bunch of other sources to justify why her stories don't match up, yet all that does is create burden (or as you say, "tangental" and "pointy"). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Note, this is in reply to my message at 05:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC). Putting it here because of the outdent.

With regards to the first paragraph, that is better sourced. It is a matter of record that Bowie faced a grand jury hearing in November 1987, and that the jury did not find sufficient evidence to indict. Paul Trynka did cover this briefly in his biography of Bowie (note, book is available for borrowing on archive.org), so it might be due for inclusion, especially if any of the other biographies of Bowie also touch on it. Do any of the other biographies of Bowie touch on it?

On the third paragraph, I had a hard time tracking down the source for Tony Zanetta's quotation, it might be this book by Dylan Jones, but the {{sfn}} doesn't give sufficient info to actually identify the book, as it doesn't actually have a corresponding anchor in the bibliography. Otherwise it seems like an OK paragraph, but it should only be included if, at minimum, the paragraph on the Nichols allegation is included, as it doesn't make sense otherwise. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Its in the text, "In an interview with journalist Dylan Jones, former MainMan employee Tony Zanetta argued: "No one talked about the age of the girls at the time. and it wasn't an issue at all. You can't judge 1972 by 2017 standards. There was a magazine called Star that was completely devoted to these girls, prepubescent groupies. It was as common as mud and nobody batted an eye." sourced to the article by Jones but the actual link to the article appears to be missing. You're almost certainly right that Jones's bio of Bowie is the source, but I can't find a digital copy to confirm. Perhaps @Zmbro: who added it[20] in can fill us in? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The only Bowie biographies I've found that touch on Mattix are Paul Trynka (casually brought up in a sentence with Sable Starr) and Dylan Jones, which is where I found the Tony Zanetta quote. I do not own Wendy Leigh's biography so I can't confirm if that has any info on either Mattix or Nichols. Trynka does have a few pages about the Nichols lawsuit; I added what he said in this edit. David Buckley also has a paragraph on the matter in Strange Fascination (2005, p. 382). He actually says that the lawsuit damaged his image briefly. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The difficulty on searching for biographies that contain content on Mattix is that, depending on the author she's listed under several variations of her name. Gillman's 1987 biography (linked above) and Trynka's 2011 biography has info on Mattix under the name Lori Mattix. In Stephen Davis' 1985 biography of Led Zeppelin (linked above), she's named as Lori Maddox. In McNeil and McCain's book (linked above) she's Laurie Maddox. In Pamela Des Barres memoir, she's named as both Lori Mattix and Lori Lightning. There may be other variations I've not found. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

So all of these bios talk about Mattix and yet our current article doesn't contain even a single mention of her? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but only for a page or two at most, sometimes it's only a couple of sentences spread over two pages. In the sum total of Bowie's biography, the Mattix allegations are I'm afraid pretty inconsequential. The Nichols' lawsuit (the one that went to a grand jury) seems to have had a larger impact, both on Bowie and on those writing about Bowie. In my comments above I've linked to copies of the books that are freely available for borrowing through the Internet Archive library, along with the relevant page numbers, so you or any other editor can read what the various journalists have said. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I should also clarify because it's not instantly obvious. Des Barres memoirs do contain more info about Mattix than the other sources, but most of it is about her more widely publicised relationship with Jimmy Page, and broader involvement in the groupie scene during the early 70s.

The content that relates to Bowie amounts to three paragraphs on pages 178-180 (there's a large photo on page 179 that takes up most of the page), which are all quotations from Mattix. This version has some similarities to the version Mattix recounted to the Thrillist, however the order of some events are changed, particularly surrounding how Bowie, Starr, and Mattix had a threesome. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

More proof that we can't really trust what Mattix says since her story changes so much. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Why does it matter from an NPOV perspective whether we can trust Mattix or not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zmbro: What Nichols lawsuit? Do you mean the criminal case brought before the grand jury and declined or was there a lawsuit after it? You also don't appear to add any text in the linked edit, you actually remove text and change the source. You trimmed Bowie, who was 40 at the time, denied the allegations, calling them "ridiculous" and a "ploy for attention". down to Bowie denied the allegations. and swapped the Philadelphia Enquirer for Trynka. Is that really all Trynka said? Was it just "Bowie denied the allegations" repeatedly for multiple pages? And why remove the The Philadelphia Inquirer? Did you confuse it for the National Inquirer? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

~~Sure the criminal case.~~ And well, if you had read my edit summary and looked at the actual url you would have seen that the Inquirer source linked to the newspaper's home page and not an article discussing the case. So, I removed the quotes as Trynka did not have those and changed the info to match the updated source. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Does Trynka call it a lawsuit or a criminal case? I'm curious as to what is in those "multiple pages" because "Bowie denied the accusations" summarizes a paragraph, not multiple pages. As for the PI it looks like it should have been an additional cite to the Mic feature piece "In 1987, 30-year-old Wanda Nichols accused Bowie of forcing himself on her after a concert tour stopover in Dallas. Bowie, who was 40 at the time, vehemently denied the allegations, calling them "ridiculous," and a "ploy for attention," according to the Philadelphia Inquirer." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Does Trynka call it a lawsuit or a criminal case? On page 409 of Trynka's biography it says [Bowie] had something much more threatening on his mind - a lawsuit from a woman named Wanda Lee Nichols who accused Bowie of sexually assaulting her in a Dallas hotel room on October 9, 1987.

The multiple pages in Trynka's biography about the Nichols' lawsuit amount to three paragraphs in total, spread over two pages. Most of the content is discussing the emotional impact the lawsuit had on Bowie at the time, through interviews and recollections of those who were close to him, and how as a result of this he found a much-needed confidante in the form of Sara Terry, press agent for Glass Spider.

As I've said a couple of times now, I've provided links to each of the books which are freely available for borrowing through the Internet Archive's library. You can read it yourself if you desire. Honestly, I would highly recommend you read at least the pages numbers I've provided in my previous replies, as I think it would help immensely with your understanding of the content as a whole. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Now we're back to the original question... Is there both a lawsuit and criminal case, not a criminal case at all, or is Trynka an unreliable source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

From reading the UPI source that was originally in the article, there was both a criminal lawsuit and a civil lawsuit. Trynka appears to cover the criminal suit, as the third paragraph on page 410 mentions the grand jury's failure to indict. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Nichols sued, meaning lawsuit. You obviously confused me with your neglect to do what sideswipe suggests and to read the source that's available for free online. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

What confused me was that the original language added ignored the lawsuit completely. I think you're wrong and Sideswipe9th is right, there is both a criminal case and a civil case not just a civil case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a lack of familiarity with the US legal system but there is no such thing as a "criminal lawsuit." Lawsuit means civil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Criminal lawsuit that might be technically incorrect, insofar as a formal name. However informally criminal lawsuit does seem to be used in reference to the US legal system. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That is a student created entry, notice how if you click on it you go to [21] which doesn't use the term even once. Ok so we have coverage of two cases here, do you think that either is due for coverage on wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If you prefer, I can also point out several US based attorney offices ([22] [23] [24] [25]) that also use the term on their respective websites.

On whether Nichols' cases are due for inclusion in Bowie's article, I'll need to review the biographies again (too many threads in this conversation to keep everything in my mind), but on memory I'm tending towards no. The only biography that seems to have gone into any depth about it focuses more on the impact it had on Bowie's relationships, than on the case itself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking about what's in the popular press biographies? Due weight is based on coverage in all reliable sources, not just popular press biographies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It's for much the same reason why we prefer journal articles, and university level textbooks over content published in newspapers and magazines. Biographies like the ones we're discussing, tend to represent some of the highest quality sources available about a person. When we measure weight, we do so not only against the breadth of sources on a topic, but also the depth. Biographies by their very nature go into a lot more depth than almost any other sort of source, and the amount of detail they devote to a subtopic naturally informs how much detail we should devote, even if we wind up presenting it differently based on the sources we have available. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Popular press biographies are at the same level or lower than regular media coverage, unless I'm mistaken none of these bios were published by a university press. So you're saying that based on breadth of sources its due but on depth of sources its not? I don't believe one of those trumps the other, we have feature coverage in the press not passing mentions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying that based on breadth of sources its due but on depth of sources its not? No. I'm saying that I think you're making an argument based solely on the breadth of sources. I never said that I agreed with it.

With respect to due weight, I believe I've better elaborated my thoughts on the issues relating to this content in Bowie's article over here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If my argument was based on breadth and not depth I wouldn't be repeatedly emphasizing the feature articles... These are full length, thats not passing coverage it is significant coverage. We've certainly got depth, the question is actually whether we have breadth if thats how you choose to phrase it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zmbro: only just remembered about this, Leigh's biography is also available for borrowing through the Internet Archive's library. There's a couple of sentences on Mattix, under the name Lori Lightning on pages 161 and 162. And there's a short paragraph on Nichols on page 228. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I had wondered if Leigh did. Reading the paragraph, it seems to support the notion that yes, Bowie slept with Mattix first, then had Sable Starr join in. I wonder where she got that quote from Mattix. Reading on, I also notice that amounts of sex with groupies Leigh attributed to "massive amounts of cocaine", although I'm not sure if that's accurate. I might have read once that Bowie's cocaine addiction started during the Ziggy tour, but did not take real shape until the Diamond Dogs era. I wonder where she got that too. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I suspect Leigh got the info from Mattix. From what I've read elsewhere, Starr was very unlikely to have given an interview on this to Leigh, with the McNeil and McCain book being one of the few interviews Starr ever gave on this subject, and I don't recall seeing Starr mentioned in the thanks/sources for Leigh's book. There's a few other anachronisms that seem to have cropped up in other versions of Mattix' story, like Bowie having removed his eyebrows when they met in October '72, which based on photos didn't happen until late in '73, or Lennon and Ono being present in March '73, which according to other more reliable sources said happened in September '74. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Leigh certainly paints the Nichols situation in a more negative light towards her. Yet Leigh also says the dispute took two years to resolve, which I find hard to believe, as according to UPI, it was resolved the same year (1987). So Leigh helps but at the same time should be taken with a grain of salt; at the very least paired with other sources. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The source says the criminal case was resolved the same year, the civil case appears to have continued into '88 [26]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one commented on this, so I'm posting this here as well as on article talk:

This comment by Horse Eye's Back on the NPOV thread pretty much sums up what we're dealing with here:

"Why does it matter from an NPOV perspective whether we can trust Mattix or not?"diff

That is shocking, and reveals what we have here. Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is A tendentious, disruptive editor, a WP:POVPUSHer who has an agenda that is not based on the truth. This user wants to smear this bio subject, and does not care if the the charges are true. I don't think anyone here "hates" Lori Mattix. But by her own words, and the words and photos of her contemporaries, she's not a reliable witness. But that doesn't matter to this user's agenda. This user has no consensus to continue this. This is well past the point of absurdity. It's been going in circles since it started. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

(same response as article talk page) We publish that which has been previously published by reliable sources, we explicitly do not publish the "truth." See Wikipedia:Verifiability "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[a] If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This lost content dispute should have never been brought to the NPOV.

No, you are WP:Wikilawyering and obfuscating. She's not reliable, due to all the conflicting versions she's told, and the fact that women whose stories haven't varied wildly have stayed consistent in contradicting her. She is the base source, so nothing that comes from her is either WP:RS or WP:V. WP:DROPTHESTICK already. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

On reading through this BLPN post and the talk page (which shows that this thread is mostly rehashing stuff from the talk,) I think the answer to the question asked is yes, it's sound editorial judgement to exclude the alleged rape based on the preponderance of sources and the coverage therein. This smacks of tendentious forum shopping because Horse didn't like the answers they got on the talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

There are two women who have made allegations, which one are you talking about? @David Fuchs: same question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Lori Mattix - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

And what about the other woman? Do you think she should be mentioned? We appear to be approaching such a consensus on the article talk page. See Talk:David Bowie#Should Wanda Nichols be added?. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This should be done on article talk, not here - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This section is about the exclusion of both alleged raped, not Mattix's allegations in particular. Do you think it is NPOV complaint to exclude all mention of all of the alleged rapes? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

And you are being an aggressive jerk both on that page and here. The entire process would clearly be a lot less fractious if you weren't involved. So take it down a notch. Reread WP:BLUDGEON, assume some good faith, and stop acting like there's a grand conspiracy of Bowie fanboys and girls out to get you. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I need not imagine it. "Good work stepping up on the WP:ICANTHEARYOU user ignoring the sources. Let me know if you need help with that, as well. My email is also open." [27]

Responding on some points made, just meeting wp:rs means meeting some minimal criteria. RS noticeboard is a place that help determine the strength in the context of the text which it is supporting. And in this case that and editor discussions address whether it meets the special higher bar of strength of sourcing for putting such a thing into a BLP. North8000 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the OP, I think that even Andy's strong criticism was being kind. The OP reads like saying that the editors who think differently are doing so on the basis of "that sources be damned, the women are liars" North8000 (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't have a single source which says that these allegations are true or false they just say they exist and most likely can never be resolved but regardless have had a significant impact on the legacy and perception of the accused, multiple editors have asserted that these allegations (by two living women against a dead man) are false. How would you phrase that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the depth of knowledge on the coverage and subject to answer. If you want me to I'll take a deeper dive there and then answer. North8000 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Take as deep a dive as you want, I kicked a bigger hornets nest than I thought I was kicking. Consider that I was in your position vis-a-vis Bowie depth of knowledge less than a week ago and go from there. My opening here is definitely phrased poorly, look at the timestamp... Its as much tequila as Horse Eye talking. I thought "allegations against a dead guy" I've done that before, I verified the stuff at Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi when I spit the page off... Forgot that while Gaddafi is almost universally despised and has almost no fans on wiki David Bowie might be the exact opposite... Allegations should in theory all be handled the same no matter who makes them or who they're made against, but theory is theory and consensus is consensus. I'm not sure why its a surprise that dispassionate editing is apparently easier with mass murdering dictators than rock stars but here I sit surprised and apparently deeply naive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Well in your explanation about your OP, that is the coolest response I've ever seen. I wonder if there is a barnstar for that? :-) North8000 (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

its a fact having sex (in the UK) with someone under 16 is rape - Please see Statutory rape#United Kingdom:

The term 'rape' therefore is used only with regard to children under 13; consensual sexual penetration of a child above 13 but under 16 is defined as 'Sexual activity with a child'

(referring to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but undoubtedly the law was tightened by that act, not relaxed). Not to defend such activity, of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign

I am growing increasingly concerned that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign is being exploited by some editors as a way to boost the candidate's profile in the 2024 United States presidential election. I have tried repeatedly to find some common ground on more contentious edits, with limited success. I have even tried offering advice on how to make information better sourced and more encyclopedic in tone, which led to a protracted and acrimonious conversation that left me feeling unsettled. If you read the dialogue, you will see that the editor Ergglebergglrflorg even went so far as to insinuate that the article should be used to amplify Kennedy's candidacy:

You listed several negative pieces with (presumably) millions of combined readers. I listed several pieces with millions of CONFIRMED combined viewers, and coupled that with polls showing that as much as half of the population of the country views him favorably.
But you are dogmatically committed to censorship, and so threaten to revert anything that gets posted about his positions.
I am genuinely curious, why? Are you worried his actual positions will cause him to gain traction, do you genuinely think that he has no real support and thus any source speaking favorably of him does not count as 'reliable'? I am trying to understand if you are working in good faith or not here.

Beyond the fact that how many people have viewed any particular source is laughably irrelevant, this kind of thinking suggests the editor is actively trying to use the article as a WP:SOAPBOX rather than write an informative and neutral encyclopedia article. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It is known that Kennedy (or people working for him) have been or are paying a media company to whitewash Wikipedia articles: "S&E Media was retained by Team Kennedy to make these changes."(Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_3#Libelous_material_has_been_deleted) Edit: to clarify this is merely intended as an FYI for people looking into whether or not there are POV issues with the article. I have no reason whatsoever to assume that Ergglebergglrflorg is a paid editor or in any way involved in RFK Jr's electoral campaign. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you alledgeding that I am receiving payment to post political positions of this candidate, complete with citations showing him stating these positions?

I like the candidate, I will likely vote for the candidate, and I think it is reasonable to expect that the candidate's verifiable positions be shared with the public. Instead I see a concerted attempt to scrub the page of any popular positions the candidate holds, and leave only the most controversial (vaccine skeptic) positions Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ergglebergglrflorg No. That is not what I meant at all. But I see how it can come across like that, and I'm sorry for that. It was merely intended as an FYI for the OP that this is something they may want to look out for. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that you are a paid editor or in any way affiliated with RFK Jr's campaign. And I have not looked at your edits and therefore have no opinion on whether or not they violated neutrality or were in any way problematic. Again, sorry for expressing myself in a way that could be taken as an allegation against you. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No offense taken, I appreciate your transparency. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

A person who identified himself as an employee of a media company, who provided both his own name and that of his company, removed material he considered libellous. Multiple editors then reversed his deletion and told him that any claims of libel should be made by email.

To say, "It is known that Kennedy (or people working for him) have been or are paying a media company to whitewash Wikipedia articles" is a gross distortion of what happened.

The issue here seems to be one of Impartial tone. We should avoid emotive, pejorative and ambiguous phrasing while stating widely known facts.

Contrary to what some editors may think, writing in a partisan tone is not only unpersuasive but can backfire since readers are quick to pick up on bias. TFD (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This is what I am saying TFD.

I have been alleged to be a sockpuppet, and change showing Kennedy's more popular positions has been heavily contested, and now it is being implied I am a payed spokesperson. Woko even claimed I was a threat to his personal safety, writing:

"I acknowledge that you did later apologize for the remark. However, for my own personal safety, I have notified administrators of the conversation. Hopefully, we can find greater collaboration going forward."

He claims I was out of line to ask me about his politics, then implied that I am a paid spokesperson. It is galling and unfair beyond belief. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"Beyond the fact that how many people have viewed any particular source is laughably irrelevant."

It is not irrelevant. My point was that Kennedy publicly, and in front of a large audience, stated his positions. I provided time-stamped transcriptions of those descriptions of the positions.

You then said "WP:UNDUE". Or you said that I am not impartial, when you have called the candidate 'pro-disease' revealing your great distaste for him. I was rude for calling you 'dogmatically committed to censorship', and apologized, but then you made multiple false allegations about me, continued to remove cited transcriptions, and claimed I was a threat to your safety.

It is not a balanced way of covering a presidential candidate, and a popular one, as I pointed out in the Public Reception section of his campaign page, citing a Time magazine article. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not how we do it, and for good reason. Relying on primary sources, particularly biased primary sources, tends to cause all sorts of issues. Candidates may mislead or be disingenuous or outright lie about their positions, or they may avoid (or biased sources may not ask) questions about controversial or unpopular positions. And editors may want to analyze those positions or cherry-pick which positions to mention. As is usually the case, we should follow our core content policies here, summarizing what reliable, independent sources say and balancing our content according to the prominence of those viewpoints. Woodroar (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect Woodroar that IS how we do it. Let me cite Wikipedia on identifying and using primary sources

"An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name."

If Kennedy publicly states his position on Ukraine, it is reasonable to assume that is indeed his position on Ukraine, because who would know better than Kennedy? This precisely meets what is described in the Wikipedia passage on this topic.

Kennedy's positions as a political candidate should be public knowledge, and his positions are consistent across dozens of interviews. All of those interviews are primary sources. Any paper which directly quoted him would also be a primary source. "Primary isn't another word for bad".

Now, if someone else pops up with an instance of Kennedy contradicting himself, and stating a position that contradicted his previous position, or acting in a way which contradicted that opinion, they could freely post it and note that Kennedy might not be a reliable source of information about his own positions. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"If Kennedy publicly states his position on Ukraine, it is reasonable to assume that is indeed his position on Ukraine, because who would know better than Kennedy?" If only that was true when it comes to politicians. Unfortunately politicians are often the worst source for what their positions are. But they are of course a good source for what they say their positions are. It's important to keep that in mind when using primary sources and accordingly couch statements in some variation of "x said that p". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to say, "Kennedy said in [Twitter Interview, podcast #1, podcast #2] that he believes X" but every time I try to edit the page in question it gets reverted, for "Undue".

There seems to be a belief that even though the candidate has 49% favorability and a substantial chunk of the primary vote captured according to leading pollsters, only his vaccine stance has merit to be discussed on Wikipedia. I would argue most of the people who want to vote for the guy (and there are a lot of them, per polling) are not interested in that as much as the policies he is most vocal about.

Those policies and issues deserve a voice on his campaign page. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The classical counterargument is "we don't decide what is important/notable/due, reliable sources do". There is definitely truth to that. But the article in its current form is definitely unbalanced. Fortunately some sources have started to look at positions beyond vaccines. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"we don't decide what is important/notable/due, reliable sources do"

But we decide what reliable sources are, and you're either in or you're out, buck ;)

Personally, I think that often legacy media is out of touch with what the public thinks or believes. Joe Rogan gets more view than CNN by an order of magnitude, but CNN is reliable and Rogan is not, even though we can fact check either and find dozens of instances of misinformation.

Not to sound like an old man (I'm in my twenties, I just sound that way) but there was a time when journalists would undermine the status quo by challenging dominant narratives, and I am seeing less and less of that on the New York Times and WaPo. What happens is a captive media running a state line, and it doesn't want to print something distasteful to the guys in charge because it would lose access to its inside sources.

So you get a milk-toast establishment consensus echo chamber, and the more lively and groundbreaking discussions happen with more people, outside of the realm of 'reliability'. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

COnspiracy theories will win you no friends here. 2603:7000:C00:8B66:D568:EAD5:4869:DEB6 (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

To elaborate, per core content policies:

"Wikipedia does not use "truth" as a criterion for inclusion. Instead, it aims to account for different, notable views of the truth."

Surely a candidate's own statements on their political positions, as expressed to millions in the public via a speech or campaign webpage, qualify as a notable view of truth? Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not as though we can't find reliable sources discussing Kennedy's views on various issues; for example Epstein, Reid J.; McFadden, Alyce; Qiu, Linda (June 5, 2023). "Robert Kennedy Jr., With Musk, Pushes Right-Wing Ideas and Misinformation". The New York Times.. BD2412 T 03:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Except that is analysis and hence fails rs. While NYT news reporting is rs, their political opinions should not be reported as fact. TFD (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that RS have factually characterized RFK's positions as right-wing misinformation. That's not an attributed political opinion. That is factual if sufficiently attested in RS. This link posted by BD2412 does not appear to be an op-ed. It appears to be contemporary political analysis which would be a secondary RS. Andre🚐 18:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It is bizarre to me that the man can cite Kennan, Bill Burns, and Bill Perry's documented opposition to a NATO Ukraine in an ad-hoc speech, and it doesn't make the cut, but some other site characterizing his views as 'misinformation' will. Politics is war by other means, and I guess the same goes for Wikipedia articles xD Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you reply to Ergglebergglrflorg's question? Are you accuseing them of being a paid employee of RFK Jr. and do you have any proof? TFD (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

They did already TFD, and said that they weren't accusing me and apologized for the confusion.

Now Woko did accuse me of being a sock puppet, and launched an investigation. After which some check user (also Woko?) confirmed it, but I am not and have requested to see any evidence against me. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, I checked the investigation and I went from being a confirmed sock puppet to a suspected one, almost as if someone arbitrarily confirmed that I was a sock puppet, then realized it might blow up in their face... Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This page lists you as a "confirmed sockpuppet", but that's just something anyone can write. This is the official "investigation" where a CheckUser may or may not look into ip addresses and other data. But so far that doesn't seem to have happened. And Woko is not a CheckUser, so it would have to be done by someone independent. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see, so someone said I was confirmed as a sockpuppet, by a check user, but that was just someone claiming that.

Thanks for clarifying, I was beginning to feel conspired against, as I believed a check user had 'confirmed' allegations I know to be untrue :P Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The category was deleted by an admin and the sockpuppet investigation was closed after a CheckUser found the accounts to be unrelated. That should put this to rest. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hierarchy of metropolitan areas in Malaysia

There is an ongoing dispute with Malaysia Skyline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over whether Greater Penang Conurbation or Iskandar Malaysia has the larger population, as the second largest metropolitan area in Malaysia.

According to the national 2020 census, Greater Penang has more than 2.83 million in population, while Iskandar Malaysia with its 5 local councils have a total of 2.2 million.

Greater Penang's population breakdown could be found in the page Greater Penang Conurbation itself, with a similar table created for Iskandar Malaysia's page.

The List of local governments in Malaysia page has the population figures obtained from the said nationwide census. Consistent with all other national or subnational entities on Wikipedia, population figures should, by default, follow each entity's official census as the reliable source.

Malaysia Skyline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly pushed his claims that Iskandar Malaysia is the second largest metropolitan area in Malaysia, with no solid evidence to back it up. Corncaker (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I won't join the discussion here unless you withdraw the unreasonable accusation you made above. You clearly understand who is the one to edit without evidence and rationality. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

As what I have said, you definitely have to try to be open-minded and contemplate other people's opinion, rather than sticking to your own stereotype and avoid discussing views outside of your stereotype, otherwise the discussion would be very hard to carry on. Trust me. :) Malaysia Skyline (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Malaysia Skyline Where are you reading stereotype into this? I see comments by Corncaker related to sourced data from a census. —C.Fred (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that one s/he edited is based on sources. But perhaps you should read the discussions in the talk page and you will know what are the other aspects the editor keeps on avoiding on mentioning and refusing to accept others' opinion. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

For instance, Iskandar Malaysia's agglomeration territory had been expanded by the federal government as a finalized decision in 2019, but the editor kept ignoring it. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Another stereotype is, the editor insisting that Iskandar Malaysia is equivalent to JB metropolitan region, but in fact the latter should be far beyond the former. JB is just part of Singapore-Johor-Batam metropolitan. The editor keeps ignoring this which makes it hard for us to come to a consensus. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Malaysia Skyline I see a content dispute over census boundaries and definitions of metropolitan areas then. I don't see anything related to stereotypes. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, my bad :(

I may have used the wrong word. Let's continue... Malaysia Skyline (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Malaysia Skyline Then your next step, it seems, should be to 1) provide sources to back up the metropolitan boundaries you mention and that they are in general usage and 2) demonstrate why weight should be given to a trans-national region's population when ranking populations of regions otherwise within a single nation. —C.Fred (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

1) The Singapore-Johor-Batam metropolitan area is not suggested by me. It had already been well established by the three governments two decades ago. See Sijori Growth Triangle.

2) In fact, there is still no defined metropolitan boundary for JB within a single a nation. Iskandar Malaysia itself is not a metropolitan, it was meant to be an special economic zone (like Hong Kong) when it was established by the federal government in 2006. For example, Hong Kong as a special econonmic zone, is part of the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area, HK is never a standalone metro area per se. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar Malaysia is not a metro area, which is just like East Coast Economic Region, Northern Corridor Economic Region in Malaysia. Thay are economic zones, not metro areas. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Malaysia Skyline So since the underlying issue is metropolitan areas in Malaysia, and you have stated that neither SIJORI nor JB have boundaries exclusively in Malaysia, then may we take it you agree that neither should be part of any consideration about ranking population in Malaysia? —C.Fred (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), just an update of the dispute. It seems that after your last input, not only there was no response from Malaysia Skyline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that user has also continued with assertions on the Iskandar Malaysia and Johor Bahru pages about being one of the largest agglomerations in the region, eventhough a related discussion on this topic (in which that user is also involved) concluded otherwise.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Town,_Penang#Should_we_update_the_2010_population_data_to_2019/20's_data?).

Since that user continues with the refusal to cooperate and continue discussions, shall this issue be brought up to other noticeboards for WP admin's attention? This sort of uncooperative attitude to seek a consensus may cause another edit war. Corncaker (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Also bringing to your attention Malaysia Skyline's increasingly erratic and aggresive behaviour in the same talk page discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Town,_Penang#Should_we_update_the_2010_population_data_to_2019/20's_data? Corncaker (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not the forum for any (further) discussion of MS's behavior, since you have opened a thread at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (WP:ANI#Increasingly erratic and aggressive behaviour from Malaysia Skyline). —C.Fred (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for overlooking the notifications, yes, in that case neither of the two can be considered. I will continue to participate in the discussion in the talkpage. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"Philanthropist" in the first sentence of bios for people not notable for philanthropy.

Basically every article for any billionaire we have calls them "philanthropist" in the first sentence of the lead, even if it's not part of their main source of notability. Many of them also contain sections devoted to philanthropy that are sourced mostly or entirely to primary sources or to passing mentions in other sources. While there seems to be at least some agreement that this is inappropriate, taking it out has proven difficult, especially for any politically-active billionaires, because it's become a problem in enough articles that people will just point to others. I feel that there should be a widespread removal effort (at least from the first sentence of the lead, where it is almost never justified.) And, of course, the elephant in the room is that the widespread use of the term is likely at least somewhat influenced by COI editing - it's likely that COI editors know that any significant donations will get at least some coverage, which they use to cram it into the lead despite being minimal aspects of the subject's notability overall. But to start widespread removals, it'd probably be useful to first at least write an essay about WP:PHILANTHROPIST to guide them and reach some sort of rough consensus that they're good guidelines, and maybe even add it to the MOS somewhere as something to be cautious for. Some possible points to touch on and to guide a removal effort:

The term should generally not be mentioned in the first sentence of a biography unless it's part of the subject's primary source of notability, ie. the thing that makes them famous and something that basically all coverage of them mentions in that context. If there's something else that is clearly more central and has more coverage, or if there's significant coverage of them that doesn't mention their philanthropy at all, it generally shouldn't be in the first sentence, even if coverage is substantial. See MOS:FIRST's Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject.
The term should generally be mentioned anywhere in the lead, and should generally not get a section devoted to it, if the only sources are primary, passing mentions, or non-WP:SUSTAINED mentions of individual donations without connecting it to a larger reputation for philanthropy. Significant focus on philanthropy in a bio article, and mentioning it in the lead, requires either WP:SUSTAINED, independent, secondary focus on individual highly-noteworthy donations; or significant coverage of the subject as a philanthropist, independent of any particular donations.
Primary sourcing for donations should generally not be used at all, especially from the recipient of a donation (because the recipient has a financial incentive to reward its donors and because it is customary to announce all donations, such primary coverage has no real meaning.) Limited, non-WP:SUSTAINED secondary coverage of individual donations, or passing mentions of general philanthropy that do not treat it as a significant part of the subject's overall biography, can be used for similarly brief or passing mentions in an article, but should be used sparingly, not in the lead or for entire sections.
Obituaries should be used cautiously (see my argument for this in WP:OBITUARIES), because they are often intentionally written in an effort to eulogize the subject and with a non-neutral tone; this means that they might give philanthropy in particular more emphasis than it really has in overall coverage. If only obituaries emphasize someone's philanthropy then excessive focus on it is probably undue.
Excessive focus on philanthropy, and especially an excessive focus on philanthropy cited heavily to primary sources that editors were unlikely to come across naturally, should be taken as a possible indicator of WP:CIO editing or that (regardless of reason) the article has become promotional in nature and needs larger review.

Anyway, that's a lot and I know it'll take some time to reach any sort of agreement, but does that look like at least a decent outline for an essay on caution regarding "philanthropist" and, eventually, moving forwards with efforts to trim down its usage. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any extant examples of this in actual articles to look at where you feel the philanthropist label is being misused? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Some possible articles to consider: John C. Malone, Wang Jianlin, Ram Shriram, Tony Robbins, Sheldon Adelson. In many of them their philanthropy is worth mentioning somewhere in the article, certainly; but in none of them does it seem like part of the primary definition of the people in question to the point where it would make sense in the lead sentence, and several of them rely heavily on sources with the problems I outlined above to play up their philanthropy. More can be found with a search for and philanthropist. There are some that are trickier - my intuition is that we're overselling philanthropy on Michael Bloomberg overall; the coverage is certainly there, but looking at how much of the article it covers it's disproportionate to his actual source of notability (as mayor and as a businessman.) Things like that would require article-by-article discussions, which the essay I'm talking about would be just guidance for. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:DEFINING is guidance for categories, but I wonder if it might have some applicability to opening sentences too. Are there many cases where we would want to construct an opening sentence featuring characteristics that were not defining? This could go much further than just philanthropy. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

We do run into a comparable problem from the other side where people try to add ridiculous wordings like "author, actor, and convicted felon" to anyone who is convicted of a felony. Those tend to not be as much of a problem because of WP:BLP, though. --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone; even people who shouldn't be editing encyclopedias. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

IMO this is an issue with RS overusing the term not us, if a RS says "philanthropist" its kosher but of course we shouldn't be describing anyone as a philanthropist just because they've made donations... We actually need a RS to say that they're a philanthropist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Even when RSes use the term, we have some leeway in terms of how we interpret and weight them. My assertion is that passing mentions, obituaries, non-WP:SUSTAINED coverage of individual donations, and primary or non-independent sources should never be enough to put it in the first sentence of the lead (where it often ends up residing), probably shouldn't have it in the lead at all, and should be used only cautiously and in a limited way in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Professional wrestling

Mostly due to the fact of this editor "Kurzon" that has completely hijacked the article. It's very opinionated (adding the fact he prefers "authentic wrestling" over pro wrestling), too much fluff, irrelevant sections, using several words such as fake, authentic, etc, to diminish the medium. I'm surprised no Wiki admins have stepped in. It's clearly against Wikipedia's neutral point of view agenda. Everyone is aware of pro wrestling's scripted nature. Not every sentence needs to mention that, how other forms of wrestling are better, and comparing it to other forms. I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this.

Like how you keep bringing up the term "professional" has some form of "misnomer" that the medium is called professional wrestling and other forms of wrestling are not. The term doesn't come from skill level, but whether you were paid. Pro wrestlers were always paid for their matches, whereas amateurs were not, that's why it's called pro wrestling. It has zero to do with skills or abilities. Also there are many wrestling matchtypes with armed combat, so the whole medium doesn't represent unarmed combat, as you state in the first line. I don't think the term "mock combat" is the best way to represent the medium, as "mockery" can be interpreted as not a flattering way to represent wrestling. The part of kayfabe is brought up in the lead, the rest of the article shouldn't then need to constantly bring up its scripted nature. It's like if in the Avengers movie article or an aricle about the Harry Potter play I kept saying "... did this but it's fake as in authentic..." ... it's not consistent. I understand it can be complicated as there is nothing like pro wrestling in the world. It's both sport and entertainment, and often the line is blurred so you can't completely compare it to full theater productions or any sport. This article has unfortunately always been a mess but it's only gotten worse. And it's unfortunate as pro wrestling has a long, rich, and WELL documented history so I don't know how it hasn't been properly documented as other sports, narratives, or other wrestling articles. RedWater14 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Kurzon also just added, showing his edits are clear bias and opinion based, Amateur wrestling and real wrestling are effectively synonyms in America because real wrestling is not played in a professional context. I explained this in a section you deleted. It's not the "professional" part that bugs me, it's the "wrestling" part. A lot of pro "wrestlers" don't even know how to do real wrestling, Hulk Hogan being a case in point. Kurzon (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC) RedWater14 is not being constructive. I'm the first editor in ages who is attempting to improve this article, and RedWater14 does nothing but revert my edits instead of collaborating on them. Would he rather I vanish and let this article rot for some more years? Let me have a go at it, there's nothing wrong with mistakes along the way. Wikipedia is a perpetual work-in-progress."

My comment: It has been called pro wrestling since it's inception and Wikipedia is based on factual, neutral and sourced evidence, not what you think about a subject. Many people don't like soccer and even call that a "fake sport." People even claim that the UFC is rigged and scripted. Does that change the fact of it's nature? No. RedWater14 (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

"Fake" doesn't mean bad. Kurzon (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith‎

There seems to be a real crisis of NPOV brewing at Ben Roberts-Smith‎, where the first sentence, which is supposed to be the most strictly NPOV one in the article, now describes the subject with the label of "war criminal" for losing a civil defamation case in which media outlets labelled him as such. Now a morally bankrupt disgrace to his uniform and a cold-blooded murderer the subject may very well be (the judge in the case has more or less said so), but 1) he's not criminally convicted of any above, let alone having gone through any kind of war crimes tribunal, and 2) Slobodan Milošević, who was actually tried at the Hague and found guilty of war crimes and genocide does not have "war criminal" in the first sentence of his bio. Ditto Omar al-Bashir. Something is rotten, and IMO it's the Ben Roberts-Smith‎ page. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

What specifically did the judge say? Did he himself use that language or is this something that the RS are reading into his ruling? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this ABC piece is one of the clearest in laying out exactly what the judge said. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Please note that Milošević was not "actually tried at the Hague and found guilty of war crimes and genocide" there is a massive amount of nuance to that story which likely explains why the lead is set up as it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It may have been posthumous in Milošević's case. But regardless, the point is that there are plenty of individuals that are, let's say, far further along the way criminal scale than this ignominious Australian soldier that are not headlined as was criminals in this manner. (For that matter Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. are not emblazoned as such.) And pertinent to this noticeboard, a firm declaration along those lines is present only in the barest minority of the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It didn't happen at all in Milošević's case, he was found posthumously to be responsible for related crimes. You appear to be comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing heads of state who while responsible for great crimes did not personally commit them in the trigger pulling sense with a rogue soldier who killed prisoners and innocents against expectations and orders. You appear to be conflating war crimes and crimes against humanity in a rather inelegant way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, not really the point. Take any of the Nuremberg trials#Defendants - very explicitly war crimes trials: take Franz von Papen, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Frick - all convicted, and yet none say 'war criminal' in their first sentences. I'm not making a complex point here. There is an inconsistency here a mile wide. Convicted war criminals do not flag their war criminality as prominently as this Australian who failed a defamation case. And that's not even the crux of the NPOV issue, which is that the balance of extant sources to date on Ben Roberts-Smith do not say: "Ben Roberts-Smith, the Australian war criminal ..." Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems like more apples and oranges. Note for example that Von Happen was actually *acquitted* of the war crimes charges. He was found responsible for crimes that the Nazis committed within Germany. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That's one of three. Also, I'm not sure what your point is. Mine should be simple. Choose your own prior war criminal examples if your prefer and see if you can find any with 'war criminal' in the first sentence; I think you too may struggle. And then ask yourself: why is Ben Roberts-Smith the first biography on Wikipedia, out of all the war criminals past and present, to be deserving of this first sentence designation? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Instead of asking myself that incredibly leading question I would ask myself: how was it determined that Ben Roberts-Smith is the first biography on Wikipedia, out of all the war criminals past and present, to be deserving of this first sentence designation? We seem to have it in the first sentence of similar GWOT people... Charles Graner, Lynndie England, Sabrina Harman, John E. Hatley, Frank Wuterich etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Setting aside the difference that these individuals were all prosecuted, the format here, main occupation + description of associated malfeasance, is far more akin to what I incidentally attempted to edit the page to resemble. The case is clearly noteworthy, and you'll notice that my first sentence still contained 'war crimes'; it's the modification of this into the nounal 'war criminal' as if it's a secondary occupation that is stylistically abnormal - as well as also only tentatively supported by sources, hence the listing here at the NPOV noticeboard. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, did you mention that at all in your OP? I don't see anything about where in the sentence it is being the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You've been on the page and can see it as well as anyone else. Nowhere have I suggested that mentioning the defamation case in relation to war crimes was undue. I have stated from the beginning that what I take issue with is the label of 'war criminal', which is not the language of most sources, which tend to couch the story in terms of losing a defamation case over media allegations of war crimes. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so is the issue where in the sentence it appears or that it appears at all? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, part position, part the use of the noun, which makes it sound like a criminal conviction, instead of using the contextualised framing that makes the civil nature of the attestation of war crimes plain. The way it currently stands it makes 'war criminal' look like a second career profession or occupation, when crimes/scandal are typically a rather episodic thing and presented as such, coming after occupations, i.e.: "Mr. X, a professional X, famous for Y, who was later accused/convicted/inducted of Z." Iskandar323 (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

And if Z is "war crimes" you wouldn't have a problem with that? Or you would? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, see my edit: I didn't remove it. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should not say he is a war criminal. A criminal trial was not held and thus he is not. The presumption of innocents exist both in the US and the AU so its misleading to state he is. What was actually found was that defamation had not occurred. If the case was brought up criminally, it may have a different outcome as the burden of proof is much higher. While there certainly is an implication of guilt, that should be left up to the reader to determine after they read that a civil court ruled that he did.

Another example of this is OJ Simpson. He isn't a murderer because he was never convicted of murder, even though he lost the civil case. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I have posted at talk:Ben Roberts-Smith about what the judgement actually says. After the reports were published, Roberts-Smith initiated a defamation case listing numerous defamatory imputations allegedly following from the reports. The Respondents accepted that some of the imputations were raised and disputed others. After a very long case, witnesses, cross-examination, other evidence, Besanko J ruled on (firstly) whether each of the numbered imputations were conveyed by the reporting, and if so, whether defences had been made out. That Roberts-Smith had disgraced Australia was uncontested as an imputation raised. The Respoindents thus had the onus of proof and were determined to have successfully raised the defence of substantial truth. FYI, this is defined under the Defamation Act to mean "true in substance or not materially different from the truth.” Imputations that he had killed in contravention of the moral and legal boundaries for military operations was also ruled to be substantially true. This was not a criminal trial and so the standard was not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and so, of course, WP should not be making any such declaration in wiki-voice. However, it is a finding with the force of law to the civil standard based on an impartial judicial proceeding examining the evidence presented by both parties. It is far more than simply the opinion of Besanko J, and these matters are very much within the ratio decidendi of the judgement. We are not talking about off-hand thoughts of the judge that don't bear on the central issue that the Court was faced with deciding. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I have started an RfC at talk:Ben Roberts-Smith on the question of whether the term "disgraced his country", attributed to Justice Besanko, should be included in the article Ben Roberts-Smith. AlanS^talk 08:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) article

ROGD is a much discoursed academic theory which has received much coverage in the media. It is WP:GNG and WP:V at multiple sources. The relevant article has been edited on the presumption that it is not WP:GNG and that it is only notable on account of its undeniably controversial nature. This is an error which has harmed the article and needs correcting. In my view, the ideal way is to revert the first sentence to its original form, to remove 'controversy' from the title and to make the editorial changes. The second best option would be to create a new 'ROGD' article and leave this one more or less intact. See article talk page. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

For other editors, the background to why this has been posted here is Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy#Possible bias and Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy#NPOV dispute.

As Mathglot said in this comment, it is no longer practicable to try to assess the notability of the ROGD theory independently from the much wider controversy surrounding it. The vast proportion of independent secondary sources about the theory deal with its controversy, and related political fallout and misuse of it. The version of the lead that Emmentalist would like us to return to is not representative of the sourcing that currently exists about the theory, and even in 2019 when it was written was not fully representative of what independent reliable sources then said about the theory. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Deep background: the topic of gender dysphoria is one of the more contentious topics within the ARB-designated contentious topic area of gender-related articles. Drilling down further, the subtopic of ROGD is, imho, one of the most contentious articles within the contentious subtopic of gender dysphoria. Vast amounts of discussion, negotiation, and accommodation have been engaged in in past discussions among editors of very different approaches and opinions, in order to arrive at the current state of the article. Editors new to the topic and wishing to comment would be well-advised to consult the archives. Mathglot (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The topic is WP:FRINGE pseudoscience, as discussed by the reliable sources, and is properly represented as such in the article. I see no problem with the current article and how it is presented, just the usual pro-fringe edit requests on talk pages to have the openly stated pseudoscience nature be whitewashed. Silver seren^C 22:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe, Mathglot and Silverseren cover it well. Neither option you propose would comply with WP:PSCI or WP:FRINGE. DFlhb (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I've withdrawn my NOPV claim at the article talk page and I do the same here as some different editors have commented. For most of the reasons above, and some others at the article talk page, I was wrong to get fixated on what I considered to be the discrete notability of ROGD. Whether ROGD is notable of itself is moot. The main thing is that the article at present places the emphasis on the controversy which surrounds a relatively minor theory and that's quite right. To be clear, too, I'd referred to politics in my earliest comments, but I've edited as requested as I had unintentionally gone very close to criticising other editors, which I honestly did not intend to do. It's all a terribly useful lesson to me on how to edit. I appreciate other eds are not here just to do that, but thanks all the same! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Criticism by non-expert RS, to be or not to be?

Granted in fields like sciences, medicine or law to take note of criticism we would expect higher bar of expertise, whether same high level bar is needed to be applied to critiques in field of social sciences and humanities side ?
Many notable - (covered by WP:RS) - skeptics, reformers, scientists, economists, rights activists, politicians, journalists, religionist and atheists may have expressed relevant critical opinions in various aspects of humanities. Emphasis on WP:RS , relevant and proportionate is perfectly acceptable, But after passing all such conditions still it be dropped from the article because critical opinion giver does not have related official academic background?

Collapsed discourse 1

For example many would have disagreement on Karl Marx to Richard Dawkins -and many in between- expertise on religion, so should Marx's and many similar non expert opinion be there in article Criticism of religion or other relevant criticism articles or not?
Similar issues may have arisen and may arise in various articles in Category:Criticism of religion rather one such discussion is underway and to be on safer side I am not giving link to the same here on my own to avoid any forum shopping claims but inputs in this discussion may help ongoing and future discussions. I shall give link to this discussion in relevant article t/p discussion.

Besides we do not seem to have specific guidance or any essay (if exists) link in WP:Criticism. Is there any scope to improve guidance or guidelines in WP:Criticism?
Bookku (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Are you referring to a specific article and/or source? It would be difficult to comment on this in the abstract or in general. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  @Nick-D At the discussion Talk:Criticism of Islam#What is this longevity? there is tentative agreement to address issues related to excess length and revisit relevance of long quotes, so that is not the issue.
  
  A user who participated in the discussion said
  
  .. This article is a collection of quotes from various people, most of whom are not experts in Islam ..
  
  I joined the discussion saying

Collapsed discourse 2

- In my honest opinion what is supposed to matter is existence of present or past criticism in reliable sources. And if criticism is from any notable figures then that should find space according to relevance. Some critic is expert or not, it is not for us but for other reliable source to say so and any such criticism be better addressed through responses to criticism supported by reliable sources.
  
  Some critic died by committing suicide or naturally or some other reason; and also is notable but not expert, seem to be Red herring arguments. One may feel tempted for non-inclusion of criticism of the version one does not like; but IMHO non-inclusion of criticism and responses there of (both from reliable sources) only leads to loss of credibility of the article, and more off-wiki rumor mongering among Wikipedia readers and self defeating to any likely underline cause of inadvertent stonewalling or obscurantism.

- The first user said okay but one more user joined the discussion saying:
  
  Even more concerning is that they are mostly non-expert views. Surely many "ideologically motivated" Christians, ex-Muslims, atheists, etc. wouldn't have anything nice to say about Islam. Should we collect them all in one place and call that an encyclopedia article? Being famous doesn't necessarily qualify someone as an authority in inter-faith studies. It's their opinion that the encyclopedia article should reflect.
  
  As far as the article Criticism of Islam is concerned we can assume WP:AGF since first user who is likely to work on the article seem to take views from other side into account. The second comment is more concerning taking into account many founders of religions and various religious sects themselves were not experts by today's academic standard so also many social reformers and other critics. As I mentioned above 'Some critic is expert or not, it is not for us but for other reliable source to say so and any such criticism be better addressed through responses to criticism supported by reliable sources.'
  
  But some users seem to think otherwise. And question is not about this mentioned article but similar issues might have arisen or shall arise for many other articles in humanities segment, especially 'Criticism of XYZ religion / atheism'; Can we expect critiques of atheism to be expert in atheism? Hence wish to know community inputs, not only for this specific article but more general in nature to have a policy or guideline centric view. Bookku (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This thread link is already mentioned at the article t/p still pinging users whose views are mentioned in part above so they can have fair chance of response. @Ghazaalch and Albertatiran: Bookku (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

My short answer is coverage isn't about "expertise", it's about WP:DUE. What's its prominence? I guess expertise might be relevant in certain narrower contexts. Marx is obviously highly DUE in Criticism of religion, not so much in Filioque controversy. DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for inputs.

I already stated in the discussions revisiting the relevance per WP:DUE case to case basis is agreed and non-issue, I came here feeling concerned about any possibilities of blanket deletion of non-experts and not only for this article but also for all similar articles. Bookku (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

First, thanks for opening this discussion, Bookku. Second, to clarify, I don't find it problematic to include views (even direct quotes) from non-experts (this often means non-academics in that field, say, inter-faith studies, Islam, etc.) as long as such material is reliably sourced. For example, it's perfectly fine in my view to include Marx's views in Criticism of religion, as long as we do so through a source authored by a qualified expert. I think this should already address some of your concerns.

Having said that, direct quotes from non-experts are perhaps a bit more tricky because one doesn't really need a reliable source for that (as long as the quote itself is authentic). For example, Karl Marx said this or that on one or another occasion. Here, perhaps it's a matter of WP:DUE as DeCausa noted. But maybe it's just a better practice to keep such quotes to a minimum to improve the quality and reliability of the Wikipedia article. Admittedly only marginally related here is the good practice (MOS:ISLAMOR) to only directly quote the Quran through a reliable source. Albertatiran (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the conversation. We can almost agree with @Albertatiran that we go as per WP:RS (unless any other user have any thing to add with.)

One small concerning part in earlier comment remains is

.. Surely many "ideologically motivated" P, Q, R, S, etc. wouldn't have anything nice to say about 'put name of any given philosophy'. ..

Once some critic has been noted by WP:RS take note of their ideological motives, if WP:DUE in the related article no issues.

Calling any one "Ideologically motivated" is subjective thing. For example "Marx and his follower" are/ were ideologically motivated defining them as good or bad or something else is subjective and prerogative of WP:RS as long as Wikipedia is concerned. Any Wikipedians speculating or judging on basis of ideology very likely to go in the realms of WP:OR and a WP:NPOV concern. But once we agree to the spirit and give prominence to concepts of WP:RS, WP:Due, WP:NPOV , personal apprehension, if any, of any one, will take automatically back stage, I suppose. Happy editing and cheers. Bookku (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I just took a look at that article talk page thread and was going to make a similar point. I noticed a couple of odd things Albertatiran said in that thread:

Surely many "ideologically motivated" Christians, ex-Muslims, atheists, etc. wouldn't have anything nice to say about Islam. Should we collect them all in one place and call that an encyclopedia article? Er, yes. Who else do you think is going to be criticizing Islam? It seems to me there's a confusion here between handling primary and secondary sources. The original criticism in primary sources should be the basis of the article but the prominence given should be that given in secondary WP:RS. The question then is what constitutes WP:RS for that purpose. I don't think it can be restricted to academic works. If Trump says something bizarre about Islam, for example, it doesn't make sense to exclude it because it's discussed in the NYT, BBC etc but not by scholars. It's clearly significant.
it seems that a good place to start might be some of the sources already cited in this article. It's very likely that those also offer counter-views that would balance the article, i.e., it's likely that some of these sources also provide Muslims' responses to these criticisms. that's sounding like WP:FALSEBALANCE rather than WP:DUE.

DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said here For the time being I am focusing on summarizing the article. After that we could include counter-views, and delete weak-sourced content, etc. So expert or non-expert subject is not an issue.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Frederick Lenz

I am currently involved in a dispute regarding the article about Frederick Lenz, also known as Zen Master Rama, a New Age/Buddhist guru active during the 80s and 90s. During his lifetime, Lenz was a highly controversial figure that was accused of financially and sexually exploiting his followers. Pretty much all news coverage that mentions him from 1987 ( when the first exposes came out) up until his death in 1998 at least mentions this. One user on the talkpage is insisting that including this in the article is undue, due to the fact that he was never charged or convicted of anything related to this, and the fact that they claim that the abuse claims only come from a "small number of followers". Given that Lenz's notability primarily rests on historical newspaper coverage during his lifetime, I'm not seeing how it is undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Post Truth Politics - Solutions from Sophia Rosenfeld - undue?

Looking for other eyes on this topic. The article has a section called Post-truth_politics#Solutions_from_Sophia_Rosenfeld that is entirely sourced to Rosenfeld's book. It was added by Rover4844 who has less than 20 edits total and hasn't edited since the addition.[28]. My concern is the views of this author are presented in their own section thus given great weight. However, no sources in the article establish her credibility or why her views should be given such weight. She isn't even mentioned elsewhere in the article. Given the way the source was added it comes off as ref spamming. A limited discussion has started here [29] but more eyes would be helpful. Springee (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Requesting a comment on Arvind Kejriwal NPOV

Requesting users to have a look @ the article Arvind Kejriwal (recent article history). Edit difs by @Kridha checkout edit history of user kridha . Seems stripping the article of all the well sourced critical parts failing WP:NPOVHOW* , the response from other side looks like WP:STONEWALL effectively leading to obscurantism. Requesting inputs and help in sorting out the issues so as to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV

WP:NPOVHOW:
.. Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ..

@Kridha isn't replying in consensus.he didn't participate in DRN consensus also.checkout discussion on talk page and DRN request.

@Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians.

He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like

Public image of Narendra Modi#Criticism and controversies, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Criticism, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar#Controversies, Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Controversies, T. Rajaiah#Controversies, Mulayam Singh Yadav#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies.

And @Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha

edit 1 - in which he removed from lawsuits section on 06 September 2022
edit 2 - in which he removed on 6 September 2022
edit 3 - in which he removed on 16 September 2022
edit 4 - in which he removed whole criticism section on 4 may 2023
edit 5 - in which he remove whole lawsuits section on 4 may 2023
edit 6 - in this he remove
edit 7 in which he remove

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Nyovuu (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

These look like good changes to me.

Edit 1 removed a (likely) unreliable source (Zee News) reporting that a defamation lawsuit was filed. In general, we don't care if lawsuits are filed because it doesn't prove anything. Anyone can file a lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successful (and is covered by reliable sources) then it might be WP:DUE to mention it. See WP:BLPCRIME.
Edit 2 removed "tarnish by association" references that aren't really about Kejriwal. As above, there was a police raid. So what? If reliable sources cover an actual conviction, then it might be DUE to mention it.
Edit 3 removed the same content as above, which had been added by a WP:THREESTRIKES/banned sockpuppet. It was absolutely appropriate to revert that edit per WP:BANREVERT.
Edit 4 removed more accusations and allegations. Again, maybe it'll be DUE if there are convictions. The Reuters article may point toward something worth covering, but we probably need WP:MEDRS sources as the claims are about COVID. Also, it's rarely appropriate to have "criticism" or "controversies" sections in biographical articles; see WP:CRIT.
Edit 5 removed more accusations and allegations.
Edit 6 removed the same content as edit 4, which had been added back while still being discussed. Absolutely appropriate revert.
Edit 7 removed the same content as edit 5, which had been added back while still being discussed. Absolutely appropriate revert.

Also, I've notified Kridha about this thread, which you should have done per the red text at the top of this page. Woodroar (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The good part after a month's efforts by OP at least some one seem to have answered them. I also provided some guidance at their talk page but inputs from more users can always be educative. Most new users take time to understand how the things work on WP. I had also asked OP to get sources confirmed from WP:RSN.

some uninvolved observation

This para may sound like a rant but while guiding this new user at their talk page I was silently observing OPs mistakes and also how article may remain unbalanced due to focus on technical scoring. Since OP raised points in individual complaint form deleting experienced user looks right. But that is what many experienced users do, not help user with different view, by initiating discussion at WP:RSN, helping finding alternate reliable sources, helping write neutral RFC.

Just score the point take a technical win is a policy followed by many experienced users, Whether article is balanced by different views supported by acceptable RS and NPOV in true sense, who is going to take care of core NPOV balance if not experienced users? But practical picture is different; thrust on WP:ONUS on new users who do not know ins and outs of WP, loosing in technicalities may be leaving many WP articles after articles unbalanced in some sense, I am talking generally .

In this case some discussions on talk page are not complete since deleting user has stopped turning back and no one to help the new user in finding acceptable RS writing RFC properly on the article t/p.

Though I have not gone through all the criticism the subject had to face; to my limited knowledge subject making rampant corruption allegations and then saying sorry in court of law during defamation cases and political adversaries pardoning the subject in such cases is likely to hold waters to cover encyclopedically (point 5 in above cited deletions . Unfortunately those added content seem to have used Times of India group publications as sources if some one helps them in finding alternate and updated reliable sources, there may be some scope to cover relevant criticism. Since I have not followed subject thoroughly and already hand full with many more things I could not help the new user beyond guiding them on talk page.

IMHO beyond many technicalities and political polarizations, the article might be in need of better encyclopedic balance. Bookku (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Here i added some reliable sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arvind_Kejriwal#removed_controversies_section Nyovuu (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

More accusations and allegations. As multiple editors pointed out to you on the Talk page, there was no consensus to include this content—and that's a good thing, because it violates our policies. Woodroar (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

East Asian age reckoning

There is a discussion at Talk:East Asian age reckoning about use of the term "Real age" to contrast the Western age counting system with "Korean age". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

GB News

I wonder if this is the correct section to discuss the neutrality or whatever of GB News? As an uninvolved editor, I think the article needs some attention in the context of the Conflict of Interest banner. The political nature of the media outlet means some extra care may be needed, as I have seen the article attract polarising views in the talk page. --Minoa (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, anyone who argues that GB News should be described as anything but "far-right propaganda should be ignored as they're either not arguing in good faith, or lack the competency to edit here. 2603:7000:C00:8B66:D568:EAD5:4869:DEB6 (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they're far-right, but they are right-leaning. X-Editor (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the COI notice; it's not at all clear to me that there is COI editing going on in such a major way that the article ought be tagged as such. If there are specific objections to one section, I have no objection to it being added back if one can explain the COI claim — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Maps of Suriname

A neutrality issue being at stake, I am addressing here that I have started an RfC at Talk:Suriname#RfC: Should maps show border claims? I hope it will have a clear outcome, because corrections of mine were reverted whilst I was introducing maps of a border dispute of Suriname that cannot be denied (there are enough reliable sources for that). I am generally contributing to the Dutch language Suriname Wikiproject and I do not have a lot of knowledge of regulations here on English Wikipedia. It is even my first RfC. So I would welcome a helping hand for a flexible and successful process. Ymnes (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

No one disagrees that maps should show border claims. That is not the issue we are encountering with Suriname related articles. If you replace established maps (that have been on Wikipedia for 5+ or 10+ years) with extremist maps (that incorporate other countries or absorb disputed areas without identifying them), they may be reverted to the previously agreed upon map. It is not necessarily because the original map is preferred or considered neutral. People actually may agree with you. They just have an exception with the new map you are adding and don't have time to create the map for you. So for the time being, the original map is reinstated. DutchDaan (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sound of Freedom (film)

Isla Bryson case has an RFC

Isla Bryson case has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Imperium Press

Imperium Press is a far-right publisher that puts out a lot of "classics" by people like Joseph de Maistre and Robert Filmer. If you ctrl-f you'll find them listed in the "works" sections of those linked articles. On the one hand, they did in fact publish an edition of Joseph de Maistre's collected works so why not list it there? On the other hand, their mission is clearly to make fascist politics more respectable and it's unfortunate that Wikipedia is helping them do that. I don't see a solution to this problem but maybe someone else will. Prezbo (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Why use the publisher and not a book review? There are two options here: either the book has reliable reviews in which case you don't need to use the publisher or it doesn't have reliable reviews in which case it shouldn't be in the works section at all and there is no need to use the publisher. Remember that work sections aren't meant to be exhaustive, they're only for an author's important works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was Wikipedia's standard for what to include in a "works" section. Is there a guideline on this somewhere? Thanks. Prezbo (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There's also WP:DUE to consider, not every translation of every work needs to be included. Is there a reason to include this specific translation, is it a definitive work or was the translation by a particularly notable individual? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What's your impression of this selective removal for the reason rm far-right publisher? Removal for the reason of publisher's political alignment is POV pushing or downright censorship Graywalls (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It's been a while, but if I remember correctly I would likely have removed it as undue. As it was just one of many without being distinctive. So I would agree with the removal if not the reason. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Also Special:Diff/1162843642. Removing contents because of editors' bias against rightism, leftism or anything is never an acceptable reason and that editor's edit summary shows it was for biased reason. Of the list of books, they specifically removed this citing "far right". Graywalls (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's the long version of what I said. As I said it was removed with a reason that isn't policy, but I do believe there was a policy reason to remove it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Its obvious from just the works Imperium Press publishes, let alone their own statements, that they have a fascist agenda. Fascism isn't just any other political faction, and should be handled with care even if you are handling the left/right political divide with an even hand. But whether the publisher should or shouldn't be used is likely a discussion for a more active place than NPOVN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Rather than going to this noticeboard for permission, I should have just made an executive decision that it’s bad for Wikipedia to let Nazis promote themselves in this way. Live and learn. Prezbo (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:, deciding what's "an author's important works." is a whole new can of worms especially when working on authors/artists page as different editors see important subjectively. Graywalls (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an author's work, it's another translation of the work that was added to the article. Unless there is a reason for its addition (e.g. it's an important translation, or by someone notable) then it's undue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely nil evidence that the press in question — and by extension, works published by them — has any claim to WP:RS, being routinely described in peer-reviewed scholarship as a far-right neo-Nazi press. Accordingly, mentioning their publications violates our policies on multiple fronts. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

LGBT grooming conspiracy theory

Would love to have some non-involved editors take a look at the renaming discussion at LGBT grooming conspiracy theory and provide some insight. Denaar (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Both previous discussions on the topic (Archive, and Fringe Theory Board, can't figure out how to direct link) agreed the name SHOULD be changed, just not what it should be changed TO. So - if you think "slur" is pushing too much of a point of view/not neutral enough, another suggestion like "Groomer (rhetoric)" might be even better as a Neutral POV. I think "Groomer Conspiracy Theory" would even be better from a search point of view, but I feel it fails WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV because our sources that are unbiased do not call it a conspiracy theory. Denaar (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you might be misrepresenting consensus, the discussion in the archive was closed with the following comment "The result of the move request was: retain status quo. While there was some support for some of the options added later on, especially "Groomer (anti-LGBT rhetoric/slur)", a majority of participants agree the current title best describes the content of the article."Talk:LGBT grooming conspiracy theory/Archive 1#Potentially moving the title of the page Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There was a lot of lively debate there I'd encourage people to read. If you read the conspiracy theory board [30], there is a clear consensus in January that it shouldn't be listed as a conspiracy theory. I honestly didn't expect this to be so controversial based on this conversation, but requested it because I wasn't sure what the best name was and wanted to generate a conversation. The existing name made sense when it was made, but it doesn't make sense to keep the name now. Denaar (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think one person commenting as part of a short, thinly attended discussion is a 'clear consensus.' MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. DFlhb (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any consensus at all there... Clear, muddy, rough, or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:CCC Either way, the current discussion is much more involved and comprehensive. DN (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Is the edit being argued over at Talk:Jayadeva birth controversy#Revert on recent edit with proper citations a pov violation?

See particularly my comment about the balance of words currently in the article and the increase in balance being argued over on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Properly cited and relevant content on one particular point of view (Odisha) is being selectively removed. Moreover the reason being cited is an imaginary construct that number of words for both POVs should be comparable for 'balance' in the article. By this logic the article on Nazism should have x number of words in their support if there are x number of words against them. NPOV clearly mentions "Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player, but they will not argue over this." which is what the reverted edit had ; cited scholarly studies on a controversial subjects with the primary sources and arguments furnished by the scholars. Meanwhile, the Bengali POV does not have a single academic thesis or book cited (only newspaper articles), but has not been subjected to any comparable scrutiny. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Nazism isn't an article about a controversy, that's a major difference. Although you added material to the talk page directly mentioning the controversy, most of your edit didn't it. In any case my main issue is the balance. There are 457 words supporting the Bengali position. The text before you edited had 919 words, you almost doubled that to 1688 words. That seriously imbalances the article and would be a major breach of WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If there are not enough works of the Bengali scholars at my disposal, or if the controversy itself has a disproportionate amount of research output from both sides, what is an editor supposed to do? Am I supposed to not write whatever sources are available? That sounds like a major breach of WP:NPOV. This also sounds like discouraging an editor from editing. An editor cannot 'create' sources to support one POV to 'balance' the article, as far as I understand. I would like to read more about this "balance" if it is in the policy at all. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE clearly states. "Adding another point of view to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced". This seems to be diametrically opposite to the revert that was performed on a significant, well-cited and relevant edit. At worst, you could have asked an explanation about how the content was relevant on the talk page before simply deleting it. The article could then be revised. This would then be in accordance with WP:PRESERVE "Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources". A blatant revert seems to be a clear violation. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If there are two sides to an argument but one side has the full weight of an historically partisan government machine behind it & the other doesn't, it is pretty much inevitable that the former will shout louder than the latter. It doesn't mean that the former has a "better" argument, just more firepower. By keeping closely to the matter at hand, rather than meandering & losing focus, it will usually be the case that balance of argument can be achieved. We are not in the business of taking sides when both have reliably sourced opinions but, equally, we should not be getting into a situation where we allow one to drown out the other with (in large part) irrelevancies. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The govt. may have it's biases, but a scholar citing a 12th-century inscription is hardly an invalid argument, nor is it 'firepower'. The passages cited were very objective. All editors are welcome in trying to balance the article. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It was a self-published source, with some govt funding. I don't care why it was SPS, the fact remains that it has no independent editorial oversight etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Per WP:DUE "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." (emphasis added)

So here is how the two best sources that I am aware of, with no axe to grind on the topic, cover the issue:

Jayadeva; Barbara Stoler Miller (transl.) (1977). Love song of the dark lord: Jayadeva's Gītagovinda. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-11097-6.
Various local versions of this legend have grown into conflicting traditions about Jayadeva’s place of birth and region of poetic activity. Modern scholars of Bengal, Orissa, and Mithila have put forth claims locating the village of his birth in their respective regions. Two strong traditions say that the “Kindubilva” cited in the Gitagovinda (III.10) is either a village near Puri in Orissa or a village in the modern Birbhum district of Bengal. A third tradition identifies the village of Kenduli near Jenjharpur in Mithila as Jayadeva’s birthplace. The argument is well known and has been summarized in favor of Jayadeva’s Bengali origins in a recent monograph by Suniti Kumar Chatterji.* Although the Bengali position remains tenuous, both legends and historical documents suggest that Jayadeva lived and composed in eastern India during the latter half of the twelfth century.
Jayadeva; Siegel, Lee (transl.) (2009). Gītgovinda: Love songs of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa. The Clay Sanskrit Library, New York University Press and JJC Foundation. ISBN 978-0-8147-4078-1., which spends three paragraphs in the Introduction on the issue
- First para, starting with and expanding upon It has been generally accepted, though not uncontested, in academic literature that Jaya·deva was a poet in the court of Lakshmana·sena, the last of the Sena kings in Bengal at the end of the twelfth century.
- Second para saying that the Sena ruler is not otherwise mentioned in other commentaries and explaining how the Bengal claim has infuriated both traditional pandits and academically trained scholars of Orissa.
- Third para laying out how Jayadeva's mention of his birtplace as "Kindubilva" is identified with locations in Bengal/Orissa by those in the Bengal/Orissa camp. And how residents of similarly named places in Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra also lay claim to Jayadeva.

(TL;DR) The best available sources that are summarizing the argument, rather than promoting one themselves, give roughly equal weight to the Bengal/Orissa side, or posit the Bengal argument to be the academic default albeit still tenuous and vociferously opposed by the Orissa tradition/camp. So that's how the wikipedia article should present, and devote space to, the two main "sides". Refbombing the article with, in Thomas E Donaldson's words, "small journal produced by the Orissa State Museum, little known outside of Orissa" (and that's from someone who favors the Orissa argument!), is undue.

PS: Prateek Pattanaik also appears to be subtly misrepresenting sources and eliding quotes to promote the Orissa side of the argument; see my comment on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

As I have clarified on the article talk page, Donaldson summarises earlier arguments with his own comments thrown in. Is attributing the article to Donaldson misleading then? Doesn't seem to be so; Donaldson himself writes the article after all, and the cited passage was not in quotes. The elision was an unintended edit error rather than something intentional. The blockquotes are quite fiddly to work with.

I've added the Mithila claim in the first few lines, which was conspicuously absent till date though mentioned in multiple major sources. Hardly would've done that if I had a bias. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Since other editors here have doubted the sources published by the Odisha govt., I will try to prioritise non-governmental sources for this article in the future. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Abecedare :With due respect, fully agree with your opinion about the style of writing. But that would have been applicable if someone is writing a summary about the controversy. Why would one include points positing the Bengal argument to be "academic default" when he is writing about the arguments of Odisha ? Since Prateek Pattanaik edited only the Odisha side of arguments, presenting facts instead of his own opinion, I don't think any kind of "subtle misrepresentation" should be ascribed to him. The question remains whether the sources he cited are tenable or not ? Then it's to be decided by independent refutations of the said sources. There are ample number of research on the birth place of Jayadev and as an editor one would use whatever data available, subject to his best judgement about credibility of the source. Should one desist from presenting facts only because another part of the article has less sources to cite ? I am reiterating it again that, the editor only summarised different available arguments advanced by the scholars claiming in favor of Odisha. I think the header "Odia View" means one would give a summary of the arguments which the Odisha side makes on the issue. The same goes for the Bengal view too.

Had it been a topic which gives information about the actual birth place of the Poet, then giving "roughly equal weight to the Bengal/Orissa side, or posit the Bengal argument to be the academic default albeit still tenuous and vociferously opposed by the Orissa tradition/camp" would have been appropriate. But that is not the case here. Citation of facts as facts, without giving any judgement about the merits of the facts shouldn't be considered as attempt of misleading. Bikash Ojha (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bikash Ojha you say "Had it been a topic which gives information about the actual birth place of the Poet," - but that's exactly what it is. The word "controversy" is there because the "actual" birth place is hotly debated. There's no reason not to make that immediately obvious. You seem to have misunderstood what the "subtle misrepresentation" was. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Sorry but I don't think this article give information about the actual place of birth. The actual birth place of the poet is hotly debated and still undecided. The article is about the controversy surrounding the question and there are three parties who are making the same claim. At least this much is obvious to me. Bikash Ojha (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Prateek Pattanaik The article is the only one we can write about the actual place of birth as it is not known for certainty. We can only write one describing the controversy and that needs to be done in a balanced manner - it is a target for those pushing one view or another and that needs to be managed. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A fascinating topic. A brief preamble - Prateek Pattanaik has clearly put a lot of effort into this Edit. Some of the sources cited by the Edit does appear to be reliable academic work, and given the state of controversy on this issue, balance is not easy to strike.

I also do not necessarily think that balance means giving two countervailing views matching or near matching wordcount. Without beating a dead horse, balance is giving each view coverage that is proportionate to its degree of establishment in reliable sources. How well is the Odia view entrenched in reliable sources relative to the Bengali view? I don't have the answer, and it's not something can be answered by looking at one view, or even any particular group of sources. It can only be answered by looking at the whole spectrum of reliable sources on this subject.

With all the above being said, I do, with respect, think that the Edit adopts the language and tone of some the sources cited, which is somewhat argumentative and unbefitting of Wikipedia's neutrality. The Edit also dives into the content of some of the sources cited, with a degree of detail that I think might be excessive for a controversial topic.

Perhaps it need not be all or nothing. I propose that Prateek Pattanaik summarize, streamline the Edit and rewrite it in a detached tone, with proper attribution, similar to a literature review, with an acknowledgement to relevant counterarguments/rebuttals.

Perhaps this could be a viable way forward to resolve the impasse. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for a balanced view of events and for being the only one to suggest a constructive way to tackle the issue. I'll summarize and rewrite it as you suggested. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't want to dive into the sources into great detail initially, although the initial edit did have some details. But after I was met with a barrage of responses questioning my citations (when the sources are clearly available online!) and with the bizarre argument of equal number of letters, I was forced to cite the sources as it is, unable to change their language or tone. (If I summarized or rewrote the points then I was questioned whether the authors were writing this "in the context of the birth controversy" or whether I had misinterpreted them to be so. In which case I was forced to cite the author's sentences mentioning the controversy explicitly.) Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Prateek Pattanaik Come on, I was talking about words, not letters. Not bizarre to point out the imbalance between the views on the controversy. You might also want to learn about showing good faith, see WP:AGF. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Prateek Pattanaik Once you have a rewritten version, you can put it up on the talk page of this article, tag me and all of us, including Doug Weller, can look at this together. In your new edits, be sure to address some of Doug's concerns regarding reference to opposing viewpoints, which I think is valid. All the best with your editing. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Konrad Henlein

I came across this article while researching Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and have recently made an attempt to improve its bizarrely repetitive nature, to the point where I considered SEO, but on a third look I think that the article was simply never finished. In any event, the talk page suggests that the article is PoV, and I agree that we could well do without the discussion of what a sensitive soul this Nazi was, responsible for deporting thousands, who would cry over people's remarks to him.

More difficult is the long discussion of the homo-erotic nature of his gymnastics program. Is this DUE? If the article is about this one politician's career, it seems to matter in that a gymnastics associate was jailed for homosexuality, but events would probably have followed the same course whether Henlein was involved with that or not, so the speculation about his sexuality seems pointless. He was blackmailed, but for taking money from the Nazis, not for anything to do with what his sexuality may or may not have been.

I am neutral about this. His sexuality seems irrelevant to me, but I am happy with whatever consensus may develop. In fact, my best case scenario is that someone else will go through this for NPOV now that I have removed some clutter. Elinruby (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It's seems the article may have more concerns. The last paragraph under "Arrest and suicide" talks of his returning Sudetenland to the German state and twice repeats the expulsion of Germans after the WW2. This is referenced to this paper by Robbins. The issue is that that paper contains a single sentence on the matter: It was Henlein who called the Sudetens home to the Reich and who, in so doing, ultimately ensured that Bohemia would never again be their home. Heinlein calling the Sudeten Germans to become part of the German Reich is being spun out to cover an awful lot of territory, and 'facts' not covered by the source. Coupled with the fact that it takes an enormous amount of text to come to a single sentence that says, "Oh! He was also actively involved in the holocaust" isn't inspiring confidence in the articles POV of this "mild Nazi". From a basic article stand point it's overly long on parts that should be better summarised, and overly short on anything critical. It probably needs a rewrite that includes checking it's sourcing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.S. Brown: you appear to be the author of the content in question, perhaps you can offer an explanation which differs from the one presented here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It could very easily have more problems than that. I went through it a few of times for length and readability only, noted the talk page issues and agreed with them, etc, but haven't gotten as far as the historiography. I'd rather not be the one to do that, as there would be a steep learning curve for me and I am only in the article because I wanted to link to it from the Collaboration article, but it was really hard to read. He seems to have definitely been a collaborator of the ethno-nationalistic variety, whom the Collaboration article should mention under Czechoslovakia. He also seems to have been particularly important in convincing Hitler to invade, and Britain to stand by. I question the importance of the gymnastics compared to that, and really wish the article could improve in general while I fry some other fish. I am pretty exasperated with it atm.

I'll add that there were several places where a single page in a single text was heavily cited, so there may also be issues of close paraphrasing in addition to the actual repetition that I removed. For example, the idea that Britain would enter the war if France upheld its treaty with Czechoslovakia was mentioned over and over again. And yeah, "mild Nazi" has been tagged for years and really needs to go. Elinruby (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Added lobbying for the German invasion and deporting Jews to death camps to the lede, which amazingly did not mention them. Article till needs a heck of a lot more work. I'll also nuke the parts about mild Nazi and a sensitive soul, but help is requested. On reflection the article is in chronological order, and may have been written by merging outlines from three or four different biographies, underlining the overly-close paraphrase concern. I don't want to get ahead of consensus though, but I am hearing some validation for my overall impression that the situation calls for a buzzsaw. I've handled similar rewrites solo before, but given the contradictory discourse on Wikipedia about Nazis, I am asking for input, and again, I really don't care about this guy, except that I think he should probably be added to the article that I have already committed to fixing. If anyone has easy access to sources, for example, and could check out what ActivelyDisinterested is saying, that would really help. Elinruby (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Reading through it, and not checking the source, program was "barely veiled homo-eroticism" is an opinion that shouldn't be in Wikivoice but attributed to someone. It just jumps out as out of place. But it seems that section of the article has two main points - it brought him some respectability and connected him to Rutha (which is important later) but I feel the whole section could be much more of a summary of events then so detailed. It shouldn't be fully cut, because it does connect to history later, but it's really detailed for something that could just be "In his youth, he was involved in gymansitics under his mentor Rutha" plus a little bit of the politics involved. I actually think "Henlein completed his surrender by formally denouncing Rutha—the best man at his wedding in 1926" being stuck in later doesn't work, I would move that detail to the correct timeline, or even here. "He would later invite Rutha to be his best man at his wedding in 1926" would bring attention to Rutha early on as an important figure in his life. Denaar (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This is fascinating - we have a summary of German Gymnastics Clubs under the article Turners but it's mostly focused on American Immigrants. "The Turnvereine ("gymnastic unions"; from German turnen meaning “to practice gymnastics,” and Verein meaning “club, union”) were not only athletic but also political." I was going to suggest linking it with something like "German Gymnastic Unions, called Turnvereine, had both athletic and political importance." ... but realized that article is American-focused; not German or Europe focused. But I think it would be better to explain the Unions first, then that he joined one, and formed connections with his mentor there. Turnerbund is referenced so often in articles that it should probably be it's own article! Denaar (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's: What you mean by an explanation? I'm not certain what you actually want from me here? I believe the purpose of this noticeboard is discuss neutrality, but much of this discussion should be better directed to the talk page as it does not concern the neutrality of the article. Everyone here seems to be acting in good faith, but there appears to be a misunderstanding here. I gather from the comments and some edit summaries that some editors feel that this article is an "apologia" for Henlein. This might sound pretentious, but the purpose of history is show wie es eigentlich gewesen ist ("as it actually happened"). Again, everyone is acting in good faith, but I think there is a problem with writing about National Socialism in general is the popular view of Nazi Germany as the ultima thule of evil, which leads to a tendency in popular culture to depict World War Two as the ultimate battle between good and evil. Needless in an encyclopedia where anyone can edit that this tendency to present the war as a morality play tends to come to the fore in too many articles, promoting for a lack of a better term the "legend" of World War Two.

An important point in my terminology. A myth is a story that has no basis in reality like the story of the battle between the Titans vs. the Olympians. A legend by contrast is a story based on something real that gets blown up and exaggerated over time. The story of the Trojan War was almost certainly based on a real event, which over time was progressively exaggerated and blown up into the story we now know. By the "legend" of World War Two I am not suggesting that the Holocaust did not happen. Rather, what I mean is the tendency to present as the war as the ultimate battle between good vs. evil, which inevitably entails a certain distortion of reality. For an example, Churchill made it very clear in both in words and in the policies he followed that he did not feel that non-white people were the equals of white people. For anyone who can be bothered to read his speeches and writings about India, he was quite ardent support for the Raj with a viceroy appointed by London having near-autocratic powers and the Indians not having any say at all in their ruling of their country, which is hard to square with the popular image of Churchill as a champion of freedom. In the "legend" of World War Two, Churchill is a sort of superhero of pure good, which why his views about India and the other British colonies are white-washed. Some Churchill-bashing has gone too far, but that is not relevant here. Likewise, the way that Hitler is presented as a sort of supervillain is profoundly distorting. I'm not trying to engage in a David Irving attempt to show that Hitler was really a nice guy, which I'm completely opposed to. The editors who are far too numerous to name that present Hitler as this larger-than-life figure endowed with superhuman powers of will are no doubt acting in good faith, but without knowing they are doing Hitler a huge favor. They are taking the premise of Nazi propaganda, namely Hitler was a larger-than-figure with a superhuman willpower but inverting it by portraying him as figure for evil instead of good. The editors who present Hitler in this way are giving him powers that he did not have in real life. Hitler was a man, albeit a malevolent man, not a demon. One of the chief problems with the "legendary" view of Hitler is making him sound like a more decisive figure than really was. One would never know this from reading majority of the articles around here, but Hitler was chronically indecisive man who had much trouble making up his mind. However, once did make a decision he tended to stick to it fanatically. People don't like reading that Hitler was indecisive and tended to put off difficult decisions because it makes him seem more human as opposed to demonical, which is why other hands keep deleting that information, no matter how well sourced it is.

Turning to Henlein, the "sensitive soul" is a quote from Mark Cornwell, a well respected historian of central Europe. What was meant here was not an "apologia" for Henlein, but rather to show him as he really was. Henlein was a mild-mannered, warm, gregarious and friendly man, which goes a long way to explain why he made such a positive impression during his visits to London. This is where the "legendary" view of World War Two distorts things. People who were nice, warm, friendly, kind, and gentle such as Henlein are perfectly capable of revolting acts of cruelty and brutality. Alexander Solzhenitsyn once wrote that the battle between good and evil is not between nations, but rather in the hearts of people. I do not mean to put words into the mouths of others, but some editors seem to be suggesting that this article was meant as an "apologia" for Henlein is simply not true For the record, the parts about Henlein's involvement in the "Final Solution" and the "apartheid" regime imposed on Czechs in the Sudetenland were my work. I would prefer the article to present Henlein as he really was, as a man in full. At present, the article is distorting reality by making Henelin sound like a much tougher man than what he really was. This is no doubt unintended, but this article serves as an apologia for those Sudeten Germans who passionately wanted the Sudetenland to "go home to the Reich". The article makes Henlein sound such a tough Nazi that could ordinary people to resist him? "Sensitive souls" such as Henlein are quite capable of being very ruthless and cruel, which is what that article did portray correctly. This Manichean tendency to present the story of the war as a morality play does a real disservice to the past. There is a basis in reality to the legend of the war, but reality is far more complex and nuanced than many people would prefer. Most people who do evil things do not actually think themselves as evil-they usually think themselves as being good. That does not justify or excuse their actions, but does help explain their actions. Let's say that Bob learns his wife Susan is being unfaithful and kills her. One could just say Bob killed Susan, but does not explain well. Saying that Susan was unfaithful and Bob was justified in killing her is unacceptable. That is an excuse. Saying that Bob killed Susan because he was angry that she was unfaithful is an explanation. See the difference? Likewise, the part about Henleing's sexuality is presenting as he really was.

Henlein worked most of his life as a gymnastic teacher. For those not unfamiliar with this, there was a close association between gymnastics and the völkisch movement. There is no precise English equivalent words to translate völkisch as that a cannot be translated into English, but racialist is probably the best translation that gives one some idea of what that word means in German. Gymnastics tended to promote healthy bodies and in the völkisch view of things, healthy bodies made for a healthy race. The völkisch movement tended to be active in gymnastics in not only the Sudetenland, but also Germany and Austria as well. It is hard to understand Henlein's views and live without really understanding his background as a gymnastics teacher. So I do that adds to the article.

As for the "mild Nazi" quote, which seems to have everyone all up in arms, it might be instructive to look at the "Greater East Co-prosperity Sphere" as an example. In Japan, there were two ideological currents, one which was the Pan-Asian one where Japan would unite all of the Asian peoples together into one big happy family and another was the Yamato race current, which held that Japanese were the uniquely virtuous and superior Yamato race. The contradictions between the two views were papered over by to paraphrase George Orwell, that in the Greater East Co-prosperity Sphere, all Asians were equal, but some Asians were more equal than others. A popular Japanese cartoon that issued to the soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army showed a Chinese woman in a red dress (in China, red is the color of love and sex) performing fellatio on a samurai to illustrate the alleged special bond between China and Japan. The gendered and sexualized nature of the cartoon speaks for itself. I know that lots of Chinese people will disagree with this, but in Japanese view of things, the Chinese were inferior, but still seen as an object of some desire as reflected in the cartoon where China is represented as a beautiful young woman in a red dress who is all too willing to perform fellatio on her samurai lover. That was fairly typical of Japanese propaganda, which always showed China as a woman and Japan as a man united together in a loving relationship, albeit one where the man was clearly superior. The Japanese were engaged in what they called "compassionate killing" under which the few bad Chinese who did not want to see their country turned into the Japanese colony would be "compassionately killed" for their own good while the rest would all fell into line and play the submissive role that the Japanese wanted them to play. It was inconceivable that such a cartoon like the one mentioned above would have been issued to the Wehrmacht showing a Jewish woman in a similar position to a Wehrmacht soldier. That would have been unthinkable in the Third Reich. Henlein's view of German-Czech relations were much closer to the Sino-Japanese relations as envisioned in the propaganda of the "Greater East Co-prosperity Sphere" than to the views of the other Nazi leaders. Henlein viewed the Czechs as "helots" (which is a quote I added), but he envisioned them as staying in their homeland in a symbiotic relationship with the Germans. Just as the Japanese envisioned themselves as the superior partner with the Chinese, so too were the Germans were to be the senior partners with the Czechs in Henlein's view of things. For all his anti-Czech policies and attempts to reduce the number of Czechs living in the Sudetenland, Henlein in his own twisted sort of way did like the Czechs. He often spoke and wrote about the Czechs and Germans having a "common" homeland and a "common" history, and he have Czech friends. Just in his viewpoint, the Germans were to be the superior partners and the Czechs as the inferior partners. As put it, the Czechs were to play the role of "helots" that would serve their Germans masters. However offensive this views might be, it does suggest that the Czechs would remain in their homeland after the war. What the others Nazi leaders envisioned was something more radical, namely that the complete ethnic cleansing with more or less the entire Czech people to be cleared out of their homeland and shipped off to reservations in Siberia after the "final victory". Compared to that vision, Henlein's vision was the more "mild" of the two. Perhaps that was not explained very well, but is what I was meant here

As for the rest, this does not concern neutrality. Thank you all for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow...I got somewhat interested in this topic and wanted to see if I can contribute. I thought I was somehow following the discussion until I read this treatise. That escalated quickly, and now I'm lost for words. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, DUE WEIGHT is a neutrality issue. So yes this question belongs here. I think it's pretty clear to most participants in this thread that the fact that this man actively lobbied for the invasion of Czechoslovakia and sent thousands to their deaths might be slightly more important than whether or not he and Rutha ever had an interest in women. In fact, as ActivelyDisinterested pointed out, the deportations were buried in a single sentence at the very end of the article.

Some participation in the Holocaust is a given for a Nazi, but he was apparently IN CHARGE of these deportations, so it does seem a bit egregious to omit this from the lede, along with the lobbying to get his country invaded. That said, I agree that there is a very simplistic paradigm (one of several actually) in circulation about the Holocaust in which people are bad because fifty years ago the founder of a group gave a German salute. So, as someone who brought this question here, I'd like people to realize that it is actually rather complex and involves competing definitions of what is the Holocaust and what is collaboration. I am pretty sure that voluntarily joining the Nazis because it's in your political interest and you say it's in the best interest of your people does make you a collaborator.

What I would like to hear is why we need the extended insinuations about homosexuality; I get that Rutha was later charged with sex crimes, but this would have been a problem for Henlein regardless, right? Elinruby (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

HollerithPunchCard, your comment is not a constructive one. Elinruby, he did not lobby for the invasion of Czechoslovakia. He was not looking forward to seeing his beloved Sudetenland being invaded and devastated in a war. He was privately relived when the Munich Agreement instead led to the Sudetenland being peacefully transferred to Germany. The rules here say that one is supposed to follow the sources. The source cited mentioned his role in the deportations for a single short paragraph, but did not say very much. If it said more, more would have been written. That is my not fault that Cornwell chose to mention that only in passing. I always planning to go back to that article to add more to that, but as you may or may not be aware, it is difficult to find high quality sources in English on that subject. As for the subject of the lead which has apparently has you so exercised, has it has been addressed or not? If it has been addressed, then you are still banging on about it? For your information, I'm not very good at writing leads and I generally don't bother with that. What is your point here? You mean well, but this is not very constructive going on ad nauseam about the lead did or did not mention, and I would suggest that you drop this topic. As the collaborator charge, I do not remember ever saying that he was not a collaborator. Having said that, in his own mind, he was not a collaborator as Germany was his rightful country, not Czechoslovakia. Yes, his actions were treasonous and had he not committed suicide, he would have been hanged for treason by the Czechoslovakia.

As for the "extended insinuations", that is a problem posed by Cornwell, who does say not that explicitly that, but does write in a manner that implies that. I must admit that I found a bit frustrating. What is one is supposed to follow the sources and not engage in OR. To your answer, the question would be yes. That was back in 2017 when I looked at Cornwell's essay and book, which I do not have at present, so I might be mistaken about this. But I seem to remember that Cornwell wrote something along the lines that Rutha's suicide after he was charged with having sex with his teenage followers which along with Henlein's close association left him to blackmail. The way that Heydrich chose to strike at Henlein by having a number of Henlein's followers arrested for homosexuality in early 1940 does seem to suggest that there was something to this, but since I have never found any source that explicitly says that Henlein was gay, I never wrote that. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you never explicitly said he was gay, and am happy to accept that this was based on your sources. My question was whether it even matters whether he was or was not gay. It certainly is not the most important thing about him. I get that in the 1940s this was a serious charge, and likely would have made him vulnerable to blackmail, but the article doesn't mention that. It does say that he was blackmailed, but for taking money from the Nazis, not homosexuality. If a large number of his associates were arrested for homosexuality wouldn't this would have posed a problem for him whether he was or was not involved in the alleged sex ring, is my question. Another point: I am in this because I found the article while researching Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, where there are and have been many many discussions about what is collaboration, and that was the reason for that remark. I am not saying that you claim otherwise. I also find it interesting that you say he did not lobby for annexation, since the article goes on about this for some length, and before I cut it, was quite repetitive on the subject. I am talking about all the visits to Berlin to strategize and to London to talk about the unfairness of the Czech government towards ethnic Germans. Is it the word "lobby" that you object to? Or did someone else add that? Please do revisit the article. I have edited it heavily and believe that I have been improved it in the process. I am willing to hear whatever you have to say about it.

Last, I suggest you strike the following: You mean well, but this is not very constructive going on ad nauseam about the lead did or did not mention, and I would suggest that you drop this topic. It only provides ammunition to anyone who may be considering escalating your IDHT remarks for further review. At the moment this is just a friendly discussion of what you might have been thinking, initiated by someone who somewhat agrees that many articles on World War II contain simplistic portrayals. Let's keep it that way. My favorite is the trope about the invasion of Normandy, btw. I am not entirely certain what you were trying to prove about with that offensive story about the portrayal of the Chinese woman in the cartoon, but since we are giving each other advice, yeah, it was pretty gratuitous and maybe you should strike it. Meanwhile, it's good that you know that you don't write good ledes. At the risk of provoking nausea: In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. This is why I say that inviting annexation and overseeing mass murder should be there. I will see if I can find a biography that includes his career as an administrator of the Final Solution, meanwhile. I am not "exercised"; I just think that Eichmann was a nice man also, but considerably more needed to be said about him in Jerusalem. Elinruby (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

A.S.Brown, my earlier comment was my unserious way of saying that your long treatise, while intriguing, is gratuitous and (very) off topic to the discussion.

I would just say this. There are some instances where a person has acquired such notability and prominence, that the entire gamut of his/her life attracts an encyclopaedic interest (I am talking about figures such as Lincoln, Washington, etc). Konrad Ernst Eduard Henlein is not such a person, not even close. As such, in my view, any, let alone extended discussions of his personal quirks or sexuality is undue. Elinruby I think you are current enjoying consensus on the talk page of this article to make the edits that you are making, and you can be WP:BOLD in your trimming - until there are specific objections to any particular edit of yours that can be discussed on a case by case basis. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think moving "Collaboration with Axis allies" to... Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy is encyclopedic, nor neutral. Denaar (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Denaar, let's discuss ongoing issues with individual edits on the talk page of this article, so as not to clutter up this notice board. You can tag me or other editors if you need third party input on this matter. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
comments are welcome at the talk page of the Collaboration article, but for reference that move had been discussed since mmm early February I think. It's not itself controversial -- Japan has a separate article so the previous title was inaccurate -- but people are reluctant to edit the article because of its history of content controversies, so it is hard to get three people to voice an opinion in the same section, shrug. Welcome comments may be at Collaboration, however, it"s not the article this section asks about. Elinruby (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Kakistocracy

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

This article attracts drive-by editors, but there are too few participant on the talk page. There are two recent discussions:

Please consider participating the discussion. Thanks, Politrukki (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Juan Branco

Poster has been blocked as a sock. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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.

Hello, I would be grateful if you could give me your third party opinion on the current "status quo" of the Juan Branco article which you can compare with the draft I have now created with my (further improved with critics of other contributors) translated and updated version, which I feel is more neutral, more complete, and overall a better article, but that contributors seems to block for POV reasons without even checking the sources I send. I'm not perfect and might as well be biased, so I wanted to ask your opinion. My version (the draft) is translated from fr:Juan Branco (rated B-class) + like 20% of recent content that isn't yet on the French article.

History

I have been trying to add wp:translated content to the english start-class article Juan Branco (which was like that... [31]) for 2 months now, and it has proven to be very challenging. First of all, the Expand French template I put in was immediately reverted (the only time this has happened). After a little chat with the 2 active contributors (and almost immediate personal attacks + double bind), they seemed to agree to let me add the content, but slower, so that they could double check it. Ok, so I did that, adding the content gradually over the past 2 months, and one of the 2 contributors cleaned up my contributions; the other, however, launched an RFC asking for a rollback, but did not get consensus for it. So I kept translating/expanding, and the process ended on 25 June with this edit [32].

However, 2 weeks later, 2 other accounts (one single-purpose, the other one very close; who both hadn't contributed for months) forced the rollback, immediately accusing me of being an SPA (lol), "watering down scandals" and "filling the article with BS, cherry-picked and distorted facts".

I've tried to stay calm and stick to independent sources as much as possible (+ we know our subject is conflicting with many French mass media [33]), sending these 3 contributors (2 SPAs + the first RFC requester) my sources (I added 150 of them during the translation process, and checked most of them so I feel like I know what i'm talking about), dozens of journalistic biographies on the subject, (here for example : Talk:Juan Branco#Discussion ; Talk:Juan Branco#Discussion 2 ; Talk:Juan Branco#RE: Legal advice and representations) to show that the infos I've added have been widely covered and are WP:due. But it's like talking to a brick wall because no other contributor has sent any sources. They don't question the WP:reliability of my sources either. They just take everything like it's a POV war, "you're watering down scandals so I roll back" or say the infos are "all unrelevant" without even arguing, sometimes even adding primary sourced totally undue material themselves, like here in his first rollback, and that no one seems to care about, in this case. So frustrating... and feels like I just lost hours of work over the past months for nothing..

Looking forward for your comment, Thanks, Imagritte (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2023 (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.

Advent Health

I removed some "awards" from the article which I thought were trivial, but that was reverted by Catfurball (talk · contribs). That user has over 100,000 edits, most of which are on topics related to the Seventh-Day Adventists. I think their recent edits on this article are definitely puffery, and possibly are promotional or motivated by a conflict of interest. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Walt Yoder: I do not work at AdventHealth, I'm not in a conflict of interest. To say that I am is misleading. I have never visited any of their hospitals and they have no hospitals where I live. It is Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals policy to talk about rewards. @Andrew nyr: would agree with me since he undid an editor who removed the rewards section in a hospital article. The AdventHealth article had an awards section before I even edited it. Also I will never add all material related to this hospital network. Catfurball (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)