Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 110

Archive 105

←

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have started either removing or reducing the Fritz von Opel details in the above mentioned articles, for example this edit to the History of rockets Ilenart626 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of this discussion when I reverted you at V-2 rocket. I think this is interesting, and not too verbose, background on the use of rockets in land-based vehicles prior to their use in rockets launched into the sky. I think it should be kept in this particular article, at least. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 the section you reverted gives the impression that Fritz von Opel and Opel-RAK had a major influence on Wernher von Braun and the development of the V-2. The reality is that they were publicity stunts and influenced Wernher von Braun to build a toy rocket when he was a boy, which he got in trouble for. Apart from that they had no direct influence on the development of the V-2. In particular the statement “… which provided the basis for the Nazi-era V2 program and US and Soviet activities from 1950 onwards.” is wp:synth as it is not supported by any of the references. I also note this section is also longer than the section about Robert H. Goddard's influence on the V-2, which has been documented by multiple reliable sources and so highlights that the section on Fritz von Opel and Opel-RAK are wp:undue. Ilenart626 (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

From Hermann Oberth § Rocketry and spaceflight:

Oberth's student Max Valier joined forces with Fritz von Opel to create the world's first large-scale experimental rocket program Opel-RAK, leading to speed records for ground and rail vehicles and the world's first rocket plane. Opel RAK.1, a purpose-built design by Julius Hatry, was demonstrated to the public and world media on September 30, 1929, piloted by von Opel. Valier's and von Opel's demonstrations had a strong and long-lasting impact on later spaceflight pioneers, in particular on another of Oberth's students, Wernher von Braun.

You seem to be reading more weight to von Opel and downplaying Valier and Hatry. And wanting to give the impression that the young boy was most influenced by that book he read and not some spectacular public demonstration. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 that section you are quoting from the Hermann Oberth article was created by this edit in 2021 by an unregistered user that appears to be the same editor that I have detailed above that has been creating these undue sections. Later another unregistered user added this reference which is the only reference to this section, which leads to an Opel Video Portal which is impossible to verify. Therfore the section you are quoting from Hermann Oberth has the same issue as the V-2 article; is not supported by reliable sources and appears to have been created by the same unregistered user that has been giving undue weight to Fritz von Opel and Opel-RAK in various space related articles. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the Fritz von Opel biography cites a page on NASA's site, hopefully this is a reliable source for what he did: 95 years ago: First Human Rocket-Powered Aircraft Flight

I'm not familiar enough with rocket technology to know whether rockets used to power aircraft significantly differ from rockets used to proper capsules towards space. We can simply state that these late 1920s rockets powering rail-based vehicles and aircraft existed, without explaining the degree to which this technology was adapted for long-range guided ballistic missiles, if we don't know the details. And not imply that development went directly from textbook theory to missiles, and that the rail- and aircraft-based stunts were irrelevant... or if these stunts were indeed irrelevant, we should explain why they were irrelevant. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that NASA article may have a wp:wikipedia clones issue, note that it cites Wikipedia as the source for the photos. Its hard to find reliable sources about Fritz von Opel, note the two reliable sources I mentioned above, 1 & 2 only have brief entries about him. So far this article appears to be the most comprehensive article I have located.

The rockets von Opel used were Solid-propellant rockets manufactured by Friedrich Wilhelm Sander, which were then being used as signal rockets. Rockets used for space exploration generally use Liquid-propellant rockets. Regarding the rest of your comments, would suggest that if we do not know the details we should state what reliable sources say and remove anything that is OR or synth. I’ll go back and have another look at the V-2 article and make some suggestions on the V-2 talk page.

Regarding the Fritz von Opel article, Opel-RAK article and perhaps several other related articles the unregistered user has been editing; I’m thinking the best way forward is to place a POV template on the articles and highlight the above issues on their talk pages, for discussion and resolution. Ilenart626 (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that this user is refusing to communicate, revert their edits and if they continue to persist, escalate to WP:ANI. I would happy to help revert if you could provide a comprehensive list of affected pages. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia I have already reverted all the edits in the above space related articles, apart from V-2 rocket where I have proposed an edit on the talk page. The articles I have not reviewed and appear to have the same issue include Fritz von Opel, Opel-RAK, Opel, Friedrich Wilhelm Sander, Julius Hatry and Opel RAK.1. Note that the edits by the unregistered users, which appear to be tbe same person, have been carried out over a number of years and the articles have since been modified by other users. Therefore it appears it would now be difficult and time consuming to revert these specific edits Ilenart626 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: The rockets von Opel used were Solid-propellant rockets manufactured by Friedrich Wilhelm Sander, which were then being used as signal rockets. Rockets used for space exploration generally use Liquid-propellant rockets.

You must have missed Opel-RAK § Liquid-fuel rocket development, test launches and a planned flight across the English channel and Liquid-propellant rocket § Germany. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I have seen those claims, however they have again been added by his edit from an unregistered user, which appears to be the same person as all the other Opel-RAK claims. The main reference they are using is from a book by Max Valier, who’s article has also been extensively edited by unregistered users. Neufield’s Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War (2008, p54-55) describes Max Valier as “… an Austrian air force veteran, astonomy populizer and campainer for a crackpot astronomical theory. In 1924 Valier published a popular book summarizing (sometimes inaccurately) Oberth’s mind stretching insights…”. Michael J. Neufeld chaired the Space History Division at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum from 2007 to 2011, so I would say his opinion can be relied on. So yes I have seen these claims about Opel-RAK being involved in liquid rocket development, but not sure how reliable they are. Ilenart626 (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

More consistent information for the origins of German rocketry is described by the article Verein für Raumschiffahrt (VfR, a private association founded in 1927) which makes clear that a group of pioneers jointly made trials at the Berlin rocket launching site with different approaches. They were enthusiastic amateur researchers who permanently lacked resources and took each opportunity for publicity. This also included Klaus Riedel (who was the leader of the Bernstadt experiments), Rudolf Nebel and Arthur Rudolph (supporting Max Valier's experiments at Heylandt). Only in 1932 the situation changed when the German Army (via Walter Dornberger) became interested and contracted Wernher von Braun, Walter Thiel and Kurt Wahmke for secret military development, spent more money in Kummersdorf and stopped further VfR activities due to political reasons. SchmiAlf (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Verein für Raumschiffahrt article also has dubious information. Note this edit from an unregistered user in October 2021 where “…Fritz von Opel's rocket-powered publicity stunts for the Opel company.” has been expanded to “… the Opel company in Fritz von Opel's demonstrations and speed records for cars, rail vehicles and the world's first rocket planes, Opel RAK, which are generally considered the world's first rocket program. Those events drew large crowds and worldwide media attention and popularized rocketry as means of propulsion immensely.”. Note the edit’s descrition is “style” and is unreferenced. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's unreferenced then just go ahead and excise it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it was the VfR with its activities which impressed WvB and not so much "buying a copy of Oberth's book". Maybe Willy Ley among the German pioneers from 1927 is another (reliable?) source for this early period. For sure, the OPEL RAK with its solid-fuel rocket had little influence on the V-2 and the development of liquid-fueled rocket engines which might have started with Valier at Heylandt in 1930. SchmiAlf (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I have added POV tags to the Fritz von Opel and Opel-RAK articles. I have limited time available, however will try to commence a cleanup. If any editors have time available feel free to jump in. There are probably related articles that also need a cleanup, however these two are a good place to start. Ilenart626 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war protests

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

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

@Selfstudier: The cleanup tag has not yet been removed. Is this dispute still ongoing? Jarble (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the article's talk page. I think tags should be removed if there's no discussion started on the talk page with particulars about the problem seen in a reasonably short time. NadVolum (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Tim Hunt

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

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

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

The problem with any extended coverage of this controversy in the Tim Hunt article of this event is that it inevitably states as fact issues that remained controversial at the time and were never resolved. Even the quote Loki wants to present as what Hunt "said" is only one version of the remarks. But Hunt was definitely and mercilessly shamed (Jon Ronson, who wrote the book on online shaming, thought so[1]). That was the event in Hunt's life that needs to be recorded (because it derailed his life for some time). But nothing more needs to be said; it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to immortalize the most embarrassing things that happen to people online. As an incident of online shaming the details do of course matter and are covered in the linked article.Thomas B (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

is the word shaming in quotes and attributed? If not it sounds kind of synth to me. It may possibly be too much weight to go into versions of what was said and who thought they it was sexist and why. But "shaming" is an emotion-laden word that may carry a judgement and it should be cited Elinruby (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any source that uses the exact words "online shaming" (the Jon Ronson interview above is the only source that uses "shamed" or "shaming" at all). There's one source that mentions a "particularly vicious social media campaign" but most of the sources just call it "criticism" or "backlash". Loki (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that if there is a dispute about what he said (I am taking this on faith) then the length needed to explain it might cause problems with weight and due, but the other party said something about public shaming. That's a bit PoV and I'm not suggesting it as a wording, but perhaps there is a possible agreement out there over something like "He was sharply criticized for statements he later denied making (or said were misconstrued or whatever) but tsome people called sexist," followed by a quote... Details to be negotiated, of course Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)se

I'm fine with this. All I want is some mention of what he said and why it was controversial.

Right now the page takes Hunt's side in this incident more than even the most sympathetic sources, and quite a bit more than the "median" source. Even Hunt himself says that he shouldn't have said the thing he said, which we don't mention at all either. Loki (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If this helps, we could restore the part about what Hunt said afterwards from this old version. NicolausPrime (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

That appears to be basically what's currently over at online shaming. I'd be fine with moving it back to Tim Hunt. Loki (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was thinking that this was his BLP. If the article is online shaming, and the sources in his case don't use the phrase, should he be in this article at all? Elinruby (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I am talking about his BLP. (I also dispute his relevance to the online shaming article, but refer to it only to establish there are plenty of sources about this incident.) Loki (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best way to think of the paragraph in the BLP article is as a summary to go with the "see also" link. Since that link goes to the "online shaming" article, it only makes sense if we say that he was, in fact, shamed. I don't think that's controversial but, that should be worked out the online shaming article talk page, I would think. Thomas B (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the idea that a paragraph about comments made by Tim Hunt should primarily go on any other page but Tim Hunt is pretty obviously wrong. Loki (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This would mean we need to talk about WP:WEIGHT in WP:BLP. The problem is that this isn't really a very important thing about him. He was falsely accused of being a sexist based on something he said off-the-cuff that was then taken out of context. It became a shitstorm. Then it passed. Thomas B (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that you can say "falsely" with confidence based on the sources. Loki (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm confident he isn't a sexist. But I wouldn't say "falsely accused" in the article, of course. Thomas B (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think you could say "truthfully" either. Both for MOS:LABEL reasons and because I don't think the sources are that clear either way. Loki (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s probably quite an important thing about him, as measured by the amount of reliable source coverage it got. I’d move the content at online shaming to Tim Hunt and edit it down to what’s due. Arguably the media reaction was more notable than the thing he actually said. The idea that you can take a decontextualised off-the-cuff dumb remark and arrive at a judgement of “he is sexist” is the basic flaw that caused the witch hunt in the first place, and we do not want to play that game at Wikipedia. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This 2021 paper in 'Social Theory and Practice' mentions Hunt in the first footnote, citing the LBC Ronson clip, and describing the incident as "shaming for allegedly sexist comments at a conference." [2] Thomas B (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that neither source cited in the longstanding paragraph contains the word "shaming", I'm fairly confident that it doesn't conform to WP:NPOV and is an WP:OR. Loki's version appears more neutral to me. I don't like that much of the discussion here is focused on whether Hunt or what e said was actually sexist or not, or whether the backlash was right or wrong. I think we should rather be primarily discussing about how to accurately and proportionally summarize what the reliable sources say. NicolausPrime (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to stress that the reason the word "shaming" appears in the Tim Hunt article is that the paragraph is a wp:summary of the "see also" linked article on online shaming. Thomas B (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Something is amiss for sure, at both the online shaming article and Hunt's. More eyes needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm genuinely surprised there aren't at least a couple paragraphs detailing his comments and the backlash. It got a lot of coverage at the time and continues to be referenced, including several hundred words of discussion in 2020 Hypatia article "When Shaming is Shameful". JoelleJay (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The Hypatia article (like the STP article [3]) seems to justify the "shaming" label. I'd be happy to include it as a source along with the Robin McKie Guardian piece. That would also provide some balance, since the Guardian piece was generally sympathetic to the Hunts' and the Hypatia article's sympathies seem to lie with St Louis, Blum, and Oransky.

It occurs to me that a good way to think about how many paragraphs this deserves in the Tim Hunt article is to consider how many it warrants in Deborah Blum's and Ivan Oransky's. At present, there is no mention of the incident at all in their articles, even though the Hypatia paper says that the event is more significant for its "backlash" (against the shamers, especially St Louis) than it is for our understanding of Tim Hunt. Adkins also emphasizes that the intended target of the campaign wasn't Hunt, but the institutions of science.

All this suggest to me that it warrants only a passing mention in Hunt's BLP, but more expansive coverage as an example of online shaming. That is, the status quo. Thomas B (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

How much sustained, significant, secondary coverage of this event would it take to qualify for more than a "passing mention"? At this point the incident would easily qualify for its own article. I first learned about Dr Hunt through his integral studies with Spisula and urchins, but I have a PhD in that field; I would wager a much broader range of people even in academia are aware of him because of his comments than because of any specific studies of his. We don't need to turn his article into a coatrack, but a balanced biography would require several sentences neutrally covering the topic a substantial proportion of people would be visiting the page to read about. Oransky and Blum were not central figures in this event, so its treatment in their bios isn't relevant. JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to work on it with you (and others) to try to find a balance. I agree that the section in the shaming article could be spun off into an article on its own. I've only quickly read the Hypatia article, but I think its point is that Connie St Louis is perhaps more central to full meaning of the event than Hunt. For reference, my original proposal for what should go in the Hunt article look like this:[4]. Thomas B (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not a neutral summary of the incident. It is framed as if the statement "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls ... three things happen when they are in the lab ... You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry." was later deemed to be "not sexist" (or didn't happen at all) and as if the shaming for it was unjustified persecution. The Hypatia article however refers to the comment as "sexist" throughout and unwaveringly supports the narrative that the backlash against Hunt was deserved. JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Like I say, I'm happy to work on it with you over at the article talk page. Like I've said above, I don't think it is possible, on the basis of the sources, to state, as fact, or even imply, that he said something sexist. Adkins clearly has a POV on that, but it is disputed by others. Thomas B (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The consensus of this discussion seems overwhelmingly against you, Mr. Basball. I agree that while the section shouldn't be excessively long, the current version is an inadequate summation of the controversy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to work towards something more adequate on the article talk page. But I think some people here are underestimating how difficult it is to get this right while respecting WP:BLP. Thomas B (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

My proposal: Based on this discussion, I think we should move the material at the online shaming article to a new article called 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists Online Shaming Incident and write a brief, BLP-respecting, NPOV summary for the Tim Hunt article and link to it.Thomas B (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the title you're proposing is NPOV. Which I think should be plain to see already, given that essentially the whole point of contention is about simply characterizing the backlash against Hunt as "online shaming" without qualification, quotation, or attribution. I'm not sure about moving this to a separate article. There's a substantial amount of coverage, but I doubt it's going to result in an article beyond stub or start-class without being excessively detailed about the way how journalists and social media covered it and how their response was interpreted in turn. Seems too meta to me. NicolausPrime (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

My takeaway from both the Hypatia[5] and STP[6] articles is that this was objectively a "shaming" event. The two articles are for and against the shaming of Hunt respectively, but both agree that it was a case of what Ronson (who wrote the book on shaming) also recognized as a shaming incident. Finally, it's been our view here at Wikipedia, where's it's included as an example in the online shaming article. What is it if not an instance of shaming? Thomas B (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This well-cited article in the European Journal of Philosophy, "Enforcing social norms: The morality of public shaming,"[7] also leads with the Tim Hunt Case. I'm sorry, but I really don't see how describing this as a case of shaming in controversial.. Thomas B (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As to "without qualification, quotation, or attribution": point taken. I think all three sources (Hypatia, STP, EJP) could be cited in the article as it stands. Thomas B (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

If there was to be an article on the incident at all, it would absolutely have Tim Hunt in the title and would contain extensive discussion of his comments, which were pretty widely regarded as sexist (whether or not it was intended as a joke, and whether or not the shaming response was considered proportionate). The "event" in question would need to be his statements, not a POV fork on the shaming.

Certainly the whole quote (according to one source) would need to be present:

“It's strange that a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls. Now seriously, I'm impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt, an important role in it. Science needs women, and you should do science despite the obstacles and despite monsters like me!”

The numerous academic news and articles that came out about it would require balanced coverage. That would mean citing assessments like these:
Nature: Last week's incident at a meeting of science journalists in South Korea, at which the British Nobel prizewinner Tim Hunt expressed jaw-dropping and belittling sentiments about women in the laboratory [...] All involved in science should condemn the comments, which suggested that single-sex labs might be preferable because "girls" tend to fall in love with their male colleagues and cry when criticized.
This article on the "#distractinglysexy" Twitter hashtag Hunt's comments provoked: Using the Twitter hashtag #distractinglysexy, women scientists posted pictures of themselves in labs or during field research to contest misogynist remarks by Nobel laureate Tim Hunt.

In addition to more sympathetic treatments like here: Consider, for example, Tim Hunt's infamous speech on ‘problems with girls in science’, which may have been intended to be self-deprecating and ironic, but which was taken literally. Suppose that his intentions were to be self-deprecating and ironic, and he was in fact challenging sexist views in this way rather than endorsing them. We can condemn the fact that what was communicated was deeply sexist, and criticise his failure to make his ironic intent sufficiently clear. But we would need to know more to determine what it is appropriate to say about him. Just why had he communicated something that he did not intend, if he did that? To what extent was his sexist communication attributable to more deeply held sexist views, attitudes, and dispositions?

We'd also want to summarize the context included in many articles that suggests the comments were not entirely satiric:
Article in American Scientist: Despite what Hunt and others considered a joke, there was a deep seriousness to his comment. Hunt has been supportive of women entering science, but not of their rising to the top. For example, in an interview with Labtimes in 2014, Hunt said that he was unsure why there was a “staggering” inequality in the numbers of males and females in the upper echelons of science. “One should start asking why women being underrepresented in senior positions is such a big problem,” he said. “Is this actually a bad thing? It is not immediately obvious for me.... Is this bad for women? Or bad for science? Or bad for society? I don’t know, it clearly upsets people a lot.” This kind of obliviousness to the real hurdles women face propagates the culture that excludes them from the top levels of power, prestige, and pay. [...] There is a still darker side to the discrimination. A few months before this episode, Michael Eisen, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, sat next to Hunt in a session about obstacles to women’s careers at a meeting for young investigators in India. Eisen wrote on his blog:
"It is unconscionable that, barely a month after listening to a woman moved to tears as she recounted a sexual assault from a senior colleague and how hard it was for her to regain her career, Hunt would choose to mock women in science as teary love interests…. That a person as smart as Hunt could go his entire career without realizing that a Nobel Prize winner deriding women—even in a joking way—is bad just serves to show how far we have to go."
NYT article: “I did mean the part about having trouble with girls,” he told the BBC. “I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me, and it’s very disruptive to the science because it’s terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field.”

He elaborated on his comments that women are prone to cry when confronted with criticism.

“It’s terribly important that you can criticize people’s ideas without criticizing them and if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth,” he said. “Science is about nothing but getting at the truth, and anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science.” JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This. There was a sequence of events here. Just pruning off one spur to discuss in isolation (i.e. The Shaming) is bad POV. Bon courage (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Shall we start drafting that article? I followed the controversy closely at the time, and even participated in it, so I have lots to contribute. All of these statements are familiar to me and it will be a good challenge to write them up in a balanced way with someone working from the opposite POV. I'm game if you are.

But the other challenge remains: what two or three (or how many?) sentences will then go in the Tim Hunt article as a fitting summary, respecting both WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT? Thomas B (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all this, but also would like to make it clear that I don't really think we need a separate article for this. Or at least, I think the best thing to do would be to try to fit a reasonable description of the incident into the Tim Hunt article first, and only if that becomes unwieldy should we consider separating it into its own article. Loki (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's better to keep it in Hunt's bio. JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess that takes us back to the article. But I'm not sure how much we've resolved. Perhaps we can all agree to something like, "In 2015, he was the subject of an online shaming campaign over allegedly sexist remarks he made at a science journalism conference. The controversy forced his resignation from several scientific bodies, including an honary teaching position at UCL, and a temporary withdrawal from public life," with sourcing to Hypatia, STP, and EJP? Thomas B (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't a need for a separate article, it can be succingtly in Hunt's bio. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, however notable the incident is, WP:NOPAGE applies. Bon courage (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Two options (Tim Hunt)

Local discussion has yet to establish any consensus, and it's been a bit of a revolving door of participants. There are surely many ways of getting this right, but as of now there are to main proposals on the table.

Version 1:

In June 2015, Hunt became the target of an online shaming campaign after remarks he made at a science journalism conference were interpreted as sexist. The controversy led to his resignation from several key research and policy positions, including the European Research Council, and a temporary withdrawal from public life and professional activities.

Version 2:

In June 2015, a toast made by Hunt at a conference for women in science attracted criticism, with many arguing that his comments were misogynistic. Hunt said: "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry." Hunt apologized for his comments, which he called "jocular" and "ironic", though "inexcusable". The controversy led to an online shaming campaign, Hunt's resignation from several key research and policy positions (including the European Research Council), and a temporary withdrawal from public life and professional activities.

Though all proposals are welcome, it would be helpful if editors could weigh in on which version they broadly prefer, and we can tweak once we have a starting point. Pinging prior NPOV participants @LokiTheLiar, Thomas Basboll, Elinruby, NicolausPrime, Barnards.tar.gz, JoelleJay, Hemiauchenia, and Bon courage. Zanahary participated at the talk page, but has said they'd like to step back. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I prefer version 2. I think the online shaming must be mentioned, but that doing so before mentioning the comments that led to the criticism is under-informative and non-neutral. I think we need to briefly quote or summarize Hunt's comments that led to it all. Brevity is important to me, since this is just a part of Hunt's long and notable biography, but we shouldn't shave it so far down or highlight the shaming as much as version 1 does. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. This seems reasonable. There's a sequence of events, cause and effect. Putting the effect without the cause would be most odd. Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I also prefer 2. I think including what Hunt actually rather is preferable than version 1 which overly focuses on the "online shaming" framing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I vote for version 1, of course. Version 2 may be NPOV but not BLP. If the sentiment here leans to 2, we should consult WP:BLPN. "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." (WP:BLP) Thomas B (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP should not prevent us from documenting this incident, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

Loki (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I think we can dispense with concern that we're acting as a tabloid, since Hunt's statements and the aftermath are covered by reputable, non-tabloid sources, including scholarly works. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is your source for "many arguing that his comments were misogynistic"? Thomas B (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely prefer version 2. Although I would want to include the whole quote, which is less cherry-picked and provides better context. The partial quote is so blatantly sexist that the rest of the paragraph kind of comes off as weasely whitewashing. At the same time, I'd also point out his "apology" was not well-received since he actually doubled down defending what he said. This whole incident received (and continues to receive) extensive high-quality academic coverage on top of all the popular media, which supports more detailed treatment being DUE here. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding your point here, but I agree that the quote comes off as obviously and "inexcusably" sexist. Hunt's Wikipedia BLP cannot, of course, present him that way, since he is demonstrably not sexist at all. Thomas B (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Between the two I'd prefer version 2, but like JoelleJay I would prefer for the full quote to be included. I also don't think there's enough sourcing of "online shaming campaign" to use that phrasing without attribution. Loki (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm tracking issues that need further discussion here:
  1. Are we in compliance with BLP?
  2. Should we include more quoted material from Hunt's speech?
  3. Should we remove or add context to Hunt's apology?
  4. Is a lengthier treatment, with more detail, DUE?
  5. Should "online shaming campaign" be removed or attributed?
  Anyone should feel free to add to the list. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  In re 5 it is currently attributed to three scholarly sources. Thomas B (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure Loki means in-text attribution, like "according to sources x, y, and z ...". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is as Loki's. Between the two I'd prefer version 2, but I would like the full quote to be included, and the phrase "online shaming campaign" attributed/quoted if it is to be retained. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like I'm the only one (here) who favors version 1, which is also status quo. So I recommend that someone bring it to the article talk page and see what consensus we can reach there (among people who actually want to work on the article). Version 2 isn't as accurate a representation of what happened as some of you think, but that's beside the point because an accurate (sufficiently detailed) account would violate WP:DUE for his BLP. That's why I expect this will probably end up needing to be resolved at WP:BLPN.Thomas B (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I find 2 rather shocking, which is, I guess, why some prefer it. I personally don't think we should perpetuate it. It boils down to due weight. Is this the most important thing about him? I don't know enough about his career to evaluate the importance of the resignations, but my reaction to them is "good". Possibly because of the resignations it is. Maybe we could go between the horns of the dilemma and indirectly quote him as saying women are apt to fall in love and cry. (?) And yes absolutel this should be attributed. Elinruby (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC now opened

Please see Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Crime in Germany

This article's main focus is on migrants, ethnic minorities, and foreign criminal organizations in Germany: should the article be less biased against immigrants in Germany? Jarble (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the weight given in RS? It only covers migrant and minority crime in the "demographics" section, which is the appropriate place, and the "organized crime" section, which, well, if the organized criminal groups are mostly foreign, then that's what the article has to say. I see no major problems right now. JM (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@JM2023: Some of the article's sources might not be reliable: one of the article's contributors was indefinitely blocked for misquoting sources in order to exaggerate the criminal tendencies of immigrants. Jarble (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Patcilus

aps/timat in art Spikachs (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

what? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Bushra Bibi

I'm interested in independent comments on Bushra_Bibi#Alleged_extramarital_affair. None of the cited sources refer it as "extramarital affair" and it is clearly WP:SYNTH. Can any one here please volunteer and remove this as WP:BLP violation. The legal case is already covered above Bushra_Bibi#Convictions. Thank you. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger

Currently, the article fails to properly and equally address Margaret Sanger's strong support of eugenics, and instead buries it into a watered-down statement hidden in the second paragraph, and a section later on in the article. I have attempted to add a classification of her being a eugenicist in the lead sentence as a plethora of reliable sources state, but a few other editors have refused to allow that to happen.

Even in the sentence that does address Sanger's support of eugenics in the lead, it falsely claims that Sanger didn't support it along racial lines, when in-fact, she absolutely did - even according to Planned Parenthood themselves.

I believe that there are violations of Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:UNDUE in both the article and some of the editor's comments/actions, and I ask for a full reviewal of the article and the discussion that can be found here.

Here are the plethora of sources that classify Margaret Sanger as a racist and eugenicist:

• Planned Parenthood (themselves): The difficult truth is that Margaret Sanger’s racist alliances and belief in eugenics have caused irreparable damage to the health and lives of Black people, Indigenous people, people of color, people with disabilities, immigrants, and many others. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/planned-parenthoods-reckoning-with-margaret-sanger
• University of Chicago: Sanger saw birth control as a way to better the human race, to reduce reproduction of “lesser than” groups of society and to make society more even in terms of the “fit” and the “unfit”. Additionally, Sanger pushed her eugenic agenda especially in groups of race. Her experimentation with birth control types and clinics in black populations, while helpful in terms of allowing black women to pursue professional careers, led to medical biases toward black people that still persist today. https://womanisrational.uchicago.edu/2022/09/21/margaret-sanger-the-duality-of-a-ambitious-feminist-and-racist-eugenicist/
• Sanger's My Way to Peace Speech: Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. - Margaret Sanger https://www.jstor.org/stable/48583690
• Sanger was a Eugenicist: Sanger’s eugenics creed is clearly stated in her speech “My Way to Peace” (1932). The centerpiece of the program is vigorous state use of compulsory sterilization and segregation. The first class of persons targeted for sterilization is made up of people with mental or physical disability. “The first step would be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.” A much larger class of undesirables would be forced to choose either sterilization or placement in state work camps. “The second step would be to take an inventory of the second group, such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate them on farms and open spaces.” Those segregated in these camps could return to mainstream society if they underwent sterilization and demonstrated good behavior. Sanger estimates that 15 million to 20 million Americans would be targeted in this regime of forced sterilization and concentration camps. In Sanger, the humanitarian dream of a world without poverty and illness has deteriorated into a coercive world where the poor, the disabled and the addicted simply disappear. https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/11/27/margaret-sanger-was-eugenicist-why-are-we-still-celebrating-her
• Sanger's Connections with Nazism: Margaret Sanger got in tight with the Ku Klux Klan circles, and cozied up to more like them. The following quote from the book “Killer Angel” discovers who some of the other friends in her new movement were: “In April of 1933, The [Birth Control] Review [Margaret Sanger’s magazine], published a shocking article entitled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need”. It was written by Margaret’s close friend and advisor, Ernst Rudin, who was then serving as Hitler’s Director of Genetic Sterilization and had earlier taken a role in the establishment in the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. Later in June of that same year, [The Birth Control Review] published an article by Leon Whitney entitled, “Selective Sterilization”, which adamantly praised and defended The Third Reich’s pre-holocaust race purification programs.” https://www.courierherald.com/letters/hitler-the-ku-klux-klan-and-margaret-sanger/
• USA Today: Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, must join that list. In promoting birth control, she advanced a controversial "Negro Project," wrote in her autobiography about speaking to a Ku Klux Klan group and advocated for a eugenics approach to breeding for “the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/23/racism-eugenics-margaret-sanger-deserves-no-honors-column/5480192002/

---

MY PROPOSED CHANGES:

• ADDITIONAL THIRD PARAGRAPH OF LEAD SHOULD BE: Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of negative eugenics. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and forced sterilization, proposing the segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and poor. Sanger was also associated with racist causes, including her advancement of the "Negro Project," where she spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally and outlined her support for the elimination of "defective" persons. Following public pressure, in 2021, Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger, acknowledging her racist and discriminatory beliefs and her support for eugenics.
• LEAD SHOULD MENTION SHE IS ALSO A EUGENICIST PER WP:RS
• EUGENICS SECTION SHOULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN A NEUTRAL WAY PER WP:RS AND WP:NPOV

DocZach (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length on the Margaret Sanger talk-page [8], where DocZach's proposal to focus the article around eugenics has not gotten support from other editors. NightHeron (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to note that @NightHeron's only contribution to the discussion on Margaret Sanger's talk page was a personal attack against my character and an assumption that I am editing with bad faith, violating the policy that demands we assume good faith in other editors.

Furthermore, it is disingenuous to say "not gotten support from other editors," when only 3 other editors (excluding NightHeron) have replied, one of which hasn't even objected or replied to my second proposal.

The point of this board is to request other people who don't edit the article regularly to review it, and review the dispute. DocZach (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to note that I am not proposing the article to focus on eugenics. It appears that @NightHeron has not read through the entire talk page discussion. My proposal is to give it the appropriate weight along with the other classifications and descriptors of Margaret Sanger. And my proposal is to stop cherry-picking sources to try and glorify her character, and to instead look at the preponderance of reliable sources - which all recognized that Margaret Sanger was a racist eugenicist, including Planned Parenthood themselves (despite the fact that saying so is against their own interests). DocZach (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

"Sanger remains an admired figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements" is not a statement that follows the NPOV policy. Planned Parenthood themselves has literally condemned her and disavowed her. If this isn't cherry-picking and a violation of NPOV, then I don't know what is. DocZach (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise to the dispute in the talk page discussion.

To whoever is willing to help us reach a compromise, please check it out when you can. DocZach (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

DocZach's characterization of my participation on the Margaret Sanger talk-page is false. The edit that DocZach refers to points out that it would be ahistorical to over-emphasize MS's eugenics views, which were (unfortunately) shared by many humanitarians and progressives of her era who were not aware of the dangers. When I criticized DocZach's non-neutral editing on the Margaret Sanger and abortion articles, that was not a personal attack. As is typical of editors who watchlist an article, I follow along the talk-page discussion but only add my own edits to it when I have something to say that has not already been contributed by other editors. In this case other editors have already responded extensively to DocZach, so I haven't contributed much. NightHeron (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a classic WP:1AM situation where an editor attempts to make a change, everybody else opposes them, and then they engage in WP:IDHT behaviour, which is a waste of time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

How did Margaret Sanger think of herself? Maybe differently than we think of her today. The article should not be astonishing to the average reader, nor should it go out of its way to be provocative. And that would be the result of making these changes to the lead of Sanger's biography. It does not result in good encyclopedia articles. This may be a more important principle to guide the editing on this article. The birth control article which has only one mention of eugenics might be a better place to start. Cornsimpel (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I posted a proposed compromise in the talk page discussion. DocZach (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality is the principle of an article not taking a specific side on a person, place, or thing. It is something that many contentious articles on Wikipedia CLEARLY have a problem maintaining, as brilliantly explained in Larry Sanger's essay.

If this article had nothing to do with abortion or Planned Parenthood, I guarantee there would NOT be any opposition to adding in the fact that this person blatantly supported eugenics and was a renowned racist who aligned with deplorable movements to further her mission and organization. I have already offered numerous compromises, including the addition of historical context to the proposed paragraph about eugenics, but it seems that 3-4 editors are persistent on maintaining the article's favorability of Sanger as much as possible.

I am told that I am "pushing a perspective" by proposing a fairly weighted addition of Sanger's racist and eugenic views to the article's lead, but apparently it is perfectly fine to refer to Sanger as an admired figure, reproductive rights pioneer, and excuse her racist and eugenic actions by saying it was just a "rhetorical tool." And then I am told that I am cherry-picking evidence, when the evidence I have provided is from more reliable sources than the few cherry-picked news articles used to support arduous claims and excuses.

An article is neutral if it provides due weight to all facts, a neutral tone, and a fair presentation. This article fails at all three of those qualities.

Perhaps, as I predict, my proposals will not be agreed to, for reasons that I have learned from Larry's essay. However, for the record, I do think it is a shame that editors on Wikipedia are so persistent on maintaining a specific point of view in an article, that they immediately assume bad faith of those who challenge it, and go beyond lengths to prevent any sort of addition of a contrary fact or evidence into the article. DocZach (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the filer of this notice is plain POV-pushing. He thinks he can create a compromise but failes to get any support. see Talk:Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_should_be_mentioned_in_the_very_beginning_of_the_article's_lead;_neutrality_dispute.. He is also in breach of the 1RR-rule on [Margret Sanger]. The Banner talk 19:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I never breached the 1RR-rule. I reverted an edit once within the last 24 hours, and such edit was removing a template when it hadn't met the requirements to be removed.

And furthermore, I'd like to note that I have been threatened by Muboshgu with a ban if I continue trying to challenge the article's neutrality, so I am assuming that I am mandated to drop this dispute out of fear of being banned from editing on Wikipedia.

I think it's unfortunate that so often, editors are just bombarded with bad-faith assumptions and threats as soon as they try to challenge an article's neutrality. I have provided the merits and my argument, but it seems that if I continue, I will be censored and banned.

Therefore, I congratulate you on winning. Not based on merits, but based on threats. My case is rested, and if anyone independent wants to review this neutrality dispute, that'd be greatly appreciated. But for now, I have nothing else to add, since I don't want to be banned. DocZach (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not say that you did breach 1RR. I warned you that if you reinserted the NPOV today, that would violate 1RR. Notifying you of the rules is not a "threat". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Revert 1, Revert 2. The Banner talk 21:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not a violation of 1RR. I only made one revert. The first link you provided was the re-addition of a neutrality dispute, one that was removed 2 days before I re-added it. If I reverted again today, then it would violate 1RR. DocZach (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry: one-revert rule (1RR): The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". There may also be a requirement to discuss each reversion on the talk page, and sometimes the phrase "24-hour period" is replaced by some other time period, such as "one week" or "one month". The rule may be applied to either pages or editors. And the first revert is an revert of this edit. The Banner talk 21:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well the admin @Muboshgu said I didn't violate it, he said if I did it again today, then it would violate the 1RR rule. And I don't plan to add it again, so I'm not sure why we're arguing about this. DocZach (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I am noting here that I advised here & here that DocZach's edits made to Margaret Sanger or proposed on the talk page could violate the Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view pillar, neutrality policy, & the MOS:LEADSENTENCE & MOS:LEADCLUTTER guidelines. Peaceray (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The proposal compromise didn't involve the lead sentence. I agreed that we can leave eugenicist out of the first sentence so long as the paragraph addressing her eugenics support was added to the lead. DocZach (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

REPOST FROM TALK PAGE:

Okay, I am going to try my best to propose my case in a more thorough way:

1. Lead sentence: I tend to agree with the other editors in that it is unnecessary to add that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist in the lead sentence. Whilst I feel like there would be appropriate weight to do so, I recognize that it is not completely necessary.
2. Lead paragraph: I uphold my persistence that there should be a third paragraph in the lead describing Sanger's view on eugenics. I believe there is appropriate weight to do so. I recognize that Sanger is primarily known for birth control and founding Planned Parenthood, but aside from that, she is also known as a prominent eugenicist and racist, as shown from the sources I provided you. There are more results on Google showing "Margaret Sanger + eugenics" than there are showing "Margaret Sanger + sex educator." However, in the interest of compromise, I will agree with what @David Fuchs said about the negative eugenics part of the second paragraph, and would ask that the last two sentences of the second paragraph be amended to: Margaret Sanger was widely criticized for her support of negative eugenics. Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger in 2021, citing her racist and eugenics past that had left a negative impact on the disabled and people of color. Therefore, a separate paragraph won't be necessary, and it would be a compromise to some of the editors' claims that there is not enough due weight to add a separate paragraph.
3. Neutral tone: I believe that it is profoundly incorrect to say "Sanger remains an admired figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements." The cited reference for that claim is literally titled "Planned Parenthood in N.Y. Disavows Margaret Sanger Over Eugenics." An opinion of the New York Times over the status of admiration of Sanger is not reliable, and the fact that the article referenced is about Planned Parenthood themselves disavowing her is quite ironic. With the plethora of sources I have provided, and the fact that this statement is not true - even for the organization she founded, this statement should be amended to: Sanger remains a significant figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements.
4. Eugenics section: Finally, there are some changes (mostly addition of more material) that I'd make here, but I believe that would be better to do at a later date so as to not prolong this discussion with adding even more proposals.

I appreciate the advice from North and Der, and I believe this proposal is completely reasonable and helps to maintain neutrality and due weight within the article.

DocZach (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There is already extensive debate on the article talk-page about changing the emphasis in the article to eugenics and racism. Anyone who learns of this discussion here can go to Talk:Margaret Sanger to participate. There is no need to repeat or repost everything from the talk-page here. Nor is there a need for two parallel discussions, per WP:FORUMSHOPPING. NightHeron (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Rape during the occupation of Germany - edits focusing on race of the rapists

• Rape during the occupation of Germany

I'm interested in getting this noticeboard's views on this edit. While there seems to be an abundance of good sources, I wonder if it's suffering from WP:UNDUE weight where the ethnicities are the rapists are concerned.

I initially removed it for these reasons, but the user re-added it stating they were intending to counter propaganda outside of Wikipedia. While I don't think that's a justified reason for inclusion, I'm hesitant to remove again owing to the quality of the sourcing.

That said, I do find the edit to be concerning given the disproportionate focus on the race of the rapists. At a minimum I think it should be cut down significantly, but I'd like to hear the opinions of others. — Czello ^(music) 14:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think "Soviet" is due and speculation about Kazakh or other ethnicity is not. "Mongol" definitely is not. Given German propaganda perceptions of the rapists' race may have increased the victims' humiliation but it isn't necessary to plumb those waters.

Side note, copy-edit badly needed. Elinruby (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty well-known that the majority of rapes in occupied Germany were done my Soviet soldiers, and that they treated the population of the countries they "liberated" in Eastern Europe no different. The wording used desperately needs a cleanup, but there's nothing undue about the information. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Bryan McDonald (football scout)

I have tried to create an entry profiling a former colleague - Bryan MacDonald - who requires an entry detailing his career in football scouting.

The following is what was submitted, but not allowed due to the style of writing - can someone explain how it can be altered so as to be accepted?.......:

Bryan McDonald (football scout)

Bryan McDonald (born 21st Sept 1975) is an Irish Football Scout and Opposition Analyst.

History Mcdonald has extensive football management and coaching experience in Scotland and the Rep of Ireland. As a licenced scout and holder of many Coaching and Scouting qualifications McDonald’s knowledge and experience is held in high regards by many within the football industry. McDonald has built an extensive knowledge base and contact network within the football industry. McDonald’s move from coaching and management into scouting started with Motherwell Football Club, joining the Scottish Premier League side’s Professional Youth Academy. Working with Steve Hammil and David Clarkson identifying the future stars for the Firpark outfit. Joining Airdrieonians FC found McDonald working as 1st Team Head Scout, working as part of Ian Murray’s successful backroom team. With Murray moving to Raith Rovers FC in the summer of 2022 McDonald joined Murray’s backroom team in Kirkcaldy as 1st Team Head Scout and Opposition Analyst. Summer 2023 saw McDonald taking up the opportunity to join Scottish Premiership side Dundee FC as 1st Team Scout. Education McDonald has gained the following qualifications: Scottish Football Association: Football Scout Licence Talent Identification The FA: Football Scouting International Professional Scout Organisation: Football Scouting The Open University The Business of Football Professional Football Scouts Association: Intro to Football Scouting Talent Identification in Football Career History Motherwell Football Club 2018-2023 Pro Youth Academy Scout Airdrieonians Football Club 2019-2022 1st Team Head Scout Raith Rovers Football Club 2022-2023 1st Team Head Scout & Opposition Analyst Dundee Football Club 2023-present 1st Team Scout Niallrrfc (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Please see subject discussion. This is in part an NPOV issue.Cinderella157 (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hellstorm (film)

There has been a dispute between the ony two editors who have edited this page over it's neutrality, eg is it a documentary, See it's edit history.[9], The article has just been protected. If it helps, he self-published book is here and on the film's creator at Renegade (media platform). Doug Weller talk 17:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism

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

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

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

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

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

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@Thebiguglyalien@Viriditas See The Republicans are plotting to literally rewrite the Constitution to eliminate core rights and protections. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § The use of 'infobox country' for fictitious states

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § The use of 'infobox country' for fictitious states. A discussion about what infobox should articles about micronations have is focusing on NPOV issues Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

1977 anti-Tamil pogrom

Wanted to get more eyes on this article 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom, it seems to needs a clean up to sound more WP:NPOV as it appears to have been written mainly on contradicting WP:PRIMARY sources, as reputable these are the lack of clear non bias secondary analysis has left the article opened for WP:NAT editing. With a lot of reverting and little discussion in the talk page. Cossde (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Articles about Julian Jaynes

Snarcky1996 (talk · contribs) persists in using non-neutral language in two articles and appears to be ready to edit war over it.

• Bicameral mentality
• The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

At issue is violating the guidelines about the use of words expressing doubt as clearly stated at WP:CLAIM. Skyerise (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I simply used the word "claim" to emphasize the controversial/unproven nature of the theory and the various claims of its author. Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Which is exactly what WP:CLAIM says not to do. Skyerise (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Bad interpretation of it. Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation of it is supported by 17 years of Wikipedia experience, both arguing the wrong side as you are now in my early days, but now understanding the intent and supporting that intent. But someone else will roll around and burst your bubble. Skyerise (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Still using arguments of authority. Bad habits. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You mistake the argument from direct experience for one of authority. I claim no authority, I just know the consensus interpretation of policies I interact with frequently. Be careful about WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS. Skyerise (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If you claim no authority, then stop resorting to such fallacies. I don't care for how long you have been on Wikipedia Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not a fallacy to state that I know from long experience how WP:NPOV and WP:CLAIM are interpreted on Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That's the definition of "argument from authority": relying on the credibility or reputation of the one using it (or of some other figure) rather than on the strength of the actual argument or evidence. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I provided the evidence first, the clear statements at WP:CLAIM, one of many words listed at words to avoid. Skyerise (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You provided the evidence first and then resorted to that.

As for "the clear statements at WP:CLAIM", said statements does not proscribe the use of the word. Neither do they proscribe the term "argued". furthermore, you still have not answered my genuine question on my talk page about the language that you use in the article. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't write the article. I am simply preventing you from inserting bias by changing neutral words to non-neutral ones. Per WP:BRD, if you are reverted by a regular editor, you are supposed to leave the article in the original state until discussion has reached a consensus. You instead keep edit-warring to maintain non-neutral language without waiting for other editors to join the discussion, as you are required to do. This is considered disruptive editing. Skyerise (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I edited an apologetic article by using terms that simply emphasize the theoretical nature of the subject presented in the article. The term "claim", as stated in the rule, indicate uncertainty, and that's why, from my understanding, said rule call to caution in its usage, however it is a term rather commonly used on Wikipedia to describe either unproven or disproved allegations/theories/beliefs, including when presenting the perspective of the author(s) of said allegations/theories/beliefs. For what reason is that not possible in this instance ? Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Becuase it violates our neutral point of view policy. We don't take sides. We report original, pro, and con positions neutrally, using neutral language. You are taking a side. Wikipedia maintains neutrality in all articles, including articles on fringe topics. WP:NPOV states: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, before my edits, the article clearly took a side : Jaynes's one. I simply restored a balanced account, I did not used language that criticized or denigrated the theory. Also, you seem to not have read articles on fringe or pseudocientific theories, nor the rule about it:

Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE):

"Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The use of neutral language is not taking a side. Nothing about using 'wrote', 'said', 'stated', instead of 'claim' makes the language supportive. Skyerise (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The language chosen, and the formulation, was anything but neutral, it strongly implied that the theory was based on numerous solid elements. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And "claim" simply invite caution, but does not refute anything in itself. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Claim is specifically listed as casting doubt. The article does not use supportive words such as clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed, which are listed as supporting non-neutral words at WP:CLAIM. Not using 'claim' doesn't make the article less neutral; using 'claim' makes it less neutral, as very clearly explained at WP:CLAIM. Skyerise (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Other words may be used, sure, "claim" cast doubt yes, but what that mean is that it invite to not take said claims at face-value, but casting doubt does not mean invalidating or refuting. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does. That's exactly what WP:CLAIM says it does, and is your admitted reason for wanting to use the word. Which is exactly the motive for the use of the word that WP:CLAIM is intended to stop. Skyerise (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that, no. It simply indicate that that word may be used in situations where there is doubts indeed. Which is the case here, and yes that's why I want to add it obviously. The point is to emphasize: "Theory unproven". That's not contrary to the Neutral point of view rule, and furthermore it is in compliance with WP:FRINGE. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course it does, right at the beginning: "On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications." And WP:FRINGE does not say to use words expressing doubt. It say to not unduly leave out criticism, which we also report neutrally. Skyerise (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The title of the rule is even "Words to watch", not proscribed words (WITH NO EXCEPTIONS as you like to emphasize).

Here what it say in intro: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution because they may introduce bias." Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Avoid does not mean forbid, and "claim" here does not make "undue implications" at all. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide links to policy pages explicity allowing such usage. Avoid means avoid, so unless you can provide a contrasting policy page that explicitly says when the use of 'claim' is acceptable, then it's not. When you change an article and there is a dispute, it is up to you to show that the majority of editors responding agree with you. Nobody here has agreed with you. Until a majority of editors agree with you, here or on the article talk page, your proposed change may not be implemented. Skyerise (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Noboby here has agreed with you either as of yet, so why do you bring that up? My basis for the use of "claim" is simple: Jaynes's assertions are just that: claims that he made. A theory that he formulated. "Claim" is forbidden only in cases where there is no reason to express doubt or uncertainty about something. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You are the first one that I talk to to make a link between the rule that invite to caution on certain words, and the neutral point of view rule by the way. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I bring it up because articles stay as they are unless there is a WP:CONSENSUS for change. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show the consensus. You have no consensus. Skyerise (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's not quite correct, articles stay as they are only if a modification is contested, which you did here indeed, but I had the right to edit the article at first. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Once only. You do not have the right to edit-war when you are reverted. Skyerise (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And you could have contested it in talk instead of immediately revert it. No matter. Let's go back to where we were in the debate. That is: My basis for the use of "claim" is simple: Jaynes's assertions are just that: claims that he made. A theory that he formulated. "Claim" is forbidden only in cases where there is no reason to express doubt or uncertainty about something.Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You write: "'Claim' is forbidden only in cases where there is no reason to express doubt or uncertainty about something." - but that's simply not true. 'Wrote', 'said', etc. are always preferred to claim. You've provided no policy or guideline that explicitly says otherwise. Rather, you are (rather inexpertly) attempting to "read between the lines" of policy seeing only what you think supports your position. And I did immediately take it to your talk page, then to here when you stuck your fingers in your ears. And I am explicitly allowed by WP:BRD to revert a change that I believe violates WP:NPOV. I don't have to discuss it first. There is an assumption that the current state of the article reflects the current consensus of all the previous and current editors of the article, until you show otherwise by establishing a new consensus on the talk page. Skyerise (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"are always preferred to claim." You are twisting the meaning of the rule again, first you pretended it was forbidden altogether. I have demonstrated that you were wrong in claiming that per the rule in question itself. Now you reformulate it, but that's still incorrect. Describing thoses Jaynes's claims as claims is perfectly appropriate. You provide no evidence as to why that would violate WP:NPOV here.

As for Wp:BRD, since you also still want to argue about that, it state that you should only "Consider reverting only when necessary." Which you did consider necessary here apparently, but that interpretation of yours is a stretch. Neither WP:NPOV nor WP:CLAIM indicate that my edit is inappropriate. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Show me the consensus that supports you. I'll wait. Skyerise (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You are the one seeking support for your position here it seems to me. Which could have be done in the talk page of the article, instead of trying to use this noticeboard to accuse me of non-NPOV editing on a rather thin basis. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I could have, but for the fact that you intentionally "don't get it", just like you did before when I had to post at WP:NORN. You have no respect for more experienced editors; if you did show such respect, I would treat you differently: but you don't. This board is used when newer editors won't listen to a more experienced editor. I brought you here because that's the case with regard to this specific issue. Skyerise (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

So that's simply disregard for editors that disagree with you then. Given your confrontational attitude from the start, I don't see why I should treat you with deference. And you're still using that argument from authority based on your "experience", despite the fact that nothing that you linked to me indicate unambiguously that you are in the right here. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As you were clearly told off by another experienced editor at WP:NORN: "If you still do not understand why you are wrong, you should at least accept that you are wrong and postpone the understanding. The alternative is that you will be blocked eventually". Skyerise (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And who say it is not you who don't understand why you are wrong here? That's it again: you resort to threats and arguments of authority despite the fact that I accepted to discuss and debate, in BOTH instances I might add. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's my direct experience that tells me I am not wrong here. And now other editors are beginning to chime in to tell you just that, just as they waited for you to exhausts all your long-winded but invalid arguments at WP:NORN. This is the way it works and is inevitable: your arguments are not convincing anyone. Skyerise (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That editor also contradict your interpretation of the rules. Its seems that despite all those years, you still have to learn about Wikipedia rules and their correct interpretations. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"They're acceptable (and sometimes even necessary) in order to reflect doubt that is present in the sources"

Seems that you forgot that "detail" in your description of the rule to me. You, you just said : it is forbidden in all instances. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Also the term "argued". Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• What sort of language do the sources use? The key point of WP:CLAIM is that words like "claimed" or "argued" cannot be used to introduce doubt. They're acceptable (and sometimes even necessary) in order to reflect doubt that is present in the sources, but editors can't just say "this is obviously just a claim" - you need to point to sources that handle the statements in question with tongs, so to speak, and treat them as unproven claims rather than fact. (Conversely, of course, to state something as fact in the article voice we need to be citing sources that treat it as fact; but if we don't have that then there would be deeper problems here.) It's not a question of whether there is "no reason" to express doubt; the question is do the sources express doubt about it - you can't introduce doubt yourself as an editor, you can only reflect doubt present in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Noted, thanks for that precision. But I must note that it is a bit problematic here I believe, since that theory, not being widely discussed in academia, is most of the time discussed by supporters only of said theory. Therefore, as a result, the article is a bit (even a lot i believe) biased in favor of the theory, despite its fringe status. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Any suggestions as to how to remedy to that sort of situations? Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is a specific policy just for that situation; see WP:PARITY, which is part of WP:FRINGE. However, you'd first have to successfully argue that the topic is fringe - you could bring it up on WP:FRINGEN, for example (or people might weigh in here.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah okay good, thank you very much for that information, I will bring it here then. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I was also just going to point out that nothing in the article establishes that the theory is indeed WP:FRINGE. No sources are introduced which are cited as saying so, so the idea that it is fringe is just an unsupported claim on your part. Skyerise (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that you finally admit to actively defending that theory. Good. That theory, who argue that consciousness appeared about 3000 or 5000 years ago, is not supported (nor even regularly brought up, it should be added) by the vast majority historians, psychologists, and neuroscientists. But you are free to claim otherwise if you want. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I am not "actively defending" any theory. I am defending Wikipedia's neutrality policy. There is a difference between historians, pyschologists, and neuroscientists disagreeing with Jaynes' findings, which disagreements are detailed in the article, and it actually being widely considered "fringe", which would require an overview source which explicitly says so. It's up to you to find such sources, quote and cite them. Which you haven't bothered to do, so what you say above is currently no more than your own opinion on the matter. Skyerise (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"Fringe" means exactly that: that scientists consider it fringe. That basically EVERYONE in these fields disagree with it. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

No, based on our sourcing requirements, it can only be called "fringe" if a reliable source explicitly calls it fringe. There was previous discussion on one of the talk pages about this, but the OP couldn't or wouldn't provide supporting sources! Skyerise (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And if you want to participate in the search of sources that refer to that fact, you are welcome. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that there are also supporters of the theory and some well-known writers have referenced it in a positive manner, and not all of them are affiliated (for example, Daniel Dennett). Skyerise (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And? I'm talking about the consensus of the scientific community here, if we can find reliable sources indicating that consensus, the fact that some philosophers and eventually some psychologists were enthusiastic about the novel theory at the time won't mean much. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

But you haven't provided any source that establishes the "consensus of the scientific community" and I don't believe you will be able to. Skyerise (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Why? Because almost no one discuss that theory in the scientific community? Yes, that's the main obstacle. You seem content about it I note.

But the fact that it is not much discussed (at all) is already a big indication of the fringe status of the theory. You should help me and others editors in our search of those sources instead, if you want to improve that article. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I rarely seek to change the consensus balance of an article. I primarily verify sources and replace weak sources with stronger ones. You do you. Skyerise (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Public image of Taylor Swift#Privacy, stalking and private jet usage

Since I'm being told by Ronherry to go through WP:NPOV regarding this edit [10], which I believe fails WP:NPOV since the private jet paragraph now reads like an apologia for Swift (and is possibly a WP:BLP violation against Jack Sweeney by accusing him of accepting bribes with the only source being the letter written by Swift's legal team). What are your thoughts? Some1 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. The article states that Swift's team is accusing Sweeney of accepting gifts from some celebrities, just like Sweeney's data has accused Swift of certain amount of carbon emissions. It's how legal cases/lawsuits work. Go through any featured/good articles in WP:LAW.

]]. You're not following NPOV by censoring Swift's allegations against Sweeney while retaining Sweeney's allegations on Swift. I'm baffled this has to even be explained or discussed upon. ℛonherry☘ 13:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Swift's "allegations against Sweeney" are already included in the paragraph i.e. In December 2023, lawyers for Swift sent a cease and desist letter to Jack Sweeney, the person running the jet-tracking accounts, citing breach of Swift's privacy, safety and concerns of stalking. (emphasis mine). And I'll let the edits speak for themselves (note: I've only made a total of two edits to the article, btw):

• I added Swift's carbon credit purchases and removed a sentence saying The letter claimed that information leak of Swift's locations are a "life-and-death" situation for her and alleged that Sweeney tracks Swift's data particularly because of the public attention its brings forth, highlighting that he stopped tracking jets of certain celebrities in exchange of gifts or financial favors; media had reported in 2022 that Sweeney stopped tracking Mark Cuban after Cuban promised lifetime "friendship." per my edit summary [11]
• Ronherry did a "partial restore" to add The letter claimed that the data leaks of Swift's locations are a "life-and-death" situation for her and alleged that Sweeney tracks Swift's data particularly because of the public attention its brings forth, highlighting that he stopped tracking jets of certain celebrities in exchange of gifts or financial favors. [12]
• I removed the highlighting that he stopped tracking jets of certain celebrities in exchange of gifts or financial favors part while still keeping what Ronherry partially restored per my edit summary [13]
• Ronherry reverts to add that part back [14] (so now this is being discussed).

Some1 (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for this. This blatantly shows how you're attempting to censor Swift's argument. So, according to your argument, which you believe abides NPOV, allegations on Swift takes up space consisting of multiple lines in the same paragraph, where Swift's side of the story AKA allegations on Sweeney deserves only the mention of "privacy, safety and concerns of stalking". That's neither neutral nor due weightage. Swift's argument should also be expanded upon, considering her team believes Sweeney is bribed to keep silent about certain celebrities. Stalking is not their only allegation, therefore, there is no need to censor their statement. ℛonherry☘ 18:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, as part of the dispute resolution, I negotiated with you, agreeing to drop the Mark Cuban line. But you have been steadfast in only your version of the prose, refusing to find a middle ground and reverting the whole thing. ℛonherry☘ 18:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Provide reliable secondary sources demonstrating that it should be included. So far so the sources you've provided have not supported the content you've added, or haven't been reliable for contentious information in a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus isn't always the middle ground, you do need to provide reliable secondary sources if you want that to be the way this goes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple secondary sources all reporting and quoting the contended "in exchange for items of value" line from Swift's legal statement: Entertainment Weekly, Billboard, CNN, THR, The Washington Post etc. ℛonherry☘ 18:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources are quoting excerpts of the cease-and-desist letter, which include the "in exchange for items of value" line. If we were to mention that portion of the letter, we're giving too much WP:WEIGHT to Swift's defense claims. We could balance the paragraph out by including a sentence regarding Sweeney's (or his attorney's) response to the letter. These are from the sources you listed:

• [EW]: Sweeney uses already-public information from the Federal Aviation Administration His attorney stated: “This isn’t about putting a GPS tracker on someone and invading their privacy. It’s using public information to track the jet of a public figure. This is their means to try to quash a PR issue and bully my client to have the bad coverage die down.
• [Billboard]: Sweeney’s posts are derived from government data compiled by the Federal Aviation Administration and He linked the pushback from Swift’s team to negative publicity she had received last year about the environmental impact of her use of private jets. Sweeney’s lawyer went even further in defending his client, calling the claims from Swift’s attorneys “hyperbolic and unfounded” and saying the posts posed “no threat” to the superstar.
• [CNN]: operates the accounts on several social media platforms using publicly-available flight data from the Federal Aviation Administration, Sweeney also told CNN that he never intended any harm with his actions, noting that he is compiling “public information.”
• [WashingtonPost]: The accounts use publicly available data from the Federal Aviation Administration; he saw the letter as an attempt to scare him away from sharing public data. ... The letters, he added, were sent to him at a time when she faced criticism over her flights’ environmental effects. His attorney stated Swift's team had not identified any legal claim, that the jet information posed “no threat” to Swift’s safety and that Sweeney’s account had “engaged in protected speech that does not violate any of Ms. Swift’s legal rights Slater said he thought the Swift attorney’s letters were “hyperbolic and unfounded” and sent in hopes that Sweeney would “just delete everything and do what they said." “This isn’t about putting a GPS tracker on someone and invading their privacy. It’s using public information to track the jet of a public figure,” he said. “This is their means to try to quash a PR issue and bully my client to have the bad coverage die down.”

Some1 (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not saying that the article needs to include Sweeney's or his attorney's response. The reason why I started this discussion was because I object to your re-addition of the disputed part ("highlighting that he stopped tracking jets of certain celebrities in exchange of gifts or financial favors") and the addition of the "in exchange for items of value" line from the letter in general, due to the insinuations of bribery. Some1 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

With the same logic, the primary source alleging Swift of carbon emissions (Yard) is not a reliable source. Every other media outlet covering the issue only quotes/cites Yard, and there are no secondary sources verifying or acknowledging Yard's allegations either. The insinuations of Swift harming the climate also a BLPvio, as it stands unproved. ℛonherry☘ 03:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"alleging Swift of carbon emissions" what does this even mean? Those are general statistics not allegations, nobody seriously disputes them as far as I can tell. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Nope. These are not "general statistics". The source is not a governmental body or a scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scientific data about climate change and related topics are only reliable if they come out of a journal. Whereas, as per all secondary sources and Yard itself, the primary source is a list of people categorized as celebrities ranked based on so-and-so carbon emissions tweeted by the Twitter account "@CelebJets". Neither marketing agencies nor unverified Twitter accounts are reliable sources in Wikipedia. ℛonherry☘ 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Those are general statistics based on jet usage. We don't appear to be dealing with either an ad agency or unverified Twitter account unless I'm missing something. I'm beginning to get the feeling that you are a Taylor Swift Superman, would that be an inaccurate characterization? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

And I'm beginning to get the feeling you're a troll who is blatantly disregarding Wikipedia's guidelines so I'm going to stop responding to you. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 18:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yikes, ok. If its worth anything that should be superfan not Superman, darn autocorrect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

One of the funniest autocorrect I've seen lol Some1 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Is there even proper WP:Due weight for including any of this trivial nonsense? It seems like it would fall under gossip issues and recentism and isn't relevant for the overall span of her career. Silverseren^C 20:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I've been leaning towards. A lot of the sources are characterizing this as drama or gossip. Maybe a sentence that her private jet's activity was being published and she filed a lawsuit, the rest is overkill. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think the private-jet/carbon emissions stuff are due for the article (since the topic has received wide-spread media coverage back in 2022 and still does now) and is very fitting for Swift's Public image article (the section it is under is called "Publicity and controversy"). I do think the paragraph as it currently stands[15] is fine as is (since the disputed part has been removed). If we were to trim it though, I propose reducing the paragraph down to something along the lines of:

  In 2022, Swift received criticism on social media after Yard, a marketing agency, stated that she is at the top of their list of celebrities whose private jets produced the highest amount of greenhouse gas emissions that year, compiled based on the data posted by the now-defunct Twitter account @CelebJets. In December 2023, lawyers for Swift sent a cease and desist letter to Jack Sweeney, the person running the jet-tracking accounts, citing breach of Swift's privacy, safety and concerns of stalking.[113][114] Some1 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC) added that I'm fine with the current version [16] Some1 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  That looks like a succint summary of the issue, and I would support inclusion of this version. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  While I'm less confident the section needs to be trimmed (this is, after all, Public image of Taylor Swift, not Taylor Swift, we can afford to be a bit wordier), if it were to be trimmed I do like Some1's version. Loki (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  To remove "The spokesperson also stated that Swift had purchased more than double the required carbon credits to offset all tour travel and flights to visit Kelce"? I object. In an article about Swift's public image, how is it neutral to remove all of Swift's responses to the scrutiny she's receiving? I don't understand how it is neutral to remove both her responses to the controversy itself and to Sweeney. ℛonherry☘ 02:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  To make myself clear, I believe the "trimmed version" suggested above is lopsided. I think we should either remove the whole section (as there are no secondary sources supporting or verifying Yard's research or the truth to it) or keep the carbon emissions allegation, Sweeney's allegation, and Swift's counter claims about him. Inappropriately trimming one party's claims would not neutral, at least in a legal perspective. If anything, like SilverSeren had suggested, I support removing the entire paragraph as both allegations are unfounded. ℛonherry☘ 03:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  What is unfounded is repeatedly referring to the statistics provided by the account as "allegations" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  The current paragraph [17] (which I stated above that I'm fine with) has two neutral sentences regarding Swift's private jet use/carbon emissions:

  • Swift's private jet use has drawn scrutiny for its carbon emissions.
  • In 2022, Swift received criticism on social media after Yard, a marketing agency, stated that she is at the top of their list of celebrities whose private jets produced the highest amount of greenhouse gas emissions that year, compiled based on the data posted by the now-defunct Twitter account @CelebJets.

  Then the rest of the paragraph are in defense of Swift:

  • In response, a spokesperson for Swift stated, "Taylor's jet is loaned out regularly to other individuals [...] To attribute most or all of these trips to her is blatantly incorrect."
  • The spokesperson also stated that Swift had purchased more than double the required carbon credits to offset all tour travel and flights to visit Kelce.
  • In December 2023, lawyers for Swift sent a cease and desist letter to Jack Sweeney, the person running the jet-tracking accounts, citing breach of Swift's privacy, safety and concerns of stalking.
  • The letter claimed that the data leaks of Swift's locations are a "life-and-death" situation for her and alleged that Sweeney tracks Swift's data particularly because of the public attention its brings forth.

  Do you still think that the paragraph doesn't include enough of a defense for Swift? Some1 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes. Yard is a marketing agency, neither a publication nor a reliable source. There are no secondary sources that validate or verify Yard's claims. As long as it has not been repeated by multiple, independent sources, it is still an allegation, just like Swift's claims about Sweeney. But that's not the primary focus of this dispute.
  • I did never say Swift's defense is not included in the prose, I asked you to not tweak it, albeit not cherrypick, what has been said in the letter. The letter alleges not just stalking, but also bias encouraged by financial favors. There are two Grounds from the prosecuting party (stalking and bias); cutting one of the grounds out of the encyclopedia would be lopsided neutrality not just in Wikipedia, in my opinion, irrespective of the consensus that would form here amongst editors.
  • All I'm asking is, as per my understanding of NPOV, that, bias be also mentioned. As in: The letter claims that data leaks of Swift's locations are a "life-and-death" situation for her, alleging Sweeney tracks Swift's data particularly because of the public attention its brings forth and that he stopped tracking some celebrities in exchange of favors. This is what is said in the letter, and this is what the secondary sources have also chose to report widely. All I'm asking is to not exclude the bias point, as it is one of the two allegations she makes.
  • I do not wish to prolong this discussion further. I have said everything I wanted to say about this edit conflict. You've said what you think is right for the article and in my case, the same. I will accept whatever this noticeboard believes is to be done regarding this edit conflict. I rest.

  ℛonherry☘ 05:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  As another editor pointed out before,[18] the sources are just reproducing Swift's letter. One source[19] did explain that line a bit, but said right after that no money was ever exchanged. Unless there's multiple reliable secondary sources reporting that Sweeney does engage in the behavior that Swift's team alleges, that disputed part seems like it was cherry-picked from the letter just to attack him. The c&d letter makes numerous allegations[20], and it's not Wikipedia's job to report it all. I'm sure you'll disagree with what I had just wrote, and that's fine, we'll just agree to disagree. Some1 (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to point out: The report, which was not peer-reviewed and features a prominent disclaimer about its analysis, includes the names of a handful of celebrities, at least two of whom have publicly disputed the list, saying that the flight data affiliated with them does not reflect their actual usage. - The Washington Post. And then BBC goes on to say: the Yard analysis relied on flight data available on Twitter, was not peer-reviewed or verified, and while it tracked celebrity-owned jet flights there is no way of knowing when or whether the owners are on the jets. ℛonherry☘ 14:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the exchange of gifts or financial favors discussion, but I'll just throw this out there [21]: To create this report, Yard scraped data from Celebrity Jets, which in turn pulls its info from ADS-B Exchange (“the world’s largest public source of unfiltered flight data,” according to its website). Yard based its carbon emissions estimates on a U.K. Department for Transportation estimate that a plane traveling at about 850 km/hour gives off 134 kg of CO2 per hour; that 134 kg estimate was multiplied with both time-spent-in-air and a factor of 2.7 to account for “radiative forcing,” which includes other harmful emissions such as nitrous oxide (2.7 was taken from Mark Lynas’ book Carbon Counter). That number was then divided by 1000 to convert to tonnes. They also had a disclaimer: Yard stated that its research was “not conclusive to the biggest offenders, but the biggest offenders according to the data as presented on the Celebrity Jets Twitter page” and said it was not clear whether the planes’ respective owners were on each flight. [22] The analysis not being peer-reviewed or verified, or being disputed by a couple of celebrities themselves, doesn't negate the fact that T. Swift received criticism and scrutiny for her private jet usage after the report went viral. Some1 (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  It does not negate the fact that Swift received scrutiny but it does fall under contentious claims not verified by other independent sources, therefore a BLP violation. ℛonherry☘ 11:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  It does not negate the fact that Swift received scrutiny... that's what the article currently says, that she received criticism for her jet usage after the report was published. Some1 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  But that's not the only thing in the prose. The factoid for which she received the criticism is unfounded and that fact that it's unfounded is not mentioned in the prose. You arguing for alleged BLP violations about Sweeney be removed while supporting the same about Swift to stay is one of the things I'm concerned about here. You're contradicting yourself. ℛonherry☘ 16:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Addendum to my comment above: The Celebrity Jets Twitter account @CelebJets, whom Yard scraped the data from for their analysis, was ran by Jack Sweeney, the target of Swift's cease-and-desist letter. Some1 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with Some1's summary. The amount of ink spilled is disproportionate to the subject entirely, and to the specific sub article. Ronherry, as an outsider observer I would suggest you really dial back the stridency you're attacking people with, because you seem like you are rapidly reaching the point where you cannot maintain impartiality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  I do not think I "attacked" anybody or that I've been impartial. Can you show me where I "attacked" anybody? I'm simply arguing in favor of my side of the dispute. I kindly ask you to comment on the topic of this discussion here and not on me. Thank you. ℛonherry☘ 04:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Impartial is what we're supposed to be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ronherry, you do see the irony of accusing others of personal attacks while you are calling someone a troll above, right? You have basically every single editor in this discussion pushing back on your novel interpretation that the content is a BLP violation. The time to drop the stick is now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Both the Washington Post and BBC (sources that I've missed to highlight) have stated how the Yard analysis is not peer-reviewed or verified, with the former saying its truth has been disputed. Contentious factoids are indeed a BLP violation, no? I've quoted above what these sources say about this in my recent response. ℛonherry☘ 14:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  The article doesn't say in wiki-voice: Swift tops the list of celebrities whose private jets produced the highest amount of greenhouse gas emissions in 2022; it says she received criticism on social media after Yard, a marketing agency, stated that she is at the top of their list of celebrities whose private jets produced the highest amount of greenhouse gas emissions in 2022. I'll note that you were the one that added that to the article three months ago [23][24]. Some1 (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I did add it three months ago, when there were no sources disputing the analysis. That's not the case now. The Post and BBC sources are new, that emerged very recently in the past couple of weeks. And thank you for bringing up the fact that it was me who added the prose about Swift receiving criticism about her jet usage, because if that proves anything, it's that I am not interested in censoring her unfavorable press coverage or deviating from the citations; unlike Sweeney's case now, where I believe there's a bit of an unwillingness to represent the sources correctly.ℛonherry☘ 11:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am not interested in censoring her unfavorable press coverage You stated in another comment in this thread that you "support removing the entire paragraph".

  I think we're nearing five days of discussion, most of which consists of back and forth between you and me. I would like to hear what other editors' thoughts on the matters are, and whatever they decide, we'll just go with that. Some1 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Like I already stated, which you seem to ignore for a reason I don't know, the factoid was included when there were no sources disputing the analysis. That's not the case now. The Post and BBC sources are new, that emerged very recently in the past couple of weeks. When a piece of information is disputed, its place in an article will indeed be questioned. Hope this helps. And yes, I'll go with what the majority of editors think. ℛonherry☘ 16:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Founding of the Church of England

Several of the articles about specific Anglican church buildings in England contain an infobox line saying "Previous denomination: Catholic Church" or similar. I have been removing these on the grounds of WP:NPOV, since to claim that the denomination has changed is to claim that the Church of England was created after that building was constructed. This led to a small edit war with User:Murgatroyd49 and User:Johnbod, who reverted my deletions (e.g. [25]).

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

There are two particular interpretations:

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

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

In the ensuing discussion on Murgatroyd49's talk page ([26]), Murgatroyd49 and Johnbod claimed that the 597 view is a fringe view without modern adherents. They are mistaken. Here are a few examples:

• Podmore, Colin. "Dioceses and Episcopal Sees in England." (2008)[27]: "Augustine can be regarded as the founder of the Church of England as an organized ecclesial structure".
• Giles, Richard (former dean of Philadelphia Cathedral). "Always Open: Being an Anglican Today", ISBN 1461660483 (2005): "...to be an Anglican in England is to belong to an ancient church, the ancient church of that country. This gets up other people’s noses somewhat, but there it is. Even Anglican self-effacement cannot stretch to despising its own birthright, although the ignorance of the media (even of the so-called quality newspapers) misleads many into believing the fable that the Church of England was an invention of Tudor times. It was not, of course, Henry VIII who founded the Church of England, but the unknown missionary who first ran his boat onto its shores in foolhardy eagerness to share the good news of Jesus of Nazareth with the fierce tribesmen of that wild and wet island."
• The Church of England's own page about its history[28]: "...until the Reformation in the 16th century the Church of England accepted the authority of the Pope. At the Reformation the Western Church became divided between those who continued to accept Papal authority and the various Protestant churches that did not. The Church of England was among the churches that broke with Rome."

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. (Not particularly important, but) Richard Giles is English, not American; he's now back in this country and working as a visiting fellow of St John's College, Durham[29]. Marnanel (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding other sources:

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

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

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

I haven't been involved in this discussion, so please take or leave this as you will.

Perhaps it might be illustrative to look at how Template:Infobox military conflict suggests handling the similarly-difficult question of giving a quick statement as to a conflict's outcome: the short answer being that, if there's any debate at all as to who won, it advises ducking the question in the infobox and giving an explanation in the article itself. I'd suggest that that might be a useful way forward here: infoboxes and nuance don't really mix, and there is no expectation (indeed, quite the reverse) that the infobox should be a full and comprehensive summary of the article. That's not to pass any judgement either way as to which view of the CofE's founding and continuity is correct. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I have just come across this "discussion". In my opinion, it has nothing to do with NPOV (which is perhaps why it's petered out), and much more to do with WP:COMMONNAME. No-one is disputing that the Church of England has roots that date back to the 6th century, and that there were elements of continuity across the hiatus of the Reformation. However, in common usage, "the Church of England" refers to the post-1531 denomination that recognises the monarch as its supreme head, not the Pope, and that is thereby distinct in doctrine and hierarchy from the Catholic church – hence the OED's "spec", to indicate a narrower usage. If historians are talking about longer-term religious traditions, they would be as likely to refer to "the Church in England" or "the English church" (as several of the sources cited above do). It's clearly useful in the infobox to label a church building "Church of England" to indicate its present-day affiliation and devotional practices; but, if it's a historic structure, it may retain elements in its architecture and fittings that reflect its earlier history under a Catholic regime, and that's also useful information to provide (especially for the uninformed outsider who may be hazy on English religious history).

Marnanel's self-appointed campaign to strip out this information across the board is in my opinion unconstructive and unhelpful, and becomes particularly ludicrous in a case like Old St Paul's Cathedral, which stood for some 450 years as a Catholic church, followed by 130 years as an Anglican church, but which has not existed at all for more than 350 years. GrindtXX (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Julian Assange#Statement related to Afghani informants

There is an RfC regarding whether the article should include the attributed allegation that, in regards to whether the names of Afghani informants should be redacted, Assange said "Well, they’re informants, so if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it."

Interested editors can find the discussion here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Benante editing Charlie Benante

Someone who is more sane (or less insane) than me should check if this edit is OK. Polygnotus (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gatemansgc: metalsucks is, indeed, not a great source, and dude obviously doesn't want to have this information out there. It's probably not untrue, but I am leaning towards not including it per WP:HARM. What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

IDK the phrasing isn't overtly negative. Aren't we supposed to be just relaying what the sources say? If you google it the incident is documented across multiple sources... Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 05:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Meh, I dunno, and I don't really care much because I don't know him and I don't listen to that music. But its probably good that people wiser than me can see it and can form an opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Israel Defense Forces#RFC Removing photography taken and published by the IDF

I am looking for other Wikipedians to comment and provide input here on this issue - honestly should potentially be applied in even a broader context for all armed forces. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The Epoch Times political alignment labels

In respect to the labeling of The Epoch Times as conservative, right-wing, or far-right in the lead of the wiki article:

• Distinct, reliably sourced examples for all three adjectives are present in the article citations
• Conservative and far-right are the most common, with right-wing appearing a handful of times
• Examples range from passing mentions in tangentially related articles (ex: "she got her news from the far-right One America News Network and Epoch Times, a pro-Trump newspaper produced by the Falun Gong sect that has spread the anti-Semitic QAnon conspiracy.") to descriptions in the lead of articles where The Epoch Times is the subject (ex: "Facebook's data on the first quarter of this year shows that one of its most popular pages was an article by The Epoch Times, a far-right newspaper that has promoted...", ex: "Today, The Epoch Times is one of the country’s most successful and influential conservative news organizations")

In light of the above, what are the best practices for maintaining a neutral point of view in regards to:

1. Inclusion of a political label in the lead description vs. later on in the page
2. Reconciling different labels when multiple sources are available to support each

ClifV (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Noting that ClifV has just been blocked as a block-evading sock and won't be responding to this thread. MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Vlachs vandalism by Hungarian Nationalists

Hello! This is the article in question: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs

The article is entirely rewritten by two hungarian users, CritiKende and OrionNimrod. These users are removing any and all mentions of the "contiunity theory" (i.e that Romanians lived above the Danube before hungarian arrival) and replacing it with the "Immigrant Theory" (that the Romanians came to modern day Romania only after Hungarian arrival). This is unacceptable and the entire article has been compromised, with over 54% of the entire thing being written by just them two without anyone elses input. Multiple important details were outright removed like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1208658409 (Vlachs traveling to Mount Athos in the 8th Century)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1198006497 (Removal of an entire paragraph about Volohoveni, who are thought to have been Romanians living in modern day Ukraine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1182790311 (Entire paragraph about Proto-Romanian being spoken in the 6th century being removed)

These to just name a few, OrionNimrod is much the same, if not even worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1182605334 (Entire section about Romanians in the 9th century being removed) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1182605334 (Reference to Vlachs in the 11th Century is entirely removed)

This is, at least to me, really urgent since they already got away with an insane and baffling amount of edits. Not only that, any revisions that go against their own visions are almost immediately undone and they keep adding things which are not related and "personal opinions" by historians they keep finding God knows where. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza

There is a request to move Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza to Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza or to Gaza genocide, See Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza#Survey_(Requested_move_29_February_2024). Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Human rights in the United States

Does this article need to be rewritten because it gives undue weight to critics of the U.S. government? Jarble (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Bruno Gröning NPOV issues and disruption by IPs

I'm not totally sure if this should go here or on the fringe theories noticeboard, hopefully I'm in the right place :)

The article Bruno Gröning, about a 1940s-1950s German faith healer, has some issues. When I initially came across the article in January, I removed a large amount of biased and unreliable information derived from sources written by followers of Gröning (see Special:Diff/1200327399 and attempted to improve the coverage of his life using more reliable sources, though this has been a bit of a challenge as most contemporary sources on him are written in German. Since then, a few IPs have added unsourced, biased content to the article, removed/altered content to be more favourable to Gröning, or tried to call reliably sourced content that makes Gröning look bad into question (see Special:Diff/1209401763, Special:Diff/1209400839, Special:Diff/1208811002). I have just now made an edit to correct some of these issues, but NPOV seems to be an ongoing issue with this article. The talk page seems to show a history of bias in Gröning's favour, and many edits to the page appear to come from his followers (or others sympathetic to his and his followers views on faith healing).

I would really appreciate getting another set of eyes (or several) on this article to help improve the neutrality/factual accuracy of the text and/or expand it with further reliable sources. I believe the Reception section in particular could use some work, but I feel very out of my depth here and could use some assistance from more experienced editors.

Cheers! Ethmostigmus (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

2021 peer reviewed Harvard study POV concern

An addition from a 2021 study on the ExxonMobil article has been reverted due to alleged POV concerns by William M. Connolley, despite the fact that this is a peer reviewed study that has been covered by multiple reliable sources including CNN, Time, Scientific American, The Conversation, etc...[30] [31]

When I initially proposed the addition on the talk page, they did not raise any concerns over POV, and simply stated that they agreed with Exxon's rhetoric [32] and did not approve of the citations because they were "junk" and "not good." [33]

Before I made the addition I asked them if they could provide any other suggestions, other than their personal opinion on the quality of the source material [34], but they simply reverted and stopped participating in the discussion on the talk page.

Now we are here.

Cheers. DN (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly is the source at issue? There appears to be no "peer-reviewed study" in the revery you link. Bon courage (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Article link to the study is here CNN & the direct link is here One Earth Journal DN (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

So are you wanting to discuss CNN or the "peer reviewed Harvard study" you mention in the title here? To be clear, that source is:

• Supran, Geoffrey; Oreskes, Naomi (2021). "Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil's climate change communications". One Earth. 4 (5): 696–719. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.014.

which is some primary research in the journal One Earth? Bon courage (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I came across it in secondary reliable sources, which I used in the addition to the article. See their revert. DN (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Those look like lay sources, not decent secondary sources for academic research. If the original research is to be cited, it could be cited itself and attributed to its authors (and not asserted in Wikivoice as something that has been "shown" as you did). Whether it's due is a matter for editorial discretion: consensus needed I'd say. Bon courage (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I wrote that "the study showed." Which is backed up by all the sources. If you think WP:3O should be the next step, I will happily take it there next. DN (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Now about that POV concern... DN (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral wording would be the study "said". I assume since more than two people have now commented, 3O would be inappropriate. I suggest either wait for more discussion or pursue a WP:DR of some sort? (I am not interested in participating further). Bon courage (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with changing the wording, but since William is the only other participant and they have decided to resort to reverting instead of using the talk page, 3-O looks like a good option. DN (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Since I've given a view, that's more then two. Bon courage (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Since you aren't interested in participating I have reached out at 3-O. I appreciate your suggestion, but without more editors the issue will languish in a deadlock. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Would you agree that if we change the wording to say..."The study says"...that takes care of any POV issues? Cheers. DN (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What I get from it is something like

Science historians Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes have analyzed documents originating from Exxon and write that during the 2000s the company's public position shifted away from outright denial of climate change, but that they used rhetoric which minimized its impact and portrayed the responsibility as being due to consumers, not corporations. In Supran and Oreskes' view this shift mirrors tactics used by the tobacco industry when seeking to disassociate itself from the harms of smoking.

It's an interesting point; whether it's due or not is for discussion. Bon courage (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight, it genuinely does help. DN (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good. jp×g🗯️ 08:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

List of wars involving Ukraine

Our discussion with User:Olek Novy came to a dead end and edit warring. I would be grateful if someone familiar with Eastern European history in the 20th century would join the discussion. Dƶoxar (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Bulldozer politics

The article on Bulldozer politics ignores how the authorities selective enforcement of permitting laws on informal settlements is being used as an extrajudicial punishment against a disfavored population, while ignoring the unlicensed building owned by favored groups.

context: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/02/india-authorities-must-immediately-stop-unjust-targeted-demolition-of-muslim-properties/

“Amnesty International found that Muslim-concentrated localities were chosen for demolitions, while Muslim-owned properties were selectively targeted in diverse areas. Nearby Hindu-owned properties, particularly in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, were left untouched.”

“In all five states, Amnesty International found that the demolitions — often carried out under the guise of remedying illegal construction and encroachment — were enacted without following any of the due process safeguards outlined in domestic law or international human rights law. State authorities enforced the demolitions and evictions without offering any prior consultation, adequate notice, or alternative resettlement opportunities. The destruction of buildings sometimes took place at night, with occupants given little or no time to leave their homes and shops, salvage their belongings, or appeal the demolition orders and seek legal redress”

“Such demolitions constitute forced evictions, which are prohibited under international human rights law and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to which India is a state party.”

additional sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/19/bulldozer-politics-modi-demolition-drive-fuels-muslims-fears-in-kashmir

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220706-india-s-bulldozer-justice-flattens-muslim-dissent

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/nyregion/bulldozer-indian-parade-new-jersey.html

https://time.com/6303571/how-bulldozers-became-a-symbol-of-anti-muslim-sentiment-in-india/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/7/why-is-amnesty-urging-india-to-halt-bulldozing-of-muslim-properties

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/02/india-authorities-must-immediately-stop-unjust-targeted-demolition-of-muslim-properties/ FlamingCat (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@FlamingCat: Wouldn't this be more appropriately discussed at Talk:Bulldozer politics? How would the editors of Bulldozer politics know to come here to discuss this? Peaceray (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Negative Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse

See article: Pretty clearly POV article listing terms allegedly used by Israelis to refer to Palestinians, checking two sources at random did not even verify that the terms were used in Israeli discourse ([35] and [36], now removed). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm someone who sympathises completely with the Palestinian people and I think that article is literally just vandalism. Per WP:VAND: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." AusLondonder (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Some of the alleged language is completely out of context and deliberate misrepresentation of sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it meets the definition of vandalism for G3. The sentence you quote refers to removing/changing existing content, not to creating new pages. While the page is a horrible mess and should most likely be redirected to Anti-Palestinianism#Israel if anything, being POV alone doesn't qualify as vandalism for G3 speedy deletion (cf. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not vandalism. A crap article, but not vandalism. Make it a redirect to Anti-Palestinianism#Israel, and if there is anything at all that can legitimately be copied there (which seems unlikely) do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy to revert the CSD tag, do think we can get a bit bogged down in exact details of policy (new article vs existing). It's definitely not an attempt at encyclopedic content. AusLondonder (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say it's a form of G10 attack page. Not sure it warrants a redirect - is it likely search term? DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's less about the details of new article vs existing and more about whether the edit removes actually good content when replacing it with NPOV stuff. Which is pretty much the reason why we don't label every NPOV or non-encyclopedic addition as vandalism. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw the page at NPP and honestly it's been a long time since I've seen a newly-created page this plainly unconstructive. I honestly don't think it should remain in mainspace for at least a week. AusLondonder (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to wait a week to convert it to a redirect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to WP:BLAR it as everyone seems to agree it is completely unconstructive. Anyone can feel free to dig in its history if there are any sources worth merging. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Good decision; that wasn't a constructive article. — Czello ^(music) 09:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Was just checking some more of the alleged quotes, purportedly said about Palestinians in general. One of the insults was reported as cannibal, yet the source says the Israeli defence minister was referring to Hamas leaders. Another insult was sourced to "A-Z Quotes". Is this good faith editing? AusLondonder (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, a few of them are clearly about Hamas from the title alone. I won't deny that Israel sometimes blurs the line between Hamas and Palestinians in discourse, but these sources alone are not a basis for a factual article on such a topic. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but many of those issues have been covered at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza and Anti-Palestinianism during the Israel–Hamas war. AusLondonder (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Positive Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse is a red link. What should that be redirected to? Todays puzzle. Setting aside the potential utility of Negative Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse as a useful reference for that perfect word for someone's hate speech tweet or whatever, maybe there is potential for an interesting article buried in there somewhere, something based on work that has looked at dehumanizing language of this and other conflicts. The current article looks irredeemable. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely an 'interesting article' in dehumanising language used in conflicts. If Wikipedia doesn't have one, it certainly should - decent academic sources will surely not be hard to find. What we don't need, however, is a ragbag primary-source list of such terms, for each side in each and every conflict. Even ignoring the obvious PoV problems with separating content out like that, they are liable to be grossly repetitive, and utterly uninformative as to the underlying factors that lead to their use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably could make up part of Dehumanization, which doesn't go into specifics of the language used (and is probably better off for it) but also has the issue of the various maintenance and expand tags on it. Reconrabbit 14:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The page has been blanked and redirected, and is now being recreated from scratch by another editor. The glaring issues noted before do not appear to apply to the version being currently worked on. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• This strikes me as something that is more appropriate for our sister project Wiktionary. Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  The new version isn't as obviously problematic but while purportedly about dehumanising language in the context of conflict I'm not sure it's heading in that direction and the creating editor is reluctant to take feedback on board. Seems like a lot of synthesis and editorialisation going on to me. AusLondonder (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's certainly not as bad, but it's not looking especially great either. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Genetic studies of Jews

There has been a lengthy discussion about this article's inclusion of unproven or discredited theories, but the article still has a POV tag. Does the article's bias remain uncorrected? Jarble (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I went ahead and removed the tag per Template:POV#When to remove, since it appears the discussion has been dormant for a month and a half. Generalrelative (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

John Barnett (Boeing employee)

John Barnett (Boeing employee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biography of a recently deceased person. There's been some back-and-forth in the edit history on how much, if any weight, to give conspiracy theories regarding his death. Additional experienced watchers would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

An I wrong in thinking this is a BLP1E that should be fixed with an AfD? Springee (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, before his death. Rather like the suicide of David Kelly (weapons expert) (in the UK) you don't have to believe in a conspiracy theory for the death to take this out of BLP1E. Hang fire for the moment to see where this goes. As an aside, I'm doubtful that moving the page to John Barnett (whistleblower) is an NPOV improvement, particularly without the benefit of a RM discussion. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Springee: I did evaluate that when I saw the article. I believe they met WP:SIGCOV prior to their death. @DeCausa: if you disagree with my bold move, by all means feel free to revert and we can have a discussion. VQuakr (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the topic enough to do that. There's controversy around the subject and it's just my opinion that a bold move (particularly to a value-laden disambig term such as "whistleblower" where there was a perfectly fine disambig already) was not appropriate. A discussion should have been had. Do what you will with that. DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

VQuakr, my feeling is this seems to be just part of the bigger Boeing story. I'm not impressed by the conspiracy theories here and would probably leave that off Wikipedia as a BLP issue for an otherwise not notable person. Would we even have this article otherwise? However, I'm not motivated to the point of actually trying to challenge the article. Springee (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Potential Conflict of Interest and Promotional Activity by User Espandero

I am writing to express concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest (COI) and promotional activities undertaken by a user named Espandero. It has come to my attention that Espandero may be engaging in actions that contravene Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and conflict of interest, specifically in the context of deleting new visual contributions to promote their own images. Description of Concern: Espandero has consistently removed new images contributed by other users, including myself, across several articles. While the rationale provided is often related to image quality or relevance, a pattern has emerged where Espandero's own images are favored or promoted in place of those deleted. This behavior raises concerns about a possible conflict of interest and the promotion of personal work over community contributions. Examples and Evidence: [Chillon Castle]: Detail instances where your contributions were removed, and Espandero's images were used instead. Replacing a photo from 2022 with one of 2007. And the list is long.

I respectfully request that this situation be reviewed by the Wikipedia administration or the appropriate committee. An investigation into the edits and actions of Espandero concerning the potential COI and promotional activity would help ensure that Wikipedia remains a reliable and unbiased source of information. I am fully committed to the principles of Wikipedia and believe in constructive collaboration. I am willing to provide further information or clarification as needed and am open to dialogue to resolve this matter amicably. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your ongoing efforts to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia.

Sincerely 87.196.80.191 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly no COI problem here, just normal editing. If you think your images should be used, open a discussion on the talk page and discuss that with other editors. There is no reason administration should be involved with this. MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with MrOllie. As an aside, I noticed that all the images that have been uploaded by Conceptuel are named "[something] photographed by Robbie Conceptuel". M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification I guess... I sincerely suspect this IP address to be the same person as Conceptual given the style in which this message and other messages I've received on WP:FR from this user are written. Also this message mentions edits on the Chillon castle article but I haven't made edits to it on WP:EN. Best regards, Espandero (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka refer

Granted Good Article status at some point but this should be reviewed as there is significant unsourced text and non-neutral wording. Nirva20 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Nirva20, you might need to be a little more specific about the issue. It's not immediately obvious what unsourced text and non-neutral wording you're talking about, and I don't see any comments from you at Talk:2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka explaining your concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I will repost. Nirva20 (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Still nothing. Fair to say you made it up because you didn't like the content? Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No. I don't make things up. But I no longer am going to waste my time on something that should have been resolved by now. I already forgot about this. If I objected to Good Article status based on unsourced text and non-neutral wording then that is the case. If those defects are not "immediately obvious" then someone else should take a look. I am neither Indian nor Christian and have no personal interest. Nirva20 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I spent some time looking into this and I think you're right, actually, the article clearly no longer merits good article status. However, in the future, I suggest being concrete about your criticisms, rather than being wishy washy and vague. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Ugaas Raage (notified of this neutral point of view noticeboard discussion)

User:Ugaas Raage adds, then reverts other editors' work to restore his or her unsourced and/or borderline deificationist text re Somalian military leaders ([37], [38]). Nirva20 (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

He or she refuses to engage with other editors or to even use edit summaries. His or her most recent deificationist revert is here. Nirva20 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

More deification here. Nirva20 (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Ugaas Raage has been notified of this discussion. I doubt he or she will participate. But, ummm, is anyone else aware of it? Nirva20 (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I also see it. I provided an edit to note that Siad Barre was born in Shilavo, Hararghe, Ethiopian Empire not Shilavo, Dervish State with an edit summary to explain that during the time of his birth (1909) Shilavo was under the Ethiopian Empire, and that in its short history the Dervish State never even reached Shilavo (even at its territorial peak), but he keeps undoing the edit without providing any edit summary to counter mine. This person is a highly biased editor that is defacing many articles and undermining Wikipedia's neutrality. Wikieditor969 (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

So why isn't @Ugaas Raage being sanctioned, @MrOllie, @JPxG, etc? Nirva20 (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, I believe WP:ANI is a better place to report his kind of obvious disruptive editing (or perhaps WP:AN for slightly less noxious behavior). I have opened a thread on your behalf at WP:ANI § Repeated disruptive editing by User:Ugaas Raage. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nirva20 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Tammy Murphy

The Tammy Murphy page and the 2024 United States Election in New Jersey page seems not to be neutral, with the majority of text criticizing her for often unrelated allegations under many sections. Some people have brought up concerns in the talk pages, and I wanted to get an outside perspective. Wikieditor2490 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Quotes based on primary sources on Boy Scouts of America

Per WP:PQ, pull quotes shouldn't be in article and also, even without the pull quote formatting, this kind of quotation emphasizes the organization's position unduly as it is chosen from primary sources by Wikipedia editors rather than citing something emphasized in independent reliable sources. The issue being discussed is this edit Graywalls (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls is ignoring the discussion started on this page, Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Meeting_of_the_minds, and moving it here. Over the last few days, Graywalls has been all over BSA related articles:

• Boy Scouts of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page
• COPE (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
• National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
• Philmont Training Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
• Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally removing large swaths of content with no discussion
• Béla H. Bánáthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally removing large swaths of content
• Scouting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unhelpful editing

Then there's this: attacking the character of a long-time editor. I'm happy to discuss these issues, but I'd like to start this on the talk pages, and not here. Bringing in, @Jergen, Btphelps, and North8000:. --evrik ^(talk) 00:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Quebec (which your link to WP:PQ expands to). Also just about every article about a specific scouting organization includes their variant of the Scout Promise and Scout Law (which were two of the three quotes in the edit in question); should they be removed from all those articles? They are just as germane to those organizations' articles as a flag is to a country or US state's articles. The third quote you want removed is not from the organization; but, it is not as important to the article. BTW shouldn't this be discussed at Talk:Boy Scouts of America#Undue_contents for awhile before coming here? I attempted to steer the discussion onto the specific quotes there, and, you indicated you've taken it here for some reason. Erp (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Erp:, I believe it was a typo of MOS:PQ. I discussed it on talk. I find the way those quotes are sourced and emphasized a matter of neutrality or excess prominence to certain contents. Regardless of what article that is on. Graywalls (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This is long-standing core material (the objectives and methods of the organization..not a "position") being removed based on the wiki-formatting method. And one of the things being discussed which Graywalls is trying to edit war to remove is a quote from US federal law. And in light of the overview above, Graywalls, you need to stop doing this. On another note, a second discussion here is fine, but it should not be allowed to derail the referred-to broader more methodical discussion which just began. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC on external links to far-right comic

Hello, this noticeboard may be interested in participating in the following RfC, as it pertains to neutral editing: Talk:StoneToss#RfC: Exclusion of StoneToss's website from the article — Czello ^(music) 10:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hardly. It only pertains to editorial decisions which have little to do with any Wikipedia policies. TarnishedPath^talk 11:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It's odd you'd follow me to continue the discussion here, but for the benefit of others – non-neutral editing/motivations has been brought up in the RfC, and not just by me. — Czello ^(music) 12:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Refer to my last comment in the RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And you to mine. Certain editors have admitted to non-neutral reasons for wanting to exclude the link.

Please, keep the discussion in one place. — Czello ^(music) 12:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hokkaido's header

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkaido

The introductory article of Hokkaido is not Neutral Point of View.

"Although there were Japanese settlers who had ruled the southern tip of the island since the 16th century, Hokkaido was considered foreign territory that was inhabited by the indigenous people of the island, known as the Ainu people. The Japanese settlers began their migration to Hokkaido in the 17th century, which often resulted in clashes and revolts between Japanese and Ainu populations. In 1869, following the Meiji Restoration, Ezo, which means "the land of the barbarians" in Japanese, was annexed by Japan under on-going colonial practices, and renamed Hokkaido. After this event, Japanese settlers started to colonize the island, establishing Japan's first modern settler colony. While Japanese settlers colonized the island, the Ainu people were dispossessed of their land, forced to assimilate, and aggressively discriminated against by the Japanese settlers. Many Ainu people were put into forced labor camps and exploited by the Japanese. In the 21st century, the Ainu have been almost totally assimilated into Japanese society; as a result, many Japanese of Ainu descent have no knowledge of their heritage and culture."

It gives too much undue weight on the Ainu. I tried to make it more neutral but someone is keeping to keep it as it was. Kyuzoaoi (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I shortened it. I think it is fine to include stuff about Ainu but yeah the length and wording of that needed rework. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

World Festival of Youth (2024)

I came across the World Festival of Youth (2024) article in the process of updating Conversations about Important Things and I am concerned that the article is almost entirely unbalanced towards the perspective of the Russian government. This is because the article uses Russian sources without critical assessment (unlike in Conversations about Important Things, where topics referring to annexation of Crimea is clarified as such). I think the World Festival of Youth article needs urgent attention, sadly I do not have much capacity to review the World Festival of Youth article. --Minoa (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Antioch International Movement of Churches

I'm having a dispute with @Austin613: at the talk page for the article article on Antioch International Movement of Churches. This is a movement of dozens of churches which started in Waco Texas in the late 1990s.

The specific dispute we're having is about whether to include a section called "spiritual abuse and cult status" in the article. The proposed source is this Buzzfeed News article: [39]. I have said that I think this article is RS for the attributed claim that, according to Buzzfeed News, a few anonymous former members and family members of former members of the Waco church said some negative things about it. But I think this is UNDUE in an article about the movement. I also have a more general concern that this Wikipedia article is highly non-netural. Any comments on that are appreciated as well. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Also refer to our talk discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antioch_International_Movement_of_Churches#Cult_and_Abuse_Section I am of the belief that reliably sourced topics can be introduced and included fairly in the appropriate place with well written explanation. Austin613 (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have been on the page in the last few months: @Wdonghan:@Gargarlinks:@Discospinster: Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think of all the issues with the article, the spiritual abuse and cult status is the least egregious to me and should be discussed somewhere on the article. However, I'm not opposed to removing the section and reducing the claims spiritual abuse into mentions elsewhere on the article Wdonghan (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Wdonghan. Thoughts on how to improve the other aspects of the article are welcome if you'd like to elaborate. As for the "abuse" issue, it sounds like you disagree with my judgment that it is WP:UNDUE. My argument for claiming it is UNDUE is that it appears in one article at a news site that no longer operates, and is sourced to anonymous former members of one (out of dozens) of churches in the movement. According to policy, minority viewpoints are important, but it should be "easy to name prominent adherents". We can name ZERO prominent adherents of the viewpoint in question, as far as I can tell. If we attribute to Buzzfeed News that helps, but that's still a single (now defunct) outlet, and it is not therefore easy to name prominent adherents. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You're way too fixated on the victim name part. We already confirmed an established, reliable published source, by an known journalist. Whether or not Buzzfeed News is not operating is completely irrelevant. The story has been verified, checked and balanced by an editor. Wikipedia policy also says you have to take the context into consideration. The name omissions are comparable to a "John Doe" or "Jane Doe." These are individuals who were interviewed, along with a psychologist, to exhibit trauma from attending Antioch Church being victims to cult tactics and spiritual abuse. Obviously names were appropriately omitted for safety reasons. Austin613 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Austin613, at one point you said we should include it even though it is UNDUE. Are you now saying that it is DUE after all? Policy says that if this information is DUE we should be able to provide prominent (e.g., not defunct) adherants of the view that Antioch movement has a reputation for abuse. So far we have zero such sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are comprised of reliably sourced articles that describe the majority viewpoint. If we are only able to find a certain reliably sourced viewpoint, that's the majority. I'm not sure what you find undue in the page. If you find a different viewpoint, that is reliably sourced, and are able to prove that it's the majority report, include it. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. I'm all for inclusion of all viewpoints so long as they are identified and explained. Austin613 (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Eric Joyce

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

More watchers requested at this BLP. Discussion about how much weight to give criminal history. VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

The conspiracy theory article has, in my assessment, a severe NPOV issue. The article states repeatedly, in wikivoice, that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are dubious or implausible.

Unfortunately, that's no fact.

Oxford English Dictionary (cited in the article) defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event".

Several sources already used in the article -- yet not in the lead section -- make the similar claim that while the word has take on a derogatory connotation, and most famous conspiracy theories are implausible, this is not true about all conspiracy theories per se, and that to suggest so is to commit the fallacy of composition.

As such, I believe the article should be more neutrally worded so as to not completely redefine the meaning of conspiracy theory with a few cherry picked sources.

Of course there are real conspiracies. Are plausible theories about conspiracies really not conspiracy theories? Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The connotation of the term is absolutely negative in English. But Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, so the subject of the article needn't exactly overlap with the dictionary definition of the term in any case. The article states repeatedly, in wikivoice, that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are dubious or implausible. Not that I see. Quotes, please? VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The lead sentence: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable."

A connotation is an opinion, and therefore should not completely take control of the article without being qualified as an opinion. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's fine for the article to mostly focus on untrue conspiracy theories. I don't think, however, we should let this popular notion of conspiracy theory = false force us to act is if conspiracy theories are false per se, when any dictionary would beg to differ -- to say so is to make an unfactual claim. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't support what you said: ...that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are dubious or implausible. One of the purposes of the lead sentence of the article is to define the article's scope, which that sentence seems to do quite well. VQuakr (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Does the lead sentence not define conspiracy theories as having more probable other explanations? Would you be amenable to this edit:

First two sentences currently read

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence.

My proposed change

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence, and that other explanations are more probable. Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

No, seems like a solution in search of a problem. But in any case you should be proposing this on the article talk page not here. VQuakr (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The article says, A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians. So, no, plausible conspiracies are not conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are unlikely or implausible by definition. Geogene (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I would argue this is POV pushing. This is cited to a singular journal article, whereas several other journal articles come to the opposite conclusion. There is no reason undue weight has to be put on this on article. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

These sources [40], [41], [42] disagree, for example. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As has been discussed at Talk:Conspiracy theory, sources which are silent on an issue cannot be construed to disagree with the sources that do specifically comment on it. MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This was the topic of an extended conversation which reached no productive conclusion, and perhaps we should not try to rehash here. But you are also wrong; several of these sources do mention that conspiracy theories can be true. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one that brought up the OED again. MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

International Churches of Christ

A discussion is taking place at Talk:International Churches of Christ#Primary Sources for the “Beliefs” Section about whether third-party sources are required for the section International Churches of Christ#Beliefs, which is currently based almost entirely on sources associated with the subject. Input from editors without a COI would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Human rights in Egypt

This article has a cleanup tag because it is "unbalanced towards certain viewpoints." Does the article include descriptions of human rights violations in Egypt that are biased, misleading or inaccurate? Jarble (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Remember that you can remove such tags if you think they are no longer relevant. If another editors reverts the removal ask them to discuss their concerns on the articles talk page. The article has had extensive changes since the tag was added in March 2020, and the exact details of the issue were never expressed by the editor who added the tag. So I don't see any reason it couldn't be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested and Zakawer: Does this article still have a bias against post-Morsi authorities that needs to be corrected? Jarble (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I actually do wholeheartedly think so. Zakawer (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Open solicitation for partisan collusion

I found a severe NPOV violation on an article talk page. [43] I removed it from the talk page and posted on the user's talk page. I'm posting here to bring attention to it. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The account in question, Robert Sacomeno, has only made three edits, all that one post on Talk:Project 2025. It was indeed an inappropriate addition and telling them on their talk page that it violates NPOV is the right thing to do. If they violate NPOV again, appropriate remedies can be applied. This didn't need to be brought here to this noticeboard, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

K, thanks. I don't usually bother with this side of Wikipedia. I'm a casual editor and reader. I was just surprised to see that level of POV from a username (I see IPs do it all the time). 76.178.169.118 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I warned them earlier. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Interpretation of the number of fatalities in Template:Infobox civilian attack

There is a dispute at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Death toll about what the number of fatalities included in the infobox refer to. My interpretation is that it refers to the number of people alleged to have died from the genocide. Others have interpreted it, I believe, as meaning casualties in the broader conflict, including both those that are alleged to be victims and those that are not alleged to be victims.

There are sources to support the latter, but there are not sources to support the former. If my interpretation is correct, I am concerned that presenting it this way introduces WP:NPOV issues, as well as WP:V issues.

Additional input would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

So far it looks like someone put a citation needed note on a cited, and likely conservative, figure. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's cited, but not to sources that say this is the number of victims - it's to sources that say this is the number dead in the broader war, and that sources say includes both civilians and militants. BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no, stop that. Those CN tags are not supporting neutrality. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Visegrád 24

Can an administrator of experienced editor do a full NPOV check over Visegrád 24? The article was TNTed back in March 2024 after the subject of the article, Visegrád 24, posted to have editors fix and change the article. This got brought up at AN, leading to a perm EC protection under two different C-TOPICS. Well, Visegrád 24 posted again on Twitter today to have editors fix the article, which was supposedly written by "disgruntled far left journos". I was unaware of the March 2022 postings until I was already editing the article (due to catching recent editors via my watchlist), but I saw this tweet and I'm now technically involved. Honestly, an administrator check over the article and its content may not be a bad thing, since it had dozens of COI editors, a T-blocked editor, a subsequent RSN involvement (see the talk page), and the subject of the article has posted three times in the last month to have the article "fixed" of misinformation.

-Sorry for the mini-rant: TL;DR: Article needs administrator or experienced editor checked due to C-TOPICS + WP:TNT + COI from dozens of editors in the last month. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Input request

As a discussion facilitator I feel more inputs from wider audience at Talk:Jinn#Reverting of WP:BOLD after would be helpful in the on going WP:Due discussions. Pl. do not give inputs here but at Talk:Jinn only.

Bookku (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Economy of Somalia

The tag of 'neutrality is disputed' has been there since 2015 due to a conflict back then. I was removing it per "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." which is listed as a reasonable reason to remove the tag at When to remove. I have created a section at talk page to see if the position is still disputed. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for informing the noticeboard. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The tag has been removed as there seems no active dispute. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

POV or COI?

I have concerns about an editor who exclusively edits pages related to one specific organization, and whose edits always serve to diminish the subject - remove positive (or even neutral) statements, add negative statements, and immediately changes any attempts to moderate his work. Is this something to report here? Or is it a COI? I would like to ask admin to look into it, but not sure where to go to do that. Thank you. Daveler166 (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Starting a conversation on their Talk page is always the first step. assume good faith, no matter how obvious it may look to you that this person is pushing a POV, you don't know for sure until you've spoken to them. Also, how did you come across this editor? It looks like this question is your first edit in five years. Mokadoshi (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I've been attempting to edit one of the pages in question. Also did one on a rock band recently. I came across him because one of the peopel he edits died recently, so I wanted to read his page. There were some strange things there, and so I came across this editor. I will attempt to Talk with him. Daveler166 (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand the confusion now. So you have another account, User:Daveler16, that you've been editing from recently. You should really stick to one account unless you have good reason as explained on WP:VALIDALT. If you have a valid reason for having multiple accounts, then you should update your talk page on User:Daveler166 which currently says that you are locked out of the other account.

Only now that I understand this confusion do I see the page you're probably referring to (Daisaku Ikeda). I see you posted on the Talk page there. I'll take a look and reply there if necessary. Mokadoshi (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Book of Exodus

The editor of the article "Book of Exodus" does not even consider the Judeo-Christian perspective on the historicity of the Exodus. Exodus is a Judeo-Christian book and to not even consider those perspectives when questioning its historicity is completely wrong whether or not one agrees with them. This idea of thought continues throughout the article (not just on the historicity section) without even considering the perspective Judeo-Christian scholars have on the matter. This not only limits the readers understanding, but also hinders the accuracy of the article as it then is solely from the perspective of an atheist. This is an appeal for changes to be made to the article to ensure a neutral POV. Regards, Brannyford (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you'd like to edit an article. See WP:HOW. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This belongs on the article talk page. If you post there, or anywhere else, please use reliable sources and specific examples of how the article Book of Exodus violates NPOV. I see this is your only edit and you haven't gone to the talk page yet. I see the section you are complaining about is a short summary of Sources and parallels of the Exodus, perhaps you should start there. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)