This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Lengthy discussion about subjects military service. Seems a bit of whitewashing and proclaiming POV when anyone makes a well sourced edit. Seems the sources get scrutinized, which is good. However also seems when sources and citations meet wiki reliability standard reverts to claiming POV. The concern is reports of subjects “Vietnam vet” and “Vietnam veteran” claims are being whitewashed and undue weight is being given to editors who appear to want the subject is a more favorable light. Using the word veracity to paraphrase multiple reports that were sourced is not POV. Highly concerning. Also as soon as someone makes an edit that is sourced but less than favorable on the subject, proclaiming POV is definitely not wp:agf.0pen$0urce (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it kind of seems like you're just accusing other editors of bias. That's not the point of this board. What content would you like to see changed and why? Nblund ^talk 02:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an opinion, elaborated on issues with the article and how the article is being aggressively policed and seems to give undue weight to one POV. Very active reverting on sourced edits. As soon as a new contributor comes along, makes edits, sources edits, they are accused of POV. Would think be ideal if a larger cross section of the community get involved and chime in. The talk page is lengthy and goes in circles.0pen$0urce (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you said what article is under discussion. The link in the heading is to a disambiguation page. Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC) [Fixed 10 April 2019. Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Lot of back and fourth several folks tried to contribute sourced mention of the subjects embellishment or exaggeration of Vietnam service. Current edit states Vietnam Era Veteran, however misleading and subject is did not serve in Vietnam and did not meet the criteria to earn Vietnam Service Medal. I came along and saw folks were trying to make edits but every source got stonewalled Unreasonable sourcing demands So I figured ok maybe the souyrces are the issue fine, lets see what I can find, found about 3 carefully curated sources, tried to be careful in my wording stay NPOV, and almost immediately was accused of POV edit and reverted. Just seeking additional input here--0pen$0urce (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again: this board is not the place to air grievances about other editors. It's about content. Why does it matter if whether or not he qualified to earn a Vietnam service medal? Can you link to a diff or say what you want the article to say and what sources you want to cite? Looking at the talk page, it actually appears that there are a fair number of experienced editors participating in the conversation. Nblund ^talk 01:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”Again”, who’s airing grievances? Asking the community via this, npov notice board, to review the military service section for npov. I ask that you keep it civil and assume good faith.0pen$0urce (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The military service section should include sourced criticisms of subjects “Vietnam vet” portrayal, not just a white washed he’s a Vietnam era veteran. Several reports that subject including social media video that was reported on that subject portrayed himself inaccurately as a “Vietnam vet”. Even mention of those reports gets whitewashed, seems very POV. There happy. Geese no wonder Wikipedia struggles to attract new editors no wonder. Civility lacking for starters. 0pen$0urce (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "civility" issues here, so stop with your transparent attempts to weaponize that. You have no suggested edits, only "it's biased". That doesn't work for us. You've had multiple experienced editors tell you that you're wrong. Your comments very clearly show that you are grievance-focused. I think you need to drop the stick and move on.--Jorm (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on content not other contributors. Again keep it civil0pen$0urce (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, @0pen$0urce: Constantly accusing others of incivility is itself somewhat uncivil. I would second (or fourth, or fifth, really) what other editors are telling you: it seems WP:UNDUE to focus on this obscure question, and you're not going to convince anyone by endlessly bludgeoning this issue. It's probably not worth your time to continue tilting at this windmill. Nblund ^talk 15:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment about me. “Constantly”. “Undue and obscure”whelp that’s subjective. As well as arbitrarily proclaiming a source is a blog. Reported criticisms of the subjects portrayal of his Vietnam service. Just about every major news outlet that reported Phillips a “Vietnam Veteran” retracted after his service records were recovered under the Nathan Stanard. Additional reported criticisms, some originating from military focused news outlets (Stars and Stripes, Military Times, and yes Task and Purpose). These sources specialize in military centric journalism and can clearly distinguish the “Vietnam Era Veteran, “Vietnam Vet”,”"I'm a Vietnam vet, you know," Phillips said. "I served in the Marine Corps from '72 to '76. I got discharged May 5, 1976. I got honorable discharge and one of the boxes in there shows if you were peacetime or... what my box says that I was in theater. I don't talk much about my Vietnam times. I usually say 'I don't recollect. I don't recall,' you know, those years.-Nathan Phillips Facebook video talking to Native Youth Alliance 2018, as reported by Task and Purpose, re-published Buisness Week “ Not unreasonable to ask folks to comment on content and keep it civil.0pen$0urce (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 0pen$0urce provides only blog posts as sources and when they're told they're no good, they cast civility aspersions and template people with ((uw-harrass-1)). So that's what you're getting into when you tell them that they're wrong.--Jorm (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2nd request, please focus on content not other contributors and let’s keep it civil. Can you pleas provide reliable sources, not just subjective opinions that task and Purpose is a “blog” and furthermore that an article written by Task and Purpose’s Editor in Chief then republished by Business Week is merely a blog. I spent significant time researching task and Purpose. Several articles about the company in the Atlantic, huff post. There mission statement is Task & Purpose is a digital news and culture publication dedicated to issues that matter to veterans, service members, and the civilians who care about them. We aren’t just trying to speak to the next great generation of military veterans, we are actively trying to build it. If someone can find a reliable, not subjective source that task and Purpose is a blog. Sure they publish work from contributors. Proclaiming “blog” doesn’t mean it’s a blog and starting to give the perception of status quo stonewalling amongst other things going on here0pen$0urce (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I generically side with OpenSource on this one (as have others, see talk page). The fact that Mr. Phillips has indeed in the past claimed to be a "Vietnam Veteran" (which he is not) and not a "Vietnam-era Veteran" (which he is) is of note and reflects on his credibility. Likewise, there he has made confusing remarks about being a "recon ranger" that were later clarified. This establishes that he's loose/inaccurate with his choice of words, again, leading to credibility issues (see also his lies at the 2019 Lincoln Memorial incident). This is a WP:BLP and must meet those standards. Below is a closer attempt to address the issues OpenSource is trying to address:

Phillips entered the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves on 20 May 1972.^[1] During his time in the military, he served as a refrigerator technician in Nebraska and California and was trained as an anti-tank missileman.^[2] On 5 May 1976, Phillips was discharged as a private following disciplinary issues, including three AWOL incidents.^[3][4] In accordance with the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Phillips is classified as a Vietnam era veteran^[1]

Initial media reports in the wake of the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation were inconsistent as to the particulars of Phillip’s military service, leading to reports that conflicted with his actual service.^[5][6] Several media outlets erroneously reported Phillips was a “Vietnam Veteran” then subsequently issued retractions or clarifications.^[7] Contributing to the confusion, in an interview, Phillips stated he was a "recon ranger".^[8][9] He has made multiple statements since that video in which he only claims to be a Vietnam era veteran^[7] and clarified his "recon ranger" remarks as a description of his actions during a protest, not that he served in that capacity during his military service.^[2]

Hopefully that would remove the T&P reference while giving both context to his discipline issues (without whitewashing) and confusing remarks. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nblund: @Jorm: Thoughts? Buffs (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your contention that the statements "reflect on his credibility" are kind of the problem. It makes this seem like a WP:TROJAN Horse that implies a statement of opinion without simply coming out and citing a person who criticized Phillips. The reliable sources suggest that the initial reports got it wrong (which doesn't reflect on Phillips at all) and Snopes concludes that there is no evidence that he intentionally tried to mislead people about his military service. I'm not sure that really warrants two paragraphs in a fairly short article. Nblund ^talk 20:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, there are two issues here. The first is the fact that the media got a LOT wrong in that incident (that's pretty well acknowledged on all sides). The second is that he's also loose with the facts. In the 2019 January incident, he made numerous statements that were demonstrably false and others were doubtful/intentionally misleading. This is a pattern of behavior as he DID claim to be both a "Vietnam Veteran" in a video as well as "Recon Ranger". I welcome and accept his clarification on both points, but it's notable that he's loose on accuracy in spontaneous conversation (commonly known as "exaggerating"). Does this assessment seem accurate? Or is it just too much? Your thoughts? @Nblund: Buffs (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts (which you didn't ask for): your whole post looks a lot like original research. He's loose with the facts; he made numerous statements that were demonstrably false and others were doubtful/intentionally misleading; this is a pattern of behavior. Are there multiple reliable sources that say exactly that? The Washington Post said he "misrepresented his military history", but that's not the same thing as saying he's a wholesale liar and lacks all credibility. I welcome and accept his clarification on both points...: it looks as though you're setting yourself up as judge here, and that does bring your motivation into question. I accepted your edit on the article talk page (and why did you ping Nblund and Jorm here, rather than on the article talk page), because it seemed a good faith summary of some (marginally) interesting facts, but it seems, as Nblund says, that its true purpose is to use verifiable and marginally interesting facts to imply things which are not verifiable. Scolaire (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, 3 points here you bring up.

1. Why I pinged them here: I pinged them here because they responded here. Their input pertained to the matters discussed on this page.
2. "it looks as though you're setting yourself up as judge here" Wow. I'm offering a substantiated opinion on the subject that is widely held/supported by third-party sources (see below). That's just putting the facts out there. As I said before,
3. I'm NOT saying he's he's a wholesale liar and lacks all credibility. I am saying that he exaggerates, like some people are prone to do; That isn't WP:OR. "He’s all over the map on his facts." His statements about himself/his actions need to be taken with a grain of salt. Since his own perception doesn't align with what actually happened, we need to give his claims context. For example "'That mass of young men surrounded me and the folks that were with me,' Phillips said, adding that when he did finally find a path to walk through the 'clear space, a person was there. I was blocked.'" when he actually waded into the middle of the students intentionally beating a drum a few feet from a teenager's face.

How I personally feel about Mr. Phillips is hardly the point. WP is supposed to be based on what reliable, third party sources say about the subject. Since these opinions are indeed part of the mainstream, it's important to both include his statements about military service, the errors, and any points of later clarification. To do otherwise is misleading. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to be a little more circumspect, and use better judgement, when citing sources in a biographical article. Looking at the sources you've cited in your comment immediately above:

• The first is a polemical opinion piece, in which the author dismisses the mainstream media as "leftist liars". Regardless of whether you agree with that opinion, it should be obvious to a competent editor that this is not a suitable source of fact for a serious encyclopedic project, much less for a biography, where particularly strict sourcing standards apply.
• The second is a news piece from the Washington Post, and thus an appropriate source, and your summary seems accurate enough.
• The third source is a CNN interview with Phillips, which does not include or imply the gloss you provided. (That is, the source says nothing about any discrepancy between Phillips's statements and his actions—that is your addition, but your text makes it look as if the source directly supports it).
• The fifth source is an opinion piece, which incidentally you have completely misrepresented; rather than calling Phillip's honesty into question, the gist of the piece was the link (in the author's view) between the actions of the Covington students and those of other icons of white supremacy.

So please, if you're going to cite sources, review this site's guidelines. Specifically, claims about living people require high-quality sources. Opinion pieces should not be used to support assertions of fact. And you need to honestly represent the content of sources you cite—that is not negotiable. You note, correctly, that Wikipedia must reflect what "reliable, third party sources say about the subject", but your input here is at odds with that goal. I have no opinion on the underlying content question, but any discussion needs to be grounded in site policy. MastCell ^Talk 16:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, MastCell, let's keep it civil and avoid personal attacks, shall we?

The point of my argument wasn't "let's just include these". Someone said I was conducting WP:OR; this was a demonstration that my opinions were not and could be sourced. #1 was from the Chicago Tribune. Regardless of the author's opinion of "mainstream media", that doesn't discount it as a credible source FOR THAT OPINION. Acceptable: Author ABC opined "XYZ was the sole reason...". Unacceptable: XYZ was the sole reason... It doesn't mean that it cannot be used, even in a WP:BLP. #2 is ok. #3/#4 are merely records of what Mr. Phillips said and how inaccurate they were is CLEARLY indicated in the article. But, I'm not citing their specific opinions. Only the facts of what was actually said. While some might view the incident and statements through various lenses, the facts (not their assessments) are the same in these accounts and can be used as such to document the facts; they have the reputation of these reputable publications behind them. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The purposed text seems to be an improvement with decent sources. I think it should be fine to add it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the feedback! Buffs (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll abide by consensus here, which I'm reading as people's concerns have been addressed. Any additional concerns? Buffs (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, it's described as an "ongoing political scandal" in Canada. Questions are now being raised about if it should instead be "ongoing political controversy". I'm not sure if that's appropriate, or if it would be a euphemism. The talk page section is here. I would really appreciate outside opinion on this, to avoid another long back and forth. Safrolic (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been announced here long ago. There is an RfC open at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC: LavScam and a supplementary discussion at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#Prevalence of "LavScam" about whether the term "LavScam" has sufficient prevalence in RSes to satisfy WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV concerns for inclusion in the lead. Issues raised include the types of sources that have used the term, and how use of the term is framed and sourced. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged Juan Guaidó as biased and explained my reasoning here: Talk:Juan_Guaidó#Bias (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should clean up the article - he's one of the wealthiest people in the world and should have a better-written page. Phrases like "life was hard", "loosely monitored by his father", "played all kinds of sports", "Dhirubhai cared very little about Mukesh's grades", "Dhirubhai believed that real life skills were harnessed through experiences and not by sitting in a classroom", "The company was being built from scratch with the principle of everybody contributing to the business and not heavily depend on selected individuals", "Mukesh's father treated him as a business partner", "Mukesh's success gradually increased...because of the great quality service is provided to users for cheap", and "Mukesh makes it a top priority to spend quality time with his children and family every Sunday" sound too much like puff-piece phrases rather than serious encyclopedia work. Dankster (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a good grasp of what qualifies as a better-written page so I encourage you to do some editing if you have time. There are so many pages like this and some are probably not getting noticed at all so when we stumble upon a poorly written piece, it would be cool if we take the initiative to edit especially if we have the capacity to do so. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a relevant RfC on the Casualties of the Iraq War talk page[1] about how to describe estimates when there is a conflict between reliable academic sources about the veracity of particular estimates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The largest lake in Minneapolis was renamed from Lake Calhoun to Bde Maka Ska and the Wikipedia article was moved. Minnesota's second-highest court recently ruled the state did not follow proper procedure in renaming it. There is considerable controversy about the two names, both of which continue to be in common use. Several well-meaning editors insist on putting Lake Calhoun in parenthesis to tell readers it is their less preferred name. Jonathunder (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is still a controversy this seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even hotly contested names like Derry and Liancourt Rocks don't put one name in parenthesis to tell readers which one Wikipedia editors prefer. "Aaaa, also known as Bbbbb,..." is standard. Jonathunder (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like what's in the lead. I see no issue here. Buffs (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of like the compromise that's done well with the Denali article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bde Maka Ska is the local and federally recognized name. The local organizations in charge of the lake also refer to it by that name only. And it is the common name used by the media since the name change. To include the former name without parenthesis is a violation of WP:UNDUE because it implies that the former name is used in some sort of official manner. Similar articles such as Denali, Devil's Tower and Black Elk Peak all follow the same naming convention and are very similar to this page as they are landmarks known by their Indigenous names. Devil's Tower has its English American name presented first because that is its legal name but includes the Native American name in parentheses. Denali and Black Elk Peak have their former English American names in parentheses as the Native American names were officially restored. Bde Maka Ska is similar, therefore Lake Calhoun remains in parentheses to follow common practice. This is not a violation of NPOV and as I said, it would be a violation to have Lake Calhoun presented without.

The mention of the court ruling here is misconstruing. The court did not rule on the name change and did not rule to change it back. It ruled on whether or not the DNR had the authority to change the name. It is being sent to the MN Supreme Court for a final decision. However, on all legal levels, the name is still Bde Maka Ska. I compromised on the issue of the court case by accepting the removal of the word "formerly" from the parentheses as it used to read in the LEAD as (also known as Lake Calhoun, it's former official name). However, it is still the former official name in a legal and common name sense. Again, there's no local, federal or common name recognition for Lake Calhoun being on equal level with Bde Maka Ska, therefore Lake Calhoun should remain in parentheses. oncamera 17:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the past few months (and in fact going back even further than that) there has been a hotly debated issue at List of music considered the worst over the inclusion of a specific entry: The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Despite the fact the album is frequently regarded as being among the greatest, most popular, most influential, etc. albums of all time, it is included based solely on the fact a small contingent of people hate it. Since its addition to the article nine months ago, there have been various edits by multiple users removing the entry, only to be reverted by other editors who tell them the album's wider positive acclaim does not supersede the opinions of these few individuals, so they need a consensus before removing it. Over two months ago an RfC was started to discuss its removal, but thus far no action has taken place. The major arguments of the two sides boil down to this:

• Keep - It satisfies the vaguely agreed upon inclusion criteria for the list, which is any song or album, regardless of its overall critical reception, being called the worst by at least two reliable sources.
• Remove - Its inclusion goes against WP:NPOV, specifically (but not limited to) WP:WEIGHT as the majority view is "Sgt. Pepper is a good album", the minority view is "Sgt. Pepper is not a good album", and the view "Sgt. Pepper is the worst album ever created" is an extremely small minority, WP:BALANCE as it misconstrues the critical reception for the album to appear far harsher than it actually is, and WP:SUBJECTIVE as the common interpretation of the album is that it is good.

In addition to the lengthy RfC, a second discussion was started about whether or not the list should be deleted. Over the past nearly fourteen years the list has been nominated for deletion six times (the most recent of which January this year [2]), only to reach the same conclusion each time: Keep but clean up. However, some of the editors in those discussions arguing to clean it up instead of deleting it are actively preventing any clean up from happening. Edits adding music considered the worst are reverted [3], edits removing critically acclaimed music from the list are reverted [4], and edits clarifying the wider held critical views of the entries are reverted [5]. As a result of these actions, it has been inferred by some that their objective is not the improvement of the article but rather to maintain the status quo and keep certain entries on the list.

As with the RfC, this lengthy discussion about a possible AFD is rooted in the fact that Sgt. Pepper appears on the list, and once against it is pointed out numerous times that its inclusion appears to go against NPOV, and by extension so does the entire list. Instead of being a list of music noted for having such overwhelmingly negative receptions they are generally considered to be among the worst ever created, it is merely a list of any music called the worst by at least two people. The album's removal (and exclusion of any similarly positively acclaimed music) would improve the article by bringing it more in line with NPOV and warrant its existence, while its continued inclusion robs the list of any encyclopedic value and calls for it to be deleted, because something being called the worst by two people is not notable.

After months of numerous editors arguing the album's inclusion (and by extension the entire article) violates NPOV with no response, another flare-up over the past couple of days has resulted in two editors, more specifically two admin, who are calling for the album to remain to finally deign to acknowledge and address the argument. One stated the interpretation of NPOV calling for the removal of the album is wrong (but did not explain why) [6], while the other referred to WP:NPOV as "some random alphabet soup page" that "does not produce any forgone conclusion" [7]. Since both sides are deeply entrenched and showing no willingness to budge, and as there seems to be no resolution in sight, the issue is being brought here.

Is the interpretation of WP:NPOV correct? Does the inclusion of a creative work widely regarded as "good" in a list reserved for works considered the "worst" based solely on the opinions of a handful of individuals violate WP:NPOV? And if so, does it need to be removed? 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:F9D8:738:A901:F251 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an active WP:RFC about this matter. This shouldn’t be here, it’s WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What forum shopping? The notice for the RFC was removed over a month ago, something you know full well as two weeks ago you noted it had been gone for weeks, and therefore every "No" vote that came after its removal was "almost certainly more poorly coordinated canvassing" [8] (instead of them randomly stumbling across the article, being confused about the first entry being a widely acclaimed album, heading to the talk page to find out why it's listed, only see the discussion and deciding to voice their opinion). Until today, the last post in the RfC was two weeks ago. The last "Yes" vote utilizes the same rational as the first "Yes" vote from two months ago, and the last "No" vote utilizes the same rational as the first "No" vote from two months ago. After two months of multiple editors repeatedly arguing the album's inclusion violates NPOV, today it finally got a response. It should not take that long to get a response when there are so many editors in the discussion actively arguing it should stay, but finally one has been given. Those responses were the interpretation of NPOV is wrong, and WP:NPOV is "some random alphabet soup page".

Since the beginning this has been an NPOV issue, but its hard to reach a consensus when one side will not even acknowledge WP:NPOV exists. Side A says a few people hate it, Side B says far more people like it, Side A says it meets the inclusion criteria, Side B says that criteria and the entry fail NPOV, Side A stops talking...until someone tries to remove the album, and then they revert the edit and say a "clear consensus" has been reached that it stays [9]. Now that you have acknowledge the NPOV argument, we can work to get it resolved, and so it has been brought here to neutral parties removed from the lengthy, months long discussions to look at the NPOV policy and look at the list and make a determination of where or not it violates NPOV. The editors engaged in the debate who believe it violates NPOV will continue to argue it violates NPOV, while the editors engaged in the debate who believe it doesn't violate NPOV (or have completely refused to acknowledge the argument for two months) will continue to argue it doesn't (or continue to not acknowledge it), and nothing will come of it but more arguing. You yourself finally acknowledge the NPOV argument by saying I am wrong about it, but you don't explaining why. No consensus or constructive discussion can be had that way.

WP:WEIGHT states - "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." I have and continue to acknowledge that some people out there consider Sgt. Pepper to be the worst album every, but I contend they are an extremely small minority because even most of the sources currently being used for Sgt. Pepper's entry do not consider it the worst album ever made. You say that is an "(incorrect) application of NPOV" [10]. Please explain what is incorrect about it.

WP:SUBJECTIVE states - "Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation." I maintain that means you look at the full range of reviews, surveys, books, etc. which are deemed reliable sources, and make a determination based on the ratio of positive and negative receptions. If 90 people consider it "good" and 10 people consider it "bad", the common interpretation is that it is positive; 50 "good" and 50 "bad", the common interpretation is mixed results; 10 "good" and 90 "bad", it's negative. You say I "don’t seem to understand it" [11]. Please explain it so I can understand it.

Apologies for the "wall of text". I yield the remainder of my time. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:6972:38FD:873:AD4 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Says the person who deletes any sight of positive text about Sgt. Pepper's. You're being called out here, you're not following WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, and WP:SUBJECTIVE. You're doing anything you can to preserve Sgt. Pepper's in the list and delete any mention of it being a good album. It goes against WP:BIAS. Your hatred for an album should not misinform people. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 01:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article’s scope is documenting music considered the worst. If you want positive reviews, you’re in the wrong place. Just like I’d remove tigers from a “list of dogs” article. Regardless, this is still forumshopping. Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but two notable sources don't make an album "considered the worst" against thousands of good reviews. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 02:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the actual content in the article doesn’t suggest otherwise. It very clearly defines and attributes the sentiment, with a very direct “Source X considers it the worst”. Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article is to include music considered the worst, and the vast majority consider Pepper a good album. Two sources - TWO - say that the album is bad. So that's enough to include it? Perhaps in terms you understand: I talked with 100 people yesterday. 98 said you were a good person, and 2 said you were bad. So following your logic, you should be put in a list called List of people considered the worst. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 02:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is “considered”. All you need is one source for it to be considered the worst. As many participants have tried to express to you in the still-ongoing discussion, this is not an article that is tracking something like “the absolute lowest aggregated scores at Metacritic. It’s just documenting times when the statement has been made. Making a stricter inclusion criteria has been suggested, But no one has bothered to put together anything that garnered a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people, you can all see it. One source is enough to put it in a list called List of music considered the worst, regardless of all the other thousands of positive reviews. You be the judge and tell me if that follows a Neutral point of view. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 02:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one source is commonly the starting point for inclusion criteria. Again, I am not against instating stronger inclusion criteria. I have not opposed this. But neither you nor any other editor has proposed any other inclusion criteria. You’ve merely whined about this particular entry. Neither you nor your IP friend have made any effort to build the list article itself, or workable inclusion criteria on a whole. You’ve just endlessly rehashed your feelings on this one particular album. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our criteria, that we've been repeating over and over? WP:WEIGHT. The minority of people doesn't surpass the majority. If 98 people said you were a good person, you shouldn't be "considered" a bad person, only because 2 people said so. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is fundamentally not inclusion criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiiight... good arguments you have there. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there’s nothing else to cover on it. It’s not. Your comment is about as insightful as the person who said we wouldn’t have to have any more discussion if we just “follow policy”, as if everything was so black and white, cut and clear. Randomly ending every comment with another link to NPOV or WEIGHT doesn’t magically resolve everything. Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that settles it, then. See you on that list. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to be clear, I do not hate the album, or have any thoughts on it at all. I’ve merely maintained this list for years, and force discussions to take place any time editors try to remove entries that are reliably sourced. Ive been an active editor for over a decade and have no history of disputes regarding POV pushing, and certainly, if I was the sort of editors who decided Wikipedia was the medium to express my hate for an album, I’d have more than zero edits at the album article itself. The whole premise is absurd. I’ve argued endlessly with this group of editors (I believe most are the same person under a bunch of different IPs) but I’d say probably over half has been warnings over protocol, process, not attacking other editors, not casting aspersions, not writing in all caps, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you like I can give you a list of every IP I've posted under. I'm always in the same place with the same computer hooked up to the same wifi, but the IP keeps shuffling around. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:6972:38FD:873:AD4 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this really just underlines a fundamental issue with that list, which is that it is innumerable as currently used, and thus fundamentally shouldn't exist. Given the inclusion criteria and the other entries (and especially their sources) actually on that list, it's basically a list of times that music got bad reviews. An actual list of music considered the worst [by a significant survey of people] would be much shorter, it wouldn't include entries simply because there were some bad reviews, and it wouldn't include entries simply because the editor interpreted a source as saying "worst ever" when it did not. It might actually still include Sgt. Peppers, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has survived 6 AFDs, and similar video game and film lists have generally survived 5+ each as well. There’s a solid consensus against deletion. Just a ton of different viewpoints on how to write it. It’s a repeating cycle. People like this will argue about a given entry for weeks, but win or lose, they disappear after the discussion about their preferred entry. No one wants to write the article or get a consensus on inclusion criteria. They just want to complain about their entry and then move on to the next thing. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and the consensus says: Keep it, but clean it up. Remove entries that don't belong. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I’m all for it. And so far we’ve spent 2 months arguing against the “Beatles Defense Team”, who have made zero suggestions for improvement outside of, surprise, removing the Beatles. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Against the "Beatles Attack Team", who have made zero suggestions for improvement outside of, surprise, preserving the Beatles in that list. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...Is that supposed to be in reference to me? Because I’ve been maintaining the article since as early as 2014, which I’m pretty sure was years before the Beatles entry even existed. Sergecross73 msg me 03:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to fit the criteria for inclusion, but then its a pretty weak idea for a list.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I closed the RfC referred to above as "no consensus". Basically the arguments boil down to whether the criteria for inclusion is "any song/album that has been considered the worst, regardless of the balance of opinion about the song/album." or "any song/album that has been considered the worst and the balance of opinion about the song/album is significantly negative". This is not defined on the article, and there is no consensus on the talk page or in the talk page archives about which it is. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, some users have been adding Afghanistan and India to the infoboxes of the article. The sources themselves also appear to be speculative or opinionated. And furthermore there is already a section in the article about "foreign support". I tried opening up a discussion in the talk page but there has not yet been a response.Apollo4659 (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation or being opinionated does not make then not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are even sources that say that Pakistan supports the TTP, so shouldn't that be included too? Apollo4659 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally it is WP:UNDUE, to be putting those countries in the infoboxes.Apollo4659 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diffident issue, that might have some validity.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is interested, see Talk:Chairman#Requested move 8 May 2019. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Appeal to nature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Talk:Appeal_to_nature#RfC_for_Singer-referenced_content is considering the neutrality and encyclopedic value of including a specific example into the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Talk:Being_and_Nothingness#RfC_on_discussion_of_the_philosophy_of_sex_in_lead discussing whether a topic is prominent enough to be discussed in the lead section of an article. --Drevolt (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a RfC on the John Bolton page about the kind of language we can use about him being a "war hawk".[12] The editor vetoing one version of the language claims that it's a NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, this article violates NPOV substantially by omitting crucial factual information. The lede to the article fails to note that there were no WMDs found (but does mention that US officials started the war because they believed there were), that there was no Iraq-Al-Qaeda operational relationship (but does mention that US officials started the war because they believed there was), and there is no mention that the administration pressured the intelligence community and misused raw intelligence to paint a deceptive picture of these issues. There's a throw-away line about how the rationales for the war "faced heavy criticism", which falsely presents the issue as if the debates around Iraqi WMDs and the Saddam-Al-Qaeda ties are of a partisan nature, rather than settled. Absurdly enough, the lede goes into the weeds on how "old" chemical weapons were found (which is irrelevant to the rationales for invading Iraq) - devoting three full sentences to it nonetheless!

Furthermore, there is some strange gatekeeping going in the article where several editors are edit-warring to keep statements made by Dick Cheney as assertions in wiki voice... statements made by Dick Cheney as assertions in wiki voice. So, I think the article could do with more eyes. The article appears to me to grossly violate NPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a dispute on the Brexit Party page where multiple editors are suggesting that the term "populist" is a value-laden pejorative and that we are therefore not allowed to state in Wiki voice that the party is "populist" even though RS and political scientists widely characterize it as such. Is it a NPOV violation to state "populist" in Wiki voice? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there Reliable Sources that say the party isn’t populist? (I would assume so, but assumptions can be wrong) ... If so, then saying it in WPs voice would be non-neutral. We would have to mention both view points (and attribute so the reader knows who holds which view). In fact, when it comes to political topics, it is probably best to attribute any label, even when widely held. Applying a label should be considered an opinion (it may be an expert opinion, but it is an opinion nevertheless) and so should be presented as such. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the context of the Brexit Party it seems to fit since the party is based on an issue that has majority support of the people (based on the referendum), but none of the major parties have been able to achieve "Brexit". I think the term can be used to try and equate the far-right and the far-left, but it isn't being used that way in this case. I'm an American and I don't think the term populist is pejorative except when it's used with additional qualifiers (like how "populism" is used to equate Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders). That's my two cents. -Pokerplayer513 (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The summary presented above is a mischaracterisation of the discussions on the talk page. The main ones can be read at Talk:Brexit Party#Populism in lede and Talk:Brexit Party#Lead section/infobox: discussion starting 21 May. I ask that anyone thinking of commenting here read these first instead of relying on the prelude to the question above. EddieHugh (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking Brexit, the bulk of the sources are too near the event in time to be able say it factually now in WP voice. In 2-3 years after whatever Brexit ends up being, when scholars are writing about it, then we can take what scholars consider to be factual. --Masem (t) 02:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If RS say it and no RS contest it, yes we can sat it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually an issue for RSN. Populist is a controversial term but it can be used where there is academic consensus for its use. I scanned the talk page but could not find any academic sources. I think these are important because reporters are not political scientists and tend to be less strict in their use of terms. A good source should explain what it means by populist, why the Brexit Party meets the definition and how accepted the description is. In previous discussions I have been involved in about right-wing groups, most editors have followed this approach. I haven't read enough about the party to guess how it might be classified, but even while Farage was leader, UKIP was described as a right-wing populist party. By that was meant it claimed to champion real British people against the treasonous elites and evil foreigners. TFD (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]