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

In this article Shakespeare Authorship Question this sentence in the lede states two opinions as facts:

No such direct evidence exists for any other candidate,[15] and Shakespeare's authorship was not questioned during his lifetime or for centuries after his death.[16]

I propose modifying this sentence by the addition of this text, to turn it from a statement of fact in Wikipedia voice, which is a violation of NPOV, into a a statement of the scholarly consensus:

++The large majority of Shakespeare scholars agree both that++ no such direct...

For the first clause, the whole article is really a discussion of different theories about whether such direct evidence exists for other candidates. And the article only touches on four of the possible candidates, there are dozens of others: List of Shakespeare authorship candidates.

For the second clause, there is an active academic debate among mainstream scholars on the issue. Please see this RS on the subject in an academic journal: Shakespeare Authorship Doubt in 1593, ROSALIND BARBER, Critical Survey, Vol. 21, No. 2, Questioning Shakespeare (2009), pp. 83-110 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41556314

In addition, this sentence violates NPOV by stating an opinion as fact:

Much of the learning with which he has been credited and the omnivorous reading imputed to Shakespeare by critics in later years is exaggerated, and he may well have absorbed much learning from conversations.

I propose modifying it:

++According to Harold Love++, much...

This is an active issue of debate among mainstream scholars --independent of the Shakespeare Authorship Question -- and opinions differ sharply. Please see this sentence from a well-respected mainstream scholar: https://blog.oup.com/2015/12/shakespeare-holinsheds-chronicles/

First, Shakespeare, a keen and voracious reader, always supplemented what he found in Holinshed with tidbits from other sources,

These are small issues, but since this is such a high profile article, I think we should scrupulously adopt NPOV, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Kfein (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Fine as is. For a WP:NPOV Wikipedia WP:ASSERTs that which is not "seriously disputed" since attributing such knowledge gives the non-neutral impression it's in dispute. There is no serious dispute that there is no direct evidence for anybody else being the "true" author of Shakespeare's work. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Note of clarification: There are three separate issues here, three separate statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Each needs to be decided independently. I just put them together into one post for convenience. Kfein (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Leave it as it is. The editor who has brought this here is a WP:SPA who is on wp to try to promote a crackpot fringe theory. I have never understood why editors like this are allowed to waste so much of others' time.Smeat75 (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: The above arguments are clearly laid out with supporting evidence. Personal attacks on me are WP:HA and inappropriate for this discussion. Kfein (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• The first suggested edit is typical fringe POV-pushing. I agree with the earlier commenters here. --JBL (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There are three independent suggested edits. I have combined them into one post. Kfein (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Erik Satie was an eccentric composer who was reported to have eaten a diet of only white foods. I have found at least six reliable sources that mention this. There has been a discussion on the talk-page already but no agreement.

I added these sources to the article (several reliable books) but they were removed several times. Also I recently found this: Among the many eccentricities of the French composer Erik Satie was his diet confined to white foods – eggs, sugar, shredded bones, the fat of dead animals, coconuts, chicken cooked in white water, rice, cheese (white varieties) and certain kinds of fish (without their skin). Satie thought that white foods got him into the mood for musical compositions that were unimpassioned and lucid". (Steven Shapin. You are what you eat’: historical changes in ideas about food and identity) That is a peer-reviewed paper in the Historical Research journal from 2014.

The content stating that Satie ate a diet of white foods was removed. Reason's listed by user Francis Schonken have been because the sources are a "minority view", are "superstitious", "credulous" or not-neutral. I believe this is not the case. All the sources I cited have been reliable secondary sources that merely point out Satie ate a diet of white foods. I have documented these sources on the talk-page. [1].

I just want to point out, apart from being well sourced, the only content I now want to add on this article is a single line [2]. Hardly controversial but it was also removed. My suggestion is that the content is restored and we can also use the Shapin paper above. What is the consensus view on this? Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I just found even more sources and added them to the talk-page. I would appreciate if any other users would weigh in their thoughts about this dispute. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Two days ago, the editor Gandydancer edited a section on the Bernie Sanders page where he removed all RS content that disputed that the media was biased against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election, but kept all the content that says "yes, the media was anti-Bernie". The editor justified these edits by claiming that he was only trimming a long article, but this was a very strange way of doing so, given that he removed overview academic assessments of media bias in the 2016 election, but kept mundane minutiae, such as Democracy Now! complaining about media bias on one occasion, a non-academic report on media bias that exclusively covered 2015 (rather than the whole primary) and a statement by the NY Times ombudsperson. Earlier today, I tried to add four sentences[3] for the sake of balance and NPOV, which exclusively cited peer-reviewed academic research assessments (A Princeton University Press book on the 2016 election[4] and a Palgrave book on the 2016 election[5]) and a report by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center[6], but this was immediately reverted by Gandydancer.[7] For simplicity's sake, here are three questions:

• Should content seek to cover "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"?
• Should we give priority to non-academic RS over peer-reviewed research and academic assessments?
• Should this edit[8] be reverted?

This seems to me to be a pretty clear NPOV violation. Not only is one particular view scrubbed from the page, but the views in question that were removed were those found in peer-reviewed research (which "are usually the most reliable sources" per the RS guidelines) whereas the views kept were a hodgepodge of minutiae from lower quality sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, all of this is covered at the very top of Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. For some reason, that isn't mentioned in the text above. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That's the spin-off article, but that has no bearing on the content dispute in question. A NPOV violation in a main article isn't OK just because the spin-off article is more neutral. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Wait, wut?! Did you just say Media coverage of Bernie Sanders was neutral? That's new, coming from you. ^^ What I found on that entry originally is that you only cited part I of the Shorenstein study when everyone talks about part II ("horserace journalism has consequences"). I found your Palgrave book had a very strong POV, and that your Princelyton Study barely talks about media coverage of Sanders. I added the citation to Higdon / Huff over there which also highlights (City Lights Press) the March 15th media focus on Trump's empty podium. There is also a HuffPost article by Grim as I recall, and I've read the podium story covered by Common Dreams & FAIR in addition to DN... I would agree we could change "noted" to "said". But that you could just have done, rather than making a fuss at a noticeboard. Also, you should have treated Gandydancer with more respect; you should probably have pung her or left a courtesy note next to your last comment on her talk page. My feeling is that she is right that all the study details (more accurately summarized than you do in the bolded diff above, which is basically your rejected lede for the Media coverage entry) don't belong on his bio, but should go on the media studies page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(1) The Palgrave book[9] does not have a POV. (2) The Princeton University Press book[10] (what you call a "Princeton study") devotes half of chapter 6 to media coverage of Sanders, as well as considers their findings regarding media coverage of Sanders important enough to mention in the intro of the book (and that's not counting other parts of the book that cover the topic briefly). It does not "barely talk" about media coverage of Sanders, and it's beyond me how you can reach that conclusion if you've actually read the book. In terms of word count exclusively devoted to the topic, it covers the topic at greater length than any other of the cited sources. (3) None of the arguments against the peer-reviewed research is a justification for why the main Sanders page should exclusively include content that has a pro-Sanders bent. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

2) Book Review of Identity Crisis: Number of times "Sanders" or "Bernie" is mentioned: zero. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I honestly think both of you might want to step away from this topic for a while. You've already both brought your bickering to numerous noticeboards and started a talkpage section purely for personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand your impression. Please notice I opened neither the thread you mention, nor this one. Let's identify the "prime mover" (or complainer if you prefer) fairly. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And yet you've posted repetitive, long, argumentative comments full of personal attacks in both threads. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This statement fails a basic fact-check (click on the link you provided). The argument has never been laid out at NPOV/N as far as I'm aware. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In the article, the Russian scientific community is referred to as foreign - although it is not foreign since the archaeological objects of this state are located on the territory of Russia.

In addition, his position is very distorted in favor of the point of view of the South Korean. In particular, a certain Petrov is presented as an expert, who is not a Russian scientist - although he is an ethnic Russian and was once a Russian student - but works in Australia and has never had anything to do with excavations or official Russian science.

At the same time, the position of such a universally recognized authority as Shakunov Ernest Vladimirovich is very distorted. Ignored all of his work proving that this state is Tungus-Manchurian and not Korean. Which is the official position of Russian science.

The words are distorted - when the text says that "there was some influence of Korean fine art and architecture" the article says that it is "Most Russian archaeologists and scholars describe Balhae as a kingdom of displaced Goguryeo people." Although this is not true, the statement "In relations with Japan, Balhae referred to itself as Goguryeo, and Japan welcomed this as a kind of restoration of its former friendly relationship with Goguryeo." and it’s not at all backed by valid references to official Russian science.

All attempts to fix this are met with fierce resistance from Korean users and the provocation of war on their part.

Wikipedia does not reflect the real position of Russian science even in the article on positions. In addition, it distorts their position and status to the position of a country that allegedly does not have a scientific school and material - although this South Korean side has no archaeological material. Since on its territory this state has never been. In the DPRK and China, they are not allowed to dig. And in Russia they are allowed only under Russian patronage as a workforce. And this is South Korea a foreign country in relation to Bohai.185.17.129.116 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks again for the speedy response to my previous post.

This is a new question: The genealogist (Valdes) who is quoted in the article had two theories of the Queen’s ancestry. Only one is referenced by Wikipedia. If I were to contribute his other one, (re-phrased to avoid copyright infringement), and provide proper citations, would this, too, likely be removed to keep the section short? Thank you for your attention.2605:A601:A1A8:CD00:3114:55B1:F1CE:5A61 (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The article Ethnocide of Uyghurs in China was created over the last month by a host of new SPAs. It seems to largely be a re-hashing of Xinjiang conflict and Xinjiang re-education camps with a large introduction to ethnocide, but with large tracts of unreferenced content and some potential POV & synthesis elements. Would appreciate if someone helped take a look at this large new article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Institute of National Remembrance is Poland's national institute for commemoration and lustration of World War II and Communist-era crimes. It's been politicized in different times for different purposes, something we write about in the criticism section. Some recent additions to that section (not by me, but I think they're interesting) instigated a minor edit war, and I've asked for PP and invited editors to discuss. Only a couple of editors accepted the invitation; I'm inviting uninvolved editors to join in and opine[11] before PP expires and we're thrust back to the same place. François Robere (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Concur this needs more eyeballs, particularly given the heavy socking going there for the last few months. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hoff Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ongoing WP:PROMOTION and puffery featuring a massive list of non-notable TV shows as part of a TV producer's WP:RESUME relentlessly curated by SPA's over time. Tried to clean it up years ago, but it didn't stick. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The piece presents only positives regarding the individual's public career. Examples- 1- No mention of the tremendous upset in the Armenian-American community regarding her Congressional testimony ;largely downplaying the Armenian Genocide. 2- Analysis of her Congressional testimony in Fall (Oct-Nov) 2019 contains only Democratic Representative questions and viewpoints with NO REPUBLICAN questioning at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwest57 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Midwest57, why are you posting this here and not engaging in discussion on Talk:Marie Yovanovitch? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Midwest57, weird, it's almost as if she is a career foreign service professional who has served the United States diligently, often in dangerous and unrewarding circumstances, for decades. Guy (help!) 23:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This dispute arises from Economic policy of Donald Trump talk, where I claimed and back with facts evidence from other articles that Economic policy of Donald Trump was not Neutral and seemed to be more on the criticism side. At the end an administrator claimed that my tag and neutrality clam was not warranted. Even after I present many facts and quotes from other Wikipedia article dealing with similar subjects, which all had been written in a neutral point of view (except Economic policy of Donald Trump article). I will admit that after the administrator removed the tag, I put the same tag back on but because I thought that the article needed more consideration. I will provide the dispute discussion but would suggest you go and read the article first and then read the dispute discussion. Talk page link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_Donald_Trump

BigRed606 (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

What problem do you see with this article? It appears to be well-sourced and I see no obvious omissions. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

BigRed606, wait, he has a policy?

/me goes to read article Guy (help!) 23:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It is in my opinion that the article about Economics Policy’s of Donald Trump sounds like a criticism article about his economics policies and not a article explaining about his economic policies. Personally I would like a couple other administrators look at it. Because if you read Economic policy of Donald Trump and the read Economic policy of the Barack Obama administration and compare the two, you find out that the Economics Policy’s of Donald Trump is not neutral.BigRed606 (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

But is it WP:NEUTRAL? "Neutral" can have many meanings. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_post-traumatic_stress_disorder article section "Arguments Against Complex PTSD Diagnosis" is written in a different style than the rest of the article and in my opinion from a biased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.178.187 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extended discussion about what constitutes neutrality on this article and talk page. Additional eyeballs would be appreciated. VQuakr, 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template.

This did not open with a particular focus on NPoV concerns, but has turned that way (in short, whether colorful/flashy quotation templates pose a WP:UNDUE problem, or are simply a harmless layout choice like colored backgrounds in infoboxes).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• Anonymous user challenging description of geography as NPOV in a WP:ARBPIA-related article. Page has been extended-confirmed protected by GeneralizationsAreBad and I have started a discussion on the talk page to stop an edit war. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert on theology, but a lot of the wording in this article comes off as very "in-universe".

• Understanding helps one relate all truths to one's supernatural purpose
• Counsel functions as a sort of supernatural intuition, to enable a person to judge promptly and rightly, especially in difficult situations
• The gift of knowledge allows one, as far as is humanly possible, to see things from God's perspective.

I mean, it's one thing to describe what Francis or Aquinas have written or said, but this seems to go a bit far in using Wikipedia's voice to describe the supernatural as things rather than as beliefs. Thought? GMG^talk 14:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This regards the article at the address en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucille_Eichengreen.

It contains the passage, "... the Jews became exposed to growing reprisals by the Nazis as well as insults and assaults by the local population."

The word "reprisals" presupposes some prior antagonistic action or actions by the Jewish population toward the wider German society. No such action is described in the article, and it is widely accepted that no such action was ever committed.

Suggestion: that the word "reprisals" be replaced by "attacks" in the interests of grammatical and historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.196 (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

What does the source say?Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The mission = parameter (and some synonyms) were deprectaed from ((infobox organization)) some time ago, citing WP:MISSION. This was not carried forward into cloned templates such as ((Infobox institute)), where often-Orwellian statements are still being included as a matter of course. I have proposed deprecation at Template talk:Infobox institute. Guy (help!) 12:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the inclusion of the "ideological Turing test" in the infobox of Bryan Caplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article appropriate? RfC at talk:Bryan Caplan. Guy (help!) 13:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Timothy Bell, Baron Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user made a request for edits at this article. The issue seems to be an issue related to society in England, India, and South Africa.

Can someone please respond to the user's request? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Please participate in Talk:Tucker Carlson#RFC on MMfA white supremacy timeline where the reliability of a Media Matters for America primary source list of 192 statements by Tucker Carlson since 2004, and a Salon interview with its author, along with the quality of the list itself, have been called into question with both sides strongly opposed, with accusations of a lack of good faith and misleading partisan bias. EllenCT (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#NPOV issue: "Local residents" about how to summarise the incidents surrounding the Death of Luo Changqing in the main article 2019-20 Hong Kong protests. Participation from editors who do not have a prior involvement with this issue would be greatly appreciated. Deryck C. 12:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm engaged in an ongoing dispute on Neera Tanden's page. A number of editors have stonewalled against the addition of any content critical of the article subject. While revised content that addresses the substance of some of the criticism has been proposed, it has not been allowed to be integrated to the article. The parties opposed to the proposed additions have not proposed ways of including such topics with a more neutral point of view. In short, I feel that content critical or unfavorable to the subject isn't being allowed to be integrated in any form.

Furthermore, two Single-purpose accounts are engaged in the editing and consensus process Bewildered_Oregonian and User1956a. The second account, User1959a, appears to be engaged in canvassing by sending notifications only to users who have agreed with them in the past. I'm hesitant to call for a sockpuppet investigation because some of the other editors are clearly dedicated editors who simply disagree with me and the other editors.

• "Controversy" section redacted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neera_Tanden&type=revision&diff=939760356&oldid=939758087

(reply) As per WP:CRITS, but I invite other editors to look at the diff and see if the proposed text was accurate and appropriate. (HOC)

• Revised proposed diff about Libya oil: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neera_Tanden&type=revision&diff=940512694&oldid=940500705

(reply) See talk page, where 3 editors oppose the change that Jonathan Williams wants and nobody agrees with him.

• Revert of change to make description of Center for American Progress match description on that page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neera_Tanden&type=revision&diff=936792607&oldid=936787036

(reply) The source cited for the change was not Wikipedia (which is not RS) but a Women's Wear Daily article that merely mentioned CAP in passing. Multiple RS say that CAP is liberal. (HOC)

• There is a related discussion on the CAP talk page that some of these accounts are also involved in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Center_for_American_Progress#Ideology_Edit_War

(reply) Maybe the CAP article should state that there is controversy? RS typically call it liberal, progressive, or Democratic; supporters of Bernie Sanders want it to be called centrist. (HOC)

Jonathan Williams (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(reply) I tried to clarify each of these accusations above, signing my comments "HOC" HouseOfChange (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The Tanden Wikipedia page is constantly being vandalized. Without this constant vandalism, I would spend less time editing it and could focus more on other topics! Negative Informationen, such as that added by Jonathan Williams yesterday about the 2018 Buzzfeed article has been included, because is is sourced in relevant and mainstream media sources, unlike anything pertaining to the Libya controversy. The information he wants to add about the Libya email comes from partisan fringe sources with a vendetta. Users other than me, two of which have longer edit histories than me, have pointed this out to him. It is incorrect that no negative information is being included, but the argument is the negative information here does not merit inclusion, particularly in her political views section, because it cannot be established that a single email from almost a decade ago represents her views. User1956a (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald, while partisan, has won numerous awards for his reporting and has worked for major publications such as The Guardian as well as his own. He is not a fringe source. Jonathan Williams (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald has a confirmed and well-known personal vendetta against Tanden. The description of the email in his article does not match the text of the actual email. No reputable outlet picked up this story. It simply does not make sense to ascribe political views to Tanden based on a question she asked in one email a single time and has repeatedly refuted ever since.User1956a (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

On the talk page for the article, I included a number of articles that referenced The Intercept including Salon and Jezebel. The revised proposed change to the article references CAP's response to Greenwald's article, disavowing that it was ever a policy position of CAP. Is that enough of a balanced POV? Would it make more sense to include the leaked email (and CAP's response) in the CAP page's Criticism subhead? Jonathan Williams (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there is more of an argument to be made to include it under CAP controversies, if - as you have suggested - their response is also clearly included. I still maintain these sources are problematic, but my bigger issue is with ascribing these views to Tanden though she has explicitly denounced them. I think there is an argument to be made that it could be mentioned under the CAP controversies section since it did cause some controversy (at least among some), provided the full context of CAP’s response is also included.User1956a (talk)

It's also worth noting that User1956a has begun editing pages other than CAP and NT since I linked the Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts here. Jonathan Williams (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed and I hope to be able to do more of that, assuming less vandalism on the Tanden page means it will take up less of my time!User1956a (talk)

(restart indent) According to WP:BALASP, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

The Libya "controversy" has been controversial in partisan sources only, probably because Glenn Greenwald's claim Tanden wrote "emails" (plural) "arguing that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues to repay the U.S." is hogwash, based on a single email by Tanden, responding to a thread "Re: Should Libya pay us back?" that "having oil rich countries partially pay us back doesn't seem crazy to me."[17] That one comment, made in 2011 in private email made public by Wikileaks, has never been controversial in any RS because, quite simply, there's nothing there. Some of Tanden's other Wikileaked (and embarrassing) comments are in the article, and nobody has sanitized them out of it.

Critics of Tanden and CAP have repeatedly removed descriptions of them as "liberal" or "progressive" -- even though RS typically refer to them as "liberal" or "progressive." I also haven't seen an argument that adding a controversy section, which is deprecated by WP:CRITS, is appropriate in this article, is there such an argument? The editors described above as SPAs are simply new editors, and we should engage with their arguments, not bite them. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to adding a “controversies” section to the Tanden article. That has been suggested but none of the “controversies“ that were mentioned rose to any level of importance or relevance. Relevant incidents involving her, such as WikiLeaks, are included in her page already, as is a reference to the 2018 Buzzfeed article.

I also don’t think the Libya “controversy” *should* be included in the “criticisms” section of the CAP page - I think the sources are all questionable and the email itself does not rise to the level of controversy - but if there is consensus that it should be mentioned somewhere, I think that would be the place, not the Tanden article. My own view is not to include it at all because it is clearly only an issue because Glenn Greenwald has a personal feud with Tanden. User1956a (talk)

It would be great if some uninvolved editor would take a look. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with all reverts being made by User1956a (sourcing for the description of CAP, the notion of a controversy section) – I disagree with the fact that any negative material is deleted and held up with process abuse instead of being improved. It seems odd to me that someone without a conflict of interest or any other wiki editing history seems to have invested a ton of time in wikilayering a particular pair of articles. Jonathan Williams (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well-sourced negative information hasn’t been removed from the Tanden article - you should know, you added some of it. And neither has it been removed from the CAP article - you added some of that, too. Randomly accusing people of having a conflict of interest with no evidence, simply because they don’t agree with you strikes me as rather bad form. User1956a (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User1956a continues to remove factual, sourced, and unbiased information about Neera Tanden. How interesting...

I maintain that the above user, who is making edits like like wrt Tanden https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/941634069 is not providing factual or NPOV information about her, and personal attacks on me aren’t helpful. I support adding the section HouseOfChange has proposed to clarify the Tanden article, what I don’t support is repeated attempts to vandalize the page or make Wikipedia speak with the voice of online Tanden haters.User1956a (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

actually i have provided plenty of valid factual npov information, despite my first edit on wikipedia being a clear joke. like this: In 2008, Neera Tanden encountered criticism when she pushed Faiz Shakir, a reporter who asked Neera Tanden a question about Hillary Clinton and the Iraq War. (source:obeserver) whats wrong with this information user1956a? -jomalleyp

@Jomalleyp: For a start, the source you cited says that Faiz Shakir (now campaign manager for Bernie Sanders) asked Clinton, not Tanden, about the Iraq War. Second, your source does not say Tanden was criticized in 2008. The world first learned of this extremely trivial "pushing" event in 2019, not 2008, in a NYT story entitled "The Rematch: Bernie Sanders versus a Clinton loyalist" detailing the long backhistory of Bernie Sanders' most recent attack on Neera Tanden.[18] Per WP:BALASP your POV (and inaccurate) formulation of this minor event didn't belong in the "Career" section of the bio. Also, please go to WP:ANI for allegations against other editors and respect our policy against personal attacks. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The conflict between Tanden & Sharkir is symbolic of the notable schism between two factions of the party, the Clinton & Sanders camps. Tanden has a long history working with the Clintons across campaigns & governance, and Shakir is now highly-immersed in the Sanders movement. Understating the backdrop behind this conflict is key to understanding what happened leading into 2016, what's happened since, where the organizing energy is in the party now, and where the party is headed in the near future. This schism is a real thing, is newsworthy, has been reported upon by mainstream, fact-checked, well-edited newspapers of record, such the NYT that conform to WP:RS. It was so notable, that the NYT article had a multiplier effect, and the issue was covered by other outlets. This topic should be covered in some responsible way that adheres to WP:BLP & WP:DUE Critical Chris (talk)

I agree with Critical Chris and proposed this at Talk:Neera_Tanden#Ongoing_feud_between_Tanden_and_supporters_of_Bernie_Sanders, where I also listed several sources that seem to give a neutral presentation of the backstory. The ongoing controversy is the context behind random accounts arriving at the Neera Tanden article trying to "right a great wrong" by claiming she advocated attacking Libya to steal their oil as well as similarly slanted descriptions of non-events in her career. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The article at Jack Posobiec has been the subject of a NPOV dispute since 2017. A lengthy discussion at Talk:Jack_Posobiec#NPOV_dispute_added did not appear to reach any consensus. Here are the two primary issues with the article:

1. The article has a section specifically dedicated to listing the subject's political activities, which also happens to take up half of the page. It makes the page look like a "shit-list" to ridicule the subject of the article. At this point the page isn't an objective biography, but rather a subjective borderline attack page in my opinion.

2. The lead section reads like whoever wrote it has something against Posobiec. See the discussion I added in August 2017 at Talk:Jack_Posobiec/Archive_1#Proposed_changes. It very clearly fails WP:LABEL and other editors, for whatever reason, seem to be against noting that Posobiec has denied and rejected the label of "alt-right". This was done in a now deleted tweet that I can't figure out a way to access.

Can you find any other article that reads like this one does? I mean, it's just straight up not neutral. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Wait, the only reason Posobiec is notable is his political activities, so it's unclear why they shouldn't "take up half the page" per WP:DUE. What would you suggest we replace it with, further discussion of his entirely-mundane career in the Naval Reserve? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Already discussed and covered. This is just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 07:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The political activities section needs to be fundamentally rewritten. It is very clearly not written neutrally, regardless of whether you like him or not. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it actually doesn't. What exactly is not neutral about it? Volunteer Marek 02:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

See the comments below from Masem. I don't really have an issue with the content the section describes, but it would read more impartially as prose. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Another comment - see the lead of Alex Jones "Jones has described himself as a conservative, paleoconservative and libertarian, terms he uses interchangeably. Others describe him as conservative, right-wing, alt-right, and far-right." They very clearly take into account the subject's perspective, something that this article does not do. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of his biography appropriately describes Alex Jones as a far-right conspiracy theorist. If you think the lede to Alex Jones' article is acceptable, it's unclear why you don't think that is appropriate in the lede of Jack Posobiec's article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Noting that the OP is currently edit-warring to impose their sweeping changes without any [substantial] discussion (that is, aside from claiming a lack of neutrality), and against the general consensus. An administrator may need to step in. They’re currently at three reverts. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not in disagreement that the labels applied to Posobiec aren't appropriate as to be included, but the article is presently written as a scarlet letter against him, which is absolutely against BLP policy. What's his profession? That should be one of the first things in the lede and its not even there, instead going "he's a bad bad person", effectively. After describing him in a sentence or two impartially, then it can be explained that he considered a conspiracy theorist, as the lede otherwise does. This type of article is epidemic of the problems that for people that are treated with scorn in the media, our articles seem even moreso, but we should be much impartial than the media without whitewashing the media claims away. --Masem (t) 21:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, this article is career-ruining, extremely biased, BLP violation. He’s a very independent investigative journalist with an open mind. He followed a few false or obscure leads and has been crucified for it by biased journalists Operation mockingbird comes to mind. I have followed him on Twitter for a long time and admire his curiosity. Catcher Storm’s bold edit is the beginning of making this article less biased, less NPOV. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

We can't whitewash out some of the strong criticism from mainstream sources, however. From a read of RSes, he's going to come out looking badly. But it is entirely possible to write impartially about people with bad reputations. This article is not that. --Masem (t) 23:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• This is a perennial problem with biographies of shitty people. It's difficult for any reality-based article to look like anything other than a hit piece. The solution is usually to focus on quality of sourcing and ensuring that it's written in narrative style, not a laundry list of the shitty things the person did. The sourcing in this case is surprisingly good, though a few (e.g. HuffPo, Daily Beast, Raw Story) we could do without. There are good editors looking at it now, I suspect this will not be a problem for much longer. Guy (help!) 22:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Further piggybacking on the above comments- there is an open dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Jack_Posobiec, and the proposed changes I listed are at Talk:Jack_Posobiec#Bold_edit_rationale_and_further_discussion_to_fix_NPOV. An administrator expunged content which demonstrated that the source at Philly Mag were not appropriate. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, what? That link is to a random IMGUR of random people using slurs in what appears to be Twitch chat. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof The link was fixed, the wrong one was in my clipboard. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

An admin removed your extremely long quotes because they (apparently) violated copyright. That does not constitute any sort of judgment on the validity of the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It was removed under section nine of the non-free content policy, which I find to be odd. Regardless, I will paraphrase the quotes in question. For reference the article in question is located here. Here is my undeleted rationale:

1. The author of the column, Jonathan Valania, is demonstrably a left-leaning author shown by his contributions to Philly Mag. He has repeatedly covered topics with a left-leaning agenda, as seen at this article he wrote praising the anti-Trump "resistance".

2. The title of the column labels Posobiec as "the king of fake news", which is quite obviously an opinion.

3. The subtitle of the column labels Posobiec as "the Trump troll the Internet loves to hate". Again, very clearly an opinion. Rationales 4 and 5, which were deleted, are as follows:

4. See this screenshot of the quote in question. The author begins the column like he's telling a story. If that paragraph wasn't enough to convince you, see below.

5. Take a look at this screenshot, where the author calls Posobiec a slew of names.

Clearly demonstrates an unreliable source due to bias. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional information regarding above- the source in question is used 14 times throughout the entire article. Removal of this source and the statements attached to it should be uncontroversial. NorthBySouthBaranof has not made any counterarguments regarding this source, nor has any other editor. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a column, it's a reported news story with original reporting, is not written in first person, and is published in the "News" section of the magazine. Your personal opinion of the author's purported political leanings are irrelevant. Calling someone "ruthlessly effective" or a "fake-news ninja" is not "calling names" - they are accurate descriptions supported in the article. That you don't like the author's writing style is not a valid reason to find the source unreliable:

Do you have any evidence from other reliable sources that finds inaccuracies or distortions in this article? Or are we simply supposed to throw out a major metro magazine because you don't like it? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)\

Do you hear yourself right now? Per WP:RSOPINION, sources that are blatantly opinionated should not be used to present facts, or imply facts. Your claim that the author's names are "accurate descriptions" is an opinion itself. Appearing 14 times through the article, it was first used to label Posobiec as an "internet troll".

You also conveniently omitted the fact that the author called Posobiec a "ratfucker", "toxic", "dirty-trick", and labelled his beliefs as "alternative facts", then failed to mention that the article is indeed listed under "NEWS AND OPINION".

Oh, and don't forget the part where the author calls Mike Cernovich a "date-rape denialist and white genocide alarmist", Milo Yiannopoulos a "flamboyant controversialist/pedophilia apologist", Mike Flynn Jr. a "tinfoil-hat haberdasher", and Alex Jones a "conspiracy nut job". You seem like you're assuming that I myself am part of the alt-right, or that I think these labels are "incorrect". What it does show, however, is that the source fails WP:RSOPINION and should not be used to present fact, especially on a biography of a living person. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it's untrue that Milo Yiannopoulos is a pedophilia apologist? Our article is quite clear that he was fired from Breitbart, lost his publishing contract, and was widely condemned for making comments which were widely interpreted as such. You may not like it, but that description is not an opinion - it's well-founded on facts.

Similarly, Mike Cernovich indeed believes in the white genocide conspiracy theory and has made comments denying that date rape exists, as is amply documented by reliable sources. Describing someone in factual terms is precisely what we expect reliable sources to do. Or do you think reliable sources should instead cover up these fringe beliefs? No. Neither of those statements are opinions - they are facts, and as the saying goes, facts don't care about your feelings.

Your personal dislike of these factual statements or their implications is of no relevance here. Sources are obligated to tell the truth about people; they are not obligated to treat fringe lunacy as anything but fringe lunacy. Unless you're also claiming that date rape doesn't exist, in which case again, you may not be editing the right encyclopedia project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, at this point I have no choice but to beg you to read my message thoroughly, as your response clearly shows you didn't. To quote myself:

"You seem like you're assuming that I myself am part of the alt-right, or that I think these labels are 'incorrect'." To clarify once again, this isn't about whether I think his labels are true or not, or whether I "like them", which I made no such statement on. It seems you are 100% convinced they are fact simply because you found such claims on a "major metro magazine", and shouldn't be subject to scrutiny. You continue to veer off topic asking whether I personally agree with what he says in the article. Let's get two things straight.

1. The column is listed under news and opinion. I repeat, the column is listed under news and OPINION.

2. Repeating this for the third time. WP:RSOPINION states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." The column is then used to present the statements listed as fact. See the lead of Jack Posobiec.

At this point, you are assuming bad faith and you are quite literally putting words into my mouth. Don't ever compare me, someone you have never met (and literally know absolutely nothing about), to an alt-right conspiracy theorist. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

CatcherStorm, being "left leaning" may be the equivalent to being a child rapist as far as Fox News are concerned, but it what matters here is (a) is it published in a reliable source and (b) pretty much nothing else. Guy (help!) 19:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: The discussion listed at WP:DRN was closed since this discussion is more active. Copy and pasting another issue regarding editor conduct on this page I have below:

Here is the edit history of the page. When I restructured the list section into prose, I was immediately reverted by Grayfell and accused of "whitewashing" - something that this user seems to have done in the past before, which violates WP:AGF. Furthermore, even though the article has been the subject of NPOV disputes and quite obviously still is, editors continue to remove the POV dispute tag from the article. Volunteer Marek frequently cites WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a Wikipedia essay, as rationale for removing the NPOV template. Seems to imply that he thinks whoever has an issue with the tone of this article (I'm not the only one) is only putting it there because they are fans of Posobiec and are editing to make him look better. The NPOV template was put there because it is blatantly under dispute. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

My comments about your changes to the article were not personal attacks, and assuming good faith doesn't mean ignoring the substance of your actions. You're experienced enough that nobody is obligated to sugar-coat it for you.

Posobiec is noteworthy for only a few reasons, primarily fake news and a conspiracy theories, per sources. Your proposals on the article's talk page were clearly to make the article more flattering in various dissimilar ways. The article is a mess. Fixing it would start with summarizing reliable sources according to WP:DUE, not whitewashing. The specific edit I described as whitewashing was when you rearranged the article chronologically so unflattering information was lower in the article, sandwich between more mundane details, and without any informative section headers. I reverted it ten minutes later, which is not "immediately", and was more than enough time to see major problems with it, even setting aside the blatant edit warring.

Arranging these incidents in chronological order would imply that there was some coherent connection between them all, but this is not accurate. The specific dates was not obviously relevant or important. Posobiec, again per sources, is noteworthy for fabricating controversies and seeking attention, so the specific order of these incidents is also not obviously important. Arranging them this way misrepresents their encyclopedic significance. These incidents are important, however, for being fabricated, or for their implications of racism (such as his use of 14/88). Removing context which has been provided by reliable sources is a form of whitewashing, even if the information is still preserved. Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any legitimate NPOV dispute here. The list-form of the article is undesirable, but there's a reason that coverage of Posobiec is uniformly negative. Questions about whether source authors are too opinionated are misplaced here. If an author is so opinionated about a subject that there is a concern they are not fairly or accurately representing the subject, that's a problem. But if author simply has an opinion about the subject, absent any concern over the accuracy of the coverage, well, that's normal. Everyone has opinions and biases, and neither editors nor sources are assumed better for hiding them. Finally, I find all the descriptions offered as proof that sources are too opinionated to actually be quite factually accurate, with the possible exception of Posobiec being too irrelevant to qualify as a ratfucker. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

CatcherStorm, you wrote: "Clearly demonstrates an unreliable source due to bias." No, bias is not how we determine the reliability of a source. It's perfectly possible for both left- and right-wing sources that are fairly close to center to have a clear bias without becoming counterfactual. When the bias of sources becomes extreme, that is when it affects their reliability. Bias alone is not what determines reliability. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources can still be biased or use opinionated wording in reference to subjects; when they do so, their wording should be acknowledged based on due weight but should nevertheless be counted as an opinion. "Internet troll" is ultimately a judgment made by certain journalists and columnists and therefore should be attributed per WP:WIKIVOICE. Note that WP:WIKIVOICE applies even if the opinion judgment is a very well-reasoned judgment that most editors would agree with, as can be seen from the example in the policy about the morality of genocide. Jancarcu (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I’m away from my computer so I will provide a full length response when I get back in around 5 hours from the time I posted this comment, but I am going to page everyone who responded above: @Jancarcu:, @Bullrangifer:, @Someguy1221:, @Grayfell:, @JzG:. The issue we were discussing was the inclusion of that source and its use 14 times throughout the article to characterize the subject of the article. Now that I’ve read everyone’s responses, it’s becoming clearer to me that you guys think that there is absolutely zero problem with the tone of this article and how it is written, nor can you understand or see why anyone would object to the content in this article and how it is written. I invite each and everyone of you to lay your political affiliation aside and read the entire article. If you STILL think that the article is perfect the way it is, then say so below. CatcherStorm ^talk 22:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't assume that failure to agree with your position implies failure to understand your position. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If the issue is that one article being used 19 times (I am presuming this is the Philadelphia piece, ref 5), let's consider what those uses are for (based on this current version) - 1 is to support lede label attribution which is necessary. 8 of the uses seem like non-contested information about his background (and several of those are "back to back sentence" sourcing so they clearly can be culled down). The use on leaving Rebel News due to allegation of plagiarism seems also appropriate (that is, regardless of the bias of the Philadelphia article, these are not facts being exaggerated by bias). One of the last uses of it is to support his marriage , again , non-controversial. Of the others, I'm not seeing, outside of the lede use and one quote from the magazine, anything that seems to be misinterpretation of the events that occurs that might have been attributed to the bias of the author of the Philadephia article. It is a fair concern that if this article extensively quoted directly that article, using some of the more biased statements, that I would say there's a problem. But how the stuff in the Political Activities is presented does not seem so far out of line here.

Again, I do express the concern that there is tone issues, as the article is presently closer to be a scarlet letter against him and not impartial. The lede is particularly bad. Some of the bullet points in the Politics section, particularly those that are single-sourced, are maybe just trying to checkmark every time one author appeared to dislike what he said ( eg the second bullet on the Oct 2016 tweet under Race Relations), and presenting this as a timeline strengths the non-partial approach, it is better to get these sections away from the proseline and into a few paragraphs organized by criticism points so that it reads more impartial. But as I've said before and agreeing with most others here, you cannot whitewash away the negative take that the reliable sources have on this guy. A proper article on him on WP that meets NPOV/BLP/etc. is going to give the reader the impression he is not a great person, we just have to make sure it is worded in a way that Wikipedia's voice is not saying that. --Masem (t) 23:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: The edit that Grayfell accused me of "whitewashing" in was the edit in which I restructured the list section into a timeline, with the intent of making it read more neutrally. I made no substantial changes to the claims listed in the sections, nor did I remove any references. You can take a look at the diff here. I also do not understand the rationale behind removing the NPOV template when the article is clearly being disputed. Furthermore your assumption that I am trying to make him sound like a "great person", which seems to be a sentiment that everyone else here shares, isn't true. Like you said the lead section is terrible and the list section needs to be converted, which are my primary concerns. See Laura Loomer and the section concerning her political activities, and notice how the reference section is structured. That article is how this one should strive to look and read as. Articles on other right-wing political operatives/commentators are much better written because more people know about them and more people are contributing to them. See Sean Hannity. Posobiec is nowhere near as well known as him and it shows in how this article is written. If you skim through this article and Hannity's, you can tell that this article reads like it was written by a small group of worryingly over-interested editors who may or may not have bias against this guy. CatcherStorm ^talk 23:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is a combination of the current state (read: the one being reverted to from your changes) and the timeline style you want. The current section is a mix of criticism and actual activities, which should not really be mixed, except for activities that directly lead to criticism. Criticism should be presented in a more prose-like form instead of a timeline, while activities that are otherwise important moved off to a political career section. With your timeline that flattens everything out, then what criticism there is diluted across all those entries which is not appropriate either. This is part of the general tone issue of this article, as the timeline approach currently used can feed the inclusion of any random article that criticisms him. --Masem (t) 04:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@CatcherStorm: it appears that you may have misunderstood my comment. In my comment, I agreed substantively with some of your concerns, noting that the term "internet troll" is an opinion and therefore should be attributed rather than presented in Wikivoice. In other words, I agreed with you that the lead sentence was inappropriate and not up to NPOV standards. Jancarcu (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I noticed that you accused me of "moving unflattering statements to the bottom of the page". First of all, you are very clearly assuming that I did it intentionally so that he doesn't look bad, which by definition is assuming bad faith. You come off as condescending, judgmental, and you are assuming a "holier-than-thou" stance. If you want to double check, which I'm pretty sure you didn't do based off of your flagrant accusations, I ordered his activities chronologically. You can look at Laura Loomer, which is also written in chronological prose regarding political activities. Posobiec was most active in 2017 and his earliest political activities began in 2016, which were both at the top of the political activities section, so your unfounded claim that I purposely moved his most controversial activities lower is invalid. Let me remind you that I am not some alt-right empty-brained COI editor who seeks to present Posobiec as a model citizen, and you need to stop assuming everyone who thinks this article is in need of a rework is as well. CatcherStorm ^talk 00:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I specifically explained why bare-bones chronological order was not appropriate in this context, and I also specifically said that the article is a mess. Your edits were not a step in the right direction, and I have no interest in pretending otherwise. I have made many edits to the Loomer article over the past few years, and am aware of how it is arranged. Your assumptions about my assumptions are unfounded, and on this talk page, you should focus on NPOV issues, instead of making this a crusade. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed. No one is going to read a list of political activities ordered chronologically and somehow assume they're all connected. You're very welcome to edit Laura Loomer to fit your narrative since the activism section is written exactly like how I proposed it. Make sure you accuse anyone who reverts your edits of whitewashing too. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Needs discussion I would like to officially identify the issues regarding the article and begin to move towards proposing changes. My primary concerns are: the list structure of the political activities section, and the attribution of certain labels in the lead section (might need to be wholly reworked) as Wikivoice. CatcherStorm [[User

Which of the reliably-sourced statements in the lede do you object to? For example, the description of him as an "Internet troll" is sourced to no fewer than four published dead-tree magazines and newspapers - Playboy (magazine), Vanity Fair (magazine), Philadelphia (magazine), and the Chicago Sun-Times, each with established journalistic and publishing reputations. On what grounds do you challenge the judgment of these four separate independent reliable sources?

You seem not to understand how neutrality works on Wikipedia. Neutrality does not mean that we take no stance or give all sides equal validity. No, neutrality here means that we must accurately and fairly summarize and reflect what mainstream reliable sources say about the article subject. So I ask again - how are we not fairly reflecting what reliable sources say about this person? The sources cited in the article are numerous, reliable, and unchallenged. You have not cited a single source which disagrees with or rejects these conclusions. All we have to go on is your repeated and unsupported declamations that it is "unfair," without explanation as to what "fair" treatment of a fringe conspiracy-theorizing Internet troll would look like. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe that your response does not sufficiently address relevant policy arguments that have been brought up in this discussion. To expound on what I have stated previously, while multiple sources do describe Posobiec as an "internet troll", the term "internet troll" remains an opinion judgment made by the writers of the sources. As can be seen with WP:Wikivoice's example about genocide, opinion judgments, even when made by many prominent sources, still need to be attributed rather than put into wikivoice. Similarly, WP:Label indicates that value-laden labels in the same vein as "internet troll", such as "racist" or "sexist", should be attributed if the sources provide the labels WP:due weight.

One might object that certain contentious labels, such as "white supremacist" and "neo-Nazi", have been judged by consensus to be appropriate Wikivoice labels for subjects to whom these labels have been repeatedly applied by reliable sources, as seen on Stormfront (website). However, labels like "white supremacist" and "neo-Nazi" have specific meanings that have been fleshed out in the fields of political science and sociology, while "internet troll" is a slang term whose denotations and connotations are mostly informal and non-academic. At times, "internet troll" can simply refer to someone perceived to be obnoxious. Thus, the label "internet troll" is fundamentally different in nature from the other contentious labels that may be used in Wikivoice, and should be attributed to the sources.Jancarcu (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I would ask how you intend to make this purported distinction between "specific meaning" and "opinion" a reality, and how you suppose it could be fairly and consistently applied. Which labels can be used in Wikivoice and which cannot? Who decides which labels have "specific meaning" and which don't - is it left to an individual consensus argument at each article, or is there a central list?

I could make an argument that "Internet troll" has a well-understood specific meaning, and a devil's advocate could make an argument that "white supremacist" is an opinion. You may protest otherwise, but nevertheless there is an argument to be made - currently, the answer to that argument is that reliable sources use it, therefore so will we, and no source seriously contests it - therefore we use Wikivoice to describe them as a white supremacist. Your proposal eviscerates that response and forces us to hold another(?) individual consensus argument on each biography of a notable white supremacist to justify that in their case, it is "factual with a specific meaning" and not "opinion"? I see that as a profoundly-wrongheaded outcome unsupported by policy. The NPOV Noticeboard is not the place to create a sweeping new policy.

Returning to the specific article at hand, which labels do you view as "having specific meanings" and which do you view as merely "opinion"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The distinction I'm making is not a new one, but rather a reasonable synthesis of WP:Label and WP:Wikivoice's consel against using loaded labels in Wikivoice with past consensus on pages like Stormfront (website). From a synthesis of relevant guidelines and past consensus, we can conclude that the loaded labels to be avoided under WP:Label are distinct in nature from factual labels that just so happen to (deservedly) make somebody sound bad. For example, racist is generally not a good label to describe a WP:BLP, while white supremacist is an acceptable label because it factually describes a person's beliefs; it just so happens to make the subject sound bad because it gives the reader facts that would make most readers think the subject is bad. This does, indeed, create a level of editorial discretion, but all policies and principles require editorial discretion, which can be achieved here by hashing this out via local consensus. Jancarcu (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on this distinction, I would advance the claim that the term "internet troll" is not a factual label that happens to make the subject sound bad (letting the reader decide based on the facts), but rather a loaded label. While this claim does rely on subjective interpretation of tone, so does much of WP:NPOV itself—words have connotations that do not exist in a vacuum, and when we must make decisions relating to their connotations, we should do so based on consensus and editorial discretion.

"Internet troll" does not seem like a factual or dispassionate label to me. "Troll" is generally a disparaging slang term, meaning someone who provokes others (chiefly on the Internet) for their own personal amusement or to cause disruption.^[1] Given that the writers of the sources could not actually see inside Posobiec's brain, their opinion that he is an internet troll is based on their subjective judgment that he is obnoxious. Furthermore, even if you could turn "troll" into a factual label, it would still carry a bunch of baggage as a slang term. To call a BLP an internet troll is un-encyclopedic and biased. Jancarcu (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary isn't a reliable source, per WP:CIRC, WP:SPS, etc. Further, this risks WP:OR, since we cannot assume that sources must be wrong solely because we have applied these definitions in a different way. More specifically, the article already explains this. Following the Unite the Right rally, Posobiec "formally announced" that he was "done with trolling".[19] In other words, he has described his own past activities as trolling, not that it necessarily even matters. Reliable, independent sources say this, and the subject of the article doesn't dispute it. We cannot ever know his true motives for trolling, regardless of what he says about himself, nor would we expect to. Grayfell (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

1. The Wiktionary link was used to provide a reasonable working definition of "troll" for use in discussing the potential rhetorical and neutrality effects of using the term. It therefore has nothing to do with WP:SPS or WP:CIRC because nothing in the link was going to make it onto the article.

2. As stated on the talk page by Ihuntrocks, If it's necessary to state that he claimed the label, it would seem necessary to state that he has stated he's ceased the behavior as well, as that's recorded by secondary sources. For something requiring that much nuanced discussion, it would seem inappropriate to leave it in the lead.

3. I never stated that the sources [are] wrong. What I stated was that the sources are using a contentious label and therefore their label should be attributed rather than stated in Wikivoice.

4. The proposed doctrine that it's original research to attribute contentious labels would be a sweeping new doctrine that would completely gut WP:LABEL and WP:WIKIVOICE insofar as opinion columns published in sufficiently reliable sources make use of contentious labels. We are explicitly called to judge whether a label is contentious enough to need attribution per WP:LABEL. This isn't original research; it's an integral part of editorial discretion. Jancarcu (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily take it as far as Jancarcu is suggesting with full on attribution, but there is something to be said about the impartiality of a statement "Posobiec is an Internet troll.(sources)" verses "Posobiec is considered an Internet troll.(sources)". A label is still a label, a subjective assessment, even if made by dozens of RSes and even given that he himself alludes to that. That establishes a current POV towards the person, but does not represent the encyclopedic approach. In a case where there's plenty of RSes to back the idea that he is considered an Internet troll, it is 100% fair to use the "considered a" instead of "is", without having to spell out the inline attribution as lone as multiple sources are provided subsequently. That just helps make the language of the article more impartial without denying the DUE weight of the label from sources. --Masem (t) 15:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This strikes me as a fair way to word it and an acceptable compromise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This was kind of what I meant by "attribution": treating it as a label rather than an objective definition of who Posobiec is. Given that a compromise seems to have formed around this proposed wording, I've temporarily added it to the page. WP:BRD is welcomed. Jancarcu (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as a note, that doesn't fully clear up the lack of impartial tone on the article (as I mentioned before, starting off with all the negative facets against him without establish things like profession, etc. is in the "scarlet letter" comparison; they can still be in lede, even second sentence of lede, but not leading sentence), but that sounds like that is beyond the scope of this original complaint. Something for editors there to think about. --Masem (t) 19:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

About the Third Opinon request: A Third Opinion request about this discussion has been removed (i.e. declined) because Third Opinions are only for discussions between exactly two editors. There are many more than two involved in this discussion. If additional dispute resolution is needed, consider filing at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or file a Request for Comments at the article talk page. Be sure to thoroughly read and comply with all instructions at those processes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

* There is a motion at the talk page to reinstate the NPOV tag to the top of the article or at least the political activities section. Template documentation states that the template should be there if there is a serious issue identified with the pov of the article, and based off of the lengthy discussion listed here there is very clearly an issue identified. I would reinstate it myself but other editors have continued to insta-revert the tag citing a "fringe viewpoint" in terms of NPOV, when this discussion clearly shows otherwise. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment so far, this looks like a one versus many dispute. If that continues to be the case, there is no justification whatever in restoring the tag. Newimpartial (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Yeah this is definitely "one versus many". I'm definitely the only editor who has expressed NPOV concerns here buddy. You may want to inquire about a username change because you clearly aren't impartial. CatcherStorm ^talk 04:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. --Masem (t) 04:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean at this point people aren't even trying to hide their bias anymore. How do you read all of this text and still have the audacity to say that I'm "one versus many"? Ridiculous. CatcherStorm ^talk 04:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

To call this dispute a one-versus-many dispute would be to ignore the policy-based arguments made by users other than CatcherStorm in this dispute. Furthermore, tags have two purposes: to alert readers to potential quality issues that have not been resolved with consensus, and to draw in the impartial eyes of uninvolved editors in order to generate a more meaningful consensus. It is improper to remove the tag to avoid generating a broader discussion with the excuse that the current discussion is too small to be important, since that would be a circular argument. It is also improper to remove the NPOV tag when the policy-based consensus points toward the article having an NPOV issue. Jancarcu (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to largely agree with Masem and CatcherStorm on what they've said here. While the opposition makes a few small correct points as well, they're basically trivial, side-stepping the larger question. It is not okay for us to write up a hatchet-job on someone, even if various discrete facts in the piece can be verified, and even if the majority of WP's editorship and probably even its readership would like to pretend there's no problem due to their distaste for the subject (and the ease with which a far-right conspiracy theorist can be mocked). Sculpting a condemnatory article (with just enough CYA wiggle room to not get sanctioned for blatant PoV-pushing) is WP:GAMING the system and basically a drawn-out example of the ad hominem fallacy; it's just poor writing to resort to that, especially when the facts speak for themselves no matter how you lay them out. And, no, it is not okay to cite an opinion piece (well, rant) that calls the subject a "toxic ... dirty-trick ... ratfucker" as if it is a reliable source.

Two+ years is too long for an NPoV dispute this basic to be going on. If this NPOVN doesn't resolve it, then I would suggest a series of RfCs, neutrally "advertised" at WT:NPOV, WT:BLP, WP:VPPOL, and specifically grounded in NPOV and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY policy. Start with lead cleanup, including presentation of his own self-description along with the third-party labeling, as at the Alex Jones article. Then another RfC to convert the "shitlist" into a proper prose section; MOS:PROSE wants that anyway. If this noticeboard doesn't have the collective will to resolve the overall matter, perhaps because of "too many asks" at once, break them up into discrete yes/no issues to resolve, and ensure editors from outside the subject-area's "regulars" are drawn neutrally to the discussion.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I logged on for the first time in a while and noticed I was cited here. After reading the discussion as it stands, I would like to restate my previous position that this article has numerous NPOV issues. I would particularly agree with the issues noted by CatcherStorm, Masem, and Jancarcu. I fully second the idea for a series of RfCs as suggested above by SMcCandlish. There is a lot of inertia surrounding this article in its current form and new, uninvested eyes are needed. Let it also be noted that the NPOV tag reinstatement is most certainly not a one-versus-many issue as claimed by Newimpartial, and I again lend my voice to the call for the tag to remain until this 2-year NPOV dispute is finally settled and the article is improved in terms tone. Please consider all of my previous NPOV comments and complaints from the talk page's NPOV dispute added section incorporated here. Please note that I also second all of the structural issues which have been listed for this article at the article's talk page and in this NPOV discussion by others. Ihuntrocks (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I restored the tag, because a 2+ year dispute that has escalated to NPOVN is clear proof of an actual NPOV dispute. It hasn't been reverted as of this writing. If one of the usual suspects does so again, it is probably time for someone to take this to WP:ANEW; it is not okay to "slow-editwar", to skirt 3RR by just waiting a few days and re-re-re-reverting without a valid rationale, in an endless pattern that seeks to avoid resolution of the flagged problem. PS: I want to iterate more clearly that I think Posobiec is clownish; I don't agree with a thing he says or stands for, and we have overwhelming proof of his engaging in nonsensical politically-motivated conspiracy "theories", and being a zealot. Just presenting the facts in a studiously neutral tone as at any other bio, without any reliance on rant "sources" will not leave any reader in any doubt as to what Posobiec is up to or why he's (negatively) notable. Even a lot of hard-core Republicans know he's a kook, even if they don't say so very loudly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

* I will be requesting an RfC on this discussion soon. CatcherStorm ^talk 13:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of NPOV disputes since late 2017. As of February 22, 2020 the primary concerns being raised are with the political activities section (specifically how it is in list format, and not prose) and use of contentious labeling in wikivoice. CatcherStorm ^talk 01:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• If I may? I agree with SMcCandlish et alii on the issues raised by the labeling using editorial voice, and I do further agree that there are significant issues raised by the lack of prose in the political activities section. A mere glance at the latter section is enough to substantiate my belief that it can be rewritten into a more neutral (even if only slightly so) section in prose without casting unnecessary aspersions upon the subject. How that shall be done is beyond me, but, in short: yes, you're right. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to dispute the addition of a picture added by CharlesShirley on 03:40, 19 November 2019. (See View History). He replaced the official picture from my campaign website electjudgerichardson.com to the wikipedia page "Bert Richardson (judge)" with a picture that is clearly edited/photoshopped to be unflattering. This was done during very contentious election campaigns between myself and my opponent. I have taken the picture down several times only to have CharlesShirley replace it shortly after. I have since replaced the edited photo submitted by CharlesShirley by the official photo from the campaign website. CharlesShirley is clearly not one of my fans (as made apparent in his comments regarding one of my prior judgements on 03:44, 19 November 2019‎ and 17:14, 8 October 2019‎) which is completely fine. Nevertheless, the posting of and the site's use of unflattering photos for candidates running for election/reelection amidst their campaigns renders any such page to be non-neutral. It's also a mean thing to do. It is my understanding that Wikipedia's policy and mission is to remain an unbiased source of information and knowledge. I believe that these kinds of things violates Wikipedia's ideals and purpose.

Respectfully, Bert Richardson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BertRichardson (talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest using a third photo... perhaps a live shot. Blueboar (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This page is possibly going to need temporary protection. The OP clearly has a conflict of interest, and the image they want posted has clear copyright issues.--Jorm (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@BertRichardson:, the page at Bert Richardson (judge) currently has no image as Schazjmd removed it in compliance with the Wikipedia Image Use Policy. The extraordinarily clumsily-manipulated image does, as you state, violate several policies but so does the one from your campaign web site. Specifically, the campaign image violates the use of copyrighted photos section and the policy on copyright violations. Although in generally a copyright holder can do whatever they want with their copyrighted work, Wikipedia's use of free document licenses complicates the issue. You can (or have some-one who works for you) follow the instructions for donating copyrighted materials to allow the use of the campaign image. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear that the original image was not "clumsily manipulated"; it's clearly a zoomed-in crop from a different photo. Let's assume good faith.--Jorm (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If the candidate or their representative wants to release a campaign photo from copyright, they can get in the WP:OTRS queue like everyone else. BD2412 T 19:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The article, while mostly factually correct, has bias in language. It very cleverly hides the violence initiated by Muslim groups as 'mob' action, while it spares no opportunity to blame Hindu groups or BJP by calling them out. It does mention that the CAA was seen by Muslims as Anti-Muslim, and hence the reader is supposed to understand that the sit-outs and attacks on killing of police officers, who tried to break open the various road occupations for days, was done by angry Muslim mobs. The mob violence (actually acts of defense) committed by Hindu groups was in retaliation only when the Muslim mob would go around destroying property and people. It is easy to understand who would lose control first if they are already filled with anger at the CAA passage. However, when one reads the article, one comes out with an impression that 'poor' Muslims were oppressed and Hindu mobs went around burning and killing. My sister lives in that same area, and she told me that the perpetrators were Muslim gangs who came from outside Delhi, including illegal Bangladeshi's, who had nothing to lose, did the arsons and killings and then conveniently ran away. So even if there are CCTV images, these folks would be hard to find. The article missed stating the above fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManuPrakash52 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. I'm skeptical that WP:NPOV policy is being properly employed by some of the respondents there, who seem to be taking the RM (fast on the heels of a WP:DRV-overturned attempt to delete the page entirely) as an opportunity to engage in social activism. As another commenter there said, these antics could (if they gutted or ghettoized WP's article on the subject) effectively cede public mindshare control of this topic to alt-right media – the worst kind of back-fire that could happen about a subject like this. WP has a responsibility to cover the matter and to do it properly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

There are significant NPOV issues with the PJ Media page, in particular using SPLC as a source when SPLC is in fact one of the entities on which PJ Media has reported extensively. This is a clear issue of neutral point of view. Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say it can be cited... But context matters. The SPLC can certainly be cited as a primary source for attributed statements as to the SPLC’s opinion of PJ Media... however, I would NOT use it as a source for unattributed statements (worded as fact). Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to publicize my request for comment on the generative grammar article. I am concerned that a section entitled "Lack of evidence" is polemical doesn't accurately describe criticisms of this field. I have similar concerns about the lede. I have raised these concerns on the article's talk page, but the editor who added the material hasn't been willing to engage with them substantively.Botterweg14 (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a request for comment at Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy#Request for comment regarding the removal of three words from the lead of the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not think the first sentence of this article is appropriate: "The Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study in Greifswald (in German: Alfried Krupp Wissenschaftskolleg Greifswald) is an institute for advanced study named after Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, the convicted criminal against humanity. ". This article is about the Institute, not about the person for whom it is named. It's true that this person was one whose memory many people might feel was not appropriate to honor in this way. The way to say this in a Wikipedia article is not to editorialize, especially not in the lede sentence, but, if there are discussions or protests that are reported in reliable sources, to include content about them. (And It could also be mentioned in the article about the person--I am certainly not arguing to suppress the information) I changed it, but Hyrdlak changed it back. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda like starting the Porsche article with founded by the Nazi designer of the V-1 flying bomb and Panzer VIII. O3000 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This kind of neutrality de facto amounts to Holocaust denial. Time and again such an attitude has allowed nazi, Soviet or Rwandan genocidaires to escape responsibility, and become 'respectable citizens,' until a concerned journalist or researcher uncovered their murderous past. If it is normal now to name an institute of advanced learning in one of the most democratic and liberal countries in the world after a middle-ranking genocidaire, soon it may become normal to name such and other institutions after Hitler the great economist, who solved the problem of unemployment in Germany during the 1930s, Stalin the great modernizer, who industrialized the SU by killing millions in Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Thus, I propose to invite to the discussion editors who write on Holocaust and genocide issues.Hyrdlak (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Hyrdlak

You are now edit-warring on the article. And, see Godwin's law. O3000 (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

No I am not. It was a warning against enabling and normalizing Holocaust denial.Hyrdlak (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Hyrdlak

Unfortunately there seems to be a history of POV pushing. Same discussion had been had on Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Foundation last year. To DGG's point, the articles are about the institutions. The the controversial history of the person those institutions are named of is sufficiently covered in the article about the person._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid the coverage is not sufficient, as it is plain wrong to name a public institution after a genocidaire, at least in a liberal democracy. Hence, such a fact should always be flagged up, unless we want our NPOV stance to facilitate another genocide.Hyrdlak (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Hyrdlak

And to think Andrew Jackson's portrait hangs in the Oval Office. In any case, much of the article is devoted to this and we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Come to think of it, a heading in the article is "Holocaust denial". It's fine to mention his part in the Holocaust. But, I don't see any RS that say anything about denial. O3000 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The editor continues to edit war the article, has again added a section heading "Holocaust connection" when the institute was created 55 years after the Holocaust, and has now resorted to unacceptable edit summaries.[20] O3000 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a serious issue, but I wanted to call attention to Category:All articles with a promotional tone. This backlog has 25,000 articles in it, and I need some other editors to help me clear it. Thanks, King of Scorpions 15:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Middle East Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like it was almost entirely written by supporters. But see a recent discussion at RSN[21], a NYT article a few days ago[22], etc as well as articles about its head and founder Daniel Pipes, eg [23]. In fact Pipes article is also a problem with a lead that doesn't mention criticism and text that doesn't mention the SPLC's criticism, only the removal of an article criticising it (I've posted a short note to Talk:Daniel Pipes. No criticism in Middle East Quarterly either. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif . Does inclusion of the image of a controversial book cover in the Ezra Taft Benson article constitute a NPOV violation? Epachamo (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I’m not an official user of Wikipedia so I’m not sure if this is the right place to do this but I recently came upon many articles calling Crimea “occupied” and the events there as an “illegal occupation”. Now while I entirely agree with that statement personally, as soon as I saw that it bothered me that Wikipedia articles were not being neutral on this topic. As far as I have seen before Wikipedia exclusively called the events in Crimea an annexation and referred to the peninsula as annexed and disputed. Those terms are very neutral in nature, and so I embarked on replacing the non-neutral occupied with either disputed and annexed, or simply by removing it where it is not necessary at all (where it solely seemed to refer to the geographic location, like in airline articles). However I have now noticed two users, namely Toddy1 and Koncorde, replacing it back to the non-neutral occupied saying that it was me who was POV pushing. In many of those reversions Toddy1 even said that I was imposing the POV of the Russian government. I couldn’t believe it when I read that as that is absolutely ridiculous as I am fairly sure the POV of the Russian government is that Crimea is simply Russian territory that had reunified with the country. However just as that statement wouldn’t be neutral, neither is calling it occupied. Thankfully in one of those incidents, a user named Beaumain once again reverted their reversions saying that I was indeed more neutral. I really hope that something could done about keeping those article neutral. Thank you!--72.141.150.236 (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1 and Koncorde: Comments?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Only a handful of countries have recognised the annexation, most view the situation as Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory. Giving precedence to the Russian claim of annexation would thus seem undue. For the sake of comparison the article on the Golan Heights lists the territory's status as "Internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel" --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, agree with this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't be making a legal judgement ("illegal occupation") in Wikipedia's voice, and "occupied" could also be POV if used in Wikipedia's voice, particularly when discussing modern politics.

The phrase RaiderAspect describes is different because it attributes "Syrian territory occupied by Israel" to the international community. But I also think such an attribution requires requires a good source to back it up. I have no doubt that such a source could be provided - in both cases - but it is useful because it allows the lay reader to verify both that we're accurately reflecting the source and that we're not editorialising.

An alternate formulation - still requiring a cite - may be that Crimea "is under Russian de facto control but internationally recognised as being part of Ukraine". Kahastok talk 09:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things. 1. I reverted what I could see was an IP making the same edits with no explanation beyond "POV" and "NPOV". However the suggestion that annexation vs occupation is a matter of POV / NPOV is blatantly untrue. Both refer to the (generally) illegal concept of taking another countries land. Occupation reflects the militarised over-taking of the land. Annexation reflects the subsequent state of administration. Both reflect the same act. It is the UN's stance per resolution that it is: "Condemning the temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (hereinafter “Crimea”) – by the Russian Federation, and reaffirming the non-recognition of its annexation". While I don't hold the UN to be the sole arbiter, they are probably the most significant "opinion" on the matter.

2. I do not deny that Russia has "annexed" Crimea, and fundamentally have no issue with articles such as Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation using that term because it has obviously forcibly incorporated another countries land into its own, and within that article it makes it clear the position held by the significant weight of reliable sources that it is an illegal annexation that is not being recognised despite Russias claims otherwise.

3. The subject matter that was being changed was a standardised piece of wording (a refnote) at the foot of the page per here for example. In my opinion the use of the term "Crimea is de facto administered" does not reflect either the annexation or occupation clearly and would require an understanding of what "de facto administered" is trying to insinuate. I believe this is a less neutral phrase than either annexed or occupation.

4. In other instances the change was to completely remove a refnote about the "illegal occupation". This was not, in my opinion, an attempt to make the language neutral but about wholesale removal of content and context. This was repeated several times as you will be able to see by the IP's edit history.

5. In another instance I rewrote the revert to clarify as the original wording was poor, left in his "de facto" statement, and was still reverted by the IP. This would indicate the user didn't read the changes, or just objects to the us of the UN's language.

6. In another instance the IP left no edit summary and changed "occupied" to a mix of "uncontrolled" and "disputed". These reflect an opinion of someone, but it is unclear whose opinion. It certainly isn't Ukraines, and it certainly isn't the UN.

In conclusion, while I think the wording can be improved across wikipedia in many articles, and there are situations where the sourcing of particular words is unclear, the argument by the IP that wikipedia is being not-neutral and pushing a POV is based on the IP's perspective that holding any position as 'true' is a point of view. In reality we reflect the weight of reliable sources, and I can't think of a more weighty or reliable source on the status of an occupation than the international arbiter on such matters. Koncorde (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, NPOV does not mean UNPOV. We cannot use the position of the position of an organisation that has actually fought wars in the past as a proxy for neutrality. If we're giving the POV of the United Nations, then we need to attribute that position to the UN.

Wikipedia should certainly not be making any kind of legal judgement in its own right. But that does not prevent us from using phrases like "considered illegal by the United Nations", if that is in fact the case. Before saying that that is the case, we need to bear in mind that the only UN body that can make binding decisions is the Security Council and that Russia holds a veto in the Security Council. Kahastok talk 10:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to accept that the use of the word "illegally occupied" is certainly charged language, but I reject the idea that we need to attribute that the sky is blue over the use of the terms occupied or annexed. The UN language is just one source. Almost all sources use "annexed" or "occupied", apart from Russia of course.

In contrast the use of "de facto administered" or similar is at best a euphemism for "without any legal standing" which is not an improvement.

With regards to the security council, that is at best hand-waving. A resolution from the UN General Assembly is about as notable and significant an international position, from possibly the most significant international body on all matters of state, that you can get. A "binding decision" is not required to reflect the weight of reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Kahastok, The UN is the relevant international authority. The occupation is clearly illegal under international law. Guy (help!) 11:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Do the Russians agree that it's clearly illegal? Theirs is at least a significant POV per WP:WEIGHT.

The UN has a POV, just like every other political organisation.

It is clearly not appropriate to put random Wikipedians' interpretations of international law in articles. That's as per just about every content guideline we have. If "the occupation is clearly illegal under international law" then doubtless we can source that claim and attribute it appropriately. Kahastok talk 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Kahastok, do you think Bernie Madoff thinks he's a crook? The assertion that Russia must accept that its invasion and occupation of Crimea is illegal is absurd. And Wikipedia does not care: we follow reliable independent sources, which all agree that the invasion and occupation are illegal. Because, well, obviuously, they are. Guy (help!) 10:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Kahastok, we are not making that judgment. It's the international consensus view. Guy (help!) 11:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

In that case there should be no problem with attributing it to the relevant sources. Kahastok talk 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Kahastok, We do not WP:ATT "sky is blue" statements. Guy (help!) 10:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You can't have both, We do not WP:ATT "sky is blue" statements and The assertion that Russia must accept that its invasion and occupation of Crimea is illegal is absurd.

If it is really a "sky is blue" statement, then Russia must accept it.

If Russia does not accept it, then it is not a "sky is blue" statement.

I must admit, I actually find this whole argument really quite strange. If you're interested in making the point that the Russians did something illegal, you'll make your case much more strongly if you attribute your source.

Say, "Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea", without source or attribution, and the casual reader will just assume that Wikipedia is being biased.

If you instead say, "Russia's occupation of Crimea, which is considered illegal by [respected authority]", with a source for that statement, that reads as a balanced statement of fact, the considered view of the authority you've attributed it to. It's not some random Wikipedian saying it, it's [respected authority].

And it's the same in the Bernie Madoff case. No, you absolutely shouldn't say he's a crook. You should say he's a convicted fraudster. The word "convicted" attributes the claim that he is a "fraudster" to a court. It makes it clear that "fraudster" is not just the view of some random Wikipedian with a grudge. And that makes it a much stronger statement. Kahastok talk 19:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Kahastok, do you want me to point you to the people who think the earth is flat? Unlike Russia, they probably actually believe it. Guy (help!) 00:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You will doubtless now provide a source that demonstrates that the Russian government considers its own position to be obviously illegal?

You may not like the fact that the Russians are a major international player, but that does not change the fact that they are. Hurling insults at them will persuade nobody of anything. Kahastok talk 08:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Writing "considered illegal by the UN General Assembly [or anyone else whose opinion seems relevant]" aligns with policy by attributing a claim. And it certainly is just a claim. If declaring something "illegal" means anything, it means that a court with the authority to make such decisions has found the action to violate the law. Questions of sovereignty are usually solved by the countries involved without recourse to any higher authority, so it's difficult to say if there even is a "law" in the traditional sense. But if there is, the closest thing to a court is the UN Security Council. And that hasn't declared Russia's occupation of Crimea illegal, for obvious reasons. Anything short of a Security Council resolution is just an opinion. The UN General Assembly doesn't have the authority to make decisions about sovereignty. Its resolutions are nothing more than recommendations. Like it or not, Russia has a veto on the only court that matters. Even if every country on earth except one decided that Russia's occupation of Crimea was illegal, it wouldn't be more than a generally held opinion.

The article Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation does a good job of explaining the situation. It states very clearly that the international community largely rejects the Russian annexation and many countries consider it a violation of international law, and that many aspects of it are illegal under Ukrainian law. But it doesn't say that the annexation is illegal, because there really isn't any authority able to state something like that, and the closest thing to it, the Security Council, failed to pass a resolution declaring it so. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon, No, attributing it in this case is like saying "murder is considered illegal by the United States Congress". The UN is the plenary authority for this kind of thing. Guy (help!) 11:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It's more like saying John Doe murdered Joe Bloggs, when John Doe has never been convicted of (or otherwise found to have committed) any crime.

But even if he had been convicted, we would still generally attribute the word "murder" to the court ruling in some way.

Treating the UN as equivalent to the US Congress is debatable at best. But insofar as such a comparison is valid, it only applies to the Security Council, the only body in the UN that can make decisions that are even formally binding on members. The Security Council has not ruled Russia's action illegal. Kahastok talk 11:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

If everyone in my town and the city council all declared me a murderer, it wouldn't matter. The only thing that matters is that I was acquitted in court. And when it comes to sourcing on Wikipedia, if the New York Times declared John Doe a murderer, but he'd never been convicted, then we wouldn't call him a murderer in his article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG, the source you link to, an Al Jazeera article, may support the notion that the Crimea is 'occupied', but it doesn't support the notion that that occupation is, as Kahastok commented about, 'illegal'.      ←   ZScarpia   14:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Most crime stories don't say "X was illegally stolen". The illegality is implicit in the act, as it is here. Occupying foreign territory is a violation of international law regardless of whether you do it for the oil or to fulfil your view of manifest destiny. Guy (help!) 11:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The question is "Should the lede include an infographic (e.g. bar graph, pie chart, map) based on the 2011 census?" [24] Khirurg (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I am an OTRS volunteer. In October 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation legal team received an inquiry from a journalist who expressed concern about some articles that may have experienced subtle whitewashing. The journalist's analysis is reproduced here, with permission:

We found evidence of what seems to appear to be organised editing happening to convey a pro-China stance on several pages of Wikipedia, both English language and Chinese. Some example topics include the recent Hong Kong protests (where changes in language have varied from the protestors being labelled as such or as rioters), Tiananmen Square (where the numbers killed are in dispute, and actions by the government are described as stopping the unrest to quell counter revolutionary riots and stabilising the domestic situation) and territories such as Taiwan and Senkaku Islands are suggested as being part of China. Similarly language changes are used to question the status of Tibet and the Dalai Lama. While the edits may involve nuanced edits, taken as a whole they help to change the way a situation is viewed.

The journalist included this list of articles to be evaluated by the community for neutrality or bias tampering:

• Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China
• Tibet Autonomous Region
• 2019 Hong Kong protests
• Tiananmen Square
• Taiwan
• Senkaku Islands

Due to the time passed since the original communication with Legal, it's possible that the problems have been cleared up. I'm posting this here to get some more eyes on these articles, and correct any remaining bias if found. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

DRI Capital is probably one of the most blatantly promotional articles I have ever seen. It has a whole suggestion full of buzzwords explaining how you can make money from the company. I'm not proposing to delete it, as it a genuine fund manager, but does anyone have any suggestions on how it could obtain a bit more of a neutral point of view? — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have a current disagreement with an editor about the article on Sani Abacha. There seem to be a pro military slant but with poor sources. The issues are WP:V in this diff [25], concerning the use of statesman without incline citation. Then this section using an opinion piece without a reliable secondary source [26] WP:PRIMARY. Lastly, this is poorly sourced [27]. I am close or within 3RR and that is usually my limit but will like someone to take a look at the issues. Alexplaugh12 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Personal intro: Anyone can go back through the less than 100 edits, and verify I added favorable information (here, for example), which still remains in the article. You can view the article Talk page where I have tried to start discussions. Trying to support notability, I added a couple less than reliable sources[28], which were later removed (rightfully). I fixed one of those by finding a better source.[29] I have made small corrections to better capture what sources actually said. I have undone my own edits to remove things I added, to be consistent with lessons learned from a "advertisement" Speedy Delete by JzG of another article I created.[30][31]

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

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

Also, Climate[32][33]/Health[34]/Science[35] Feedback posts about Poynter or IFCN. Poynter/IFCN posts about C/H/S Feedback.[36][37][38] It starts to be unclear who is the publisher/promoter, and who is the "independent" certification or fact-checking organization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example:

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

What the source actually says is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or another way to put this: There is nothing wrong with editors on WP using primary sources to generate novel content, as long as that content does not synthesis a new point of view. For example, with the COVID situation, I know a lot of editors are cutting the various data and statistics in line with CALC to make graphics and tables not published elsewhere but to help explain the rapid spread. That's all based on the primary data of infected and deaths by country and date, and that's all fine. As long as the source(s) are identified, anyone else in the world can do that. Same with the plot summary. --Masem (t) 22:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The oldest reference to Albanians in Epirus is from a Venetian document dating to 1210, which states that "the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians" though a pre-14th century Albanian migration cannot be confirmed.^[1]

2. Here is my 2nd edit that was completely reverted ([43] and [44])

Two documented sources from this period mention the presence of Albanians in Epirus, one of which – a Venetian document dating to 1210 – states that "the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians".^[2] According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have all along been living together in Epirus, ^[3] while in the 14th century there is an Albanian mass migration, confirmed by historical accounts.^[4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

++

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is consensus here that the terms "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" should not be used in the Lead of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, but the terms and their history can be discussed in the body of the article. And as Masem noted the Chinese virus disambig page and Wuhan virus redirect should link to this article, since they are searchable terms. ~Awilley (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

---

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

• The name “China virus” or “Wuhan virus” are inappropriate. The WHO recommends that people should not refer to COVID-19 and other diseases with a “geographic location” or people group ^[1] Llakew18 (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Let's be really careful about claiming it's a racist term only used by racists. Early on people didn't know much about the virus other than it originated in a part of China. Early on that was a reasonable description and one used by many with no intent other than clear communication. As the pandemic spread and became a global issue people have evolved what they call it. Some were slower to shift but even that doesn't mean they were racist. Some may use the term with racist intent and after a certain point it was has become clear that the description has fallen into disrepute. [[45]],[[46]] Springee (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of consensus

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

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

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

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

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

References

1. ^ https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-2019-ncov-on-11-february-2020
2. ^ but not close to enough coverage needed for text in the article body

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