Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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

Is including the following statement in Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign#Allegations of Russian support undue weight: "An article in The Daily Beast reported that the campaign had received contributions from individuals allegedly sympathetic to Russia and Vladimir Putin, including Stephen F. Cohen and a former RT employee."

In Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, The Daily Beast is rated as "neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable."

The Daily Beast article, "Tulsi Gabbard’s Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists" identifies four of five of the over 65,000 Gabbard donors as "some of the nation’s leading Russophiles," including the actor Susan Sarandon, who donated $500. Sarandon has also contributed to the presidential campaigns of John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, Ralph Nader, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, Tom Harkin and Bernie Sanders and congressional or senate campaigns of Beto O'Rourke, Barbara Boxer, Tammy Duckworth, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Lee, Charlie Rangel, Hillary Clinton and many others.

This article's allegations have not been picked up by mainstream media, although the article has been criticized in other alternative media, such as Rolling Stone[1] and The Intercept.[2]

TFD (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This article's allegations have not been picked up by mainstream media, although the article" - Really?

• Politico: Gabbard calls unflattering report 'fake news'
• The Hill: Gabbard says claim her campaign is getting boost from Putin apologists is 'fake news'
• CNN: Tulsi Gabbard invokes Trump's 'fake news' rhetoric to push back on report of Russia-linked support
• National Review: Should We Be Worried About Candidates Accepting Donations from ‘Russophiles’? - MrX 🖋 19:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in CNN, the Hill and Politico all report Gabbard's response when asked about the article on a talk show. None of them repeat the information about Cohen or Goofy Grape. And the article in the National Review, which is is better grouped with publications such as Rolling Stone and The intercept, similarly is about the poor quality of journalism in the Daily Beast.

Otherwise, mainstream media, by which I mean the major TV networks, and respected broadsheets, with the exception of CNN, have ignored the story.

If you were to include the story, then you should cover it the way reliable sources do. The Hill article for example, says, "[O]n Sunday [Gabbard] called a Daily report that her campaign is being backed by prominent Russian sympathizers "fake news."" Instead, you write it like tabloid journalism. They'll have a lurid discussion of the latest conspiracy theory and wait to the final paragraph to tell you it's false. For example, they will discuss all the reasons Ted Cruz might have been the Zodiac Killer, before telling readers that the killer was active before Cruz was born.

TFD (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a valid comparison, since the fact that the contributions occurred is not in dispute. I think where we primarily disagree is how much weight the the original story in The Daily Beast should be given, if at all. I think this material is worth keeping since a half dozen reliable sources took notice, and I would disagree with any attempt to write the material in a way that appears to debunk what the Daily Beast reported. The three main perspective should be represented proportionally: 1. contributions from pro-Russia people occurred; 2. it's a smear; and 3. Gabbard invoked Trump's rejoinder "fake news!". - MrX 🖋 21:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The facts in the National Enquirer Ted Cruz story are not in dispute either. That's how propaganda often works. Use selective facts to reach a false conclusion. It is in dispute however whether these living persons are "Putin apologists," whether their donations are based on Gabbard's Russia policy or whether the amount of money they received are significant. I notice you said there was quid pro quo, which is what is falsely implied in your source. TFD (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Mr X, I believe that it was the current CCO of the Clinton Foundation -- Craig Minassian -- and the Comedy Central folks who were behind the original popularization of the term "fake news" through the Daily Show. Minassian's company has been the second most highly-paid WMF contractor, just behind the legal firm Jones Day, for a number of years now, including during the 2016 election. In my view, of course, the relative weighting should be:

1) smear campaign

2) see 1.

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 05:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Gabbard used the term "fake news," CNN anchor Anderson Cooper used the term when questioning a facebook executive.[3] Yesterday, CNN ran a headline, "Finland is winning the war on fake news." It belies their claim that it is Trumpspeak. TFD (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to stick to actual sources about the subject. - MrX 🖋 15:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the subject is who uses the term "fake news." As it turns out, the claim you want to add that the term is used exclusively by Trumpists is false. Why would you want to put information into articles that you know is false? TFD (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my reply was intended for SashiRolls. I should have outdented (as I have now done). We certainly don't need to say that Gabbard invoked a Trump trope. I think it's sufficient to say that she referred to it as "fake news".- MrX 🖋 14:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like comment on whether or not people think this should be included on her BLP as Snoogans & MrX have been insisting. I don't really have that big a problem adding a paragraph to the entry about the campaign as it is encyclopedic to show the tactics being used to discredit the campaign. The tradition of the Daily Beast accepting low-quality hit pieces is established (another example was the Yashar Ali article on Jill Stein in 2016). That is just the track record of the Daily Beast. But, this is pretty clearly not one of the most salient points about the biography of Tulsi Gabbard and is unlikely to interest readers of her biography in 2 years time, much less in 10.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source that mostly relies on secondary sources, it is preferable to use secondary sources that discuss the politically based attacks rather than using the original attacks. When writing about hate literature for example, we would generally rely on the SPLC, news media and peer-reviewed sources for what they said, rather than the websites and publications themselves. Also, we probably would not report the information in articles about the groups they described, but put it into articles about the hate groups. TFD (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that we should prefer secondary sources, but referring to the Daily Beast article as a politically based attack does not seem so reasonable. Comparing it to hate literature is just naked rhetoric.- MrX 🖋 15:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two questions here. (1) Was it well sourced? Yes, it was because this is not only Daily Beast, but several other sources noted above. (2) Is it "due"/significant? Yes, it certainly is. This is the beginning of Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, see here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you view is that sourcing to a publication for which there is no consensus per "Perennial Sources" for reliability is well-sourced and a story ignored by the overwhelming majority of broadcast, print and web media in significant. MrX, why would I think that a highly partisan organ would publish an unfair article about someone whose politics they disagreeed with? Because that's the reason they were set up. Their philosophy is "We really like the gonzo. We really like the weird. We really like the fun and we don’t give that many fucks.”[4] TFD (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with TFD: As currently worded, with its own section header to boot, this report has been given undue weight in the article. Leaving aside that the Daily Beast is known for publishing hit pieces, the supposed connections it "reveals" between Gabbard and Russia are scant at best. Cohen has donated to a number of candidates, including Elizabeth Warren. There is no evidence that Gabbard solicited his support, and certainly no evidence of any collusion between her campaign and Russia. Perhaps a one sentence mention of actual Russian propaganda efforts to give her a boost is warranted, but as it stands now, the subject has been given far too much weight. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am only saying two things: (a) the title of this thread by TFD is misleading (it was not sourced only to Daily Beast), and (b) yes, this is something really important for inclusion. How exactly this should be included (may be not as a separate section, or to another page) is debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter if The Daily Beast is a reliable source. Reliable sources have reported on the controversy surrounding the story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not whether any reliable sources have mentioned the story, but whether they have sufficient weight for inclusion, when the story has been ignored by all major U.S. news networks and broadsheets with possibly one exception. TFD (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, sufficient weight in relation to the rest of the coverage she has received. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the addition of this. The main source here is The Daily Beast and the other sources are merely voicing Gabbard's response. For example, Venezuela's CITGO donated $500,000 towards Trump's inauguration in 2017, plus additional lobbying, and The Daily Beast insinuates that Trump avoided sanctioning the company because of this. While the reason for the donations is unknown, it is widely recognized by more reliable sources that the Trump administration did not sanction CITGO and Venezuelan oil destined for the United States because it would exasperate the crisis in Venezuela. More stringent oil sanctions were later applied when the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis began and the United States began to hand over CITGO to Juan Guaidó. The appearance of these Daily Beast "donation" articles is that they are very superficial reports and that they make broad assumptions. Feeling comfortable with aligning Gabbard with "Putin Apologists" on her article is the equivalent of being comfortable with describing Trump as an alleged lackey to the Venezuelan government on his article...----ZiaLater (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the usual with Venezuelan-related articles, there have been some NPOV concerns among users. We are looking for some uninvovled users to evaluate and improve the Juan Guaidó article if there are any NPOV issues existing. I attempted to make a list to target specific NPOV concerns, but the responses have been vague and not as detailed as I had hoped, spiraling into arguments once more. There has been no consensus on the article's talk page as to what needs to be improved; the talk page is quite unorganized. While there has been some discussions about the lede not being NPOV, others state that the whole article appears to be a puff piece. Any help is appreciated!----ZiaLater (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater: the article lead reads like an advertisement or media brief for a future Guaidó presidency. The lead begins by mentioning how many countries have recognized him as acting president of Venezuela (54), when it could just as easily mention how many have not recognized him (140). The lead continues with a moralistic origin story: "After living through the Vargas tragedy as an adolescent, Guaidó determined that public office was the route to take in order to improve Venezuela." I think the lead can be improved concretely by removing some of this WP:PUFFERY, and noting his collaboration with US officials. -Darouet (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet: Thank you for your observations (which I agree with) and these improvements. Please take a look at the infobox that declares he is the "acting president". --David Tornheim (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For anybody wanting to join the discussion please read Talk:Juan_Guaidó#NPOV_noticeboard_-_POV_check, @Darouet: you have brought more issues to the discussion with your modifications.--MaoGo (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation is threading again. The usual users (including me) are still the only ones involved. --MaoGo (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater and David Tornheim: after this publication, the talk seems convoluted and has added just one more user to the mix, it is there another noticeboard or a higher authority we can appeal to in order to get a better review on the matter?.--MaoGo (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most sections of this article are very POV. I’ve started a discussion here about how it might be fixed, but there is no one over there to discuss with. I don’t want to start hacking into it without some outside advice first (in particular because I have a minor conflict of interest). Markbrown00 (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section on the page "Muhammad bin Qasim", about his role in the army before he invaded Sind. This section is now a subsection of "Early Life" under the title "Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim". This section was objected upon by Kautilya3. I have improved the section painstakingly, by adding many modern scholarly sources and editing text and title more carefully. The dispute has reached a deadlock after they started questioning the neutrality of the section although it represents all aspects. They are interpreting the label in a way to undermine the credibility of the material. I think it is a case of WP:WIKILAWYER.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request also filed at WP:3O, but may require more experienced and directly policy-based input:

Does WP:INDY require that a subject's publicly stated and reported views should only be given if there is context and commentary and analysis from third-party sources? If the views have been considered significant enough to report, but have not attracted commentary or analysis, should they be suppressed? Otherwise is there a danger that WP appears to be giving a non-neutral endorsement of these views in a biased way?

At issue is the degree to which it is appropriate to cover the publicly given on-the-record stated views of Sabine Weyand on the Brexit process, in the absence of wider commentary, contextualisation, or discussion of those views. (She was the chief-of-staff and deputy lead negotiator in the EU Brexit negotiation team).

Discussion at Talk:Sabine Weyand#Issues with Brexit section which is not about the subject of the article but a collection of her quotes on Brexit. Jheald (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a robust discussion happening about how to best define inclusion criteria that supports a neutral point of view on the List of most visited museums article. Your perspective on these matters and others listed in this RfC are welcome. Qono (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the name of not airing disputed assertions, Adoring nanny is not allowing significant portions of the police and prosecution story of the homicide investigation into the Murder of Hae Min Lee article.

Someone who has no knowledge of this case will be unable to explain how the police found Jay Wilds, their "key witness". An encyclopedia article about a murder should explain the police investigation in some detail. If there are doubts about the police and State's assertions as to the investigation, they can be raised in the article, however the current state of the article has an overly weighted viewpoint.

Cynistrategus (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Explain the police investigation in some detail." The police investigation according to whom? The vast majority of what the police say happened is disputed. That's the central problem. I am not and have never been opposed to adding information about the police investigation. But it has to conform to Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:WIKIVOICE. This user, who appears to have a past or present relationship with the office of the Maryland State's Attorney, has been pushing versions that take what the police say happened at treat it as fact. That's not consistent with WP:WIKIVOICE.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this statement verified by the supporting source?:

"According to European Intelligence and Security services, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence networks attempt to entice former opposition group members into denouncing and vilifying their former compatriots,

Source:

"To enhance these capabilities, during the 1980s, Iranian MOIS operatives were trained in psychological warfare and disinformation techniques by instructors from Eastern Bloc countries using methods developed by the Soviet KGB. In Europe, the organization established intelligence networks targeting Iranian refugees, political exiles, and others affiliated with regime opposition groups. According to European intelligence and security services, current and former MEK members, and other dissidents, these intelligence networks shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution.

Additionally, these networks attempt to entice or coerce former opposition group members into denouncing and vilifying their former compatriots"

[5]

Thank you for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced over the talk page. It's difficult to follow for editors who are not already involved. Maybe your best approach would be to ask for mediation. TFD (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the BitChute article does not present a balanced view in the current form as of Old revision of BitChute. I believe it may not need much adjustment, but it needs some. There is a discussion at Talk:BitChute#Article neutrality but I may have sanity limits on how much disruption it may cause to my real life. A POV template has been repeatedly removed. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone look at this person's actions [6] please. He is POV-pushing and repeatedly removes sources that support another point of view. I suggested him to reword the text as a consensus but he prefers to delete it all. Shows a very aggressive behaviour to a new user [7]! Isabekian (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way I read it what happened, see my comment below. Doug Weller talk 05:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This board is not for addressing the behavior of another user, that might be WP:AN/I but beware of the WP:BOOMERANG that will almost surely hit you. Can you be more specific about what you think the article should say and why, and why the other editor is mistaken? —DIYeditor (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a parallel thread at WP:FTN already. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main POV-s among the specialists: 1) Carahunge could have astro-nomical significance, 2) Carahunge was just a necropolis. We should represent who supports the first POV correctly. The text I suggest to add:

Different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs^[1], E. Parsamian^[2]) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) support the view that Caragunge was an important archaeoastronomical site. Two others, I. Simonia and B. Jijelava write that "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance"^[3]. Isabekian (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a fringe archaeology dispute I posted to FTN (before this thread was started)what I told this editor (I think the edit above is their 26th) Note this is also about their edit at Paris Herouni]:

"Your text was:

"Subsequently, different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs^[4], Irakli Simonia and Badri Jijelava^[5]) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) confirmed the astronomical significance of the Carahunge mega-lithic complex."

"That's a misrepresentation of the source. The source has two relevant sentences: "The expedition supported the idea that Carahunge had an astronomical significance, concluding that the monument is aligned to rising points of the sun, moon, and several bright stars." It also says "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance" - so, "probably" and "supports" - neither word is anything close to confirmed. That's the misrepresentation.

"Then there's our Neutral point of view policy linked in the section heading. The next part of the second sentence is "(but see also ▶Chap. 127, “Carahunge - A Critical Assessment��� for a different view)." Your edit doesn't suggest that is in the source at all. To follow our policy you must include relevant information from chapter 127. I've reverted one edit entirely and am about to revert the other - please rewrite them complying with our guidelines.

"I realise that you are new, but I would think that without even reading our policy an editor should understand that they shouldn't use words not backed in the source and should not cherry pick just one point of view from a source. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"::Hi. I'm trying to assume good faith, but till now your actions are just agressive. If you believe a word I used is not fine, you could: 1) discuss it at talk at first, to not start an WP:WAR, 2) to change that word, but not delete the whole text. Your actions are against WP:NPOV. Isabekian (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought what I wrote was reasonable and gave the edito enough information to rewrite their text, learning in the process. I am not sure that discussing it at "talk" would help as I tried to do just that on their talk page rather than on two article talk pages. Anw now we have 2 boards involved. I did ping them in my FTN post. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to add the position of serious specialists - Bochkarev, Parsamian, Simonia (all are professors) ect. It is not a fringe archaeology dispute, the articles were published in academic journals, and the dispute is rather over astrophysics than archeology. Isabekian (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I missed his first claim "He is POV-pushing and repeatedly removes sources that support another point of view. I suggested him to reword the text as a consensus" - my view is that I removed NPOV text and suggested ways in which he could rewrite it and learn our policies in the process. Doug Weller talk 05:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Update for other readers: the content discussion itself is now at Talk:Carahunge. —PaleoNeonate – 18:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin by saying an RfC was opened May 21st and closed June 1st asking if the following text should be kept in the lede:

The Journal editorial board has promoted pseudoscientific views on the science of climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos.

The RfC was closed as keep. My concern is that it is noncompliant with NPOV for the following reasons:

1. Exceptional claims require multiple high quality sources, but only one source was cited.
2. None of the pages listed in the citation substantiate the claim that the WSJ editorial board promoted pseudoscientific views about any of the issues mentioned.
3. Opinions should not be stated as fact in WikiVoice.
4. The editorial board mentioned in the lede claim has undergone changes between the time said opinion essays were first published (from 1988–2002) through today.
5. NPOV policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

The statement is sourced to Merchants of Doubt which is not specifically about the WSJ, although it is mentioned occasionally in the 270+ pages along with other MSM publications. The book actually criticizes 53% of MSM for downplaying the science (pg 215), but the fact that their criticism is retrospectively based opinion doesn't appear to have been taken into consideration. To what editorial board is the claim referring? The published opinion essays/letters to the editor that were actually published in the WSJ were authored by highly respected scientists and experts in their field at the time, not all are still alive today, and the science back then was not as advanced as it is today. WSJ, like so many other publications, published different views, including opinion essays by highly qualified scientists and other experts in their field, not all of whom agreed with each other. They also published letters to the editor, some of which included rebuttals from other scientists and experts. That's what news publications do, and I do not consider routine publishing of controversial topics authored by reputable scientists in leadership positions to be confirmation that the WSJ promotes pseudoscientific views. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the RFC linked to above, it’s probably also worth having a look at this more recent thread on the same topic. Brunton (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This was settled in a RFC. (2) There is not just one source for this content. This is the relevant section of the body[8] where there are by my count at least 9 sources cited. (3) The editor has not pointed out how Merchants of Doubt, which is authored by historians of science Naomi Oreskes (of Harvard University) and Erik Conway (of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology) and is considered a credible authoritative source, has been misused or alternatively, how the contents of the book are false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that this is not appropriate for the lead. Yes, the claim is reliably sourced, and I think it should be discussed in the article... however, highlighting it in the lead gives the claim UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's troubling issues in that RFC and the article. Yes, there are clear sources that WSJ's oped page editors will likely give more space to climate deniers and the like to other viewpoints, if any at all. That's a compliant that can be made. But the article does not have the sourcing appropriate to say what that is going into the lede, nor for this supposed section in the body The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. The Journal disputes that it poses a major threat to human existence and can be prevented through public policy. The Journal has published articles disputing that global warming is occurring at all. The Journal is regarded as a forum for climate change skeptics,[71][72] publishing articles by individuals skeptical of the consensus position on climate change in its op-ed section.[73][74][75] The fact that they feature op-eds (supported by the given sources) is not the the same as a direct statement from the editorial board rejecting climate change. Both the statement in the lede needs to be removed (undue weight) and the section on climate change stance reworded to better reflected the more limited facet (that the WSJ will favor op-eds from climate change deniers) --Masem (t) 14:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masem I've made a post at the talk page in question, feel free to comment there too. Perhaps it might make sense to modify the wording slightly, though I can't actually read all the pages being referenced from Orestes and Conway. -Darouet (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the editorial board itself (in its own columns) that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. Here[9] they refer to the "settled science" of climate change in scare quotes, describe the science as "still disputable" and that there are "doubts about how much our current warming is man-made as opposed to merely another of the natural climate shifts that have taken place over the centuries". Here[10] they say, "There is still serious scientific debate about the causes, effects and possible solutions for climate change". Here[11] they question both that the Earth has been warming, as well as that CO2 contributes to warming: "If emitting CO2 into the atmosphere causes global warming, why hasn't the globe been warming?". They[12] refer to the IPCC saying the Earth has been warming as a "bold-face conclusion". They[13] characterize climate science and the IPCC as follows: "Temperatures have been flat for 15 years, nobody can properly explain it (though there are some theories), and the IPCC doesn't want to spend much time doing so because it is politically inconvenient and shows that the computer models on which all climate-change predictions depend remain unreliable." The editorial board has not published a single editorial[14] under its own name that recognizes the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what news sources do - they publish various opinions that were presented in arguments. One of the reasons WSJ received 37 Pulitzers is because of their in-depth coverage and research into topics. This isn't the first time WSJ was the opposing side of a particular topic but this is the kind of information readers expect and want to know about. Are you wanting the public at large to simply accept whatever science is most promoted without any opposing views? That would be more like State-run public dissemination - keep the public compliant and unaware. I disagree.

Masem, I was initially focused on the lead and had not paid much attention to the Science section until you mentioned it. The lead paragraph in the section mirrors what's in the lead, and I've already pointed out those issues, so if we get the lead issue resolved, we do need to correct the Science section. I agree with you in that there are troubling issues, and will add that there are exceptional claims in that paragraph that are either not cited at all or do not use in-text attribution. They are not cited to multiple high quality sources as required by NPOV. Worse yet, they are contentious statements (attacks, actually) that have been editorialized rather than summarized. Fact: In the past, the WSJ has published op-eds from climate change deniers and have also published the resulting rebuttals in "Letters to the editor". Other problems include dated material and an obvious political bent of the criticisms that has been published in RS sources, some of which have a COI as competitors of the WSJ. The entire secton should simply provide encyclopedic information in a dispassionate tone with strict adherence to DUE and NPOV. I had not realized how much of a role politics plays in this particular topic. It wasn't that way when I was producing environmental/conservation programming for PBS broadcast. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot read what the staff writers/editorial board include in non-op-eds and claim they take the stance against climate change or the like, without reliable third-party sources. That's both original research and POV. As DGG says below, it's fair game from your existing sources that you can say the WSJ favors editorials/opinions from climate change deniers. Now, relative to everything else, and given that this facet of the WSJ is so tiny relative to everything else about the paper, that would still be UNDUE in the lede, trying to coatrack the climate change issue that early on; fair game otherwise in the body. --Masem (t) 15:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It could be better worded "The editorial section of the WsJ is known for frequently publishing editorials and opinion promoting ...." . Strictly speaking, we never know anyone's opinion, we only know what they say. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated at the article talk page... a paper’s editorial stance on ANY single issue is too detailed to be mentioned in the lead. The WSJ has taken editorial stances on a multitude of controversial issues through the years... from opposing Roosevelt’s New Deal, to supporting US intervention in Vietnam... and on and on. The climate stuff is but one of this multitude, and does not rise to the level of being highlighted in the lead. It may be a good example of the Journal’s bias... but the lead isn’t the PLACE for examples. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this notable is that it's having a serious and important impact on the world - i.e. the WSJ's fringe BS is being covered by academic books on climate change disinformation as a prominent source of climate change denial. If the WSJ had engaged in a sustained effort to push birtherism or anti-vaxx propaganda, then that would very likely also end up in the lede, because a premier news outlet pushing those things would have lent credibility to it and a had a real impact on the world. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference between a newspaper taking an editorial stance on political issues versus promoting claims that are factually incorrect. Details of the former do not seem relevant for a lead, while details of the latter may be. In this specific case, the lead material seems appropriate. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of sourcing, even if it is from the seminal academic-researched work on misinformation about climate change in the media, is nowhere close to make the case for a lede standard that WSJ should be tied to climate change denial. Yes, it is a point of concern in some circles, but it is not a stance that WSJ is well-known for, and you don't have that many sources to push it to a lede point; its addition to the lede, and the rationale here feels like this is coatracking the climate change denial aspects. WP can't take the few that a work that marginalizes climate change must be called out on that, unless that is a major point the work is known for, and honestly, that's just not something well-discusses for the WSJ. --Masem (t) 16:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to definitively prove (to Wikipedia's standards) what anything is "known for", but "14% of the guest editorials presented the results of 'mainstream climate science', while the majority did not" seems to suggest that it's a major and concerted effort on the part of the editorial board in selecting who and what to publish. Certainly climate denialism is what I know WSJ for, as the only major news outlet to have this position. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the average person knows of the WSJ primarily for being the newspaper of record for American financial and business news. Similar to the FT in the UK. Most people would not immediately think “climate” when thinking about the Journal. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When I want to read about climate change, I go to NASA's website. The article summary in the aforementioned link is quite interesting as is this article about the use of global warming vs climate change. There is a stark difference in the way politically driven publications view things vs what actual science is telling us. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the length and subject matter.

I found the inclusion of NAMBLA content in the lead of Harry Hay surprising, and in looking at the sources used, then a look to see if there were better ones available, I found sourcing lacking. I took the content off the lead and also removed Category:Pedophile activism and both seemed inappropriate. Can you guess where this is going? They were both re-added and the content in the lead expanded. I read all the sources I could find and tried to apply NPOV. After a couple rounds of this I started a survey of all sources on this.

NAMBLA is widely despised as child molesters by the vast majority of LGBTQ people as well as popular culture. It’s a group for pedophile advocacy. Pedophilia, is a preference for prepubescent children as old as 13. NAMBLA is possibly the most hated group imaginable to many LGBTQ people.

Any connections to NAMBLA automatically taint whoever is connected with them. The vast majority of reliable sources, mainstream or LGBTQ barely mention anything, those that do cite:

1. February 1983, Hay speaks at an event (not NAMBLA’s) and states, “...if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.” Hay also recounts his own positive sexual experience when he was 14. I’m not finding any reliable source for this information. It all comes from NAMBLA’s website.
2. June 1986, LA Pride parade bans NAMBLA, Hay wears a sign in protest on his back, one supporting Valerie Terrigno who was also banned, on his front.
3. June 1994, Stonewall 25 parade bans NAMBLA, Hay and eight others issue press release/supporter sign-on statement protesting the action, about NAMBLA mainly, and other gay outcasts will march in the Spirit of Stonewall alternative parade.
4. sometime in 1994, spoke at a NAMBLA event where he suggested changing the group’s name. (I only see one brief mention of this.)

• ^[1] - from The American Spectator, a conservative magazine. Jeffrey Lord writes as a political commentator, and has a track record of controversial writing. I suspect this is not a reliable source, the chief purpose of the article is guilt by association attempting to connect Nancy Pelosi to allegation of pro-pedophile advocacy. But they do use the quote from 1 (above) taken from NAMBLA’s website. The speech was mainly Hay sharing his own positive gay sex experience with a man when he was 14. This is the only source for 1.
• ^[2] - which points out he tried to be in the parade implying he didn’t succeed. This is unneeded, but does provide a photo of 2.
• ^[3], a reliable source that confirms the two signs were worn in the LA Pride parade. This is for 2.
• ^[4] - (Copied here) - In an obituary, LGBT history academic and writer Michael Bronski wrote, “He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades. HAY’S UNEASY relationship with the gay movement — he reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability — didn’t develop later in life. It was there from the start.” He helpfully contextualizes why he thinks Hay advocated for inclusion in the two parades. This supports items 2 and 3.
• ^[5] - This affirms Hay was never a member, and contextualizes the Stonewall 25 episode. Additionally it notes exactly what I’ve been seeing: Allegations that Hay was a supporter of pederasty was “a staple of those members of the right-wing establishment who are bent on destabilizing the Obama Adminstration and destroying the careers of members of his administration through guilt by association.” (Specifically Kevin Jennings). This is a helpful source for 3.
• ^[6] - In 1994, he joined the The Spirit Of Stonewall, instead of the official pride march and controversially supported inclusion of NAMBLA. “He felt that silencing any part of the movement because it was disliked or hated by mainstream culture was a seriously mistaken political strategy. ... He saw that eliminating any “objectionable” group, like drag queens or leather enthusiasts only pandered to the idea of respectability.” This is a helpful source for 3.
• ^[7] - he was speaking at a nambla event and said they should consider a name change because “boy lover” had negative connotations like “homosexual” did in the 1950’s. I’m not seeing any other mention of this. This is the only source that supports item 4.

Unless other reliable sources support this material and demonstrate it has a significant bearing on his life I don’t see how this should be in the lead. As well I think the category is inappropriate. Am I crazy? Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When Hay was was alive, his constant advocacy for NAMBLA and his cruising of boys was common knowledge. Same as with Ginsberg. It's part of what made Hay a controversial figure - someone who was routinely disrupting Pride, getting kicked out of the very orgs he founded (Mattachine Society), etc. I've tried to explain this to Gleeanaon, who clearly wasn't around then, but he takes my suggestion to read the sources as a personal attack. He suggests respected gay journalists like Michael Bronski, who was part of some of the same radical collectives as Hay, are somehow orchestrating a smear campaign. I suggest anyone who wants to comment first read Bronski's article, "The real Harry Hay", all the way to the end, as Bronski points out the the New York Times and other major outlets were already leaving the NAMBLA stuff out of his obits, and immediately trying to reinvent him on death:

Neither of the long and laudatory obits in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times mentioned his unyielding support for NAMBLA or even his deeply radical credentials and vision. Harry, it turns out, was a grandfatherly figure who had an affair with Grandpa Walton. But it’s important to remember Hay — with all his contradictions, his sometimes crackpot notions, and his radiant, ecstatic, vision of the holiness of being queer — as he lived. For in his death, Harry Hay is becoming everything he would have raged against.

Gleeanon's main project right now is editing National LGBTQ Wall of Honor, and they are the one who added the list of names and are the creator and main editor of the article. Gleeanon honestly didn't seem to any know this about Hay, as he seems to not know much about any of the older community members he's copy and pasting into that list. I've told them the answer is not to rewrite history. But Gleeanon keeps deleting discussions from their talk page and misrepresenting both the sourcing and other people's edits. He has become a Tendentious editor who is wasting our time with his, I'm sorry, ignorance of this topic and, possibly, agenda to whitewash on behalf of this group. If the people working on the memorial didn't want someone this problematic, they should have asked older people, or done their research, rather than trying to whitewash the honorees after the fact. Gleeanon is now focusing rather intensely on this. I have asked if they have COI on this project and they have denied it, but I'm really not sure I believe that given this intense POV push. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It may be that Bronski had an inside view of what Hay was like, and that Bronski disliked the fact that reliable sources like the New York Times, did not consider these problematic aspects of Hay to be significant aspects of his life. It may be that some people involved in some hall of fame project have failed to consult enough older people about their choice of inclusions. But Wikipedia should reflect what the balance of reliable sources say about it, not the views of individuals with an interest or individuals disgusted or disappointed. MPS1992 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, editors are permitted by policy to blank content from their own talk page -- especially when the content concerned is several thousand words in length. Blanking such content is generally regarded as an indication that they have read it. Anyway that's a question of editor conduct, not a question of article neutrality which is what this noticeboard covers. MPS1992 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have continually asked for reliable sources that verify the “constant advocacy for NAMBLA” and pedophilia. There seems to be a massive conspiracy except one lone, but respected LGBTQ journalist. Perhaps that should be also shoehorned into the lead? One of the world’s best known pioneering gay rights advocates whose had dozens of obituaries, articles, interviews, books, and documentaries about him all fail to mention this despite Wikipedia even advertising it, possibly for years. Perhaps because they saw was is plainly evident, a lack of evidence despite NAMBLA themselves posting every scrap of pro-pedophile material they can. I look forward to more people looking into this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy? There is/was no conspiracy. This has been common knowledge for decades. The sources support this common knowledge. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed -- but the sources do not seem to regard it as significant in the individual's biography. MPS1992 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MPS, it's not just Bronski, it's the Gay press in general who wanted this known about him, because he was continually raising a stink about it and people were having to kick him out of groups and events. It's in the Advocate[15], and his own group, the Radical Faeries have it on their tribute page to him:[16]. This isn't righting great wrongs, it's keeping history accurate against a POV push from a relatively new, revisionist editor. NAMBLA is ugly. Of course people would rather not see it. But those who supported and promoted the pedophile group should be kept accountable. Go look at the article, not this user's misrepresentations. I think there is a misunderstanding here about what WP:NPOV is. We write in a neutral voice. It doesn't mean we hide awful things about people to make them sound nicer. Yeah, it's hard to write neutrally about a pedophile group. So we just state the facts. But we don't bury the facts when he, after Allen Ginsberg, was probably the group's most famous advocate in the gay community. Yeah, it's gross. But it happened. So we document it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I guess you really are saying that the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times were "revisionist" as well, and therefore we shouldn't consider them reliable on this topic, but instead we should only consider reliable the views of people that Hay knew personally and had had disagreements with? MPS1992 (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or, let us look at it a different way. There are three questions. First, should Hay's protesting the exclusion of NAMBLA from events be mentioned in the article? (I would say yes.) Second, should it be mentioned in the lede of the article? And third, if it should be mentioned in the lede of the article, how should it be mentioned there? MPS1992 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were incomplete. As their obits of subcultural figures have often been. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are already included in the seven(!) total(!) to be found, this one is a collection of obits with only one even touching on this content, the very sole one you helpfully quoted at length despite it already being posted above. These scraps were then woven into a grand story. It certainly feels “undue”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References in the article include Hay's official bio, which was fine with Gleeanon until he realized it sourced all this, with this photo:[17], where Hay wore the sign, "NAMBLA walks with me" in LA Pride. As I said on talk: I really didn't want to link to them, but here's - https://www. nambla. org/hay2002.html NAMBLA's index on their Harry Hay materials. This page has - https://www. nambla. org/sanfrancisco1984.html photos of Harry Hay speaking on a NAMBLA panel in 1984, in San Francisco, under their banner. And again in 1986 in Los Angeles (no photo). Ick. The link is not live because, understandably, the site is on the blacklist. So the the url has spaces. You will have to copy and paste, and take out the spaces, to see it. Ick again. Gleeanon thinks all this is a conspiracy. But it's in Hay's official bio, which was written by some of his most ardent supporters. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of that proves anything but that he made invited speeches at some of their conferences, helpfully they provide their version of the transcripts which show ... no advocacy for the group or even anything beyond Hay recounting his own positive gay sex experiences as a kid. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to destroy Pride because they wouldn't let NAMBLA march is not being an advocate? Helping them re-brand in order to get more members, sitting under the banner for photos while the group was sending out newsletters with photos of smiling seven year olds with the caption, "Smiles mean consent." Wow. You are really reaching here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original research inventing narratives not supported by reliable or even NAMBLA’s own sources isn’t helpful. Zero evidence Hay had control of how his photo was used, that he was helping recruit, or even destroy Pride. All interesting ideas that I’m sure will be spun into gold by right wing bloggers. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK folks, I think we need some outside input here, if anyone is willing? That's what this noticeboard is for. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite bemused by all this discussion about whether Hay was a ardent supporter of NAMBLA. He was. Anyone who is old enough, was contemporaneous in his communities while he was alive, knows it to be true. As a co-founder of the Mattachine Society, people saw him as an elder statesman in the 1970s-90s. Gay people listened when he had opinions. Many vociferously disagreed with him on supporting NAMBLA. There were a significant number of Gay/Lesbian newspapers and newsletters during that time period. Hay did interviews with them and articles were written about him. Those papers, often with very good journalists writing for them, could be used as contemporaneous reliable sources. Unfortunately, only a fraction of them are available online. They would be secondary sources on this issue. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]