Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 75

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 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 main page.

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

Can I have a little help from you guys reviewing an article that I created and has subsequently become a hotbed of conflict? For a little bit of history, the article is Media Bias/Fact Check. The original version as finished and published (before other editors showed up and started removing material) can be found here. Following a protracted period of instability, the last version that I would support as being neutral in POV would be this. The article subsequently had much of its sourced content removed to the point that the article is now almost entirely negative in its coverage of the topic. A couple of editors are quite fond of an article written by the Columbia Journalism Review ([1]), which discussed MBFC briefly in a paragraph or two in a wider discussion on measuring media bias. This particular author was generally critical of measuring media bias, and also wasn't impressed by MBFC, describing it as "an amateur attempt". I was not aware of the CJR article when I wrote the original version of the article. As I said, the two editors in question are fond of this source's general reliability, considering its viewpoint to be so significant that the article has now been essentially paired down to only contain negative coverage of the website in line with CJR's assessment of the website. In the last 24 hours a large amount of what I would consider fairly well-sourced content has been removed with various explanations that can be seen on the history page (I won't comment further, please draw your own conclusions).

This article wasn't really ever visible in the New Pages Feed, as I have the autopatrolled flag, but I would like some input on it at this stage. I'm asking for a bit of help reviewing the article (both the original version I created, the most recent version I supported, and the current version as it stands now).

I've basically given up on the article, and even removed it from my list of created works, as it has little to nothing that I wrote left in it; but I'd like some feedback and a few other opinions on the situation and how it went down so that I can learn from it moving forward and possibly learn where I went wrong here. Thanks all, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

More eyes would indeed be welcome, as would more sources that are about the subject. I like MB/FC and am struggling to find good sources that show it in a positive light. Guy (Help!) 01:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel some of the content removal is reasonable , JzG's concern about making the site seem reliable in WP's voice when it really shouldn't be is very right on target. But once the site's notability is established and avoiding the use of primary sources for that, the other content such as the methodology section in the original is fully appropriate to include from the primary source, as long as the lede makes it clear about the site's unreliable nature, and the article's content is not excessively weight on the primary sources. Also, RSOPINION is perfectly valid here for sources like the HuffPo piece that was removed, as long as it is expressed as criticism. I do feel the edits to prune out material are trying to paint the site as negatively as possible. We want to point out the negative criticism but we shouldn't be focused on only that. We want a comprehensive article and the removal strips out what I would considered appropriate material. --Masem (t) 01:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Came here via my lurking on ICPH's talk page This pretty closely reflects my thinking. If I had been patrolling the article I would have likely commented on the MOS:LEADCITE which was, in my assessment, WP:OVERCITE. The citations which have been removed did not show anything beyond some sources using the website. That feels a bit of a bank shot way to show notability and unnecessary given other available sourcing. I definitely think adding back, probably unsectioned given the current article, the two sentences about how it works, is appropriate. Otherwise the sources now present a more encyclopedic version of the website. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Masem&Barkeep49 Some general comments about my dissatisfaction as to how the article has been rewritten.

I don't claim that my original version was in any way perfect (in fact I didn't know of the CJR source at the time and the Poynter Institute one hadn't been written yet).

CJR said that it was 'subjective' "Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation... Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in." Similarly the Poynter Institute says "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."

These are essentially saying the same thing, that the ratings will be subjective to some degree, which MBFC does not dispute and agrees with this in their own description of their methodology, and points out that of course, any media bias judgement will be inherently subjective to some degree by the nature of what bias is.[2] There is no reason that all this can't be written about in a neutral way, but currently the article has basically just been gutted of all other sources, which does the topic no good at all.

Their methodology is actually rather transparently discussed on their site,[3] but this as well has been removed from the article. While a primary source, it is still useful info that should be relatively uncontroversial. For this type of info, affiliated sources are usually considered fine to use, though others have objected here.

The CJR and Poynter Institute sources actually only briefly mention MBFC; the Inside Sources article [4] was the most comprehensive review of the site, though others aren't satisfied with that source (personally after having a look at other articles on the site, it looks pretty middle of the road for a low traffic news site, not sticking out as 'unreliable' in any way).

The references to the MIT project that used MBFC data have been completely removed by JzG, which included sources from Popular Science. His excuse was that PopSci and others [5][6][7][8] commenting on the same story all referenced another source as a primary source, which somehow makes all their secondary coverage inappropriate (?); This removal I don't really understand at all and can't see a justifiable reason for cutting all these sources and coverage. Weirdly, he left the second sentence of the article referencing this with no sources left in the article citing it.

I'd also like to discuss the removal of references to who has cited MBFC when discussing other sources. Lots have, including BBC [9], Newsweek [10][11], The Spinoff [12] as well as Op-eds in LaTimes [13] and Forbes [14]. All these sources and references to the use of MBFC by all these organisations has subsequently been removed from the article.

There is another story by PBS NewsHour about how an algorithm was trained to identify Russion bots, partially with help from MBFC data.[15]. This source was also at one point in the article but has been removed.

There are also a few sources that didn't like MBFC's assessment of them, and wrote hit pieces against MBFC. These were covered in the first iteration of the article and might have been a bit too much coverage in the article, but I think these could probably be discussed somehow. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we don't include any hit pieces right now. My objection to "X has been mentioned by Y, source, Y mentioning X" is constant across all articles and certainly not specific to this one. Here we actually went further and made statements that major news orgs had used MBFC as a source, cited to three articles which represented the sum total of all the times both of those orgs had even namechecked MBFC. I don't think I am alone in thinking that gives undue weight. The solution is to find better substantive sources that are about MBFC, rather than mine the web for mentions.

I don't think Inside Sources counts as a RS. We only have 23 cites to it as of this writing, and I think that should be closer to zero. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

In topics that relate to the media, I would think that identifying how a yet -proven source has been incorporated by other more established sources gives weight to its reliability, which balance against other source discounting the site as being reliable. We are putting the existing evidence of what is our there on the table to let the reader judge due to a lack of a consistently authoritative source on how media sites should be treated. (If that existed, determining RD would become trivial). --Masem (t) 13:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This RfC[18] may be of interest. The question is about whether it is due weight to mention the newspaper's climate change coverage in the lede paragraph. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marquis de Faux. Just noting that the sources used for the claim that the newspaper "has published many columns rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change" only involve a few articles. For instance, the New Yorker article only cited or focused on Richard Rahn's op-ed. The ClimateFeedback source only cited one article and the case is the same for the Los Angeles Times story. Moreover, these articles did not refer to a pattern of climate change rejection in "many" of The Washington Times columns. I am not saying that this claim is not true, only that the sources used do not reflect the insinuation. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Darwin Naz, please post this on the RfC on that page, not here. Best regards, Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, done. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

May I ask for comment on the neutrality of proposed edits at Talk:Sugar#RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines?

Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%A9rgio_Moro&action=history

The section being removed is terribly biased as it ignores all of Moro's highly popular and praised merits in leading the Operation Car Wash, even ignores his most famous case in which he convicted Lula, and instead focuses entirely on leftist rhetoric and on disqualifying him over criticism that comes exclusively from biased editorials. I've got my account blocked because of this so is there any experienced editor who can give a throughout check? The section they want to keep clearly violate NPOV and doesn't give its due weight. Besides, it's not even in the Portuguese Wikipedia.

This article is a blatant example of POV. It doesn't even pretend to be impartial. It adopts the attitude that naturopathy is bunk right from the start, with the statement that naturopathy is "pseudoscientific", without even a ref. Whether you believe in naturopathy or not is not the point; the point is that the article is biased.

The NPOV approach would be to describe the subject and what it purports to do, then provide arguments for and against, with refs. The article does not even attempt to do this. It is completely biased, and it is impossible to change it because the protectors of the article delete any attempt to make it more NPOV. I have tried lately, but even the slightest change is reverted almost immediately. Sardaka (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That's because you are adding nonsense to the article, and obviously it will be removed. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is the one that is taken by the vast majority of relevant experts, as described in secondary, peer reviewed literature (or other as permitted by WP:PARITY). In the case of naturopathy, that point of view is rather monolithic: that naturopathy is a haphazard collection of pseudoscience. The neutral point of view is not an exercise in false balance, or a requirement to be generous to the subject of an article. You are interpreting "neutral" to mean "non-negative" or "as much negative as positive". You are wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The balance of the article is right, as pointed out above, that the bulk of reliable sources in medicine have determined naturopathy to be psuedoscience, so this article is going to be weighted against the views that think naturopathy is effective. That said, there's ordering of information (outside the lede) that rushes in to discount naturopathy too soon. There should be a neutral section that isn't written in an accusational tone to lay out the foundations of what has been published of what naturopathy is, where it was established, and what types of practices it suggests. After that brief section, then its time to lay out the scientific and medical evidence against it. I point out that this is within the body: it seems right and proper that the lede call out the pseudoscience and the medical claims against this. That way, a user reading the article from the start will understand it is a questionable area of medicine in the lede, and so when they get to the section that goes into the details of naturopathy that does not include criticism against it, they're still aware that this is all under psuedoscientific merits. --Masem (t) 17:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The lead does not reflect the entire article. It is overly negative, repeating the point that it is unscientific over and over. It has psedoscientific practices, methods rely on folk medicine rather than evidence-based medicine, relies on unscientific notions - these same points are all used in one paragraph. One would think that this is not a lead but a warning. The content could be confined to a Criticism section. While it is probably undisputed that it is a pseudoscience, why not just state it once in the lead but also outline other information that represent other contents in this very long article? That would be more helpful to people who want to know more about this subject. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Accurate assessments as established by credible sources shouldn't be confined to a criticism section, as seen in WP:DESCF. --tronvillain (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The neutral approach is to report what various experts have said about the subject, not to actually adopt their view. If the article adopts their view, it is POV. I might add that even experts can be biased, and there are plenty of doctors who are biased against natural therapies. Sardaka (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Expert (sources) are good, so long as they are reliable for their purpose and WP:FRINDependent (so no in-universe blather about "natural therapies" thank you). We must WP:ASSERT things which are not seriously disputed like, for example, that Naturopathy is a pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." It is not controversial in medical or scientific literature that naturopathy is pseudoscience. The fact that people exist who dispute this does not make it controversial. The number of people who dispute this does not make this controversial either. When virtually 100% of reliable sources state that something is true and scientifically uncontroversial, it would in fact be POV of us to dilute that to an opinion or legitimate controversy. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The "experts" in question are doctors, who are notoriously conservative and prejudiced against anything off the beaten track. Modern medicine isn't dominated by science, it's dominated by the pharmaceutical industry, which has no interest in alternatives to drugs. The article will never change because it is controlled by a cabal of gatekeepers who make sure the article stays the way it is, and who can be extremely unpleasant towards anyone who tries to change anything. Most of them are probably doctors or have connections with the pharmaceutical industry. As it stands, the article doesn't read like an encyclopedia article; it's more like an article in a tabloid newspaper. However, the cabal who control it are only fooling themselves, because the average reader who uses Wiki is capable of recognizing bias when they see it. Sardaka (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggest this thread is closed as it's gone silly. NPOV policy has been explained, if not accepted. Alexbrn (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello by placing these notices I am not trying to "forum shop" I am trying to achieve consensus, and I am trying to avoid canvassing by asking medicine to get involved rather than just anthropology and sociology. I hope this doesn't break guidelines they kind of appear to be in conflict here for this I'm not quire sure.

I would like to add this to the digital dependencies and global mental health page, under a new section called psychiatry under psychology, and have RfCd it for linguistics and sociology due to the linguistics and sociological components of both the statements and the research. I have left open for discussion around WP:MEDRS under the social media addiction page, which is a proposed merger. WP:SYNTH needs discussion.

Psychiatry Psychiatric experts have called for further studies to explore psychiatric correlates with digital media use in childhood and adolescence. "Over the past 10 years, the introduction of mobile and interactive technologies has occurred at such a rapid pace that researchers have had difficulty publishing evidence within relevant time frames."^[1] An "important contribution" of "a large, well-designed longitudinal study^[2] taking into account multiple sociodemographic confounders" was published in 2018, relating to Angry Birds and Pokemon Go, a game and a social media application that "reached adoption by an estimated 50 million global users within 35 and 19 days, respectively, of their release." ^[3]It was "a longitudinal cohort of 2587 15- and 16-year-olds who did not have self-reported symptoms of ADHD at baseline, self-reported higher-frequency digital media use was associated with self-reported ADHD symptoms over two years of follow-up. The frequent distraction and rapid feedback of digital media may disrupt normal development of sustained attention, impulse control, and ability to delay gratification. In addition, digital media may displace other activities that build attention span and executive function. It remains to be determined whether symptoms that develop in response to media use require or respond to typical ADHD treatments."^[4] The National Insitute of Health stated that "study represents a starting point, and there are some potential caveats to the findings," commenting that it only shows association, but not causality. "Nevertheless, the findings suggest that the recent rise in popularity of digital technologies could play a role in ADHD. The findings also serve as an important warning for teens, parents, teachers, and others as increasingly stimulating forms of digital media become ever more prevalent in our daily lives."^[5]

Thanks what do we think? 07:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 (talk • contribs)

• @E.3: Are you actually an author or otherwise involved with those papers? Is it your institution? I didn't see your name at first glance. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @JzG: No. I just know and have discussed these papers with these and associated experts a little. And because of this I am considered to have POV or break MEDRS repetitively Special:Diff/873276519E.3 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Editors interested in neutrality reporting in scientific topics may be interested in the fracas at the talk page for Global catastrophic risk. More the merrier! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

At the NVIC article as well as FTN[19] there has been extensive debate, going back a year, over whether to include the NVIC's motto/slogan and mission statment in the infobox. The mission statment parameter was removed from the infobox template, but an RfC was just closed with no consensus for the removal of the "motto" parameter[20]. JzG has strenuously objected to the inclusion of the motto parameter, while I feel his arguments have mostly been POV. Guy Macon has suggested that the motto be included only if independent sources can be found for it, while I was initially OK with this, we do have a primary source (NVIC) that establishes what NVIC's motto is, so it passes WP:V, and I don't see how it can be undue to fill all infobox parameters. Me and JzG going back and forth will get us nowhere (well maybe ANI, but no one wants that) and Guy macon's attempts to diffuse our dispute are appreciated, but we need more editors to weigh in on this. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude – slogans and mission statements can be useful for some larger organizations, especially when they have been discussed in independent sources. In this case, we're dealing with National Vaccine Information Center, an anti-vaccine organization with the motto "Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice." That's just soapboxing, and it has no business here. Bradv🍁 03:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Using our judgment of what is a legitimate motto based on whether the organization is good or bad seems to be an unacceptable POV standard, and do we really need secondary sources to establish that it is WP:DUE to fill an infobox parameter? Tornado chaser (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, then explain who is helped by including the motto, other than the organization. Bradv🍁 03:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: Allowing infobox parameters to be selectively included based on whether the organization is good or bad is a dangerously non-neutral precedent to set, if there is a consensus that all infobox mottoes need secondary sourcing I am fine with not including NVIC's motto, but we can't just exclude mottoes because of whose motto it is or what the motto says. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, you're ignoring my question. Bradv🍁 04:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how "who is helped by including" is a legitimate way to determine whether to include content, if the content is factual, verifiable, and WP:DUE than it is included, right? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, my objection is that it's soapboxing. It serves no encyclopedic purpose other than to promote the subject. I'm talking about specifically this article, not mottos in general. Bradv🍁 04:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: Aren't mottoes always self promotional? can you give me an example of a motto that you would not consider soapboxing? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, I would say most mottos are promotional, although some of them are independently notable. Interestingly enough, the two examples I thought of, Microsoft's vision of "a computer on every desktop" and Google's "don't be evil", aren't included in their respective infoboxes. Bradv🍁 04:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: But what would be wrong with adding the mottos to these infoboxes? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, presumably there were discussions on those articles that led to a consensus not to include. Perhaps some of those editors pointed to WP:SOAPBOX or WP:NPOV. Regardless, I don't see you getting anywhere with this, and I'm very concerned by how hard you're trying to push this issue. Bradv🍁 04:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: I just realized corporate infoboxes don't have a motto parameter, "motto" is only a parameter on the infobox for nonprofit organizations, so you can't compare the NVIC infobox to the microsoft infobox. Are you saying that all mottos need secondary sources in order to be included in the infobox regardless of what the organization promotes? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, you're changing the subject. I have considered your proposal to include this motto on the article National Vaccine Information Center, and I am opposed based on the reasons I stated. Bradv🍁 05:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Please stop using Wikipedia to promote anti-vaxxers. There is no policy that all sides get equal time and there is no reason to promote their nonsense in a prominent position. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Please comment on content, not contributors, I have no desire to promote antivaxers, and I am aware of the problem of false balance (if you don't believe me my userpage essay criticizes false balance) but we need a reason other than opposition to NVIC or disagreement with their motto to exclude it from the infobox. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia, you might like to browse WP:5P and let me know which pillar requires the promotion of blather-speak pronouncements from those who promote anti-science. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: NPOV is a pillar, and it requires that our standard for including mottoes is not based on whether the organization is good or bad, if we only include independently sourced mottoes, that would be fine, but we can't just say "antivaxers are bad, so exclude their motto". Tornado chaser (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: NPOV is indeed a pillar, and for dubious stuff it guides us to "omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it". Inclusion would give this twisted motto undue legitimacy. I am troubled by your zealous push for inclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Your reasoning that the motto is "twisted" is another NPOV violation, like the ones that Guy Macon refers to in his comment. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm I actually quoted NPOV to you - as other NB participants have been trying to tell you, Wikipedia is biased against dodgy stuff like this and in its terms that is neutrality. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be misstating our policy through selective quotation. The policy in context is:

"Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."

Your "this twisted motto" argument goes against the policy you quoted. You are clearly "taking a stand on these issues". The word legitimatize in the policy does not encourage you to take a stand on these issues by excluding what you don't like, but rather that they should not be "legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship".

I also think that your personal comments about Tornado chaser are out of line. He is standing up for NPOV. You are ignoring NPOV. Care to describe me as being pro-fringe, considering my record of edits on fringe topics?

If the most vile organization imaginable has a completely deceptive and evil motto or slogan, and multiple reliable secondary sources discuss it at length, it merits inclusion. If the most good and pure organization imaginable has a motto or slogan that everybody likes and agrees with, but no secondary source discusses it. It should be excluded. This is not optional. WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV requires that we put aside or personal prejudices and describe even the most evil organizations from a neutral point of view. There are always secondary sources that make the "this is evil" point. It is our job to simply report what those sources say. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say I think you are completey wrong in your reading of policy. No, "we" (Wikipedia) doesn't take a stand "for or against", but we "omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it". I am not saying the article should take a "stand against" the motto, but exluding it is explcitly in line with the word of policy. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You think an antivax organisation with a slogan plainly based on the lunatic ideas that vaccines are more dangerous than infectious disease, and that not vaccinating has no impact on anyone but you, is somehow not twisted? You really think that? Guy (Help!) 15:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Thats not what I said at all, I am saying whether a motto or organization is "twisted" is a matter of opinion and our opinions must not guide our editing. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is twisted. That doesn't give you a free pass to ignore NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You keep asserting that I am ignoring NPOV. That is false. UNDUE is part of NPOV. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The mistake I think you are making is saying that something is UNDUE because it is an antivax group, content may be UNDUE if it is self sourced opinion, but that applies equally to self sourced opinion from anti-vax groups, pro-vax groups, republicans, democrats, nazis, civil rights activists, ect. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not a mistake. The group's marketing slogan is Orwellian. It is also a great example of begging the question. Assuming that vaccines cause mass harm (which they don't), that the government has no authority to coerce behaviour in support of public health (which they clearly do), and that the choice of whether or not to vaccinate your child has no effect on anyone other than you (which it clearly does), then it's your health, your family and your choice. But since none of the base premises are true, it's propaganda and stating it gives undue weight to their objectively false assessment of vaccine safety, risks of infectious disease, and their obligations to society and their children. And any choice made on the basis of the kind of disinformation that NVIC put out is not an informed choice. In fact I have yet to see a single antivaxer provide a fact-based argument for their opposition to vaccines: almost all of them cite autism, for example, which is not correlated with vaccines, let alone caused by them. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Whether the government should have any given power is a matter of opinion, so is any claim of "obligations to society". Tornado chaser (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

There is ample precedent for the government having the right to intervene when people make dangerously incorrect health choices on behalf of their children or themselves. There is ample precedent for obligations to society (e.g. Typhoid Mary). Guy (Help!) 00:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes there is precedent that the government has these powers, but whether it is moral/ethical for the government to have such powers is a matter of opinion and therefore not something wikipedia can take a side on. NVIC is saying the government shouldn't have these powers, we as editors are free to personally disagree with them, but not to treat our opinions as facts, we can't take a side on what the law should be. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Exclude and consider a TBAN. Marketing slogans are bad enough when they are anodyne, this is an Orwellian slogan for an organisation whos purpose is in effect the promotion of preventable infectious diseases. Every mainstream source identifies NVIC as a propaganda outfit. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude. Why on earth would we want to parrot an antivax slogan? There seems to be some dogged WP:PROFRINGE here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Don't care about the motto itself, but excluding the motto must be for a reason unrelated to what the organizations promotes, if we don't have the same standard for mottoes regardless of the purpose of the organization, then we set a bad precedent in favor of editorial bias, which is likely to spill over into other areas of the encyclopedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Note to closer: Most of the exclude !votes should not be counted because they are based upon reasoning that are clear NPOV violations. Tornado chaser is correct; we can't just exclude mottoes because of whose motto it is or what the motto says.

In particular, the following comments contain arguments that are clear violations of NPOV:

• "In this case, we're dealing with National Vaccine Information Center."
• "Explain who is helped by including the motto, other than the organization."
• "My objection is that it's soapboxing. It serves no encyclopedic purpose other than to promote the subject."
• "Please stop using Wikipedia to promote anti-vaxxers."
• "There is no reason to promote their nonsense in a prominent position."
• "This is an Orwellian slogan for an organisation whos purpose is in effect the promotion of preventable infectious diseases. Every mainstream source identifies NVIC as a propaganda outfit."
• "...blather-speak pronouncements from those who promote anti-science."

No such arguments should be counted. I would also advise ignoring any arguments to the effect that WP:WEIGHT does not apply to mottos in infoboxes. That policy contains no such exception. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes they should, per WP:PROFRINGE. Neutrality is not the average between liars and the truth. We have plenty of precedent for not including counterfactual self-descriptions of liars. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude for the RIGHT reason. At National Vaccine Information Center#Proposed solution I proposed that

"Slogans, Mottos, Mission Statements, and all similar infobox parameters should only be added if they are (1) discussed in at least one reliable secondary source (actual discussion, not just a mention in passing) and (2) discussed in the body of the article (which they shouldn't be unless they are discussed in a reliable secondary source)".

I would also be OK with requiring multiple sources instead of "at least one".

I have seen zero evidence establishing this for the motto in question. so it should be excluded until someone provides said evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with excluding the motto if there is consensus that even mottoes need independent sourcing(regardless of whether it is a pro-or anti-vax org), I have no interest in including the motto for it's own sake, I just want an NPOV reason for whatever people want to do. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude: including a self-serving motto with no context in an infobox for a fringe organization is clearly profringe. Including mottos in infoboxes at all seems a little odd (similar to trying to include movie tag lines), and while there could potentially be situations in which you might want to include one in an infobox, an anti-vaccine group isn't one of them. --tronvillain (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have decided to Exclude the motto as long as there are no secondary sources for it, as Guy Macon has said that infoboxes are not exempt from needing secondary sources, and I have no reason to distrust him. However, this decision should not be misconstrued as condoning any of the numerous blatant POV arguments made by many editors on this thread. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Update, I did find this secondary source for NVIC's motto[21]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Include:To repeat my stance: would removing the "motto" parameter from this infobox contribute to better articles on Wikipedia? From one view, I would say it doesn't. Mottos can be very indicating for the identity and purposes of the organization. This even goes for the antivax group: in a rather cynical way, the motto Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice. tells people it is their choice to keep their children vulnerable for, among others, polio, measles and diphtheria. This is Orwellian indeed, but I would say that it is easy to be seen through. On the other hand, mottos also can be a load of hot air, and they may change from time to time. Considering all this, I believe that keeping the motto-parameter is the best option, although I wouldn't make much objections when it will be deleted after this discussion. And as a side-note: as the person who inserted the motto in the NVIC article, I would have appreciated it if I was informed that this discussion was going on. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff5102: I thought of telling you, and maybe I should have, but I was afraid that telling you would be seen as canvassing. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe you should have done that. If I would make an “expand NGO-articles with info-boxes”-round on Wikipedia, I wouldn’t like to be surprised. However, I found out in time, so there is no harm done. All the best and kind regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You are probable right. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• On a related note, I removed the slogan/motto from the InfoWars article's infobox per the consensus in this discussion. — Newslinger talk 02:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Your edit was good because the slogan was in the wrong infobox parameter (the website infobox lacks a motto parameter), and because the motto was unsourced, but I don't see how this discussion gives you any further justification for that edit. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

​I read "If you are receiving this transmission, You are the Resistance" as a similarly promotional statement. Is that a fair interpretation? — Newslinger talk 03:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Your edit was correct, but I don't think this discussion should be used to justify any edits until it is formally closed, as there is disagreement about what !votes should even be counted. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

​I've corrected the edit summary with a dummy edit. — Newslinger talk 03:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude: undue & promotional mission statement. If secondary coverage about the mission statement exist, then it's best contextualised in the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude: unduly promotional and lack of independent coverage. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

There are several open RFCs at Talk:Electric smoking system - it's very confusing what is actually being proposed, and I feel that some of the possible changes might violate NPOV. Readers of this noticeboard may be interested in participating in those RFCs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a dispute on the Mitch McConnell article over whether we can include a sentence that qualifies McConnell's reputation as a master tactician. The bold sentence is under dispute, with some editors claiming it's not NPOV:

• McConnell has gained a reputation as a skilled political strategist and tactician. However, this reputation took a hit after Republicans failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2017 during consolidated Republican control of government.^[1][2][3][4]

Additional sources that use this language:

• AP: "casting doubt on his reputation"[22]
• Bloomberg: the essence of the article [23]
• The Atlantic: "The majority leader’s reputation has been tarnished"[24]
• Politico: "bruised reputation"[25]
• 538: "cut against McConnell’s reputation"[26]
• BBC News: "whose reputation as a master tactician has been dented"[27]

Is the bold sentence a violation of WP:NPOV? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The "take a hit" language is a bit of a colloquialism, as well as directly out of a headline from the NYTimes pieces - we have long determined headlines alone should not be taken as "reliable". Something that says his reputation was diminished or dimmed seems more in line with the sources and a bit more professional. --Masem (t) 22:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "dimmed" is the best phrasing. That was how it was originally phrased. After an editor sought to remove the content, I opted to change it to "took a hit" just to mirror the source fully (my experience is that editors who scrub RS from articles often seek to justify the removal if a source does not mirror the language verbatim). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

That's understandable, I just would avoid touching language that appears only in the headline and not the body. Headlines are meant to draw in a reader and thus may use over-dramatic or unprofessional language. You have more than enough sources here that anything along the lines of dimmed, diminished, reduced, etc. should be completely fine. --Masem (t) 22:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Close as premature The discussion just started on the article talk page. This appears to be forum shopping. Someone else started the discussion and Snoo appears to have wanted to frame it a certain way from the start.--v/r - TP 22:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Based on the diversity and extent of coverage, the sentence does not appear to violate the neutral POV policy. If there are a number of sources expressing a contrary viewpoint, that would be a consideration for how it is written. Omitting this material in some form could actually affect NPOV negatively. However, I agree with Masem that the "take a hit" is not the best choice of wording.- MrX 🖋 22:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Really? Seems to me he is just good at persuading his fellow Republicans that they have more to fear from a Koch-funded right wing primary than from the general electorate. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Energy returned on energy invested (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi guys,

I'm having some trouble with the article about EROEI.

For anyone not familiar, the topic of EROEI is mired in pseudoscience. It has been used to predict the imminent collapse of civilization, over and over again, since the early 1970s. I take a lay interest in this fringe group.

Odd material is creeping into the wikipedia article about the topic. A fringe paper is being given its own entire section. That paper has conclusions which drastically contradict the conclusions of hundreds of other studies. The paper was roundly criticized and labelled "refuted" by leading researchers in the field. This paper is given its own section, when meta-analyses of dozens or hundreds of legitimate studies are reduced to a single line.

I have deleted the offending section, but it's just re-added by another editor with whom I appear to be in dispute.

The new disputed section includes totally unacceptable sources. For example, the two most recent sources are a one-page undergraduate paper for an introductory college course, and a political blog of some kind where community members can contribute. Both sources simply repeat the fringe material they have read, and so do not represent independent sources.

This appears to be devolving into an "undo war". I'd appreciate it if some other people could show up and weigh in.

The discussion about this issue can be found here.

Thanks, Thomas pow s (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, why as a lay reader you needed to take this, to this venue and we couldn't discuss your POV.

But seen as you decided to bring it here. For anyone who is unfamiliar, this debate is not new; there is an ongoing debate over the distinction between two accounting methods, the physical content method and the substitution method. Suffice it to say that each calculation has its justification and merits because each measures something slightly different. Importantly, the share of renewables looks bigger in one method;[now guess which one User:Thomas pow s advocates to have sole recognition in the article?] and in the other method, they look smaller.

Now with that in mind. The specific paper Thomas pow s continually censors out of the article, is one of the most cited in the field, it has over one hundred citations, which anyone worth their salt can go check. With those citations, ten of them, continuing up to as recent as last year, not bad for an alleged fringe paper from six years ago. By contrast most of the papers that User:Thomas pow s holds up as the truth aren't anywhere near as influential. Though those with a particular POV are rarely accomodating to others. Lastly, the addition of the mentioned stanford university webpages that summarized the highly influential paper, which are notably behind a paywall to most, are merely courtesy references to those without subscription access.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll chime in, though in transparencya and disclosure, I'm in content disputes with this same editor elsewhere.

(A) Like many of Boundarylayer's barrage of edits across articles broadly related to nuclear power, the sentence construction is crap. So for starters, the first sentence (in this version) is an incomprehensible run-on sentence fragment that lacks a verb. According to a transatlantic collaborative research paper on Energy return on energy Invested (EROEI), conducted by six analysts led by German academic D. Weißbach, and described as "...the most extensive overview so far based on a careful evaluation of available Life Cycle Assessment

(B) In a word, the text discussed in (A) is pure WP:PUFFERY

(C) The second phrase is also a non-sentence and is also puffery. Published in the peer reviewed journal Energy in 2013.

(D) The fourth sentence is at least a sentence but it is a darn near incomprehensible run on for a highly complex topic The buffered (corrected for their intermittency) EROEI stated in the paper, for all low-carbon power sources, with the exception of the only two baseload energy supplying systems of biomass and nuclear, were lowered considerably due to weather variations, a reduction of EROEI proportional to how reliant these other energy sources are on the embodied manufacture of back-up energy systems, such as industrial sized batteries, the construction of a pumped hydro storage facility etc.

(E) Citation count is moot as related to Google-Counting. See WP:Arguments to avoid in discussions.

(F) I don't care about the original paper. It's a WP:PRIMARY source and its presentation here is being challenged. So we need the best WP:SECONDARY sources to shed light.

(G) CONCLUSION - Obviously if this section remains it needs a total re-write, but before that, Please provide a bullet list containing urls of the best SECONDARY sources to evaluate this dispute?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC) PS @Thomas pow s: that also means I'd like to see RSs for your claims this paper is fringe and debunked.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy,

There is a source already included in the article for the ERoEI of solar PV. It is a meta-analysis which includes 25 separate studies, all of which yield broadly similar results. In contrast, this study is a far outlier, even before taking into account buffering. This paper arrives at a figure that is approximately 1/3rd or less that of all the other studies. By itself, this means that the outlier study does not warrant its own entire section when dozens of other studies are reduced to a single line.

There was a rebuttal of this one outlier study, posted in the same journal by leading figures in the field. I no longer have access to it, but here is a link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271132547_Rebuttal_Comments_on_'Energy_intensities_EROIs_energy_returned_on_invested_and_energy_payback_times_of_electricity_generating_power_plants'_-_Making_clear_of_quite_some_confusion

An IEA task force, established to create guidelines for LCA Life Cycle Assessment NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC) analysis, concluded the following about that study: "regrettably (LCA) has sometimes been the object of misguided interpretation in the existing literature [Weißbach et al., 2013]". https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324727300_Task_12_Methodological_Guidelines_on_Net_Energy_Analysis_of_Photovoltaic_Electricity

As a result, this paper is a far outlier which was refuted. It cannot be given its own section when dozens of other studies that reach a starkly different conclusion are reduced to a single line.

Thomas pow s (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The same Weißbach et al. article was in dispute resolution in 2014. Back then the issue was closed without any decision. --TuomoS (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

In the big picture, Thomas, my impression is that there might be an ongoing debate in the sources about how to calculate the numbers. Our article might do well to focus on the opposing views without trying to find TRUTH in a discrete list of numbers. And you'll get a lot farther by finding secondary sources, especially ones that are not paywalled. For example, instead of reporting numbers from the Weißbach paper, do you understand their criticism of prior approaches? Write it up! And contrast the criticism of the rebuttals. Best if you can use non-paywalled secondary sources to do it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thomas is doing the work of acknowledged solar advocates with a well regarded troublesome POV in the scientific literature, as linked to below. The work of a group affiliated with the industry that they then publish glowingly about and attack everyone else. It's an actual travesty that this is allowed to continue but there you go. In that they are attempting to censor what the founder of the field of study has routinely reported on Solar PV. As the IEA are not neutral but subject to industry lobby committees, one of whom being Raugei, Thomas's favorite solar advocate. By contrast there are multiple WP:SECONDARY sources such as these IEEE researchers, who, present the controversy and the EROEI of solar photovoltaic(PV) as likewise almost identical to the value of the transatlantic team a year before them that Thomas has censored out of the article and is the focus of this proceeding. Thomas does not want this information or controversy known, instead they want only what the glowing industry affiliates say about Solar PV, to be viewable to readers in the article.

I am especially concerned about this conduct both here and in the article as it is essentially the turning of wikipedia into a solar PV WP:PROMOTION arm. Instead of a place for, you would hope, readers could see a controversy for what it is and decide for themselves. Thomas does not want this to be possible, they instead censor out the only independent assessments that involve real world analysis. That the founder of the field of study endorses. Thomas instead has removed this data from view, depriving everyone to see the discrepancy. With wikipedia now only a platform for what the advocates and affiliates of the industry say. This should make us all concerned.

Here are some secondary sources.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/argument-over-the-value-of-solar-focuses-on-spain

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6860364/

Thomas is also engaged in attempting to frame anyone who publishes on the matter, that is not getting industry money, as fringe. Though it is actually the industry advocates which are regarded as fringe. The particular and consistent inversion of matters like this, is common with someone with an axe to grind.

To elucidate. IEA = methodology employed by the International Energy Agency and Ext = extended boundary as described by Murphy and Hall, 2010 [2,3].[Charles Hall is none other than the founder of the entire field of study but Thomas would have you believe he is fringe? These independent researchers?] The difference [and there are many] between the two is essentially that the IEA is tending to focus on the energy used in the factory process while the extended methodology of Murphy and Hall, 2010 includes activities such as mining, purifying and transporting the silicon raw material.

http://euanmearns.com/the-energy-return-of-solar-pv/

Thomas' favorite solar advocates consider solar modules to instantly produce electricity, akin to a kind of magickal spontaneous generation once they leave the factory. They apparently do not need any supporting equipment at all, just like when you manufacture nuclear fuel and it leaves the factory, it does not need a power station to work with...oh wait..Would you trul buy that if someone was peddling that analogous thing to you? In reality every energy system needs a support structure.

The fact that one captive organization pushes fantastical values that skew to unrealistically glowing, should be presented to readers. Thomas however seems stuck in a WP:IDONTLIKE agitation and as we see here, will even start spurious procedings like this venue to force their industry-seal-of-approval view, onto the article.

When an appraisal of the literature shows as, I quote, results "from [A]Battisti et al., [B]Ito et al, [C] Meijer et al. and another paper from [D] Alsema are all cited by and in good agreement with the paper by the 6 scientists(Weißbach et. al) at the heart of this POV proceedings, values of 2.2 to 8.8 for solar PV of the more common silicon type, are what are realistic. Most recently [E]Palmer, [F]Charles Hall, Prieto and [G] | Ferroni, Hopkirk et. al have similarly determined values, if not lower or negative values in the latter case. A clear scientific consensus has formed. While the statistical massaging done by Raugei, which Hopkirk above, like everyone else, has to routinely and explicitly dismiss as advocates, with their values over thirty, are in reality who and what is truly considered fantastical and fringe.

Similarly, Weißbach's team in their rebuttal of the raving bands of solar advocates described Raugei as producing - "politically motivated energy evaluations".

P.S by the way, Thomas' favorite author, this Raugei individual is based in Oxford Brookes University UK (not to be confused, with the real Oxford Uni of which it has no academic connection. The IP address which I remember likewise got involved with the familiar censorship-swinging over the addition of Weißbach, years ago and then took the opportunity to promote Raugei, the editor |161.73.149.112 is incidentally geo-located where? Can you guess? Honestly you can't make the yarns of these folks up.

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(outdenting) Hi NewsAndEventsGuy,

Perhaps I should summarize this issue, and better explain my position.

The paper includes EROI figures for solar PV which are totally discrepant with the non-fringe consensus.

These ideas cannot be presented as factual in wikipedia. Furthermore, they certainly cannot be given vastly more weight than non-fringe papers on the topic. This paper is a far outlier and is referred to as "refuted" by leading researchers. Furthermore, the calculation of the minimum net energy for civilization to exist is nonsensical.

I realize there is a debate about this topic. However, the mere existence of a debate indicates nothing whatsoever. There is a debate over whether the Earth is flat, and will continue to be a debate until nobody in the world advocates that position any more. The mere existence of a debate indicates nothing. The question is the WEIGHTING being given to various sides in this debate.

There are more than 250 studies on net energy of solar PV. They all reach broadly similar conclusions except these two far outliers which are championed by a bizarre fringe group. I am pointing out the NUMBER of studies here. Why should a single far outlier be given its own SECTION while 250 studies by reputable researchers are reduced to a single line? Why should a single study which is repeatedly referred to as "refuted" by the leading researchers in this field be given its own section, when 250 other papers are reduced to a single line?

It is not necessary for the editors of wikipeida to evaluate this issue or take sides in the "debate". I am raising the issue of UNDUE WEIGHT, not correctness. How much weight is appropriate for a single outlier paper repeatedly referred to as "refuted" by the leading researchers in the field, when 250+ papers have are represented by a single line above?

There are three papers recently which are meta-analyses, and which summarize the results from HUNDREDS of papers on this topic:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116306906

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211500146X

None of them reach conclusions similar to that paper.

Thomas pow s (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Nicotine is a chemical. There's biomolecular research that is related to nicotine effects that's not done in clinical settings and not on humans. But an editor repeatedly deletes that research without regard for this fact, referencing first its primary source nature as reason, as if that research was a medical/health information, and then referencing the WP:MEDRS, whereas it has nothing to do with medical research. At one point, that editor WTF'd part of that research wording on the Talk page and deleted it rather suggest wording improvement. I even tried to improve and to clarify the research is non-health in a section heading, but that got deleted in the same manner.

That article is about a chemical, but there have been changes on the page skewing its focus toward a drug infopiece (for example, the Infodrug template does not contain Material Safety Data Sheet field), and now the editor is invoking medical research policy to block content on non-applicable grounds. That chemical is a substance that generates high revenues for businesses, so it is plausible this article needs to be involved in a neutral point of view discussion/maintenance to assure moneyed interests do not interfere with the WP:NPOV that the world comes to appreciate about Wikipedia.

I'm not sure how to notify the editor Seppi333 using NPOV-notice. User109012 (Talk) 05:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is that we need a separate page for Nicotine (drug) and a separate page for Nicotine (chemical). User109012 (Talk) 06:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice to see what he is removing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Browsing the history, I see an edit like this, and this makes me think that we do want to have a strong delination between the chemistry aspects of nicotine (which should not be covered by MEDRS), and the biological aspects which would have stricter MEDRS adherence (moreso than other chemical articles, given its usage). Whether that means splitting the article or regrouping to clear the non-medical basics of the chemical first before delving into the drug-like and health issues, I don't know, but I do think that this is a case MEDRS cannot apply 100% to all content on the article when it is talking non-medical aspects of the chemical. --Masem (t) 15:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I know about other stuff exists, but here there is an issue of consistency, do we do this with other similar chemical compounds?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

First example I could think of was Caffeine which is treated as a chemical first and foremost since it is a naturally-occurring thing. It does seem to mix up things, but without a detailed check , it doesn't seem like MEDRS is expected to apply to the entire content of the article, just those where health effects come in. --Masem (t) 16:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Darouet keeps adding fringe conspiracy theories to the Kiki Camarena article, whenever i undo his edits he adds them back. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't add this material: it was present for at least a year [28] until Jaydoggmarco removed it. The content was sourced to an article [29] in Spain's most read and respected newspaper, El País, but as I pointed out [30] at Talk:Kiki Camarena, there are multiple sources including university books, scholarly articles, and reviews that should be referenced.

For instance in "Eclipse of the Assassins. The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía," by Russell H. Bartley and Sylvia Erickson Bartley, University of Wisconsin Press, 2015, the authors write in the book's conclusion,

The preponderance of evidence... persuades us beyond any reasonable doubt that Manuel Buendía was slain on behalf of the United States because of what he had learned about U.S.-Mexico collusion with narcotics traffickers, international arms dealers, and other governments in support of Reagan administration efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Camarena was... killed for the same reason.

Reviewing the book, professor Wil Pansters, head of the Department of Social Sciences of University College Utrecht, writes in Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe (Amsterdam Iss. 103, Jan/Jun 2017, pp.143-155) that

In May 1984, the influential journalist and columnist Manuel Buendía was brutally shot in the back in the centre of Mexico City... In a painstaking investigative process, the authors along with other journalists in Mexico and the U.S. became convinced that the Buendía and Camarena killings were linked, and much of the book is about the Bartleys trying to put the different pieces together. The most important element is that the interests behind both killings go beyond criminal interests and reach into the political domains on both sides of the border. In the mid-1980s, Mexico's one party regime confronted serious challenges, while the Reagan administration was deeply involved in a Cold War battle against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Buendía and DEA agent Camarena had each separately discovered that the CIA was running a dark network, which involved Mexican and Central American drug traffickers that imported cocaine into the U.S. and facilitated the movement of arms to the contras. Nicaraguan contras were trained at a Mexican ranch owned by one of the country's most notorious capos. CIA pilots flew many of the planes. The DFS functioned as the go-between, and hence involved the Ministry of the Interior. The Mexican army provided the necessary protection, and got a bite of the pie. Since the overriding concern of the CIA was the anti-Sandinista project, it trumped the DEA's task of combating drug trafficking, and covertly incorporated (or pressured) parts of the Mexican state into subservience. Buendía had found out about the CIA-contra-drugsDFS connection, which seriously questioned Mexican sovereignty, while Camarena learned that the CIA had infiltrated the DEA and sabotaged its work so as to interfere with the clandestine contra-DFS-traffickers network. They knew too much and were eliminated on the orders of the U.S. with Mexican complicity. Later official investigations attempted to limit criminal responsibility to the dirty connections between drug traffickers, secret agents and corrupt police, leaving out the (geo)political ramifications.

Jaydoggmarco is removing sourced content with false justifications, does not understand how WP:RS and WP:V work, and probably shouldn't be editing this article. -Darouet (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

El Pais is actually considered by many to be the Fox News of Spain, They were responsible for publishing a false picture of a dying Hugo Chávez in 2013 and they are notorious for their support of fascism and opposition toward the democratically elected left-wing governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

An RfC has been open for some time at Albania-Greece relations. Input from this noticeboard's participants is welcomed to help achieve a consensus [31]. Khirurg (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the following text a violation of WP:NPOV?:

• In December 2018, a report commissioned by the US Senate found that the Russian government's interference in the 2016 election included boosting Stein's candidacy through social media posts. This disinformation effort targeted African-American voters in particular. NBC News noted, "There’s nothing in the reports to suggest that Stein was aware of the influence operation, but the Massachusetts physician has long been criticized for her support of international policies that mirror Russian foreign policy goals."[32]

An editor on the Jill Stein page keeps removing the second part of that NBC News quote (citing WP:NPOV), so that the text reads:

• In December 2018, a report commissioned by the US Senate found that the Russian government's interference in the 2016 election included boosting Stein's candidacy through social media posts. This disinformation effort targeted African-American voters in particular. According to Robert Windrem, an investigative reporter with NBC News, "There’s nothing in the reports to suggest that Stein was aware of the influence operation..."[33]

To me, it seems that removing the full NBC News quote is the NPOV violation. Additional input would be helpful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I am the editor in question (was not notified, thanks user:Snooganssnoogans). What I deem editorialization on the part of the NBC reporter is the implication that Stein's "international policies [that] mirror Russian foreign policy goals". No evidence is presented and this is just one quote in one story by on report. It seems that the editor (and journalist) supporting this quote is cherry-picking sources to try to implicate Stein in Russiagate. Removing the latter portion to me (which is an opinion, not a fact) is the only way to use this quote in Stein's biography. Moreover, as TFD wrote on the page's talk page, the quote is full of weasel words.--TM 13:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In the NBC report, after the quoted part, it goes on to explain where her past campaigned had connections to Russian media outlets, etc, to justify that criticism. Our article also mention some of these. The NBC language is appropriate, but it is a matter of word and phrasing order as that part comes out of the blue in our article, even though it follows up immediately. I'm not immediately sure how to do it. --Masem (t) 15:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the quote should be included in full, except that we need to say "NBC News said" not "NBC News noted" so as to avoid stating NBC's conclusions in wikipedia's voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• The full quote provides important context as to why the Russians would choose Stein and supporting the idea that Stein would be a likely target (in a way that Johnson might not be). It also fits with the well known fact that she was photographed at a gala with Putin and Michael Flynn in 2015. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• The full quote is important and indeed required for context. In-text attribution (either to the source or to the author) is unnecessary because this is a straight news piece, rather than an op-ed, editorial, or column. Attributing to the author is particularly weird. I would go with a paraphrase supported by the source rather than a direct quote, reading something like: "The Senate-commissioned report does not suggest that Stein was aware of Russian efforts to boost her candidacy, although Stein's views on U.S. foreign policy have often reflected Russian positions and talking points on international issues." Neutrality^talk 18:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• The has long been criticized part of the quote does not belong on wikipedia. It is a very vague statement, and NBC neither specifies where the criticism has come from nor do they provide a source for it. If we include information about such criticism, which is okay if properly explained and sourced, WP:NPOV require us to also include information countering that criticism. Masem: The fact that a political campaign has contacts to Russian media outlines certainly does not justify the quoted criticism. In general, a politician interacting with a media outlet says nothing about the politicians support for that media or the owners of that media. That is simply a ridiculous assertion, and if politicians became afraid of such guilt by contact, it would be dangerous for democracy. Martinogk (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• I also agree that the NBS News quote should be included entirely and I believe that NBC wording in this case is very much welcomed, because it would help to tackle the issue multidimensionally. However, if there is a criticism in the article it should be thoroughly followed by some concrete examples. --Jeremydas (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs) has recently ramped up his disruptive editing of topics related to the Catholic Church and homosexuality. In particular, at Catholic Church and homosexuality and Political activity of the Knights of Columbus, among other articles, he's attempting to insert promotional material even in cases where consensus has explicitly rejected the specific wording he is proposing. At Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus, for instance, FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk · contribs) and Doniago (talk · contribs) very explicitly rejected the euphemistic "support marriage as the union of one man and one woman" and "culture of life" in favor of the clearer "oppose same-sex marriage and abortion" (alongside myself and Contaldo80 (talk · contribs) who were already editing the article. A month later, Slugger continues to attempt to add that exact wording and pretend that there was no voice against it. Here, among other NPOV violations related to promotional content and WP:WEIGHT, he insists on vaguely writing "In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically on issues of importance to LGBT people" in place of the more clear and source-supported "against LGBT rights," insisting that to say "rights" would violate NPOV and, nonsensically, that because LGBT people are also interested in other matters, "rights" is overly narrow. (Here's the only other user in the discussion besides myself, Contaldo80 (talk · contribs) specifically rejecting this proposal.)

I have no taste for an edit war but I don't know how to proceed when this user refuses to listen to anyone who disagrees with him even in cases where formal procedures like 3O have been followed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Only part of the story is being told here. If you search the archives of the talk pages for both the main Knights of Columbus article and the daughter article on their political activity, you will see that there has been extensive discussions on how to phrase some of these issues, and a consensus has been reached. The public record will also show that I have been vocal about my willingness to collaborate and compromise, and have publicly thanked other edits with whom I often disagree when they make substantive contributions. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Dispute resolution help? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It may. A further review of the record will show that I've requested outside opinions on multiple occasions, and respected the consensus even when I disagreed with it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: can you elaborate on your suggestion? Since this is a case of one user attempting to insert his POV against the explicitly expressed opinions of other users, whom he pretends did not express those opinions, it seemed like more of a user behavior issue rather than a case of needing broader input per se. How broad do you think the DR would need to be? Is it more like separate DRs for each article, or more like "DR: Slugger O'Toole and homosexuality"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Australian paradox about an article with multiple issues including NPOV, and I invite any and all interested parties to contribute there. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In a scholar biography page for Alastair Lamb, an editor has added the label of "pro-India" for one of the book reviewers (Parshotam Mehra). The editor has provided a quote from a book review of Mehra's own book (not Alastair Lamb's) that says:

• the author [Mehra] has not only abdicated his responsibility as a scholar but also made himself vulnerable to the charge that he has indirectly tried to reinforce the official position of India under the garb of academic objectivity.

The "abdication of responsibility" apparently refers to the fact that Mehra did not relate the history covered in his own book (not Alastair Lamb's) to the present-day border dispute between China and India. Instead he left it to the reader "to form his own judgement". I can't see how any of this warrants a branding like "pro-India". The talk page discussion is here. Can somebody take a look and give us their view? Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry I don't have much time today to check in. It is always imperative to read a review as a whole and not in parts if the underlying point is to be understood. It appears to me from whatever has been quoted so far that Mahendra is saying that Parshotam has synthesised his conclusions in such a way which would lead the reader on to favour the Indian position while ostensibly claiming to allow the reader to form their own opinion. Hence the link with "readers judgement." I hope this resolves your dispute. If not I am happy to mediate. Dilpa kaur (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer Dilpa kaur. But mediation is generally offered by WP:UNINVOLVED editors. You are welcome to give your comments on the article talk page of course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Dilpa's offer. WOW.

I will take a look and mediate; as to this specific locus. ∯WBG^converse 16:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Have you read the book? There are no conclusions, as such. ∯WBG^converse 13:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

More eyes needed on Special:Contributions/Laylaor. He/she advocates an antiquated POV, which has been debunked by WP:RS/AC for many decades, see https://web.archive.org/web/20011110114548/http://lib1.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This article reads like it has been written by PETA themselves, and tends to euphemise the criticism while over-emphasizing PETA's points of view. I am not that great at content creation, nor am I the best at rearranging things to fit where they should be within the policy of WP:NPOV. I would like some help in ensuring this article follows the due principles of WP:DUE, rearranging/editing titles, addition and removal of content that does not mean its proper due weight, among other things. Thanks. I believe perhaps a start would be to revert to/take content from this revision, given this version has a lot less NPOV issues, and seems more balanced. Here's a comparison between this revision and current.Tutelary (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Can the statement "Acupuncture is one of the most common alternative medicine practices in Europe" be properly sourced to a monograph on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Policy in Canada (Ramsay 2009, p.45), which says "The three most commonly used alternative therapies in Europe as of 2007 were homeopathy, acupuncture/[TCM], and herbal medicine"?

That the source is RS isn't disputed, but there are other objections (my responses follow):

• That the statement is argumentum ad populum.
  • RESPONSE: Argumentum ad populum takes the general form "X is popular, therefore it is good/true", but here we are only citing a sourced statement "X is popular (and that only relatively, among alt-meds's in Europe)"
• UNDUE: "The source is about Canada and the content is about Europe. That is already a red flag that cherry picking is going on."
  • RESPONSE: There are no other known "sig views" on the subject of which are the most popular CAMS in Europe, so there's no UNDUE problem and no cherry picking.
• UNDUE: "European Acupuncture was part of a list an not even mentioned by itself."
  • RESPONSE: Cf. above, there are no other known "sig views", so being mentioned by itself or as part of a list makes no difference where NPOV is concerned.
• UNDUE: "The wording was almost a complete rehash of the source. If that is the best paraphrasing you can do then probably you are doing something wrong."
  • RESPONSE: Irrelevant; as long as there's no copyvio, closeness of paraphrasing isn't a problem for NPOV or anything else.

Discussion is at Talk:Acupuncture § Popularity in Europe but I think the above about covers it. Editors have declined to discuss further, hence this post. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 18:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest means that you should not be involving yourself in Acupuncture or related articles. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I do not have one according to the recent RfC which has closed with a "No" finding (three admins closing). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The source seems questionable to start. Is there some discussion on its reliability already? --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No, not so far. Is Fraser Institute not ok? For an assertion this uncontroversial (of course acu is popular as CAMs go)? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The source looks extremely in-world. Taking that bit of information from it, presenting it out of the context of the source, and putting it in Wikipedia's voice seems questionable. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Looks like a flimsy source, and the use smacks of WP:ADVOCACY, so not NPOV. What we need is a reputable independent source giving some context to why acupuncture is "popular" (assuming that's true) in Europe - and of course in health matters "popular" is often synonymous with "dodgy" (see popular diet). Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Popular among CAMs (as noted 2x previously). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 02:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

As is too often the cases in this area Middle 8 is misrepresenting the discussion for his own ends. When he wrote that the source "RS isn't disputed" what he should have written is "RS hasn't been disputed". Why bother fighting about the RS value of content that is undue anyway?AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Topic ban please. Middle 8 has wasted hundreds of hours of the community's time pushing back against his relentless attempts to boost his admitted commercial interest in acupuncture. I think ost of us are completely bored with this by now. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Said one of the editors who wasted so much of the community's time on a gratuitous RfC that was never going to get the desired result (although I was surprised it actually boomeranged, but at least now there's no excuse for further such drama). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The entire source of the problem is your relentless attempts to boost your financial interests by editing Wikipedia. Stop doing that, the problem goes away. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like that "obvious COI". --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If there are no other significant views then there are no significant views at all. If the best you can come up with is an aside, in a list, where the source is about another country on another continent, from a think tank then you are cherry picking and not representing a significant view.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"If there are no other significant views then there are no significant views at all." -- the logic underwhelms. You can't cherry-pick without there being other cherries (sig views) to pick from. Editors are making the mistake of assuming that the claim being made is at all controversial (news flash -- some CAM's are more popular than others -- but maybe the news hasn't made it all the way out to Boise). But whatever, happy to find a better source. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC); undo improper revert of non-personal-attack but also strike as courtesy and to de-escalate, 16:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If you are happy to find a better source then why did you even open this discussion? AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Adding back the personal attack is a funny way to de-escalate.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Because I thought we might get fresh eyes. But alas. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 16:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For my own amusement I tracked down where this supposed information originally came from. Its a pretty good illustration of why we should use think tanks with care. ^[1] AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I have to say that the idea that anything "boomeranged" as it's understood by Wikipedia, is an utter joke. You are presumably referring to the RfC in which the question was (duly) asked, "Do practitioners of alt med have a COI when editing topics within their field"? I personally believe that they do and that they should be kept away from those articles with a large club, but I voted "no" in the RfC because Wikipedia COI policy must be kept flexible in cases where experts contribute to a field, and that the recursive impact on policy would out weigh the benefit of further distancing practitioners of fake treatments from the articles they want to whitewash. That being said, I also voted no because we have more than sufficient policy based reasons to prevent articles from being whitewashed by SAPs. Nothing boomeranged here. Wikipedia prior to that RfC was intolerant of efforts to unduly add spurious material to medical articles, and it still is. If you want to see what boomerang means, keep wasting time thusly. Edaham (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ User:Edaham - I mean boomerang in the sense of "backfire" (in contrast to the so-to-speak "misfire" of a no-consensus finding, which I anticipated). I don't mean it in the sense of WP:BOOMERANG and agree it shouldn't be taken that way. As for "wasting time thusly", not sure what that means, but FWIW I don't believe that posting here was a waste of time under the circumstances. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 03:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Our article on Nicolás Maduro currently states:

Some commentators note he has gradually consolidated enough power to become the country's de facto dictator.

In prior revisions, this was phrased more directly, e.g. the first line being

Nicolás Maduro Moros is the de facto dictator of Venezuela.

Both statements have been cited to a welter of variable-quality sources, including op-eds, Forbes.com contributors, some RS that only use the word "dictator" in the headline, and two RS that support the description (Vox, WaPo newsblog). There have been several disputes on the talk page regarding whether the word "dictator" is a neutral, appropriately-weighted description — more eyes would be helpful. —0xf₈e₈ (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC) _{(edited by 0xf8e8 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC))}

The main discussions on the talk page are here and here. The introduction of the phrasing was here, citations added here, attempt to change the phrasing here. —0xf₈e₈ (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute, mainly focused on NPOV, between me and User:Snowsky Mountain. A few points of contention have been resolved, but the main issue remains. Specifically, what the above mentioned user wants a part of the lead to be is this:

Born in 647 to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Maysun bint Bahdal, Yazid grew up with his maternal tribe, the Banu Kalb. Some time before his death, Muawiya made Yazid his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of the Hasan-Muawiya treaty. The nomination was opposed by a few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husain ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar. [Paragraph Break] Upon Muawiya's death in 680 CE, Yazid assumed power. He demanded pledges of allegiance to him, including from those who had opposed his nomination. Husain, the grandson of Muhammad, refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, as Yazid was considered an illegitimate ruler and corrupt. (It's important to note here that many sources specifically list Yazid's corruption when mentioning Husain's refual to give allegiance. --Snowsky Mountain) Husain went towards Kufa but was stopped at Karbala. Yazid's army killed Husain and many of his companions in the ensuing Battle of Karbala, after which they took many of the remaining members of Husain's family as prisoners. This sparked widespread outrage against Umayyad rule. Later, in 683 CE, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and his supporters rose up against Yazid's rule in Medina. After first trying to bribe and then arrest ibn al-Zubayr, Yazid sent his army to Medina; the ensuing Battle of al-Harrah led to the city being plundered. Later in 683, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca. The weeks-long siege led to the Kaaba being damaged by fire and finally ended when news arrived of Yazid's death.

I consider this in violation of NPOV, as the user is arguing for what is a religious belief to be presented as fact. While I argue that religious views be presented as religious beliefs. To me the balanced version of the said para, is this:

In 676 (56 AH), Muawiya made him his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of Hasan–Muawiya treaty. A few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husayn ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar, refused to accept his nomination. Following his accession after Muawiya's death in 680, Yazid demanded allegiance from these three, but only ibn Umar recognized him, while the other two refused and escaped to sanctuary of Mecca. When Husayn was on his way to Kufa to lead a revolt against Yazid, he was killed with his small band of supporters by forces of Yazid in the Battle of Karbala. Killing of Husayn led to widespread resentment in Hejaz, where Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr centered his opposition to rule of Yazid, and was supported by many people in Mecca and Medina. After failed attempts to regain confidence of ibn al-Zubayr and people of Hejaz diplomatically, Yazid sent an army to end the rebellion. The army defeated Medinese in the Battle of al-Harrah in August 683 and the city was given to three days of pillage. Later on siege was laid to Mecca, which lasted for several weeks, during which the Kaaba was damaged by fire. The siege ended with death of Yazid in November 683 and the empire fell to civil war.

Detailed arguments can be found at the talk page. A look at the body of the article, of which the lead is supposed to be concise summary, might help in assessing whether I am being biased or the said user. Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: The first version splits the contents across two paragraphs, while the second version only uses one paragraph. (I added the contents of the first paragraph in the first version to give a more clear view of what's being proposed). Also, the first version has references to support the content; those references can be found on the talk page. I can also add them in here if anyone would like to see them. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Another update: Just wanted to list problems that I had mentioned on the talk page (as well as one other point I hadn't mentioned before) with respect to the second version:

• It has POV issues - it says that "prominent Muslims...refused to recognize his authority" and revolted against Yazid. However, it does not state why Husain did not pledge allegiance to Yazid. Leaving out this information would make this article one-sided and violate the NPOV standard.

Wrong. Plz re-read it. AhmadLX (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• It does not mention Yazid's early life before his rise to power.

That was agreed upon in the first para. It is not the issue here. Issue is second para. AhmadLX (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• It says that Yazid tried to pacify Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr "diplomatically," but the article contents say that Yazid tried to first bribe and then arrest him.

Yes he sent him gifts, and then invited Medinese delegation to Damascus. That is diplomatic means, and it briefly describes all that in one word. Brevity is required for lead. AhmadLX (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• It appears to limit the political aftermath of the Battle of Karbala and the killing of Husayn to only the revolt of Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr's uprising, which is historically inaccurate -- see Mukhtar al-Thaqafi, for example.

Is that what you have been arguing for at the talk page? AhmadLX (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• It has grammatical mistakes. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe there are some in my version, but there are certainly in your version e.g "...news of arrived of...". But this has nothing to do with issue at hand (npov). AhmadLX (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed that. As we agreed on the talk page, let's let neutral, third-party editor(s) weigh in. Snowsky Mountain (talk)

@AhmadLX and Snowsky Mountain: I'm willing to weigh in, but this discussion is fairly disorienting for someone not intimately acquainted with the topic. It sounds like the two of you have various disagreements on multiple points. I would recommend trying to resolve them one by one, and if there's a particular point on which you can't reach consensus, you're welcome to summarize the disagreement in a separate talk section and ping me. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

User:AhmadLX and I have been discussing it for a while on the article's talk page (Talk:Yazid I), and we seem to be at a deadlock. I should note that I did decide to remove the word "prominent" from a certain place in my version, which User:AhmadLX had been opposed to (I noticed the word "prominent" had been used twice), so perhaps that could move things along. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

AfriForum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs work - it's obvious that the lead is inadequate, using 8 sources to establish that AfriForum is an organisation and being partially mission statement and certainly not a summary of the article. However the issue that I'm bringing here is text that an IP insists must be in the article because "Wikipedia is not the place for slander and defamation."[34] User:Grayfell reverted an earlier addition, and I reverted twice. The IP, user:197.245.16.108 complained about the removal on the talk page but never responded to my comments on the text before reinserting it.

Here's the text I reverted and the comments I made:

"AfriForum has laid multiple successful complaints with the South African Press Ombudsman against News24, Mail & Guardian and The Huffington Post SA, several prominent local media houses. The Ombudsman found all of the aforementioned outlets to be in serious breach of the South African Press Code and each organisation was ordered to publish a public apology to AfriForum. The complaints related to "misrepresentation, distortion and suppression of the facts" relating to statement's AfriForum has made and the failure to "take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly" by stating that AfriForum supports the white genocide conspiracy theory, despite AfriForum having consistently stated that the organisation does not believe white genocide is occurring in South Africa.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}"

My comments:

The first finding in the sources states: "News24 was in breach of Section 7.2.4 of the Press Code for stating that AfriForum did not offer a single solution, while Roets did so – albeit in response to a question. This section says: “[Comment or criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it] has taken fair account of all material facts that are substantially true”. The rest of the complaint is dismissed." I suggest editors read the entire report.

I don't think SA Promo is a reliable source here. I'm not sure that the media apologies are reported adequately. "Multiple successful complaints" is incorrect so far as I can see. The complaint about New24 was only upheld on one issue, the statement "that it did not offer a single solution to the issue of land restitution".

The other complaints were:

“Roets’ submission – which he tweeted and which is available on AfriForum’s website – does not explain why he believes that white people never ‘stole land’ (besides just claiming that they never did) nor does it offer any clear or sophisticated argument about Section 25”; and “At one stage Roets sat grinning while black MPs spoke of their families’ experiences under apartheid, wars of dispossession and how his attitude merely served to harden some attitudes.” The organisation adds that: News24 manipulated an edited version of a video in which he had presented AfriForum’s submissions to the Constitutional Review Committee in such a manner so as to portray it as the truth to corroborate the false and untrue accusations; and the reportage has caused it serious reputational damage."

These were rejected. The Finding on the video complaint starts with "This part of the complaint has no legs to stand on. Part of the finding about the complaint about reputational damage was " I am not going to blame News24 for causing “serious reputational damage”, as Roets himself – by not finding time to address solutions in his formal presentation – contributed to this “reputational damage”." Again, editors should read these in full as I can only copy part of them here.

Looking at edits just a few minutes ago by another IP, it looks as though AfriForum:Racist also has problems. It's written from AfriForum's pov, the description of its CEO Rhoda Kadalie as a civil rights activist is to say the least controversial, the description of the lawyer Mark Oppenheimer seems to come from AfriForum, etc. (the source for the paragraph doesn't back the paragraph but that may be because too many editor are quite happy to add material not in the source to sourced text). Doug Weller talk 16:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC is here in case anyone is interested in contributing. petrarchan47คุก 20:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The following is allowed,

She has drawn criticism from Senator Marco Rubio and Donald Trump Jr. for tweeting 'Our future is female, intersectional, Powered by our belief in one another, And we’re just getting started'.[17]

But the following got removed again and again,

Son of incumbent president Donald Trump Jr. retweeted, "...if you think running as a parent is edgy delete your account and your campaign". In response, Gillibrand encouraged people to make monetary donations to the campaign.[18][19][20] She avoided a war of words.

It is not fair, please help. Important "Twitter Exchange" should not be censored from Wikipedia. It meets the notability requirement. I have already tried RfC, thanks. I have been warned for edit-warring. Tony85poon (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

it looks like an admin also deleted a giant list of see also links you added. they dont seem to be especially important to the content of the article. perhaps if you tied them all together in some way or wrote something about why you think those references are important then they would be acceptable.

I would suggest you shorten the description of the twitter exchange to fit with what is already on the page. something like, 'She is running on a platform of...she has drawn criticism from X jr and commentator Y.' but your references seem weak. secondnexus.com dennismichaellynch.com and causeaction.com arnt really note worthy sources. dennis michael lynch perhaps. but still it seems more like it was a clever move, using the exposure trump jr. provided to expand the exposure of the campaign. I would suggest focusing on just the key points of her campaign. remember every link posted on wikipedia is a vote for the value of that article as articles posted on wikipedia are far more likely to be cited elsewhere. Verify references (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

i have just double checked that DML link and it is just a recitation of an article on the Daily Caller. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources The Daily Caller is on the do not link list. "The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes "false or fabricated information". Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be properly attributed." Verify references (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will fix the Donald Trump campaign article and Trump junior articles now, coz I used the same citations. Tony85poon (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poon post your proposed edits on the talk page of that article and wait for feedback. Don't just throw it straight up on the page. if you post the same content that has already been rejected on a different page, you will likely get a vandalism and edit warring warning because it doesn't matter that its the first edit on that page, it will be used to argue a history of abuse.

Move to close Verify references (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

French ban on face covering is overly supportive of the ban by discussing the point of view of the dominant culture in France in many parts of the article without counterpoints. Many of the statements need to be further verified. I draw particular attention to the paragraphs dealing with violent reactions from the community. Although it does constitute rioting, there's a de-emphasis on the facts of the cases. notably, tearing a womans clothes off is likely to elicit some response from the community that shouldn't be regarded as a dramatic uprising of mujahideen who were hiding behind every bush. Verify references (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

there were no objections so i have corrected the article.

Verify references (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Users and Editors,

I wanted to draw your attention to my earlier post containing a correction request for one of the sections of the Hotpoint Wikipedia Page. My full post with the details of the proposed update and its rationale was initially uploaded onto the Talk section of the Hotpoint page and can be found here.

To give you more background on the initial request - the current text within the section titled “Grenfell Tower Fire” contains some inaccurate and outdated information. I would like to ask you to consider my proposal on why the section should be amended. In my earlier post, I provided sources and rationale for all of my suggestions.

Please consider my submission as soon as possible.

Please also note that I am an employee of Whirlpool Corporation and intend to help ensure the Wikipedia community has access to up-to-date and correct information regarding Whirlpool Corporation.

I do not intend to edit any sections myself, but rather want to point out some inaccuracies so that they can be reviewed and amended as appropriate by the Wikipedia community. I hope you find this helpful. For more information, please refer to my user page.

Kind regards, Ian_Peterborough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Peterborough (talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP has a number of issues, the most glaring being the clear bias in the language of the lede. A handful of editors who do little to hide their personal disliking of the article's subject have insisted on using loaded words such as "conjecture" to describe his ideas, and have repeatedly tried to quiet discussion on the matter of neutrality by removing the NPOV dispute notice from the article. They have also reverted edits that attempt to add more biographical information to the lede, summarizing the course of the subject's career as a mainstream scientist and as an author and parapsychology researched outside of the scientific mainstream. Even an edit which changed to phrasing of "New Age movement" to "New Age circles" was reverted, despite the fact that the New Age article itself states very clearly that there is no scholarly consensus that there is any such movement at all, rather than simply a cultural milieu. Likewise, an edit which quotes the source stating Sheldrake's lack of alignment with some New Age interpretations of his ideas was reverted, leaving the impression that Sheldrake is in lockstep with New Age thinking as if it were a political movement.

I am not debating that Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance is considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience, nor have others I've seen object to the wording of the lede. It should be characterized as such, and is already well-sourced. What I am objecting to is the lede's singular focus on morphic resonance, and its repetitive, editorialized treatment of the subject. The article is about the individual, not simply morphic resonance. As such, it is reasonable to summarize his life in more detail. Likewise, it is perfectly legitimate to clearly state the rejection of morphic resonance by the scientific community and the reasons for it without using contentious language to do so. Certainly, discussion of the neutrality of the article should be allowed to carry on until their is consensus. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Diffs summarized below:

• third removal of NPOV discussion notice
• second removal of NPOV discussion notice
• first removal of NPOV discussion notice
• reversion of edits adding more biographical information and using more neutral language to discuss scientific community's rejection of morphic resonance
• later reversion of more modest edits, which simply made the language more neutral by replacing "conjecture," changing "New Age movement" to "New Age circles," and removing repetitive statement that morphic resonance lacks scientific acceptance

HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• There is no "issue" here. Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" is reckoned to be bollocks by the relevant professional community, and his epic butthurt over this has spilled over onto Wikipedia. He basically asserts that support from new-age hucksters like Deepak Chopra is equivalent to support from replication of experiments by the scientific community. He is wrong. He has been agitating about this for years, and has not become any less wrong over time. Describing "morphic resonance" in more flattering terms is not "more neutral"< it is a disservice to our readers, because it is bollocks. Sheldrake knows it is bollocks, because his steadfast adherence to his sill idea has caused him to be effectively sidelined by the scientific community. It's as scientific as homeopathy or creationism - two other areas where we get endless querulous demands to treat bollocks as fact in the name of "neutrality". Editors are, of course, allowed to dislike a wrong thing being portrayed as wrong, but they are not allowed to tag an article as non-neutral because the reality it reflects is not to their liking. The OP needs to apply the {{POV}} tag to the real world, not to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 06:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• (ec) This noticeboard doesn't work well with a generic complaint. It would be better to focus on one or two specific issues regarding actionable proposals to change text in the article, with reliable sources. Then ask whether the proposed text would be an improvement per WP:NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Johnuniq that there really is nothing here warranting a separate discussion on this "NPOV" thing, but I also agree with HappyWanderer15 that the lede of the article is terribly written, with unnecessary repetition of the (accurate) "pseudoscience" label on every mention of morphic resonance. But, Wanderer, you describe "conjecture" as a "loaded" expression: I can only guess you have no scientific training at all, and imagine this in a "popular" sense. In fact if anything the word is much too generous: a conjecture is normally a coherent, plausible claim, for which the evidence is not yet conclusive. Sheldrake's rambling is nothing like this. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the sampling of viewpoints available in WP:RS shows that the opinion of morphic resonance as pseudoscience is pretty common. The ratio is like 99:1. SO I think inclusion or repetition of these opinions in the lead is perfectly cromulent with WP:Policy.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTJOURNAL sums up well why I object to the use of the word "conjecture." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest the following wording for the lede. You make a valid point, Imaginatorium, that "conjecture" is not a loaded expression in scientific circles. But it's worth noting that Wikipedia is written for a general audience who can easily read it as loaded. It is for this reason that FRINGE articles, we don't say things like "Skeptics say. . ." or label individuals as "skeptics." There is nothing inherently pejorative about the word "skeptic," but it can be read as such by the general public. I wish I had more to say in response to Guy, but unfortunately his uncivil response fails to address any of the issues I raised.:

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,. He worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in India until 1978. During his time at Cambridge, Sheldrake and Philip Rubery developed the chemiosmotic hypothesis of polar auxin transport.^[1]

In his 1981 book A New Science of Life, Sheldrake proposed the idea of morphic resonance, which posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and that "natural systems... inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". He proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as precognition, telepathy and the psychic staring effect as well as idiosyncratic explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.

Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience.^[2]. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.

While morphic resonance lacks scientific acceptance, it has found support in New Age circles from individuals such as Deepak Chopra.^[3] Sheldrake's ideas regarding the philosophy of science, especially his critique of scientism, have been praised by Mary Midgely.^[4]

HappyWanderer15 (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Strong Disagree. Your version of the lead inflates proponents and supporters of Sheldrake like Midgely above and beyond the proportional existence of these proponents as represented in third-party WP:RS. It also inflates the positive aspects of Sheldrake's career in a similar manner. To change the lead to what you have shown above would be a massive POV violation and would merit a RfC, which I am pretty darn sure would oppose what you're proposing.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that show that he is not simply a crank who is universally reviled. He has his supporters in academia, if not in science. See the reference to Midgely above, as well as Martin Cohen here. "Rupert Sheldrake" is not synonymous with "morphic resonance." He has other ideas beyond it, which have been found relevant enough to be given a forum at universities, and which have received support from people outside of the New Age world. The current lede fails to recognize that. I'm happy to have a RfC on the matter. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what non-scientists think of his theories. What matters is what experts on those theories or in adjacent and relevant fields think. And those experts almost universally revile Sheldrake as a pseudoscientist. Would you have an expert on tomato biology be in the lead for a prominent physicist? No. Midgely and Cohen are not experts on science, they are critics of it wholesale. If you are interested in a RfC, I suggest you set one up. But I predict you'll likely be pretty unhappy with the outcome.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that philosophy of science is a very relevant field to the subject matter. Can you explain why you believe that it is not? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's relevant enough for inclusion in the article, but not relevant enough for inclusion in the lead. That's because these proponents you're citing are a drop of oil in the ocean. They represent fringe opinions themselves. Could you show me bona fide WP:RSes that say Midgely or Cohen represent a viewpoint held by many tens of thousands of biologists or even philosophers? Or that their opinions are echoed as majority viewpoints in their respective institutions or fields? Even in Philosophy of Science circles, these two are out-voted. They're viewed as fringe.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Just because Daniel Dennett calls someone "fringe" does not make it so. But taking what you are saying at face value, there can be no justification for including Deepak Chopra so prominently in the lead. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

you see, Daniel Dennett actually is a widely accepted expert on the philosophy of science. And his viewpoint is also in line with consensus. But to take your Chopra point, Chopra's opinions are repeated in many multiple WP:RS. And he is a well known and heavily described supporter of Sheldrake's. Chopra basically made his career. I don't think you're quite understanding what I mean when I say "proportional coverage." To only cover the negative aspects would also be disproportionate, so we have to include positive and negative treatments of Sheldrake in the ratio of their coverage in secondary and tertiary sources. And Chopra is cited incredibly often as a supporter of Sheldrake, so his opinion belongs in the lead. The coverage of his opinion so widely and frequently is what makes his opinion more necessary for inclusion in the lead than Cohen's or Midgeley's. They are way way way less notable than Chopra. Deepak Chopra is basically a household name.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The main problem with that is that Chopra is a well-documented proponent of bullshit. His sciencey-sounding waffle is best summed up in the legendary question from Mlodinow: I know what each of those words means, but I still don't think I understand what you mean. Sure, we can say that Chopra supports Sheldrake, as long as we do it by reference to reality-based sources that give the context that Chopra has no actual clue about the science. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

First this is not the venue to propose a change in the lede. Second, no. Sheldrake is known primarily for his morphic resonance bollocks. As a scientist, he is not notable at all. Your proposed lede presents him as a substantial authority with a minor weakness for a silly idea. In fact, he is someone with a major weakness for a silly idea whose silliness was taken slightly more seriously than it might have been because he wasn't an obvious idiot. He would not meet WP:GNG other than for the commentary around morphic resonance. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but we are supposed to treat readers as adults. Anyone with the tiniest experience of woo can tell what is going on from the first assertion: he is a researcher in parapsychology. You or I might prefer "researcher" in quotes, but it is not important. It is, however, important to note that Sheldrake is not a "Youtuber" type, hypothesizing on the basis of an armchair course in reading the Daily Mail, but is someone who started with a respectable, if not particularly distinguished career in science. Anyway, I agree that this is not the place to discuss the text, so let's do it on the talk page. I think Wanderer's start above is quite reasonable. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This suggestion for the lead seems reasonable to me, thanks. It allows the reader to make up their own mind about the subject based on scientific evidence, rather than pushing the editor/s personal POV on the subject and repeatedly slam-dunking Sheldrake. The current use of the word "conjecture" appears to be in the editor's own voice (if you substitute the word "woo", to give "who proposed the concept of morphic resonance, woo which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.", then that is more apparent). Conjecture, in common or legal usage is synonymous with "mere conjecture" and can be seen as being dismissive. Noun: "A hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)". Verb: "To believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds". That may be true, but it needs to be the scientists and not the editors stating such a view. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 12:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "bollocks" (see above), when you edit on wiki, you need to take off your own hat and don your wiki hat. Esowteric+Talk 12:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it! Looks like I'm outvoted here. I bow to the new religion. Esowteric+Talk 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I commented out the broken references because all those ugly red error messages made the page unreadable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears there are SOAP and POV problems with giving his books so very much weight. The article should be about the person. A section on his ideas, drawing strongly on what he expresses in his books, would be an appropriate substitute. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I have no problem with that, as long as the books are discussed in reliable independent secondary sources (i.e. professional reviews). Guy (Help!) 11:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ... and as long as such substantial edits do not skew the article in the opposite direction, toward evangelical scientism. Esowteric+Talk 11:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Scientism is a word used almost exclusively by cranks trying to establish that bullshit has equal standing with science. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Even mild familiarity with philosophy of science, or a cursory glance at the article, show your claim that it is used "almost exclusively by cranks" is, to use your word, bullshit. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh spare me the argumentum ad Kuhniam. You know what I mean. Google scientism and you see a flood of woo-mongers looking to excuse away their pseudoscience. Yes it has a technical meaning, which is barely used in informal discourse. And its formal meaning - that science is the ultimate arbiter of fact - is in fact Wikipedia policy where objectively testable claims are involved. See WP:CHARLATANS. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a redlink. Did you mean your essay WP:Lunatic charlatans? Esowteric+Talk 15:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

With respect, if we applied your essay to another field of expertise, isn't the "TL;DR" of what you suggest akin to saying "As a political scientist and ultimate arbiter of fact, I treat libtards with the utmost fairness, integrity and objectivity"? Is it a case of "all is fair in love and war"? Whilst I very much appreciate the utility and need for healthy skepticism, I (personally) have qualms about the glorification and militarization of systemic bias on either side, (and I say that having worked in minor roles in physics, electronics and computing, not as a "woo-monger"). Esowteric+Talk 11:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No, because (a) political science isn't science and (b) "libtard" is a meaningless pejorative that boils down to "person whose ideas I cannot refute so I will throw an insult instead", whereas pseudoscience has a precise technical definition. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Not sure how the deletion of the interview on BBC Radio 3 comes under "rm primary and fringe sources", however, though granted this was in External links and not in an Interviews section. This is like a slow, painful Death by a Thousand Cuts. Esowteric+Talk 14:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Clearly the BBC is not a primary or fringe source. There is a clear effort here to only allow sources with a particular ideological bent, with opinion pieces like this being cited in the lede. User:JzG has shown himself to be far from impartial in his assessment of sources in his many angry tirades against the subject of the article. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

      Impartiality is not as relevant or important as competence (see WP:CIR), with which it is negatively correlated in cases of fringe science. And "scientism" is not much more than a buzzword employed by anti-science activists. Please refrain from using reasoning that essentially burns down to the dogmatic "editors have to think like me!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

    • An interview is a primary source. Anything where Sheldrake gives his opinions without the censor of third party commentary is also, by definition, fringe. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @HappyWanderer15:@Esowteric: Listen, until you set up a RfC, there is no utility in discussing any of this with either of you. You think this is a tirade against your POV, I and several other editors strongly disagree. I have no interest in feeding trolls, and the longer you go without doing the things any good faith editor would do, the harder it becomes to believe you have the best interests of the project at heart.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this is HappyWanderer15's baby and it's up to them; I've said my bit about NPOV (not only in action but in professional attitude) and appreciate all your responses. Esowteric+Talk 17:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rent regulation#RfC about describing extent of disagreement There is an RFC discussing how to describe economists' opinions on the effectiveness of rent control policies. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Former Greenpeace president and current industry lobbyist Patrick Moore's Wikipedia article is titled "Patrick Moore (environmentalist)". Looking at the talk page there, this page could use more eyes, particularly given recent coverage from entities like Fox News (title: "Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit’"), and because Moore or someone connected to him has been active on the article, no doubt influencing the article's current title. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Patrick Moore (environmentalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The FoxNews ref looks extremely poor and probably should not be used at all.

The title appears a POV and NOT violation. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Titles generally apply to what a person is, not what they were (unless dead). Its a very hard argument to state that Moore is an enviromentalist *now* given he disagrees with pretty much every environmentalist position. It would be like Donald Trump declaring he was a socialist. Is there a disambiguator that reflects his more recent work? Lobbyist? Paid Speaker? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Why not simply use his middle name (or initial) as a disabiguator? Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I vaguely recall there is some MOS issue about that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I would just do that. Even if the general practice were to not do that, in this case the problems with the potential qualifiers make it reasonable to make an exception. It's not wrong to use a middle name or initial he actually has and at least sometimes uses. -sche (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Would activist work?--2600:1702:280:ECE0:C136:9C13:1EA8:6FF3 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The Honda Ridgeline article is extremely detailed, and much of that detail is cited to self-published sources such as press releases (hondanews.com), brochures and owners manuals. For example, the equipment list includes such run-of-the-mill items such as power door locks, airbags, cupholders and sun visors, and attempts to trim the list are always reverted. Editors have repeatedly brought up these issues on the talk page and some of the more egregious sources such as owner forums have been removed, however the primary author of the article continues to add excessively-detailed descriptions sourced to the manufacturer. The article could use some more eyes to ensure that we are presenting a well-balanced, independent view of the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 23:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeaaah, just glancing over the article and its references section, the number of citations to primary sources (and some sources which seem to be simply quoting primary sources) is astonishing. The level of detail, including in the lead, seems so excessive as to merit tagging it as an Template:Advert. -sche (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the excessive detail belongs somewhere else other than an encyclopaedia entry. Off the top of my head, I can think of no other automotive article that goes into this detail. I'm not saying that the content is not of value, but I don't believe it is suitable here. Shritwod (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a dispute at Talk:Morrison Academy#"Creation science" about two issues of neutrality and/or undue weight. There are few secondary sources reporting on the Academy; the only ones I found (and the only ones cited in the article) are bland directory entries and some sports journalism. The questions thus are how much use of primary sources should be made regarding various topics.

1. There is currently a "LGBT and Marriage" section in the article. The sources are an ex-employee's opinion piece published in Sojourners and the school's board policies. To my knowledge, no secondary source has commented on this issue or reported on the ex-employee's criticism. Is it appropriate to have this section (or just the content, without a dedicated section heading) in light of such sources, or does this assign too much weight to the issue?
2. How much and what use should be made of primary sources regarding the school's curriculum? The sources currently used are the school's various curriculum guides and the school's website. To my knowledge, no secondary source has discussed the curriculum in general nor the level of religion put in other subjects such as science in particular.

The discussion on the talk page is long, and it seems unlikely that the editors involved can reach a consensus there. I'm bringing it here for wider community input. Huon (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"How much and what use should be made of primary sources regarding the school's curriculum?" While Wikipedia does use primary sources, they can't really be used for in-depth coverage. The relevant policy is in Wikipedia:No original research.:

• "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."
  • "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
  • "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
  • "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people;" Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This is more a question seeking guidance after an anonymous user made an edit to the La Luz del Mundo church article. The now deceased church leader was publicly accused of sexual abuse in Mexican media, where the church is based. The accusations were made after the statute of limitations had passed, so obviously they were never proven. How do you abide by the innocent until proven guilty principle without undermining possibly credible sexual abuse victims? BadHombres (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Same way we do everything else: Describe what sources say, without editorializing, and in proportion to their significance. Wikipedia should never say "false allegations" unless reliable sources are concluding these are false allegations. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not prevent us from documenting the allegations, if they are both significant and levied against a notable person or organization. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Please lend a hand verifying contribs from

• 51.7.13.118
• 51.7.20.203
• 51.7.53.5

The sample about green politics is this diff here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

He's been doing this for longer than that. I mean, fundamentally I don't think anything this IP adds can be trusted - he is editing with an agenda, and doesn't seem to have any real interest in learning what a reliable source is. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The contribs search above is for Feb 1 2019 and later. Are you saying they have been around longer than that? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you know, not as long as I thought I had seen the first time. 51.7.116.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also them, I think. I tried looking further but this is a very busy range. Okay, so never mind that part about how long. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Pretty clearly the same person. I've also run into them. Add 146.66.53.167] to the list. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I've been working with Move to suggest improvements and updates to the Move (company) and Realtor.com articles. I've disclosed my conflict of interest on both talk pages, and any requests I've made have been reviewed by uninvolved editors.

Recently, an anonymous editor added a "Social Media Concerns" section to the article. I've posted a request on the article's talk page outlining how this specific detail is being given a lot of weight, compared to the reporting. Sourcing actually focuses on how Facebook collects data from third-party apps, and discusses multiple other apps. I've proposed removing the addition, or at least eliminating the section heading and incorporating text into the article's "History" section. User:SMcCandlish, who has helped with some previous edit requests for the article, suggested I post here to get additional feedback regarding WP:UNDUE.

Can any editors here help determine whether the added content should be kept, removed, or move into the article's "History" section by reviewing sourcing and contributing to the talk page discussion? I don't edit articles directly because of my conflict of interest and I am asking other editors to update the article on my behalf and on behalf of Realtor.com. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

My own vague feeling on this is that having an entire section about it is undue, but totally suppressing mention of this would likely be inappropriate too (though other products/services covered in that same WSJ piece should get equal treatment; the Realtor.com app shouldn't be singled out on WP about it). That said, I spend very little time in corporate product/service articles, so I'm not sure of my drawing of lines in this topic space.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Detransition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mooeena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is openly gender essentialist on their user page. User added NPOV tag to Detransition article, and in its talk page immediately (offensively) denied existence of detrans community, made false and exaggerated claims against the article's content and sources (nowhere has Tumblr ever been cited), and made false claims against other editors. This appears to be a case of inappropriately and incorrectly seeing the detrans community as a threat to trans politics (anti-detrans bias, or detransphobia). It's requested that the user stop attacking other editors, to take a NPOV regarding this article's content, or to stop disrupting the editing process on this article, please. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Detransition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BirrungPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On talk page here, user likens detransition to conversion therapy, and claims it "undermines a foundational LGBTIQ narrative". When asked for clarification in subsequent diff, user offers no denial of bias or ill intention. We're not here to pit trans against detrans (or anyone against anyone). Detrans folk exist and have social, legal, and medical needs regardless of (separate from) others' rights. This is outrageously offensive and detransphobic. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Person clearly showed up to the talkpage just to flamebait. Wikipedia has no use for editors that act that way.★Trekker (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Forbes recently published an article about the possibility of an attack to the power grid for political purposes. I have tried to add this reference and sourced statement to the article, and I have been reverted twice.[35][36] I don't want to get involved in an edit war. I have been reverted by the same user (User:Jamez42) in other Venezuelan articles, and his/her behaviour is deleting my sourced content. emijrp (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I explained in my edit summaries as well as in the talk page the policies the changes were based in, and I asked twice [37][38] to discuss these changes or to provide reasons countering the reasons. Instead, @Emijrp: has opened this report. Pinging @SandyGeorgia:, who can also provide more insight. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

After this report was opened, the redirects 2019 Venezuelan power grid attack and 2019 Venezuelan power grid sabotage were created. Since the names are unsources and NPOV, they should be deleted. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Why would we cite someone's blog for what is just idle speculation? So it's hosted on Forbes, big whoop. Not a reliable source. And if this were reliable under SPS, it would be attributed to Kalev Leetaru, not Forbes. And while it's hard to pin down exactly what Leetaru is an expert in, "electrical infrastructure" would seem to be outside of that. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• There are multiple problems beyond this one incident. My feedback and suggestion is on Emijrp's talk page, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• No progress: deletion of text sourced to The Guardian, and talk discussion declined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The article Lynching of Shedrick Thompson, which I wrote, has been tagged by @Qwirkle: as non-neutral and of questionable accuracy. I believe both tags are unjustified and want them removed. I first brought this up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson and was referred to this Noticeboard as more appropriate. I have notified Qwirkle of the discussion here.

The issue is that the 1932 coroner's report and grand jury stated this was a suicide, not a lynching. Qwirkle maintains that to call this a lynching is not neutral and of questionable accuracy, since "the jury is still out". There is discussion at Talk:lynching of Shedrick Thompson and at the noticeboard just cited. i My position, as stated above, is that:

• There is a 2016 book from a reputable publisher, The Last Lynching in Northern Virginia, which Qwirkle has not read, which was written precisely to make the case that this was in fact a lynching, and that calling it a suicide "made no sense", in the author's words. Furthermore, the book discusses in detail the political pressures placed on the local authorities by former Virginia Governor and U.S. presidential candidate Henry Byrd, one of whose main claims was that he had (through legislation he sponsored) eliminated lynchings in Virginia. This book has been well received and the author has given numerous talks on the matter at local historical societies and similar groups.
• An hour-long 2018 documentary, which to my knowledge Qwirkle has not seen, makes the same case, that it was a lynching. While none of the principals are alive, the film interviews their descendants.
• The National Lynching Museum accepts that it was in fact a lynching and includes it in its exhibits.
• No one since the 1930s has said it was a suicide.

Given the above, I do not understand, nor has Qwirkle explained, why "the jury is still out" or why the article deserves these tags he has placed on it. If he will not accept the National Lynching Museum, a book, and a documentary as settling the question, I cannot understand his position, or what documentation he would conceivably accept as authoritative.

As said above, I would like those tags removed. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Arcadia Publishing. A “reputable publisher”. Does anyone need to hear anything else? Qwirkle (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Driveby opinion: National Lynching Museum sounds like it may be an expert opinion and I would be inclined to accept their judgement absent evidence to the contrary. Does Qwirkle present any evidence other than the coroner's report? Given Virginia history I do not believe it is unreasonable to discount this suicide verdict. Clearly, it needs to be mentioned of course, but other historic evidence needs to be given due weight. I am an uninvolved editor who knows nothing of the specifics so I reserve the right to revise this opinion as more facts come to light, but that is my initial reaction. Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Elinruby. -sche (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Which is to say you agree with a “driveby opinion” based on the sound of a sources name. Qwirkle (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Arcadia Publishing shouldn't be considered reputable. Reviews of their books that I found didn't indicate any glaring issues. They focus on local topics, and their books are image-heavy, but neither indicates disrepute. The specific book in question comes with a foreword by a professor of history at the University of Mary Washington. Racial Terror: Lynching in Virginia, 1877-1927 accepts the book author's research. So if there's a reason why Arcadia should be dismissed, I'd like more of an explanation than a wikilink. Huon (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This publisher primarily publishes history books and folklore collections, with an emphasis on regional history. In their own words: "For over 20 years Arcadia Publishing has reconnected people to their community, their neighbors, and their past by offering a curbside view of hometown history and often forgotten aspects of American life. Composed in a unique pictorial format with over two hundred vintage images and accompanying captions, Arcadia books animate the cherished memories, people, places, and events that define a community. From the iconic Images of America series and Images of Aviation series to Postcard Histories and so many more, these richly illustrated histories bring to life small town America." Dimadick (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Their central business is, essentially, coffeetable books for folks with very small coffeetables. “History” is often pushing it; “reminiscences” or “nostalgia” might better fit. They do print some other, less visual stuff, often under their History Press imprint. Some is good, excellent, even; some bad, execrable, even, but none of it sees rigorous pre-publication review. This isnt a reputable academic publisher; it isnt an academic publisher at all. Qwirkle (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"by former Virginia Governor and U.S. presidential candidate Henry Byrd" Henry Byrd was a blues singer from Louisiana. You have apparently confused him with Harry F. Byrd, the segragationist Senator from Virginia. His first name actually was "Harry". Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it's correct in the article. deisenbe (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If there are no modern sources disputing that it was a lynching (i.e. the only people. saying it wasn't are racist white Virginians from 90 years ago) I see no reason to question the modern historical interpretation. We are not required to give equal validity to the conclusions of a Jim Crow-era all-white jury and modern historical scholarship. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Which is another way to say you haven’t read much of the book, or even the Wiki article. Anti-lynching groups then were divided whether it was, in fact a lynching, whether it was a racist action, and whether, if it was both, it should be focused on. Qwirkle (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide documentation for your statement, "Anti-lynching groups then were divided whether it was, in fact a lynching"? deisenbe (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean aside from the author of the book you claim to base this article on, on the first cite in your article, where he writes Many others suffered similar fates, but their deaths went unreported at the time, their names unmentioned in official tallies. Thompson is sometimes included in this group–a hairline case, as the NAACP said. But he does not belong there.? Qwirkle (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Going twice, @Deisenbe:.

While we are at it, here is the principal source’s take on his own book With this new freedom, I went back to my computer and recast the story. I tried to make it complete, but now I also wanted it to be definitive. I became a prosecutor, dispelling reasonable doubt and building the case for murder. Qwirkle (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m not going to edit the article while this discussion is going on, but someone today removed a lot of the documentation. On another point, the book was published by the History Press, not Arcadia, and it is not a picture book. You can preview it here: https://www.worldcat.org/title/last-lynching-in-northern-virginia-seeking-truth-at-rattlesnake-mountain/oclc/967392546/viewport deisenbe (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I read the article and I feel that Shedrick Thompson could have committed suicide and he could have been lynched. I see no reason to think one way or the other beyond the consideration that back then in those places men like him got lynched for a lot less. In reading the article, I felt both sides were represented appropriately so the the reader would make their own decision. The only thing I would change is the name. It should be The death of Shedrick Thompson, because Wikipedia does not know what happen. I would also reduce the number of external videos and put them in external links, making sure not to link to any copyright violations. I see someone has already removed the offending section. Saying some authority "knows" it was a lynching is a argument from authority that should not be applied here. If there is no physical evidence from the actual incident or a witness to the actual incident that makes it clear one way or the other, then anything anyone says about it is just an assumption. Maybe a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Without exception, all the descendants of the principals in the video who comment on it say it was lynching. They report on what was said by eyewitnesses to it. Neither the coroner nor the grand jury, so far as records indicate, talked to the eyewitnesses (who would not have wanted to be publicly interviewed). deisenbe (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I am incline to think it was a lynching. I just do not think it is clear enough to say that in Wikipedia's voice. Descendants saying it was a lynching makes me a bit more inclined, but it is not enough for Wikipedia's voice. What would be enough? If it was revealed in an official report that the sheriff found rope on the ground that looked like it had tied his hands nearby the body or some other evidence got suppressed and was later relieved by some officer who was there who wanted to get the truth out before he died, I would say perhaps we should say it in Wikipedia's voice, but still perhaps not. It depends on who reviled the evidence and who denied it. What would really be convincing would be a Federal investigation to discover the truth, but I do not know why there would be one now. Anyone who lied about it is dead by now. Maybe the descendants could sue the state and then the evidence could be hashed out in a courtroom. If it was a suicide there would be no witnesses. Anyone who found the body after the suicide might assume it was a lynching and would not report it for fear they would be accused of participating in the supposed lynching. Maybe that is why the body was so decomposed when it was officially "found" despite a supposed large number of people combing the woods looking for this guy. I realize suicide is not likely (why did he have a rope with him?), but it is just likely enough that we should leave it open. Change the name of the article and remove the tags. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with Richard-of-Earth on this, as there's going to be no way to determine who was right, even though I personally would be sympathatic to the only rational cause being lynching. Calling the article "Death of Shedrick Thompson" would remain neutral to the point without taking either side, even if we think one side is incorrect. Even recent articles covering the book's release in 2017 still use "iffy" language to what happened. --Masem (t) 17:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. On the one hand, you have a 80-year-old verdict from state and local officials who, in a time of deeply institutionalized racism, had a vested interest in making sure that this death was not classified as a lynching. On the other hand, you have modern investigative reporting which strongly supports the idea that this death was a lynching. To pretend that those are two equally valid encyclopedic perspectives is just silly, and wrong. It's even more absurd to pretend that a deeply researched book on the lynching is somehow an invalid source, while simultaneously maintaining that a coroner's report from the early 1930's is highly reliable. This is a well-written article; it makes use of the best available sources, which are necessarily limited because of the relative obscurity of the subject; and it presents them using proper weighting and neutrality. I don't see a justification for the tagging, which seems unconstructive at best. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

To stress, I'm not saying the book was saying that, it was news sources talking about the book that still spoke of the situation in a non-absolute "it was a lynching". We are never going to know the absolute true, outside that when they found his body, he was dead. So "Death" is 100% neutral. Now, the content of the article can certain weigh a lot more on that calling it a suicide was likely masking a lynching, etc, but we cannot say in a WP factual voice that it was a lynching. --Masem (t) 18:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

While I'm holding off on making edits until this discussion is concluded, others are not, so comments above may not be on exactly the same content. There were 11 edits on May 12, for example, 6 of them by Qwirkle. deisenbe (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the real kicker is this comment by Qwirkle--"The museum has a rather obvious axe to grind". They're talking about the Equal Justice Initiative, which operates The National Memorial for Peace and Justice. They have an axe to grind? I don't even want to spell out the rather sick set of assumptions that I suspect underlie that comment; it smacks of Holocaust industry. I have not yet read any criticism of the EJI's investigations or of their methods; perhaps Qwirkle can point us to some peer-reviewed studies that indicate the EJI hasn't done their homework, or that they got it wrong in this case. Masem, we can't really even say in Wikipedia's voice that the sky is blue, but the only evidence that I see that points to it NOT being a lynching is a set of doubtful statements by some deeply implicated state and local officials. I don't know how much you know about lynchings in America, but that's a usual pattern (Devil in the Grove makes for good reading). And then we have Qwirkle, who casts doubt on the author, on the publisher, on the EJI. So, no, I think the tag is unjustified and disruptive. And to top it all off, there was this, pretty much the essence of whitewashing. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course they do. If you have a geographic display, you tend to fill it. That’s the organizational trend, and that’s true regardless of the merits of the cause. If you have a situation presented to you without obvious issues, some organizations will add it almost reflexively. Whether that is the case for the EJI, I don’t know, because they do not make their reasons for inclusion readily available.

Perhaps Drmies could show some scholarship, or even some further explanation at all why The EJI added this name. Jim Hall has claimed that they did so based on his research. If that’s so, then they didn’t even spell the victims name right, and we have little reason to doubt Mr. Hall, who appears to like putting his cards on the table.

I can’t help whatever “Sick assumptions” your mind inclines itself toward, but really, you shouldn’t try to make your case by inuendo, hiding, as usual, behind your ability to block someone who says anything you dislike.

Finally, I dont think wikiteurs should heavy-handedly emphasis this was a race-driven thing by identifying the races of those involved in the manner Masem did. That’s nothing to do with the facts, but with a ham-handed presentation of them. Do you really think that was good writing?Qwirkle (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

On identifying the races of those involved, it seems rather obvious that at the time in the US history, racial tension in southern states were high, and the reason VA passed its anti-lynching law was to try to stop lynching of African Ameicans by whites. Lynching at that time was principally a race-based crime. Prior to what I added, the only indication directly that race was involved was the mentioned of Thompson serving in the 'colored' troops. Adding the race makings it pretty clear why this was likely a lynching from more recent sources. --Masem (t) 23:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

First, I didn’t comment comment above on your message, but its delivery, and you need to address that, (or not, as you see fit), but restating why you did it seems pointless. Perhaps the average reader could have missed the implications of the very word “lynching” in that time and place, the word “colored”, the references to the NAACP, the Chicago Defender, the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, or the word “negro” describing Thompson; I’d like to think the average reader is smart enough to pick up on that. Either way, though, I think your edit was ham-handed, if nothing else because “caucasian” for “white” is dated and much less common in many English variants. Qwirkle (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I used "African-American" for Thomspon so it did not seem right to use only "white" for those he killed, to keep on equal footing both ways. --Masem (t) 00:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems more a case for first using “black”, at least for euphony. Qwirkle (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I still think WP should be taking the middle-ground/conservative view here. Elsewhere, we have plenty of scientific theories that pretty much are treated as fact by researchers/etc. We don't call out these theories as thuthisms, but still as theories, since we don't have a conclusive set of facts to prove them right or wrong. Same concept here: barring a time machine, we are never going to know what happened to Thompson between his fleeing and his body being found. We can say that the principle belief is that it is a lynching, and that's certainly a conclusion that even Occum's Razor would tell us is the most likely case, but we cannot factually prove that. As such I think we should be careful in only the title of the article to say "Death of Shedrick Thompson". After that, the content is fair game to present the lynching hypothesis as per UNDUE, as long as we don't factually state "he was lynched". --Masem (t) 22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson#Disruptive editing by Qwirkle deisenbe (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was recently fully protected because of POV pushing an edit warring. The fight continues in the form of edit requests on the talk page. I am completely ignorant about anything having to do with the military of Pakistan and India other than hoping that they don't nuke each other, so I would really appreciate it if someone else would look at the page and evaluate the edit requests. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the SYZYGY study measuring the narcissism of millennials significant enough to belong in the Millennials article? The study was described in a story in The Des Moines Register by intern Molly Longman. SYZYGY uses the uncommon millennial date rage of 1981 to 1998 to define this cohort.

The reliability of the SYZYGY source was discussed here on the millennials talk page, and on the RS Noticeboard here.

I propose removing the following text from WP Millennials:

SYZYGY, a digital service agency partially owned by WPP, uses 1981–1998.

A 2016 study by SYZYGY, a digital service agency, found millennials in the U.S. continue to exhibit elevated scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory as they age, finding millennials exhibited 16% more narcissism than older adults, with males scoring higher on average than females. The study examined two types of narcissism: grandiose narcissism, described as "the narcissism of extraverts, characterized by attention-seeking behavior, power and dominance", and vulnerable narcissism, described as "the narcissism of introverts, characterized by an acute sense of self-entitlement and defensiveness."

I propose using the story "Millennials are narcissistic? The evidence is not so simple" from the BBC to replace this information. This story also discusses the “Narcissistic Personality Inventory” which was used by SYZYGY, but instead it quotes Psychologist Jean Twenge, author of the book Generation Me, who is the "most vocal proponent of the view that young people today are more narcissistic and self-centred than in previous generations". Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Syzygy appears to be a run-of-the-mill information technology consulting company, and their analysis is not authoritative. The BBC (RSP entry) story featuring Jean Twenge is a much better source for this information. ​— Newslinger talk 03:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  While I maintain that the BBC story is a better source than Syzygy, Someguy1221's argument (below) that neither source constitutes due weight is compelling. Academic sources are preferred for scientific claims. — Newslinger talk 08:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I propose using neither Syzygy nor the BBC. The Syzygy study was not published in an actual scientific journal, and media coverage doesn't confer reliability in the field of psychology. In fact, the Syzygy study is incapable of actually proving the headline conclusion, as there is no way for them to disentangle generational effects from age effects. The right way to make this argument can be seen here. As well, care needs to be taken answering the question, "more narcissistic than whom?" That paper mentions an alternative model that, rather than narcissism increasing over time, narcissism peaked with the boomers, crashed, and is now returning to an intermediate value. As that paper mentions, it's not trivial to do a fair comparison past a certain point in time, which may prohibit a firm conclusion on that (the NPI was only published in 1979, after all). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The BBC story discusses the actual published studies, wouldn't that make it due weight? I don't think the journalist themself makes any assertions other than that the issue is "not so simple". I would think it makes sense to cite what the article writes about Jean Twenge, Jeffrey Arnett and Brent Roberts, and their respective studies and opinions. Also, do you agree that the 1981 to 1998 birth range for millennials should be removed? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, did you have any more thoughts? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

​I think you would have to find the actual study and cite that instead of the BBC story for it to count as an academic source. Yes, I do think the 1981 to 1998 range should be removed. — Newslinger talk 22:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

While reasonably sourced, the article on Abiy Ahmed has clear neutrality issues, particularly in the critics section. However, I do not have enough familiarity with the subject to fix it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugpug (talk • contribs) 10:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I suspect that people close to Ali Bin Fetais Al-Marri, Attorney General of Qatar and United Nations “Special Advocate for the Prevention of Corruption", have tried to remove critical but true information from his Wikipedia page.

I have talked about it in detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ali_Bin_Fetais_Al-Marri#Censorship_and_hidden_conflicts_of_interests

Critical elements come from mainstream media, especially in France and Switzerland, and clearly appear to be in the public interest.

Please have a look.

Thank you,

Freewheel56 (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like additional editors to review Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Renamed Critics section to Criticism and the RFC and discussions therein, please. The article only relates the point of view of the advocates, and attempts to balance those views with contradictory reliable sources are being called original research because the sources do not refer to the theory. Most of our articles on conspiracy theories have counter-point which does not explicitly refer to the conspiracy theories. EllenCT (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @EllenCT: I am surprised to find myself disagreeing with you, but in this case I do, and I think that the comments you've received at the RfC are correct: what you've done is original research. I do understand (I think) what you're trying to do in those sections, but even if you're right in providing an alternative explanation for the phenomenon of decreased fertility, your addition looks like textbook OR. -Darouet (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet: honestly I do not understand. WP:OR defines it as statements which aren't supported by reliable published sources. Which statements do you think weren't? EllenCT (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your statements are supported by reliable sources, but they are not about the white genocide theory. So the commentary you've provided is correspondingly not shown to be one that exists in reliable sources while they address this topic. -Darouet (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I sympathize – but it does appear like OR and a bridge too far. I’d drop it. O3000 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Following a request at RFPP, I semi-protected this page to stem an edit-war. But can editors familiar with the wikipedia policies or MOS recommendations regarding pro-choice/pro-abortion terminology weigh in the the substance of the dispute? Abecedare (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Onel5969, Neateditor123, and J.S. Clingman: Abecedare (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Good god the sources for that article have a... well, a consistent bias, let's say. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeaaah. I removed one of the most egregious, the Daily Caller, which was deprecated per WP:RSPS. -sche (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I still think that "pro-choice" is the best term, but I guess "abortion rights advocates" is acceptable enough. Oh, and about the sources for the that particular article being "biased"... well, I do have to admit a lot of them were more right-leaning than not. At least they seem to be more neutralized now. Neateditor123 (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

Hello, Fellow Wikipedians. About the wording: I thought that "pro-abortion" described those who call themselves "pro-choice" best, because it seemed to me that it was the most neutral term for the group, although now that I think about it, "pro-choice" probably would work fine. EomereofRohan (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think very, very few people consider themselves "pro-abortion". Just because you support someone else's right to do something doesn't mean that you support the action itself. Some polls back this up, where a high percentage of people agree with the statement "abortion is murder" and also believe that abortion should be legal. One could hardly call those people "pro-abortion", since they clearly show a very strong distaste towards it. I think calling the sides "supporters/opponents of abortion rights" is the most neutral way to discuss the issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

the Venezuela article describes reclaimed food waste as garbage. I believe this to be POV pushing. The international political situation in Venezuela is currently volatile and so the article is locked so i cannot mark the relevant section with a POV tag. I believe the labelling of reclaimed food waste as garbage to be politically motivated in order to further inflame the situation.

Australia is one of the most highly ranked countries in the world for standard of living on the OECD rankings^[1] yet Woolworths has donated an average of a million kilograms of 'food waste' a year for distribution by charities.^[2] a report from the Australian Government stated, "Food rescue organisations contribute to reducing wasted food that is suitable for human consumption. In rescuing food that would otherwise be thrown away, these organisations provide those in need with a meal, partly addressing food insecurity. A range of people access food relief in Australia. The number of people receiving food relief is high. One food relief organisation reports that each month 652,000 Australians receive food relief, with over 27 per cent of these being children."^[3] It can thus be concluded that food deemed suitable for human consumption remains food and not garbage. the USDA further explained the reasoning behind the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and encourages the distribution and consumption of "food waste","Donations of non-perishable and unspoiled perishable food from homes and businesses help stock the shelves at food banks, soup kitchens, pantries, and shelters. Donations of perishable prepared foods, typically collected from restaurants, caterers, corporate dining rooms, hotels, and other food establishments, also play an important role in feeding families in need..." ^[4] yet nobody is claiming that there is a humanitarian crisis requiring immediate military intervention in the U.S.A. or Australia because their citizens are forced to eat garbage.

Thusly, I argue that editors should refrain from using inflammatory language such as describing reclaimed food suitable for human consumption as garbage as it violates wiki policy by distorting the information at hand and POV pushing. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that wording here means the noun form of "garbage", being trash, disposed-of food, etc. that has ended up in trans bins, waste dumps, etc, as opposed to "bad tasting food" eg "this food is garbage". A spot check of sources shows clear patterns that many VZians are forced to turn to trash dumps and the like to find food, and so while that certainly would meet a broad definition of "reclaimed food waste", it still is from garbage piles. I do not see anything with VZ that is comparable to the reclaimed food programs in Australia. --Masem (t) 01:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

from the Venezuela article, "...resorting to eating wild fruit or garbage..." I believe they are using it in the noun form.

the exact wording used in the poll is, "mediante residuos de comida que desechados por establecimiento commerciales".^[5] chile uses the same terminology in spanish to refer to food waste fit for human consumption. they are drafting laws to forbid companies from throwing away food waste fit for human consumption.^[6] I can get you a stock picture of my hands in a trash bag for you to look at with the australian reports if that makes them easier to compare. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The only time garbage is mentioned in the article is when referring to people literally eating directly out of garbage bags, not referring to food donations. There's no "political inflammation" or "distorting information", just recording exactly what reliable sources are saying. 199.247.42.202 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, there are specific new stories that cite Maduro evicting journalists from Venezuela for showing him footages of people rummaging through garbage bins to find food.^[7][8][9]. While these are not representative of the reality there - except if a study is conducted and statistics are provided - I believe that the garbage story is one of the aspects that describe the crisis by late 2016 onwards, which was the context of the term's usage. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This section of the article states the fact that Cory Booker is being criticised for the "meat issue". When I recently tried to state Cory Booker's response (for the sake of neutrality), it got reverted. I don't want this section of the article to be biased, please help. By the way, some editor added a "non-primary source needed" tag at the end of the quote. Thanks for attention Ribenderen (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Booker says that planet Earth cannot sustain First World meat-eating habits as prosperity spreads worldwide, and has drawn criticism. He responds to the criticism,

We are a part of this take-down culture where people are trying to twist your words. I think that whatever you eat is a very personal decision and everybody should eat what they want to eat. That is America. That is what we believe in freedom. Here is - live free or die. The last thing we want is - government telling us what to eat. The reality is, I do have a problem. Like, farmers have a problem. Like, cattle ranches have a problem with these massive corporate companies. Many of them Chinese-owned like the Smithfield company. They are coming in here polluting our water and creating unsustainable practices. You can raise cows and pigs like we used to in our heritage in our country without doing the things these big corporate conglomerate farms are doing. So, I have no problem with what Americans eat and the decisions we make. But, whether it is farming, whether it is drilling for natural resources, all these should be done in a way that affirms our environment that sustainable.^{[non-primary source needed]}

Ribenderen is a sockpuppet. Pay this no mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I am trying to help, not hurt. Ribenderen (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ribenderen has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Suggest closure. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Jexodus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 97.118.129.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.218.98.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 97.118.143.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Two or more Denver IPs are making similar non-neutral edits here [39] and removing neutrality tags [40]. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This is because there appear to be pro-jexodus editors attempting to censor the page. Wikipedia is not censored. 97.118.129.179 (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Not censored" simply means content is not removed for the crime of being offensive. It still has to be actually relevant to the article subject to be included. The bulk of that paragraph is just a coat rack for talking about the people involved. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Literally everything in the article is in the sources cited in relation to the topic. Please read the sources before making grand declarations and the POV of the article. The very least I am asking is that you read the sources being cited. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That is demonstrably false. I did read the sources. Many of them are about the people in the article and do not mention Jexodus. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Which sources are you specifically referring to? 97.118.143.21 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The worst offenders are the Jezebel and NYPost articles, used to support about half the content of the "Trump" section. That section also cites a primary source. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Also it appears as if the photo in question was removed due to users percieving it as being offensive. If WP:NOTCENSORED holds true then you can’t remove the photo because it offends you. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't find an example of someone finding this offensive. "Inappropriate" means it's not appropriate for the page, not that people are offended by it. --Kbabej (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

What about it is inappropriate? 97.118.143.21 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the tag removal is still ongoing [41] (a new Denver IP) ☆ Bri (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Somebody accused me of promoting Stormfront by adding material from reliable sources that are critical of Jexodus. Also, all material, also all from reliable sources, connecting Trump to Jexodus, and his past history praising anti-Semitic groups has been removed for some reason. I sense some pro-trump POV pushing going on here. How is The NY Times and Haaretz not reliable sources? 97.118.143.21 (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• This edit is definitely problematic. I don't know about the ones above, but if this area is going to generate this kind of editing it may be necessary to escalate this to one of the drama boards. Coretheapple (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• See also: *Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jexodus. – Athaenara ✉ 18:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

*Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Jexodus – Athaenara ✉ 10:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the user wallyfromdilbert has systematically scrubbed the pages of Debora Juarez and other Seattle City Councilmembers of any criticism. Many members of the Seattle City Council are extremely controversial, and criticism has been detailed in highly reputable outlets such as the Seattle Times and local TV/radio news outlets. Yet, anytime a user adds a criticism, wallyfromdilbert hits "undo" within hours or minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.192.63 (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You should try discussing with Wally, on either his own talkpage or the article talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not a viable solution when he violates 3RR over and over again.73.239.192.63 (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

How is that any different from what you are doing over and over again? You don't get extra points because you're adding and he's deleting. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

So, what’s the solution? Do nothing while somebody else gets to rewrite Wikipedia articles unchecked? 73.239.192.63 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Yes, this noticeboard is indeed a place to do that, but you wrote about another editor, not the content in dispute. If you want to continue here, describe that content, describe its sources, and explain your position on it. Linking to a diff of the content being added or removed can really help as well. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

New editor User:Rolling Phantom claims that if we don't change the article to fit his viewpoint, then that proves the feminazis are sabotaging the article. His best "source" is a thread from Quora. I've reverted twice, and templated him for NPOV violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have only this to say about my "wiewpoint" : https://www.google.com/search?q=feminazi+vs+feminist&oq=feminazi+vs&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.7635j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Rolling Phantom (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of gobsmacked you've been here for six years and think either Google search or Quora are reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

LOL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, are the search results fake then? Rolling Phantom (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Rolling Phantom's sources are indeed unreliable. However, the article text seems to claim that "feminazi" is a pejorative term for both all feminists and specific feminists considered radical. Limbaugh has stated that the term feminazi refers to "radical feminists" whose goal is "to see that there are as many abortions as possible" and a small group of "militants" whom he distinguishes from "well-intentioned but misguided people who call themselves 'feminists'". However, the term came to be used more widely for the feminist movement as a whole; Per WP:LEAD, I propose the compromise solution Feminazi is a pejorative term for either feminists perceived to be extreme or all feminists as a whole based on body text. Leugen9001 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, Feminazi is a pejorative term for either all feminists as a whole or feminists perceived to be extreme could also be used. Leugen9001 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to keep the existing wording. Limbaugh indeed stated that he meant "radical feminists", which itself can be a term of abuse for people who would never describe themselves as radical; Christina Hoff Sommers used it to refer broadly to second-wave feminists around the same time.[42] The article also states, Limbaugh has used it in reference to the Feminist Majority Foundation and the activists Gloria Steinem and Susan Sarandon, and he is quoted as saying, "It's the way I look at the feminist movement".[43][44] So, clearly not just "radical" feminists then. The phrasing perceived to be extreme raises the obvious question, perceived by whom? It looks like a false balance, especially when independent sources describe the term as a pejorative for feminists, full stop.[45][46] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC) (edited 15:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC))

Feminazi is a rightfully pejorative term for extreme feminist. Other extremists may use it as a pejorative for any feminist. There are thousands of sources on this on the net. If the net isnt a reliable source, then neither is this article. There IS a difference between a feminazi and a feminist, from the wiew of normal people. Change it. Rolling Phantom (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It is correct to say the article is not a "reliable source", and it isn't meant to be, at least in terms of citing it in other articles; see Self-published sources, which covers a lot of the above search results to boot. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Large parts of the net is not a reliable source, isn't that obvious? Find the university-press etc sources in your google-search and include them in the article, if they are not there already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"rightfully" pejorative? Given that the Nazis hated and persecuted all vestiges of feminism with fervor, this particular term is uniquely unjust and vile. Your use of the term "rightfully", Phantom, tells us all we need to know about your ability to edit with a neutral point of view (and your ignorance of history). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Seems to me User:Rolling Phantom is correct, that line should be written with "radical feminists", since the lead line in question is stating what Limbaugh popularized, stated in body to be "radical feminists". (That would also seem the common understanding for a portmanteau ending '-nazi'.) The "overly" should not appear. A cite should not appear if the line in the lead is summarizing the article content per WP:LEAD -- particularly not give a cite different from what the body is using. The term also seems applied to all feminists by other individuals (perhaps further to the right than Limbaugh), and that POV should be mentioned but should not be portrayed as the only or main usage. I personally would not make the phrase a wikilink to Radical feminism, since Limbaugh and others seems to be using it for meanings other than what that article describes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I mean ultimately the problem is with, "radical according to whom?" As described in the sources for the article, although Limbaugh has insisted that 'feminazi' only refers to a particular radical variety of feminists, he slings it around regularly at people that most reliable sources would just call feminists, or even just "women who stood up to people Limbaugh likes". Someguy1221 (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't say that Limbaugh popularized the term in reference to "radical feminists". It says (1) that he popularized it, full stop, and (2) he claims it refers to radical feminists. The two are not necessarily related; Limbaugh can say it's about "radical feminists" till the cows come home, but that doesn't say anything about the term's wider usage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The use of "radical feminist" seems misleading. It seems less a reference to radical feminism than it is to what critics perceive to be, well, in Rolling Phantom's words, "overly" radical. That's not a specific type of feminist, that's a subjective evaluation relative to what makes the speaker feel threatened/uncomfortable. I don't know if there's a good way to word that in the lead, though, without getting into "feminists in general or whatever random aspect of feminism the speaker doesn't like or subjectively considers 'too extreme'." It's uncontroversial, however, that google searches and quora are completely unacceptable as sources. I.e. keep current wording until something better is proposed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should be defining the term based off of one person's statements, even if that person originated the term. In the second paragraph of "origin and usage", it says "the term came to be used more widely for the feminist movement as a whole". The next paragraph there also explicitly says that Rush Limbaugh has been accused of using the term "feminazi" as "propaganda" against a type of "radical feminist" that does not exist. Including "radical" in the lead does not seem appropriate given the other content in the article. The "origin and usage" section seems to adequately explain the debate about its usage, and that seems like the most appropriate place, not the lead. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried to inform and discuss with contribs of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_Dissenter) of my concerns about the possible existence of NPOV issues in the article after seeing clear political bias and a lack of neutrality. (see link below) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gab_Dissenter#this_wiki_article_appears_to_contain_NPOV_issues

I did this in accordance with the regulations set forth in many of the NPOV pages that the contributors should first be informed and invited to discussion on a possible NPOV before proceding.

Jorm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jorm) proceded to immediately delete the talk entry. As dictated by wikipedia NPOV regulations I have sent Jorm a notice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jorm#Notice_of_intent_to_open_NPOV) that the NPOV issue is now a dispute that I will escalate to the NPOV noticeboard as per wikipedia regulations since he is now in the following category (see link below) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors

please see all associated screenshot links below: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000960185040956/Capture.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000971996069928/Capture1.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000976660135966/Capture3.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000971828428801/Capture2.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562030632155480126/Capture6.JPG

The screenshots will ensure that further attempts to hide events will not be successful. In case Jorm has the authority to delete this entry too, I'll take a screenshot of this entry as well after publishing

KykMooi (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This article gets nothing but bad faith rants from the alt-right loony crowd. Tons and tons of rants and personal attacks. That's pretty much all there is; what I reverted from this jamoke was him simply opening a talk page thread to say "there's bias here". --Jorm (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Your talk page entry added absolutely nothing to the discussion of the article, and your report here has added nothing either. If you have a specific complaint, bring it up, here or there. But detail-free announcements that NPOV issues exist are unhelpful. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I followed NPOV regulations and tried to initiate the NPOV discussion in good faith and was prepared to bring up specific points in the article. In order to bring up those points I had to determine FIRST if it would be possible to do so in a talk page which seems dominated by Jorm and Tsumikiria that seem DETERMINED to push a very specific political bias with an obvious lack of neutrality. At no point did I insult either. I see however that Jorm dismisses any opposing views by others as "alt-right loony" or "jamoke". How can any contributor argue with administrators with this approach to factual discussion. If you look carefully there is nothing on my talk page to indicate my political views (if any) nor did I type any political statements. The first action by Jorm was censorship and the second action was political insults. This clearly adds to my argument that the article and in this case the two mentioned administrators/contributors are politically biased. One only has to view Tsumikiria's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tsumikiria) to determine which political spectrum is the preferred narrative that is being endorsed here. If all of the evidence I have presented so far is combined with a detailed scrutiny (by a wikipedia approved and UNBIASED confirmed group of individuals) of the article in question. It will become very clear that there are several points in the article as well as the way the article is present that clearly favors a specific political bias and lacks neutrality. If an article lacks neutrality and involves political bias, is it now wikipedia's official policy to dismiss those who identify it in an article as a specific political entity or spectrum without even verifying such statements? Is insults the manner in which wikipedia identifies the truth and exposes violations of it's own policies concerning neutrality and lack of political bias? It is impossible to raise any specific details and also a total waste of time if the result is instant deletion and censorship. Which is the reason for posting on this noticeboard. Now please try other excuses @Jorm and @Someguy1221. I may be new to this platform and I am trying to learn all if it's particular nuances but this clear attempt to subvert attempts at alerting wikipedia to such blatant NPOV violations is unforgivable. KykMooi (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You just wrote four hundred and three words without providing any clarification as to what you were complaining about in the first place. Interacting with you is a waste of time. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Demanding that unnamed people "prove that no content is biased" is unhelpful and irrelevant to article improvement. Good removal. If you have specific issues with specific parts of the article, the burden is on you to explain your objections and propose specific, actionable changes that would address your concerns. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chief_Whip&type=revision&diff=890466069&oldid=890434350

until 1st April 2019 when [[Julian Smith (politician)]] chose to attack his own government and Prime Minister. Smith went on to use so-called ‘remain [[propaganda]]' in an attempt to overturn U.K. [[Parliamentary Democracy]] when he suggested the [[2017 United Kingdom general election|2017 UK general election]] result meant parliament could overturn the [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|2016 European Union Referendum]] result.<ref>{{cite web|last=Cappuro|first=Daniel|title=''Julian Smith: The beleaguered Chief Whip with a long record of mistakes''|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/01/julian-smith-beleaguered-chief-whip-long-record-mistakes/|date=1 April 2019|publisher=The Telegraph|accessdate=1 April 2019}}</ref>

--Trublu (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

A request for comment is underway at Talk:List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Talk:List_of_works_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci#RfC_-_Horse_and_Rider. The RfC addresses the following question:

• Should the wax statue entitled Horse and Rider on the List of works by Leonardo da Vinci page be included in the Recent Attributions or Disputed Attributions section?

All are invited to participate. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking for some outside input on some discussions on The Great Replacement. The first discussion concerns whether the article should be titled Great Replacement or Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory. The second (closely related) concerns whether or not to call The Great Replacement a conspiracy theory in the article itself or whether to distinguish between "conspiracy" and "non-conspiracy" variants.

• Move discussion
• Discussion of how to characterize the theory in the article

Nblund ^talk 17:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't normally edit country articles, but I noticed that the treatment of criticism in the lead is rather inconsistent. At a glance, it seems to reflect page-specific consensus (or lack thereof) rather than any systematic POV. This is fine in principle, except for the following concerns:

1) The phrase "any prominent controversies" in WP:LEAD gives little concrete guidance about how to measure prominence for subject like a country. Does criticism by human rights organizations create a "prominent controversy" in itself? Should prominence be measured by how often the criticism comes up in the news coverage of the country? international or only English-language press? all RSs on the contemporary politics of the country? Is frequently mentioned corruption an admissible type of "prominent controversy"? How about criticism of foreign policy, economic policy, stance on climate change, etc?

2) Country articles are a prominent feature of WP and there's a fairly standard set of issues that "countries" tend to be criticized for, so there is potential of coming up with some WP-wide points of consensus.

I wanted to start a discussion here to see if there's a potential RfC or two that could go somewhere. Here are a few examples I gathered. If I missed any criticism in the lead, please let me know and I'll update.

• China: no criticism
• Cuba: no criticism
• Iran: Organizations including Amnesty International[39][40] and Human Rights Watch[41] have strongly criticized Iran's women's rights record.
• Israel: no criticism, unless you count the use of the word "occupied"
• Myanmar: There is, however, continuing criticism of the government's treatment of ethnic minorities, its response to the ethnic insurgency, and religious clashes.
• North Korea: several passages
• Pakistan: no criticism, unless you count "challenging problems"
• Russia: While many reforms made during the Putin presidency have been generally criticized by Western nations as undemocratic...
• Saudi Arabia: The state has attracted criticism for a multitude of reasons including but not limited to: its archaic treatment of women, its excessive and often extrajudicial use of capital punishment, state-sponsored discrimination against religious minorities and atheists, its role in the Yemeni Civil War, sponsorship of Islamic terrorists, and its strict interpretation of Sharia Law
• Tajikistan: has been criticised by a number of non-governmental organizations for authoritarian leadership, lack of religious freedom, corruption and widespread violations of human rights.
• Turkmenistan: According to Human Rights Watch, ""Turkmenistan remains one of the world’s most repressive countries. The country is virtually closed to independent scrutiny, media and religious freedoms are subject to draconian restrictions, and human rights defenders and other activists face the constant threat of government reprisal.
• United States: no criticism
• Venezuela: no criticism
• Vietnam: no criticism (I'm including it here as an example of a country whose human rights record doesn't get much press coverage, though according to HRW it "remains dire in all areas.")

Eperoton (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You've raised a pertinent issue, Eperoton... --BushelCandle (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a stale RfC at Talk:Rent regulation as to whether the article should state that there is a consensus in the economics field about the effects of rent control, and if so, what the nature of that consensus is. I'm not necessarily interested in closing the RfC right now, but I am particularly interested in understanding the issue in question from a WP:NPOV perspective. Would the article be maintaining a neutral point of view if, for instance, it states that there is a "broad consensus among economists" that rent control reduces the quantity and quality of available rental housing? Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 16:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)