There are lenghty and recurring debates about the neutrality of the article on Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. A short discussion once had begun here on the noticeboard. Vells (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of those debates are knee-jerk reactions to the word 'pseudoscientific' and the 'Accuracy and validity' section. Both are very well supported by reliable sources which are accurately summarized. It comes up a lot on the talk page because there is a vocal minority who is unhappy with the mainstream opinion on this. But the existence of that vocal minority does not mean there is a true neutrality issue here. MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie, Of course you're suppose to say so since you're among the fervent suppressors of the opposite opinions. You mentioned of mainstream opinion but ciations from peer-reviewed sources for the oposite opinions were regularly ignored or suppressed or removed. Even APA dictionary doesnot mention anything remotely similar to your comments so I highly doubt that "mainstream opinion" in your comments is the correct choice of words, not to mention a lot of citations from the main article are from media sources which are quite flimpsy, including statements without backing up data. NgHanoi (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The article's sources could, as always, be organized and summarized better, but that wouldn't make this topic any less pseudoscientific. These kinds of conspiratorial assumptions of bad faith sure don't help. If anything, the recent awareness of the replication crisis has encouraged more scrutiny and skepticism from the mainstream. The 'citations from peer-reviewed sources' mentioned on the article's talk page have included Frontiers in Psychology and others which shouldn't be cited at all. There is also a walled-garden issue, as the Myers–Briggs construct is controlled and promoted by the Myers–Briggs Foundation. Grayfell (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have to resort to predatory journals to find notionally peer reviewed sources to cite, then your position is not mainstream. Remsense ‥ 论 06:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

People make a lot of money from this kinda stuff. So they really need it to work. Polygnotus (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: I assume you do not follow the discussions on the Talk page. There've been valid research works with meta analysis on reputable peer-reviewed journals on the Validity and Reliablity of MBTI and they were published not too long ago, I wouldn't called it predated (and certainly NOT predatory). If you spend your time, you can find these peer-reviewed papers (from reputable sources) on the Talk page, which has been repeatedly ignored. And just a fun question to ask, exactly how long ago should we call something "predated" (?!).

@Polygnotus: Apple has made a lot of money from iPhone, do they really need it to work? I think you just put your opinion above facts and it's unhealthy for the discussion.

@Grayfell: I was too busy to response to you the last time on the Talk page, but all your arguments were actually quite flimpsy.

1. The replication crisis has nothing to do with policy from Wikipedia to cite from reliable sources. You can't solve the replication crisis by just saying so, if you can't find the source, you should go ahead and publish the paper on the peer-reviewed journal yourself.

2. You removed this editing and the citation with the meta analysis about the Validity of MBTI. Randall, Ken; Isaacson, Mary; Ciro, Carrie (2017). "Validity and Reliability of the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis". Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity. Does this journal has anything to do with the MB Foundation? Your reason for the removal is that "The source may be usable for something, but it isn't so valuable that it must be preserved. It's also not particularly helpful to demonstrating the consensus that MBTI is pseudoscience" while the exact reason that this paper existed is to refute that MBTI is an invalid theory (right from the Abstract the paper claimed that "These studies agree that the instrument [MBTI] has a reasonable construction validity").

3. In your talk about the Barnumm effect, I already mentioned about the media source and you cited another one. Guess what, it's another media source without any backing up data, only talk and opinion. And it's amusing that you demanded to refute your source would need a peered-review source. One more thing, just because some idea came from a reknown Psychology professor doesn't automatically make it valid, even Einstein had his paper rejected (and it was justified), meaning an expert can make aweful mistakes in his expertise field [citation: https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great]

4. I've spent time and time looking through the references that you and several others claimed to backup the idea that MBTI is pseudoscience. The only thing emerged was that NONE of the peer-reviewed source outright claiming that MBTI is pseudoscience (!!!). As I mentioned, the APA dictionary doesnot mention annything pseudoscience about it too (https://dictionary.apa.org/myers-briggs-type-indicator). So you mean the page's so called *mainstream* know better than the APA?

I've foumd the only place on the Talk page where you try to frame MBTI as a pseudoscience theory is to paraphrase an author where you thought he mentioned about pseudoscience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator/Archive_7#c-Grayfell-20230820011300-My_name_is_pseudonym-20230819234100

To see why your paraphrasing is flaw, you can just replace word-by-word: "Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)" by "Newtonian Gravity theory", "social and personality psychology" by "modern physical astronomy" and you have a perfectly valid and correct sentence:

"Despite its immense popularity and impressive longevity, the Newtonia gravity theory has existed in a parallel universe to modern physical astronomy. Here, we seek to increase academic awareness of this incredibly popular idea and provide a novel teaching reference for its conceptual flaws. We focus on examining the validity of Newtonian gravity theory that specifies that gravity acts instantly at a distance. We find that the Newtonian gravity theory falters on rigorous theoretical criteria in that it lacks agreement with known facts and data, lacks testability [on modern astronomy observations], and possesses internal contradictions. We further discuss what Newtonian gravity theory's continued popularity says about how the general public might evaluate scientific theories"

Yet, nobody claim that the Newtonian gravity theory is pseudo-science. This practice of paraphrasing, therefore, shoud not be used as a foundation for the extraordinary claim that MBTI is a pseudoscience theory.

5. As mentioned from this source [1], the reason for the oppositions from the so-called "academic community" is due to the fact that there are factions among researchers, and it shouldn't be a surprise at all since disagrements have always been the source for development. But the disagreement/opposition shouldn't be the reason to call MBTI pseudoscience.

6. The big elephan in the room is that MBTI has a significant correlation with the Big Five theory, which is a known fact (also cited on the Main article). A pseudoscience theory just can't have any correlation with a valid scientific theory at all. And none of the "so-called" mainstream in the page bother to explain this fact.

7. So what the fuss, why we just claim it outright that MBTI as a mainstream scientific theory? Of course it's an old theory and as time went on, more precise theory emerged to describe the nature more precise, which should be the state of ALL science. But we don't call something pseudoscience just because it's old.

8. Disclaimer, I have nothing to do with the MBTI Foundation so don't spread the conspiracy from your side of the argument. I'm going to repost this response on the Talk page some times later too. NgHanoi (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Apple has made a lot of money from iPhone, do they really need it to work? Yes, clearly, if iPhones stopped working right now Apple would be in big trouble. Polygnotus (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus does your opinion add any value to the discussion? I don't see any discussion about the peer-reviewd sources. NgHanoi (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It is probably wise to be polite when you are trying to convince people to consider your point of view. Polygnotus (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The big elephan in the room is that MBTI has a significant with the Big Five theory, which is a known fact (also cited on the Main article). A pseudoscience theory just can't have any correlation with a valid scientific theory at all. And none of the "so-called" mainstream in the page bother to explain this fact. The idea that the Big Five personality traits model is scientifically sound (or even useful) is disputed. Polygnotus (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus then why don't you go and find concensus on that particular wiki page so that you can edit and make your point? And please excuse for my caustic tone, I've given up on convincing or reaching a "concensus" from the Wiki editors of this page. NgHanoi (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I've given up on convincing or reaching a "concensus" from the Wiki editors of this page. then why are you here? There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at. Polygnotus (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Am I wrong that I'm currently at Wiki's Neutral POV page? @Polygnotus NgHanoi (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Possibly. WP:CONSENSUS is the way we do things around here. And if you don't want to try to convince people then its gonna be hard to achieve your goals. Polygnotus (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't change the people, but making a point is probably the next best thing to do. I'm new with the Wikipedia editing by the way. @Polygnotus NgHanoi (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! My name is Polygnotus. I put a welcome template on your talkpage. I hope that helps, Polygnotus (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I saw your welcome template. Thanks! @Polygnotus NgHanoi (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

See Predatory journal. It has nothing when publication took place. MrOllie (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There is too much to answer here. As an example, one problems is the notion that "Newtonian Gravity theory" cannot ever be pseudoscience. Any attempt to present Newton's law of universal gravitation as being a modern competitor to relativity would be pseudoscientific. Newton's laws are still used because they are so useful and so, so much simpler than Relativity, but in any situation where Newton and Relativity disagree and that disagreement matters, Relativity wins every time. Any intentional use of Newton's laws in the wrong situation could be plausibly described as pseudoscientific. Another issue is the claim that "A pseudoscience theory just can't have any correlation with a valid scientific theory at all. And none of the "so-called" mainstream in the page bother to explain this fact." As Polygnotus says, the Big Five is controversial. Proponents of the Big Five typically argue that it requires a level of context, training, and nuance, and this is absent from Myers–Briggs. But even without that, this is false enough to suggest that this entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of what pseudoscience is. Loosely correlating with some other theory by some sympathetic metrics doesn't make something into real science. Grayfell (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell Here's how your argument falter again:

1. You mentioned about the practice of using of a theory in a certain context as pseudoscience. However, the wikipage is a place to describe what the theory IS, not how somebody used it. To name an entire theory as pseudoscience just because somebody used it the way you don't like is unfair to the theory. If you have the need to state about the practice, why don't you make a subsection to make your point?

2. There's a reason for the practice and it has to do with the lack of a better theory at the time, remember that Big Five was only invented relatively recently (back in the 80s), and MBTI was invented much earlier (1920s-1940s), so before the modern time, people find MBTI as good as they could get. The similar situation with astronomers using Newtonian law of universal gravity to calculate planetary's motion back in the 19 century (by the way, thanks for the correction).

3. Any trouble or controversy with Big Five is just the same as any Scientific theory and it's the problem of Falsifiability, meaning that any scientific theory suffers from incompleteness in describe the true opertion of the nature. I think you even mis-understand what a scientifc theory is when consider it needs to be absolutely correct in every situation. Any scientific theory can only approximate the operation of the nature to a certain point and new theory will eventually emerge and describe the nature better. And we don't call the left-behind theory as pseudoscience, just what it is: an old theory (and possibly less precise) along the progression of science.

4. @MrOllie: Thanks for your clarification, however, this is not to the point. The point is that there are meta-analysis papers about the Validity and Reliability of MBTI from reputable sources and any discussion about non-reputatable sources detract ourselves from determining whether MBTI is pseudoscience or not. Back to the point, I don't see your comment on those valid sources. NgHanoi (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It's on point because many sources which have been presented as 'reputable' have turned out not to be. For example, further up this section you mention an article in 'Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity'. That is not a MEDLINE indexed journal, which is a major red flag for reliability in the medical space. MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie Did you have a chance to read through the paper? I guess not, just like the previous time you answer me. And your finding is actually flimsy for the following reasons:

1. Is there any place in Wikipedia's policy that specifies an article needs to be included in Medline to be "worthy of quoting" in Wikipedia?

2. Does the "redflag" in your opinion automatically translate a journal to be a sham? Any more concrete evidences than your hunch?

3. Here's the AI summary of the reputation of "Journal of Best Practices in Health Professional Diversity", feel free to leave comment on the summary, but in my opion, it's reputable enough for Wikipedia and no sign of "predatory": https://www.phind.com/search?cache=zxb2kg73qwtdgyeh9z54927v&source=sidebar

4. Since it's quite likely that you commented before even reading the article, let me just summarize it: It's a meta-analysis from a bunch of previous studies on the validity and reliability of MBTI. In another words, the author just collected the researches and review for you.

5. The list of studies included in the papers will be given here. Many of them from Medline indexed journal, some from SCOPUS, should be reputable enough.

• Carskadon, 1977, Test-retest reliabilities of continuous scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Psychological Reports, 41, 1011–1012
• Cohen, Cohen, Cross, 1981, A construct validity study of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 883–891

Tzeng, Outcalt, Boyer, Ware & Landis, 1984, Item validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 255–256

• Leiden, Veach, Herring, 1986, Comparison of the abbreviated and original versions of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality inventory. Journal of Medical Education, 61, 319–321. (incl meta analysis)
• Thompson Borrello, 1986a, Construct validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 745–752
• Thompson Borrello, 1986b, Second-order factor structure of the MBTI: A construct validity assessment. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 18, 148–153.
• Jackson, Parker, Dipboye, 1996, A comparison of competing models underlying responses to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 99–115.
• Salter, Evans, Forney, 2006, A longitudinal study of learning style preferences on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Learning Style Inventory. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 173–184. (This is another meta analysis article)

NgHanoi (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

So you consider MBTI a topic of medicine/biomedical @MrOllie? NgHanoi (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• The current, status quo version of the article (which includes the label "pseudoscientific") looks neutral to me. That label is well supported by reliable, secondary sources. The opposite POV, that MBTI is not pseudoscientific, does not appear to be supported by the available sources, and we should not give undue weight to that position. Woodroar (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Woodroar: I'm not sure if you're familiar with the issue. I'll list some here:

  + The term "pseudoscience" is not supported from the citations in a sense that NONE of the peer-reviewd articles (excluding media sources) outright claim MBTI is pseudoscience. Most citation from the main articles talked about the validity and reliability of MBTI and the MBTI in practice. MBTI could be a poor instrument just as any old scientific theory, but it doesn't make it pseudoscience.

  + But when you only see the citations from one side then certainly you'll be bias. Reputable researches on the Validity and Reliability of MBTI exists but NOT considered on the main article (see some above this thread). That's the reason for this posting thread on NPOV board. NgHanoi (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm familiar with the general issue, having read about MBTI for years (after having taken the questionnaire for school and work many times). While looking into this specific complaint, I read through the article and talk page discussions, checked some sources, but also did a general search for contrary sources. (That's why I wrote does not appear to be supported by the available sources.) Everything points towards MBTI being pseudoscientific, as indicated in our article. Woodroar (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Even Astrology is allowed to get 3 words in to describe itself before the lack of scientific validity is brought up... For MBTI, "pseudoscientific" is literally the first thing after the name.

  Then, the claim to notability (wide use in business and education) is pushed all the way to the bottom of the intro, after a lengthy paragraph of development on validity that seems rather excessive in an intro.

  The organization of the content shows an editorial agenda. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with it in a PSA, but this is an encyclopedia article. Jules.LT (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Other articles are irrelevant, as they're different subjects based on different sources. That being said, I don't find the argument that "pseudoscientific" appears <checks page> 7 words earlier on Astrology to be very compelling. It's still mentioned prominently in the first sentence. Furthermore, I would argue that moving a critical warning about the ineffectiveness of a practice does a great disservice to our readers, some of whom may only read the first sentence or two. By the time we get to "oh by the way, this is actually a bunch of malarkey and has no basis in science", it could be too late. Woodroar (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that it should be in the first or second sentence. But not before we know it's a personality tests rather than a political philosophy. Jules.LT (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to join us at the discussion, here's a little summary:

I think there is a POV being pushed in the article page of the tribe (both by the actions of editors on that page, and their actions on other pages). Tribe is claimed to be of Albanian origin, based on language reports two centuries after the tribe has formed, which were even disputed by some (Erdeljanovic). I tried to counter this nationalistic POV with sources that claim otherwise, most of which claim tribe was mixed. Whenever i try to provide them with a source that is not according to their own POV (which is again formed on 1 quote 2 centuries after formation of the tribe) i am met with hostility from that group of editors. I tried using dispute resolution, but they simply ignored it and continued on with this. Also, they simply ignore facts that they put into the tribe, and that is when the first Ottoman defters were published in 1485. tribe had mixed population, based on their names.

Here are a few sources that i am willing to implement, which directly address the claim of source, instead of talking about religion or language, you can check the sources they want to use on the article page itself. I talked to admins, they also agreed that citation was needed, but editors are also simply ignoring that, so i am going with RfC.

Sources and citations:

1. Bojka Đukanović - Historical Dictionary of Montenegro, page 190: According to their ethnic origins, the Kuči tribe is a mixture of Slavic and Albanian population. [2](screenshot of a page section)

2. Stanoje Stanojević - Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenac̆ka - Page 554: K. are an old Serb tribe. It was formed by Serb brotherhoods that moved from Zeta valley, where it was first living, and then spread to territory of K. They found two Vlach tribes Bukumiri and Mataguži, who were pushed away and then partly assimilated. In record from 1455. when Kuči are first mentioned as a tribe, it's said that they are of orthodox faith. Kuči celebrate Nikoljdan. Only the name Kuči is not of Serb origin. It's either obtained from population that here before, or they got it from Albanian label, which in their language means great, unsurpassed. From 15. century, running away from the Turks, many families from surrounding countries arrive, first Serbs and Albanians, and later only Serbs who were running away from Albanians. Out of 22 families who moved between 15th and 17th century to Kuči, only 4 are known to be of Albanian origin.[3](screenshot of a page section)

3. Predrag Petrovic - Vojvoda Radonja Petrović, Guvernadur Brda, page 30: Kuči, as one of key tribal societies in Brda region, have their own specific traits in comparison to other tribes from the ethnic standpoint. Core of the tribe which is formed around middle of XV century, or maybe even few decades before, are native brotherhoods who are not connected, but are of Slavic-Serb origin, and populate region of castle Medun and a couple of Vlach lineages in mountainous and region around it, who were mixing with each other before arrival of Mrnjavčevići. Later, after Turkish occupation and formation of Kuči nahia, in territorial and administrative region, was included a couple of Albanian, catholic brotherhoods in Trieshi, who joined tribal community of Kuči, and so that created a heterogeneous ethnic composition of Kuči, which was also religiously heterogeneous. [4](screenshot of a page section)

4. Andrey N. Sobolev - Southeastern European Languages and Cultures in Contact: Between Separation and Symbiosis (Language Contact and Bilingualism) - Page 96: Compare with the Kuči who had been an Orthodox Serbian tribe until the 15th century. Through the 15th to 17th century several Albanian (Catholic) and Serbian (Orthodox and Catolic) groups from other areas settled in their tribal territory. The population in the region had been a long time bilingual, but shifted to monolingualism due to the gradual Slavicization of Albanians. A bilingual situation now exists only in the small area of Koći/Koje, which is inhabited by Albanians and Albanized Serbs.[5](screenshot of a page section)

5. Rašović Marko - Kuči Tribe: Ethnographic-Historical Overview - describing period before 15th century and formation of a tribal society, page 30 And so the Serbs somewhere started living among Vlachs, and in other places pushed them further into the mountains. In todays region of Kuči, we can find proof that it was the second case.[6](screenshot of a page section)

describing period of tribe formation, 15th century, page 35 By the end of XV and during the XVI century begins big change in the composition of the population of Kuči. New brotherhoods and families are moving into Kuči, many of noble blood, running away from Turks. Poem from Petar Petrović Njegoš These newcomers were Serbs and Albanians, brave and energetic people, champions of uncompromised battle against the Turks. Almost all of them came here as well established brotherhoods, who forcibly take their place amongst the old Kuči, and then later, they spread and forced older families to move. Many of those who left Kuči later accepted Islam out of spite or as a revenge to those who exiled them from Kuči. As it was the case with most Serb tribes, the newcomers showed much more life than the old population and they grew bigger and spread even beyond the border of old Kuči territory. They pushed old Kuči into the shade, and pushed themselves as "real Kuči", carrying and defending that name with the same pride as their predecessors, old Kuči. By the mid XVIII century they already spread the territory of Kuči to their current borders, as it can be seen under the title "borders" Image on the other page. That's how new age of Kuči history had two events: New arrivals and spread. From the first half of XV century to the end of XVII century, 23 brotherhoods moved to Kuči, out of which only one brotherhood, Čigomani, moved out. Out of other 22 brotherhoods, 4 are of Albanian origin: Geg, Koći, Boneći, Nuculovići.[7](screenshot of a page section) Setxkbmap (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

An article has recently been created about this rather contentious topic. It would be good for the article to be looked over by experienced editors to make sure that it is balanced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to suggest that there are very good grounds to argue that no article under that particular title could ever be balanced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There's clearly a notable topic here given the coverage in reliable sources, but I agree that the title is not ideal (though any title for this article is likely to be contentious). This is an incredibly hard topic to write about neutrally due to the wildly conflicting coverage of reliable sources on the issue. I think this might be better merged into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

agreed. There was a version of the article, especially near its creation, that correctly describes it as a moral panic, but its current shape is more a far-right conspiracy cobbled together with poor sourcing.

At this point, a completely new article is worth bringing up. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Read through it and put my say in the AfD. The original version of this article was about a moral panic, but another editor turned it into racialized bunk. Gave my thoughts about a WP:TNT at this point with how poorly its been made and thoroughly turned into a racialized dog whistle. At least 40+ of the sourcing is just random local crime reports used to suggest that because it occurred in city x, that it means its widespread in city x. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am baffled to see that no one does the obivous when an article about a moral panic is repurposed (= hijacked) for moral panic mongering: immediately revert to the last best version per WP:ONUS. Of course we have articles about tropes and moral panics when there is WP:SIGCOV about them, but obviously they shouldn't propagate the inside view, and what's worse, stay for weeks in that condition and thus let WP become a soapbox for right-wing propaganda. @AndyTheGrump is right, we could then think about a better title, but community attention can go faster ways than an AfD when it comes to remove bunk when it so obivously flies into our faces. –Austronesier (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's because the idea that "Muslim grooming gangs" really exist is mainstream in UK public discourse where many English-speaking Wikipedia editors are based. It's a bit like how Armenian genocide denial is mainstream in Turkey despite the overwhelming consensus of academics so the Turkish Wikipedia article on the topic is consequently wishy-washy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The List of settlements with cases section looks very OR to me. NicolausPrime (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: The article is currently at AfD (as it was at the time of the original NPOV post). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom. Currently looks to be trending towards "no consensus". There is significant pushback from "Keep" voters who want to remove the moral panic framing, which likely is indicative that the article talkpage will probably be the focus of much future discussions. The article is probably worth watchlisting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: Survived AfD after some work, let's rename: Talk:Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom#Requested_move_3_September_2024 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In lead of Paris OLympics, Pizzigs has unnecessarily been altering it by undermining the mention of China, making it harder to understand.[8] It seemed like they were really singling out and trying to diminish the importance of China's achievement. I reverted the change [9] and improved clarity[10], but Pizzigs kept reverting to a "downgraded" version, focusing only on that particular sentence.

Only later, they been advocating for the removal of all mentions of China in the lead section of the Paris Olympics article, including their medal count and the fact that they tied with the US for the most golds.[11] I am concerned that such a decision to completely eliminate all references to China from the lead is excessive and does not align with Wikipedia's principles of neutrality and equality. I requested that they respect the general Manual of Style (MOS) and avoid making drastic changes that could be perceived as disruptive. I stand by my edit to restore China's mention in the lead and believe any neutral editor would support this decision. UPDATE; it appears that they maybe have changed their mind on that now, as they yesterday added further to that sentence that USA topped both gold and overall medals and that China came second because of fewer silvers.[12] Seems they may accept the sentence being in lead if it just emphasize more that China is a lesser to USA. Though they do have a nasty history of adding to a sentence[13] and only days later advocating to delete the whole paragraph later so maybe too early to tell right now.[14]

But only less than a day after I reverted their edit, Pizzigs also reverted numerous other edits I made in different other articles, which I am concerned was done more in retaliation rather than genuine editorial disagreement because I wouldn't let them be diminishing or erasing certain countries' achievements. And so there still remains an ongoing NPOV issue where they have removed the key sentences that China had topped the gold medal charts, when that is a true statement.[15] Both USA and China tied and lead the gold medal charts[16] and if it's ok to say the US done that. It should be accepted too to say China done that and it's not neutral at all, to remove a highly notable and verifiable true fact simply because they don't like it. Evibeforpoli (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Pizzigs was blocked on August 11, 2024, due to violating the three revert rule and was unbanned on August 13, 2024 [17]. Since being unbanned on August 13, 2024, Pizzigs has repeatedly made 14 edits in the lede of the 2024 Summer Olympics article, making changes that align with what Evibeforpoli has mentioned [18]. They are also aware of the three-revert rule and have engaged in canvassing WP:CANVASS other users, which was done with the intention of influencing the outcome of another article in their favor [19]. It seems that Pizzigs is intentionally circumventing the three-revert rule by making the same edit outside the 24-hour window and is engaging in edit warring behavior across wikipedia. LilAhok (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@LilAhok Thank you for being the one to reply to address such issues and shedding that light. I am aware they edit war to continuously remove a sentence that states that China topped the gold medal count. And if only one source says this then maybe it can be written off as an editorial error. But there’s many top sources that say this, which makes it well sourced and a widely known fact. Yet, beyond just NPOV, they are also making up false reasoning that isn't acceptable by anyone who is neutral. Every main media reports China as coming first on gold medal count; an equal tie with USA on that front. Yet they are pushing reasoning that they actually came second on gold medals. I made a post addressing just that.[20] There's also a new user - Jimmkk [21], who mirrors their argument and edit wars too, and constantly add in their exact desired edits. So they are involved too. Evibeforpoli (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

More eyes would be appreciated at Sabina Shoal with regards to WP:IMPARTIAL and source choice, since the article has received a large number of edits since a clash between Chinese and Philippine vessels took place a week ago. CMD (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Could someone here please respond to this allegation and determine whether or not to include it? Trade (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As noted in this edit to the talk page, it does not look like the proposed sources for making that claim are reliable. Wikipedia cannot cover the allegation unless there is a reliable source to back it up. Daisy Blue (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Some users claiming that Israeli military victory in 1973 war, established by military historians and history texts, is not clear. See Yom Kippur War#cite note-448, Yom Kippur War#Military situation. The sources are extensive and not equivocal. I could use uninvolved eyes. Andre🚐 18:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a controversy regarding the result, looking through the page archives it was a simplified remnant of a more complex result. “Israeli military victory”, which is debated is a much more accurate descriptor “Israeli victory”, which is incorrect. The best solution I see here is to have a “see aftermath” section, kind of like the winter war which also has a controversial result The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#New_name_for_RM IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• The RM has been closed. starship.paint (RUN) 00:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a problem of neutrality in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis).

See: Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024

Since both Samasthas of AP (Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) and EK Sunnis (Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) have the same name, founder and the same history until the split in 1989, both should be presented equally, in their respective articles.

For that I humbly request you to undo this edit. Moreover both Samasthas should be named exactly the same except two letters of "AP" and "EK". What should I do to do that because there is already a request to rename (Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024)? In addition, my request to rename and move them to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) has been removed. If you would like to know more or have any doubt, let me know. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have informed Spworld2 about this discussion. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources that say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was not founded in 1989

The following sources say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration, which means Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was not founded in 1989 when the split happened.

• The Hindu says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centenary. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• onmanorama.com says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• The New Indian Express says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• The website of MediaOne says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• The Times of India says about the inauguration of 99th foundation day of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• Manorama News says about beginning of the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• PressReader says about Kanthapuram claiming to be the original one, and about justifying with the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• Mathrubhumi says about the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• Madhyamam says about the promulgation of the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• malabarnews.com says about the promulgation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• ETV Bharat says about the declaration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus ETV Bharat like several others have accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) to celebrate the centennial.
• Kasargod Vartha says about the promulgation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.

So articles on respective Samasthas should be treated equally in terms of the time of formation, the founder, and the rest of things until the split in 1989, everywhere including in the infobox. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:

• Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (Samastha) was formed in 1926[22] [[23][24][25].

• In 1986, under the leadership of Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar some ideological differences A new organization was formed by Separated from the Old Samastha [26]

• The Old Samastha remained the same. Those who Separated from the Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (old Samastha) call it EK Samastha

• But in Kerala, the Old Samastha established in 1926 is known as Samasta. In 1986, the Old Samastha Separated from and the new organization came to be known as A.P Samastha (Samastha (AP Faction)), other name like: Kanthapuram faction'

• Editor @ Neutralhappy, the information in Old Samastha is written in A.P Samastha (Samastha (AP Faction)) and the year it was formed, this is wrong writing, for which news links are used without many source.

This editor (@ Neutralhappy) gives importance to this page only, (Samastha (AP Faction)) writes the entire page as advertisement WP:PROMOTION, and people write their own for the editor (@ Neutralhappy) (WP:CONFLICT). seems like ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources that say about the split of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama in 1989

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama, founded in 1926 was, according to several sources (1—The New Indian Express, 2—The Hindu, 3—Scroll.in, 4—onmanorama.com, 5—News18, 6—Deccan Chronicle, 7—Dool News [Wikipedia page], 8— Southlive, 9—Samakalika Malayalam [Wikipedia page]), split in 1989 into two organisations exactly with the same name the organisation had before the split. Looking at the term split linguistically, it means all the new ones formed after the split have a shared history, thus a common time of formation. Thus both Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) are to be treated in Wikipedia equally in terms of their name, their time of formation, the founder and the rest of the matter pior to the split.

Two Samasthas of EK and EK faction Sunnis claim theirs is the real Samastha. That means both do not agree the other one is real. There is a source which says the AP faction claims theirs is the real Samastha. Perod Abdurahman Saqafi, secretary of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), says in a Malayalam YouTube video that the Samastha in the registrar office is that of the AP faction. Note that according to the AP faction, Samastha was not split but reorganised in 1989. Neutralhappy (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

We can see the English Wikipedia page for Samakalika Malayalam Varika here. Neutralhappy (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Spworld2 clearly appears to have WP:CONFLICT since Spworld2 is presenting the view of EK Sunnis in wikivoice. That too without considering neutrality and due weight. Both Samasthas claim the real Samastha. But Spworld2 is presenting the view of EK Samastha only in Wikivoice. Spworld2 also seems to have high level of hatred towards AP Sunnis. Spworld2 has added content in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) that is not present in the source Spworld2 cited for. Spworld2 appears to be ready get blocked or banned because of his WP:CONFLICT for an indefinite period. Even the source Spworld2 cited in the above comment/reply does not say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was founded in 1989. Spworld2 also added the year 1989 as the year of formation in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) adding a source that does not say about the formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) but the split of Samastha in 1989. I have no official membership of any organisation. I do not even have closeness to any local leaders of any organisation. I have no close connection to the topic I am editing. I am not editing any part of Wikipedia because I am asked to, or I am offered to be paid for. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not a Sunni, but I know Sunni Islam. I don't support religions, But learning about religions,

I am not interested in any organization. You write about an organization first without copying from other organizations. AP Samastha was formed in 1986 No matter how many people claim that sea water is sweet, sea water is actually salty

Sponsored links, no matter how many links are not sourced AP Samastha ( Samastha (AP Faction) ) was founded in 1986 by Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar Spworld2 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we cannot add unsourced content. You have added unsourced content. You keep saying AP Samastha formed in 1989 without citing a source. The sources that you cited do not support your claim. You clearly have WP:CONFLICT. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Only people associated with EK Samastha claim EK Samastha is the real one. The same thing is seen in Spworld2. I have seen Mujahids say "Chelari Samastha" and Jamate-Islami says "Samastha (Kanthapuram faction)". Thus it seems non-Sunni Muslims in Kerala have accepted the right of both Samasthas to claim the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1989. Because of this edit by Spworld2, we can understand Spworld2 really belongs to those associated with EK Samastha or those who are paid to edit. Spworld2 also has created a page for the promotion of 100th anniversary of EK Samastha. Moreover, Spworld2, nominated the article on AP Samastha for deletion because of Soworld2's WP:CONFLICT of interest. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I note this wording "... the Samasta , had to face two splits in its history . The first split , that occurred in 1967 , did not do much harm to the Organization . But the split in 1989 divided the Samasta vertically into two , and placed it into a quandary . [...] For the 1989 split , A.P. Aboobacker Musaliar , an eloquent orator , organizer , shrewed leader , generally known as Kantapuram , gave the leadership . It is said that the split was purely on petty personal interest .3 The sudden growth of S.S.Y.S. , under the stewardship of Kantapuram frightened the parent body . Every attempt to bring the youth body under the control of the Samasta failed . Without the consent of the parent or- ganization , S.S.Y.S. held a mammoth Conference at Ernakulam in 1989 and this ultimately led to the ousting of those who cooperated with the controversial conference . In retaliation , those who were ousted formed a body with the same name and elected a President for their group which completed the split . Subsequently they founded theirown Ulama organisation and various sub organisations to streamline their activities. The aftermath of the split was that it triggered a series of violent clashes and civil and criminal litigation over the control of the religious proper- ties and institutions all over Malabar.33 For the new group the split was an ideological one . They stated that the split was nothing but the last device in their fight against the lenient attitude taken by the official wing of the Samasta towards the anti - Sunni organizations forgetting their responsibility of safeguarding the Sunnah.34 Whatever be the reasons for the split , the consequences of this ramifications and the damage it caused to the Muslim social fabric are deeper and wider than it seems outwardly." (Islam in Kerala: Groups and Movements in the 20th Century (pp. 141-142)). The choice here would be to either split the articles in three, with one article covering the history up to 1989 and in the two other recognize that both factions consider 1926 as the founding date. Or considering the AP Samastha as the splinter group (which this book seems to back) but acknowledge that the AP Samastha considers itself as the legit inheritor of the original Samastha. --Soman (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable comment by Soman.

As for the so-called split in 1967, this source says about the "resignation" and thus not a split according to this Malayalam Wikipedia article, while this source says clearly about walking out and the formation of a new organisation, which in turn means not a split in 1967 according to this The New Indian Express source. Note that the name of the author of the news article is not given; thus non-experts also could be the author having bias while also having less competency because of not conducting interviews of leaders of both Samasthas (who have the most authoritative knowledge about the incidents) or witnesses. M. Abdul Salam is not apparently a witness to the incidents. If M. Abdul Salam says the AP faction formed parallel ("their own") organisations, it is misleading because both the AP and EK factions apparently claim the legacy of the SYS formed before the Samastha's split of 1989, (claims by EK faction: 1; claims by AP faction: 1, 2), the organisation for the youth. Besides, SKSSF of the EK faction was founded, after the Samastha's split in 1989; while its AP faction counterpart, SSF, had been formed, well before the same split. SSF and SKSSF are for students. It is especially noteworthy since both these two types of organisations (for the youth and students) are apparently the most visible ones of both Samasthas, because some jubilees or anniversaries of these organisations—SYS (AP faction) [1], SYS (EK faction), SSF [1] and SKSSF [1]—are conducted. However, there could be any organisation, such as Samastha Kerala Sunni Vidhyabhyasa Board, formed by the AP faction directly as a result of the 1989 Samastha split. Hence what the author can only do legitimately is to present different opinions, which could be done by relying on witnesses. Furthermore, M. Abdul Salam's book seems to be too old (published in 1998), probably at a time when there was much more hatred and conflict between the AP and EK factions so that the EK faction would likely say the EK faction ousted the AP faction leaders from Samastha besides other things. In addition, it seems the author wrote the book based on EK faction's claims. In my opinion, the book is not reliable due to lack of neutrality, maybe because it is not (if it is so) presenting the views of witnesses from both sides.

A source of The Hindu does not say Kerala Samasthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama is a Samastha. In addition, another source of The Hindu says about only two organisations known as Samastha:

A group of Sunni leaders led by Aboobacker Musliar had broken away from the Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama following organisational disagreement in 1989 and given shape to a Samastha of their own. Since then, the State has had two Samasthas known after their leaders.

That means only two organisations are known as "Samastha". Above all, Najeeb Moulavi, a prominent leader of Kerala Samasthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama, in this this Malayalam YouTube video at the 38:00 mark, says the president of Samastha left Samastha and Kerala Samsthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama was founded.

As a side note, this The New Indian Express source says:

He (Kanthapuram) said had they gone after the controversies over the Samastha in the last several years, the community would not have made any advancements in education.

That means the AP faction is not as strong as the EK faction in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. The EK faction is so assertive in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 that they conducted the centenary declaration conference in Bengaluru, which is outside Kerala, while the EK Samastha's name includes "Kerala" and the full name as per the EK Samastha's website means "All Kerala Ulama Organisation"; after the promulgation conference by the AP faction in Kasaragod. This difference in the attitude of the AP faction and the EK faction would make writers on the subject more biased towards EK faction's claims, since the writers become more exposed to the claims of the EK faction. The EK faction now says AP faction leaders left the Samastha, rather than saying the Samastha ousted the AP faction leaders.

As for the matter of the ousting, it is worth reading what this The New Indian Express report says:

... Thangal (Jifri Muthukoya Thangal) said those are the people who left the organisation and started parallel activities.

According to the AP faction, both the claims that the AP faction leaders were ousted and that the AP faction leaders left Samastha are false (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha); instead, the AP faction says 11 people, (including later leaders of the Samastha led by Kanthapuram), walked out of a Samastha meeting, not Samastha, disagreeing to give consent to a demand seeking to give E. K. Aboobacker Musliyar the unchecked authority in advance to alter the minutes in whatever way. Later, according to the AP faction, (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha), the Samastha was reorganised, not split; and still, according to the AP faction, (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha), the Samastha in the registrar office is that of the AP faction.

Remedy

In conclusion, I recommend both Samasthas be treated equally in terms of the name, the founder, and the rest of things until the split in 1989; everywhere, including in the infobox. This is to keep neutrality, and to relieve both Samasthas of likely embarrassment, in case it turns out that a particular Samastha has been in the government records as the successor of the Samastha founded in 1926, all this while. The best option is to avoid stating, the disputed matter until the split in 1989, without the attribution. Neutralhappy (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Now Spworld2 says AP Samastha was founded in 1986, rather than 1989

See this edit by Spworld2. Spworld2 added 1986 without citing any source; the source seen against "1986" in the infobox does not support the claim that the AP Samastha was founded in 1986. So remove this unsourced year of formation—1986, which is also an original research. Neutralhappy (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Again Spworld2 changed thier position: now Spworld2 says AP Samastha was founded in 1989. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I am opening an issue to resolve the problem that occured at List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia and List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany that is affected by the actions of @Setergh. The user has for some reason, (assuming WP:AGF WP:CLUELESS, has used reverted colour scheme to mark positive result as red, and negative as green.

  Russian, Soviet, Muscovite,
Ruthenian, or Kievan Rus' victory

  Polish or Polish–Lithuanian victory

  Another result*

The more typical symbology is based human perception of the result of the conflict or any other event.

Examples of standard colour scheme:

• List of wars involving Lithuania
• List of wars involving Russia
• List of wars involving the United Kingdom
• List of wars involving Egypt

I have started a discussion at the Talk:List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia#Colour scheme is not correct to raise a problem to the other participants, however, the user explains, that similar colour scheme is used elsewhere. The referenced article, namely List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany, have been created by the same user.

I have indicated further information, why it is nessary to used non-biased abd standardized colours schemes, by mentioning that used colours "frequently utilised by Wikipedia to mark positive vs negative, right vs wrong" ^[1]

   Positive

   Negative

   Neutral

Check for instance

• Green#Symbolism and associations
• Wikipedia Manual of style

I assume, since the user edit wikipedia only since 14 July 2024, he/she/they might not know the typical symbology used in such lists. Such behaviour might be also considered as breaking the WP:NPOV, because it might be a manipulation of interpretation from positive / negative outcome to the opposite. Nbarchaeo (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

How is this a neutrality issue? Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello?

You've completed twisted the meaning of my words.

I do think changing the colour scheme is a good idea, and I never said I was against it, I just asked what to change it to.

And what do you mean Red means positive in this case? Red just means Polish victory in this case.

I know how the system works, though yes I did copy the colouring in another article from here.

I myself mentioned I made the other two pages and I did not use it as an argument for the colours not to be changed, I've literally stated that they should be changed, agreeing with you.

Your point is just strange though, you say you want the colours changed because Green means Victory and Red means Defeat, and then when I asked you what to change it to, you said you wanted it changed to the exact same thing??

I'm heavily confused. Setergh (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This issue seems only to involve clarity and consistency. Like Slatersteven, I don’t see how neutrality is involved. It doesn’t seem appropriate for this noticeboard. Perhaps the MOS is a more appropriate venue? — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

One more thing, "The user has for some reason, (assuming WP:AGF WP:CLUELESS, has used reverted colour scheme to mark positive result as red, and negative as green.)

Is this just WP:BIAS? I don't get why you're instantly trying to report me for some kind of non-neutral point of view. I have agreed to coming to a compromise with you, and you think I'm for some reason breaking Wikipedia guidelines?

You've already gone to my personal talk page to mention this and to the site for WP:NPOV. Instead of trying to co-operate with me, you're deciding to just try and report me or something? Setergh (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason of placing this issue into Noticeboard is to get the second opinion only Nbarchaeo (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Slatersteven that it mainly concern WP:MOS. The lists of that type, however, have informative character, and they can be affected by personal opinion / point of view of the creator. Colour coding is basic way of informing. Taking the following, such lists have to follow the same colour style. My concern was raised, because the information provided in the list might be a subject of conflicting views of sides that are involved, which is visible in the Talk:List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia. The contributors mentioned Fake wars - for instance.

Taking the informal tone of responce of the user [28] I am more convinced towards WP:CLUELESS Nbarchaeo (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I was on my phone, not really having time to reply.

I told you that I'm glad to try and cooperate with you on changing the colour of both the List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia page along with my List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany.

Instead of accepting this, you've decided to try and now set up random arguments against me that I'm breaking some kind of guidelines, or that I'm clueless.

I am not clueless, and I have explained why my page shared such colours.

Please, try and discuss what colours we should change them to instead of explaining the same thing over and over again. Setergh (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest standard colours

   Victory

   Defeat

   Other outcome

Nbarchaeo (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is that would only work for one country.

These pages are between two countries, meaning you need different colours to symbolise their victories.

You cannot go by the typical Green, Red, Blue in this case. Setergh (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The list is written from a perspective of one side against the other side. The above-mentioned scheme is valid Nbarchaeo (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that may be a misunderstanding due to the actual name of the article, although the main point of it is for Russo–Polish Wars.

Therefore, it is not written from the perspective of one side, but both sides. One against the other, and the other against the one. Setergh (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest the solution to this is to simply avoid red and green, and use other colors instead. For example, we could use Orange for Polish victories, and Cobalt blue for Russian victories. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I had a similar idea as well.

I think this would work pretty well, I suppose it'd be good to mention this on the talk page of the actual page though. Setergh (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

There are three lists of similar character, that have symbology, which I am suggesting

• List of wars between Russia and Sweden - Russia (1) is green
• List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Ukraine - Poland (1) is green
• List of conflicts between Romans and Persians - Romans (1) are green

The opposite:

• List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany - Germany (2) is green
• List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia - Russia (2) is green

Non standard

• List of wars between Poland and Sweden - Poland (1) green, Sweden (2) is yellow
• List of military engagements during the Israel–Hamas war - green is vectory of any of the sides
• List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent - Hindu grey (1), Muslim (2) is red

No colour

• List of conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan
• List of battles between England and Scotland
• List of Hundred Years' War battles
• List of American Indian Wars

I am suggesting to make them more standardized Nbarchaeo (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can decide to abolish "conflicts involving ___ against ___" articles? Usually the are of rather poor quality and by their nature a lot of the content in them would be duplicated. Alaexis_¿question? 11:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems a valid suggestion, as you say it's hard to see how this material is not also in "list of wars involving X" or "list of battles involving X" (in fact twice, as both combatants will be listed). Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly see a reason in abolishing them, although I do agree they tend to be rather poor quality.

I do think that it's quite useful to know the conflicts between two powers who have had many, and (usually) doesn't hurt anyone in any sort of way.

Personally, it's probably just better to improve the quality of them rather than straight up remove them. Setergh (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Although I may be biased considering I've made List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany which I've put a lot of effort into. Setergh (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This article indeed looks great. Mine was a (probably unnecessarily) provocative suggestion born from the despair I felt looking at long lists in which every skirmish between entities however distantly related to the modern nations is listed as part of a centuries-long conflict. Those articles had just enough sources to make it impossible to delete them but enough issues to make it a nightmare to try to sort them out. Again, sorry for the rant, this definitely doesn't apply to your article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That's alright, and thank you! I do agree though, the common articles that involve something such as a country against another due tend to be pretty low quality, so I understand your frustration. I try my hardest to possibly improve these kinds of articles although sometimes it's just a bit difficult, time-consuming or I just cannot think of a way to. Setergh (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Considering the number of people who are colour blind, especially red-green colourblind, I'd have thought it would be much better to use a pallette from Commons:Commons:Creating accessible illustrations. They would also avoid the baggage of red and green as representing danger or good. Compatibility comes way after usability. NadVolum (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting Commons:Commons:Creating accessible illustrations Nbarchaeo (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion, thank you. I'll definitely try and use this to replace some of the colours I've used before. Setergh (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I am currently in a dispute with another editor who reverted my addition of critical information about the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). This information was reported by reliable and well-respected sources such as The Economist and The New York Times, both of which are listed as generally reliable at WP:RSP.

Specifically, The Economist details how WPATH leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews they had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University. Additionally, both The Economist and The New York Times report that WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/health/transgender-surgery-biden.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/health/transgender-minors-surgeries.html, https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/27/research-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated). The editor who reverted my edits argues that the information from The Economist and The New York Times is WP:UNDUE and falls under WP:NOTNEWS , despite the fact that these issues have been widely discussed in other mainstream media, as demonstrated in our talk page discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health#Reversion_of_objective_edit).

The current article about WPATH reads more like a corporate page at the moment, rather than a neutral Wikipedia article, as it contains none of the relevant critical information about the organization, even though controversies involving WPATH have been reported by highly reliable sources. I am seeking consensus on the notability of the reporting by these cited news outlets, with the aim of determining whether this information should be included in the article. I would greatly appreciate it if other Wikipedia editors could review this issue and share their opinions. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Which source says that "WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers

The New York Times:

Health officials in the Biden administration pressed an international group of medical experts to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors, according to newly unsealed court documents. Age minimums, officials feared, could fuel growing political opposition to such treatments. Email excerpts from members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health recount how staff for Adm. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services and herself a transgender woman, urged them to drop the proposed limits from the group’s guidelines and apparently succeeded. [29]

The Economist:

Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care. [30] Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The NYT is saying "apparently succeeded", and Economist pieces should be presented with attribution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The NYT piece is already included on the SOC8 article, as it dealt with the SOC recommendations specifically, which is why it belongs there, not on the WPATH article, as I already explained on the article talk page. - An earlier draft would have required several years of transgender identity before an adolescent could begin treatment. After criticism from transgender advocates, this provision was removed in the final release. Despite the criticism, transgender youths wishing to be treated are still required to undergo a "comprehensive diagnostic assessment".[18] from the SOC8 page. Raladic (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No reason an NYT article can't be cited in multiple wikipedia articles. I expect thousands already are. Hi! (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, those are two different articles - the cited on on the SOC8 section is from 2022: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/magazine/gender-therapy.html

The one mentioned above is from 2024: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/health/transgender-minors-surgeries.html Void if removed (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM states you probably shouldn't do a whole section straight up called criticism.

It could probably be part of a section called Research activities? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

also, seems like there is a discussion already about it on the Talk Page and that the objected material is included in Standards_of_Care_for_the_Health_of_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse_People#Version_8. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Bluethricecreamman, I certainly don't mind such a title (Research activities). Certainly the criticism header was a bit on the nose, even if it's substantively apt. Although that was not cited as the sole reason for reversion.

This information isn't included in another article. In fact, it concerns WPATH directly as well as its activities. It is not about SOC, but rather how WPATH's activities were influenced by external parties, and how WPATH has interfered with Hopkins University reviews. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sean Waltz O'Connell- you did not properly notify me of this discussion as is highlighted in bold as a mandatory step at the top of this noticeboard. Please remember to do so next time, I just found this discussion by chance.

As for the content in question, I don't think there's much more to expand on as the other users here have already explained in addition to my explanation on the article talk page itself. As it stands, no other reliable media has picked up the allegation of the reverted content other than the Economist who levied it, which makes it first-hand news, so lasting notability has not been proven for an allegation, so it falls under WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't appear WP:DUE, especially not in WP:CRITS form. The New York times piece about an early draft potentially changing age requirements is included on the SOC8 article, as I have already explained, as it was about the SOC specifically, not WPATH. Raladic (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Raladic I notified you about the NPOV page in our talk before I posted here, however you are correct and I'll take care to tag appropriately in future - Thanks for the reminder.

The information from the NYT and The Economist are specifically about WPATH making recommendations under pressure from an official, and that concerns WPATH, not the SOC.

That information is not reflected in any article. The SOC article that you refer to cites another NYT article from 2022, and does not reflect the recent controversy reported by the NYT and the Economist that only came to light a month ago. As for the information about WPATH meddling with the John Hopkins reviews, reported by the Economist, it's been widely covered & discussed in the mainstream media. The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Guardian published op-eds discussing the controversy. While the op-eds cannot be used for statements of facts, they can be used for statements of opinions, and the fact that major news outlets have dedicated so much space to the discussion of the story reported by the Economist clearly illustrates that it garnered nationwide attention.

For example, an op-ed in The Washington Post directly cites the Economist article:

"Last week, The Economist reported that other documents unsealed in the Alabama case suggest something has gone wrong at WPATH itself, which reportedly commissioned evidence reviews from Johns Hopkins University, then tried to meddle with the result. Internal communications suggest that research should be 'thoroughly scrutinized to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense.' Now, assuming this is true, I’m sure WPATH sincerely believed it was doing its best for gender-dysphoric kids. But such meddling makes it harder to find out whether the group is right about that." [31]

Similarly, an op-ed from The New York Times notes:

"The World Professional Association for Transgender Health... blocked publication of a Johns Hopkins systematic review it had commissioned that also found scant evidence in favor of the gender-affirming approach. Recently released emails show that WPATH leaders told researchers that their work should 'not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense.'"

[32]

Another op-ed in The Guardian states:

"Evidence has since emerged suggesting that WPATH actually tried to suppress the systematic reviews that it commissioned from Johns Hopkins University because the results undermined its preferred approach... WPATH was pressured by the Biden administration to remove minimum ages for treatment from its 2022 standards of care." [33]

Furthermore, The New York Sun also covered the story in its report:

"WPATH wielded a heavy hand after it in 2018 commissioned from evidence-based medicine experts at Johns Hopkins University a series of systematic literature reviews... After some of the Hopkins teams’ findings raised concerns among WPATH leadership that they might 'negatively affect the provision of transgender health care,' WPATH compromised the independence of the Hopkins researchers."

[34]

The above pieces show that the information shared by the Economist led to a substantial debate in the media, which firmly illustrates the notability of the topic and importance of its reflection in the article about the WPATH. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any of that supports a statement of fact in wiki-voice. It seems you're main point is that some mention is due in the WPATH article. Would you be amenable to an attributed version? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes I believe an attributed version would be fine. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers What thoughts do you have on the best way to phrase an attributed version to the article, omitting the criticism header and so on? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

1) The new NYT article is still about the same thing, they very article you linked says The draft guidelines, released in late 2021, recommended lowering the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies. - the guidelines it is talking about is the SOC8, so this is the very same topic that is in fact already covered at the SOC8 article. I do not know how to make this any more clear, so please listen.

2)The Hopkins story that is WP:ALLEGED by the Economist was not picked up by any other media. Op-eds are not "substantial debate in the media", they are opinion from individuals, some newspapers just allow those with little (or no) editorial oversight. It gets even more problematic when one of them is cited to a tracked anti-trans hate group (SEGM) as I had already explained. So at best, an attributed sentence of "An article in the Economist alleged influence on a study." or something along those lines. But again, it even that looks questionable to be WP:DUE at this moment in time to even say this under our WP:NOTNEWS policy. So I'd say we should wait to see if any other reliable media actually picks up, as Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, so we are not rushed to add one news piece. Our inclusion criteria on Wikipedia are based on policy, especially scrutinized so in WP:CTOP areas. Raladic (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The latest NYT article reports that SOC was developed under political pressure. That information was not available in 2022, and is not reflected in another article. That surely rebuts the assertion made in your previous message. I have listened very carefully to what you have said, with due regard, but this is not about the SOC, the controversy is about how that SOC was developed by WPATH. It is a different story that made its way to the media only now. The two stories are dissimilar in time line, and in specific scope. The Guardian does not cite SEGM, as I already mentioned in our talk page discussion. It makes no mention of that organization, and only links to a repost of the Economist article at SEGM website, probably because the original Economist article is paywalled.This is the SEGM link [https://segm.org/The-Economist-WPATH-Research-Trans-Medicine-Manipulated] As one can plainly see, it contains nothing but the full repost of the Economist article.

I believe we can report the NYT and the Economist stories with attribution to those news outlets, because those are very reputable and trusted sources known for fact checking and accuracy. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, the NYT story is ABOUT the standards of care, so they belong on the standards of care article, you are free to expand that paragraph there at the SOC article if there is new relevant content, but it already seems sufficiently WP:SUMMARIZEd with what is there, even if that other source is from two years ago. It's inherently about the same core issue. A by-setence of "some of the draft guidelines may have been influenced by political pressure" or something along the lines maybe (which again, would still be fairly small given that they didn't appear to have made it out of the draft after the criticism that is already in the article into the final version of the SOC8).

As for the Economist - Guardian quote stop your WP:OR on "because they are paywalled" - the Guardian links to SEGM in the citation of it - Evidence has since emerged suggesting that WPATH actually tried to suppress the systematic reviews that it commissioned from Johns Hopkins, that means, they cited SEGM, full-stop, anything else is irrelevant and is you own original thought. Note that Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV is strict, especially around criticism that doesn't seem to be widely repeated such as is the care here, other than with the Guardian linking it to an anti-trans hate group, then it makes the inclusion really hard to argue on being DUE at the moment. Please note Wikipedia is not here as a platform to right great wrongs. The fact that the Economist article itself used slur language, in the last paragraph they refer to a trans woman using a slurred term (see Trans_woman#Terminology for more context), is a whole separate question that we haven't even addressed on the motivation of the original article itself. Raladic (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point you are simply repeating your argument that the information from the latest NYT article is covered in another Wikipedia article, when it is clearly not. I do not see any mention of the pressure from the official in the article that you refer to. Also, as a a long time editor you must be well aware that WP:OR does not apply to the talk page discussion, but you keep bringing it up for some reason. Anyone can check the SEGM link and see what it is. It does not contain any information produced by SEGM itself, it is a simple repost. And lastly, there is a consensus to consider the Economist to be a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. It is a well respected source known for fact checking and accuracy. This is not a place to challenge that. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The NYT did not say "WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official", they said WPATH removed minimum age requirements which is something Rachel Levine (who, for the record, has absolutely no power over WPATH) made a recommendation in support of. They say James Cantor (who is as WP:FRINGE as it gets in the field of trans healthcare and not WP:DUE in the slightest) levied the charges of politics driving their decisions, and the president of WPATH denied them.

Moreover, the article actually says the American Academy of Pediatrics warned WPATH it would not endorse the SOC with age minimums because "the [AAP]’s policies did not recommend restrictions based on age for surgeries" (because there is no other field of medicine which sets age limits on surgeries deemed medically necessary). So this is not "Levine forced WPATH to remove age minimums", it's "highly reputable medical organizations and health directors argued such minimums were unscientific and WPATH discussed it internally and agreed".

The Economist is an opinion piece, only covered by other opinion pieces and unreliable sources, neither of which lend any evidence the allegations are due. The fact that they gave SEGM permission to repost it in full is concerning in itself. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The NYT report says:

"Health officials in the Biden administration pressed an international group of medical experts to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors"

The Economist:

"Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care"

We must report the information strictly in accordance with what the sources say. And they discuss pressure from an official. Whether Levine has power over WPATH is not up to us to decide. And the Economist is not an

opinion piece. It is not identified as such by the Economist, and for example an op-ed in the Washington Post says "Last week, The Economist reported", so that firmly indicates in writing that it is an actual report by the Economist. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP: The Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice with no byline, with a few featured commentary pieces by pseudonymous bylines That link is to WP:RSOPINION. WRT the WAPO, "op-ed A cited op-ed B therefore op-ed B is not an op-ed" is not a policy based argument.

That leaves us with the NYT. A source saying "A recommended B do C; B later did C" is not one saying "B did C because of A". Especially because, as I noted, the AAP explicitly warned WPATH about age minimums, the NYT notes it was internally discussed, the president denied it, and the person who says that was a political decision and not a scientific one is WP:FRINGE.

WPATH has an FAQ on the SOC8[35]:

• Minimum ages for providing gender-affirming medical care were removed from the SOC-8 and replaced by strengthened criteria to help codify the framework that enables every TGD adolescent the opportunity to get their appropriate medical needs met at the appropriate time; these changes to the SOC-8 reflect the fact that one-size-fits-all health care models, especially transgender care, are not accurate or appropriate for every individual person.
• Prior to its September 2022 release, WPATH announced a public open comment period to the draft SOC-8 in December 2021 through January 2022. This comment period allowed input and feedback from professionals in the field from around the world who were concerned that the listing of ages would lead to further limitations to care by creating or reinforcing arbitrary boundaries to care and/or by ignoring possible contributing health factors including mental health, family support, or other individual health needs. After comments were reviewed and discussed by chapter authors and co-chairs, it was determined that the specific ages would be removed to ensure greater access to care for more people

WPATH had an open consultation. Levine was one of many who responded. Others responded. WPATH made a choice they agreed with. A WP:FRINGE activist didn't like that and screamed "politics!". WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. We can write somewhere "the SOC 8 dropped age requirements for surgery after a public consultation" - we don't have to put in "James Cantor complained about it" (WP:UNDUE per WP:FRINGE), "Levine encouraged them to do it" (per WP:NOTNEWS, and the fact that the more important thing is "the AAP warned them they'd withdraw support without it"), or "Levine made them do it" (because that's only said in an op-ed), Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP, The Economist publishes articles exclusively in editorial voice, yet is a reliable source nonetheless. As such, The Economist cannot be discounted because of the manner of presentation of its material, as it would mean that we should not use any Economist article, and that would be against the established consensus. If you believe that the Economist articles are not acceptable for use in Wikipedia, you should challenge that at WP:RSP. But I checked the last RFC, and the closing statement clearly discourages any attempts to discount the Economist from use in this topic area, and there is a mention of WP:DUE there as well. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 393#RfC: The Economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#RfC:_The_Economist

As for the NYT, I have already quoted what it writes, please take the time to check. Otherwise, In short, it says that an official pressed WPATH to drop the age limit. The rest is your personal interpretation that we cannot use in the article. We must stick to what the sources write, and 2 highly reliable sources support this information. That makes it WP:DUE. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I will say it again - please listen. You have now been told by multiple experienced editors the specific policy based reasons for why something is DUE or UNDUE on a specific article and yet, you keep going off on unrelated tangents. The policies we cited are irrespective of reliability. The Economist story is undue on the WPATH article per WP:NOTNEWS.

And again, the age limit story from the NYT is ABOUT the SOC8, so it is undue on the WPATH article, so it belongs at the SOC article instead, where it already is and as I already said above - so they belong on the standards of care article, you are free to expand that paragraph there at the SOC article if there is new relevant content - so please stop beating on with the same argument. Raladic (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Publishing under editorial voice doesn't imply an opinion piece, which is why The Economist was found to be generally reliable. And even if it was an opinion piece, it could still be cited with an appropriate qualifier, such as 'The Economist reported that...' Hi! (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No, because it would be commentary, not "reporting". Remsense ‥ 论 02:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

In that case, we could say 'The Economist said', but I don't think that it really matters when it's a statement of fact, not a statement of personal values. FWIW, perennial reliable source The Washington Post said "The Economist reported that..." in reference to the same article. Hi! (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention the thousands of times it's been cited with no qualifier at all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22economist.com%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

I find it very hard to believe these thousands of articles are all in violation of the findings or spirit of the perennial sources list. Hi! (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, is your position that because all Economist pieces don't have real name byline, wikipedia should never use the phrase 'The Economist reported'? Because if so, there's a lot of work to be done - this phrasing is standard on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22the+economist+reported%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Hi! (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No, merely that reporting and editorial analysis are two different things, which can sometimes be contained in the same piece but should be distinguished. There's plenty of potentially misleading writing on Wikipedia, you don't need to tell me that. Remsense ‥ 论 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The article in The Economist primarily presents factual reporting, especially regarding the suppression of Johns Hopkins University reviews and the pressure exerted by a high-ranking health official on WPATH to remove minimum age requirements for treatment. These details are information, not commentary. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This just seems like POV pushing, particularly from the followup responses. One of the sources given is a blatant op-ed and the other is discussing a decision made that involved multiple groups and people and was done after another major scientific organization (the AAP) said they should do it. Silverseren^C 15:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Replying to OP: since this material would be about how WPATH carried out and interpreted medical research, this is a medical topic, and as such sources cited should follow the WP:MEDRS guideline. While mainstream journalism is a reliable source in some topic areas, community consensus is that medical topics require a higher level of expertise. Rather than cite opinion pieces published in The New York Times or The Economist (which are in any case subject to WP:NEWSOPED)), content should be based on material published by professional expert sources such as medical journals, standard textbooks, or national or international expert bodies. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input. However, I would like to clarify a few points. The New York Times articles in question are not opinion pieces. Additionally, WPATH is an organization, not a specific medical treatment or medicine, which means it does not fall strictly under the category of a medical topic as defined by WP.

  Furthermore, WP:MEDPOP

  states that 'the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article.' The information in question pertains to current affairs and historical context related to WPATH, and therefore, the sources cited are appropriate under these guidelines." Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:MEDRS does not only apply to treatments, it applies to all biomedical information. And as you can clearly see on that page, information which (if true) would affect or imply conclusions about biomedical information is typically itself treated like biomedical information. Loki (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I see what you are considering, however it's a bit of a reach & not substantive. WP:BMI does not mention institutions or professional organizations among what constitutes biomedical information. In addition, WP:NOTBMI states that medical ethics are not biomedical information: Discussions about the ethics of a treatment, publication, set of rules or practices, or the handling of an event clearly do not constitute biomedical information. WPATH interfering with Hopkins University reports and making decisions under external pressure are exactly ethical issues. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As per advice, I have asked for clarity on The Economist on WP:RSN Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Per community consensus at WP:RSN, The Economist article is a reliable source, and not an opinion piece. The news reporting by the Economist is RS, and opinions need to be attributed. So The Economist cannot be rejected as WP:RSOPINION. The story about Levine's influence has been reported by a number of reliable sources, not just one. In addition to The Economist and The New York Times, it was also reported by The Hill and The Telegraph.

Along with op-eds from the mainstream media quoted above, this shows significant coverage, which invalidates WP:NOTNEWS applicability. Moreover, the US administration also reacted to the NYT report denying its involvement, so at the moment it appears to be Levine's personal initiative. In addition, the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services initiated an investigation and requested documents and information about health officials' interactions with WPATH based on the NYT reports. [36] So this is a growing and active controversy involving the WPATH that has received reaction from top political sources - including US administration and US congress inquiries and deliberations. As such, the enduring notability can not be a matter of contention. I believe all of the above warrants inclusion of this information in the article about the WPATH. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The responding OP-EDS to the initial story of the Economist are not "significant coverage" as has been stated to you multiple times at this point, so you are well past WP:IDHT. This means all the real lasting coverage that exists is the Economist, which is why WP:NOTNEWS does apply. Full stop.

And, again on the NYT age on the standard of care story belongs on the article it is about - the SOC8 where it already is covered from a 2022 article (so this 2024 article is just a re-reporting of the same) and as was also pointed out to you (repeatedly), you are welcome to add points there if they are relevant and have consensus for doing so and add new information there. Raladic (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This story about WPATH’s ethical issues has been covered by multiple reliable sources. It can’t be something that we ignore or refuse to acknowledge. However, I don’t see it being reported in any particular article--JonJ937 (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I want to chime in response to some of the arguments made in the thread: I don’t think this should be subject to WP:MEDRS because it is not about the medical information itself, it is about the guidelines development process.  Also WPATH allows members in non-healthcare professions such as law, sociology, and anthropology. The WPATH Guideline Steering Committee oversaw the development of SOC 8 which reported that the main differences in the methodology of the SOC-8 when compared with other versions of the SOC include the “involvement of an independent body from a reputable university to help develop the methodology and undertake independent systematic literature reviews where possible.”  This is the very topic of the Economist Article. I disagree that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS; as long as SOC-8 is the most recent SOC, and SOCs are central to WPATH, then information from a reliable source about WPATH interference in the systematic reviews for SOC-8 is important to include for a neutral article.  RfC: The Economist says “there is a consensus that The Economist is reliable for trans topics” so please listen. The information about Levine was reported by a number of sources listed as reliable at WP: RSP; these sources would likely not be writing about if it was SOP to make decisions after Delphi Consensus.  Plus the US administration reacted to it, and it is the subject of an investigation by a congressional committee, so we can’t dismiss it as WP:UNDUE. Overall, I think it's biased to not include both of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evathedutch (talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I read through the arguments, and after stripping out the various personal interpretations, I agree that it's WP:DUE and I disagree that it has WP:NOTNEWS issues. Both topics (interference in Hopkins and interference by Levine) are germane to WPATH's mission and the main sources cited are very reliable. I don't have a strong opinion about where it's included, but it's most related to SOC-8, so it could fit well on the WPATH article near the discussion of SOC. Colaheed777 (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a dispute at pariah state that needs the community to weigh in. Editors are going back and forth on whether to include a list of countries that are pariah states, and there's a map at the top of the article which is sourced to the article's list. Many of the sources used in the article are unreliable or opinion sources. Pinging the recent participants: Skitash, Vpab15, Spymaster Cosades, Zinderboff, as well as WikiMacaroons who brought this to my attention. Personally I'd be willing to rewrite this entirely similarly to how I did with Military dictatorship (which was originally dominated by a list like this), but right now there's some conflict that needs to be resolved. Also see Talk:Pariah state, where several discussions about the list have occurred. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It is astonishing when editors insist on including items on qualitative lists like these when there aren't RS using the term in question in black and white. Remsense ‥ 论 01:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Thebiguglyalien, the idea of a list of Pariah states on its own doesn't seem objectionable. However, a map at the top of the article implies the term is clearly defined and that an objective list of countries that fit into the category can be made, an idea which the article itself debunks. In reality, the term is vague and undefined. As an example, on this article, measuring diversity in a country is seen through the lens of a particular study. An inconclusive deletion discussion in 2012 pointed out that the article does not suggest diversity is something that can be definitively measured. I think the article could do well to list some pariah states based on some of the individual definitions that it illustrates, but not present it misleadingly as something that can be defined so easily. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 01:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume there are clear criteria: even so, a characterization based on those criteria that is not itself reflected in sources is still clearly improper synthesis, and therefore original research. Remsense ‥ 论 01:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Great point, I haven’t checked to see if the sources have specifically named pariah states based on their criteria. Would it be appropriate to have headings for countries that have been widely considered by UN nations/prominent political analysts to be pariah states, e.g, South Africa during Apartheid? WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 19:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

i mean having a section of states that have been argued to be pariah states is useful and i think the article has it, as long as we do wiki voice.

going back to original point,idk if doing an authoritative map is useful at all Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I usually do not think global maps are useful in cases like these; the presentation provides no advantages other than a reminder of where certain countries are, while having massive disadvantages like certain states being too small or ambiguous to easily identify without a lot of fiddling. To put a finer point on it, much of the time world maps seem to insinuate there's some value added, that they're implying some larger point about geopolitics vs. what data is being presented ("isn't it funny that all the X countries are Y" etc.), but this is almost always uncited and not staed, and almost never has real encyclopedic merit imo. Remsense ‥ 论 21:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Will we have to PP this page too? Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Len Blavatnik#NPOV_problems_in_the_Intro_and_Sanctions_sections but been having discussion with @C at Access. We are trying to discuss how due it is to discuss if Len is oligarch... possibly could belong on WP:BLPN. In general, trying to figure out if there is WP:SYNTH when discussing this, and whether sanctions against him by zelensky would be related to ruso-ukraine war.

Of note, C has openly disclosed a COI as required.

Would like another opinion on this, especially as many media sources have indicated Blavatnik has personally gone to great lengths to avoid accusations of being connected to /being a russian oligarch. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, folks. A recent edit at Nijisanji placed a portion of material from the history section into a new controversy section. I undid this, as I thought the change made the article less neutral, citing WP:STRUCTURE. The controversy section was reintroduced in this edit, with part of the rationale posted on my talk page. Here is an excerpt of that:

Since the text describing Selen Tatsuki incident is longer than all the rest of 2023 and 2024 combined, breaking it out very much doesn't afford undue weight. [...] Nijisanji's actions did attract criticism and controversy [...] Also, hiding such a major and talked-about thing in an unformatted wall of text as if it was just another graduation of no note is not neutral, and could very well be used to whitewash and hide its importance.

I have excised some of the message, but you can view the entire text in the link above.

I am not well versed on Wikipedia's NPOV policies or how they should be applied in this instance, so I thought I'd ask for some input and a second opinion here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There's some discretion in how to organize the information in an article, but in my opinion creating a criticism section in this fashion is inappropriate and makes the undue emphasis problem even worse. This needs to be cleaned up so the whole situation is explained in one or two concise paragraphs in the history section. Highlighting controversies because they're controversies definitely violates neutral point of view. Pinging Mathrick, the user being quoted here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, a couple questions here:

• At which point, and by what criteria, does it become not "undue emphasis"? Plenty of articles have a controversy section, rightly so in my opinion; what separates them from those that shouldn't have it? If the company going into damage control mode and spending a good chunk of their communications on assuring everyone they're not villains isn't sufficient evidence of genuine controversy, then what is?
• Or are you saying that a controversy section always violates NPOV, in any article? In which case, I respectfully disagree, as does a lot of existing Wikipedia practice.
• You said it makes the "undue emphasis problem even worse" -- does that mean the article before my edit had an undue emphasis on Selen Tatsuki's termination already? If so, I must strongly disagree with that opinion.
• Would moving the Selen Tatsuki termination content back to the history section, but giving it a separate sub-section heading be an acceptable solution to you? I'd be fine with that. But if the idea is that it must not be highlighted in any way and be delegated to nothing more than a paragraph that doesn't stand out from its surroundings in any way, then again I strongly disagree. It's in the company's interest to make it be just a business event like any other, but it's very clear from both the community reaction and the content of what apparently transpired (such as the allegations that she was fired whilst recovering from a suicide attempt) that it wasn't. Treating it as business as usual is nothing more than taking the company's stance and helping them whitewash the whole thing, which certainly isn't neutral.

mathrick (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION provides some good reasoning to avoid using a giant "Criticism" section for articles too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There are several robust discussions on this page about the balance and appropriate range of sources to use, and I think they could use wider input. Andre🚐 17:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The Sharjah Archaeology Museum has interesting stuff in its collection, but the Wikipedia article is not great. I removed some promo, but not all. Polygnotus (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Editors are requested to take a look at Science of Identity Foundation and ensure compliance with NPOV. I do not see any violations of the policy but as the primary author of the article, I might be biased. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Certain passages of parental investment should probably be looked at, particularly as it pertains to humans. I'm somewhat skeptical reading language like Women on the other hand are tuned into resources provided by potential mates, as their reproductive success is increased by ensuring their offspring will survive, and one way they do so is by getting resources for them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

My general concern is that there are plenty of statements in this article that state in wikivoice that women act a certain way because evolution. I think it's important to be careful about generalizing groups of people like that and there's probably some WP:DUE issues there. I'm not an expert on human sexuality or anything so I was hoping some more eyes on this would be useful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to share your concern. The content as it stands seems overdependent on biological points of view and seems inattentive to academic scholarship from other fields (such as history, cultural anthropology, and gender studies), about how socialization and culture shape expectations of and behavior around parenting. Like, the article is basically saying stuff like 'women are biologically predisposed to X', and I'm not accustomed to thinking of sweeping claims of biological predisposition in human behavior as something that has a strong consensus in academia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What I think is needed is for the article to take a more zoomed out perspective, cite some textbooks about human sexuality that can tackle the topic from a really broad-scope so as to account for and attend to perspectives from multiple disciplines. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

sourcing appears to be weird anthropology studies from the 90s… could be mmuch of the research remains outdated Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever posted a thread on this noticeboard so forgive me if I'm doing this all wrong, but is something supposed to happen? Are there specific wikiprojects I should contact to address this issue that I've identified? I'm not confident in correcting it myself but I also don't want this thread to be archived without anything happening. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest making the edits. There either are multiple reliable academic sources that support the idea that women select a mate based on survival of their offspring or there are not. That being said, I had not heard of the concept of parental investment before and the current lead of the article makes it seem more like an applied theory so perhaps the article should be put in that voice. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'm a newbie to NPOV and most of Wikipedia in general, but I want some editors familiar with Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan to take a look at the article State Sovereignty Day (Azerbaijan). It's clear from a cursory inspection that article seem to not been in compliance with NPOV: it uses extensive judgmental language and buzzwords associated with Azerbaijani state media, such as referring to the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh as an anti-terror operation and referring to former unrecognized state, the Republic of Artsakh as an unlawful terrorist group. The article also cites exclusively Azerbaijani state media and Azerbaijani-language sources. FossilDS (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead and the "Historical context" section, removing a lot of irrelevant information and avoiding partisan sources. I think the questionable wording should be gone by now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't think there are any NPOV violations within the article anymore. FossilDS (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The article currently has massive citation issues, both in regards to over citing (ranging from 8-26 citations for a single line) & uncritical sourcing to unreliable groups such as Free Beacon, Jewish Virtual Library, New York Post, The Federalist, Rolling Stone, Fox News, & the Heritage Foundation.

I've already minorly discussed the issues at Talk:Antisemitic trope with @Steven1991, but as I'm not much of an editor myself & after running it by @Wellington Bay, I thought it'd be for the best to try & get more eyes on the issue. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You may feel free to remove citations that you consider redundant. Steven1991 (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It might make sense to rollback the article to the state it was in before September 12 and start from there since a lot of the poor sourcing, POV-pushing and editorializing seems to have been introduced over the past two or three weeks. Here's a diff[37]. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No. Strongly objected as there is a lot of original content from me. It is totally unreasonable. I don’t object to amending it per section. Steven1991 (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

From the looks of it, I think that'll probably be for the best, otherwise it would just take forever to get it into any reasonable state. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

wp:tnt applies… if a useful version exists without the objectionable citations lets use that Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

did it just now. took a peek at a few random versions in between and diffs were mostly addition of sources from super conservative sourcing like Tablet Magazine, Heritage foundation, or were simply described as \<ref\>video from smith\</ref> Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

… and steven1991 immediately reverted Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it is not acceptable. Steven1991 (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CON and WP:VANDAL. Steven1991 (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

That was in no way an act of vandalism & you are the only person against the rollback meaning that you, unilaterally, are the one who broke consensus. Please WP:AGF & don't call someone a vandal for trying to fix a massive issue with the article. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The post has only been up for a few hours. I wonder how a consensus can be reached in a few hours when parties are living in different time zones? Steven1991 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I have proposed measures, promised and shown the willingness to fix the issues being raised. Steven1991 (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The easiest way to fix the article is to rollback to before it became a mess & build up from there. 3 people have shown support for this. You have proposed to instead work backwards & edit piece by piece.

I don't understand how you could callout @Bluethricecreamman for supposedly breaking consensus for implementing discussed changes, but then claim that you can't have broken consensus by undoing those change, because you see the discussion as not having gone on long enough. Do you see the contradiction? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not “call him out” over any “consensus” which doesn’t exist. Where on Earth would you make a “consensus” within just a few hours of raising an issue with extremely limited participation? I don’t want to assume bad faith, but the manner this is being handled, together with some highly partisan content that can be found from relevant profiles, appear to give off a vibe that there is an intention to erase massive amount of the article’s content that doesn’t align with their personal views. Still, I hope that this is not the case.Steven1991 (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The person undid massive amount of content from the article without any input from me but only yours, neither has he used the Talk page of the article to engage in any discussion. His action also involved the mass deletion of proper content, which could have heavily skewed the article in terms of POV. How is that not an act of vandalism? Steven1991 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess you won’t go into a random particle erasing 100,000 words while expecting no objections from their contributors? Occasionally, such act can trigger the algorithm which may prevent the operation being performed. I’d appreciate if there’d be some respect for people’s time, effort and contributions. Steven1991 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

prevent the operation from being performed*

Also, I am not the “only” person is the limited discussion to object to total erasure of my edits. Senior editor Andrevan also disagrees with such act and the lack of communication beforehand. Steven1991 (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an act of massive vandalism. You cannot simply revert such a significant amount of content contributed to by me and other editors. Steven1991 (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigh… @ anyone else besides steven, what do we do to resolve the impasse? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I would make an effort to remove sources considered “unreliable” under Wikipedia’s relevant guidelines and reword relevant content where appropriate. Steven1991 (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by “objectionable”? Does it refer to media outlets you don’t like or not aligned with your personal views? As per sources’ “reliability” issue, it is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources that should be followed.Steven1991 (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• The diff doesn't appear to be devoid of improvements, and a mass revert doesn't seem productive either. Why not break down which specific changes are objectionable and work it out collaboratively. Andre🚐 05:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to see how they define “objectionable”. Steven1991 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  its a diff of over 100k bytes, and 400 added sources mostly from an account that only started really editing this september. the current article has significant copyrditting mistakes. the work needed to copyedit and double check all sourcing is massive.

  looking at a random big edit by steven, we cite blogs like abrock.com, religoioustolerance.org, and jcrelations.net.

  the damage is extensive and egregious when a useful version of the article exists already Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  It is absolutely not the case. The sources can be easily identified and removed, or relocated elsewhere, rather than engage in actions that would inevitably do collateral damage, in the form of such indiscriminate deletion as the one you did an hour ago, to proper content that has been reworded with regard to grammar, phrasing etc. Steven1991 (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Steven1991, it would be good if you don't use blog sites or personal websites or possibly unreliable sources from religious organizations. Take a look at WP:RS and WP:V and try to use journal articles, books, reliable news sources, or reliable reference sites. Rather than edit warring, maybe you could work together and clean up the unreliable sources and provide page numbers etc. Andre🚐 05:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, sure – thank you so much for your humble advice! I like it a lot. I am working on the issue. Steven1991 (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Reported Steven1991 to WP:ANI. Let an admin sort this fiasco out. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that, or WP:TNT, are justified. I think people just need to AGF all around. Other editors besides Steven1991 have been engaging in the article. He's wrong to call you a vandal, but you are wrong to do a mass revert without discussion on that article's talk. Andre🚐 06:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not call him a vandal. I only said that his mass deletion of the article’s content constituted a form of vandalism because it hadn’t been discussed on the Talk page. It’s the same case that we can’t go into a random article and remove a significant amount of their content. Steven1991 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not vandalism though, it was TNT. I agree the TNT is excessive and you're making good faith attempts to improve things. But these other users are also making good faith attempts to improve things in their own way for their own good reasons. Or at least we assume so. that's part of civility here. Andre🚐 06:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• OK… the FIRST thing I would suggest is to reduce the amount of over-citation - where a statement currently has more than two citations supporting it, pick the two MOST reliable ones, and remove the rest. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree am trying my best to achieve it. Steven1991 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

In 1982, Microalgae International Sales Corp. (MISCORP) and its founder, Christopher Hills, agreed to pay $225,000 to settle charges that they had made false claims about spirulina. The company had claimed that its spirulina products were effective for weight control and had therapeutic value against diabetes, anemia, liver disease, and ulcers. quackwatch. The article is a bit too hagiographic. Polygnotus (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The article contained stuff like: Today millions of health conscious people enjoy the health benefits of spirulina in myriad products worldwide and With the buildup of the vitamin business surrounding discoveries that spirulina had significant weight loss benefits University of the Trees became one of the largest employers in the San Lorenzo Valley, of course without following WP:MEDRS. Polygnotus (talk)

The concept of a blue zone was invented by a salesman, not a scientist, who trademarked it and sold it to the 7th day adventists. This article should be rewritten. Polygnotus (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

By whom? APK hi :-) (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

By the looks of it, Dan Buettner. The way the article is written, it seems to be pushing the marketing aspects over the factual aspects. The LEAD sentence reads like pseudoscience...

• "A blue zone is a region in the world where people are claimed to have exceptionally long lives beyond the age of 80 due to a lifestyle combining physical activity, low stress, rich social interactions, a local whole-foods diet, and low disease incidence."

Only in the second paragraph is the lack of scientific evidence addressed.

• "The term "blue zones" is also used in marketing to promote a healthy lifestyle during aging. The concept of blue zones with longevity, however, has been challenged by the absence of scientific proof"

Cheers. DN (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think The 65 Project (which has been largely written by a new user) goes out of its way to present Trump's attempt to overturn the election as legitimate and some of its chief architects like Chesebro as innocent using dodgy sources like WSJ editorials. I've made some minor changes emphasising the baseless nature of the attempts to overturn the election, but more change is needed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Me and Firefangledfeathers have cleaned up the article, and I think the neutrality issues are now much less severe, and I wouldn't be massively be opposed to removing the NPOV tag. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

great job! i WP:BOLDLY removed the tag Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It has never been resolved.

Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 autobiography Zsa Zsa Gabor: My Story. This alleged liaison has been in the public discourse ever since. Some additional references:

• "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
• Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
• Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
• Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
• Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
• Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.

A couple of editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. Removing this information violates WP:NOTCENSORED. I have restored it for the time being, but it's bound to get deleted again unless more editors enforce having the content retained. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been two days and still no feedback. As expected, my additions to Ataturk and Gabor's respective pages were reverted. This violates WP:NOTCENSORED, does it not? The reverting editors have argued against including the information because it is a claim not a fact. We're talking about a relationship from the early-to mid-'30s, long before tabloids and social media existed. Ataturk has been dead since 1938. So of course there aren't going to be receipts. Gabor's account is the only thing to go by, and many publications have long accepted it. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It has now been 17 days and still none of you have joined the discussion. Please give input so this debate doesn't go dormant yet again. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Well over a month now. Community participation is strongly needed. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you link the page in the title of this section? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's both Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Zsa Zsa Gabor. Schazjmd (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"As a possible smear, political and wartime foe British Prime Minister David Lloyd George wrote in 1919 of a meeting with "Mustapha Kemal, a man who I understand has grown tired of affairs with women and has lately taken up unnatural intercourse".^[1] Atatürk adopted seven daughters and a son."

This (quote) is an assertion that does not appear very encyclopedic. The issue may be that Gabor is a WP:PRIMARY, but it is still attributable to her. Placement in the article may be the key to resolving the issue. DN (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not an editor, just wanted to bring this to people's attention. The Antioch Review article looks suspect, in terms of neutrality. It gives off "person who is affiliated with thing being a major contributor to the article for that thing" vibes. I'm mostly talking about the fifth paragraph of the "History" section, although I'm uncertain about the article as a whole too. Hope this is the right place to post about this kind of thing, I'd appreciate for someone to take a look at it. 66.73.175.231 (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to this paragraph?...

• Free speech is taken seriously at The Antioch Review. The Winter 2016 issue published an article considered offensive to many transgender individuals and supporters, but was nevertheless defended against a wave of criticism on the grounds of free expression of ideas and opinions, even when they run counter to one's own.^[1]

If so, I can see how the first sentence may be WP:UNDUE in WP:VOICE, but might be attributed to the author, if they are considered significant or prominent as a WP:RS.

Cheers. DN (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna take a poke at the article and see what I can clean up. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I've found in relation to NPOV.

The first paragraph of the History section was added here by now-inactive user Jbbirwin using a reference from "review.antiochcollege.org". Since the website is unfortunately dead and I can't retrieve a copy of the page due to the Internet Archive recently being hacked, we can't yet confirm whether this was just a copypaste. However, it's definitely not got a neutral tone about it. If the part that states they "sought to establish a forum for the voice of liberalism in a world facing the forces of fascism and communism" were in quotation marks, so as to indicate to readers that this does not reflect Wikipedia's view on the subject but it is rather the subject's own self-assessment, then that's bare minimum.

Next is the paragraph mentioned above by DN. This would be more relevant to include if there was sourced evidence of "free speech (being) taken seriously at The Antioch Review" that showed this commitment to free speech demonstrated over the course of the Review's history.

And last thing I'll mention before I get to work on the article is that the whole History section reads like a newspaper article and is quite non-specific with its claims. "While its pages have been populated by innumerous academics" does not tell us anything about said academics, for starters.

So that's all I've got for now. I'll get started on making some changes and tagging the page with WP:PEACOCK and/or WP:WEASEL, along with the one on style (I forgot what it was called!). Unrelated side note, but screw those hackers. The Internet Archive is an invaluable resource given the constantly changing nature of the internet and access to material, and it being down is more than a minor annoyance. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article, I appreciate it.

Another unrelated sidenote, I find it absolutely lovely that you guys use the terms WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL to describe those things. This is a good website. 66.73.175.231 (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Due weight and neutrality issues currently being discussed at Talk:Jack Schlossberg regarding due weight of including trivial mentions and magazine commentaries. Additional input would be appreciated, there, or here. Similar issues with various pages about Kennedy related families and descendants of Kennedy. Graywalls (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like things have improved. If this is an ongoing issue on other Kennedy articles, you might point out that if the info is already listed in the info-box it creates a redundancy and WP:LEADCLUTTER to have it all in the same spot twice. DN (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Shortly after this discussion was started, it was found that a second account was being used by the article creator to bypass consensus building, then a WP:LOUTSOCK. Graywalls (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with Matt Mullenweg § Philanthropy. I'm not familiar enough with the relevant policies to decide if we should just axe the content or merge it into the unrelated personal history or do something else about it. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It does read like puffery. But you do need to raise this on the article's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops. Well, since I've already opened this, I've transcluded this thread to the article's talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Here: Talk:Masada myth#RfC on the article lede. Is the lede too POV, or OK? (Involves the Middle East so hang on to your hat lol.) Herostratus (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm bringing this here because the whole thing is stating catholic beliefs in wikivoice. Starting with the lead: "of the seven prayers, reportedly (...)" on the origin of the prayers, is very much POV. The prayers were published by a nun starting in 1937, from what I can gather. TBH, I'm not even sure this meets notability standards, as the whole thing is based exclusively on primary or not-independent sources. Should WP be a resource for people to learn their prayers? VdSV9•♫ 14:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The Trap Neuter Return page has NPOV concerns going back at least 5 years. I proposed edits, starting with the lead paragraph, but the active editor on the page @Geogene is not accepting any edits. I've withdrawn edit requests to the lead sentence and would like to proceed with edits to the rest of the paragraph that are not NPOV concerns; they are clarifications to increase accuracy. I'm here to ask for guidance on how to reach consensus. Nylnoj (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Editors are requested to take a look at Hindu American Foundation and ensure compliance with NPOV. I do not see any violations of the policy but as the primary author of the article, I might be biased. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

it seems fair and balanced. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom." – Aristotle DangalOh (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a well rounded article. Nice work! Fenharrow (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Copied from WT:FTN:

Wikipedia:Fringe theories has an RfC

Wikipedia:Fringe theories has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. (Note: from continuation of ongoing discussion at Village Pump (policy).) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

More specifically, this is a very serious formal proposal to merge Fringe theories/noticeboard into this one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk page is a mess around which incident to include, what incident should be considered antisemitic or not, and which incident is a BLP violation or not.

I initially suggested massive scope check, and possible deletion. I think someone took me up on the AfD challenge. I haven't kept up, but the talk page, deletion page, and the associated arguments could all use more eyes. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• S. A. Ajayi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A new user is repeatedly inserting a hagiography into this late politician's already non-neutral article. Unreadable lines like "Chief S.A. Ajayi was a highly skilled polyglot, fluent in multiple Nigerian languages, Chief S.A Ajayi's linguistic abilities and multi-cultural understanding played a significant role in his advocacy for majority and minority coexistence" are being added to an article that already contains such gems as "Chief Ajayi pursued this vision with equally passionate illustrious sons of Ijumu until the Local Government was created". Sources for these statements include a letter to a newspaper (the hagiographic paragraph is a poorly paraphrased version of this letter) and other non-neutral newspaper articles. There's an important article about an important person in Nigerian history buried in this morass, but it's buried very deep at the moment. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:208D:22DF:6D36:FDE2 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this article including the talk page? I feel the article has had issues with POV editing that have resulted in the article not accurately reflecting the sources and BLP violations. I believe uninterested editors who have not heard of the incident will be best here. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing dispute at Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Arbitrary break (Conversion therapy) concerning the source linking SEGM and promotion of conversion therapy. The quote from the relevant source is as follows:

Dr. Malone and fellow SEGM member Dr. Colin Wright have asserted, “Counseling can help gender dysphoric adolescents resolve any trauma or thought processes that have caused them to desire an opposite sexed body.” In my opinion, these statements are transphobic and reductive and favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth. [... rest of the quote is MEDORG notes]

It is asserted that the entire source, post In my opinion, should be excluded as WP:RSOPINION, and that it is WP:SYNTH to consider the quote from Malone and Wright as verifying favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth as a factual statement. Editors are invited to join the discussion on the article talk page. I have also posted this at WP:NORN#SEGM and conversion therapy since both noticeboards seem relevant. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I will note here as well that the quote as presented in this source removes the opening proviso "But in most cases", which changes the tone somewhat.

Also, I think you are not accurately describing my objection to the subsequent MEDORG statements. It is not an arbitrary claim that "everything after the opinion is opinion". The issue is that what relates the subsequent statements to the quote is a statement of opinion. The form is (paraphrasing):

• Here's a quote
• In my opinion it is conversion therapy
• Here's information about conversion therapy

The MEDORG information is all totally factual - but the basis for presenting the two alongside each other as if they are related is opinion. That added, I welcome some outside input.

Void if removed (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Beside the above mentioned discussion I would like to draw the attention to the unacceptable condition of the entire article about SEGM. Multiple users have already raised at the article's talk the issue of the total lack of balance and neutrality in the article, when only negative and critical opinions are mentioned, many of which come from fringe or biased sources, advocacy groups, etc. [44] It would be good to have more outside involvement to make the article more compliant with WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia guidelines.--JonJ937 (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit seems to describe what happens as a "unacceptable miss" in wikivoice.

@LuffyDe: @Masem: Polygnotus (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You can correct it. Also Masem should reverting my edits which have over 5 papers reporting on the same issue by claiming that it happened on "one day" only while it was a year long embargo. LuffyDe (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I recognize now it was an issue for one year. However, when the bulk of published complaints on the matter are from social media users and not experts or journalists, it is very much Undue to being that weight to the antisemitic claims. We cannot assume that Twitch purposely kept the block on longer than needed (eg using the word "embargo" is OR and POV) I have kept the key parts of the material and briefly mention the antisemitic claim as the reason Twitch acted now. — Masem (t) 17:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ariane Tabatabai is a BLP that has been edited by people with strong opinions and some vandals. Polygnotus (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: Iran Experts Initiative is a related article. Polygnotus (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

move discussion after consensus to merge 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. posting this on here. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Aaj Tak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about an Indian news outlet is strongly negative in tone and accuses the publication of promotion of "disinformation", a serious accusation which I am not sure is backed up by the sourcing, though I admit that I am not that familiar with Indian news media. I would appreciate input from someone familiar with Indian media. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's some Indian newsmedia: Wikipedia’s credibility at stake as its editors target more Indian media outlets Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This is indeed how I found the article. The article does seem to have a bit of a pro-BJP tone, like a lot of Indian news media (India's press freedom is relatively low), so I took what it said with a grain of salt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia Newslaundry, The Wire, The Hindu, The Indian Express, The Caravan and there are many other independent outlets. But If you want something specific then do tell me maybe I can help.

1. https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/02/29/nbdsa-cracks-whip-asks-aaj-tak-to-remove-fictional-video-targeting-rahul-congress
2. https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/04/10/psychological-repercussions-court-restrains-aaj-tak-reportage-on-shraddha-murder-case
3. https://www.newslaundry.com/topic/aaj-tak
4. https://www.newslaundry.com/2018/01/02/fake-news-2017-aaj-tak-toi-zee-india-today-republic

Newslaundry is an Indian media watchdog of sorts they pay really close attention to what goes on these News Channel. You can also just google Aaj Tak disinformation to see what pops out.

Take a look at this also https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2022/07/08/aaj-tak-vs-newslaundry-restriction-or-criticism/ DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If you look for Godi media aka Modi aligned media then you're going to find it. Of the top of my head I can give you the name of at least 10 Independent Indian media outlets. Some of them are mentioned in WP:RS and some aren't. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not denying that Aaj Tak has reported misinformation, I'm just not sure how much weight should be put on it. For example The New York Times infamously put out Caliphate (podcast) which turned out to a a hoax. Should we then say that The New York Times "has promoted disinformation".? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. Reading the newslaundry article where they uncritically promogulated the claim that a fatwa allowed Saudi Arabian men to eat their wives is such an egregious error that I have to consider the current article completely justified. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This discussion may be of interest to members of this noticeboard. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The whole legal case aside, there are several issues of contention:

• 1. The article is mostly based on 2 investigative articles by The Caravan and The Ken (both as I understand respected Indian magazines), and it there is disagreement as to whether their allegations that ANI has served as a mouthpiece/propaganda vehicle for the Indian government (which is pretty much sourced only to these two magazine articles) should be attributed to them or not in the lead section.
• 2. There is dispute over whether the fact that ANI has had several articles from factcheckers showing that they have at times reported false claims be included in the lead section as supporting the claim that they have "consistently reported misinformation"
• 3. whether or not allegations of poor treatment of employees made in the The Caravan and The Ken are due for inclusion in the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  As I show in the t/p (and Hemiauchenia probably agrees), there are other highly reliable sources that bring the same allegations against ANI. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, the additional sourcing has assuaged a lot of my concerns. If anyone wants to request that the page be unprotected that's fine with me Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Today I have decided to swing the bat at the hornet's nest and bring up something that has always bothered me: can we describe people as a cult leader in wikivoice? Per MOS:CULT, we cannot, but people often do, and this stays in very high profile articles that have passed our review processes. This will disproportionately apply to very high profile cases, but as these are the examples to follow, I feel they are influential.

As such, here is a survey of the highest profile ones I thought of off the top of my head:

• Jim Jones (which is a GA) calls him a cult leader as first descriptor and in short description
• David Koresh calls him a cult leader as first descriptor and in short description
• Larry Ray (cult leader) not an article yet, but a high profile recent case, and the mainspace redirect and draft is "cult leader"
• Keith Raniere says cult leader as first descriptor and in short description. I'm more sympathetic to this because NXIVM isn't a religion and I don't know what else to call it
• Jeffrey Lundgren, has it as second descriptor
• Roch Thériault says says cult leader as first descriptor and in short description
• Marshall Applewhite (FA), does not say cult leader, says religious leader
• Shoko Asahara, says "was the founder and leader of the Japanese doomsday cult", which is kind of iffy but doomsday cult is, unlike cult, an actual definable term

Probably dozens of other pages from search. These are the people I thought of off the top of my head. Cult is inherently a value descriptor, hence per MOS:CULT you should only ever have it attributed; this rule is flouted constantly. What brought this up is @Hemiauchenia (tagging because I feel you may have some thoughts on this) challenging the descriptor on two other articles. I actually agree with this decision generally, the only reason I added it was for consistency with the Koresh & Jones articles (and the fact that I was hesitant to apply religious leader given the questionable status as a religion). But given the MOS, should we ever even describe someone, in wikivoice, as a cult leader? I do not care which way we go, I just want consistency with MOS. Can we, in wikivoice, call someone a cult leader? I feel like we shouldn't but the ur-cult leader Jim Jones has it there so I feel like if that article, a GA, says it other people are going to emulate it in writing their articles. Thoughts PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Well looking at the first one Jim Jones there are citations calling it a cult and him the leader - but for BLP reasons we probably should attach one of them to the sentence calling him a cult leader. Normally citations aren't required in a lead but yes I agree this is a case where attribution in the lead is called for. NadVolum (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum I'm not sure if attribution fixes the issue here because unlike other contentious labels cult doesn't really have any definition besides "group that is bad", and any attempts to apply it as such are fiendishly controversial. The word itself is opinionated, vs even terrorist, which applies to doing a specific thing, "cult leader" as a label has problems it doesn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

If it is a label regularly used of them and here's no serious disagreement then the label is fine. However it needs attribution. NadVolum (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum There is much serious disagreement with the label cult itself. The relevant academic field largely stopped using it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think it depends the quantity and quality of sources. "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term."

Maybe WP:VOICE can help with clarification. Otherwise, I concur that unless the mainstream consensus agrees, it's safer to use attributions. DN (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• However, it would need attribution - no, this is untrue. WP:NPOV is clear that we cannot attribute uncontested facts in ways that would imply that they are mere opinions; and as core policy, it overrules the MOS on this. Terms listed on MOS:LABEL can (and in fact must) be used unattributed in situations where they are uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources, since to do otherwise would be to treat them as opinions in violation of NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, are you saying that something must be factually established as a cult before an article can use the term? XZealous (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sort-of. In order to call something a cult in the article voice, it must be clear that the highest-quality sources, as a whole, treat the fact that it is a cult as straightforward, uncontested fact. ("Uncontested" means there's no serious dispute among the highest-quality sources; they can still be called a cult, in that case, even if their adherents disagree, or even if there's dispute in lower-quality pop-cultural sources and stuff, as long as there's eg. a very clear academic consensus.) The term can be used in situations that don't reach that bar, but in that case we'd usually have to use attribution. Also note that the bar to call a specific person a cult leader is higher than referring to a large group as a cult, on account of WP:BLP; with groups there is a little bit more leeway (but you'd still need, generally, an agreement among the sources that it's a fact, yeah.) Keep in mind that this can be as simple as a bunch of high-quality sources describing them as a cult in their article voice, with nothing of comparable quality that disagrees and not too many sources that tiptoe around it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

How can it be established as a fact in the highest quality sources if the term is avoided by those sources? It seems that the hypothetical of it being established as fact is impossible. So the MOS should be followed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made similar mistakes many times: BLP doesn't apply to Jim Jones, who died a long time ago. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject means if it's widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject then it may no longer be best avoided. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In which case it should be attributed, which in the case of everyone listed above, it is not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant cited not attributed in the lead if the label is due. NadVolum (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." This is why I asked. I see no issue with saying someone is "commonly described as a cult leader", but saying they are directly seems to flout the manual of style even if cited. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

So how does one of these academics you refer to describe someone who gets a following and then gets them all to commit mass-suicide? NadVolum (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

They just don't use the word, or if they do use it they attribute it. Journalists tend to use it, of course. Further "someone who gets a following and then gets them all to commit mass-suicide"; that's like eight or so people so they could probably just list them by name at that point. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification NV. DN (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No. If it's only used by a couple sources, then it should be attributed. But if virtually every time the person is discussed in reliable sources they are labelled a cult leader by those sources, then there is no attribution needed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

So, the MOS is wrong, and we can call someone a cult leader in wikivoice? I want it to be established one way or the other. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The MOS is a style guide. It is expected and accepted there are sometimes exceptions to guidance issued on style. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There being "sometimes" an exception doesn't quite apply when it seemingly applies to every example that involves the cult terminology. What makes this an exception instead of the rule? What differentiates the people we call cult leaders in wikivoice from the people we should attribute it with? Because as demonstrated above even in the highest profile cases there is inconsistency. We call Jones and Koresh cult leaders, but not Asahara or Applewhite. All four are the most popular conception of cult leaders to the modern public. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The MOS is not wrong. You are wrong in trying to take portions of it without the rest of it. I'll quote it and add emphasis for your understanding: may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. It isn't a contentious opinion if it's widely reported in reliable sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That still feels like it's reading "you should always use in-text attribution for these labels", which has always driven me mad even outside this case because clearly is not how it works in practice! But perhaps I am interpreting it overly literally. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• No, that part of the MOS is incorrect. WP:NPOV, the actual policy, is very clear: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice... If something is an uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion, it cannot be attributed; it must be stated, unattributed, in the article voice as fact. This is true even for specific terms listed on MOS:LABEL. The issue is that when the guideline for LABEL was written, people mistakenly believed that those terms would always be treated as opinions by RSes - but in situations where they are not, as core policy, NPOV takes priority and the MOS recommendation to attribute them must be disregarded. --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I've said this before, but MOS:LABEL frequently gets people in a position where they're actively opposing NPOV while attempting to defend it. We should state the plain and relevant facts as facts, and not add misleading attribution. Jim Jones was a cult leader. It's his primary notable role. The article would be worse if we started with a less informative, less supported role and then said "These books and these journal articles and these news sources have called Jones a cult leader." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What annoys me about that is if "cult leader" is the defining aspect, I feel it would naturally follow the group be labeled the same way, we don't label the group the same way as we do the person; the lead of Peoples Temple says "religious movement", only noting at the end that it is popularly considered a destructive cult. What makes someone a cult leader is leading a cult, there is no other definition, but then we don't label what makes him a cult leader a cult. And is Jim Jones the only cult leader then? I'm using him as the highest profile and clearest cut example because he's everyone's idea of a cult leader, but how many newspapers calling someone a cult leader do we have to add before we can call someone that in wikivoice? This can't only apply to Jones. So what is the line? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

On your first point, I urge you for the sake of your own sanity to abandon your hopes of consistency between articles! I'm not saying Jones is the only cult leader. If the question is "Can we describe someone, in wikivoice, as a cult leader (in principle)?" then the existence of one cult leader appropriately described as a cult leader in wikivoice means the answer must be yes. When you get to "how many", there's never a satisfying answer. There's no line, but there is a test: NPOV's "seriously contested". Interpretation is up to local discussion or dispute resolution, but I personally favor analysis of the best sources available. Among those top few books and journal articles, is Jones's status as a cult leader seriously contested? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Little hope of inconsistency not bothering me given my OCD, but I will try not to bother anyone with it haha. But yes, sorry if I came across as pushy. I just wanted to get more thoughts that weren't my own because I am not sure where exactly the consensus is.

It's not contested in books by journalists, but is contested by most "new religious movements" academics, who overwhelmingly reject the word cult entirely except for a handful of people, but the field as a whole has been criticized for being too nice to groups accused of being cults, but generally the word is not used in religious studies academia. But very much is by journalists, hence the tension. NRMs/Cults are a nightmare topic area. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The actual policy (WP:BLPSTYLE) is less strong than the MOS... It says "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." so it doesn't have the blanket direction to use in-text attribution which we find in the MOS. The actual policy does not prohibit describing people as a cult leader in wikivoice... Perhaps the MOS needs to clarified, Policy trumps MOS after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Well, BLP isn't an issue for most of the people here, as most have been dead or executed. So I'm not sure how applicable that is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting. We expect extra caution with neutrality in BLPs, so it's odd to see a weaker rule there than in the MOS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's surprising to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you agree that in general that what is "widely used by reliable sources" is exactly the sort of thing which doesn't get in-text attribution? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem with "cult" specifically is that 95% of the academics who discuss cults do not use the word cult. But journalists do, overwhelmingly. We could probably have an article on the fight over using the word cult. So calling someone a cult leader or something a cult will always be contested to some degree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't what I asked... I asked whether you would agree that in general what is "widely used by reliable sources" is exactly the sort of thing which doesn't get in-text attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm. Not sure if I can give one answer there. I'd say it depends on the exact label and how negative it is, how widely used it is (is it every source or just most) and how clear the definition of the label is, or if different kinds/opinions of sources always give the label or it varies between things. For example, if something is the popular word used to describe something in the news, that doesn't mean it's always accurate. But for example, terrorist is clearer, because you can be convicted of a terrorist act. You can't really be convicted of being a cult leader, and unlike terrorism cult doesn't have a clear definition. So in the case of terrorist, yes, but I'm not sure about the specific label "cult". PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other... I'm asking an extremely broad question, not about labels but about all content in mainspace. Across all of mainspace we do not use in text attribution for that which is "widely used by reliable sources". Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW WP:VOICE is also relevant and more generally applicable to dead people. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been attempted. I'd contribute a !vote if it came up again. People tend to forget about all the policy backups and see changing LABEL in isolation, and worry it'll enable POV-pushing, when the goal is really the opposite. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think something here probably needs to be clarified but I am not exactly sure how. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It'a sad how many people in this discussion are saying MOS:CULT, a part of manual of style, should just be ignored. Like "terrorist" vs "militant", I don't think there is ever going to be complete consistently on Wikipedia on which term is used, but I always think that "cult" is a pejorative and should be avoided being objectively stated in wikivoice, particularly with regards to the religons themselves. That doesn't mean that the term has to be omitted completely, just that it should be attributed, with stuff like "widely described as a cult (leader)". I think Jim Jones may be an exception in that he didn't appear to actually believe many of the things he taught. I'm iffy about "doomsday cult", what is usually meant by that term is that the movement is millennarian, but if sources specifically describe it as a "doomsday cult" I see no reason not to mention it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Could always take the Manson family approach and say a "commune, gang, and cult". There – all bases covered! Bon courage (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If "cult" is used to describe a high control group or if it is an expression of distaste towards a group, then I do not find it appropriate to use. The term is highly subjective, but also highly critical. Because of this, I would be very careful in using it. XZealous (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the Jim Jones article, I don’t think removing the word cult from the lead would change the meaning of the article. Is describes him as the leader of a group and says what that group did. Most people would come to a conclusion that he is a cult leader from that description. Even if they didn’t, they would have an idea of who Jones was, and what he did. It is kinda like saying that someone is a politician and Prime Minister. The description is less subjective, and makes the term redundant. So, while it appears that one could use "Cult Leader", often one doesn’t need to. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. Is a conclusion reached on this? XZealous (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources characterise the article subject as a cult leader the article should reflect that. The claim that "the relevant academic field" stopped using the term "cult" is inaccurate and loaded. The only academic field in which a majority have largely stopped using the term is religious studies. Therefore, implicit in that opinion is the notion that the only "relevant academic field" is religious studies. This is clearly only the case if we accept the circular argument that all cults are actually religions and therefore the relevant field of study is religion. The word I would use to describe that argument is bullshit.

Scholars in the fields of clinical psychology, law, skepticism, philosophy, psychiatry and others continue to use the term cult. These have equal or greater claim to be the relevant academic field to study these groups than religious studies. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, actually, I did not think of it that way. But the issue is, they all have different definitions for them, no? And this still lends the issue of which ones we are and aren't describing as cults. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is unambiguous on this point: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice... As core policy, NPOV overrides the MOS on this (and, in particular, overrules LABEL) which means that in situations where it is unambiguous that the sources treat something as an uncontested and uncontroversial fact, it must be stated in the article voice and cannot be attributed in a way that would make it seem like an opinion. The MOS can set a high bar for this, of course, but it cannot set a hard-and-fast rule that cult leader can never be stated in the article voice regardless of the state of sourcing; that would contradict NPOV, which means that arguments from that position can and must be disregarded as being against policy. Now, nothing stops someone from setting a very, very high bar for such language - but as soon as someone says something along the lines of "you can never describe someone as a cult leader in the article voice", you can safely start disregarding them, because NPOV is clear that there's a point of sufficient sourcing where we would not only be allowed to do so but required to so; we cannot overrule the sources just because editors personally disagree with using a particular word or term in that fashion. --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Bit like terrorist, preponderance of sources say so, we say so. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that, when dealing with WP:BLPs in particular, it's reasonable to require a higher bar than just a preponderance - there needs to be a genuine consensus among the highest-quality sources available that it's indisputably true. My point is just that there is such a threshold where we'd have to describe it as objective fact (ie. WP:NPOV prevents MOS:LABEL from establishing a list of verboten words that we can never ever describe as objective fact in the article voice, the way some people have sometimes tried to interpret it.) The threshold can still be extremely high, especially for BLP subjects or exceptional claims; 51% of sources saying someone is a terrorist and 49% of equally high-quality sources saying "lol no" obviously wouldn't be enough. To override the MOS, the sourcing has to reach the point where the state-facts-as-facts part of NPOV unambiguously kicks in and says "no, sorry, this is just an undisputed fact among the highest-quality sourcing." --Aquillion (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There has bee recent edit warring to restore this version [45] of the Cult Accusations section of the Landmark Worldwide article, from this recently amended version[46]. Which one more accurately reflects the cited sources, and more fully complies with the NPOV policy? DaveApter (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The restored version strikes me as more neutral. The amended version relies on cherrypicked quotes to present a simplified view. The current version has more detail and context, and seems to present a clearer picture of both the allegations of cult status as well as how they were resolved. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think if you read the full articles and sources currently supporting the cult accusations there is not as much THERE as restored version implies. The Amended version is NO LESS cherry picked than the restored version. This whole episode ties directly back to a previous NPOV Notice Board thread that asserts Landmark IS a cult and the edits over the last year that result in the currently "restored version" have effectively been original research seeking to prove the cult thesis. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course cherrypicking only those who ultimately concluded that its not a cult is more cherry picked than showing both sides of a story. Please read WP:OR because your understanding of what original research is is flawed. Which cult member will show up next to echo their talking points? Polygnotus (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

BTW- You are the editor who started the afore mentioned NPOV thread. Your comment clearly reflects that you are not participating in this conversation in good faith. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The material my edit replaced is biased. The opening sentence: “Landmark has faced accusations of being a cult.” is not supported by any of the three references cited. No sources in the paragraph identify any individual who has stated that Landmark is a cult. Coalcity58 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

DaveApter (thanks for pinging me) forgot to mention that they've spent over 19 years on Wikipedia trying to remove all negative information about Landmark and related topics. The restored version is clearly better and more compliant with the NPOV policy, the recently amended version removed much of the relevant information. It is not NPOV to exclude everyone except those who ultimately concluded that its not a cult. Polygnotus (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Not saying that everything in it is ideal, but the current verson (called "restore in the OP) looks much better. Has more factual content vs. value laden characterizations and mere accusations. North8000 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For nearly all the time the article has existed, this whole article seems to read like an advertisement. There's definitely been COI editing in the past (see talk page), and there's plenty of stuff that's sourced to their own stuff. I don't know how this page can be fixed. 137a (talk • edits) 19:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I read the article and based on the facts included, it seems pretty factual vs. promotional. That being said, I think the article has definite issues with too much primary sourcing and the fact that quality secondary sourcing is minimal or week. I might be worth removing most of the content that is supported by primary sources and see if there is even enough of an article left to keep it. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

From a quick WP:BEFORE, I'm not even convinced this organization is notable (WP:NORG). I see a lot of passing mentions in the media, but no WP:SIGCOV of the organization or its mission. I've tagged the article accordingly. Suriname0 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty factual with neutral type language. Scope is limited.....needs more sources in order to improve on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)