±

I'm not sure what the best venue is to get more eyes on this. Feel free to redirect if I should take it somewhere else.

Two or three devoted editors at Arabic numerals (mainly M.Bitton and Spitzak, with perhaps occasional others) have spent a few years downplaying and then removing discussion of Indian developments of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system in a series of salami slices, and then have been standing guard over the article, reverting any and all efforts to reintroduce any portion of that material. Since Arabic numerals are widely called "Hindu–Arabic numerals", especially in academic sources from the past few decades, there are predictably common efforts by random passers-by (both IP editors and long-time Wikipedians) to reintroduce and discuss that terminology. Sometimes these edits are simple name changes or additions, while other times they are wiki-links to other articles or even more serious efforts with paragraphs of reliably sourced explanation. However, the editors guarding Arabic numerals instantly jump in to revert any such changes, restoring the article to their preferred version. Sometimes the other editor will stick around and revert back and forth a couple of times or even start a talk discussion (of which there have now been several), but the guarding editors have thus far been successful at eventually outlasting and chasing away anyone who disagrees. From what I can tell this is politically motivated, but to be honest I'm not entirely sure; I haven't deeply investigated these editors' other activities on Wikipedia. In any event, the resulting content in the article does not seem to me to be reflective of the wider Wikipedia or scholarly consensus or a neutral point of view, and I think it does a disservice to readers.

In my opinion it is absurd to have the article Arabic numerals, which seems obviously like a "child" article to the "parent" Hindu–Arabic numeral system (see Wikipedia:Summary style), not even link to the parent article, and not describe in any nontrivial way what the origins and development of these number symbols and system (the editors have imposed an in my view arbitrary limit on the article scope where history from ~900 AD in northern Africa and Muslim Spain and then later development from ~1100–1500 in Europe is allowed, but any previous history or developments of other variants of these symbols is quickly removed, including even wiki-links to other relevant articles such as History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system).

Here is a (partial) list of the kinds of edits I am talkin about: 852024610, 854968104, 854974185, 861167869, 865214496, 865294339, 865920779, 866324041, 866574511, 879673364, 891636891, 895482946, 895483136, 895483470, 906846321, 906892572, 911949863, 915488201, 923119717, 938732623, 938743792, 945556973, 954086855, 961134309, 967833412, 967877301, 968267187, 968267187, 968267750, 979608717, 979614023, 1005830857, 1017407082, 1019119714, 1019120071, 1019162712, 1019164000, 1029892168, 1038457230, 1040768865, 1045517065, 1045517439, 1049914171, 1051207746, 1056459775, 1056468059, 1062487746, 1062526961, 1064346343, 1065919315, 1071753454, 1085967522, 1097223555, 1101159004, 1101160083, 1101354380, 1101548822, 1107364234, 1111734548, 1129729960, 1143329842, 1144854616, 1145947831, 1146134101, 1153832567, 1155375451, 1158742158, 1160247247, 1165307810, 1170041498, 1170534376, 1170696416. Some of these are reverting relatively lazy and perhaps poorly made edits that may themselves be politically motivated in the other direction, but many of the changes here are reverting uncontroversial edits by politically neutral editors or removing material that reflects current historical understanding among scholars and common usage in written English.

Does anyone here have any recommendation for what else to try in this situation? –jacobolus (t) 23:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The best venue would be ANI, the one where you need to justify your aspersions and tendentious editing. Btw, in the above diffs, I can counts 7 reverts of the pov pushing of the usual kind (similar to the one that you have been peddling) by two respected admins. M.Bitton (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think it is "POV pushing" for Arabic numerals to include a wiki-link to Hindu–Arabic numeral system? –jacobolus (t) 23:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have zero tolerance for editors who start casting aspersions when others disagree with them. The discussion that you imitated on the talk page (about what you're really after) speaks for itself. Trying to push through the windows what doesn't fit through the door is one of the oldest tricks in the wiki world that experienced editors are fully aware of. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Though I would think you could make a simple answer here to that question, M.Bitton, if there is actually a reasoned stance behind it. So, why is there no wiki-link in Arabic numerals to the Hindu–Arabic numeral system article? It does seem like something that should be linked, if not discussed in its own paragraph somewhere in the article. Silverseren^C 23:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I won't pretend to answer a misleading question when we have a whole discussion about what the OP is really after. Since they made this about editors and not content, then the best venue is clearly ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

What I am "really after" is for readers who arrive via a wiki-link to Arabic numerals from a context where the link is being used as shorthand for the number system in general rather than a narrow discussion of a few centuries' evolution of the glyph shapes to be able to quickly get to articles such as Hindu–Arabic numeral system which address the various plausible subjects of their curiosity for which they might have clicked the link. Currently that doesn't happen because these topics have been systematically excised from the article and its wikilinks.

From a random spot check of inbound wiki-links such uses make up the majority of all inlinks that aren't from templates [for better or worse; arguably many of those wikilinks could be better targeted to a different destination and possibly their containing sentences reworded], and from a random spot check of web search, Google scholar search, and Internet Archive book search, also make up a majority of all uses of the term "Arabic numerals" in the wild. –jacobolus (t) 23:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in what has been discussed to death. Since you made this about editors, I suggest you take it to the appropriate venue, WP:ANI (where everyone's conduct, including yours, will be scrutinized). M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Silver seren – the response here is in my opinion broadly comparable to the kind of response I got at talk:Arabic numerals, which is why I came here. Any ideas for other steps to try? –jacobolus (t) 00:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion speaks for itself, it doesn't need your misleading statements. M.Bitton (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

(EC) I've bluelinked the first instance of Hindu-Arabic numeral system outside of the lede in Arabic Numerals (which is already blue-heavy) and added to see also. Likewise added Eastern Arabic numerals (which was already bluelinked). The idea that closely related and relevant articles shouldnt even be linked at all is laughable. The articles exist, they are closely related, anyone doing even any semi-serious research into Arabic numerals is going to want to look at the related articles regardless if they agree/disagree with the content. Dont like the content of hindu-arabic? You know where AFD is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

(EC) It seems to me that a perfectly valid question is being asked here. The 'Hindu–Arabic numeral system' pre-dates Arabic numerals, and the latter clearly didn't evolve independently. Why does the Arabic numerals article not discuss this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It does, somewhat. From looking at the talk page discussions, the rather (imo) ridiculous explanation for the current state appears to be that the article is about specifically the Arabic numeral system, rather than the group of numeral systems that broadly fall under Arabic/Hindu-Arabic. In the West when we do refer to Arabic numerals, commonly we are talking about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. Not other versions (which are also Arabic numerals). Its not a totally insane argument, and if the group of articles had clearly defined scopes that may indeed not be a bad way to go about it. But they dont currently, and even if they did, all of them would require clear links between them anyway so readers could understand the relationships. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Judging from a cursory skim of the talk page archives (so this may be a bit incorrect), I believe there may have been an article split like 15 years ago, followed by somewhat contentious disputes about whether the articles should be re-merged because many editors thought the split didn't make sense. The removal of any relevant discussion from Arabic numerals and the removal of any wiki-links to related articles seems to be a more recent phenomenon, more like the last 3–4 years (again, I might not be quite right on that; I haven't done an exhaustive survey of the page history). –jacobolus (t) 00:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Not other versions (which are also Arabic numerals) what other versions, other than the commonly know Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), are also "Arabic numerals"? M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd guess he means ٠ ١ ٢ ٣ ٤ ٥, which I'd also refer to as "Arabic numerals", leaving it up to context to clarify which I meant.

That said, pointing out that Arabic numerals originated in South Asia is more than a bit "well akcherly" and unnecessary. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a link to Decimal on the VERY FIRST LINE!!!! Decimal is a superset that is almost always used when writing numbers using Arabic Numerals, and that article links to Hindu-Arabic. I have no problem with adding a link to Decimal and Hindu-Arabic numerals to the History section, though apparently somebody else does, I think the problem is that they think it is redundant and that people objected to removing the first link to Decimal.

The problem is that 99.9% of the links to this page are about this subset of symbols used to write numbers. They all are eplictily discounting other symbols, like Eastern Arabic or symbols used in India. I only came here from typography articles, and every one of them meant only these symbols when they said "Arabic Numerals", when they say "this font contains the Arabic Numerals" they mean exactly 10 symbols, not that it supports every single set of symbols that are used to write numbers.

I'm really sorry Wikipedia does not have the word "Hindu" in it as much as you like. But Arabic numerals were invented hundreds of years after base-10 notation. Why are you so insistent on insulting the Hindu mathematicians by implying that they could not use their own symbols and had to wait for Arabs to invent them? Spitzak (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The article we have at decimal is not an acceptable substitute here. It is a related but clearly distinct article with separate scope and subject (albeit partly overlapping). [Aside: It is also a confused article with a split scope covering the two loosely related subjects of (a) the concept of base ten in general and any kind of representation of it, and (b) decimal fractions as used in the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. The content of "decimal" should probably be split into two articles each with a more clearly defined scope and clear narrative flow.] It does not cover the same material as the articles Hindu–Arabic numeral system and History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, both of which are very obviously relevant to the topic here (note also other related articles like Numerical digit, Positional notation, Numeral system, Number#History, Brahmi numerals, etc. most of which should also be linked prominently from Arabic numerals).

99.9% of the links to this page are about this subset of symbols used to write numbers. – this claim is so grossly inaccurate you can't have tried checking to even the most cursory degree. Please don't just make stuff up when you pretend to make factual claims.

Arabic numerals were invented hundreds of years after base-10 notation – Your word "invented" here is doing a lot of lifting. The scholarly consensus is that the number system we are talking about was imported into the Middle East from India (in Arabic the symbols/system are even directly called "Indian", both historically and still today), and from there later exported to Europe. Removing any discussion of this is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, whether based on personal ideology (?) or for whatever other reason.

does not have the word "Hindu" in it as much as you like. – Please don't falsely ascribe motivations to other editors. I honestly couldn't care less how many times the word "Hindu" appears in one or another article as some end in itself. I just want wikipedia to (a) accurately reflect the scholarly consensus and current term usage, and (b) efficiently help readers find the information they are looking for. –jacobolus (t) 19:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Please, just stop. How many times do we have to tell you that this article is not about the number system. The number system is very interesting and an extremely important invention, but it was created long before these symbols, and by different people. The origin of the exact scribbles used by the vast majority of humans, especially the fact that they are different than the ones the inventors of those systems used, is a very interesting subject and worthy of a wikipedia article. And Arabic numerals is the most common name used for these symbols and is explicitly used in vast amounts of text as the term to differentiate them from other symbols that are also used to write numbers. It is plausable that this could be "Western numerals" or just "Digits" but those are less-common names, and really much less PC than "Arabic numerals". Spitzak (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The name adopted for these symbols is not the issue. The name "Arabic numerals", (leaving aside whether or not it's accurate or politically neutral or gives due credit or whatever) is clearly the historically most common name and probably still the most common name in wide use (though I think in recent scholarly work the name Hindu–Arabic numerals may have overtaken it). I am not recommending changing the name of the article.

The issue is the systematic removal of obviously relevant and encyclopedic material including uncontroversial wiki-links and reliably sourced paragraphs of text.

For comparison, let's look at what Latin alphabet says in its second section, Latin alphabet § Evolution:

The Latin alphabet evolved from the visually similar Etruscan alphabet, which evolved from the Cumaean Greek version of the Greek alphabet, which was itself descended from the Phoenician alphabet, which in turn derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs.

There is a clear description of the evolution from one alphabet to another, leading back to (as best as today's scholars can tell) the original source of the symbols.

A similar kind of paragraph in Arabic numerals would trace their evolution back via e.g. Eastern Arabic numerals, the numerals used by Brahmagupta, the numerals used in the Bakhshali manuscript, all the way to the Brahmi numerals, including a clear link to History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system as the "main" article for that section. (We don't have great articles about all of these and I'm not an expert here; maybe there should be more or different hops along the way. If I wanted to get this right I'd start by looking at Karl Menninger's Number Words and Number Symbols, but perhaps there are better more recent sources.)

user:Spitzak's preferred version of a "History" section:

Decimal notation was developed in India, with expansion to non-integers in Arabia. However this was done with different symbols. § Origin The immediate ancestors of the digits now commonly called "Arabic numerals" were introduced to Europe in the 10th century by Arabic speakers of Spain and North Africa, who were then using the digits from Libya to Morocco. [...]

Is entirely inadequate. As a first temporary stopgap, I changed this to:

§ Origin The positional decimal notation including a zero symbol, from which Arabic numerals descend, was developed in India, see Hindu–Arabic numeral system and History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. As the system spread, the set of symbols used in different regions diverged. ¶ The immediate ancestors of the digits now commonly called "Arabic numerals" were introduced to Europe in the 10th century by Arabic speakers of Spain and North Africa, who were then using the digits from Libya to Morocco. [...]

But my effort was immediately reverted by User:M.Bitton, apparently to prevent the word "Hindu" from appearing?

There have been repeated attempts over several years by a wide range of other editors to add such material, but User:Spitzak and User:M.Bitton keep instantly reverting them, without any clearly reasoned justification. When people ask about it they are given a run-around of evasive non-answers, and then those other editors eventually give up instead of wasting time since these two seem committed to unlimited edit wars to impose their preferred version. –jacobolus (t) 20:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The Latin alphabet article is about the Latin letters. It is clearly not about any of those other alphabets you mentioned. The edits you are talking about would be like adding to Latin alphabet something about "alphabets were invented in Egypt" and systematically deleting any attempts to say "Latin letters are different than the letters used by other alphabets" and "Latin letters are not the first letters invented". I have no idea why you are insisting on this. We need an article specifically about this subset of symbols used to write numbers, and by Common Name this is the name that has to be used for that article. Spitzak (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Latin alphabet under Evolution says "The Latin alphabet evolved from the visually similar Etruscan alphabet, which evolved from the Cumaean Greek version of the Greek alphabet, which was itself descended from the Phoenician alphabet, which in turn derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs". That is the sort of thing I'd expect under the History section in Arabic numerals but The ID for the revision you requested does not exist.

This is usually caused by following an outdated diff link to a page that has been deleted or a diff link containing invalid characters.is missing. NadVolum (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

like adding to Latin alphabet something about "alphabets were invented in Egypt" – What the Latin alphabet article already explicitly says is that it directly evolved from the one invented in Egypt. The early history is pretty compressed and doesn't cover the subject to the extent I would expect of a high-quality Wiki article (to begin with I'd like to see a link to History of the alphabet, so I just added one, but this section could easily be expanded into a few more paragraphs of summary overview), but at least it links to the other relevant articles about specific precursor alphabets for the benefit of readers looking for more information, as should be expected. –jacobolus (t) 21:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not know why that was reverted, seems ok to mention zero. I would certainly remove "from which Arabic numerals descend" and instead make it clear that *different* symbols were used. Also the entire last sentence is redundant with the next section. I'll try an example. Spitzak (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, glad to hear this seems okay to you.

would certainly remove "from which Arabic numerals descend" all of the various expressions of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system descend from the Brahmi numerals as far as anyone can tell. Over time symbols have been occasionally turned, exchanged, or replaced, so that now the numerals used in one place look substantially different from those used in another, but there is a clear continuous evolution. The Brahmi numerals themselves were a non-positional system (separate symbols for e.g. 3, 30, 300) but over time evolved into a positional system (by circa 600 AD), perhaps under the influence of new ideas imported into India from Mesopotamia or Greece (Alexander the Great conquered some of India in the 4th century); as a possibly related example, Indian astronomers significantly extended Greek astronomy/trigonometry and Indian geometers extended Greek geometry, number theory, etc. –jacobolus (t) 22:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

To be more precise, here is what Chrisomalis (2010) Numerical Notation says (p. 213):

There are undeniable paleographic resemblances between the Arabic positional numeral-signs and those used in medieval north India. Table 6.14 compares the Arabic positional numerals found in eleventh-century mathematical and astronomical treatises with the inscription found at Gwalior, India, dated to 876 AD, containing the Nagari numerals used in medieval India. These signs are very similar, and it is thus safe to assume that the Arabic numerals have an Indian origin. In some cases, as for 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9, the Nagari numeral-sign became rotated or inverted, which may have resulted from the scribal practice of writing from top to bottom, then rotating the manuscript to read it (Ifrah 1998: 532–533). The fact that medieval and modern Arabic scholars are unanimous in attributing an Indian origin to these signs, and call them ḥisāb al-hindi (Indian numerals), abundantly confirms the paleographic evidence.

–jacobolus (t) 00:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I like to report that my edits on the Jambi Sultanate and Anti Catholicism page have been reverted due to NmWTfs85lXusaybq pro Japanese and anti China bias.

He accuses me for putting Chinese bias into the Jambi Sultanate page but I did not when the sources I used in my edit are mostly Western origin who had no affiliation with China, I only just reference the info to the wiki page.

His edits in the Anti Catholicism are showing none of the neutrality and more of his Japanese bias.

I won't accept his arguments and harassment as his anti China and pro Japan agenda are undermining the wiki info. I will accept any other neutral editors to review my edits

Proof Links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Catholicism&diff=prev&oldid=1168770563

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zhengding_Missionary_Murder&diff=prev&oldid=1090674159 Yaujj13 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

THis sort of thing is dealt with at wp:ani, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that here is not the place for this, but I'd recommend starting with article talk page discussion for the content and user talk page discussion for the conduct concerns. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There is an AfD discussion currently occurring on the article. Discussion has been relisted twice now as this is quite a contentious topic so further input from others would be appreciated. TarnishedPath^talk 06:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Since about a year ago, starting with Chinese Wikipedia, a user has repeatedly argued about the definition of Chinese New Left, claiming that China's New Left should be applied exclusively to the circa 2012 standard - which at the time being considered to be used only for a group of intellectuals in China.

After several rounds of debate with this user on the Chinese Wikipedia and citing numerous sources to prove that although the term was originally used to refer only to a group of intellectuals, the meaning of the term has been changing over the years, and to try to come to a consensus on the matter, this user still emphasized that there should be no space to discuss but the 2012 standard.

The debate there ended when several accounts of the user got blocked for perceived abuse, however, the flames then spread to English Wikipedia, where the same topic and the same debate has been going on for months now, just like the Chinese Wikipedia. Thus, I'm reporting it here. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 03:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I have never used Chinese wikipedia so I do not know what you are talking about. Regarding the definition of the Chinese New Left, you are the editor who extended the article with your original research that everything is now New Left, therefore you are responsible to support your argument. Other editors can revert your OR without any argument if you could not support your own arugument. The reality is you cannot. Juyiscally (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

If you are afraid to even acknowledge your past edits, then I have nothing more to say and I choose to refer the case to User:Sotiale and Wikipedia:AN3. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 14:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems like Juyiscally (talk · contribs) deleted their account so that's probably that. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Simonm223: And comes the edit-warring... ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 03:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in this RfC which seeks to clarify whether Andy Ngo should be referred to as a journalist in the lede of the article about him. JoelleJay (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC) TarnishedPath^talk 05:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

An RfC has been made regarding Skif, an anti-tank guided missile system, that is named "Stugna-P" in its domestic version. "Stugna" is the Russian transliteration of the Ukrainian river "Stugna", which has been renamed by Ukrainian legislation to use the Ukrainian transliteration "Stuhna" ("h" instead of "g"). Several discussions have started (and several unilateral rename attempts have been committed and reverted) about whether the ATGM system, that has been named after that river, should now be spelled according to the Ukrainian transliteration instead of the Russian transliteration (the company that builds it still spells it "Stugna-P" and that spelling is found 117.000 times at google.com compared to 12.600 times of "Stuhna-P"). I post this RfC here as it seems to me that it may be related to Wikipedia's policy of having a neutral point of view. MiBerG (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that the people who manufacture and sell the object get to choose the name, so no it should not be changed. It does not matter if Russia is the bad guys. Spitzak (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Concur. This should be pretty obvious. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The company that builds it is Ukranian @Spitzak and they call it "Skif" [1]. I'm pretty sure they would probably object to a Russian name. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

If the initial poster is lying about what the manufacturer calls it then yes it should be moved to the name that really are using. Spitzak (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone. There's a discussion at Talk:Irreversible Damage#ROGD in the body about this edit, which added the text:

The contentious concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which Irreversible Damage endorses, was first proposed in a 2018 paper by Lisa Littman.^[1][2][3] ROGD is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution and is not backed by credible scientific evidence.^[1]

References

1. ^ ^{a b} Eckert, A.J. (July 4, 2021). "Irreversible Damage to the Trans Community: A Critical Review of Abigail Shrier's book Irreversible Damage (Part One)". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
2. ^ Parsons, Vic (June 23, 2020). "Amazon refuses to advertise renowned anti-trans journalist's book suggesting trans teens are a 'contagion'". PinkNews. Retrieved December 10, 2020.
3. ^ Hsu, V. Jo (1 January 2022). "Irreducible Damage: The Affective Drift of Race, Gender, and Disability in Anti-Trans Rhetorics". Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 52 (1): 62–77. doi:10.1080/02773945.2021.1990381. ISSN 0277-3945. S2CID 247295449.

Discussion has stalled with unclear consensus, and more input would be appreciated. Neutrality isn't the only stated concern with the content, but I had to pick some noticeboard and this one seemed reasonable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

A neutrality tag was just added to the article, so more respondents may be needed to help fix the issue or decide the tag is unneeded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I swear the exact same editors were arguing just last week that comments made by Anderson in direct support of this book couldn't be added to Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy page as the book and the controversy weren't related. I'll recuse myself as I was involved in that discussion, but we desperately need uninvolved editors on these pages who are not interested in their own POV, but doing a fair analysis of what would be neutral. Denaar (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misremembering. There were two discussions in the last week about comments by Erica Anderson (1, 2), with the comments being sourced to an interview by Shrier that originally appeared on Bari Weiss' Substack. But neither of those discussions were about Shrier's book, or comments relating to Shrier's book. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know a lot about it. Is there a lot of reading to get across the subject matter? AlanS^talk 11:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The author "Irreducible Damage", Jo Hsu, is described as "assistant professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Writing, the University of Texas" (College of Liberal Arts). The piece is literally labelled as essay, and is published in Rhetoric Society Quarterly, a journal of communications studies. Why is this source used for stating facts, not opinions?

Eckert is correctly described in the body (in Reception section) as "guest author". Why is Eckert's op-ed used for stating facts and why is this op-ed used for that purpose even in the lead? Politrukki (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

All 20 of their edits were related to the NOI (nation of Islam) or characters within that organization. All 20 edits were reverted by more experienced editors than I due to a non NPOV etc. Only one other user had informed them of this despite 18 other instances of advocacy/COI and NPOV Teenyplayspop (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about whether List of Islamist terrorist attacks should be moved to List of Islamic terrorist attacks. The views of more experienced editors would be welcomed. TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The NPOV tag I added to World Constitutional Convention was removed without good reason ("Stating 50 years old event a promotion does not make any sense."). On the talk page my NPOV topic was simply reverted as "Spam". Given that the article is clearly an extreme example of NPOV and the editor behind it and a number of "sister" articles I'm uncertain as how to procced given that they are unwilling to address the problem. Arcade222 (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Arcade222, your article tag and talk page post were both reverted by the same editor. I'd suggest discussing it with them (on their talk page or the article talk page) first. Their reverts don't make sense, but it's likely something that can be worked out by discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Replied to the user on article talk page. User is new to Wikipedia and making such edits to other pages also. Posting about his Personal POV and engaging in edit war. --BeLucky (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@BeLucky, your edit summaries for your reverts are confusing. The NPOV tag has nothing to with "promotion", and questioning the NPOV of the article on the talk page isn't "spam". Schazjmd (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Yes, as the user was making similar edits on other pages, it seemed like a pattern, so I reverted them. Now, he has returned, and I have responded to him appropriately. --BeLucky (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Both of you have now posted on the article's talk page. @Arcade222, your broad-stroked criticisms aren't very actionable; please propose sourced improvements. @BeLucky, please discuss civilly, assuming good faith, rather than with the aggressiveness in your initial post to Arcade there.

Arcade, it is true that you've made similar posts to other article talk pages. Your criticisms are too general to be helpful and you'll get better responses if you approach the subjects with reliable sources and specific changes. Schazjmd (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh look he did it again: he removed the NPOV tag without discussion. Can you please stop? Arcade222 (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

As Schazjmd has pointed out, your criticisms are too general to be actionable. As such, the neutrality of the article is not seriously in question and the tag should not remain. If you have more specific, source-based suggestions, feel free to make them on the talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The neutrality is not in question? Are you serious? A fringe crackpot groups meeting is claimed to have played "a crucial role in promoting global governance and world peace in human history." and you expect me to list the individual faults of the article? Arcade222 (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Arcade222 "crackpot groups meeting". That explains the article well. Thank you for your valuable inputs. --BeLucky (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh, well I removed the offending phrase six minutes before you posted this, so I'll assume it was an edit conflict and you're now well satisfied. Generalrelative (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk page discussion: Talk:Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars#Source about Razing misrepresented as a Massacre

The dispute is between me and two other editors on Talk:Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars#Source about Razing misrepresented as a Massacre and involves the removal of non-massacre events from the article Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars.

The disputed content I am trying to have removed from the article: Muslim Albanian towns like Tepelenë, Leskovik and Frashër and many villages were burnt down completely. When the Greek army was forced to withdraw officially from Albania as the Albanian Declaration of Independence was recognized internationally it organized a militia under the "Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus" which was composed mainly of bandits and deserters which engaged in arson, hostage-taking and looting as a means to fight to fight against Albanian militias.^[1]

Note how the Liakos & Doumanis source reports only on the destruction of settlements but falls short of reporting on their inhabitants' fates. This destruction of settlements is being added to an article containing the word "Massacres" on its article title, and thus, generating an -unverified- fact that its inhabitants were massacred, which is a gross misrepresentation of what the source does say. I have expressed my strong disagreement to this misuse of sources on the talk page.

I went WP:BOLD and remove Liakos & Doumanis from the article [2] but I was quickly reverted [3]. They argued in both their edit summaries and on the talk page that it must stay on the article since "it falls under the article's WP:SCOPE;" a faulty argument IMO, because not even dates match: the Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars took place during the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, while the events described in Liakos & Doumanis source, occurred in 1914, after these wars.

I have tried to add a Citation Needed tag to the disputed content but I was reverted twice: [4] [5] Then I went to Teahouse to seek advice on Citation Needed tag [6] and an admin was kind to respond as to suggest a "Verification Failed" tag instead, which I followed in the hopes of not being reverted again, but got reverted again: [7]

I came here because the talk page discussion which I feel has quickly gained characteristics of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling by providing poor arguments to defend the Liakos & Doumanis content's inclusion to the article, making off-topic proposals about article moves, or even suggesting that "I go open a RfC to seek it removed". Thing is, a RfC is time-consuming and cannot use that every time we want to deal with/remove unverified content from Wikipedia's articles. A waste of time and sources IMO. Latest was their proposal to move the article from the current "Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars" to the non-neutral "Genocide of Albanians in Balkan Wars" just so that they keep Liakos & Doumanis to it, which only served to derail the discussion all together. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Labeling things as a "massacre" is a common tactic for POV pushers and nationalist editors. The label should only be used if it's explicitly and overwhelmingly called a "massacre" by high quality sources. We don't get to decide whether or not something is a massacre. That's original research and a neutral point of view violation. Once content has been challenged, it's the responsibility of whoever restores it to provide such high quality sources. All of this also applies to the term "genocide". Given that this is a contentious topic, any uninvolved admin can enforce sanctions as needed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: What you say, are exactly my thoughts. I know that labeling such things as a "massacre" is a common POV-pushing tactic, hence I have pleaded for an admin's advice here: [8] because I wanted to be careful on how to tackle with this kind of editors. However, the problem remains: the editors aren't letting me to remove the POV and OR violations from the article, insisting that I must open a RfC first, and have the community decide through that RfC for the removal of these POV and OR violations. I disagree. RfCs are only meant for consensus-building procedures in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, not for legitimizing such misrepresentations of sources. They even proposed POV-pushing article moves, to rename the article so that such source misrepresentations are justified in it. That's why I came to the Noticeboard for help.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: You are absolutely right. We don't get to decide whether or not something is a massacre. But nobody has labeled anything which is not a massacre as a massacre in this article. No such edit has occurred. SilentResident's claims are not true because nobody has misrepresented any source. This is the problem with SR's claims and conduct in this debate: they act based on arguments and claims which are very inaccurate. This edit Muslim Albanian towns like Tepelenë, Leskovik and Frashër and many villages were burnt down completely. When the Greek army was forced to withdraw officially from Albania as the Albanian Declaration of Independence was recognized internationally it organized a militia under the "Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus" which was composed mainly of bandits and deserters which engaged in arson, hostage-taking and looting as a means to fight to fight against Albanian militias is supported by an inline citation by this source: Liakos & Doumanis 2023, p. 35:The Greek army occupied the region in December, and a provisional government was established in February 1914. Its ‘army’ was composed mainly of deserters and bandits, who were pitted against Albanian militias, thereby subjecting the territory to a vicious cycle of arson, hostage-taking and looting. Towns like Tepelenë/Tepeleni, Frashër/Frasari and Lefkovik/Leskovik, and many villages were burned to their foundations. The edit doesn't misrepresent the source by labeling any event as a "massacre", hence even the title of the thread started by SR is a very inaccurate claim. The response by SR has been to repeatedly tag the sentence with "citation needed" tags which are inappropriate because this is not what cn tags are used for[9][10][11]. This is not a case where a citation is needed because the citation has been provided and no further citation is required. SR's objection doesn't concern any source misrepresentation because this is not such a case. It concerns the scope of the article and whether such information can be included in this article. My response was that information about state-sponsored mass violence which leads to entire towns and many villages being "burned to their foundations" does belong in such articles. I have repeatedly asked SR to file a discussion at RfC for their concerns and the community can decide but SR cannot keep adding content tags about citations and failed verification[12] - for the 4th time. There is no cn or vn situation here and no misrepresentation of any source to label any event as a massacre.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

My response was that information about state-sponsored mass violence which leads to entire towns and many villages being "burned to their foundations" does belong in such articles. – Then you are engaging in original research and need to stop. You don't get to decide what the definition or scope of "massacre" is. We're here to summarize what the sources say and only what the sources say. If the sources don't apply a label, then applying it ourselves is an original idea that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding: there is no edit in the artice which labels any event a massacre while the source doesn't do so. I didn't add the above argument in the article and I'm not the only editor who objected SR's suggestions. And I didn't apply this label to any event. There is no such edit in the article. This is one argument which I wrote during the talkpage discussion and it is something very common and expected in such articles. No such article is merely a list of massacres, otherwise they would be titled "List of X massacres". The topic and scope concern the historical background and military activities which led to such events. All such articles are written in this manner e.g. Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia or Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War and all academic bibliography about such events follows the same format. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"SilentResident's claims are not true because nobody has misrepresented any source". How an event not called a massacre by the sources, being added on an article about massacres, does not constitute WP:OR and source misrepresentation??? Massacre is a serious crime which requires strong verification by reliable sources. Nothing less than that. I noted that you haven't provided any sources backing your POV claims. I am not the only editor around here asking you for WP:VERIFIABILITY, but also User:Thebiguglyalien here and User:Slatersteven on the article's talk page [13]: Either present strong WP:RS that back your Massacre claims, or drop it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If an article classifies something as a "massacre", directly or indirectly, then there need to be high quality sources that directly verify this specific classification. If these cannot be found, then we cannot say or imply that an event is a massacre. And if you're defending its inclusion, then it's your responsibility to find sources and find consensus before it's restored. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: If an article classifies something as a "massacre", directly or indirectly The article doesn't do such a thing. There is no such edit in the article - directly or indirectly. The sentence which is present in the article is the one quoted above: Muslim Albanian towns like Tepelenë, Leskovik and Frashër and many villages were burnt down completely (...) It doesn't claim anything about massacres, but its inclusion is within the scope of the article because all such articles extensively describe the historical background and broader military activities related to such events. SR is welcome to file a discussion via RfC and then a much broader segment of the editing community can provide their valuable input and decide about SR's arguments. But this is not a case of source misrepresentation - direct or indirect - because no such edits can be found in the article. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If the argument here is that other articles about massacres also make implications not supported by the sources, then the solution is to clean those articles up as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's more WP:OR from you, Maleschreiber. With all respect, a RfC's role isn't to justify source misrepresentations and violations of NPOV guidelines. Please read carefully what NPOV states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Neutrality is non-negotiable and not subject to editorial consensuses and RfCs. I will appreciate if you drop this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude as it is unacceptable and sanctionable. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Either present strong WP:RS that back your Massacre claims, or drop it I haven't written a single "massacre claim" anywhere in the article, so there's nothing to bring a source about or drop. You're depicting this dispute as something which it is not.

@Thebiguglyalien: I definitely agree with you, but there is no such implication and no such claim. I simply said that all articles about such events discuss the historical background and key military activities which impact civilians. It's really just what the topic of the article is about. Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia cannot discuss its main topic without a presentation of the historical background and broader activities which target civilians. The article cannot discuss all such events, but it cannot be written without providing a summary of them. The problem seems to start from SR's filing of the thread which gave the impression that there are edits in the article which state (directly or indirectly) or imply that events which aren't massacres are massacres, but there are no such edits. I haven't added a single such edit. This is simply just a single sentence which explains that the activity of the Greek army in southern Albania involved razing entire towns and villages when it entered the region in 1913 in the context of the Balkan Wars and then the section moves on to discussing killings of civilians.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"involved razing entire towns and villages when it entered the region in 1913 in the context of the Balkan Wars and then the section moves on to discussing killings of civilians." But the Liakos & Doumanis source has made it very clear that it doesn't talk about the Balkan Wars of 1913, reports on events occurring after that war, in 1914. Not only that, but doesn't mention massacres of civilians. Using this content on this article about "Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars" is extremely POV-pushing and unverified. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Note to the Admins, please your attention on the article is needed. The POV-pushers keep removing the failed verification tag [14] [15] without waiting for the problem with the verification and the Noticeboard discussion to be resolved first (No sources were to support the verification we editors have asked for). Not only that, but it is specifically the editors Alltan (talk · contribs) and Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs) who were always involved on all nationality-based disputes across the WP:BALKANS topic area at Maleschreiber's side. Now all these editors who share the same POV, are working together by edit warring to remove the Verification Failed tag from the disputed content, without providing any sources for the verification we have asked, and without showing any respect to the ongoing discussion on the Noticeboard, and by throwing warnings on my talk page: [16] only aiming at discouraging me about the unverified content. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The article discusses the period of the Balkan Wars which ended with the official or de facto withdrawal of respective armies from each region. This is part of what the source describes. If this is your concern, I can move it chronologically to be the last phase of the section but it's part of the BW era. The article doesn't state or imply anything about massacres of civilians based on this source. Hence you are asking for sources and verification for a claim which doesn't even exist anywhere in the article. I can't provide sources or verify sources for something which I haven't even written. The problem is that you used cn and vn tags for matters which don't concern cn or vn.

• • I notified an admin and expert editor about such topics in the Balkans to provide a second opinion if they are available [17]. I strongly encourage SR to start a discussion at RfC.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• User:SilentResident, I am not interested in the content dispute. However, I removed the failed verification tag because it is not used to address your concerns. It is used for source misinterpretation, not for possibly UNDUE/irrelevant content. Do not add it for a 5th time. IMO, you and the other involved editors might have as the only path an RfC. Though ofc the walls of text will only keep becoming larger. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You should self-revert yourself. The dispute we are discussing here is about the Gross misrepresentation of non-massacres as massacres and the admin Administrator Nick Moyes informed me that the Failed Verification tag may be used for this case here. Discussion can be found here: [18] You should not have removed the tag. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I will not self-revert, because I think that what I did follows the template's documentation. If another one, admin or not, thinks otherwise, up to them what they do. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: The editors also resorted to the one-sided removal of the NPOV tag from the article [19] despite Template:POV#When to remove being clear on when to remove it. This, coupled with the edit warring to have any citation/verification tags removed, shows a WP:OWNERSHIP attitude and this is at most, a very troubling development. Right now, the article suggests that it has no whatsoever problems, that there are no ongoing NPOV disputes, nothing at all. This goes against the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines which require people's policy-related concerns to not be suppressed, ignored, or even hidden from the public. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The simple solution is to rename this article to either ‘Genocide of Albanians during the Balkan Wars’, or failing that, ‘Ethnic Cleansing of Albanians during the Balkan Wars’. There are many sources which can be used to support both, but the variation of terms used seems to suggest ethnic cleansing as the appropriate name at the very least.

SilentResident has been tag-bombing the article with tags that don’t apply - the tags are being misused, hence why editors are trying to remove them. SilentResident then follows up with this by hurling claims of POV-pushing, ownership and tag-teaming etc etc, none of which apply. Her constant misuse of both tags and policies is overcomplicating what should be a basic move request for the article. I have tried to take into account their concerns regarding the matter and have even made changes that satisfied their initial complaints, but they keep causing further dispute which should ultimately be solved by moving the article. I am going to file the move request tomorrow, and then this is all over. Simple solutions. Botushali (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment: The problem here is that there is a group of editors that reverted in round robin fashion so as to avoid falling foul of WP:3RR and successfully imposed their version of their article via edit-warring: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. That's 5 reverts in less than 24 hours distributed among 4 users. This is a recurring problem across this topic area [25]. The only thing that has been effective at tamping down this behavior is the consensus required restriction, as implemented here [26]. That article suffered from the same problem as well, and the WP:CRP restriction really put an end to it without resorting to page protection or blocks or anything that extreme. Personally, I think this should be applied across all articles in all contentious topic areas, not just to individual articles, but I digress. Khirurg (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That’s not the problem here. The problem is that a number of tags and claims were misused. If a number of editors take issue with whatever it is you are doing, perhaps you’re the problem.

By the way, that “solution” you proposed is ultimately a failure, hence why it is getting such a negative response. The consensus required restriction allows people to abuse the RV button on information they don’t like to block its addition. Botushali (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

An admin already gave their opinion as indeed there was misuse of tagging in the article but no "source misrepresentation": User_talk:Drmies#Attention needed on Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan_Wars and more editors involved have disagreed with SR's approach: [27]. If 6-7 editors disagree with an individual as is their right to do, then what that individual should do is file a discussion at RfC if they are convinced that they are right. Khirurg's accusations have been replied to every time he tries to put forward the same narrative: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1110#Evidence to explain why a part of his opinions cannot find a consensus. But just because many editors genuinely disagree with his approach, it doesn't mean that they agree with each other. There's a fundamental difference between these two narratives. In this particular debate I may agree with Botushali, but in the same article in another ongoing debate we have disagreed with each other and Khirurg avoids to mention that in another debate just a few days ago[28] I agreed with Khirurg and disagreed with the editors with whom I agreed in this case. This is how open and honest discussion among editors who are truly interested in a subject works: sometimes they agree, sometimes they disagree and nobody's opinions can always be shared by most editors. There is an administrative opinion and a strong suggestion even by the admin for SR to file a discussion at RfC, hence we can move beyond the present discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: the dispute has been resolved with the addition of this information [29] which addresses my NPOV concerns. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Summary

The article is a political BLP, and contains a lot of controversy. We need input on how to write it NPOV.

General Proposal

Due to conflicting sources, include all conflicting statements. For the lead, be unspecific, refer to the body.

Example 1

• skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines

Is inaccurate, be unspecific and reduce to example new paragraph and current lead;

• He has been involved in several controversies, on topics such as ..., COVID-19 ...

Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Formally you only have to notify editors if you talk about them. See this notice at/near the top of this page:

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

But you should notify people who are involved in the discussion as a courtesy. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not involved, so my comments reflect personal experience rather than the topic at hand. Argentine sources, especially press sources, are problematic because of the inherent bias in the sector. E.G. Pagina 12 has a close relationship with Christina Kirchner, receiving hug amounts of state advertising, it is overly promotional of Christina and put out multiple hit pieces to undermine the previous president Macri and no doubt is now trying to undermine Milei. It is a problem that many Argentine newspapers depend upon government advertising. Even sources such as Clarin, which does not, and might be considered reliable otherwise have had a difficult on/off relationship with the Peronist movement. Milei has really upset the political landscape in Argentina and so the allies of Peronism have their knives out and the hit pieces in the media are the result. I would go so far to say to meet BLP guidelines we should rely on foreign press coverage and eschew Argentine press as unreliable on this topic. WCM_email 15:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree, except that international media seems to get their content from the Argentine press. Not enough media articles with original research yet, so I'm putting emphasis on including multiple perspectives for each paragraph/statement etc. Thats also why I'm asking for primary sources within the secondary sources we use. Its difficult writing this in NPOV, without getting a whitewashing label. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to this?

For political analyst Facundo Cruz of the Research Center for Democratic Quality, this was a result of the protest vote. He said that the vote for Milei "channeled the citizen discontent of the last two governments, past and present".[54] According to Clarín, "Milei's victory speaks to us above all of the extent of despondency and anger that hovers in Argentine society, which wanted to express this profound unease with the primary vote."[5] According to Página12, he "arises from a bad economic situation, from the critical situations experienced during the months of isolation due to the pandemic, added to the exasperating and permanent blow of inflation."[5] Página12 sees a similarity with the scenarios before the military coups in Argentina and other Latin American countries, saying that the military coups "have dismantled the democratic system, but they have never solved anything and, in exchange rate, have worsened the lives of Argentines: poverty, debts, unemployment and so on. Milei looks like a child of that story. He embodies the same illusions of a sector of society that promoted dictatorships and then regretted it."[5]

It is proprely attributed, and it is sourced not to them but through another independent, secondary source, Il Post, which is considered a reliable source in Italy. None of this is controversial, since many other sources saw Milei's win as voters being dissatisfied by both traditional partes; is this a controversial claim? The fact that even Peronist newspapers acknowledged this is telling. Davide King (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I just meant i found very little original content from international media so far, e.g. Bloomberg interview is one. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a problem of WP:RECENTISM but it seems we both agree that due to his August 2023 primaries win, he got international recognition. I think that with time, this will no longer be an issue but those are still the best sources we have (in fact, one complaint is the use of non-English sources but English sources mainly comes from August 2023 because that is when he got international recognition). What is needed is not more primary sources but secondary reliable sources not limited to August 2023. Not liking what those secondary sources say is not a good enough reason to remove content or claim issues. I think the issues rest on something else, certainly not on us saying he "expressed skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines"... Davide King (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This is my reading for any user interesting to the dispute, I am not interested in another back-and-forth discussion with Pedantic Aristotle, please. That statement is well supported by the body.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Milei expressed skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines.[36] He questioned the national government COVID-19 vaccination policy, and opposed mandatory vaccination.[39] In November 2021, Milei vaccinated himself for COVID-19, citing economic reasons based on a risk–benefit analysis that he made, and rejected the anti-vaccination label that was used to describe his views on the issue;[40] he dismissed the negative impact his COVID-19 vaccine statements could have had on the campaign against COVID-19.[39] Before his vaccination, he had said that due to an evaluated "income-risk" and the claim that not all vaccines were "well tested". He said: "Pharmacological products require ten years of empirical testing and this product is a year and a half old."[39] The World Health Organization stated that "the safety and efficacy required by vaccines are not in question" despite the fact that they were developed "at an unprecedented speed".[39] About his decision to get vaccinated, he said: "Now I am entering Congress, I am going to give up my diet, on 10 December I am leaving my job, I have to go to give talks in Uruguay, the United States, Chile, and Spain, and I cannot enter without the vaccine. What do I do? Do I run out of income? What do I live on?"[39] He chose the Sinopharm BIBP COVID-19 vaccine because it is an inactivated virus vaccine.[39]

In short, even when he got vaccinated, those other sources (so it is not just the Economist Intelligence Unit, which is certainly no friend of Peronism and in fact is supportive of economic liberalism) noted that he has been skeptical, and in fact his reason to get vaccinated is not because he is no longer skeptic but it is due the economic reasons he listed. Since we do not say that he is anti-vaccination, the issue is moot, and the skepticism is a claim that is supported by more than a single independent secondary source that the wording for the lead is appropriate. No else complained about this...

The two Spanish-language sources used in the paragraph are El Cronista (El Cronista says it is aligned with economic liberalism), and La Nación (La Nación says it is "the country's leading conservative newspaper"), so can you stop using the Peronist excuse? Pedantic Aristotle did not seem to have any issue with those two sources, and wrote: "The issue is indeed the sourcing, those are much better sources, that includes actual verifiable information. I did not say The Economist was wrong", so what are we even discussing? This is a non-controversial claim supported by three reliable sources that are right-leaning, none of which can be excluded under the excuse of Peronism. Davide King (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Brief clarification: its a question of how to write it NPOV, the topic is more complex than a short sentence. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you think of the talkquoted part I cited that is present in the body? Do you have problems with that too, or only with the lead? If you have problems with the body, which part do you think is missing? If you have problems with the wording of the lead, please remember that WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the body, so we cannot add all that context from the body, but the "skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines" wording is supported by the body text. Does anyone else disagree? Davide King (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll be concise to let others in on the discussion. As this is a contentious topic, my argument is that we should be very careful in how this is written. The sentence as it appears is far too unspecific, and does not do the topic justice, even for the lead. I'll need to properly review and comment on body later. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I tried to conduct moderated discussion at DRN before closing the discussion there and advising that it be taken here. However, I see one of the same problems here as I did at DRN, which is that User:Pedantic Aristotle's statement of the problem is too long, and does not communicate effectively what is wrong. At DRN, PA said that there were at least 50 points in the article that should be changed. I advised PA not to tag-bomb the article. I interpreted the basic issue being that they think that the article should be rewritten. I have seen one specific issue identified that I can understand, which is about covid vaccination. So maybe two questions should be addressed here. The first is about his position on covid vaccination. The second is whether the article should be rewritten. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Apologies again for the confusion, there are too many topics, so I've had a hard time being concise. Generally speaking; add attribution and balance where its missing. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the first question; I think the statements in the lead does not do the topic justice, and should probably be moved to the body. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Problem 2

In order to make this more efficient, I have rewritten the lead, and created a thread in the Talk page.

Please see the full new lead here (last paragraph contains disputed topics);

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&oldid=1173482545

And the previous lead, as of the start of this thread;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&oldid=1173452276 Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there is some copy editing to do (for example, why put something when there is a citation needed tag? If something needs that, it does not belong to the lead) but I liked the way you summarized how sources have described him (e.g. "Initially gaining prominence as an economist and the author of multiple books on economics and politics, Milei transitioned into a significant political figure. ... Beyond his professional and political life, Milei is also known for his flamboyant personality, distinctive personal style and strong media presence, both domestically and internationally", that is all good). I do not like the wording used in relation to the way he has been described and this disnticion between international sources and Argentine sources that looks like WP:ORG/WP:SYNTH, and there is certainly space for further improvement, but I appreciate the effort and is an improvement in terms of conciseness and length, which is what it should look like when we get it to "Good Article" status. At the same time, more discussion is needed and consensus required. Davide King (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes sure, suggestions for improvement are welcome. I added the citation needed tag temporarily as i need more time to review that sentence, but wanted to present the general idea quickly, so others can start adding their views. Last paragraph is the painful one, i hope the first 3 are better and less disputable. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

So I researched the "citation needed" sentence in this paragraph further.

This summarizes the political program that has been presented, and nothing is mentioned on these topics;

https://eightify.app/summary/current-events-and-politics/javier-milei-s-government-plan-unveiled

Bloomberg wrote this;

"Milei has put forward a mixed bag of proposals under the banner of health reform — from expressing support for the sale of human organs to the condemnation of abortions and euthanasia."

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/world/2023/08/15/politics/javier-milei-proposals-argentina/

This seems ambiguous and disputable, so I'm not sure what we can or should include in the lead on these. Can we write it this way? (There are sources in body elaborating on these topics)

• Although he has previously advocated for individual freedoms on issues such as legalizing drugs and prostitution and market solutions for human organ transplants, it is not clear whether these topics are included in his current electoral platform.

Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The formal electoral platform is located here. Of course, it's in Spanish, but it can help to make sure which is an actual proposal and which is just something said in media or social networks. Cambalachero (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as far as i can tell, none of these topics are specified explicitly. Updated proposals are added on the Talk page. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

As Davide King said he was going to work more on the article and perhaps create a fork, I stepped aside for some days. The main problem I see here is the approach: include everything that hit the news in the article (even stories such as "an obscure deputy says 'Milei sucks' and Milei replies 'yo mama'"), and remove the cruft at some later point. The problem with doing so is that the article would soon become a huge unreadable mess (Wikipedia in Spanish suffers a lot from this), and when will be the moment to start removing cruft? In some years, when someone writes a book about Milei... a book that will be by necessity outdated by the time it hits the stands, lacking the info from the point the writer ends writing and actual publication? No. It is possible to make an educated guess, shortly after ongoing events or even during their time, when an event will be relevant to the scope of the article or not. Have in mind that if he actually wins the elections and becomes president, he will be generating news (both useful and cruft) on a daily basis. Having a featured article on a sitting president (which means deciding those things on the fly) may be hard, but it's doable: it happened with Barack Obama. Cambalachero (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I had a look at the Sandbox User:Davide King was editing, but with that edit it seems we are just transferring the problem rather than fixing it. But you are in luck, because i did a restructuring based on my edits from the main page that was reverted. I was thinking of adding this to a new page called "Political views of Javier Milei". What do you think?

See my draft here; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pedantic_Aristotle/sandbox&oldid=1173869921

Davide Kings version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Davide_King/sandbox&oldid=1173519690 Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

(please note, i did not focus on changing content, i just restructured it logically, and in a way that allows us to improve the content as the next step) Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I've moved this to a draft page Draft:Political views of Javier Milei, so we can work on this together. Please note i explicitly picked Political "views" instead of "positions", so we can include broader context such as philosophic foundations in one location. "Positions" seems more appropriate for a political party, or typical career politicians. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cambalachero, i think the article is now converging towards something useful. There are some details missing, and I still need to check all the sources, as there could have been something that went wrong in the transfer process. It would also be good to receive criticism, there may be things i have not considered. The goal has been to describe his political views, minimize ambiguity and be informative. The article is incomplete, but i think its a good start.

I have read a number of other "political views of" articles, and it seems to be the norm to exclude criticism, which makes sense as the article is about his views, not criticisms of his views. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I started a move request from Jewish religious terrorism to Jewish extremist terrorism on that article's talk-page, see [30]. (The proposed title is currently a redirect.) More participation would be very welcome. NightHeron (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the image that appears in the summary when you hover over that link on desktop, and why is it there? DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The image is File:Lipoma 04.jpg, which documents a surgical procedure and has nothing to do with the topic except perhaps to suggest dismemberment. The Lipoma image also shows up when hovering over links to just religious terrorism. Links to religious violence and terrorism also have associated images. It seems to be part of the hovering mechanism, but I haven't been able to figure out where that mechanism gets images. The ability to link hover-overs with images without any review has obvious NPOV issues. Perhaps anI started an inquiry at Village Pump technical:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Images_in_link_hover-over_popups --agr (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/109.144.208.45 It might not be my place to talk but I feel as though calling someone a "c***" is not proper etiquette when editing, and the most recent revision doesn't seem to be in a neutral point of view. YourAverageWeeb (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

wp:ani might be a better place. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Many, many people have opinions about how the election was dealt with. Saying Maria Bartiromo is voicing “Fraudulent claims”, is not fact, but a Democrat’s personal opinion. That should be removed. Do you see that on the Stacy Abrams page? Hillary Clinton? Be fair and adjust that section. There are a lot of odd issues from that election, and Wikipedia should balance, which in this case, is not. 2600:8805:A06:9700:A425:B986:4B71:AF8C (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No its an RS claim, not all RS are even American. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If you're interested in what the WP-goal is in terms of "balance", take the time to read WP:NPOV. "Neutral" has many meanings, and "stuff I agree with" is a common one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The style of this article seems quite editorial. 2607:FB60:1011:2006:C89:3B6B:AD86:BC6A (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the Priya Venkatesan article, and recently the subject of the article has been claiming it doesn't follow NPOV. The COI issue there will be dealt with on the respective noticeboard if it becomes more of an issue, so I'm just here to ask for a second opinion about the article itself - is there any NPOV issues in the article? Specifically the controversy section; I tried my best to write about both sides and not claim anyone was right or wrong, but I'm second-guessing myself. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I think a case could be made for this article running afoul of BLP1E. All the sources currently in the article are either written by her, or they're about her dispute with her students. I searched on Google briefly and didn't find any substantial coverage of her that wasn't about that dispute, and that coverage is all from 2008-2009. And if BLP1E doesn't apply and she is notable, then it seems undue to me for a single event from 15 years ago with no enduring coverage to occupy as much of the article as it does now. Squeakachu (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Without actually checking sources, it seems possible that this lawsuit that never happened is given too much WP:PROPORTION. As currently written, the episode should be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Squeakachu: Thanks for the responses - right now I don't have the energy to do much of a rewrite, but I'll stick a clean-up template and add a mention in the lead section. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 21:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

My name is Amy and I work for LastPass, a password manager. About half of the LastPass page is focused on security breaches. There was a security incident that got substantial publicity earlier this year, but I think the emphasis is undue. I'm here to ask impartial editor(s) to take a look. Please see at the LastPass Talk page for more context. Appreciate your consideration. AmyMarchiando (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Looked a bit into the article, added a reply on the talk page. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

New article about development in a WP:GS area. I moved it to draftspace because of sourcing and neutrality concerns, but I'm not at home in the general sanctions areas, and hope that others will do the necessary (tagging editors and articles, keeping an eye on developments, checking sources, ...) to nip any issues in the bud. Feel free to revert my draftification if you think it was a bad move. My edit summary was "Serious NPOV concerns in sourcing, text, infobox (a country doesn't necessarily support any new activities by selling drones before this started)... Needs checking before putting in the mainspace" Fram (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm checking some of the sources, just tagged a few sentences in the background section for accuracy/verifiability/clarification already. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Any article on an active war is always going to have NPOV issues. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Bringing to the board's attention: Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 8#NPOV - "dubious conclusions", which I started. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Several editors, all associated with WP:UKRAINE, object to mentioning the former name of the language, historically used in notable works but now considered pejorative, as "typical colonial language, ignoring that all diplomacy and nearly all academia in the West that led to this usage was conducted and established by Russian imperials". Input from editors not identifying with either side of the Russia–Ukraine relations would be much appreciated. Crash48 (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Crash48: You already took this case to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukraine#Input_needed_at_Talk:Ukrainian_language#Little_Russian_language, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Input_needed_at_Talk:Ukrainian_language#Little_Russian_language, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Languages#Input_needed_at_Talk:Ukrainian_language#Little_Russian_language, and WP:3O. More important: That I state my personal opinion (supporting Ukraine) on my user's page and that I'm a member of WikiProject Ukraine is absolutely no reason to doubt the neutrality of my editing, see WP:NPA#WHATIS, bullet point 3. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

i would like to point out that i am not involved with that project—blindlynx 22:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved, after reading the discussion: mentioning the fact that a name for the language was Little Russian is clearly important. It should be explained that it is associated with the idea of Little Russian identity. Those opposed to the inclusion have mentioned this, but they have not shown that modern scholarship denies the language has ever been called that, or that it wasn't an important historical term. They merely point out some of its colonialist implications, which is its own topic. The mentioned vernacular names can be added (although some of them are generic phrases literally meaning "our language" and "(the) people's language", which is not specific to Ukrainian, so it does not show that the name Little Russian is an undue detail), but this does not impact the history of the literary language. Dege31 (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that anybody is "opposed to the inclusion". What I (and the others, if my understanding is correct) are opposed to is mentioning the name solely based on primary sources and without context. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

That's false: here you reverted a quote from a secondary source because of its use of the unmentionable name; and the "context" that you insist on including -- that "the imperial centre imposed the used the of the name in order to convey the notion of a fundamental unity" -- is both unsourced and demonstrably misleading, as I explained in detail on the article talk page. Crash48 (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not false. I reverted because your addition was without context. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The "context", whose inclusion you impose as a condition for mentioning the historic name, is your own fabrication.

This argument is going on for two weeks, and you haven't yet found as much as a single source to support your claims. Crash48 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear, my point was that it is undue to say 'little russian' was a neutral endonym when other terms—however generic—were used that did not have imperial connotations—blindlynx 14:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

[31] says exactly that: at that time it was a neutral endonym, and did not have imperial connotations. Do you know of any source saying otherwise? Crash48 (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Based on that paper the term 'little russian' was tied to the incorporation of the hetmanate into the russian empire in the second half of the 17c. It did not becoming dominate as a neutral term until the 1840s and then shifted to negative from the 1860's on. Based on that paper it was dominant and neutral for about 20 years. Your edit is undue because it makes it seem like the term was widely and neutrally applied to the language from the end of the 12c. I have no problem including the term but it needs to be contextualized—blindlynx 17:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

How did dominance become a condition for inclusion? Your favourite terms for simple speech had never become dominant, but are mentioned nevertheless. Crash48 (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I—or anyone else in this discussion—do not have a problem including the term but it needs to be contextualized, something that you are actively resisting—blindlynx 19:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not have a favourite term. There are many terms that were uses of them 'simple speech' and 'little russian'. 'Little russian' was not the term 'usually' used (alongside 'ruthenian') from 1187 to the mid 19c as the edit in question suggests—blindlynx 19:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes it was: that's what the quoted source states. Crash48 (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Which? The Flier, Graziosi paper cited after the edit explicitly ties 'little russian' to the russian empire (“Little Russian” language (the term used for Ukrainian in the Russian Empire)) and makes no claims of the terms neutrality—blindlynx 12:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

For sure, Little Russian was the term used in the Russian Empire. Flier&Graziosi make no claims that it wasn't used outside the Russian Empire, as well as before the establishment of the Russian Empire. On the article talk page, I had listed abundant references to Little Russian from outside the Russian Empire. Also Flier&Graziosi make no claims of the term's non-neutrality; that's what Boeck's citation is about. Crash48 (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You're basing the claim that it was 'usually' used in a way comparable to the use of 'Ruthenian' from 1187 on citations that do not say that. Both of the citations make it clear the use of the term was tied to the russian empire and the Boeck paper makes it clear it wasn't prominent before the hetmanate for subsumed by the russian empire—blindlynx 14:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Please note that I just added Little Russian to the article, hoping to get the context right. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Papua conflict

Im not particularly knowledgeable but from my understanding the conflict has involved numerous documented cases of massacres, torture, arial bombardment of civilians, and imprisonment, torture, and extrajudicial killings of non-violent political activists by a well-equipped force against a poorly equipped force. As well as what would almost certainly be considered genocide or close to it. At least hundreds of thousands of people have died due to the actions of the Indonesian military. However, if you read the opening paragraph, it only mentions atrocities committed by the guerrilla forces. If you look at the most recent edit as well you see an example of what to me is a trend where a whataboutism is added as context to downplay information favorable to the separatists.

Most of these users appear to be extremely active on editing pages related to the Indonesian military while I doubt most people on the separatist side have internet much less electricity so it seems pretty obvious there is a POV that has become dominant and is clearly not neutral. 107.77.213.48 (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs or explain how bad something is. We don't indiscriminately compile lists of bad things, nor do we go out of our way to add them to articles. We just summarize the main ideas that are expressed by reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The IP's concerns were totally valid here, which is clear if you take the time to examine the recent history of the article. Another IP, however, has substantially improved the lead by removing two obviously POV statements: [32]. As of right now, I'd say the lead at least seems pretty good. I'll be happy to add the article to my watchlist. Generalrelative (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Good, the POV statements shouldn't be there. That doesn't mean it's okay for the IP to turn this report into a soapbox. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they were turning it into a soapbox at all. While we strive to meet WP:NPOV and reliability of and through sources, sometimes these can be disjointed or out-of-sync, usually due to systemic bias in cases like this. The IP, without knowledge of our terminology and such, was simply expressing this out in their own way. In a case as serious as this, the response is not to pull a bothsidesism but rather to avoid using sources which may have an inherent and pervasive bias; in this case, I would be skeptical of most sources that come out of Indonesia, and likely PNG and Australia as well. Curbon7 (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry, the role of Wikipedia is to not be right or parrot propaganda from one side? I do not think “well, a lot of husbands of the women raped by the army beat their wives” is relevant when talking about the crimes of an army. However, that was the state of the article. What on earth are you talking about, and why are you taking such a condescending tone toward me? 2001:818:DCA6:A500:B53F:F89D:6F04:B4DE (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually Thebiguglyalien agreed with your removal of that content. We're all basically on the same page here. With regard to "condescending tone", it's really easy to misinterpret one another when we're all communicating with text only, often about topics we care deeply about. But there was no violation of civility in Thebiguglyalien's reply. In order to work here effectively you've got to have a moderately thick skin. That said, we can all stand to be reminded once in a while not to bite the newcomers. Generalrelative (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m unsure how I’m “soapboxing” nor was I just here to “explain how bad something was.” His characterization of my post was frankly a condescending way to go about it. I’ve skimmed the rules and from my understanding I’ve correctly followed the process for the problem I’ve identified. His behavior is uncalled for. I think my skin is plenty thick, if he doesn’t want to be called out than he can choose to be more polite and charitable himself.

Anyway, I hope there will be more eyes now from experienced people on that article that aren’t interested in advancing a particular narrative that is aimed at excusing and minimizing crimes against humanity. 2001:818:DCA6:A500:2C48:83C6:F108:C4A1 (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Correct, however in the lead of the article is "the Free Papua Movement has conducted a low-intensity guerrilla war against Indonesia through the targeting of its military, police, and civilian populations." That is a POV statement which is unacceptable. That's verging on calling a legitimate movement for national liberation a bunch of terrorists. This article needs a clean up. TarnishedPath^talk 08:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" – involves MOS:HONORIFIC, MOS:DOCTCAPS, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes obviously should be lower case. Where's the relevant discussion, your link goes to the FYI article. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor I clicked, it went to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" as it should. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure how I missed that. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. It would be appreciated if more experienced editors were involved. TarnishedPath^talk 00:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a dispute at Talk:What Is a Woman?#New lead line about whether the lead should include the line "Other sources point out that the ideas of any movement need to be challenged and digging deeper can't be out of bounds". More input would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at that talk page, it just seems to be threads and threads of FMSky making honestly rather dumb edits and claims. How anyone can take them seriously after the "anti-trans doesn't mean anti-transgender" thread is beyond me. They seem like a trolling account. Silverseren^C 02:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Loki (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Silver seren and LokiTheLiar: Looks like a number of experienced editors have been adding warnings on their user talk page, which get promptly reverted. I'm concerned about an editor with this kind of disregard for others making 170,270 edits over the course of less than three years. If the behavior at What Is a Woman? continues, it may be time for an AE report. Generalrelative (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

A search failed to find anything but I thought we did. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you're looking for MOS:JESUS? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid agh, so easy, why didn’t I think of that. Short and sweet as they say but I guess sufficient. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That's vague, and simply a bit silly. In many theological topics, and also art history, we should follow RS and just use "Christ", after an initial link, and perhaps spelling it out. The advice to use "Jesus of Nazareth" is, in most contexts, ridiculous. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod: "Jesus of Nazareth" when talking about the historical person seems not unreasonable. Polygnotus (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Not unreasonable, but mostly not necessary or best. It's not like the "of Nazareth" disambiguation" is normally going to be necessary. Nearly all such articles have "explicitly Christian religious contexts", except for a handful on Tiberius, Josephus etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but I do think it is wise to avoid "Christ" outside of explicitly Christian religious contexts for the reasons discussed at the MOS. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In most contexts you would just use Jesus, only need to disambiguate when there's multiple Jesuses being discussed. Also note that on wikipedia the initial link would be to Jesus, there is nothing at Jesus Christ except a redirect to Jesus. Its like Cher or Bono, unless there's more than one no need to make it complicated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

MOS:JESUS makes sense to me. We certainly would not say Jesus Christ in the Jesus in Islam article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, we do. Perhaps that should be corrected. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Muslims do call Jesus, as one among multiple names, "the Christ" (Arabic: al-Masīḥ, from the Hebrew Māshīaḥ, meaning 'Messiah', 'Anointed One'; Greek: Khristós, whence English 'Christ'), although they do not regard Jesus as a messiah in the Christian sense of savior. See the sources cited in Masih (title). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that the term used by Arab Christians, not followers of Islam? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It occurs eleven times in the Quran: 3:45, 4:157, 4:171, 4:172, 5:17 (two times), 5:72 (two times), 5:75, 9:30, and 9:31. A title of such definite Quranic authority would certainly be recognized by Muslims, and used at least in the context of Quran recitation. Whether and how it was actually used by later Muslims outside of Quran recitation I do not know. If you would happen to find some reliable sourced information on that topic, please do add it to Masih (title). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it should. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Al-Masīḥ is mostly perceived as an epithet without conveying a honorific baggage (just as "Christ" does not for many English speakers). But in the article about Jesus in Islam, "Jesus Christ" should be restricted to literal translations of ʽIsā al-Masīḥ in quotes from the Qur'an. For all other mentions, plain and simple "Jesus" is sufficient. –Austronesier (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. However, I would urge editors to look at what the relevant RS are doing. In my view, we should always strive to adopt the terminology current among the most high-quality RS, rather than enforce our own standard based upon editorial opinion. In the discussion which sparked Doug's original question here, there is a very real problem of editors obstinately refusing to look at RS or to take them into account in any way. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If we followed RS we would capitalize all sorts of honorifics. It's not Wikipedia's style and it doesn't fit with our standards for what to express in the voice of Wikipedia. We ought not ever say that Jesus is the Messiah or is Christ in Wikivoice. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It depends on whether you have merely stubbed your toe, or whether you have full-on hit your thumb with a hammer. If, on the other hand, you are witnessing full-grown dinosaurs that have been revived through genetic engineering, an infix may be necessary. BD2412 T 21:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In this special case, the most popular English infix is actually an interfix. –Austronesier (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You know we actually have a page for that under Jesus H. Christ Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Writing "Jesus Christ" in Wikipedia's voice is tantamount to telling our readers that Jesus is "the son of God and the messiah", which is a glaring violation of the neutral point of view. His name was not Jesus Christ, and Christ is a religious title that means "anointed one" or "messiah". Further information about his original name can be found at Yeshua. Simply calling him "Jesus" suffices in almost all circumstances. Cullen328 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree withUser:Cullen328 on this. Calling him Christ or Jesus Christ is a religious statement and Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 06:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" for a similar discussion. And we avoid "Lord Krishna". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorifics Doug Weller talk 06:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Resoundingly meh on that point. As a fan-club appointed title it's no worse than Bill Windsor's one, and it helps disambiguate from anyone else of the same name. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with Prince William as no matter how one may perceive the anachronism of monarchies, it is his title. I don’t have a problem with Prince Valiant or Lord Voldemort either in their articles as the articles are written within the context of fiction. I think Christ can be used in the correct context in the Jesus article, as it is. That is, “Most Christians believe….” instead of stating as fact. I agree with Austronesier that the Jesus in Islam article should only use the term when used in quotations. The Jesus in Christianity article also requires care as not all Christians are Trinitarian. This is a wordy way of agreeing with Cullen to avoid WikiVoice. I can’t say “meh” about the subject as wars have begun over such nonsense. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Our observance of aristocratic norms is one of the hangovers from the UK's early influence on ewiki and has lessened over time. I would be very surprised if our treatment of aristocracy doesn't conform more to the global norm and not the British one in a decade or two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

So long as we keep KBE out of the Giuliani article, which is MOS anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

maybe if there'd been more 'meh', there'd have been fewer wars about it... Daveosaurus (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Cullen328 I don't think it's appropriate to use this title or designation in Wikipedia's voice. We should not ever assert that Jesus is the Messiah or is Christ. Jesus or Jesus of Nazareth will do just fine. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that. Many editors don't seem to understand that, in Christian theology, Jesus is just Christ's earthly name, for a period of 33 years or so. Many Protestants in particular prefer to use Jesus for all subsequent periods (depending a bit on context), but in Christian theology the Pre-existence of Christ is universally accepted, and Christ is the name which he goes by in this period - it would be wrong to refer to him as Jesus before he is born. What you and the very weak policy are saying is highly POV, though I accept accidentally. Assaid above this terminology is also completely universal in art history covering older Christian art. Why should we not follow the sources? Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

In an article about what Christians think, it seems appropriate (to me) to say "Jesus Christ" in some places. What are other scenarios where his name would need anything other than "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth"? —DIYeditor (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it should be (and normally is) just Christ in most cases. As I'm now saying for the third time here, art history provides a plethora of "scenarios" (see Category:Paintings depicting Jesus), and there will be many more. And there aren't many articles referring to him that don't have "explicitly Christian religious contexts". Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I just want to note that I was taught that pre-incarnation neither Jesus nor Christ were the correct term; rather he should be referred to as "God the Son" or "The Word" (ὁ λόγος). And there are traditions of Christian thought which trace the title 'Christ' to the incarnation itself -- whether as a reference to the baptism by John, or more complicated formulations, like Aquinas' dual-anointing. I point this out not really as fodder for any particular view, but merely to say I believe the situation is a bit more complex than you describe. As I say, using "Christ" doesn't really bother me in the explicitly Christian context. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, complex as you say - but note the title of the article on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That isn’t secular and again, we are a secular encyclopaedia. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Not what? Secular must not mean POV, though I know there are those who think it should. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Does Recognition of same-sex unions in India have multiple issues with regards to the neutral point of view? Additionally, does the page have legal inaccuracies as raised in the same talk page section? It would be appreciated if editors with legal expertise were involved. Wiki6995 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not start RFCs on this page. You should start the RFC on that talk page, and then you can notify that you'd like more input from here. --Masem (t) 00:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The lede in the article has a lot of information with POV issues and generally includes information that is mentioned elsewhere in the article so it's both redundant and given undue prominence in the lede. With point of view issues specifically, it's text about his experience and people not pleased with it and his opposition to same sex marriages, something virtually every Catholic clergyman espouses. He's a recently appointed cardinal. Compare the lede on this article with articles on his predecessor and other cardinals created in the recent consistory. They all keep it short with the most important information while this one is heavy on supposed controversies. The editor who included in the lede keeps reverting my explained removal of this information from the lede. Killuminator (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI, the article passed through GA without any POV issues being raised. It's rather irrelevant if every other clergyman opposes same-sex marriages, plus it's not as much as about him opposing but rather the statement he made, comparing such marriages with celebrating the Eucharist with Coca-Cola. There are quite some sources that reported this controversy and as so we must include it in the lead. His experience or in this case the lack thereof is also fulcral to José Cobo Cano's article, so many sources deemed his appointment as unexpected because the archbishop of Madrid would normally have a bigger curriculum than what he had. The Blue Rider 21:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Barbary Pirates article is being overseen by a high subjective and bias editor - M.Bitton. He shuts down any points of view that may differ from his own, ignores points from valid sources and will even decline the same sources he has previously approved in an article from being used if it does not suit his narrative and/or if he does not personally like another person editing. I have tried to address this in the talk comments section, but all I get back is a relentless attitude and hypocritical responses from him. He should not be an editor/overseer of any article. Sara1985Wiki (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me from a cursory glance that M.Bitton is doing a good job keeping unencyclopedic language like Tunis, especially, was an international rogues’ gallery out of the article [33]. I suggest you take their advice and work on persuading others. M.Bitton has very patiently asked you for sources to back up your claims. I will add that such sources are necessary but not sufficient conditions for inclusion, and that the onus to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include disputed content. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason why that source was declined was due to our previous discussion and his resentment from it. He even sited the reason as per me not continuing our previous discussion in the talk page, which he had eventually stopped replying to. So it was done on a personal & subjective basis, not because of the language in a source he has already approved for the article. Sara1985Wiki (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I've just about had it with the personal attacks. Enough is enough.

it was done on a personal & subjective basis that's something that you need to substantiate. There will be no discussion with you until you do. M.Bitton (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

“Personal attacks” is another very emotive and unfounded thing for you to say. You’re simply being questioned on your actions and biases, as anyone should be who is an editor of a website as substantial as Wikipedia. Sara1985Wiki (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sara1985Wiki There are various dispute resolution paths you can take, if this is just one editor you're disagreeing with. You could start with taking one small content disagreement to WP:3O and getting a third opinion. You can also take your source disagreements to WP:RSN. There are other methods, such as RfC, that could be used down the road. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I’ll look into it and I hope others on here and those who have had similar interactions with him do too. Sara1985Wiki (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• I can certainly understand the fatigue M. Bitton expresses above with the personal attacks and the unrelenting assumptions of bad faith from Sara1985Wiki. Sara, No personal attacks is policy here, and Assume good faith is an important behavioral guideline. You're supposed to comment on content, not on contributors, and to not make accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. This is all in the "No personal attacks" policy. Start complying with it now, or expect to be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 21:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: Two minutes after your comment, they doubled down on their aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but this is a new user, M.Bitton. They probably didn't notice my comment before they posted in response to yours. I'll await further developments. (Well, I won't await them right now, but tomorrow, as it's seriously bedtime in my timezone. I hope some other admin follows through on my warning if it becomes necessary.) Bishonen | tålk 22:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC).

The intro has changed many times with both left and right wing bias. In addition I have added {POV} due to a large discussion ongoing about the bias of the article. See examples, 1 2 3 there are many more examples but there are some of the bigger ones. Ironically while requesting for protection, this there was another example of a reason for protection. In addition a major discussion is ongoing on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuxembourgLover (talk • contribs)

Who are you? Bishonen | tålk 21:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC).

Added {{unsigned}}. DFlhb (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont see how that is relevant? I just followed the rules and said if you put {pov} on a page you open a topic here. LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

As the talk page has made clear for 18 years, the biography on Paul R. Ehrlich has been held hostage by extremists who have distorted the subject and have written the biography in a way that violates almost every known policy and guideline. I would like to suggest an intervention of some kind. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

that's the vaguest thing I've ever heard. Any specific details? Red Slash 20:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I opened this discussion here to get more eyes on the article, an article you are currently holding hostage. I did not open this discussion to talk to you about the problem as the talk page shows you are entrenched and not open to changes, so I am awaiting input from uninvolved parties. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I find it interesting to note that the only part of the guidelines for a report that you followed was stating the articles name. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe there is only one way to do things. I'm not involved in the two-decade long dispute on the talk page, nor would providing diffs or pointing people to specific issues help. What would help, is to invite uninvolved users to take a look at the talk page and article without preconceptions. I added the link to the Britannica article below because it highlights the problem in an immediate and simple way. So yes, I did not file this report using the normal and expected methods, nor do I plan to discuss it in any depth here. I just want more editors to see it for themselves. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind telling us what's actually going on, or do you prefer to accuse other editors of being extremists and holding the article hostage? Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, the first sentence alone is an NPOV nightmare, but still... Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Would love to hear how it's a POV nightmare. He is best known for his predictions, and specifically for the ones that were pessimistic and were incorrect. Red Slash 07:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Paul R. Ehrlich is best known as an American biologist and educator. The controversy over his book The Population Bomb (1968) is covered extensively in the literature. That is not what he is best known for at all. You are cherry picking sources to promote a particular POV. That's not how we do it. Again, see the article on Jim Cramer if you still don't know how this works. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I just read the opening few paragraphs... yeah, that looks bad. We shouldn't be starting off biographies or BLPs with statements about how wrong the person is about what ever. That's a big IMPARTIAL red flag. I'm not sure of the best way to fix the lead (I would need to study the article body more) but I can't believe this article passes an impartial test. Springee (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait, why not? Our lead paragraph on Andrew Tate (BLP) correctly calls his commentary misogynistic. The Amazing Criswell is a biography about a real person and the first sentence calls his predictions not just "inaccurate" but "wildly inaccurate". We do this all the time. If the sources back it up (I'm quite confident that there are still animals in the sea, but we can find some citations to back that up), I think it's fine to call a spade a spade. Red Slash 08:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The most appropriate analogy is Jim Cramer, who has a reputation for being wrong a lot. As you can see from that well written article, it is entirely NPOV compliant. I think you have a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of how we write articles. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: Here is the biographical entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Please compare it to our own to see the disparity. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This article seems to be praising this ransomware group a lot. I'll try rewriting some parts of it for neutrality tomorrow, but there's a lot of unnecessary praise in this article. Posting here to seek some help for this. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 01:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The article leans way too much into trendmicro.com which is used maybe 8 or 9 times and that source is not something that counts towards notability. Graywalls (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Turns out the article is closely copying from one of its sources. I may need to move this discussion to another noticeboard. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 01:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

One of the cited sources or somewhere else? Copyvio check comes up at 33% give or take and unlikely. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 10:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Disputes regarding how the baby killing/decapitation allegations should be handled. Outside input would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Related to your entry: I'd like if more editors could watch the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article as well. The page currently has a NPOV tag, actually. VintageVernacular (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

An RfC is currently happening on Talk:Kylie_Minogue#RfC any third party editors would be appreciated in settling the debate. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears there are regular attempts to remove certain international assessment from the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians lead section so that it would present a particular POV. Recently, a United Nations asssessment report on the ground was removed and the related discussion has stalled, as it often happens. Earlier, a UNHCR assessment was also removed from the lead. This, I think, creates a WP:BALANCE issue where allegations of a war crime or crime against humanity from lesser-known legal experts are present (even though for such accusations a trial may be required in the first place), but assessments of the UN fact-finding mission on the ground and UNHCR are not. My alternative suggestion at talk was to move all opinions to the relevant section below, but looks like it didn't gain traction. Brandmeister^talk 07:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My proposal for this, as I've been involved in the discussion, is to mention in the lead both the UN report and its criticism in RS, to put it in context. Agree that not having them is definitely a WP:BALANCE issue with the article. Having a section with all the reports, criticisms and assessments would also be an elegant solution too. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ocampo's opinion was also criticized. So I think it would be better to have all that in the article's body rather than lead. Brandmeister^talk 21:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems like we're all on board to add all the information in the body rather than the lead then? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 21:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm for moving Ocampo to the article body - arguing on whether his opinion is more important than others in the lead is subjective. Brandmeister^talk 08:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Ocampo isn't in the lede; the collective position of a number of experts, including his, is mentioned in Faced with threats of genocide and ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan, but we don't focus on his position although we provide it WP:DUE coverage in the body. BilledMammal (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and that makes a lot more sense. The lead is supposed to be a synthesis of the body. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 10:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The person in the article literally admits that he was appointed by the government of Azerbaijan, that’s definitely not a acceptable source, it’s also an opinion piece. TagaworShah (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I missed that, yeah it's definitely not an acceptable source in this case. I don't think it counts as an independent expert legal assessment as he claims while literally being hired by one of the parties. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 10:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

No, and explained why in BLPN. Please leave each discussed topic to its board. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that the information Brandmeister is trying to add to the lead, is not discussed at all in the body, he is not trying to add just any information of the UN report, but a specific line from the report that he interprets as denying any ethnic cleansing having occurred in the region. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarizes major points in the article, not introduces new information especially quotes. Now this specific quote is being wrongly interpreted, all it’s saying is that they did not hear any reports of such things, but multiple reliable sources have reported on such reports of violence towards civilians (such as BBC News, CTV News, and Bellingcat) and have criticized this report for coming after virtually the entire Armenian population has fled and not having access to any rural areas (such as The Guardian, OC Media, and the Armenian government). This information belongs in the body where it can be given proper in-depth context, not the lead section, there is an entire subsection of the body related to war crime allegations which is why a sentence summarizing that appears in the lead as well as Azerbaijan’s denial of such claims. Maybe if the specific quote about ethnic cleansing is covered in more reliable sources it can be have due weight by us expanding on it in the body, but as of now, that quote is barely being reported or given any notice because it basically says nothing except they didn’t hear anything. This is a case of Wikipedia:UNDUE. TagaworShah (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

fully agreed JM2023 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree that, if it is mentioned in the lead, I expect it to be discussed in the body to a major extent. I based my support of "mention both the UN report and its criticism in the lead" on the assumption that it would be expanded on in the body, but yes that feels obvious. In any case, it feels like writing a paragraph in the body about this, and thus putting the quote in its in-depth context, should be the priority, and then we can see if it can (and should) be easily summarized in the lead. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 21:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, WP:UNDUE for lead, was wrongly interpreted in the first place, less coverage than even the USAID which also isn't in lead. And as it's currently stated in the body, there is no mention of the UN criticism for arriving when virtually no residents were left, this should be mentioned in the article. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have created some citations for those sources and began incorporating them into the article. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

As the UN was the only international body that inspected the situation in place, I think that their assessment should definitely be reflected in the lead. It is a supranational body that is qualified to make assessments of this kind. Grandmaster 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a true UN mission however, it was a mission by the Azerbaijan office of the UN. The assessment by Moreno Ocampo remains the most significant, because he is one of the most qualified experts and is impartial. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster's point above. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

(Not strictly an NPOV issue but needs intervention.) A quite old RfC with no consensus on if the FdI article infobox should include "neo-fascism". Needs either more input or un-involved editor to try to close. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I am requesting outside attention on Air India Flight 182. I am concerned that there is a pro-Indian government POV being placed in the article through repetition of content in the lead section, placing WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on perceived opponents of the Indian government who were not found guilty of any crime in relation to this article.

There is discussion in the article, but one editor in particular continues to make live edits to articles immediately after proposing changes on the talk page, with no time for other editors to oppose or give any input, knowing that his changes are being actively discussed. Another editor blatantly ignores WP:ONUS in order to restore their preferred changes mid-discussion [34] I also note that there are several other reverts of pro-Modi POV pushing in the article, such as [35] where a person who was acquitted has a speech placed into the article in its own section. Any outside help would be appreciated. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

the offending editors should be taken to ANI JM2023 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like there was some problematic editing that got into the page back in 2021 from an IP that has since been rangeblocked. I have protected the page indefinitely, but having done so I can't edit the page directly. Experienced editors are encouraged to have a look. See also the note on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I've made some changes for balance, but the problems with the article go much deeper than the BFKIP's edits, huge amounts of the article are unsourced and make quite serious allegations, which unacceptable for a WP:BLP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually doubt this was BKFIP. That rangeblock is pretty wide. This was probably a completely different editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I question the rationale for an article solely dedicated to Irish indentured servants and not the various other European ethnic groups who greatly outnumbered them as unfree laborers in the Americas.

More troubling, however, is that this article contains a section that tries comparing "Irish servants" to "black slaves", where Wikipedians have engaged in a whole bunch of fancy editing footwork to make it seem like the distinction between the two was mostly semantic. In the citations we find a crazed mix of legitimate experts (who, overwhelmingly, reject this comparison); scholars who are not historians (Kathryn Stelmach Artuso, who is an English professor, and Michael J. Monahan, who is a philosopher); and non-academic lunatics like Michael A. Hoffman "II", the pseudo-historian who writes about "white slavery" and denies the Holocaust.

I suppose to an amateur Wikipedia editor one scholar who writes about "Ireland" and "slavery" is much like another, but historians who specialize in other areas of history can be just as ignorant of this subject as anyone else, let alone scholars who are not trained in historiography and seem to have a political axe to grind. As someone who's contributed to the Irish slaves myth article I find this section has no encyclopedic value: it spends multiple paragraphs amplifying fringe voices before discrediting them with content that already appears in the ISM article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise -no one wants to engage with this subject. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You're going to get more response if you address one or two specific things. You bring up issues with the article as a whole and then also mention writing, sources, historians, value to the reader, etc. in this one post, which is too much for our volunteer brains to process coming into something fresh. You could also try the fringe noticeboard if you believe fringe pov is being pushed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This might not even be the right place to sort out this issue -the article in question is covering things that are already covered in the Irish slaves myth article and I question the rationale behind a separate article titled "Irish indentured servants" as if this was a uniquely Irish experience. Some excerpts from reliable sources:

"This case demonstrates that servants had legal redress and that the sufferings of servants were not limited to the Irish; English, Scottish, Welsh, German and French servants also experienced hardship in Barbados."(Liam Hogan, Laura McAtackney and Matthew C. Reilly writing in History Ireland[36])

"During the English Civil War (1642–51) and the following decade, when Barbados’s sugar economy was flourishing, many thousands prisoners of war were shipped to the island and sold as servants. These included Cromwell’s political enemies as well as thousands captured in military campaigns in Ireland and Scotland in 1649–50. Roughly 10,000 Scottish, English, Irish, and even German prisoners from the 1651 Battle of Worcester, the final battle of the English Civil War, were also transported to the Americas as servants."(Jerome Handler, Matthew Reilly[37])

So not even forced transports of servants to the Caribbean were unique to the Irish, as implied in the article. This is exactly the type of careless, disproportionate coverage that influences the way people think about history, and how they weaponize and use history to score political points. Indentured servitude was not a major theme in Irish history nor did Irish servants have a large presence in the Caribbean. This subject only became significant because it was being manipulated by white supremacists and proponents of "white slavery", which is all covered in the ISM article (see above).

I apologize for another lengthy comment but I'm still learning how to condense this stuff for the TLDR crowd. This issue can't really be discussed in 1-2 lines. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You waited less than an hour for a response before deciding that surprise, surprise no one wants to engage. If you think this is a wrongful fork of Indentured servitude or Indentured servitude in British America or any other such articles, maybe you want to propose it for deletion or merger? Not clear what you are asking for. Are other editors opposing the changes you want to make? Could take it to dispute resolution. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help! Yes, I'd like to propose it for deletion. We have several articles on indentured servitude in the Americas and I can't think of any justification to start breaking the subject up into multiple articles based on ethnic group -especially when only one ethnic group has its own article, for unknown reasons. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this is probably better served by taking up on the specific article’s talk page Yr Enw (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless you're arguing WP:POVFORK it seems an odd reason to object to the topic - there's obviously scholarship on it. I'm not sure what the relevance of the *current* lack of articles on other ethnic groups is. We're supposed to be following WP:SUMMARYSTYLE so an article like that should hang off a broader article and its sibling articles should be created at some point. One of them has to be the first. DeCausa (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You will find that on wikipedia being calmly and professionally skeptical will get you further than outrage. You do appear to be right after all, so you can afford to be subtle and deliberate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to second Horse Eye's Back on this, and though I have not looked at the page in a long time, it strikes me that a case can be made for it despite the baselessness of the idea. That is, though factually incorrect in almost every way, it has become such a trope in American history and race relations circles that it's possible it merits inclusion that way--but that is really just me spit-balling. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree the whole business about equivalencing the Irish indentured with slaves is just plain wrong. However denial above with attempts to delete any reference to the myth also strike me as over the top. I also got a particularly bad feeling about the extent of downplaying in Irish slaves myth by saying that Irish people engaged in the slave trade as if this justified the treatment. People would be rightly annoyed if we tried downplaying slavery by pointing out that much of the enslavement was done by other Africans. NadVolum (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Didn’t this argument come up last year? Doug Weller talk 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is probably also a problem at Irish slaves myth as NodVolum points out with the inclusion of a section dedicated to Irish participation in the slave trade. Even the article's title strikes me as POV given that slavery is not limited to chattel slavery and also usually includes indentured servitude. The title should be changed to Irish slave myths or something. Issues in both articles should be eliminated and there may be a case for merging Irish slaves myth with Irish indentured servants. JM2023 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Where do you see indentured servitude defined as slavery? Slavery literally means "chattel slavery". —DIYeditor (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Slavery#Terminology, particularly Slavery#Chattel slavery and Slavery#Bonded labour. There is also Template:Slavery, which also includes conscription as slavery. And also the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. And the fact that the Colinial Indian indenture system was described by contemporaries as a new form of slavery. To put it plainly: the assertion that slavery is synonymous with chattel slavery is totally wrong. That's why the term chattel slavery exists -- to differentiate it from other types of slavery. JM2023 (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

First sentence of slavery "Slavery is the ownership of a person as property, especially in regards to their labor." Ownership of a person as property. A lot of fanciful activists like to apply the term to things other than what it means, like indentured servitude (which may well have been voluntary), even "wage slavery" and such, so the slavery article is going to have to cover such uses which are other than what the word properly means. Merriam-Webster "1a: the practice or institution of holding people as chattel involuntarily and under threat of violence" that's what the word properly means. "Usually includes" indentured servitude, prisoner labor, conscription, taxes, low wages, whatever, is a stretch. Certain people seem to have seized on the word as one they like to use so we need to address that just as if the sources or people in the wild call the moon a star we need to address that too. Many people say meat and abortion are murder. Should the murder article address that? I imagine it does. That doesn't mean "murder" usually includes eating meat and abortion. People like to play games with words so we cover that.

"Indenture, also known as bonded labour or debt bondage, is a form of unfree labour" note it doesn't say "is a form of slavery". Next section Dependency "The word 'slavery' has also been used to refer to a legal state of dependency to somebody else." Not even sure what that means, but it's crammed in the slavery article because someone has said it's a kind of slavery. That doesn't amount to "usually includes".

The majority of people I hear use the term "chattel slavery" instead of simply "slavery" are usually talking about "wage slavery" in the next breath. Not my field of expertise but it seems like shoddy use of the language. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's not be one-sided with this. That same article also states the following in the lede:

In chattel slavery, the slave is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner. In economics, the term de facto slavery describes the conditions of unfree labour and forced labour that most slaves endure.

It also says:

Although slavery is usually involuntary and involves coercion, there are also cases where people voluntarily enter into slavery to pay a debt or earn money due to poverty.

And also:

in non-industrialised countries, enslavement by debt bondage is a common form of enslaving a person, such as captive domestic servants, people in forced marriages, and child soldiers.

Once again this is why the term "chattel slavery" exists, although it seems that this encyclopedia may contradict itself in multiple areas as to what slavery is; but as far as I can tell, there is such a thing as "de facto slavery" in economics and clearly the term is so widely used that it can be put in the lede as being within the standard applications of the term. JM2023 (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

By your loose definition of "slavery", voluntary military service, at least as exists in the US, especially for enlisted personnel, is slavery. It's "indentured servitude". That's absurd. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well it's not my definition. I gave you the sources. So I am not the person to debate with about whether or not voluntary military service is slavery or not. That is all. JM2023 (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this article serves a purpose and having just read it, it goes to pains to both differentiate and make it clear that no historians directly compare indentured servitude to chattel slavery. This article tells an important part of the story of Irish emigration to the America's. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about an international sex club whose staff members were accused of misconduct recently (see). It has become a paradise for SPAs and israeli IPs to add basically whatever came to their minds, leaving the article in the state it is right now. I tried to fix it yesterday, but another user reverted me. FYI, the first edit of this user (SocialTechWorker, who edits mainly on the Hebrew Wiki) on the English Wikipedia was to this article in August 2022, and they have been editing it ever since.

Notice the blatant advertisement of Baba Dez Nichols' documentary in the lead (inserted by this Israeli IP), notice how you can't even tell what this organization is about just by reading the lead of the article, notice the unreliable sources (WP:MEDIUM, an IRS pdf, ISTA's own website, Tripadvisor, Baba Dez's defunct website), notice the fights at the talk page. The article is promotional in the sense that it lists ISTA's services without any good reason, but also has a controversy section, which also compromises its NPOV. Given the seriousness of this topic, and that this issue has been going on for over a year, I think this page needs some protection as well. SparklyNights 19:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the previous version was a dog's dinner, I agree to your removals largely, but the controversy regarding consent surrounding the sex acts covered in Haaretz and other reliable sources definitiely should be mentioned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

We should keep in mind that this is an international organization. Its headquarters seems to be in Sedona, AZ, although I am still trying to document with a source other than www.datanyze.com/companies/international-school-of-temple-arts/347054368, as that site does not work in Firefox. I think that the heavy influence on what has happened in Israeli impinges on the neutrality of the article, & that non-Israel coverage is essential. Peaceray (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The coverage of misconduct/sleazyness is not confined to the Israel operations, Anke Richter talks a lot about the Australian and New Zealand operations in The Echo story. I don't mind expansion about what the organisation does, so long as its not promotional in tone, but I think the current misconduct sentences should stay. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Since August, two new users have been duking it out of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre article. I am honestly not familiar enough with the topic to know whether either/both of them are POV pushing. It would be good if more experienced users familiar with the topic area would be able to step in and assess the current state of the article, and whether the changes made are improvements or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is enormous and difficult to follow. I am familiar with the events and I am left confused reading it. For example why does there need to be a whole section about the tanks and guns used in the crackdown? There is so much included in the article, it compromises the purpose of having an article in the first place. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

A neutrality issue has raised its head at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, which was raised alongside two other discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. The potential NPOV issue now is that because this discussions were raised separately, and due to some uneven voting, List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada was deleted, while its NPOV counterpart List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada was relisted. It seems fairly obvious from an NPOV perspective that either both articles should go or both articles should stay, lest one POV remains without balance, but as mentioned, the split AfD has caused a bit of a headache. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Chiming in here as one of the parties who desired all three articles to remain. Good faith efforts were about to commence regarding addressing raised concerns on the Palestinian casualties page before it was deleted (in all honesty, any delay was connected to lingering concerns that legitimate NOTAMEMORIAL removals would be seen as transgressive and not in line with requested edits).

Have attempted to have the Palestinian page restored, but the closing editor in question is unwilling. Would still like an earnest attempt to address issues before these pages are deleted. Mistamystery (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree this is non-neutral. It should probably be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review, @Iskandar323 VR _talk 01:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If I may, I'm concerned about WP:MEDCOI stating,

I think this would at most make sense for NGOs, but for corporations and captured regulatory agencies, it doesn't. Pharmaceutical companies spend more money on marketing than on R&D, so how can we expect to have articles that reflect a NPOV if we allow financial forces to impact editing.

While the main focus here is usually on article content or editors, it seems that raising an issue with a policy or guideline is not forbidden, so I'm doing the latter. Should we 1)reverse, 2)remove "your own organization, such as" from, 3)other, or 4)leave this sentence at WP:MEDCOI ? RudolfoMD (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a government, NGO or private corporation should be directly promoting its own publications on Wikipedia. Why can't someone else find the material and cite it? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually I can see why it makes sense in some ways as a hedge against disinformation. Which governments and which NGOs are allowed to "spam" Wikipedia though? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This is misleading. You've replaced an em dash in the guideline with a period. In fact, the quote above continues — if it is done to improve coverage of a topic, and not with the sole purpose of driving traffic to your site. All edits should improve neutral encyclopedic coverage; anything else, such as promoting an organization is not allowed.

We want people to use the best sources available. If you happen to work for one of the entities known for "producing high-quality systematic reviews", you shouldn't be required to use a lower quality source just because of that COI. That's the point. This is true outside of medicine, too. If you have a COI, disclose it, make sure you're not promoting your employer contrary to NPOV, and happy editing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Weak, weak, weak argument.

No, it's not misleading, because all edits are "done to improve coverage of a topic" in the eyes of the editor, as long as we assume good faith. Plus, it's correct grammar to add a period when excerpting (per Warner's). So leaving out the rest of the sentence

PhRMA-affiliated editors could claim to be part of an NGO and drive a tank through this loophole. "We want people to use the best sources available" cannot justify this guideline any more than it justifies eliminating all CoI policies and guidelines, that is, it doesn't justify it at all. RudolfoMD (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between promoting medical science and promoting a specific private company. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes. Promoting a specific company's reverse vaccine inherently promotes the company.

The problematic sentence, without an interposed clause which doesn't limit the scope of the advice, but rather only gives an example, states, "Citing your own organization is generally acceptable."

It's in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine).

Citing your employer is OK, you say. Not generally, it's not. This isn't policy: "If you have a COI, happy editing."

Do you claim that "Citing your own organization is generally acceptable." is consistent with policy? You seem to. It's not. RudolfoMD (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

it's not misleading - presenting a quote from policy and changing that quote to suit your argument is misleading.

all edits are "done to improve coverage of a topic" - No, edits done to promote something/someone are prioritizing promotion over improving the topic. If the edits meet all of our policies and guidelines by actually improving the article, there's no issue to be resolved.

PhRMA-affiliated editors could claim to be part of an NGO - Yes, and if we're going to assume bad faith we can just say that anyone with a COI could just lie about that COI, too.

"We want people to use the best sources available" cannot justify this guideline any more than it justifies eliminating all CoI policies and guidelines - Editing with a COI is allowed. Editing with a COI in a way that violates our content policies is not. If someone is making articles better, that's what's most important. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Holy shit! The hypocrisy highlighted by the contrast of your first two points just above is stunning. Third point is a straw man. Or are you claiming PhRMA-affiliated editors claiming to be part of an NGO would be lying? Last point: Of course! RudolfoMD (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:COIN is probably a more applicable noticeboard for matters concerning COI, someone might want to drop a note informing them of the discussion here if this goes anywhere. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• What "captured regulatory agencies"? Certainly not the Food and Drug Administration, which levies hundreds of millions of dollars in fines against pharmaceutical companies annually, nor the CDC or the NIH, which are stellar sources for in-depth research and content. BD2412 T 17:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you acknowledge that "By failing to enforce the law, the FDA has lost over $46 billion in uncollected fines as a result of overdue results reporting", @BD2412? Source. Intermediate source. Underlying source: a demonstrably captured regulatory agency of the US Government. $0 of $46 billion collected by the FDA. Also, @BD2412 please, do help me understand how that's not good evidence of regulatory capture. In any case, you're implying that there are no captured regulatory agencies anywhere in the world. Certainly not true. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  None of the sources to which you have pointed say anything at all about regulatory capture. It is unclear how, exactly, you think this shows such a thing, given that most of the entities purported to be delinquent in providing clinical trial results are universities and random small labs or independent physicians, rather than the large companies usually claimed to be the parties engaged in regulatory capture. BD2412 T 02:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  You're a lawyer, I see. Apparently willing to resort to tricks to push your POV. Dodging the question, subterfuge. You have provided zero reliable sources. You did what that reporter interviewing the Technoking recently did. You said that regulatory capture does not say anything at all about regulatory capture. There are Olympus Mons - sized stacks of evidence of regulatory capture out there including the relatively tiny but sample in the sources I already mentioned, alone.

  A sample scoop of Olympus Mons to taste. Don't choke: Regulatory_capture RudolfoMD (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  If you consider pointing to the plain language of the sources provided as "resorting to tricks", then I don't think the problem is lawyering. Pointing to the Wikipedia article on regulatory capture, on the other hand, is not evidence of regulatory capture with respect to the FDA, which is only an empty header in the regulatory capture article. I suppose a case could be made that the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board or the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare are agencies of the sort contemplated. BD2412 T 05:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has explicitly partnered with organisations like Cancer Research UK and the Cochrane Collaboration with the aim of improving medical content (in practice, use those organisations' content). In the UK, about 1.3 million medical professionals work for the NHS. Are we saying they have a COI with citing NHS information pages? While there may be something to address here, we're also in danger of getting into the "being a member of the human race means you have a COI citing things written by humans" argument. For a COI to exist there needs to be a conflict of interests. In general, Wikipedia's interests are aligned with those of major respected medical bodies: promoting accepted scientific knowledge. We could do something to rule out more niche organisation more explicitly. Bon courage (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I did some research.

  9 years ago, the Board of Directors acted to clarify and strengthen the prohibition against concealing paid editing.

  Organizations, PERIOD, (including but by no means limited to "a governmental health agency or an NGO producing high-quality systematic reviews") are NOT exempt. It makes it crystal clear that a local guideline is NOT allowed to override this action. Proves I'm right that WP:MEDCOI cannot override the WMF with an effectively unqualified "Citing your own organization is generally acceptable" statement. If you (that is, anyone reading this) has been editing on organization time (with a narrow exception, i.e. for "side project time") since then (ca. 2014) and have violated the prohibition against concealing paid editing, well, I didn't determine exactly what you need to to to rectify. I suppose you would disclose now and ask what other rectification is needed.

  It seems you may need to review. But clearly this is going nowhere. BD, you're such a lawyer. RudolfoMD (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)}}

  [restored]Concealed WP:PAID editing is prohibited and bad. That's not in dispute. But per WP:SELFCITE experts are not even prohibited from citing their own work for legitimate purposes, so it would seem very odd to have a prohibition on them citing the expertise from their wider organisation?! Bon courage (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Concealed WP:PAID editing is prohibited and bad. That's not in dispute. But per WP:SELFCITE experts are not even prohibited from citing their own work for legitimate purposes, so it would seem very odd to have a prohibition on them citing the expertise from their wider organisation?! Bon courage (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Since you're such a lawyer is an ambiguous statement here, for the record I am not affiliated with any government agency or department, including any of those under discussion here. BD2412 T 21:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• It seems Rudolfo is trying to get the last word, edit warring over closing this thread, and even removing comments from others (Bon courage) in order to do so. Stop. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Rhododendrites. Thinking some more about this, I think the point is that if somebody works within (say) the CDC,they do not have a conflict of interest with the scientific positions of the CDC, so citing something about (say) prevention of STDs[38] is fine and good. The might well have a conflict of interest with the CDC considered as an organisation, so inserting material about what a great place it was or how its employees are world leaders and so on, would be problematic. Scientists do not have a conflict of interest with science. Bon courage (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with this. That's basically what I mean by "use the best source". Use the CDC for the things it's a good source for. Per NPOV/RS, the CDC simply wouldn't be a good source for whether the CDC is a great place to work, so that shouldn't be included anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• For the third time Rudolfo has tried to hat/archive this thread. Pinging Johnuniq, who appears to have been the admin stepping in following this ANI thread -- given the tenor of responses here and elsewhere, and edit warring to close discussion, removing other people's comments at least once, do you think we should revisit ANI? I'm not inclined personally, but this user seems to have been consistently WP:BATTLEGROUND over the course of just a few hundred edits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Some users make a soft landing at the Airport o' Wikipedia, others make a hard landing. Some make a crash landing. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Folks have been editing my comments hatting this thread. As I understand it, folks editing my comments isn't allowed. Due to an edit conflict, I removed one comment, only, AND when I noticed, I proactively told the author they were welcome to put it back. That was days ago. I'll go ahead and take the add'l step of putting it back. RudolfoMD (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Restored. RudolfoMD (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  What, exactly, was wrong with my last action archiving this thread? Nothing, as far as I can see. I did NOT try to get the last word. I'm trying to step back and being dragged back here by others. That's the opposite of BATTLEGROUND. RudolfoMD (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  No user has the prerogative to make a one-sided hatting or archiving of a thread against consensus. That not "editing a comment" to undo, that is not a comment, it's an action. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I if you say I misunderstood, fine. It literally is editing a comment. If there is a different meaning on wikipedia, I was not aware of it. Where is this clarified?

  Either way, there is now consensus that the thread should stay open, including without me getting the last word.

  I won't comment further here unless asked to. RudolfoMD (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Templates which undertake some action on a talk page are obviously not "comments". What's confusing about that? Not everything on a talk page on Wikipedia is a comment, it's just another Wiki page. It may contain comments (e.g. if you hit the reply button and type in the box that opens and click the next reply button below the box, that is a comment). Otherwise nobody could ever alter any of the templates at the top of a talk page, or archive any discussion. By your own definition you are modifying the comments of others by archiving them! This confusion is a bit concerning, but now you know. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm posting to acknowledge receipt of the ping in the above. It looks like things are now under control but feel free to contact me if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Strongly agree. This behavior became an issue multiple times with regard to UNESCO. We also had an issue with Richmond Federal Reserve and the Anti Defamation League sounding their own horn by building contents around, or worse, shoehorning themselves into articles as references. In my opinion, the only difference between profit making corporations and non-profit/NGOs is the legal classification around tax code in how their net income is used. Medical or general topic, these concerns are the same. Graywalls (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Presumably it's the same sort of thing with UNESCO? An employee adding stuff about how great UNESCO is would be a COI, but adding something to a site's article like 'This is the earliest example of a Shinto temple in South Korea' sourced to UNESCO materials would not. Right? Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war 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. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Banjska attack 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. Griboski (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Fresh eyes would be helpful at Talk:Zionism, race and genetics#Requested move 13 October 2023. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It may close soon, so any additional uninvolved input would still be very helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

See talk page Parham wiki (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

An editor at Talk:Scientific American has suggested that criticism by scientists who have called the magazine "woke" on Twitter and on their personal blogs is DUE for inclusion because they are subject-matter experts. I have argued that they may be subject-matter experts in their respective fields, but none of them are experts in politics or any of the related matters that fall under the heading of "woke".

My opinion is that when Richard Dawkins, for instance, objects to the magazine criticizing white supremacy, he is not speaking as an expert and as such his self-published opinion is not DUE. If solidly reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources discuss this criticism in depth, there would be no objection from me, but so far such sources have not been presented.

Among the sources discussed in that conversation are some arguably reliable secondary sources such as the Princeton University student newspaper The Daily Princetonian [39] and The Skeptic [40], but the coverage of critical remarks about Scientific American in those sources is glancing at best, and they are both clearly opinion pieces. For better or worse, the content dispute appears to hinge on whether self-published material by scientists establishes DUE weight for inclusion of their opinion that Scientific American has somehow disgraced itself by "going woke".

Experienced editors are encouraged to weigh in at the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note: The editor in question has proceeded to edit war a large section of their preferred content into the article [41][42] despite numerous uninvolved, experienced editors having voiced their opposition to it. More eyes on the situation would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that generally speaking opinions and criticisms should only be included if they are by experts in the field, or if they have been covered independently in reliable secondary sources. I have no knowledge or opinion of whether Dawkins would be an expert on Science magazine or its topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I question if criticism of the magazine going woke is even relevant and should even be included in the article. Certainly a personal tweet of a scientist expressing a political opinion needs its own secondary source before it is included in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a disagreement at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion over how the infobox should list the culprit.

Currently, our infobox presents the claim that it was Israel as equal to the claim that it was Palestinian Islamic Jihad; however, this doesn't align with our sources, which while still not certain present the claim that it was Palestinian Islamic Jihad as considerably more grounded in facts than the claim that it was Israel. This becomes a WP:DUE issue; we are providing more weight than is due to the claim against Israel, while providing less than is due to the claim against PIJ.

The alternative is to say that the culprit was probably PIJ; I believe this would be the NPOV-compliant option, and I am opening a discussion here to get further input from uninvolved editors on this.

Regarding sources on this there are too many to list them all here, but I've provided a subset below; for a more complete sample see Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion#Analysis.

1. CNN
2. New York Times
3. The Telegraph
4. Wall Street Journal
5. BBC

BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur that probably-PIJ is what the sources are saying, so that's what we should say. We can still attribute the minority POV, but I don't think it belongs in the infobox, so I agree with you. Andre🚐 04:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. | Orgullomoore (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yep, this does seem like an accurate appraisal of what RS are saying. I suggest simply cutting the "Accused" parameter from the infobox for now. Generalrelative (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree per @Generalrelative Yr Enw (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor

I'd rather not endorse either in the Infobox, and leave it at "Disputed". Andreas JN466 13:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, disputed seems best. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Same, until we have a form answer (which may never ckne) leaving it disputed in the infobox and describing the general lean towards PIJ in prose is the best route for a complex situation like this. Masem (t) 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agree At this point it's WP:UNDUE to not change the infobox. The only two sources that I'm aware of that are accusing Israel are Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad which are both widely considered terrorist organizations. On the other hand, as far as countries, Canada, France, the UK and the US have all said it was not Israel. Then a slew of RSs, many linked by BilledMammal, have also stated that Israel is not responsible. Essentially all published Open Source Intelligence groups have also said that PIJ is responsible. To put this in perspective the primary source blaming the IDF, Hamas, had written in its charter until 2017 that the Jews were responsible for the French Revolution AND the Russian Revolution, quoted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its charter and proclaims the need for a jihad to destroy Judaism: this is the group we're relying on when we say that the jury's still out. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, at the same time, many if not most of the cited experts endorsing the IDF version of events are people working for, or closely linked to, the governments and defense establishment of Israel's declared military allies. Would anyone really expect them to contradict and undermine the IDF in the present situation, given the explosive effect it would have on Arab public opinion?

  A notable exception to this pattern is Channel 4 in the UK: [43] They argue (based on a Doppler effect analysis of the audio of a geolocated video) that whatever hit the hospital compound came from the opposite direction the IDF argues it did. They also say the IDF's audio tape of the alleged telephone conversation shows signs of having been doctored. Even the BBC ends by commenting on a discrepancy in the IDF version of where the alleged rocket came from. No major human rights org has commented yet, nor has the UN. I think it is best to assume that things may still change. Andreas JN466 17:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is a little misleading. There are many independent experts that were cited. Der Spiegel cited a Swedish weapons expert. AP also surveyed 5 experts. Not all or even most of them were people working for or linked to governments or defense establishment of Israeli allies. Channel 4 TV news doesn't trump AP, WSJ, and practically every other reliable source. Andre🚐 17:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Most of the media still seems to be couching everything in terms of what different intelligence services, etc. have said, rather than stating conclusions in their own voice. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not anymore. [44] [45] Andre🚐 18:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Politico says It’s still unclear exactly how the explosion at the hospital occurred, but it doesn’t appear that Israel was at fault., The Atlantic includes quotes "though NOT conclusive by any means", beyond that the Atlantic bit is in their "Ideas" section, which is "analysis, essays, and commentary". nableezy - 18:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  These sources still don't make a firm conclusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• There is still a dispute among reliable sources on this, enough that endorsing one view is at odds with NPOV's requirement that all significant views be included. The infobox does not allow for nuance, and sources continue to say there is nothing definitive that can be determined. Eg BBC on : We contacted 20 think tanks, universities and companies with weapons expertise. Nine of them are yet to respond, five would not comment, but we spoke to experts at the remaining six.

  We asked whether the available evidence - including the size of the explosion and the sounds heard beforehand - could be used to determine the cause of the hospital blast.

  So far, the findings are inconclusive. Three experts we spoke to say it is not consistent with what you would expect from a typical Israeli air strike with a large munition.

  But we are asked here to say things are conclusive. When things are disputed among sources we cant determine which of the sources we want to agree with. nableezy - 18:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  But we are asked here to say things are conclusive. We're not, though? The alternative is saying probably PIJ - I'm not sure where you got the impression that anyone wanted to say it was PIJ? BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  So out of 20 they asked, 14 would not say anything, 0 thought it seemed like Israel, 3 said they had no conclusion, and 3 thought it didn't seem like Israel. Doesn't this mean that the infobox should therefore omit Israel and say something along the lines of "inconclusive (likely PIJ)" to comply with WP:DUE? JM2023 (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Or just 'inconclusive', per the experts. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  you're saying they said "inconclusive" and ignoring that they also said "but doesn't look like Israel". It's possible to be inconclusive but also lean one way or another. In this case, 3 said inconclusive and that's it, 3 said inconclusive but doesn't look like Israel. And that's not even factoring in the statements from American, British, Canadian, French, and Israeli intelligence which all lean toward a Palestinian blame, as well as open-source intelligence QUANGOs like the CNA. JM2023 (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Doesn't look like Israel" doesn't mean "does look like the PIJ" - this shouldn't really need to be stated. And we don't need to factor in the COI views of Israel's Western allies when we already have better, independent voices. As for quangos, the key part there is quasi-autonomous. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not saying they're saying "does look like the PIJ", I'm simply illustrating that Israel should not be included as a suspected perpetrator, and then using the intelligence sources to show that PIJ should be listed as a suspected perpetrator. Labelling those sources as "COI views of Israel's Western allies" doesn't seem right, it's going after the source instead of the information. JM2023 (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  The infobox currently doesn't accuse anyone ... Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not making a positive statement, I'm making a normative one. the current infobox is irrelevant, but it does in fact say "misfired rocket or airstrike" which is obviously presenting Israeli and Palestinian perpetration allegations equally, which I am saying it should not do. JM2023 (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's a war and parties to it have allies on a scale from more to less staunch. Staunch allies can't really be relied upon for objective information. The information put out by the Allies in WWII was equally a load of propagandistic codswallop, as much as the other side. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's still going after the information and not the source. to my knowledge, Palestinian allies have not presented any intelligence analysis and the blame on Israel still rests only on a terrorist organization's statement that was echoed by Palestinian allies and later contradicted by mainstream media. It's clear there's a significant viewpoint saying "likely Palestine". JM2023 (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Somehow I think that if Palestinian intelligence or, for example, Iranian intelligence, put out a statement, it would be given pretty short thrift. Intelligence outfits, in all countries, are organs that often specifically run disinformation campaigns, and, especially when the reporting is as close to events as it currently is, they need attributing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well for one thing, Palestine is composed of two entities, one of which is a recognized terrorist organization which openly supports the annihilation of Jews and the other of which is a state supporter of terrorism, and Iran is an open supporter and funder of Hamas, which immediately gives their statements less value when they are against their target (Israel). There is nothing wrong with attribution if that's what RS are doing -- but it's clear by now that the Israeli story is heavily favoured by reliable sources and Western intelligence, which is why I support the infobox noting probable blame on Palestinian forces and not the discredited blame on Israeli forces. JM2023 (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  "recognized terrorist organization" - yes, by more or less the same gaggle of countries whose intelligence agencies we likewise can't trust to be particularly neutral on the subject. If we flip this around, is there a single voice from the Global South echoing the default Western intelligence bias? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like there should be room in the infobox for “Disputed (probably misfired rocket)”? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Andre🚐 18:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The current infobox entry is fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

should probably point out that it's alleged to be a Palestinian one, not an Israeli one. JM2023 (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree per nominator BilledMammal. Considering Israeli, US, French, UK, and Canadian intelligence all point away from Israel and toward Palestine, as well as apparently many think tanks and QUANGOs/NGOs. JM2023 (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are for simple, known facts...the slightest complexity and they al;most always go horribly wrong. "Probably", "disputed" etc etc. It cries out for not trying to cover the responsibility issue in the infobox at the moment - leave it to the article text. Silence is golden. DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  +1 Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  +1 - yes, the obvious solution from the start. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  +1 The shorter version which I've said many times regarding infoboxes is "when in doubt, leave it out". For things where more wording is needed to attribute/qualify and sources are needed, the infobox entry format is very problematic and thus often misleading. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment Note that the New York Times has just published an analysis that casts significant doubt on the narrative and video evidence put forward by the IDF and endorsed by the U.S.: [46] We are a long way from certainty. --Andreas JN466 12:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

For those that cannot get past the paywall, the NYTimes article states:

"The video shows a projectile streaking through the darkened skies over Gaza and exploding in the air. Seconds later, another explosion is seen on the ground.

"The footage has become a widely cited piece of evidence as Israeli and American officials have made the case that an errant Palestinian rocket malfunctioned in the sky, fell to the ground and caused a deadly explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City.

"But a detailed visual analysis by The New York Times concludes that the video clip — taken from an Al Jazeera television camera livestreaming on the night of Oct. 17 — shows something else. The missile seen in the video is most likely not what caused the explosion at the hospital. It actually detonated in the sky roughly two miles away, The Times found, and is an unrelated aspect of the fighting that unfolded over the Israeli-Gaza border that night." It concludes that the cause is still unknown. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears that this is resolved but for what it is worth, I think the lead of the article handles this appropriately now. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)