Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 101

Socionics
There is a big problem with establishing a neutral point of view in a Socionics article. 1. In the first line of the article, socionics as a part of psychology and sociology is called pseudoscience with reference to 10 sources from Russia: "Socionics, in psychology and sociology, is a pseudoscientific[11] theory of information processing and personality types." A common feature of these sources is that these sources only mention once and without detailed consideration or definition of socionics throughout their text. Their authors are several philosophers (for example, in the article Zhilina V. A.; Nevelev A. B.; Kamaletdinova A. Ya. (2017) there is a record of the dialogue of three philosophers, and in the remark of one philosopher - Zhilina V. A. socionics is mentioned once without explanation or analysis), philologist ( T. Abashkina (2015), a physicist (L. Podymov (2018), a student and teacher of management without a degree (E. Ivashechkina; G. Chedzhemov (2019), who do not claim that socionics is a pseudoscience at all), and even a journalist- geographer (A. Sergeev), who once mentioned socionics in a publicist article about homeopathy (This article is erroneously or intentionally presented as the opinion of the commission on pseudoscience, but this commission made a decision only once - on homeopathy and never - on psychological sciences, including socionics). But none of these authors is a specialist in psychology or sociology. Moreover, 5 out of 10 authors of the cited articles do not have a degree in any field at all. 2. However, in On the second line, referring to 20 sources from various countries of Eastern and Western Europe, it is written that socionics is defined as a science: "A number of reference books and textbooks on psychology, sociology and other social sciences, as well as a number of researchers, define socionics as a science that studies and models the information structure of the psyche, the information interaction of a person with the world and offers an information theory of relations between people". [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28 ][29][30][31]. A common feature of these tertiary and secondary sources is that 18 out of 20 sources are written by professors, doctors of psychology, sociology and other social sciences. Almost all of them give a complete definition of socionics, as can be seen from the quotations given in the article. In fact, there are many more such sources. A search in various languages ​​(English, Ukrainian, Russian) shows that out of 7400 sources in Google Scholar, 10 dubious sources listed in the first line are all known sources that mention socionics among pseudosciences. There are simply no others, which means their extremely low weight of these sources. If you have questions about these 10 weird dubious sources, we can take a look at them in detail. Some of them are detailed on the talk page of the article. Thus, the neutral point of view in the definition of socionics is completely violated in the article Socionics. The analysis shows that out of these 10 sources, only a small number of them, once mentioning socionics critically, can be used in the "Criticism" section. Jim MacKenna (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That article has one main problem, and it's the unrelenting onslaught of absolute nonsense. I see from skimming JM's comment above that it's about something other than that primary issue. Can we focus first on the overwhelming torrent of hogwash? I cut a bunch, and there's still so much. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. But there can be a lot of nonsense, and the rule of neutrality WP:NPOV is just one. :) Therefore, I propose to start with the most important, and then we will deal with smaller details. Jim MacKenna (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that your understanding of the word "neutral" is the same as the understanding used in Wikipedia? Many new users think that neutrality means that a Wikipedia article cannot take a position on any subject but has to give equal weight to all positions. That is wrong, see WP:GEVAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sure that Wikipedia is written from academically reliable sources and not from the opinions of editors. "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." As soon as I wrote about it, 20 reliable tertiary and secondary sources of academic sources were immediately removed from the article by my opponent. This is fine? Jim MacKenna (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the stuff you kept edit-warring in without discussing at the talk page? Seems like a glass house situation to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody asked me to discuss them. Do I have to ask permission for any editing? :) Jim MacKenna (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies. You're a newer editor than I thought you were, and it looks like you did bring that bundle of sources up for discussion here. You don't need permission, but repeatedly adding your preferred content over the objections of other editors is edit warring, which can get you blocked. WP:ONUS is a policy that puts the burden on you to build consensus for your changes before restoring them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to discuss any particular source, but instead, unfortunately, I see only general statements of policy and the possible disagreement of some editors with the very fact of citing 20 reliable authoritative tertiary and secondary sources. This is a very strange approach. Jim MacKenna (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I chose only independent sources. First of all, these are encyclopedias and textbooks on psychology, sociology and other related sciences. They are definitely not "from a walled garden of pseudoscientists", as MrOllie claims. :) They were written by independent respected professors and doctors of sciences from various countries. I'll quote here the deleted MrOllie without any constructive explanation text and quote links: "A number of reference books and textbooks on psychology and social sciences, as well as a number of researchers, define socionics as a science that studies and models the information structure of the psyche, the information interaction of a person with the world and offers an information theory of relations between people.                   ."
 * But it seems that no one even wants to consider the cited sources, they are trying to immediately remove them, and all attention and priority is given to extremely dubious sources from one country, which are found at the beginning of the article. The authors of these sources do not even have specialized education in the field of psychology or sociology, which include socionics. Moreover, half of these sources were written by authors even without a degree. And this is called reliable sources? :) And again, such dubious sources completely violate the rules of Wikipedia? Jim MacKenna (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that any interested editors have a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk before spending their time on this. MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For interested neutral editors, I can again note another evasion of my opponent from a specific discussion of the authoritative sources cited. Jim MacKenna (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the rule of neutrality.
 * This is a very important discussion and I feel it should not be closed. Echidna1000 (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The ongoing issue with this discussion can be summed up in the following way:
 * 1. Minor issue. There is a seeming arbitrariness over the decision of Wikipedia's more prominent and preferred editors to select certain sources over others in making the assertion that Socionics is a pseudo-science, without providing room for counter-arguments.
 * 2. Major issue. There is a very visible double-standard in the decision by editors to make this assertion in the opening sentence, where similar, rival theories of personality typology, e.g. MBTI, have had this matter visited in a dedicated section further down, and others, e.g. Enneagram of Personality, are presented as simply a 'model' with no allegations of pseudoscience made at all. How, for instance can Socionics be a pseudoscience, but Enneagram not be a pseudoscience?
 * Together, but especially due to 2, the Socionics article has been a point of fierce contention for multiple years. This is not helped by the following difficult circumstance:
 * 3. Socionics is a complex, hard-to-access, niche field with multiple schools, approaches and interpretations, and scant material published independent peer-reviewed journals, where those who know enough about the theory to write about it often have strong beliefs about it which can amount to a conflict of interest, while those who aren't so involved in the theory and could hypothetically edit Wikipedia impartially, know so little about the theory as to struggle to collect sources in an insightful, informative or balanced way. This is not helped by a potential implicit bias in believing that a detractor of a theory is less likely to have a conflict of interest in informing about said theory than a proponent of the same theory.
 * I think it is totally reasonable to uphold the criticism of Socionics on the page, and even for Wikipedia to take a 'view', provided there is a transparency over how and why that 'view' has been formed from relevant, reliable sources, as well as a certain amount of humility in knowing that what is said on Wikipedia will inform the opinions of many people about a subject not many people actually know much about.However, point 2 has and continues to be the source of unnecessary animosity. Why it needs to be in the opening sentence, I don't know. No one yet has made that point clear to me. The decision to do so, without the same standard applied to similar theories like the MBTI or the personality typology article, suggests some kind of fervent anti-socionics agenda, or else, allowing one over-enthusiastic editor to make the edit that way, and then being intransigent and overly distrustful at the prospect of relocating it to a more appropriate section in the article. Echidna1000 (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To explain the situation, let me give an example of a source from the beginning of the article, which MrOllie  regularly refers to as reliable. I wrote about it on the talk page. According to WP:RS "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both". The subject of socionics, as it is written in the article, the subject of socionics belongs to the field of psychology and sociology. Therefore, I had reasonable doubts about some authors, for example, T. Abashkina (2015), links to which are given in the first line of the article. MrOllie recommended that I read the discussion in the archive. I read them and looked for information about this author.
 * "Abashkina Tatyana Leonidovna - Post-graduate student of the Kyiv National Pedagogical University named after N. P. Drahomanov. Sphere
 * scientific interests: onomastics, the theory of precedence". http://azbuka.in.ua/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/sv-14-2mb.pdf, p. 349. From this it follows that Abashkina as a philologist is not may have professional competence in the field of psychology and sociology, and she does not have a Ph.D. Therefore, according to WP:RS, T. Abashkina cannot be used to define socionics.
 * I don't understand how an article by a graduate student without a Ph.D. and a philologist can be used in psychology and sociology. Unfortunately, MrOllie  did not answer this question, but stubbornly defends his point of view.
 * However, MrOllie calls this source reliable without argument. He recommends reading the discussion archives. But in those archives, he also did not explain anything. Why? And we reach a dead end, because he controls the article. Jim MacKenna (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I've just blocked as the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit  (blether) 19:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Should the ideas of Male expendability be given in Wikipedia's voice?
The phrasing of Male expendability gives me pause. Discussion here  The article is full of generalizations about vertebrate biology and assumptions about how that translates into human society. Most of the differences in question can be found in this change.

The main dispute is whether the article should read more like... Or more like...
 * Society considers men more expendable than women.
 * Male expendability maintains that society considers men more expendable than women.

The article does have sources, but the main ones were written by a political scientist, some cultural anthropologists, and a biologist who wrote his source in the 1970s. I'm not confident that we can consider the biology in the article sufficiently mainstream to repeat it in Wikipedia's own voice. Other articles, for example Consequentialism and Coverture do not give the core ideas in Wikipedia's voice the way Male expendability currently does. I just skimmed Male as norm and I see it has language such as "Subsequent research has maintained" and "the principle claims" that I think would improve Male expendability.

The article also had the unsourced claim "Perpetrators of genocide almost exclusively target men and boys" (which I removed and the other participant did not revert). This makes me feel that other highly questionable claims may also have gotten into the text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Darkfrog24, I read your comment and skimmed the talk page discussion. Part of the problem is that NPOV arguments are worth little without sources. What sources disagree explicitly with the sources cited in the article? What sources present others theories/explanations/facts that should be summarized in the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I find the idea that society considers men more expendable than women a bit extraordinary when phrased in Wikipedia's voice. The burden of sourcing is on that claim.
 * But I agree with you in general. I looked for sources to create a criticism section for this article, but I couldn't find many that discussed male expendability at all, in favor or against.  It might require access to a library with sources in dead tree format.  Something like a sociology textbook might do the trick. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You might get more luck with "expendable male" than "male expendability". I'm poking around a bit at that article and it does seem like there are some uncomfortable gaps and thin spots. I encourage you to pick a particular part where the burden of sourcing is unmet, and I'd be happy to talk it out over there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * EDIT CONFLICT: I did read the book Testosterone Rex what feels like a few months ago, and I remember the part where it offered evidence against the idea that men with access to many female partners can father many, many more children than men with one or a few partners. It cited human emperors with large harems.  One of my biggest problems with the article is that it will state something about biology as if it were fact and then state a conclusion extrapolated from that idea as if it, too, were fact. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just now re-running my searches under "male disposability." Thanks. I think the burden of sourcing is unmet for pretty much the entire "Overview" section and most of the lede. It's more about the fact that these ideas are given in Wikipedia's voice and less about what they are. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A few scholars studying matriarchal groups have written about how the male individual is not quite so expendable in these societies. Two points about those sources: matriarchies are uncommon, and the scholarly surprise shown in finding that the individual males have something closer to an equal value proves the original point that males are generally more expendable. Most sources discuss male expendability as a biological law, for instance Walter J. Ong in his 1981 book Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness, published by Cornell. In the chapter "The Expendable Sex", he says that "males are readier risk takers for a species because they have been so programmed evolutionarily, as the more expendable sex." Jean Bethke Elshtain wrote in 2000 that "...the male warrior is expendable, making men the expendable sex." Anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday wrote in 1981 about Iroquois and Igbo tribes in North America responding to the 19th century threat of Westernization or genocide by European-heritage settlers. She said, "Unknown thousands of tribal men died to protect their traditional way, but only a handful of women died in defense of the women's world. The reason for this can be found in the distinction between women as the givers of life and men as the expendable sex. Women do not continue to fight because they are not expendable for the survival of the group. Tribal men prolong the fight because their manhood and tribal honor are expressed by their willingness to die defending both." Sanday cites anthropologist Ernestine Friedl as emphasizing "the greater control men have over strategic resources because men are the hunters and the expendable sex in activities endangering lives." Sanday writes about how men are sometimes rewarded in their social body for being the expendable sex, concluding "Obviously, if women willingly embraced mass slaughter, there would be no social body to preserve." None of these writers expressed the slightest doubt that the biological imperative of sexual reproduction and the differences between the male and female bodies has profoundly informed the social construct of gender roles. They present the situation as fact. We should say it in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if there are no sources that are found that specifically contest that and other claims, it's a strong and broad claim (and therefore requires particularly strong sourcing for wikivoice), and not one that that is assumed to be always true in various topics in reliable sources. On top of that, as a reader I would find it more useful if more context were provided for statements like that, such as who is saying that, on what basis, and in what context. Eg. X academic argues that, Researchers of X have argued that, researchers have found on the basis of X,Y,Z that, etc. Tristario (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't find the article very easy to follow in its current form, because I think it just isn't providing me enough context for these various statements, such as the field of research (or even if it's in the context of academic research), who is saying what, how they concluded this etc. Tristario (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sourcing issues have been pointed out, but barring that, the first one is clearly more problamtic in Wikivoice as it contends a very non-obvious fact, while the second "attributes" the idea to a specific school of thought and thus takes it out of a factual realm. --M asem (t) 05:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would shy away from stating in wikivoice anything within the realm of social science and we probably need a discussion on whether or not it should be treated similarly to other pseudoscience-adjacent topics. MarshallKe (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Perpetrators of genocide almost exclusively target men and boys" - worded so strongly, the claim is obviously not true. For a true genocide like the holocaust, obviously women and children are killed alongside the men (although even in that case, the regime has to deal with more scruples in the actual executors, as was witnessed frequently for German soldiers). However, there is a strong true core, with many massacres clearly focusing on males in an age fit to fight - with the Srebrenica massacre probably the most famous example. --KnightMove (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * At least from a quick skim of the sources, it seems like most of them still present it as a "hypothesis" or an "argument" rather than fully-accepted fact, eg. . So our summary should probably reflect that caution. We should also try to avoid sourcing that doesn't reference the term male expendability or something clearly equivalent to it - a lot of stuff currently in the article seems WP:SYNTHy / WP:OR, like editors trying to make the argument for the hypothesis (or for some specific application of it) themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd be very surprised if it isn't true and I think it is pretty well accepted by society. I'd be a lot more interested if someone was able to give evidence it is untrue! However I think an article like that should have a better basis and it seems very badly written. Without evidence to the contrary about it I'm happy for it to be in Wikipedia's voice but it definitely needs rewriting. Some people might prefer it not to be true and everyone is equal, and I think sometimes it is better for society for us to be ignorant about our workings, I'm not keen on the way the National Coalition for Men works for instance, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored. NadVolum (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I had a look at The Myth of Male Power and it sounds like it has some funny definition of 'power' which makes the whole thing rubbish but definitely a misogynist base book. NadVolum (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Binksternet, I clicked on the links you provided to those authors whom you say "discuss male expendability as a biological law," and none of them are biologists They're sociologists and political scientists.  I was thinking about it in the car today, what Firefangledfeathers said about sourcing.  Do we have a source that establishes that the biological ideas quoted in the article at present are consensus among biologists?  Moose and elephant seals form harems, wolves and hyenas are more matriarchal, and none of that necessarily translates to humans.
 * For example, I once read a textbook on statistics. It explained about how humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, so here's how you use exponents to calculate the maximum number of human genetic combinations.  The math was perfect, but the people writing the textbook forgot about meiosis!!  The real maximum number of genetic combinations is many more than X to the 23rd or whatever because there's another level of complexity to the process.  The textbook was a great source for an article about statistics, but a poor source for any article about genetics. WP:CHERRYPICKING
 * It's clear from this discussion that at least some sourcing refuting the statements in the article would be appreciated. Core to the argument is the assumption that the way "most vertebrates" work necessarily translates to modern human society.  Here's what I found in a very brief search.
 * First result: "Multiple recent reviews argue that animals may be just too different physiologically, anatomically, and psychologically from humans to be able to predict human outcomes." It cites at least four previous works (e.g., Cummings et al. 2014; Kola and Landis 2004; Paul et al. 2010; Tricklebank and Garner 2012) though they seem to be primarily medical. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a society being organised as a patriarchy or a matriarchy has anything to do with the topic and the article doesn't mention it. NadVolum (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. The article makes explicit statements like "In most vertebrate species, only a few males are required to father the next generation, and males are generally better equipped for fighting" and so implies "and that is why human societies value women more than men." The information that some animals have harems and some are matriarchal&mdash;that they have different ways of fathering the next generation&mdash;refutes that first statement.  In most vertebrates, the adults are not very different from each other physically.  In some, such as birds, the female is usually larger. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you come to the conclusion that harems or matriarchy refute the business about only a few males are required to father the next generation? Also for most birds the male is normally larger than the female except for birds of prey. The argument about disposability of males would tend to mean the male could be smaller than the female, so one actually needs to explain why males are normally bigger. The usual explanation is males competing causes it. Though the question remains why a male tiger is bigger yet a female eagle is bigger - if you can explain that you can get famous! NadVolum (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * NadVolum, I think you and I have walked sideways into the point: Vertebrates vary considerably in the way males and females interact with each other to produce the next generation. Therefore, I can say with confidence "Most vertebrates [do this], so human society values males less" is not something we should present to the readers as established fact in Wikipedia's voice.  For my own take, 1) most species don't have factors that kill male adults but not also female adults and 2) even if there were some factor, I'm not convinced most species could father a new generation with just a few males.  Harem animals like moose and sea elephants could do this, but I don't think salmon or humans could. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the bit about 'values'? I doubt many animals think of values, they just do things and I think that is in general true of humans as well. Also as far as I can see in most species females live longer than males, in fact I can't think of one species where males live longer on average than females. Also in general if males are kiled off it hardly ever is anything like 99%! You seem to just be making up things - surely you can see that a lot of males and a few females would be much less likely than a lot of females and a lt of males to b ableto repopulate - not that that either is a very likely scenario. NadVolum (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sideways but right into the point again. I got "values" and most of that other stuff from the article we're discussing, Male expendability.  I started this thread because I think the contributors who wrote the article might have been making it up (or copying someone who made it up).  I don't think ideas like "Only a few males are needed to father the next generation" should be given in Wikipedia's voice without better sourcing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is a complete mess. It appears, at least from the sources in the article, that this is concept that is specifically applied to humans, and has little basis in actual evolutionary biology based on the study of animals. The lead of the article should clearly reflect that. The article is not coherent as is, but is a complete random hodgepodge of seemingly random references to the concept (and other sources besides). I think this needs a WP:TNT and a complete start from scratch, if this is even going to be an article at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article is a hot mess. Relevant here is the AfD from back in January which was closed as "no consensus", and where a few of us suggested TNT. Generalrelative (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a statement by a body lets say anthropologists, sociologists that acknowledge this position? Or can someone name 10 authors discussing and accepting this specific hypothesis as factual truth? (Can someone do the opposite?) Cinadon36 10:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, see the AfD I mentioned above. "Keep" !voters were reaching pretty hard to find such sources, and most of what they could come up with were marginally reliable at best. But if you want to examine for yourself, that does appear to be a rather exhaustive list. Generalrelative (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A thoughtful discussion by David Brooks of a decline of wellbeing among US men and boys appeared yesterday in The New York Times. It does not support pseudoscientific evolutionary theories about this or male grievance theories. NightHeron (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To answer,, I think the best way to determine that would be to look at some textbooks about sociology, evolutionary biology, and gender relations, which I do not have at my fingertips at this time. A book review of Professor Daniels' work would also do, but I haven't been able to find one.  I requested Prof. Daniels' book at my library, but it isn't in yet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see what we're talking about is a topic which is possibly about something other than it is ostensibly about. We've got people talking about values and wellbeing among boys and male grievane and some mysogynist book. If it hadn't mentioned humans it probably would have been okay. With that rather toxic mixture I would suggest removing if there arn't good sources or removing all mention of humans if there are. It can have a see also to any topic that connects the topic to male grievance. NadVolum (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Michael Shermer
This article to me reads more as a shrine to Shermer than than a summary of Shermer. Large amounts of content are sourced to Shermer's own writings or interviews (e.g. primary sources) suggesting cherry-picking or showcasing in a disproportionate manner (WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BALASP). The article was previously discussed at BLPN, touching on some similar issues, but most of the current content is more of a NPOV issue than BLP. I have tried to remove material I found overly promotional or excessively detailed (e.g. diff 1, diff 2) but was reverted by. The sections I feel most unbalanced or indiscriminate are Personal life and Media work and appearances. Are Shermer's thoughts on gun control or capital punishment truly noteworthy and needing their own subsections, or are they just arbitrary opinions plucked from a vast sea of interviews and writings? Is a list of every television, radio, and podcast appearance appropriate for a person of this sort? While this post is about Michael Shermer's article, I feel it exemplifies issues in several articles on notable skeptical figures (e.g. Steven Novella, Kylie Sturgess) that are written in an overly sympathetic or promotional tone, which serves to trumpet rather than summarize, scraping together every podcast, blog, or radio interview to implicitly or explicitly promote the subject's own views. Let me be clear I am not accusing anyone of COI editing in this or any other article. Additional opinions are welcome. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * First, noteworthiness has nothing to do with the inclusion of content. Noteworthiness -- or notability, as it's usually referred to on WP -- is the test for whether a subject merits an article, as it explicitly states at the top of WP:N.


 * Including major media appearances/filmography of media figures in their articles is both reasonable, and a standard practice. Blanking them is not.


 * Shermer expresses, in both his writings and in his media appearances, his views on controversial topics, including political ones. Including this information in the articles on such figures is also reasonable, and standard practice.


 * I do not see how either of these latter two things has anything to with WP:NPOV, much less a violation of it. Nightscream (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Nightscream, under your analysis, if Shermer were to blog about what he had for dinner it would be presumptively due for inclusion in the article. I tend to agree this is a violation of WP:NPOV, or, more properly giving WP:UNDUE weight to Shermer's own thoughts.  I don't mean to malign the man, but if reliable sources don't pay a lot of attention to his ideas on gun control, neither should we.  As ever, reasonable minds may differ on the subject.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, key about BLPSPS is that we dont want to give unduly self-serving coverage. Unless he was specifically called out by secondary sources for his stance on gun control, including what he claims is clearly unduly self-serving. On the other hand, if secondary sources call out his stance on gun control, limited use of his BLPSPS to explain his position would be reasonable. M asem  (t) 04:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Nightscream, WP:N (subsection WP:NNC) states: Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we don't include content merely because it is true, verifiable, or because some people find it interesting. Per WP:WEIGHT we cover aspects of subject, as much as possible, in proportion to the weight given those subjects in reliable sources. We should care less about what Shermer thinks or has verifiably done, and more about what he is known for doing or thinking, as demonstrated by significant third party coverage. A subject meeting notability criteria doesn't mean carte blanche to throw in every factoid about it. Imagine if we merely repeated the arbitrary opinions of politicians from their twitter posts or books, or the unfiltered musings of terrorists or conspiracy theorists. We'd need good reason to include such content (beyond "it's true, s/he said it"), and the same rationale applies here. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "If Shermer were to blog about what he had for dinner..."
 * What he had for dinner does not represent a controversial political issue, as I mentioned above.


 * "We don't include content merely because it is true, verifiable, or because some people find it interesting."
 * Agreed.
 * I never said we did.
 * I did, however, describe why I think we do include such things. Do you think you could respond on that basis?


 * I agree with issues of due weight and balance, but again, this has nothing to do with NPOV, so I don't know why you keep bringing that policy up. Do you actually understand what WP:NPOV says, or are you just repeating it like some kind of mantra?


 * If the issue is that we need more secondary source coverage, then I agree. My editing practices have evolved over the years in such a way that I've become more cognizant of this need, but then this could mean that we need to see if there are such secondary sources that illustrate how his views pertain to his public life, in particular his public statements, media appearances, etc., in which he expresses those views.


 * For example, is a debate at the USD Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy relevant? What about an interview at WXXI News? Also, isn't he known for the columns he has written for major publications like cientific American, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Guardian, etc? Isn't finding more secondary sources more reasonable here than wholesale removal? Nightscream (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nightscream, I apologize, as this clearly means a lot to you, but I cannot support keeping the material in, hoping to substantiate it per Wikipedia policy later. Of course, if you happen upon support at a later date, it can be re-added, but for the time being, I see a pretty clear consensus among people who have commented here.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * To clarify, does this include the filmography/media appearances list? Nightscream (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For me it would include that whole section, Nightscream, but I won't speak for anyone else. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Self-promotional material and puffery should be removed, regardless of subject. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * How is it "self" promotional?


 * Again, is it or is not standard for articles on media figures to include a filmography or list of TV episodes they've been in? How is that section different? Nightscream (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * A couple of thoughts -- actors are notable largely for their roles; Shermer is not notable primarily as an interviewee. Even if we were to accept this, the list seems duplicative and overlong as it exists.  Seeing how there seems to be a rough consensus here, I will be making some changes (much) later today, unless there are objections.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * In the first place, his role as host of Exploring the Unknown was also deleted. Is that right?


 * As for his interviews and media appearances, isn't he notable for that? Those appearances constitute the very converage on which notability is predicated. Nightscream (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what has happened on the page recently, as I wanted to give things a chance to play out here. As to media appearances, no, I do not think that's the basis of his notability--that would be his own thinking and writing.  Imagine if for a famous actor we included not only roles, but also interviews, media appearances, and press junkets.  This entire place would be overrun by minutiae (well, more so) in an instant.  I would certainly encourage you to go to bat for appearances you consider especially notable, but a mere "he was a talking head here" or "he showed up on this interview show" would not make the cut for me.  As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and consensus may be against me.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Lest this discussion be archived and forgotten: do we have consensus to pare back (or remove) some of the information? In particular, the sections on political views and media appearances? There are other imbalances, e.g. heavy usage of Shermer's own book in the cycling career and a liberal sprinkling of primary-sourced factoids which appear more like what some Wikipedians want people to see rather than salient points that neutrally and naturally emerge from the secondary literature. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Bias on Iran issues
The ongoing situations in Iran are highly foggy and complex. Besides, some related pages are biased, injudicious, and irrational. The page is an outstanding which, editing is blocked either! Most locals intuit the alone teenage girl may have committed a suicide fall at 3 AM, but the page induces as if the guard gang (police) jabbed and buried her hiddenly. One of her aunts wrote something on her Instagram and then erased it, but those are cited on the page! None of the page data is juridically approved anywhere across the world. ٍTotally opposing the Islamic republic, and all black, hurting, and prejudiced, far from Wikipedia attitude. I propose a revision on the page. R.pardis (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * We can only deal with pages on en.wikipedia.org here. M asem (t) 00:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Giorgia Meloni
Very striking deviation from NPOV in this article. In the Personal Life section, second paragraph, the editors have chosen to mimic a hit piece article by a single author that undermines the subject with conjecture and speculation by taking alleged quotes and crafting a narrative not stated by the subject. Unsure why the subject's past possible literature selections even warrants mention in the Personal Life section, might as well discuss what kind of car she drives, but that wouldn't provide as much opportunity for the authors to slander the subject. The fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences of the second paragraph have absolutely nothing to do with the subject, and were introduced for their maligning effect as intended by the biased authors. "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." Clearly this paragraph is not intended as a neutral expansion of an explanation of the subject's personal life. It is a myopic focus on alleged literature preferences intended to allow the authors to use the Wikipedia article to persecute the subject based on politics. The politics can be discussed outside of the Personal Life section, and a literature preference is not worth mentioning, and even if it were it could be reduced to five words. Side note, per the WP guidance on using sources, "take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." This is interesting because the few sources cited in the section in question (which were published within days of each other) violate this very policy. For example, based on rather innocuous alleged disparate quotes, one article alleges that Meloni is 'on a quest for Italy's ring of power', whatever that means. So by inheritance, this section is a fiction generated by motivated authors and doesn't belong in a BLP. Dyno99 (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There should be an active thread on the WP:BLPN board about her with similar ussues. M asem (t) 16:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, I started that. The author(s) appears to be contributing and downplaying the impacts. I thought the NPOV forum would be an appropriate thing to try, since that's probably the primary thing wrong with what's been written, and the WP:BLPN convo is effectively sandbagged by the author(s). In my mind it's a clear violation, I think it should be removed. How many Personal Life sections on Wikipedia discuss alleged literature preferences and then hyperbolize that into political party histories? None. Can we get that content taken down for NPOV violation? Dyno99 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is called WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If the majority of editors disagree with you (especially at BLPN, where most regulars are sensitive to BLP issues), then you should probably WP:DROPTHESTICK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks, pardon. They mention that after listing six different avenues of raising issues. Easy mistake. Dyno99 (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Slow violence
Frankly I can't make heads or tails of the article Slow violence. It's apparently coined by a highly cited paper by Rob Nixon, but the way the article is written is too much of an endorsement, and seems to synthesize very different instances of "slow violence". Alas, I'm not sure what to do with it. Ovinus (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The article appears to use sources that are reliable and independent. We should move the discussion to the article's talk page and continue the discussion there per the noticeboard guidelines.  JetGreen40 (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

People Magazine reliablity?
I hope this is the right place to ask this, but I see the consensus is that people magazine is considered reliable, however when it comes to things such as an actor's DOB or age, should that be used as a source? I'm asking because I've noticed in past articles from them, they had an actor's age listed because that was the age that a bunch of other sites had down. Laverne Cox, Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastian for instance. Here's a few examples.

https://people.com/tv/laverne-cox-orange-is-the-new-black-star-on-violent-past-visionary-present/ https://people.com/tv/emmys-2014-laverne-cox-makes-history/ https://people.com/movies/octavia-spencer-ma-trailer-creepy-horror/ https://people.com/awards/golden-globes-2012-jessica-chastain-on-her-success/

None of the ages listed for the actresses in these articles were the correct ones at the time they were published. Which gives the impression that the writers were web scraping them from sites like IMDB or Google and weren't doing any fact checking. Kcj5062 (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Mandela Barnes
Some background here. During the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin, there was some very suspicious looking single-purpose account editing that was consistently adding negative information to the pages of candidates Sarah Godlewski and Alex Lasry. For example, this Milwaukee area IP and Sockpuppet investigations/Geeky1127/Archive this whole sock puppet situation. This type of SPA editing did not occur on Mandela Barnes. Now the Barnes article is being stuffed full of content like this and this, that really belongs at 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin, and assiduously scrubbed of any content that can be interpreted to be remotely controversial or critical of Barnes. See this, this, and this. Election season is dumb. More uninvolved eyes on this article would be good. See Talk:Mandela Barnes for existing talk page discussion. Basically, a lot of arguments about WP:UNDUE are being made, and the question at hand is, is content like this DUE if content like this is not? Marquardtika (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's another example. I understand there's arguments to be made about what weight to give various controversies and criticisms with regards to details and length within the page.  But when AP and NYT and other reliable sources are reporting on those controversies (however petty they may have originally been), Wikipedia should at least say that the controversies exist and link to the sources, rather than delete the content and the sources. BBQboffin (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO, the endorsements are somewhat DUE but I agree that much of the content belongs on 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin and not the BLP. I'm going to look at the edit history and see if semi-protection is warranted.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to make a note here that I believe the rules of this noticeboard: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion has not been met." Neither myself, Andrevan, @Tchouppy, or @Glinden were notified of this conversation going on within this thread.Andrevan and myself were linked to in edits within this thread. The other two are linked in more recent conversations on the talk page. Some edits also seem to be calling out users within the edit summary, rather than focusing on the content. Wozal (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC).

Lanfranco Cirillo
Lanfranco Cirillo, the architect of Putin’s Palace and homes for various oligarchs now has an article. The article was put into article space by an editor that isn’t observing neutrality as none of Cirillo’s various scandals and legal issues are mentioned. I would appreciate some eyes on the article. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

QNet NPOV
Qnet’s page has seen a years-long war between various editors that has left it in a paralyzed and far-from-neutral state. Reading the page as a whole, it skews incredibly negative and suffers from many of the issues mentioned in WP:NPOV (states opinions as facts, using judgmental language, lack of balance, among others). Many of these issues stem from edits made by a now-banned editor, Jitumoni1995, who published more than 50% of this article from 2016-2019. They made a total of 222 total edits to the page. Since that single purpose account (WP:SPA) engaged in WP:DISRUPTIVE, no effort appears to have been made on the page to properly review it for neutrality issues.

While this is a COI-declared account, I am following COI guidelines by refraining from making direct edits and utilizing the Talk page as my primary means of engagement. That said, I sincerely believe that the state of the page runs afoul of Wikipedia’s “non-negotiable” principles of WP:NPOV. I acknowledge that looking at the edit history, this page appears to have been bombarded by many people with anti- QNET biases and a small number of people with pro-QNET biases. I certainly do not seek for the page to become WP:PROMO whatsoever. I merely seek to have fresh eyes address the overall status of a page that was not appropriately assessed for neutrality in the wake of the disruptive editing.

I have posted to the Talk Page to request feedback on the situation and edits to the page (specifically to the Controversy section) that align with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines, but I have not received any concrete responses. I was hoping to garner more feedback on this noticeboard.

I’d like the entirety of the page, but more specifically, the controversy section to be reviewed, given the context through which a lot of the content was published. As for a few specific examples of where this lack of neutrality exists throughout the page:

Intro & History
The opening paragraphs set the tone that this is not an NPOV page. The second paragraph states opinion as fact when it says that QNET “has been charged as a ponzi scheme in countries like India”. The sources cited do not make mention of the term “ponzi scheme” and its use in the introduction of the article is pejorative and states seriously contested assertions as fact.

“Qnet changed its name repeatedly and launched at least 76 companies (as per the Bombay High court order of May 2016), often to sell lesser-known products manufactured by smaller companies using a multi-level marketing/direct sales model.[31](subscription required) Common people (IR in Qnet parlance) were taught to sell these products (often through workshops).[citation needed] Sellers earned commissions for each new seller / buyer brought into the fold.[citation needed].” (The information on this page is not found in the cited document, and the document is uploaded by an organization that multiple Wikipedia contributors agree is unreliable.)(See talk page request here.)

“It was sued by Egypt, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka for allegedly operating a product-based pyramid scheme. The company and its franchise Vihaan are under investigation in India.” (This is false, unsupported, and misleading. QuestNet was the entity in question. Egypt didn’t sue anyone, a private religious group issued a decree stating the activities were haram. QNet was able to obtain a decree from a different religious group called ‘Dar illfta’, that stated that QNet activities were in compliance with sharia law, and hence not haram. Source is here.)(See my edit request from June, here.)

Business model
The second paragraph of this section states opinion as fact. Nowhere in the citation associated with this paragraph do any government entities describe the business as a “pyramid scheme.” It’s merely the opinion of an author (writing in an opinion piece whose neutrality and reputability we have previously raised here).

Controversies
This section suffers from the most blatant violations of the NPOV policy on Wikipedia. This section was built by the above-mentioned Jitumoni1995 account and is full of edits which use judgmental language, state opinion as fact, and do nothing to further the balance of neutrality of the page. We indicate a few specific instances below, but as mentioned above, this whole section really warrants a full review that it never received after the disruptive editor built it from scratch. The edits made to this section after Jitumoni1995’s ban not only haven’t shown that a review has been done, but have only stacked on additional biased edits that have tilted this page out of a neutral balance.

“It has faced litigation in many countries and hundreds of IRs working for it and/or its many subsidiaries have been arrested.” (Written judgementally and doesn’t have a citation associated with it)

“India declared both Goldquest and Questnet to be Ponzi scheme companies.” (None of the associated sources ‘declare’ these entities to be Ponzi schemes)

“ The same year, Syria shut down QuestNet for violating its commercial registration, stating that the company had operated a pyramid scheme and withdrawn billions of Syrian pounds from the country, while paying few taxes.” (The way this is written doesn’t reflect the text in the associated citation).

“Over 100 people from Togo became victim to a big scam called QNET” (Judgmental language that isn’t even supported with the associated citation)

There are also multiple instances of Jitumoni1995 using a very controversial source to cite a handful of their edits: Example 1 (Use of discredited Source to Negatively Impact QNet) Example 2 (Large Reversion of Sourced Content) Example 3 (Unreliable Blogs as References)

With all of this context in mind, I ask that editors participate in conversations around this content and this editor, and make neutralizing edits to the page that are aligned with reliable sources and Wikipedia’s guidelines. QNetLars (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The Heat article
I was invited to participate in a RfC about the Heat article (because I enlisted myself to help in RfCs.)  I only have a general interest in the subject, but I always take seriously the RfCs in which I help : I follow carefully the talk page and participate in the discussions. I believe this article requires the attention of more people. Here is the first paragraph of the lead: There is an undue weight on a terminological issue. It's true to a large degree that, in thermodynamics, the definition of heat is energy in transfer, but it's a technical point that is not so important for the lead. It's just that when the description of a thermodynamic process involves both the internal energy of the system and the thermal energy in and out of the system, we do not want to use the same term for the internal energy of the system and the energy, the heat, that is transferred in and out of the system. But this convenient terminological convention does not deserve so much emphasis in the lead. At the least one editor over there sees it as a fundamental aspect of thermodynamics, but it's only a convenient convention, which only makes sense in a technical context. There is even another complete paragraph on this in the lead. When Feynman wants to explain heat, he would say that it is the jiggling of the atoms within the system. Even when heat transfer in or out of a system is explained, even though the internal energy of the system is not called heat, it's very common to consider that the heat goes out of the system into a heat reservoir or out of a heat reservoir into the system. I am not saying this to contradict the definition. The technical definition of heat as energy in transfer is fine, because we already have the term internal energy for the energy stored in the system. But insisting on that definition in the lead seems undue weight to me. I think I made a mistake in arguing with some editors over there, because I might have reinforced their need to protect this definition. One of them clearly see himself as the protector of what he considers the universally rigorous definition. So, I decided to stop following the Heat article, because the discussion is not working at all over there, but that I should at the least mention the issue here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan as a Province of the People's Republic of China
I recently nominated Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China for deletion as a WP:POVFORK of Taiwan, China and Political status of Taiwan and One-China policy and tagged the lead sentence with Citation Needed label. The lead statement is a claim of objective truth, stating (in WP:WIKIVOICE) that Taiwan is a Province of the People's Republic of China, citing a WP:PRIMARY source (the constitution of the People's Republic of China). I would appreciate more participation from editors in the deletion discussion about alternative page names, and in the talk page discussions to determine how the claim should be covered in the lead sentence. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree to delete. Martindo (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Republics of Russia
More eyes needed at Republics of Russia. Editor has been repeatedly adding Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine into the infobox. The new editor has explicitly claimed that the only viewpoint to be represented in the article is. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I absolutely did not say that that's the only viewpoint to be represented. My edits include notes that they are disputed, just as Crimea has on that page for years. eduardog3000 (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

NPOV/ COI issue
Hello,

I have posted previously about the 1xbet page’s NPOV/COI issue on its talk page and also the neutral point of view noticeboard. This resulted in some changes, but I believe the violation still stands.

The page comes across as being written with an exclusively negative bias. This is highlighted when making a comparison with other pages within the same industry, as it omits sections that are commonly found and features mostly only negative ones. I believe that the controversies should remain to a more reasonable extent but should be placed into one controversy section like the other pages in the same industry.

Since the page’s inception, there is evidence that points to the page creator having a conflict of interest in the form of a vendetta against the company. The first red flag is that the user appears to edit this page exclusively. In addition to this, the continued sentiment of these contributions appears to be negative and biased against the company. They have also left a comment on the talk page stating ‘1xbet bankrupt? My work is done here.’ which implies that the user had a planned agenda.

After a quick search online, I was able to find a few sources that reference information about the company - e.g. length of operation, countries/languages they service, etc. - that is not on the current version of the page. Surely this type of information should be included on the page too?

Some examples of sources I found: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/news/1263451/fc-barcelona-adds-1xbet-as-a-new-global-partner https://focusgn.com/1xbet-becomes-official-betting-partner-of-13-football-tournaments https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/newsindia/paris-saint-germain-welcomes-betting-company-1xbet-as-new-regional-partner/ar-AA1168N6 https://en.psg.fr/teams/club/content/paris-saint-germain-welcomes-1xbet-as-new-regional-parter-campaign-psg

Please let me know what you think! Melancholyhelper (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume your complaint is about neutrality of our article on 1xBet. Though you have posted at Talk:1xBet you did not provide any example of the kind of change you would support. Clearly the company has had various kinds of trouble. The article has sections called 'Criminal investigation' and 'Bankruptcy'. The legal troubles of 1xBet should be described neutrally. Your above links suggest that 1xBet has been able to sign up additional partners. What, if anything, does signing up additional partners have to do with 1xBet's legal troubles? EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:EdJohnston,
 * I believe the reference links I provided show that 1xBet are partnered with some of the biggest sporting organisations in the world, such as Barcelona, PSG and LOSC Lille. However, the 1xBet Wikipedia page is not reflective of this, instead portraying the company as a criminal organisation. The point I am making with such examples is that highly reputable sports teams would not be partnering with 1xBet if they were a criminal organisation.
 * In its current incarnation, the page's contents and its layout are both negatively biased; therefore, I do not think it complies with NPOV guidelines. For a neutral representation, I believe the page should be set out the same as others within the same industry. For example, Betfair and Paddy Power have sections regarding company history and information; this is then followed by criticisms and issues in just one section, not split out into 3-4 separate criticism sections as 1xBet’s page currently is. Please let me know your thoughts.Melancholyhelper (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think deletions are problematic as they mostly were removals of WP:ROUTINE. I'd think that company history should be focused on more important events than routine partnerships and marketing campaigns.
 * At the same time, tone and phrasing of the article do strike me as biased.
 * 1. As of January 2022, 1xBet no longer appears to be located in Curaçao after filing for bankruptcy in the lead doesn't appear to have a reference or obvious source in the article text. The statement sounds very odd as it'd be unusual for a Curacao-licensed gaming company to actually be located there not on paper in the first place.
 * 2. world's most controversial betting firms doesn't seem to be sourced.
 * 3. The Russian criminal case, as well as a lawsuit, are mentioned multiple times but aren't described, implicitly alluding to the alleged refusals to pay by the company. They're not: the case and lawsuit are for running gaming business overseas without Russian 'licensing' (which, to my understanding, is available to few firms close to the 'right' people and is very different from UK or Curacao licensing for example) and for bypassing Russian government Internet firewall (the same one as in Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia). PaulT2022 (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:PaulT2022, Thank you for your reply.
 * I agree with your point that there appears to be a biased tone to the article. To help resolve this issue, what do you think about collapsing the four 'controversial' sections into one ‘Controversies’ section with sub-headings?
 * I also agree with your point that the company history needs to be built out to focus on important events. Do you believe adding sources such as the following would be appropriate?:
 * https://redwinners.com/1xbet-history/
 * https://1x2bookmaker.com/1xbet-brands-history/
 * https://www.onlinebettingacademy.com/blog/2020/08/1xbet-in-expansion
 * https://www.casino-review.co/1xbet-eyes-latam-expansion-after-mexico-success-story/
 * https://sbcamericas.com/2020/03/30/1xbet-confirms-mexican-expansion-following-license-approval/
 * Thanks for your input Melancholyhelper (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest challenge is apparent lack of independent coverage of 1xBet that would meet Wikipedia sourcing requirements. For example, the first two links look like affiliate websites, the rest seem to be based on a press-release and a company spokesperson and, what's worse, it's mostly WP:CRYSTAL predictions (how the company will develop in future) and not even claims of facts. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.casino-review.co/1xbet-eyes-latam-expansion-after-mexico-success-story/
 * https://sbcamericas.com/2020/03/30/1xbet-confirms-mexican-expansion-following-license-approval/
 * Thanks for your input Melancholyhelper (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest challenge is apparent lack of independent coverage of 1xBet that would meet Wikipedia sourcing requirements. For example, the first two links look like affiliate websites, the rest seem to be based on a press-release and a company spokesperson and, what's worse, it's mostly WP:CRYSTAL predictions (how the company will develop in future) and not even claims of facts. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest challenge is apparent lack of independent coverage of 1xBet that would meet Wikipedia sourcing requirements. For example, the first two links look like affiliate websites, the rest seem to be based on a press-release and a company spokesperson and, what's worse, it's mostly WP:CRYSTAL predictions (how the company will develop in future) and not even claims of facts. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * A rewrite with an eye towards Summarization is probably the answer to this. We don’t want to leave out any of the negatives, but we don’t need to spend as much article space describing each in detail. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Mont Pelerin Society
This one's been problematic for almost a decade, but remains promotional, with way too much reliance on SPS. I have tried to tag it for the NPOV problems, and twice been reverted. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  13:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The editor who reverted you said you should create a discussion thread on the talk page first, since the current discussions are stale. it doesn't seem that anyone is protecting the current version, just that no one has bothered to improve it.
 * You should go ahead and re-write the article and come back if you find any resistance. TFD (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The page is promotional as is the case with many of our Austrian School-related articles. I wouldn't be surprised if you get pushback from true believers, but we can address that if/when it happens. In the meantime I've added it to my watchlist. Generalrelative (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia fasism definition is biased to favor Left dogma.
Waki Wiki says "Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology. Using Right or Left has nothing to do with fascism.  The use of government power by either side to politically attack the other is fascism.  Wikipedia is practicing fascism.  You have disgraced yourselves. 174.73.179.101 (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority of high quality reliable academic sources discussing fascism describe it as a right wing or far right ideology. Accordingly, Wikipedia does as well. Can you bring forward reliable sources that disagree? Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Survivors of Incest Anonymous
I've reverted back to a 2013 version of this article to restore sourced content that was inappropriately removed. However, this restores a WP:CRITICISMSECTION with several inline maintenance tags in it, so I would appreciate a second set of eyes or several as to whether changes are needed to comply with NPOV. Psychology articles do have a history of SYNTH regarding the topic of memory repression, so I'm wary of that. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Pregnancy
Based on the sequence of the !voting by new contributors, the POV balance among contributors to a discussion of the mention of Transgender pregnancy in the lead is somewhat questionable. Unjaded viewpoints would be welcome. Newimpartial (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "It's much worse WP:UNDUE because rather than just being mentioned, trans pregnancy is made equivalent to women such that women aren't even mentioned in that sentence and we incorrectly imply it has nothing to do with the female sex"; jesus. Not liking the implication about transgender pregnancies not being "equivalent" to women; smells more than a bit like 'mentioning trans people devalues women', something I don't think would be reasonably stated anywhere. Maybe the mention in the lead needs a stylistic rework, but I see what you mean about jaded viewpoints...—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 12:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Summers
Anthony Summers was brought to FTN for promotion of fringe, and when I reviewed it, I ended up converting the book section into a simple bibliography in this edit, which seemed more appropriate for the article, and less promotional. It was reverted, and there is now a discussion on the Talk Page that could use more eyes. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You neglect to mention that what you not-quite accurately describe as "converting" consisted of deleting two-thirds of the article, mostly content from The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Wall Street Journal and other mainstream news organisations, as well as content sourced from Vanity Fair about a documentary based in large part on the author's work, and similar content. Views on the author's work published in mainstream reliable sources are quite standard and appropriate to a BLP. There are no marginal or generally unreliable sources used. Thus the reversion of your mass deletion was an appropriate response. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The majority of it was glowing praise for the work, and thus promotional. And adding negative reviews to 'balance it out' bloats the article, ascribes undue weight, and presents far more than a reader needs to know about this author's books. It should be converted to summarized prose or a bibliography. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your characterisation does not accord with the actual content: a great deal is merely descriptive of the nature of the author's work, and it includes negative appraisals. More space is given to one generally negative review of the author's biography of Edgar Hoover than is given to all positive reviews. I find the notion that an article consisting of 13kB of readable text is in danger of suffering from bloat amusing. <i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 16:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no consensus on my side, so I'll leave it alone. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , this article is now being discussed on its talk page, on the FTN, and here. Promo and fringe concerns have been identified, and discussions have begun on how to address them. On FTN, four users have now recognized these issues (including myself). Among all this, you are the only user that is attempting to cast doubt on these concerns. If you have issues with specific actions taken, then please raise them, but you cannot unilaterally decide that no action needs to be taken. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In future, kindly refrain from grossly misrepresenting the content of discussions elsewhere and my or other editors' position on a given topic.


 * Of the five editors who have made even the briefest comment about the article, you are the only one who has claimed that there is . Pyrrho has pointed out, correctly in my view, that the material added by various users has resulted in a promotional tone (several flattering reviews; & I'd also add the excess of single word comments ie. "X says [book] is 'outstanding'"). One editor notes the length of the Special:WhatLinksHere/Anthony Summers page. And the editor who added most of the material suggests the discussion of the subject's books be kept in one article, which I also agree with. Your claim that four users have now recognized the real or imagined promotion of fringe theories that you think is in the article is false.


 * You are still yet to specify exactly which text in the article you think is promoting a fringe theory. Stating that an aspect of a book's content exists, where multiple reliable sources mention it, is not promoting any fringe theory within.


 * You added a general WP:PROMO template to the article, which would be a NPOV issue. If you believe the selection of sources about the books is biased, that is presumably because you know of other sources which take a more negative view of Summers work. I'm assuming that is the reason, given you are surely aware that we base NPOV on what exists in reliable sources. I don't claim to have looked in great detail at the critical literature on his books.


 * You write that I cannot unilaterally decide that no action needs to be taken. Indeed not: I have neither sought to do so nor advocated for no action. The opposite is true: I stated multiple times that we ought to add those more negative views of Summers work. I have started  material that takes a critical view of Summers' research. If you are looking to address the issue for which you templated the article, rather than wasting time misrepresenting other editor's views to try to rebut a position no-one has argued, I suggest you do likewise. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 21:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE requires an accurate evaluation and consideration of weight on any article that discusses conspiracy theories. I am basing my interpretation on Fringe theories, particularly the sections WP:FRINGELEVEL and WP:EVALFRINGE, which have requirements that are not being met. All I am asking is that these requirements be met so that Wikipedia does not implicitly give credence to conspiracy theories – on both this article and others that mention Summers – which is why those requirements exist in the first place. Since the meaning of their comments is in dispute, I'm going to ping and  in case they wish to expand on what they said at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are still yet to indicate, after multiple posts on talk and notice boards, which specific material you think is promoting a fringe theory. The guidelines refer to instances where, yet the content is sourced to mainstream news organisations. They refer to instances which , yet the coverage of the books deals almost entirely in generalities. Without knowing where you think the problem in the article lies, it is difficult for editors to address it. It will be helpful if you can now indicate which article content you’re concerned about, either here or on article talk. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 22:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My concerns are these, all from WP:FRINGE:
 * Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. – The article is predominantly about a conspiracy theorist, even if it is underdeveloped.
 * Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. – This had not been done, putting the article in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. – This is why I brought the subject to the FTN in the first place. While the article is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, I consider its effect on other articles to be a much more pressing concern.
 * Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be so late responding. I see his bio of J. Edgar Hoover is slammed here. It's used in multiple articles. Should this go to RSN? Doug Weller  talk 12:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien, thanks for the ping. I think the reviews in the article are in need of some balance, but I don't think it is necessarily a pro-fringe article. @Doug Weller, my opinion is that Summers is not a reliable secondary source and that his views should only be mentioned to the extent that they are discussed in reliable secondary sources. - Location (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Padre Pio
This request is about the lead section. The lead has to be expanded to better summarize the main information contained in the article. However, all attempts to expand and improve the lead section have been reverted by User:Mr. bobby over "catholic point of view". We would need an experienced user to tell whether the proposed changes are really written from catholic point of view or from a neutral point of view. Here are the changes needing a review Padre Pio: Difference between revisions: and here are the discussions already held:Talk:Padre Pio and Talk:Padre Pio. SanctumRosarium (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Figure skating jumps
I expand the list of jumps humans do. Some people (@User:Figureskatingfan) and a fiew conservative require jumps have proof of the ISU organisation. I deny ISU as the expert. We have an obvious conflict. See part of the discussion here. The common scenario: they say something and revert, I do the same. Is it the correct way? The question is the method to find consensus. PavelSI (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Some people declare ISU choice as the only valid orbiter as the consensus. See no proof of this. But they can repeat it. PavelSI (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Iain Macleod
Already tried opening a discussion, but only the original writer responded. As explained there and within edit summaries in the article's history, I find it absurd that peacock language is used in just the second paragraph. I certainly never saw this on any other article... 'formidable' is the word currently used that is just not neutral it seems to me... before it was 'outstanding' which is just ludicrous for an encyclopedia, surely. 80.42.143.142 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The IP editor is right, honestly. Describing the subject as a "playboy", "formidable debater", "quickly appointed" and such. This is more glowing hagiography by an obsessive fan rather than a biographical entry. Zaathras (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the IP editor isn’t right. Macleod’s fame does derive primarily from his skill as a speaker, as multiple RS attest, e.g., , . Given that, and that his ministerial career was launched by a single speech, it would be odd if the article on Macleod didn’t reference his oratory in the lead. KJP1 (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. Re., “I never saw this in any other article”, the opening para. of Napoleon describes him, uncited, as “one of the greatest military leaders in history”. I don’t think that’s remotely controversial either. KJP1 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Gerald Warner called Macleod a "formidable debater" (and "playboy"), too. In the context of his 1952 speech in which he followed Nye Bevan, "quickly appointed" appears to be accurate and backed up by reliable sources. I am generally unfamiliar with British politics, but I don't see a violation of NPOV here. - Location (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this content has stood for about 5 years without anybody objecting, and at least one other person in the edit summary has already told the IP that he has got the wrong end of the stick (there is also an anonymous contributor to the talk page discussion, who may or may not be the same person). It is unusual and noteworthy for politicians to have been professional card-players in their early years (having failed to hold down their one and only paid job), or to be appointed to a near-Cabinet-level post within a year of being elected, as a direct result of worsting in debate the opposition politician associated with that post. His 1960s conference speeches - of which little footage appears to have survived - were celebrated long after his death. And for the record, I have no particular opinion about Iain Macleod one way or the other, except to observe that he seems to have been rather prickly and unpleasant in his later years (exacerbated no doubt by pain from his bone condition and the knowledge that he was unlikely ever to become Prime Minister). I am far too old for hero worship - I just happen to find biography, a chunk of history viewed through the lifespan of a single person, an interesting art form. I can't even remember why I picked him to write up (I "did" Hugh Gaitskell and Selwyn Lloyd round about the same time - I was going to "do" Aneurin Bevan but for one reason or another didn't). "Glowing hagiography by an obsessive fan", honestly.Paulturtle (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Dispute about a sentence on Ger Toshav
Relevant talk page discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ger_toshav#NO_WP:CONSENSUS_to_remove_sourced_content

At issue is this sentence: "However, these religious Zionist and Orthodox rabbis that guide the modern Noahide movement, who are often affiliated with the Third Temple movement, expound a racist and supremacist ideology which consists in the belief that the Jewish people are God's chosen nation and racially superior to non-Jews,> and mentor Noahides because they believe that the Messianic era will begin with the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to re-institute the Jewish priesthood along with the practice of ritual sacrifices, and the establishment of a Jewish theocracy in Israel, supported by communities of Noahides."

I believe that this should at most be phrased as, for example, "opponents criticize the ideology as racist, supremacist, etc." In addition, describing "the belief that the Jewish people are God's chosen nation" as racist or supremacist is a belief some people hold, but it is generally not a mainstream belief (see Jews as the chosen people). Therefore, stating it as fact in this article is an NPOV violation as well.

Note that there is a paragraph with similar wording on the page Noahidism and potentially a few other articles related to this movement.

I also have issues with the content itself, but that may be out of the scope of this board. I would appreciate a third opinion and/or advice on where to find editors willing and able to judge the content dispute. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:CDE4:D44:195E:7E22 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The sentence implies that all modern rabbis that guide the modern Noahide movement espouse those views. That is certainly RS and SYNTH, and of course untrue. The requested quote is basically relying on one person, Novak, to make that claim. Further, the claim of imperialism is silly. If Jews are telling non-Jews to observe the seven laws, it's not from the Jews, it's from God (at least according to their opinion).
 * At the very least, it needs to be rewritten to meet BALANCE, DUE and RS/SYNTH, IMO. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As I already said, religious propaganda is not allowed on Wikipedia, although the IP doesn't seem to understand that. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia for everyone, not a religious encyclopedia that endorses or attempts to defend the doctrines of organized religions, therefore it is not censored. Everything that I wrote is supported by the reliable sources cited in the article, all of which are verifiable, secondary, independent, non-partisan reliable sources.  Moreover, the IP is evidently misrepresenting the content based on the aforementioned sources on purpose, since none of those sources imply that all of the rabbis involved in the Noahide movement are Religious Zionists or have ties with the Third Temple movement as well, they simply report that some of those rabbis do have such connections. Furthermore, the imperialist and supremacist characteristics of the Noahide movement have been highlighted both by Ofri and Novak; see Feldman for all the informations regarding the racist and racialist ideology within the Noahide movement. As you can see, the sourced content referenced in the article is not based on my personal opinion, as the IP claims, but on the sources cited in the article, all of which have been written by Jewish and Israeli researchers, journalists, and scholars.    GenoV84 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your sentence claims that all modern noahide movements are racist and supremacist. That's propaganda as well. It seems that some people might be here to right wrongs. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're also utilizing lots of SYNTH from the sources, of which I read through. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one attempting to censor encyclopedic informations on Wikipedia, while the same couldn't be said about the IP, which seems extremely offended about it and has already been blocked three times with three different IP addresses for his persistent disruptive behavior. Everything that I wrote is supported by the reliable sources cited in the article, all of which are verifiable, secondary, independent, non-partisan reliable sources.   None of those sources imply that all of the rabbis involved in the Noahide movement are Religious Zionists or have ties with the Third Temple movement as well, they simply report that some of those rabbis do have such connections. Furthermore, the imperialist and supremacist characteristics of the Noahide movement have been highlighted both by Ofri and Novak; see Feldman for all the informations regarding the racist and racialist ideology within the Noahide movement. As you can see, the sourced content referenced in the article is not based on my personal opinion, as the IP claims, but on the sources cited in the article, all of which have been written by Jewish and Israeli researchers, journalists, and scholars.    Moreover, deliberately removing sourced content with references with the purpose to censor the aforementioned content and/or attempting to right what the IP perceives as wrongs is a violation of the WP policy WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS:

"This is because we only report what is verifiable using secondary reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to: on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do." GenoV84 (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or
 * Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent, or
 * Explain (what you perceive to be) the truth or reality of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or
 * Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community...

Adam S. Posen
In the biography for the economist Adam Posen, an editor added a "controversy" section which reads,

"Speaking at the Cato Institute, Posen said “ The fetish for manufacturing is part of the general fetish for keeping white males of low education outside the cities in the powerful positions they're in in the US”, which was disputed by the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Others deplored the discussion of industrial policy in such a manner."

There are a multitude of problems here.

First, Posen's views on manufacturing are not 'controversial' within the economics discipline. Take, for example, this survey of economists published by the Chicago Booth School of Business. In response to the proposition "The federal government would make the average U.S. citizen better off by using policies that directly focus more on increasing manufacturing employment than employment in other sectors," only 5% of economists agreed with this statement. One of the comments BTL reads, "Memo to Romney and Obama: there is nothing per se special about manufacturing (except maybe nostalgia)" -which is essentially Posen's argument.

That the manufacturing sector makes up a small share of the economy and receives outsized attention from politicians is just a fact. It is also a fact that traditional manufacturing industries (which compete with foreign imports, and make up an even smaller share of the economy) are predominately white and male in contrast to the much larger and more diverse service sector (which receives almost no attention from politicians, and gets hurt by restrictive trade policies). Posen was not unreasonable to speculate about this, and in any event that wasn't the central point of his argument (see link 10).

So right off the bat, warning bells should be ringing as to the nature and extent of this editor's economic knowledge.

Secondly, the "Alliance for American Manufacturing" is not an authoritative source for economics and could raise promotional issues. This is a special interest group.

Thirdly, "industrial policy" is not a term used by professional economists, but a political slogan and euphemism for trade protectionism. So there is also a possibility that this editor is injecting his politics into Posen's biography.

And finally, these statements are, unsurprisingly, sourced to Twitter. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on self-published rebuttals/denials
There is an RfC on self-published rebuttals/denials taking place at WT:BLP, and it may have implications for NPOV. Additional input would be helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Please note two RfCs were opened. This is the link to the one that was opened shortly before the one above.[ Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons]  Springee (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Peterson Institute for International Economics
The other day I opened a section on the economist Adam Posen (no feedback), and now there's a related issue on the article for Posen's think tank, the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

I'll make this one short: an editor or group of editors added a criticism section to the PIIE page which is little more than a soapbox for anti-globalisation politics. They are attacking free trade, in contradiction to the views of about 9 in 10 mainstream economists. That 9 in 10 academics, especially economists, agree on anything is remarkable.

As a mainstream encyclopedia, it simply can't be the case that an editor can source criticism to fringe or populist writers in newspapers, or special interest groups that are at odds with the opinions of most experts. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of that section is excessive and not on the topic of the article. I agree. However it should not be entirely removed. Neither their opinions on globalisation as a whole nor yours should be the deciding factor.
 * As a side matter the sources for that section should all be retained. The sources are all published in WP:NOTABLE publications which have their own articles. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal – moving Breast binding to "Chest binding"
A proposal has been made to have Breast binding renamed "Chest binding". Discussion @ Talk:Breast binding. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 14:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi pedophilia guilty plea undue weight concerns
The lede of Kevin Alfred Strom does not mention his time spent in prison for possession of child pornography. This is a significant lede-worthy fact because, for one, it is one of the things that led to his downfall in the neo-nazi community. User:Veverve removed this text after User:Zezen claimed this was undue weight. Zezen was later indef banned by the community for making violently antisemitic/anti-LGBTQ edits. Please comment here: Talk:Kevin Alfred Strom. Schierbecker (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

QNet NPOV
Qnet’s page has seen a years-long war between various editors that has left it in a paralyzed and far-from-neutral state. Reading the page as a whole, it skews incredibly negative and suffers from many of the issues mentioned in WP:NPOV (states opinions as facts, using judgmental language, lack of balance, among others). Many of these issues stem from edits made by a now-banned editor, Jitumoni1995, who published more than 50% of this article from 2016-2019. They made a total of 222 total edits to the page. Since that single purpose account (WP:SPA) engaged in WP:DISRUPTIVE, no effort appears to have been made on the page to properly review it for neutrality issues.

While this is a COI-declared account, I am following COI guidelines by refraining from making direct edits and utilizing the Talk page as my primary means of engagement. That said, I sincerely believe that the state of the page runs afoul of Wikipedia’s “non-negotiable” principles of WP:NPOV. I acknowledge that looking at the edit history, this page appears to have been bombarded by many people with anti- QNET biases and a small number of people with pro-QNET biases. I certainly do not seek for the page to become WP:PROMO whatsoever. I merely seek to have fresh eyes address the overall status of a page that was not appropriately assessed for neutrality in the wake of the disruptive editing.

I have posted to the Talk Page to request feedback on the situation and edits to the page (specifically to the Controversy section) that align with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines, but I have not received any concrete responses. I was hoping to garner more feedback on this noticeboard.

I’d like the entirety of the page, but more specifically, the controversy section to be reviewed, given the context through which a lot of the content was published. As for a few specific examples of where this lack of neutrality exists throughout the page:

Intro & History
The opening paragraphs set the tone that this is not an NPOV page. The second paragraph states opinion as fact when it says that QNET “has been charged as a ponzi scheme in countries like India”. The sources cited do not make mention of the term “ponzi scheme” and its use in the introduction of the article is pejorative and states seriously contested assertions as fact.

“Qnet changed its name repeatedly and launched at least 76 companies (as per the Bombay High court order of May 2016), often to sell lesser-known products manufactured by smaller companies using a multi-level marketing/direct sales model.[31](subscription required) Common people (IR in Qnet parlance) were taught to sell these products (often through workshops).[citation needed] Sellers earned commissions for each new seller / buyer brought into the fold.[citation needed].” (The information on this page is not found in the cited document, and the document is uploaded by an organization that multiple Wikipedia contributors agree is unreliable.)(See talk page request here.)

“It was sued by Egypt, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka for allegedly operating a product-based pyramid scheme. The company and its franchise Vihaan are under investigation in India.” (This is false, unsupported, and misleading. QuestNet was the entity in question. Egypt didn’t sue anyone, a private religious group issued a decree stating the activities were haram. QNet was able to obtain a decree from a different religious group called ‘Dar illfta’, that stated that QNet activities were in compliance with sharia law, and hence not haram. Source is here.)(See my edit request from June, here.)

Business model
The second paragraph of this section states opinion as fact. Nowhere in the citation associated with this paragraph do any government entities describe the business as a “pyramid scheme.” It’s merely the opinion of an author (writing in an opinion piece whose neutrality and reputability we have previously raised here).

Controversies
This section suffers from the most blatant violations of the NPOV policy on Wikipedia. This section was built by the above-mentioned Jitumoni1995 account and is full of edits which use judgmental language, state opinion as fact, and do nothing to further the balance of neutrality of the page. We indicate a few specific instances below, but as mentioned above, this whole section really warrants a full review that it never received after the disruptive editor built it from scratch. The edits made to this section after Jitumoni1995’s ban not only haven’t shown that a review has been done, but have only stacked on additional biased edits that have tilted this page out of a neutral balance.

“It has faced litigation in many countries and hundreds of IRs working for it and/or its many subsidiaries have been arrested.” (Written judgementally and doesn’t have a citation associated with it)

“India declared both Goldquest and Questnet to be Ponzi scheme companies.” (None of the associated sources ‘declare’ these entities to be Ponzi schemes)

“ The same year, Syria shut down QuestNet for violating its commercial registration, stating that the company had operated a pyramid scheme and withdrawn billions of Syrian pounds from the country, while paying few taxes.” (The way this is written doesn’t reflect the text in the associated citation).

“Over 100 people from Togo became victim to a big scam called QNET” (Judgmental language that isn’t even supported with the associated citation)

There are also multiple instances of Jitumoni1995 using a very controversial source to cite a handful of their edits: Example 1 (Use of discredited Source to Negatively Impact QNet) Example 2 (Large Reversion of Sourced Content) Example 3 (Unreliable Blogs as References)

With all of this context in mind, I ask that editors participate in conversations around this content and this editor, and make neutralizing edits to the page that are aligned with reliable sources and Wikipedia’s guidelines. QNetLars (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The Conflict with Rosicrucians section of the Illuminati page
I recently made an WP:RFC regarding the Conflict with Rosicrucians section of the Illuminati Wikipedia article. XDev and I have been discussing for several months now whether this section presents a "conflict" between the two groups in an NPOV way and whether it relies too heavily on the writings of René le Forestier himself, mostly his Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande from 1781. That discussion can be found at Sourcing and POV in Conflict with Rosicrucians Section on the talk page.

The section talks about a rivalry between the Illuminati and Rosicrucians that appears nowhere else on Wikipedia. It portrays the Illuminati as rationalists who were under a one-sided attack from superstitious and fraudulent Rosicrucians. The Rosicruciansim article does not speak of this conflict, nor does the page for the Order of the Golden and Rosy Cross. Rosicrucianism does not appear again in the Illuminati article, making this section somewhat of an orphan on its own page.

My most recent edit here adds a request for the POV to be toned down, such as "'A conflict became inevitable as the existence of the Illuminati became more evident, and as prominent Rosicrucians and mystics with Rosicrucian sympathies, were actively recruited by Knigge and other over-enthusiastic helpers.'" and "'The Bavarian Illuminati, whose existence was already known to the Rosicrucians from an informant, were further betrayed by the reckless actions of Ferdinand Maria Baader, an Areopagite who now joined the Rosicrucians.'"

While I have argued that these wrings seem like primary sources and the section additionally uses NPOV wording, such as "reckless action," XDev has said that contemporary historian rely on the writings of Adam Weishaupt, René le Forestier and Adolph Freiherr Knigge more or less directly and thus them being primary sources is acceptable to Wikipedia. The reason I have not put this in the Secondary Source noticeboard is that, while that is an aspect of our discussion, it is (excuse the pun) secondary to the main question of the POV of this section.

Any input from those with a background in History, Secret Societies, the German Enlightenment, etc. would be most helpful. Thank you! AnandaBliss (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Debate about WP:FALSEBALANCE in an RfC at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
Readers of this board may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Move request for Breast binding
More comments are welcome at Talk:Breast binding, where it has been proposed to move the article to "Chest binding". Crossroads -talk- 04:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hidden ads in the Liniment article
On 16 November 2022, a user Spottz created an account, and made a couple of edits on the article Liniment adding a claim (to the Notable Liniments subsection) that  a company offers a certain type of liniment . This user provided a source citation. The link leads to a webpage where one may purchase the liniment, but the webpage doesn't have any words about the liniment's notability. DIFF I addressed to them (on their talk page), but I believe, they are beneficial to stick to not-responding tactics. Thus I wrote here. Tosha Langue (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Southern Baptist Convention
User:Nowhere2Go, a single-purpose account, keeps removing sourced and cited content from the lede of the SBC article, arguing that the SBC doesn't do that anymore (so ugly stuff that happened within my lifetime as a Southern Baptist should be buried in the past history); and something about "heresy" I didn't understand; and besides, accusations did not all lead to convictions, so they don't count. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems due to include in the lead when considering the organisation holistically in its historical context, but if the SBC has repudiated white supremacy and its past treatment of black people, then that should probably be mentioned in the lead too. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of that history is necessary for the lede, but the lede goes so far into depth on it that it reads as if it is purposely preparing the reader to read the article as "they were bad before, now they claim they don't do that". Particularly in the order it gives. A sentence or two summarizing the negative facets of its origin is fair, and need to include modern revisionism (eg the 1995 resolution to separate itself from its past racism roots). Remember that wikivoice cannot judge or take stands on moral issues like racism, but we should be clear that because it was connected to racism it was perceived negatively, for example. M asem (t) 00:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Or, as an another point, anytime someone is loading up the lede with sources not reused in the body is a problem; the lede should reuse sources already incorporated in the body. Otherwise, it looks like you are striving to be as critical as possible of SBC. The past actions of the SBC should not be whitewashed, but the lede panders so much to coerce the reader to see the view "they are bad". M asem (t) 00:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to address their concern about balance in the lede; but they seem unable to grasp that "credibly accused" is not the same as "convicted in a court" and that we can assume our readers will understand that. (And I still haven't figured out how "heresy" got in there!) -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Now we've got an IP trying to whitewash the origins of the denomination in pro-slavery faction of Baptist denomination -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  05:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at that opening paragraph, my biggest concern would be WP:UNDUE. See here for example. The pro-slavery past is mentioned, but it does not dominate the source. Nor should it dominate the first paragraph of the article, or even the lead. See Robert Byrd for an example to compare. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Dispute about a sentence from Republican Party (United States)
The last sentence of Republican Party (United States) currently states:

However, none of the three sources used here describe these impacts to be the argument of opponents, they all state them as simple facts. See talk page for further discussion. Is this sentence a verifiability/NPOV violation as it stands? –– FormalDude  (talk)  22:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It should be patently obvious that these need to be put in the form of claims (that is, as currently given) even if the sources assert them as facts, otherwise we are readily accepting one side of the argument as the truth and treating the other side as opinion. That's an outright NPOV violation. M asem (t) 02:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be an NPOV violation if we have counterbalancing sources that claim that's not the case. Do those sources exist? If not, the NPOV violation would be putting our thumb on the scale rather than accepting the claims of the sources. Loki (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Loki said. The sources used for the supporters positions specifically attribute those statements to the supporters. We must have the same verification standards for the opponents statements or it is false balance. For us to make the claim in this sentence, we needs sources that specifically attribute it to the opponents position. We follow what reliable sources report, and staying true to the sources is certainly not readily accepting one side over the other. –– FormalDude  (talk)  03:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely wrong. WP:YESPOV says we should not always take what sources say as the word of god, but instead should frame statements of opinion or claims with attribution, even if the sources do not dress up the statements as opinions or claims.
 * The stance that we must report how RS report it, or that there are no other counter sources out there that can be used to present denial to these claims, particularly, when we are talking, within the framework of US politics, a stance related to the GOP which is absolutely not a fringe position, is not compatible with writing a neutral encyclopedia. And you already have text in that same paragraph that explains the GOP stance, expressed as claims, so to present the opposition position as fact is blatantly not neutral. You are following what the given RSes report, just with the required aspects of attribution to avoid picking a side in the controversy related to the GOP's voting rights policy. This is something that is very very easy to take the "right" side (that is, the anti-GOP position) and seemingly backed by reliable media, but we simply cannot have the essence of taking a side in a debate that has two major sides to it and yet to proven out in practice. M asem (t) 03:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To add another point, nearly all the sources here (as well as that talk page) all talk in terms of "could" or "would", which are strong claims of what could happen in the future, not what will happen. It would be yet another to drop the "Opponents argue" as that would leave a future-facing statement as "fact" in Wikivoice, when no one has no idea of what will actually happen. So these have to be taken as claims of what will be happening in the future and thus presented with some type of attribution, even if it just "Opponents argue..." (ETA) If we were talking known documented (quantified) effects of GOP voting policies that since have been shown to curtail voting rights, backed by RSes even though we'd may have GOP supports claiming they did otherwise, that would be something we'd write as fact for the past tense and leave the GOP stance as assertions. M asem  (t) 03:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources are not speculating about something that will occur in the future. The voter suppression tactics have been occurring for a long time, and it's well known that they have tended to particularly affect minorities. So the sources are just making the obvious deduction that the future effects of those tactics will be similar to the effects in the past. That's not speculation. NightHeron (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC) An analogy: Would we insert "Opponents of anti-vaxxers argue that" in front of "more widespread vaccination would reduce the death rate from covid" on the grounds that this is speculation about the future rather than a fact about the past? NightHeron (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With the COVID part, there is certainly (within my best guess) sources from academic experts that have the agreement of the medical community that vaccinations reduce its spread, and thus from the bounds of MEDRS, that is something we can report as medical/scientific fact. In the counter-counter-example, if a new virus no one has yet had a chance to study made a similar pandemic concern, we could not state as fact that vaccines would stop its spread, though can definitely include how medical experts anticipate a vaccine would help. M asem (t) 12:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly my point. Voter suppression efforts are not like a new virus. They're like a virus (covid or flu) that has been around for enough time so that the efficacy of vaccines is a fact, not a speculation. If voter suppression were new and their effects were uncertain, your argument above would have weight. NightHeron (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then the sentence should be citing reports and journal articles from the poly-sci world that explain something like "The GOP's stance on voting rights have been shown to led to voter suppression, etc...", with inclusion of documented cases (and having worked on one the gerrymandering articles, this seems like it should rather easy to do) The sources being used are forward-looking and are not sufficient to discuss what has happened in the past. M asem (t) 12:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect that there are stronger sources on the subject, such that citing them will make the resolution of this dispute self evident. But at any rate, the question for NPOV is whether there are sources to the contrary -- like MAGAs with guns at voter locations are just there to hunt pheasants or whatnot.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are actually contrary sources - in the article present, this line follows a statement attributed to supporters of the GOP voting stance of what the intent of these policies are to do (eg reduce fraud, etc.), and then this line comes to counter that. That's the "sources to the contrary". M asem (t) 12:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not being American I don't have a huge amount of familarity with this issue. But as far as I can see the "sources to the contrary" you refer to don't pseak in their own voice, they simply quote what Republicans have claimed i.e. no WP:RS actaully make those claims. The sources at the end of the paragraph make the claims in their own voice. As they are WP:RS, I would say that means the text should read "Republicans assert X but Y is the case". That would be the NPOV requirement. To change that you would need to produce WP:RS supporting X and, subject to WP:DUE being satisfied, that would be the way to make it read "Some say X, others Y". Do you have WP:RS that claim in their own voice that X is the case? DeCausa (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim of widespread voter fraud has been shown in RS to be a lie. A thief can say "my intent in robbing the cash register was to give money to charity", but implausible statements about intent don't count for much.NightHeron (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP is neutral and amoral, so we don't care that the "protecting voter fraud" reasoning has been proven wrong, just that that is one of the reasons thats RSes point out that supporters of the GOP policy say. What then of course makes sense is to back the following thought, showing that the fraud claim is a lie, with factual studies and analysis from RSes based on what has happened that demonstrates that. M asem (t) 13:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Have they been shown to be a lie? I know they have said the cases of someone being convicted of fraudulently voting under someone else's name have amounted to something like 31 proven cases but that isn't the same thing as proving no legitimate issue is at play.  We need to be impartial in our wording, something that is an issue in this section.  The article on Voter identification laws suggests that IDs are the norm in most countries and the US may be more laxed vs others.  The various voter laws are also concerned with ballot harvesting which has seen recent prosecutions.  The problem with the while section it's of reads like something written by people who oppose these actions vs those who are removed from the content.  I understand CATO isn't an unbiased source but they do raise legitimate issues regarding ballot harvesting .  Treating this topic like a pure negative by the GOP is far from IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But Masem, those denials are ridiculous equivocations and the sort of thing that lead editors rightly to cite WP:MANDY etc.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a MANDY case. No allegations have been made. The article is presenting the platform of the GOP, thus section about its voting stance. Stating what supporters of the GOP claim these policies do is absolutely expected, as well as any past studies that provide countering evidence to this. M asem (t) 13:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I provided five academic sources that provide such evidence here. –– FormalDude  (talk)  14:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the real world as it's currently constituted, allegations, concerns, or suspiciouns of voter fraud are resolved by a robust system of apolitical civil service, public observation, and judicial review. Virtually all the recent Republican claims of voter fraud -- and certainly the claims that it is rampant and corrupting the outcomes of elections -- have failed to substantiate the Republican narratives or provide any rational basis for the "reforms" they are pursuing. Masem, what I tried to suggest is consistent with your approach. Currently RS do indicate that the Republican denials and framing of their suppression agenda are MANDY or "MANDY-adjacent", which is an essay that may be coming attractions for 2023.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you frame it that through RSes, the statement "The GOP claims their approach to voting regulation is to prevent voter fraud" is absolutely backed by numerous sources (writing on criticism of the GOP). But by the same manner, the statement "The GOP approach to voting regulations is to prevent voter fraud", is as said not backed at all by RSes (only by the GOP's own literature) and thus cannot be included.
 * Now the fact that tons of RSes have pointed out that the GOP's claim of voter fraud are dubious, that puts it past MANDY. We do not need to drudge through the GOP statements when we have lots of RSes that show this, as well as the explanations of why the voting fraud claim is dubious and that the GOP's intents would have effects on voting rights. Most of what I know exists now are projections and predictions if those effects, which per CRYSTAL should be kept put of wikivoice (use attribution), but we should also be citing any academic analysis that has shown these effects from the past and include that.
 * It is really really easy to try to handwave away the GOP's stance here given how dismissive the media covers it, (and personally agree that the GOP do pose significant dangers to voting rights) but we still need to write from a neutral angle and not let those prejudices slip in. We absolutely should frame the GOP arguments as claims, and we should include counterpoint against those claims, though be careful to distinguish from proven counterarguments and ones that are speculative. M asem (t) 16:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My concern is the implication that this is unique to the Republican Party when in fact it is common to both. Where the Democratic Party is strong for example, they suppress votes of minorities, young people and the poor, but oppose this type of suppression where the Republicans are competitive. See for example "The Blue States That Make It Hardest to Vote" in The Atlantic. But I agree that the claim that it is not suppression, but an attempt to stop voter fraud, has no support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading through this, I think there are legitimate concerns at both ends here. Arguments about the use of voter security as an excuse to carry out voter suppression are well documented in RS and this is pretty clearly the most common rebuttal to the Republican Party's proposed policies. I think few would argue that it's not what opponents say, regardless of whether they agree with it. But at the same time, there are legitimate WP:NPOV and possibly WP:HOWEVER concerns in challenging policy positions on an article if done in a way that presents the challenge as preferable or more authoritative. The use of sources like Mother Jones and The Nation exacerbate these concerns considerably, as these are sources that are clearly intended to portray the policy in a negative light. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

We're talking about three separate claims as though they're all the same. the efforts amount to voter suppression and are intended to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people who vote probably shouldn't be framed as simply "Republicans are engaged in voter suppression, intending to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people to vote" but it's also not just "opponents" who say this. There are many instances of Republicans saying as much (without calling it "voter supression"). The "voter suppression" characterization should remain attributed to either specific or generalized parties (e.g. "characterized as voter suppression by a range of journalists and academics"), but there are plenty of sources to cite establishing that (a) Republicans believe that certain kinds of voting restrictions benefit them, and that (b) they have undertaken to implement some of those restrictions. would disproportionately affect minority voters doesn't have to be attributed because there's research to back this up -- just cite that. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Reposting from the talk:
 * Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Plenty of court decisions contest the idea that these efforts are "voter suppression." This one from NBC describes both claims of voter suppression and of significant fraud as false. There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is about Indiana. It doesn't counterweight the copious sources about Southern states. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the section on what supporters play is an inappropriate place to put in what opponents say. We should look at the actual statements of supporters, not opponents' characterizations of those statements. What I see supporters saying is that the laws are designed to protect election integrity. MYTH V. FACT: GEORGIA'S ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT. This source is WP:RS for the purpose of what supporters of the laws actually say. In a WP:WIKIVOICE discussion of what each side says, that's all you need for the "supporters" portion. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We should attribute what RS say. Not self-published statements as the narrative. That is not NPOV. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Plenty of court decisions contest the idea that these efforts are "voter suppression." This one from NBC describes both claims of voter suppression and of significant fraud as false. There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is about Indiana. It doesn't counterweight the copious sources about Southern states. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the section on what supporters play is an inappropriate place to put in what opponents say. We should look at the actual statements of supporters, not opponents' characterizations of those statements. What I see supporters saying is that the laws are designed to protect election integrity. MYTH V. FACT: GEORGIA'S ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT. This source is WP:RS for the purpose of what supporters of the laws actually say. In a WP:WIKIVOICE discussion of what each side says, that's all you need for the "supporters" portion. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We should attribute what RS say. Not self-published statements as the narrative. That is not NPOV. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We should attribute what RS say. Not self-published statements as the narrative. That is not NPOV. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Brentwood School (Los Angeles)
Judging by the talk page, this piece of promotional fluff about an incredibly expensive and exclusive school near Hollywood where the children of the rich and famous attend has been problematic at least since 2009. I tried to do a bit, partially by rescuing nearly-hidden "Notes" about disputes relating to the school and putting them into appropriate places in the body; but most of this still reads like something between a recruiting brochure and a breathless article in a Hollywood gossip magazine. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

History of Nagorno-Karabakh
There seems to be a consensus on the talk page that the article is not neutral. I have removed some emotional language but the article would benefit from a review by editors who are well-versed in this history. The references also seem to need a lot of work, so I encourage anyone interested to take a look. Elinruby (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC at Firehose of falsehood
I am a new editor who's been lurking for a while and I'm kind of winging it, so I apologise in advance if this isn't the correct procedure. To stay neutral I'll just say there have been disagreements regarding the Firehose of falsehood article: Neutrality, bias, the right to edit, etc. It's all detailed in the talk page and recent edit history and isn't a huge read. I'd really appreciate it if some other experienced users could come and offer their take on the issue. Thanks :) ShabbyHoose (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Non-vegetarian, Requesting inputs
Requesting inputs / guidance about WP:Due whether sourced content in following two subsections:


 * 1) be retained in the article Non-vegetarian ,
 * 2) Or Include in respective community/ region related articles
 * 3) Create a new article
 * 4) It's better to drop the idea of community/ region wise Non-vegetarian food related cultural content altogether?
 * It is presumed that content mentioned can be modified as per suggestions and requirement.

Above questions itself are brief summary of following context

Context: Non-vegetarian is an article about India food containing meat and the people/ communities consume the same, has long history. Article retains at least some cultural/ social aspects and issues. I do have considerable list of credible resources which I wanted to updated the article, that includes communities and regions wise cuisine and Non-vegetarian food culture. Some users seems to have reservations about mention of any thing vegetarian in the article and that is perfectly okay for me. But following community wise cultural aspects are also objected too and deleted. The user says ".. The non-vegetarian dishes of muslims discussion about halal and haram, party, dowry, .. are I think out of topic. ..". I understand this point of view too. But wish to have WP community inputs as asked in above questions for better understanding.

Following 2 subsections about content under consideration are made for ease of reading. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

a) Non-vegetarian cuisine from Indian Muslim communities

 * Content which needs advice as per questions above:


 * ".. According to Sadaf Hussain while Indian Muslim communities largely avoid haram food and only opt for halal food in their diet otherwise there is nothing Islamic about Indian Muslim cuisine and often similar to Indian non-Muslim communities except for some nuanced variations in techniques and cultural practices like serving food in a big shared plate on a yellow cloth called 'Dastarkhan'.  Hussain  says Kebab  and Biryani are most known dishes and quotes Chitrita Banerji saying arrival of Muslim rulers was first substantial foreign influence on Indian cuisine, Hussain  further adds that though commoner Muslims  though known being non-vegetarian used to afford meat hardly once in a week while poorer  among them would afford meat once in a year on Eid festivals only. .."

b) Non-veg dishes in Nikah (marriages)

 * Content which needs advice as per questions above:


 * ".. According to Raghu Paithari's report about Muslim marriages in Telangana  traditionally lot many number of cuisines are served  like Mutton Marag  a thin spicy mutton soup served as a starter usually prepared from tender mutton with bone,    Haleem (or Harees) a type of stew that is widely consumed in the Indian subcontinent, Red Chicken, Green Chicken, Biryani, . Paithari says since recent past, serving  ten more varieties of non-vegetarian fry dishes as starters  has become a new trend in Telangana Muslim marriages. Paithari  says having to serve lot many Non-vegetarian dishes in Muslim marriages  is kind of a prestige issue, but practically very expensive affair (the Paithari's report gives figures to the tune of Rs 3 lakh to Rs 4 lakh non veg feast in rural hamlet of Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla district)  for brides families to spend even with their limited income sources while besides the feast brides  family usually spending huge sums on dowry to the groom. Paithari also reports that in January 2022 Muslim community of Vemulawada mutually decided to limit number of non-vegetarian dishes in the marriage to put limit on expenses and reduce burden on bride's families. .."

Ref list for this section
&#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think, this should be added in cultural and political aspects section of Non-vegetarian article not in popular dishes section as the discussion is about Islamic haram and halal food and trend in muslim marriage. It talk less about popular dishes and more about culture of muslim. Dev0745 (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think the entire focus of that page is wrong. Why is it all about India? Where are other countries? Or, should it even talk about countries? Or more generally about the diet? Why do you need this page at all, when there is Meat? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The term is effectively only ever encountered in India, though obviously you can find the food anywhere. Why on earth was this issue raised here, pretty clearly the wrong venue. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The term non-vegetarian, generally used in India as many people don't eat meat who refer to themselves as vegitarian. So those who eat meat as known as non-vegetarian in India. Dev0745 (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Without relevance to the rest of the world this article should be deleted or moved to Non-vegetarian food in India. I think the article makes the case that this is worth moving in stead of deletion. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree for moving the page as the term generally used in India and the term generally not used in other countries other than countries of South Asia. Dev0745 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3  @ Invasive Spices
 * I also would prefer confirmatory AfD before further commitments to the article since that shall save everyone's time.
 * For record article is not created by me and not contributed before many others contributed to.
 * My above cited content can be discussed if the article survives in an AfD. @ Invasive Spices can you help in writing AfD proposal. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If it is to be on India, then there should be a single page that covers all forms of diet. The term "non-vegetarian" is inherently non-neutral, and I don't think there should be any page with such a title. If you call it "Meat-eating in India" in proper English, then it becomes obvious that it is a ridiculous topic for an encyclopedia. It can be a redirect to something, because it could be a search term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ???? "The term "non-vegetarian" is inherently non-neutral" - why? it happens to be the usual term in India. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Only in English. Popularised by English-speaking upper castes. In Indian languages, it is called meat diet, just like it is called everywhere else. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Only in English" is plenty good enough for en:wp. Nowhere I know of talks of a "meat diet". That would suggest the Atkins diet or similar to most English-speakers, not a "normal" mixed Western diet. Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Options  a) AfD  b) Move the title  similar to Indian vegetarian cuisine as suggested by Invasive Spices may be Non-vegetarian food in India or Indian Non-vegetarian  cuisine  c) Merge & Redirect to Indian cuisine. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 is correct that it does sound inherently non-neutral, however I think we cannot avoid that title because that is the phrase that is really used. As the references section shows this is the real term. Unless someone has an even greater number of sources which show an alternative term is more common. Invasive Spices (talk) 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment by Fowler&fowler How about option (d) Keep as is?

I see no need to delete the page or change it. The word was first used by the newly sprouted vegetarian societies in the West in the late 19th century. The first attested use mentioned in the Oxford English Dictionary is in Racine, Wisconsin in 1883. It came to be used in India much later, but that is where it has found both enduring and widespread use.

The reason is that a very large majority of the Hindu Indian population is effectively vegetarian. The cuisine section of the India pages speaks to this issue, "Although meat is eaten widely in India, the proportional consumption of meat in the overall diet is low.[467] Unlike China, which has increased its per capita meat consumption substantially in its years of increased economic growth, in India the strong dietary traditions have contributed to dairy, rather than meat, becoming the preferred form of animal protein consumption.[468]"

In North India, for example, Hindu families which describe themselves as being meat-eating, do not cook meat more than maybe once a week; men who describe themselves as meat-eating might not eat meat at home because their wives don't eat meat; landlords in urban areas might prohibit the cooking of meat on the premises. Moreover, a "vegetarian" in India is not just someone who does not consume meat, but someone who has an emotional aversion to meat. Thus Indians in America protested the use of a small amount of lard in the oil used in American fast food for deep frying French fries. Indian political leaders on foreign trips have insisted that no meat be served at their table.

Among some in the Indian Hindu elite, there has also been a love-hate relationship with meat, in part because India's conquerors, the Turkic Muslims and the British were real meat eaters. Gandhi mentions a doggerel popular in his childhood: "Behold the mighty Englishman. He rules the Indian small.  Because he is a meat eater.  He is five cubits tall." So in a modern version of that aspiration, the Indian English-language press will every so often report the high incidence of meat eating in India. What they fail to mention is that the proportion of meat in the diet is lower in India than in any country in the world, by a big margin at that.

Summing up, the page should begin with the vegetarian societies of the West. (Gandhi, a lifelong vegetarian, joined one or two during his student days in London.) It should then move to India, but be not so much about recipes as the socio-cultural aspects I have mentioned. Non-vegetarian in the early vegetarian society literature was a term for the "other," the meat eater of the West. Around where we live in the US, for example, that traditionally meant meat and potatoes for most dinners, except fish on Fridays and maybe baked beans on Saturdays. On the other hand, "non-vegetarian" in India means only that don't invariantly eat grains and vegetables, occasionally they do eat meat.

A final note: Stray domestic cats, which like all cats are obligate carnivores, are a good indicator of meat-eating among their host human populations. In many urban areas in India, you will not find cats openly walking around in Hindu neighbourhoods, only dogs. If you go to Muslim neighbourhoods, it is the opposite. It reflects in part the Islamic aversion to dogs and in part the hallowed place cats had in the life of the Prophet, but mostly that there is much more meat found in the dumpsters. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There is also a philosophical aspect. No society or culture has pondering the meaning of eating meat as has India's. From the middle of the first millennium BCE, in Buddhist, Jain and Hindu philosophical speculation, the killing of "sentient beings" for human consumption has held a central place.
 * The prohibition that emerged, moreover, was interpreted to be non-negotiable. In the many famines in India that killed millions of humans, livestock which also died in the millions were not consumed by humans.  See File:Bellary Zilla,Great Famine of 1876–78..jpg  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler Interesting insight.
 * First But @TrangaBellam @ their talk page weighed in saying ".. topics so generalized, that they should be rather in a dictionary than in an encyclopedia. ..". @Kautilya3 seems to have similar plus NPOV concern. How do you propose to address those concerns.
 * Secondly  ".. but be not so much about recipes as the socio-cultural aspects I have mentioned. .."  specially most issues you mentioned above seem to be socio-cultural aspects so why do you wish to refrain. And if we refrain what will be the content in the article. Or may be I am understanding your sentence incorrectly. Elaborating little more will be helpful.
 * Third Part of your above discourse seem to be about Indian Vegetarianism that is okay but may not necessarily help this article because there seems some reluctance in some users to refer to comparisons you are making to include in the Non-vegetarian article. In that case  @Kautilya3's NPOV concern seem to have point. How would you propose to address that too.
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Meat eating is not even remotely the majority human diet in India as the Non-vegetarian page proclaims. All it means is that between 30-odd and 40-odd %  Indians claim to eat meat occasionally.  But as I've stated India has the lowest (by far) proportional consumption of meat of any country.  You cannot describe the dynamics of that food choice as either Meat or Vegetarian.  That is why this article in its current form is essential.  Obviously the insight I have advocated will not be found in any dictionary.  Nor is it POV.  I'm sure I can find academic sources. I disagree with both K3 and TrangaBellam  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify more: "Non-vegetarian" food choice in large parts of India is the occasional eating of meat in a largely vegetarian society to which an haute-cuisine of meat was brought by Muslims and to a much lesser extent by the British. This is especially the case in the Hindi-speaking belt, Gujarat, and non-coastal South India, especially the rural areas. Non-vegetarian would not really be applied to Sikkim, which doesn't have a vegetarian cuisine (to speak of), i.e. what it does have would be fermented vegetables, grains, or dairy foods eaten with meat-based dishes.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is actually a nice perspective on the importance of the article. Btw, why we are at NPOVN? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * comment In context of Indian diet, non-vegetarians are those who don't confine themselves to a Lactarian diet J mareeswaran (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As F&F says, the term, as a regular thing, is exclusively Indian, and the article is very largely about India (the other bits could go frankly - possibly to fill gaps at meat) so I don't think a rename is appropriate, any more than for say Chigali. This is (rather typically for User:Bookku) completely the wrong venue for this, & it should really be transferred to talk there. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod I have no issues if you suggest to shift discussion back to article talk. you can do it or let me know the procedure. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Votes needed at a RFC about the deprecation of POV sources
Please express your vote at this WP:RFC about the deprecation of what have been questioned as WP:POV sources. Æo (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just nit-picking: RFCs are not a vote. They are request for comments. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Looney
Hello editors, I'm Arturo and I work for bp. Several months ago, some changes were made to the Bernard Looney article by Thenightaway following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, discussing the role of bp and Looney in a rather non-neutral way. This diff shows the major contributions by Thenightaway. I have worked with several editors to reduce undue content and have made edit requests for updates, and it was suggested at BLP/N that I seek some additional opinions here about this content. My primary concerns now lie with the subheading "Russia controversy" in the article. I made an edit request on 1 September to remove that subheading as I believe it conflicts with NPOV guideline, in particular the one which notes: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure." Calling it a controversy, particularly in the article about Looney when the purchase of Rosneft shares happened before Looney became CEO, doesn't seem accurate to me, as there is not evidence of a "widespread public debate" about Looney's role with Rosneft, in particular since he stepped down from the Rosneft board days after the invasion. On that note, I'd also like to bring up the lead, which declares that Looney's tenure as CEO has been controversial due to the relationship with Rosneft. This is not supported by the sourcing, which noted how quickly bp pulled out of Rosneft/Russia following the invasion of Ukraine (for example, this article from The New York Times). That telling of Looney's tenure was added on 27 February, two days after the invasion. Coincidentally, that was the same day bp announced that it would sell its stake in Rosneft (see NYT, Reuters, for more information on that). I think changing the lead in this way is certainly WP:UNDUE and isn't really impartial in tone. I will rest my case there. Are editors willing to take a look at the article and the edit request to make an adjustment? Thank you in advance for your consideration on this matter. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Edward Gierek
Could someone look over the page for Edward Gierek? I don't know enough about Polish history to confidently say that the article has POV issues, but some of the language seems questionable, and I get a vague impression of thread mode. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

NPOV and Torture in Ukraine
Editors may be interested in the ongoing discussions at Torture in Ukraine, especially these two on whether the article should be moved to draft, deleted or merged (Talk:Torture in Ukraine and  Talk:Torture in Ukraine) and this one on the subject of the article: torture perpetrated by Ukrainian state agents or torture taking place on the territory of Ukraine? (Talk:Torture in Ukraine) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The OP has argued of the article, Torture in Ukraine, that The subject of this article IS NOT torture perpetrated by anybody within the confines of Ukrainian territory...No, the subject of this article is torture committed by agents of the Ukrainian state. Given that context, editors concerned with maintaining NPOV may well be interested in the discussion at article talk. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 22:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

POV heading at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
What should be the title of this section? Videos purportedly showing Russian soldiers shot after surrendering in the Makiyivka area, as originally proposed, or False surrender of Russian soldiers in the Makiyivka area, as it is now? IMHO the topic doesn't deserve an RfC and some input from other editors should be sufficient. The discussion is here: Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Big Bang nucleosynthesis
This article reads as though this is an established fact or natural law, when in fact it is a theory, but fails to note it. 146.113.232.10 (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * A theory IS established fact in scientific parlance (though I admit I don't know if thats what you mean when talking about that article) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

PoV editing against consensus
I am going to join the chorus of voices calling for help at Talk:Torture in Ukraine. Elinruby (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

fanpov tag at Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone
@MrsSnoozyTurtle has now twice added the tag to Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone with no explanation as to the issue in the edit summary or on the talkpage. I for the life of me cannot understand the POV issues here considering the information is well sourced and doesn't seem especially fawning. Without an explanation given for the issue, I am removing the tag. Am I missing something here? Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * My concern is that the Background section is not written in a dry, encyclopaedic style. Also, checking the sources shows that the referencing is shaky in places (eg there's no mention of "non-diegetic music").
 * Nonetheless, I see that you are passionate enough about this to place a Discretionary Sanctions notice on my Talk page. Message received loud and clear... I won't edit your article again. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally, it is good practice when adding POV tags to start a talkpage discussion as to the problems with the article or at least give reasoning in the edit summary. After the first tag with no explanation, I tried to fix the one problem I could see. The second tag with no explanation forced me to reach out to find out what the problem was. The background section seems pretty dry to me. As to "non-diegetic music", the source says Except when they occur in the clips themselves, there is no music.
 * This is not my article - I'm just genuinely trying to improve it. A tip for the future: give an explanation when adding a POV tag to assist editors in fixing the problem or, better still, try to fix them yourself. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Moral panic
IP editor User:71.57.35.130 keeps trying to insert poorly-sourced assertions that efforts to ameliorate gun violence in the U.S., and efforts to control COVID-19 by masking, qualify as moral panics. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  16:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Fringe BS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All the stuff related to COVID and the GBD, yes. However, there is one addition about gun violence as a moral panic included earlier that does appear legit (and having to write about video games and moral panics, this definitely is a point that can be expanded on). M asem  (t) 17:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There may possibly be grounds for discussing some responses to gun violence in the 'moral panic' article. Not like the IP has done though - sticking it in the lede without further expansion. If it is to be included, we'd need to be very careful to distinguish between 'panic' and legitimate responses to a controversial issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The IP is still edit-warring this nonsense in... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like the IP is temporarily page blocked now, so hopefully an actual discussion can take place. A quick search essentially confirms what Masem said; there are plenty of reliable sources associating the response to gun violence (and mass shootings in particular) with moral panic, while I couldn't find much on COVID-19. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Modern paganism
Please see subject RfC about amendment of the lead per this edit to the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Torture in Ukraine
please dispatch trained therapists and a mop. I can't even and it"s definitely not just me. Help help help. Elinruby (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this has gotten out of hand. I've brought it to ANI. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, because I do not have the bandwidth to mediate this. I want to emphasize that the problem as I see it is not that one editor after another has had a meltdown on the page; it's that they are being gaslighted into these meltdowns, over issues as basic as WP:ONUS, then reported for discourtesy. I'm definitely involved but am trying to maintain. I appreciate the report, as I do not think I could write one. It's just mind-boggling. I will comment later on the ANI thread.

RfC on Male expendability
There is now an active RfC on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Male_expendability#Request_for_comment:_State_ideas_about_biology_in_Wikipedia's_voice? Male expendability talk page] about whether specific ideas should be listed in Wikipedia's voice or attributed. You are welcome to lend your voices to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk's proposed peace plan
Please see the discussion on the question of whether Elon Musk's proposed peace plan for the Russo-Ukrainian war is due in his biography, either as a subsection of the Views section, or tucked into the Politics subsection of that section. Despite being covered by many reliable sources, some editors seem to believe it doesn't merit any inclusion, even in a summarised form. I don't agree with this and I would like to avoid an RFC. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The argument regarding UNDUE is absolutely correct, until such a point where Musk actually appears to make steps along that plan. Musk rambles on about a lot of topics, so not every topic he mentions is due (in addition to NOT#NEWS). A brief inclusion as has been argued is fair, but until there's actually something actionable to talk about, its just one of many views he has, so UNDUE has to be used to balance how much we cover it. M asem (t) 13:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is not relevant in any way. Musk says a lot of stuff about a lot of things. No one took this seriously, and it does not appear to have had any lasting impact. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A and Asian Americans
During AfC review, I have explained to why their draft which appears to me to be a point-of-view fork of Chick-fil-A to focus on race-related incidents involving the company is not appropriate. My reasoning is given at my talk page. I would appreciate input from other editors who are experienced in this area of policy. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If it was truly non-neutral, I would have deliberately excluded the apologies on CFA's part and the settlement for the case of James Kwon. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:SYNTHESIS of a new topic that doesn't actually exist in the sources. Multiple users have explained why this is not a viable article., you cannot compile a list of unrelated incidents under a single article. It seems like you made up this connection between Asian Americans and Chick-fil-A. It's not the same as Chick-fil-A and LGBT people because major news outlets have written about a connection between Chick-fil-A and LGBT people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I previously commented on the draft's talk page explaining the issues with this draft's topic. - Aoidh (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg (book)
Came across this new article today. Sourcing seems terrible; not sure if there's notability on the book in general but taking it to NPOVN over the tone. These Wikivoiced gems jumped out at me: F. William Engdahl deliveres a scrupulous and well-documented analysis of “grass roots” decarbonization movement published in New Eastern Outlook, and cites Morningstar's book, which tries to expose the "bluff" of climate correctness. and The book also stresses the possible global consequences of Greta. An example quote from the book is.....

Bad enough that the editor's other contributions should be reviewed IMHO, but I'd like to hear their explanation and other editors' thoughts. Notification diff. VQuakr (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to CSD as an attack page. That lede is full of primary sourced attacks without any coverage from Reliable Sources and misuses the intelligencer article by not attributing statement concerning the advisors by a right wing politician. It also appears to misuse the paper located at scienzaenrete as the "momnger" line there is not attributed to the book but to a now unavailable article on another site. Kommersant is used to make a "probably" statement that at minimum requires attribution. Finally, Enghdahl is embellished as already noted. I'm sure the book is notable but this is not a neutral article Slywriter (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for listing the problems in the article. Non-netrality was not my intention. The problems are corrected so far. Geysirhead (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit to add: The article has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg (book). VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No evidence is provided that this self-published work is at all notable, even as a FRINGE work. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Green Imperialism
I've just found this, and see serious issues with it regarding compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:OR policy. What do others think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The topic seems to have academic coverage but the sourcing in the article at present leaves some questions. M asem (t) 01:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No doubt about some WP:BIASED sources. This epithet is used by radical centrists, conservatives, libertarians and some classical marxists. Geysirhead (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that there was consensus to convert eco-imperialism into a redirect, but it was revived by . After the restoration was reverted, Geysirhead revived it again and then did a copy-paste move to Green imperialism. There do seem to be some serious POV issues; it seems to be giving implicit support to what is at best controversial and at worst WP:FRINGE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is about a derogatory epithet. I did correct it in the lede. Basically, when you look into German Wikipedia for Ökologischer Imperialismus, you read that Ecological Imperialism can be either "Imperialism, which improves environment but hinders human development" or "Imperialism, which exploits environment of colonies". Geysirhead (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The translated lede from dewiki:
 * ''" Ecological imperialism or environmental imperialism is generally understood as measures adopted by states or organizations and imposed on other states that have a negative impact on the environment.
 * Environmental and development organizations understand it to mean the increasing ecological degradation in developing countries, the cause of which is said to be the excessive consumption of resources in industrialized countries and the unfair world trade system, which favors the displacement of environmental damage.
 * Another meaning primarily involves the accusation of using environmental policy to enforce power or economic policy interests at the expense of the so-called Third World. "'' Geysirhead (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * de.wikipedia has it's own standards. They don't apply here. And adding 'derogatory epithet' to an unbalanced article doesn't make it balanced. Especially when the article engages in blatant WP:OR to provide supposed examples - not of an 'epithet' but of 'green imperialism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no imperativ to overtake the standards from dewiki. Of cause, they don't apply here. The article from dewiki is actually writen like a dictionary entry including two separate topics. WP:NOTDICTIONARY We have to split the two topics in two article on the enwiki, as it The article is well balanced and describes the terms used for certain type of behavior of Global North towards Global South in reliable sources. There is no original work, but actual references to sources which use this actual epithet or similar epithets. In essence, the article describes critisism of the behavior, whereby SGD13 is put ahead of SGD1. And these are ligitimate fears! source e.g.. Geysirhead (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion as to what constitute 'legitimate fears' is of no relevance here. And as I have noted on the article talk page, the lede and the article appear to be discussing two different things. Is it supposed to be about an 'epithet', or about legitimate critique of aspects of global 'green' policy? If it is the former, where are the sources discussing the terms use as an epithet? And if it is the latter, why is it solely built around sources critical of 'green imperialism' (as defined in differing and often contradictory terms in the sources), while containing absolutely nothing as a response to such arguments? The article isn't 'well balanced' it is an opinion piece constructed from disparate sources with the intention of advancing an argument. It is a gross oversimplification of a complex subject, and a violation of WP:NPOPV policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * does not make sense. "Whore" is deregatory epithet for prostitution, but just for balance, we say that prostitution is also something good? I could find only one public opinion survey on green imperialism, which is mentioned in the article. Geysirhead (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If I want lessons on what makes sense, I'll find someone better qualified to comment on the subject than the person responsible for writing A 1990s worldwide survey "Bicycles, Yes — Cheap Shoes, No" by WorldPaper showed that 66% of the participants did not agree to perceive debt-for-nature swaps as eco-colonialism. Whatever it is trying to say, it entirely fails... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll find someone better qualified Thank you for the derogatory but still more constructive comment! Concrete comment is much more pleasant than the previous boiler-plate prosa so often used in wikipedia discussions. I did correct it. Believe me or not, you will find mostly global North residents here on wikipedia, the rest is silenced by poverty. People living in slams don't use wikipedia so often. Geysirhead (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that 'detrimal' isn't a word. And despite your edit, the section still makes little sense. Though why a single opinion poll from over thirty years ago is seen as relevant to the article I have little idea.


 * And please don't make insulting assumptions about my level of knowledge, or of my personal opinion on topics. As I have already noted, this is a complex issue, and vacuous posturing about 'slums' (not 'slams'...) achieves nothing. Articles should be written about topics, not Google-mined phrases, and our readers deserve better than this concoction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly insulting Geysirhead and Geysirhead's English failures is not helping the discussion here. I find Geysirhead's writing understandable but not perfectly understandable. Certainly the article needs help with grammar.
 * I will read more seriously when I have time but I see nothing horribly POV in the article. I agree in principle that adding 'derogatory epithet' to an otherwise POV article would not be sufficient if that is what is occurring here. I haven't read enough to say anything more. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral POV for Christine Lagarde Bio
Christine Lagarde is a convicted criminal. This is an important fact that is highly visible in the bios of other criminals. After making the relevant update, the page has been locked and reverted to the biased POV language that omits her criminal conviction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonQalg (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Courtesy link: Christine Lagarde. Describing someone as a "criminal" in the first sentence of their article should only be done for people who are most well known for being criminals (for example, Jack the Ripper or Bernie Madoff). It should not be in the first sentence of an article for someone most well known for other things but happens to have been convicted of a crime at some point. Given that this is an article of a living person, there is a high level of scrutiny in what is added, and locking the page was within reason. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This could probably do with more sets of eyes, I've cross posted to BLPN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I came here from the BLP noticeboard. I think that introducing her as a convicted criminal would be a WP:BLP violation, as it is implying that's the primary or one of the primary things she is known for in reliable sources, which is not true Tristario (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is totally true. Looking through articles via Google News for the last year, you can find she is most noted for her work at the ECB. Brianp2022 (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Human rights in Ukraine
The above page definitely needs more watchers. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill
More participants would be welcome at Talk:Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. The discussion is not currently productive. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In short these claim of not being neutral are ludicrous. There are attempts to insert celebrities and other unasked for interventions into the article. There are also attempts to use tabloid language to single out one party in the parliament, and complaints that how all members voted is included, as some sort of cover up. It is a laundry list of complaints against the pushing of a certain POV being removed. The claims of not being neutral are ludicrous. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sweet, you may want to put down that boomerang. Your bias and agenda are quite evident. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  13:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you consider that the various wordings which I have criticised are neutral. For instance:
 * Why is it neutral to exclude comments by the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
 * Why, when the Guardian  refers to ‘the biggest ever backbench revolt’ and the BBC writes an article  and comments That number of rebels would cost the SNP-Green administration its majority, if they were to join a united opposition - an unnerving prospect for any government is it neutral to exclude this event from mention in the article?
 * Why is it neutral to change the comment made by Reem Alaslem from Reem Alaslem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, expressed fears the proposals could be abused by predatory men. to Reem Alaslem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, gave an opinion against the proposals., but to give the comment by Victor Madrigal-Borloz in full?
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not engage in journalism. I suggest you watch out for the Boomerang as you try and make out that 7 out of 64 is worth pushing for so hard with inflammatory POV whipping tabloid language. The EHRC have nothing to do with these proposals and their input was not asked for. They are also notorious for being bad actors on trans issues as shown on the other talk page. As for the UN I’d delete both but if they are to be included Wikipedia is not a platform for dogwhistle transphobia and anti-trans rhetoric, which was not asked for, which is what is trying to be crowbarred into the article. In short Wikipedia is not a newspaper and editors must not write article as if it was tabloid journalism. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Died Suddenly (2022 film)
I have just semi-protected this article for a year; there may be neutrality issues remaining. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Diagolon
Diagolon is a Canadian alt-right extremist militia that has been making news in 2022 and the article about it has also been a bit of a magnet for WP:SPA type edits, consequently the page is protected.

There is a bit of a content dispute happening and some more eyes on the article and helping us reach consensus would be welcomed. There is more background on the talk page. (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The question here is, is this organisation separately notable from Jeremy MacKenzie (activist)? Most the coverage seems to revolve around him, and I wouldn't oppose a redirect to that article. Wikipedia doesn't need an article on every small far-right fringe movement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my cursory review is leading me in the direction of Hemiauchenia's proposed solution; I am not sure we need two separate articles for founder and group. Then again I am often wrong.  Happy Holidays to all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This organization is more than just the leader. And it meets the criteria WP:GNG based on the significant coverage:
 * https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/what-is-the-diagolon-extremist-group-and-what-does-it-want-1.5785646
 * https://globalnews.ca/news/8621125/canadian-anti-hate-network-concerned-diagolon-coutts-border-protest-diagolon/
 * Meanwhile the leader is notable in the news for quite a few gun related issues, not all associated with the org.
 * So I think they both clearly merit articles. News about both is very much ongoing and with various court cases coming up, both are likely to be expanding in the short term future. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is a valid argument to make, but maybe merging the two will make the subject easier to maintain overall? I don't have a strong opinion here on merge/not-merge based on notability: I touched this article some time ago but found the tone of/interaction with other editors troubling and walked away fast. Just glad to see y'all are on it, in any case. — LumonRedacts 05:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (lacking neutrality)
This article N. Chandrababu Naidu was suffering from point of neutrality from long back but there came another user who tried to do the opposite (I meant in the negative way) and retitled all the categories that by looking at the first instance gives a bad impression about the subject. The user has caused such kind of huge disruptive edits lacking neutrality on 2 to 3 pages recently. As an amature I don't know how to restore things on N. Chandrababu Naidu when there are such huge disruptions. Looking for any experienced editors to look in to this and also to ensure that neutrality is present according to Wikipedia guidelines. 4 5 6 legend (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I got guided to this place from the Teahouse. 4 5 6 legend (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also to mention all the previous good faith edits were removed by the user and meanwhile no one reverted them. (unexplained sourced content removal) 4 5 6 legend (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt whether this is the right place to present this issue or not. I am sorry if this is not the right place to discuss about this.If not then please guide me to the right place.
 * Thank you 4 5 6 legend (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You came to the right place to discuss this.
 * I don't think you mean Alalch E. because that user has made the article mildly less negative. I'm not sure what user you refer to.
 * I think  means retitled all the WP:SECTIONs. The sections do have some negativity but if the scandals are so severe then that is appropriate. I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject.
 * Over all I don't see any egregious WP:BLP violations. If the allegations are true they are not inappropriate. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response, I was referring to the other person Chinnusaikrish. He/she is not at all responding or ready to talk/discuss to reach concensus. And to mention..Alalch E. we are trying to clean it after discussing on the talk page. And coming to allegations, I do agree that it needs to covered if it's severe but the motive of Chinnusaikrish looks different as you observed, severely negative titles, tone similar to personal opinion like using of words, complete, overall, entire. If Chinnusaikrish is ready to reach to concensus it would be better to ensure resolving this content dispute. 4 5 6 legend (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral POV for Applied behavior analysis
A well cited quoted describing ABA as viewed as abusive by many I had was removed, with just the citation moved to a more obscure location, with the person making the change trying to leave the article claiming ABA is merely controversial. The instruction for notifying the other editor of the dispute when editing this page aren't clear enough for me to understand how I'm actually supposed to do that.talk — Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)  https://twitter.com/TaraBannow/status/1559266193936195585 has some info on why big money may want abuse to continue, and https://twitter.com/kelseyetcetera/status/1584690345610444802 has more evidence that autistic people are unhappy with the current article


 * It appears that your edit did not add any new content to the article, it just copied a direct quotes that presented opinions and anecdotes. The article already has better summaries of the controversy surrounding this subject, so the user took your source and added it to that section. What "big money" is trying to do and whether people are "unahppy" with the article generally aren't good reasons on their own for a change to be made. We generally try not to degenerate things or call them abusive, even if it's clearly deserved. I'd also like to point out to anyone here from that tweet that directing external traffic to edit a specific Wikipedia article to push a certain viewpoint is strongly discouraged, and even the appearance that this is happening will subject edits to the article to increased scrutiny. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Now you're opposed to direct quotes? Invasive Spices (talk) 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am pinging User:Barbarbarty because JNW2 didn't understand how to do this.
 * JNW2 I don't know enough about this subject to be certain how much text should be devoted to the citation you added. Barbarbarty did not remove it or turn it into neutral or positive text. It was moved to a location with other negative and controversial text. However it now does not cite text of its own and perhaps that is not sufficient emphasis. I don't know. There is some uncertainty about how much is appropriate in any case. Invasive Spices (talk) 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn’t move it because I wanted to diminish it, as you see I moved the citation to further down the lead where relevant topics are discussed. I thought it was clumsily formatted to just have a direct quote as its own paragraph with no body supplementing it. I do not oppose the source being included in the article. Barbarbarty (talk) 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What is an 'economist'?
There is an issue on the Jared Bernstein biography, certain editors insisting on labeling this guy an economist. As I have explained on the talk page, JB has no doctorate in economics, does not publish economics research in mainline journals, does not teach economics at any college or university and essentially has no claim to this title other than the fact that he's hired by left-wing politicians and think tanks to act in this capacity. He is essentially a labor activist employed in the interests of big labor unions and certain industry groups affiliated with the Economic Policy Institute.

What is the criteria for professional titles like 'economist'? The defense I received in talk was that "he is an economist, but not an academic economist". This raises several questions.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * As far as Wikipedia is concerned, someone is an economist if reliable sources generally refer to them as an economist. In this case, they do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? What 'reliable sources' and what makes them reliable? What is generally regarded as a 'reliable source' for an academic discipline is an actual academic source and not popular press. So in this case they [reliable sources] don't describe JB as any such thing. Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading Reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And where on that page can I find the criteria for professional titles? When someone is labeled a 'scientist', 'historian' or 'economist' it is implied that this individual publishes research in this field, and that further implies mainstream research in sources recognized as mainstream by the encyclopedia. I am not being unreasonable here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not write original content about what we consider things to be or not be. We summarize what can be found in other sources, even if we don't think it's what they should be saying. You've been here for a few years now, and you've been informed many times of why your approach to editing is inappropriate. If you are not able to read the relevant policy pages and develop an understanding of how Wikipedia works after all this time, there is not much else we can do for you. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've become quite a student of how bias on this encyclopedia works. If journalists call someone an economist than Wikipedia calls him an economist, even though he's not. I wonder if you apply this same standard to scientists? "He's an oil executive with a degree in business but the Wall Street Journal calls this guy a climate scientist so let's just run with it." I'm guessing not. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse the Journal's news side (which is a WP:RS and does not engage in climate change denial) with the Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal (which is not a WP:RS and does engage in climate change denial). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I stopped reading at "left-wing politicians". Next?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As I explained to someone else, this isn't a 'left' or 'right' issue. This is about a political partisan who is employed by other political partisans to perform economic research for partisan purposes. Economics, like other academic disciplines, isn't (and shouldn't be) 'left' or 'right'. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This displays a worrying lack of knowledge when it comes to the history of the academic discipline of economics. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Can’t speak to other fields, but non-academics who write books on historical subjects are routinely labeled as “Historians”… although we sometimes include caveats to indicate their non-academic status (“amateur historian”, etc). Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are they? I would object to that too. This encyclopedia parades itself as a "mainstream encyclopedia" but that's clearly not the case in these instances. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And one last point I'll add -there are people who aren't academics but publish historical, economic or scientific research in reliable sources and are cited by other historians, scientists, economists etc. But that is not the case here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I think of practically all think tanks as anti-academic as they start with the conclusion they want to push. But I agree we've got to stick by the sources in Wikipedia. At the level Jared Bernstein works economics is pretty much a soft science like history so we can't say they are definitely right or wrong and there's no absolute standards. NadVolum (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In that sense, most academics are non-academic. Bernstein is a policy guy and sometime pundit. In that role, he functions similarly to the current-day iteration of former Treasury Secretary and deposed Harvard president Larry Summers and many others whose views are widely published but are not stated (and likely not founded) with any academic rigor.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The neutrality of "academics" is a myth. They have strong personal opinions on their subjects, and this is great. That is why journals from Current Opinion (Elsevier) series are very popular and helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Accusing academics of having 'motivations' is one of the laziest populist tropes possible. Yes, they have opinions, often strong personal opinions, about their subjects; anything written by a human will be biased in that regard. But there is a great gulf between having an opinion or bias and being paid to put out research that is deliberately skewed to confirm someone's (or some group's) a priori assumptions. Jared Bernstein's work falls into the second category and that's primarily why he isn't published in any credible journals for economics. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's quite a postmodern perspective you've taken -everything is subjective no right or wrong.
 * Actually there is such a thing as structured analysis in both history and economics and economics is far more empirical than history (you can make testable claims that can be supported or disproven by observation). Bernstein is not paid to carry out objective research; he is employed by think tanks that manipulate data to promote a particular narrative in defense of certain unions and industry groups. This is not what economists do. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's nice, and there's a good chance you're right. But none of that matters. If reliable sources said that Bernstein was a quantum physicist, a comic book superhero, or the King of England, then that's how we would describe him on his article. We don't get to decide who or what people are. This is an encyclopedia, so it simply repeats what others say, right or wrong. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and I suppose the issue is over what constitutes a reliable source for this sort of thing. If the policy of the encyclopedia is that anyone can be a scientist, historian or economist if enough media call them that, then I suppose I have no argument. Jared Bernstein is indeed referred to as an 'economist' in sources that are not reliable sources for economics, but may be reliable for other topics of news or politics. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not at all what I said. Just because we can't properly check what those type economists say against reality doesn't mean climate change isn't happening. And your structured analysis is good for academic status but it is nowhere near sufficient for actually figuring things out, do you really think if we just did structured analysis of climate change we would be any further forward with it? For this we've got to just follow what the sources say, no OR into what a 'real' economists do. If you really think you've got a point you can raise an RfC on whether he really is an economist and see if enough people agree in this case. I very much doubt you'd get consensus though. NadVolum (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't like to venture into these comparisons; economics is not a 'hard science' like climatology. Climatology, like other hard sciences, operates on the principal of probabilistic induction, which is possible because they are using established laws of cause and effect as a basis of this induction. Economics doesn't operate that way; history much less so and is really a branch of the humanities.
 * In any event, economics and history still have rules and methodologies and there very much is an actual standard for research publishing, which the subject of this article doesn't meet. But I can see I am overruled here so I should probably just drop it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * We've beat this issue to death on the topic "Is Elon Musk an engineer?" with the perennial conclusion as I remember it being basically: "If WP:RS say they are then they are" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So I've learned. Alright, so it is. Thanks for clarifying this everyone. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Note, neither John Stuart Mill nor John Maynard Keynes had Econ degrees or any other prior distinction other than their tripartate monickers.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, which is why I also specified that there are non-academic economists who may not have degrees but still publish in credible economics journals where they are cited and taken seriously. As the father of Keynesianism, which was mainstream macroeconomic theory in the mid 20th Century, we know that Keynes has/had notability as an economist.


 * This individual falls short of all these qualifications, but I understand the sourcing policy on here (though I don't personally agree with it). Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * In general, I personally agree that contemporary people who do not hold doctorates and publish in a field should not be considered academic professionals in that field, and that professions like "engineer" or "scientist" or "linguist" should be restricted to academics so that we don't run into the issues of biased/ignorant media granting expert authority to non-experts. I also believe that while we're tied up by what sources call someone, there really ought to be some consideration when there is an absence of academics discussing someone's work.
 * However, in this case, there is a very reasonable assertion of expertise in economics given Bernstein's PhD in social welfare, which is tightly interlinked with economic policy, and the fact that he does in fact publish journal articles and scholarly book chapters in relevant fields. He has multiple research papers spanning nearly 30 years in labor markets, public policy, wage inequality, unemployment, trade deficit, etc. So calling him an "economist" is not unwarranted. JoelleJay (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what professions in the US have any sort of official recognition like the title of engineer being porotected in Germany or gaining chartered status in the UK. A person can still get recognized for something they don't have formal training and expertise in but that sort of qualification does cut out a lot of the corner cases. NadVolum (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that anyone working for a reputable organization providing economic advice is an economist. But the criterion for Wikipedia is how they are usually described in reliable sources. While I accept that news sources lack expertise for many classifications, there is no agreed definition and so we have to look at usage. It's like the term writer. Strictly speaking, all of us are writers, because we are writing comments on this page. But we normally would only apply the term to someone who wrote for an occupation.
 * Berstein wrote for Economic Policy Institute, was Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor to the Vice-President and is a member of the Council of Economic Advisers to the president. So it is accurate to say he is an economist since he is practicing as one. There is no licence required.
 * Economics is not a neutral discipline. The economic views two most famous modern economists, Keynes and Friedman, cannot be separated from their political views. Faced with the same set of facts, the two economists would have come up with a different analysis and recommendations.
 * TFD (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The difference in these examples is that Keynes and Friedman adjusted their views to fit the facts, while Bernstein and the Economic Policy Institute adjust the facts to fit their views. There are numerous examples of this so I'm not going to open that can of worms here.
 * A doctorate in social welfare is substantially removed from a Phd in economics. There is an economic element to social welfare, but there's overlap in a lot of disciplines that do not always translate to expertise. And it's true that Bernstein has published in academic journals before, but they are either cross-disciplinary journals or journals that are characterized as fringe within the economics discipline.
 * To cite one example here's one of JB's papers. This was published in the journal 'Challenge' which, as the name implies, is a 'heterodox' (read fringe) journal designed to challenge mainstream views and push new Keynesian perspectives. Spend a half hour or so checking the journals Bernstein publishes in and you'll learn that they are predictably fringe, either heterodox journals or journals that allow non-economic scholars to publish in.
 * I accept the judgement that sources label JB an economist and that it is appropriate to apply this description in the article. But please let's not base this on the rationale that he has sufficient economics training and a history of publishing in this field. Just one glance at the journals he publishes in should ring warning bells as to the nature and depth of his economics knowledge. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see multiple papers in prestigious economics journals such as American Economic Review and The Review of Economics and Statistics, as well as journals in adjacent fields that are also ranked highly in economics, like Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Welfare economics, minimum wage policy, and employment inequality are absolutely under the purview of "economics". JoelleJay (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And I think of this 'heterodox' as name calling. Economics is very political at anything but the most basic level. NadVolum (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * As others have said, an economist is someone who has a bunch of reliable sources calling them an economist. If those sources exist, and you think that there's still reason to doubt them, you could try and find other sources clearly contradicting them - when the title is disputed it would have to be attributed. To take an example from above, I would argue that we should attribute or qualify eg. calling Elon Musk an engineer, because while many sources call him that, many others overtly cast doubt on it, making it a disputed opinion and not an uncontested fact.  If there's no disagreement among the sources, though, then we have to go with what they say - you can't substitute your personal judgment of what makes someone an economist for theirs. --Aquillion (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I, again, accept the judgement that the sources determine who's what. I don't agree that academic economics is 'political' as NadVolum asserted. It's politicized, but not political. That means special care should be taken to determine who is and isn't publishing within the mainstream of the discipline, and heterodox journals are by definition fringe. And no, Heterodox economics is not name-calling.
 * "..mainstream economics deals with the "rationality–individualism–equilibrium nexus" and heterodox economics is more "radical" in dealing with the "institutions–history–social structure nexus".
 * As a mainstream encyclopedia heterodox sources cannot be given equal weight or attention in economics articles, and should probably not be cited at all. This is a problem for an economist like Bernstein who publishes almost entirely on the fringe, although I do see he's managed to slide a paper or two into some mainstream journals.Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Which I think is a good illustration of how political it all is. Please read more about weight and due on Wikipedia. Your conception of expunging everything that is not mainstream is not what the encyclopaedia is about. This is an encyclopaedia not a cathecism. NadVolum (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jonathan is correct in this instance. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. Articles are weighted toward the mainstream position in a given scientific field, and we do not present a false balance between orthodox and heterodox claims. I wouldn't consider Bernstein to be heterodox simply because he doesn't often publish, but your suggestion that hetrodox positions are entitled to coverage on Wikipedia is mistaken, and it worries me that a user is suggesting we ignore science because it's "political" in their eyes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a huge gulf between 'heterodox sources ... should probably not be cited at all' and weighing towards the mainstream position. I would hope that you are not acting on or trying to push your mistaken position on Wikipedia. Read WP:WEIGHT. And science wouldn't have got far with your idea of following orthodoxy and supressing mention of anything else.. NadVolum (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This is all off the wall. Bernstein is a policy-oriented mainstream economist, one of hundreds of thousands. There's nothing left-wing or heterodox about his work.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Bernstein is termed "chief economist" in the lede. The sources for that title are certainly RS. I don't understand the controversy. If there are contrary sources which call him heterodox then that would also be appropriate. Invasive Spices (talk) 26 December 2022 (UTC)