Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 102

Wikiislam
Hi, in the lead of the Wikipedia article of Wikiislam, the first description of the site is that it is Islamophobic. I don't think this is in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy because similarly if some books claim Muhammad as anti-christ or false prophet, should we label him as such in the lead of the article of him? I don't think so. Can neutral editors give your opinion? LiuWu87 (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems a lot of the sourcing describes them as "anti-Islam" or similar, rather than using the specific word "Islamophobic". It's a website which is dedicated to the POV that basically "Islam is bad" (which "anti-Islam" better describes) not the POV "I hate Muslims" (which "Islamophobic" better describes). Additionally, per MOS:LABEL, we can't call things x-phobic in wikivoice, as it's an inherently opinionated, value-laden label. I would suggest someone start an RfC on that. Endwise (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are more characterizations of WikiIslam as "anti-Muslim" than merely "anti-Islam" in the sources cited in the article. Snuish (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, half of the citations are either written by Göran Larsson (theologian) or citing him. And Larsson, in the 2007 paper, following what he describes as the work of the Runnymede Trust, appears to use "anti-Muslim" and "Islamophobic" differently. From the "Is WikiIslam an expression of Islamphobia?" section of that work, he seems to be saying that he is not able to describe the website itself as Islamophobic:
 * Therefore, in order to call WikiIslam a “purely” Islamophobic site, it would be necessary to scrutinise all web pages linked to this site thoroughly, which I have not done for this article... when information is made public on the Internet, the “owner” often loses his or her control over the posted data, especially since a homepage, or any information posted on the Internet for that matter, can be linked to an immense number of homepages, forums and portals, including WikiIslam. From this point of view, it becomes much more difficult to argue that all information posted on WikiIslam is Islamophobic by nature.
 * Also, if you read them, citations 3, 6, and 8 pretty clearly appear not to describe the website as Islamophobic. Endwise (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The text that you quoted is referenced in the article in footnote d. There are scholarly references that indicate Larsson concluded that the website was Islamophobic, though he doesn't call it a "purely" Islamophobic website. "Larsson argues that WikiIslam takes a closed attitude in its understanding of Islam, and so should be seen as an Islamophobic web portal." Tsuria, Ruth (2013-01-01). "The video Three Things About Islam: Islamophobia online or a religious dialogue". Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis. 25: 225. doi:10.30674/scripta.67442. ISSN 2343-4937. There also have been extensive discussions on the talk page of the article regarding the use of the term. I personally have suggested sticking to "anti-Muslim"; on the other hand, numerous editors have had no issue with the use of the term "Islamophobic" since they consider it synonymous. Snuish (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anti-Muslim is appropriate either, because the term means someone who is anti the followers of Islam, whereas from what I've seen on their website, they instead call Muslims to wake up and leave Islam, because some of its teachings they consider incompatible with human rights and common sense. Thus anti-Islam is more appropriate but I remain unsure whether it is neutral to label them as such in the lead. LiuWu87 (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC) — LiuWu87 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your personal assessment of the website is irrelevant per WP:OR. Snuish (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't change the fact that being critical of Islam or anti-Islam is not the same as being anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. LiuWu87 (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC) — LiuWu87 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I entirely agree with that. "Anti-Islam" and being "critical of Islam" is not the same as being anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. So we can rely on at least four or five authors that unequivocally describe the website as "Islamophobic" or "anti-Muslim" in multiple works. Snuish (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * About 4 of the sources are from Goran Larsson or citing him. Weirdly, I don’t see him anywhere clearly stating that the site is an islamophobic wiki. Only other person (Tsuria Ruth) who you quoted her saying "Larsson argues that WikiIslam takes a closed attitude in its understanding of Islam, and so should be seen as an Islamophobic web portal."
 * I’m not sure if the part “so should be seen as an Islamophobic web portal." is from Larsson, but rather only Ruth’s personal conclusion. And as per WP:Voice, it shouldn’t be stated in Wikipedia’s voice.
 * Also the direct quotation of source no. [6]: “American Muslim organizations use new media both to address issues internal to their community and to counter growing anti-Muslim sentiment. For example, in 2005, Wiki Islam debuted, claiming to provide a 'politically incorrect' alternative to Wikipedia.”
 * You can’t just make a conclusion based on that that the site is Islamophobic. That’s original research.
 * also no. [7]
 * “Anti-Muslim rhetoric on internet sites such as WikiIslam.net”
 * if a book says
 * “anti-Semitic rhetoric on Facebook.”
 * does that mean that Facebook is an anti-semitic site? nope. Also that’s original research.
 * Also for source no. [8], can you give a direct quotation? LiuWu87 (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Larsson (2007) states:
 * pg. 62: In relation to the criteria set up by the Runnymede Trust..., it should be quite easy to label most of the material published on WikiIslam as expressions of Islamophobia.
 * pgs. 63-64: The internet hub WikiIslam shows that new information and communication technologies can be used to publish and spread anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions. And although WikiIslam is an illustrative case study, it is evident that Muslims themselves can also use the internet to combat opinions and voices that are perceived to be Islamophobic.
 * pg. 64: WikiIslam is, of course, also partial being strongly anti-Muslims and anti-Islam.
 * Ruth's conclusion is published in a scholarly peer-reviewed work and can be used here. Given the quotes above, her conclusion regarding Larsson (2007) is also undoubtedly correct.
 * Larsson also calls WikiIslam an anti-Muslim website or webpage in works from 2014 and 2018, respectively. Enstedt & Larsson (2013) states that WikiIslam is "often perceived as being anti-Muslim, if not Islamophobic" and constitutes an "important element in an Islamophobic world view."
 * Khan (2015), i.e., citation 6, is citing WikiIslam as an example of anti-Muslim sentiment. There's no original research there.
 * Regarding your example using Facebook, you're correct. However, we're not taking any leaps in logic using Enstedt's 2017 work given what that his 2013 work states, as cited above. Citation 8 was added by user TrangaBellam, and I do not have full access to it. Snuish (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still, they’re opinions. Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV states that:
 * So it shouldn’t be written in the lead that “Wikiislam is anti-Muslim or Islamophobic site, blah… blah…” even if someone claims it as widespread view, but it could be written somewhere below that“Larsson says that, “in order to call WikiIslam a “purely” Islamophobic site, it would be necessary to scrutinise all web pages linked to this site thoroughly, which I have not done for this article”” LiuWu87 (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC) — LiuWu87 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Is your position that "anti-Muslim" requires in-text attribution? I don't think you'll find support for that position. Identical arguments have been made before. I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make with the quote from Larsson. Finally, if the intro said, "WikiIslam is wiki focused on the criticism of Islam," would that require in-text attribution, or could it be said in Wikipedia's voice? Snuish (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that’s because the user being blocked so they can’t give any more arguments? It seems that they hadn't read the dispute resolution page, and eventually lost their temper.
 * There’s an “about wikiislam” page on the site, why don't you just summarize the content, as in the BBC article, instead of searching the opinions of those against it to be put on wiki voice? LiuWu87 (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC) — LiuWu87 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The reception of the site in academic scholarship is as an anti-Muslim/Islam site. If you find scholars describing WikiIslam positively, please do bring them. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that? Snuish (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The reception of the site in academic scholarship is as an anti-Muslim/Islam site. If you find scholars describing WikiIslam positively, please do bring them. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that? Snuish (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I think this is a form of ad hominem, where the credibility of the site is downplayed rather than refuting what the site is saying. LiuWu87 (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC) — LiuWu87 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * All the citations that are given for "Islamophobic" say something more to the effect of "critical of Islam", which is not precisely the same as Islamophobic. The first sentence should confine itself to saying "critical of Islam". That's unless other sources are produced, but even then it would probably only be appropriate as an attributed opinion. Sennalen (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All the citations? Which sources precisely are you using to support that reading? Snuish (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a verifiably false statement. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:WikiIslam. Snuish (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Nothing to see here. A preponderance of reliable sources (academic scholarship) support the label. To shy away wil be to encourage WP:FALSEBALANCE. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That being said, I do not offer any opposition if the qualifier is replaced with "anti-Muslim" as suggests below. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "WikiIslam is an anti-Muslim and anti-Islam wiki. The website, which has often been perceived as Islamophobic, was founded by Ali Sina in 2006 and acquired by the Ex-Muslims of North America in 2015." Thoughts? Snuish (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The new lead is decent. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I find the MOS:LABEL argument convincing—the guideline asks for in-text attribution for value-laden terms. It's not a false balance isssue, nobody seems to be disputing any specific accusation or asking for "but others praise WikiIslam". Using -phobic words in wikivoice is rather strange. Wikipedia does not call J. K. Rowling "transphobic" in its own voice even once, and does not use the word "homophobia" or "homophobic" in the article for conversion therapy, and so on. Osama bin Laden, perhaps the most "terrorist" of the terrorists in Western imagination, is called a militant rather than a terrorist on his Wikipedia page (though this one might be going a bit too far). WikiIslam is pretty clearly prejudiced against Muslims, and Wikipedia should clearly note that, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to mirror the specific, value-laden language used. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 13:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you consider the terms "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Semitic" to also be value-laden? The latter is frequently used in wikivoice. I have been unsure about where Wikipedia draws the line with MOS:LABEL. Snuish (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, anti-muslim would be a straightforward description of the website, if the sources call it so. It would not be something that requiring an in-text attribution if well sourced, which it does appear to be. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 14:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that reliable sources are anonymous that "Rowling is transphobic" though will know better. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unanimous? Not at this time, they aren't; but then Rowling's views on transgender people have become a matter of public debate only recently, and scholarly sources are still catching up. I don't think that's a reasonable comparison, though. We don't have a blanket policy on labels; where labels are supported by the preponderance of reliable sources, we should use them in Wikipedia's voice; where there's some support in RS, but not universal support, we should provide in-text attribution. What we've done on other pages really isn't at issue (TB, I suspect you know this, I'm addressing everyone above me). What do the sources say about Wikiislam? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What we've done on other pages, specially "high level", well visited, well edited, argued over pages, is important here, even if not specifically at issue right now—looking at global applications of policy is how we determine what the global consensus is, rather than deciding how the policy is interpreted on the fly on each article, case-by-case basis. The sources cited above seem to agree that WikiIslam is anti-Muslim, definitely anti-Islam, and some sources do seem to use the label of "Islamophobic". And as far as I have known, the policy requires in-text attribution for the last one. If this was not how the policy is interpreted and implemented, our articles on Scientology, Heaven's Gate (religious group), Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi would not be the way the are, despite the preponderance of sources labelling the first two cults, and the last two terrorists. The article for LGB Alliance, widely described as transphobic, does not use the label without in-text attribution—the issue was discussed at the talk page, and the wider issue at many other talk pages over the years, and this is the consensus, as far as I know. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 20:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering this so carefully. I appreciate that you've scrutinized the sources closely and have revised the introduction accordingly. "Anti-Muslim" is the most common descriptor for WikiIslam in the sources, though some do use "Islamophobic." I want to note that Love jihad uses "Islamophobic" in a similar fashion in the lead, though I don't have a sense of how common "Islamophobic" or "anti-Muslim" have been in the sources cited in that article. Snuish (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some cherrypicking in the sourcing, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. These books (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) mention Wikiislam, some use it as a source, but no one describes it as an anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, Islamophobic, etc. One of them describe the site as “a community-edited based website that focuses on the critique of Islam, while also allowing pro-Islamic responses in separate articles.”
 * I think that kind of description is more appropriate for wiki voice, and more in line with the NPOV wikipedia policy. LiuWu87 (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC) — LiuWu87 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * All of the books you cited are either self-published or published by a vanity press. WP:SELFPUB would apply. Snuish (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * can you prove that, for every each of them? LiuWu87 (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC) — LiuWu87 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 1: Unmasking Islam by Noble Din, published by Christian Faith Publishing (CFP). CFP is a self-publishing-service and there is no indication that Din is a "subject-matter expert".
 * 2: Quel dialogue possible avec l'islam du Coran ? - Point de vue d'un catholique by Pascal Raines, published by Lulu.com. WP:RSP says, Lulu.com is a print-on-demand publisher, which is a type of self-published source. Books published through Lulu.com can be used if they are written by a subject-matter expert. There is no indication that Raines, a pseudonymous author, is a "subject-matter expert".
 * 3: A Fortiori Logic: Innovations, History and Assessments by Avi Sion is published by A. Sion. Sion has a PhD in logic, but SPS nonetheless.
 * 4:Why Ask Questions About Islam?: Answers Christians Need to Understand by Gordon Kainer, published by Lulu.com. WP:RSP says, Lulu.com is a print-on-demand publisher, which is a type of self-published source. Books published through Lulu.com can be used if they are written by a subject-matter expert. There is no indication that Kainer, an instructor of Bible at secondary schools, is a "subject-matter expert".
 * 5: So You Want To Write a Book On Islam by Giacomo Latta, published by Friesen Press. The book-abstract goes, This book is nominally the results of an attempt to find a publisher willing to contract with the author for the printing of a thesis on the inability of Western liberal society to critique Islam without applying a politically-correct glory-to-Islam bent to opinions and observations. Friesen Press is a self-publishing-service; there is no indication that Latta is a "subject-matter expert". The book has been harshly reviewed over Kirkus. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay how about these? (1, 2, 3, 4)
 * Also, I’m impressed to see you and Snuish working seamlessly to maintain your narrative in many articles regarding Islam. Even though I’d asked that to Snuish, you came up with that detailed answer. LiuWu87 (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC) — LiuWu87 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * many articles regarding Islam - I do not recally having interacted with Snuish outside of this article. Coming to your sources:
 * 1 is a RS, granted. The author cites a Wikiislam article w/o any commentary whatsover ; it's a listing in the bibliography section! What are we going to cite it for? I am genuinely curious. Maybe, The website has been cited by academics?
 * 2: Same comments as in (1).
 * 3: Let Me Rephrase That! by Bernard Payeur, published by Lulu.com. WP:RSP says, Lulu.com is a print-on-demand publisher, which is a type of self-published source. Books published through Lulu.com can be used if they are written by a subject-matter expert. There is no indication that Payeur is a "subject-matter expert".
 * 4: Same comments as in (1). TrangaBellam (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think "the website has been cited by academics" would be appropriate unless other sources noted the same when writing about WikiIslam. It veers into original research. Snuish (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was ironic :3 TrangaBellam (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So, at least three reliable sources consider Wikiislam reliable enough to be their source on Islam and do not regard it as a site full of prejudice and hatred towards Muslim, or Islamophobic, anti-Muslim, etc. site. Which disproves the notion that all academic scholarship considers the site as Islamophobic and anti-Muslim.
 * So it’s better to not include such labeling in the wikivoice, and instead write it just like in the wiki article BBC, which is by summarizing their about page. Such page is also present in Wikiislam.
 * Also that labeling is forbidden in Wikipedia in the first place since Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV states that:
 * LiuWu87 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even OpIndia is cited by many academics w/o commentary. That can hardly be held against the fact that the vast majority of scholars, who discuss the site in-depth, characterize it as purveyor of misinformation. A fact which is reproduced in wiki-voice. And, no, we will never summarize WikiIslam's oen claims about itself. See Vanamonde's arguments as to LABEL. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The reliable source (1) that I brought, says:
 * Clearly the book doesn’t only mention it, but use the site as the basis or source of their argument. And the book doesn’t say that the site is full of prejudice towards Muslim, hell if the author thinks so they wouldn’t even use it as their source.
 * The same with reliable source (2), titled: Who is Allah, says:
 * and source no. (4) in its criticism towards Islamic God.
 * Clear enough that not everyone in academic scholarship regards the site as just having prejudice and hatred towards Muslim or anti-Muslim or Islamophobia.
 * Also 4 of your sources only can be counted as 1 since they’re from the same person, Goran Larsson.
 * Plus the other 2, meaning it’s 3 against 3, so not vast majority.
 * Also, haven’t you read the wikipedia policy? even if the significant opinion is claimed to be widespread it shouldn’t be put in the wiki voice. Or are you so eager to breach it? LiuWu87 (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are making a bunch of inferences here, and your inferences are not citable reliable sources. The sources you've provided here do not provide any meaningful commentary on WikiIslam. Moreover, there are at least six writers that connect WikiIslam to anti-Muslim or Islamophobic sentiment: Larsson, Enstedt, Uddin, Khan, Kamal, and Garddell.
 * Finally, you've provided no explanation as to why "anti-Muslim" is a breach of WP:NPOV and requires attribution, whereas your preferred formulation, i.e., a "website that focuses on the critique of Islam" apparently requires no such attribution. "Anti-Muslim" does not entail a value judgment in violation of MOS:LABEL, and I do not see any other editors here claiming that it does. Snuish (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, if we were to use the same logic that you're using in regards to citations, Cyber-islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam is cited by at least 69 other reliable sources, and Telling the Truth about Islam? Apostasy Narratives and Representations of Islam on WikiIslam.net is cited by at least 17. Using your line of reasoning, that would add 86 sources to the chorus of sources opposing the three sources you've provided here. And we haven't even gotten to the other sources on the WikiIslam page. Snuish (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s just to prove that anti-Islam or anti-Muslim labeling for the site is not uniformly agreed upon among the academic community. Such labeling is a big accusation, since the site itself doesn’t refer to itself as such. It’s not a Wikipedia article about an animal or object that is unable to speak, so all explanations about it must come from others. It's about a site run by the people from ex-Muslims of North America, and the site itself has its own "about page." Why not simply summarize that page for its WP voice as in the BBC article rather than cherrypicking the statements of a handful (in fact, only three) of "scholars" to give the impression that Muslims should avoid the site in the first place and that this site, which only contains criticism of Islam (the religion), is so hateful, prejudiced, and so on towards all adherents of Islam that it should be banned by many countries?
 * Furthermore, the terms "anti-Islam" and "anti-Muslim" are distinct; Islam is the religion, and Muslim is its adherent; you cannot simply lump them together because some label it the former and others the latter. The same with Muhammad: if someone says, "Muhammad is anti-Christ," and some others say, "Muhammad is a prophet," you can’t just join the two opinions together in WP voice as "Muhammad is an anti-Christ prophet."
 * Moreover, they’re all opinions, and Wikipedia’s NPOV policy, as I quoted above, states that opinions, no matter even if they’re widespread, shouldn’t be put in WP voice. Or if you’re being adamant, perhaps we can bring this to the Administrators message board, CoI, and RfC as well? LiuWu87 (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:VOICE states that "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." Besides the inferences you're making, you've provided no indication that "anti-Muslim" is contested. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues in whichever forums you raise them. Snuish (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, don’t you know the meaning of "controversial"?
 * There are public disagreements about it; I and at least 3 others here are against the labeling, not to mention previous disagreements on its Wikipedia article talk page.
 * And that’s also not factual, since the site itself doesn’t refer to itself so, and such labelling is just opinions by three "scholars." Another scholar you cite says it is "anti-Islam," which is a totally different term from "anti-Muslim." Three others that I brought, which are reliable, don’t label the site with those terms and instead consider it reliable enough to be used as their source in their criticisms of Islam, as their text that I quoted above indicates.
 * Or have you been under the impression that these two words have different meanings? If so, could you please tell me what your correct definitions are?  LiuWu87 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the idea that WikiIslam needs to call itself anti-Muslim for Wikipedia to do so? Jihad Watch doesn't call itself an anti-Muslim website, and Stormfront doesn't call itself a hate website. Wikipedia is not particularly concerned with what websites or organizations call themselves.
 * Without commenting on this discussion, most of the previous discussions on WikiIslam's talk page and another on the reliable sources noticeboard were begun or instigated by accounts that were later blocked for undisclosed conflicts of interest or editing behavior.
 * In this instance, "uncontested and uncontroverted" is in reference to what reliable sources say about a subject, not editors. I'm sure Jihad Watch readers would contest how Jihad Watch is represented here; the same goes for Stormfront readers in regard to the Stormfront article.
 * Again, the sources you've provided have no meaningful commentary on WikiIslam, and we can't use the inferences you're making in lieu of that commentary. Snuish (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Problems with other articles should be discussed separately; one cannot reason that because the rules are seen to be breached in some places, they ought to be breached in any other place as well. Perhaps someone else will raise the issue some time later. What I am currently disputing is the anti-Muslim and Islamophobic labelling of Wikiislam in its WP voice, which is based only on the opinions of 3 scholars, which contradicts one of the sources that says it is anti-Islam, a much different term than anti-Muslim (Islam is the religion, while Muslims are the adherents), while the three other sources don’t label the site as such and consider it reliable enough to be used as their reference in their criticism of Islam.
 * You said:
 * So if some sources say that X is dumb, the labelling can be put in their WP voice, as long as there are no sources that claim they’re smart?
 * I don't think that's what the policy means. The policy says "uncontroversial," not "uncontroverted by other sources." So the meaning should be in general terms, which is:
 * To conclude, firstly, the labelling is based on opinions, not facts, because Wikiislam itself does not declare itself as anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. Secondly, it’s controversial because it’s causing public disagreement. So such labelling shouldn’t be put in the WP voice. LiuWu87 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You've brought up the BBC article several times in this discussion. The moment I bring up other articles, you respond, "problems with other articles should be discussed separately."
 * Not only are you misrepresenting the number of scholars above, i.e., "three," that you say the lead is based on, you're also using a fallacious argument in saying that it's contradicted by another scholar who uses "anti-Islam." The use of "anti-Islam" does not mean that the website cannot also be anti-Muslim. This is a false dichotomy.
 * I'm not sure if you're being willfully ignorant of Wikipedia's policies at this point, but "uncontested" and "uncontroversial" refers to coverage in reliable sources. If every instance of an editor disagreeing or the subject of an article disagreeing with how it's covered in Wikipedia could cause the content of an article to change, Wikipedia could have no substantive content standards. That line of reasoning simply doesn't work. If you come up with new arguments, I'm happy to continue to engage in discussion, but I'm not going to keep going in circles. Snuish (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-Islam is clearly different from Anti-Muslim, Islam is the religion while Muslims are its followers, anti-Islam does not mean someone is anti-Muslim. One can dislike the doctrines of a religion but still be friendly or live in the same family with its adherents. You can't say just because someone is anti-Islam then they are automatically anti-Muslim, that to me is a logical fallacy.
 * We’re not talking about the content in general but the WP voice which is much more special. Someone cannot be labelled as blockheaded in the WP voice just because some sources say so, and no other sources that say they’re smart. But it perhaps can be added in the content with attribution to the source. LiuWu87 (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be using strawman arguments now. No one has made the claim that being anti-Muslim and anti-Islam are the same, nor has anyone said that WikiIslam is anti-Muslim because it is anti-Islam. Snuish (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, because they’re two different terms, they can’t be put together in the WP voice just because some sources say anti-Islam and some other sources say anti-Muslim.
 * The same is true in the Wikipedia article about Muhammad, even though a prophet can also be an anti-Christ. That doesn't mean you can write "Muhammad is an anti-Christ prophet" in the WP voice, just because some say he's a prophet and some say he's an anti-Christ.
 * Also, in the primary source (the text from Wikiislam), the statement that Larsson quoted seems to only say that "Islam is a global challenge," which is misrepresented by Larsson by saying that the site considers "Islam and Muslims as a global threat."
 * That is inconsistency between sources (primary and secondary), which is another reason not to put the anti-Muslim label in the WP voice. LiuWu87 (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * they can’t be put together in the WP voice just because some sources say anti-Islam and some other sources say anti-Muslim Why not? That seems like a rule you've fashioned out of nowhere. The analogy with the article on Muhammad is a poor one. Should the Christianity article stop saying that the religion is both Abrahamic and monotheistic? Some sources say Abrahamic and while others may say monotheistic. Using your line of reasoning, can we not describe it as "Abrahamic monotheistic"?
 * If you have an issue with Larsson's conclusions, you may contact Larsson. Until another reliable source disputes that conclusion, the WikiIslam article can continue to use it. Snuish (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just realized that the website itself is an authoritative primary source, and it doesn’t say that it’s anti-Muslim neither its content seems like so, plus the seemingly misinterpretation by Larsson of the text from the site. It’s clear as day, that per Wikipedia policy, that the labelling is not justified to be put in WP voice. Even if you want to alter the meaning of controversial to "controverted by another source."
 * Well, if the primary source says both of them, then I think it’s allowable to be put in the WP voice, but if one claim is not stated by the primary source and seems contradictory to it, then I think it shouldn’t be put in the WP voice. In Muhammad’s case, it’s that he’s false prophet, even if some reliable secondary sources say so, but it’s conflicting with the primary source, so it shouldn’t be put in his WP voice. LiuWu87 (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So to summarize your positions:
 * WikiIslam is an authoritative primary source, and its self-representation should be given due deference on Wikipedia.
 * Larsson's findings concerning either the past or present state of WikiIslam should be met with skepticism.
 * If independent sources represent an entity one way, but the entity represents itself another way, Wikipedia can not adopt the view of independent sources in Wikivoice.
 * Is this an accurate representation of your positions? Snuish (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * More or less. LiuWu87 (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. I wish you the best of luck with that. Snuish (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you. LiuWu87 (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if the primary source says both of them, then I think it’s allowable to be put in the WP voice, but if one claim is not stated by the primary source and seems contradictory to it, then I think it shouldn’t be put in the WP voice. In Muhammad’s case, it’s that he’s false prophet, even if some reliable secondary sources say so, but it’s conflicting with the primary source, so it shouldn’t be put in his WP voice. LiuWu87 (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So to summarize your positions:
 * WikiIslam is an authoritative primary source, and its self-representation should be given due deference on Wikipedia.
 * Larsson's findings concerning either the past or present state of WikiIslam should be met with skepticism.
 * If independent sources represent an entity one way, but the entity represents itself another way, Wikipedia can not adopt the view of independent sources in Wikivoice.
 * Is this an accurate representation of your positions? Snuish (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * More or less. LiuWu87 (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. I wish you the best of luck with that. Snuish (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you. LiuWu87 (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you. LiuWu87 (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I would be very careful here and would not rely on opinions by theologists (as you seem to do). Saying "Islamophobic" means an accusation of hatred and prejustice. Was this site described as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example? I do not see it there . Keep in mind that criticism of any religion is a legitimate business, i.e. any religion, including Criticism of Islam. This is not necessarily Islamophobia. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * We cite Göran Larsson, a tenured professor in the Department of Literature, History of Ideas, and Religion at the University of Gothenburg, whose particular publications have been cited by about 100 other academics; not Göran Larsson (theologian). Nonetheless, the issue is moot unless you wish to challenge the anti-Muslim/anti-Islam label, used by half-a-dozen scholars. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As our page say, "Larsson studied theology at Lund University receiving his Bachelor of Theology in 1973 and his Ph.D. in 1980." Hence he is a theologian. I do not know much more, but in the area of humanities and especially religion a lot of judgements are 100% subjective, so I would avoid using biased sources to label something or someone in WP voice - exactly as our policy say. If there are 3rd party sources by human rights organization (and Islamophoby is a human rights issue), that would be different.My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think you're understanding TrangaBellam's point. Göran Larsson (theologian) is a different person than Göran Larsson, professor of Religious Studies at the University of Gothenburg. Only the latter is cited on WikiIslam. Again, these are two different individuals. Snuish (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. I am just saying there must be a difference between Islamophobia (a form of xenophobia or racism!) and legitimate Criticism of Islam. I am not convinced this is a racist resource after quickly looking at our page and the resource itself. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * After discussion and source cheking, I think this page does has a minor NPOV issue, but it can be easily fixed by making such edit . Good luck with this. My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Wilderness therapy
Talk:Wilderness therapy

POV was raised by another user @ParticipantObserver on 27th december 2022 the pov issue are list bellow


 * Because the article cotains a lot of criticizm


 * lack of viewpoint from propents


 * Lack of information on claims wildernes therapy programs and their benefits


 * lack of information on the effectiveness of wilderness therapy.


 * lack of clarity on the defination of Wilderness therapy programs.

--1keyhole (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yep. To clarify my stance:
 * Unlike other pages about therapeutic approaches (including highly controversial and generally condemned practices), this page includes little to no explanation on what the therapeutic approach is and what benefits proponents believe it has. If a general reader wants to know what wilderness therapy is, or why someone would even theoretically choose to practice the approach, the page does not really contain that basic content, and instead is focused almost exclusively on criticism. The page does not describe how the approach differs from traditional therapy nor why anyone would choose this form of therapy. The page does not describe any underlying theories or techniques.
 * Academic discourse surrounding the topic is largely not reflected on the page (and one editor has stated that all academics who have not personally witnessed this form of therapy are to be considered unreliable sources and should be actively excluded from being used as sources).
 * Information about existing standards is not discussed, nor any substantial information related to the Outdoor Behavioral Health Council, though reliable sources consider the OBHC to be notable.
 * There is substantial lack of clarity on the page with respect to the definition of 'wilderness therapy' and how it differs from 'adventure therapy'. This is relevant to POV because one editor has resisted definitions other than that "the vast majority of" wilderness therapy programs involve involuntary transport and human rights violations and that adventure therapy programs by definition do not, though this distinction is not supported by reliable sources.
 * The POV dispute has occasionally popped up in the past, and were removed because they were considered stale (not because the article improved):
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilderness_therapy#Highly_Biased_Article
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilderness_therapy#POV_issues
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilderness_therapy#Needs_editing_or_just_some_erasing. ParticipantObserver (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "More than 120,000 teens in the US enter behavioral modification programs"
 * "It was the beginning of 12 weeks in a wilderness therapy program, without a tent, a shower, or a toilet."
 * https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/15/wilderness-camp-for-my-own-good


 * "Much of Rowan’s therapy while at camp centered on her sexual orientation. She knew she was gay from a young age and had already come out to her family, who did not have an issue with the news. At WinGate, she was told her homosexuality was a sin, and that she needed to seek God. The camp was not religiously affiliated, but many of the staff were members of the Mormon church and even though WinGate claims to be a safe place for LGBTQ+ teens that does not tolerate microaggressions of any kind, some staff would project their beliefs on participants. Former participants explained that being assigned a therapist that was homophobic was simply a matter of random determination.As part of her therapy, Rowan was made to write an “accountability letter” to her parents which included explicit sexual details." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/14/us-wilderness-therapy-camps-troubled-teen-industry-abuse 1keyhole (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh? None of that says anything about the points I raised above or elsewhere. Yes, we all agree that some of the programs are abusive. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Though I'll point out again that the second source you provide above does describe the Outdoor Behavioral Health Council as a third party that "sets standards for accreditation, cost-benefit analysis, outcome-based research and risk management" and that that should probably be mentioned on the wilderness therapy page. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The paragraph you refering to states clearly that the Outdoor Behavioral Health Council  is run by members of the industry and there for is not relible source.
 * "The article was so shocking that the wilderness therapy industry leaders gathered together to find ways to prevent more deaths, which is how the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Research Center (OBHC), the third-party monitor specific to the wilderness therapy field, was created. It sets standards for accreditation, cost-benefit analysis, outcome-based research and risk management."
 * WP:BIASEDSOURCES 1keyhole (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As previously stated, The Guardian would be the source in this instance. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait the point of this converstation is that you wanted to improve naturality of article that's want you been wanting to dicuss for 3 days.
 * but now your wanting to add more about these behaviour modification wilderness therapy programs and the accrediation that is run by the people who work in the trouble-teen industry. 1keyhole (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, adding more information to the page would help improve the neutrality of the article, as described above. I think we should add text that is not solely describing criticisms and negative media coverage. Among many other things, this might include text re: the accreditation. The sources you keep pointing to suggest that the OBRC is notable as being an (unsuccessful?) attempt by the troubled teen industry to prevent more deaths. Idk why that can't or shouldn't be mentioned. ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So because there preventing death that excuses child neglect conditions
 * "More than 120,000 teens in the US enter behavioral modification programs"
 * It was the beginning of 12 weeks in a wilderness therapy program, without a tent, a shower, or a toilet."https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/15/wilderness-camp-for-my-own-good 1keyhole (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is attempting to excuse child neglect conditions. No one has disagreed that some of the programs are abusive and no one has disagreed with including a discussion of those abuses on the page. I do not understand what your stance is, and I do not understand what you are aiming to accomplish with these arguments.
 * It is a POV problem to only include sources that discuss child neglect and to exclude every other source as "COI" and "unreliable" simply because it doesn't focus on child abuse. The page should be built on reliable sources without improper synthesis. If you disagree with that, then I am sorry, because then I don't see a way to move forward here.
 * You started a discussion here on this noticeboard. Were you just asking for additional eyes on the discussion, or do you have a specific question/concern?
 * Are you opposed to the POV template being added to the article? What parts do you disagree with?
 * added some text mentioning the OBRC accreditation. How is that new text excusing child neglect conditions?
 * Are you opposed to the addition of a 'History' section?
 * Are you opposed to the addition of a 'theories and techniques' section?
 * Are you opposed to the addition of some text describing the differences from traditional therapy?
 * If so, why?
 * Please, if you have a specific concern, explain what your concern is. I do not know your stance, except that you appear to want the page to solely discuss child abuse, which is not how an encyclopedic article should function. ParticipantObserver (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you opposed to the addition of a 'History' section?
 * Are you opposed to the addition of a 'theories and techniques' section?
 * Are you opposed to the addition of some text describing the differences from traditional therapy?
 * How are you going to write these when you haven't estblished what wilderness therapy is?
 * 1keyhole (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "lack of clarity on the defination of Wilderness therapy programs" is on the list of issues that you seem to be combating. Yes, that should be one of the first things we tackle. The other things are also issues. Are you opposed, in principle, to these things? If not, why did you post on this noticeboard and request an RFC?
 * What is your specific concern, if you have one? Or is this an argument for the sake of argument? ParticipantObserver (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you rejecting the defination provided by both academic and media source that say wilderness therapy is a type of behavior modification program? 1keyhole (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I said anything to that effect. But that's not a full definition. Wilderness therapy is different from other programs aimed at modifying behavior. And you still have not stated your concern or your objection to the POV label. You just keep asking me questions or posting quotes about child abuse. Is this an argument for the sake of argument? ParticipantObserver (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You have been editing the article 4 years and have been stone walling for that long and failed find a defination or history in those 4 year.
 * Just accept the historic facts that wilderness therapy is a behavior modification program that came out of birgham young unviersity. 1keyhole (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not disputed the claim that wilderness therapy is a behavior modification program. That is not a full definition that distinguishes wilderness therapy from other behavior modification approaches. I haven't tried to add material about the history. As we previously discussed, my efforts over that time were primarily to remove unsourced or poorly sourced claims. I gather that you do not have a specific objection to the POV label. Correct? ParticipantObserver (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I have found  that ParticipantObserver talked about. I added that briefly to the text. Invasive Spices (talk) 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

When I looked into this, I was struck by a disconnect between the media coverage and the peer-reviewed literature. The media is mostly covering clear instances of abuse; the peer-reviewed literature (especially the MEDRS-compliant meta studies) are mostly positive, with the exception of an almost universal opposition to the unethical US involuntary transport industry which is often connected to programs. It ends up that the peer-reviewed materials mostly look at the programs which are accredited and regulated, but in the US there is also a very large unregulated for-profit industry which are not allowing studies and do not report to central bodies, and those have some pretty horrible abuse cases associated with them. The difficulty for NPOV is ensuring that we use the MEDRS compliant literature but also clearly cover the abusive unregulated side of the industry. I've just come across some decent published articles which discuss both, so I hope that will help. If interested, one such was provided by 1keyhole here, which while a media article covers both the abuse in unregulated programs and raises a couple of success stories from the accredited side. It is a difficult topic, and it will be hard to get the coverage right. - Bilby (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to add According to the new york times back in 2005 there was between 140 and 300 unregulated programs
 * "The National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs lists 140 schools and programs, about 100 more than it listed in 1999. But educational consultants, who advise parents on these programs, say the total number of programs available is now closer to 300."
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/business/a-business-built-on-the-troubles-of-teenagers.html 1keyhole (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

More (Polish-speaking) eyes needed at Falanga (organisation)
I just came across Falanga (organisation) in the new pages queue, and would appreciate if editors familiar with Polish and Polish sources could take a look at it. It cites a mountain of sources to substantiate various activities of the group in a manner that is likely WP:UNDUE but that I don't feel up to the task of assessing due to inability to assess sources involved. Given that the subject matter is an ultranationalist organization, it seems likely that this may have resulted in a WP:FALSEBALANCE situation. signed,Rosguill talk 02:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sources from Ivan Katchanovski and balance
Editors may be interested in the following discussion: Talk:Ivan_Katchanovski. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Erich Honecker
Erich Honecker

An IP editor added "dictator" to the lead in this diff. It was removed about a month later in this diff. Subsequently, other editors have added this terminology back into the lead.

I don't think it's appropriate to call Honecker a dictator. Other GDR leaders are not called dictators on Wikipedia. And the same goes for Soviet leaders, such as Brezhnev, who Honecker was associated with. And it could be argued that Brezhnev held more political power than Honecker did. Michael60634 (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Other GDR leaders are not called dictators on Wikipedia => Ulbricht was arguably less autocratic than Honecker. But if anything, he should be labeled one too; some political scientists deem him to be one.
 * And under Brezhnev, it was a dictatorship by the Politburo, rather than Leonid Ilyich himself. See Collective leadership in the Soviet Union Synotia (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of how the leadership in the USSR worked. My point still stands. Michael60634 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How does it still stand, when you know that these cases are different? Synotia (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even the article for Joseph Stalin does not say he was a dictator in the first sentence. Michael60634 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for suggesting my next edit ;) Synotia (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And it will probably be reverted quickly. Stalin's article gets much more attention than Honecker's article. Meaning people will notice politically motivated editing there much more quickly. Michael60634 (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I did with yours? ;) Synotia (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean removing a template and edit warring? Michael60634 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way Misha, I checked the Joseph Stalin article. No need for me to do anything: Within the very first alinea one can read Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become a dictator by the 1930s. Synotia (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Kindly stop calling me Russian names like "Misha" and "tovarishch". Michael60634 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * & : I would suggest that both of you stop arguing. Being combative just makes people think you're not interested in improving the article. Synotia, I think you have solid ground for restoring the wording, so I don't know why you're being rude and trying to provoke a response. You're undermining your own argument. Michael, now that there are reliable sources establishing that he is a dictator, the correct response is to find reliable sources that contradict these, saying that he is not a dictator. Also, we're talking about Erich Honecker right now, so other articles are not relevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article now lists four sources for the claim that he is a dictator, and they all seem reliable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the term at face value is contentious, it should not included in the lefe sentence but can be included in the lede with additional context as why the term applies, like the use in the Stalin article demonstrated earlier.M asem (t) 16:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That would be preferable to what is currently in the article. Michael60634 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem… the fact that Honecker is described as being a “dictator” is the type of contentious information that is more appropriately mentioned at some point later in the opening paragraph(s). The opening sentence should avoid such labels. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree this should not be in the first phrase. Yes, he was a dictator within the East Germany, but pretty much a puppet and subordinate as a leader of one of Soviet satellite states. My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem that it probably would be best for it not to be in the first sentence, the nature of the regime can be elaborated later in the lead. And I will also say that the comments made by Synotia including "tovarisch" and "dorogoi tovarisch", now also "Misha" in this very thread are completely inappropriate. Mellk (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would only use the term when the original definition applied: a leader who suspended the constitution and ruled by decree during an emergency with the pretext of restoring the status quo ante when the emergency was over, sometimes without holding any official position or having an untranslatable title such as Fuehrer or Duce. While that clearly applies to Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet and Noriega, it doesn't apply to Communist states. IOW use it when the person is a de jure, not just de facto, dictator.
 * Policy requires that the tone of articles reflects reliable sources, which rarely would describe Communist rulers as dictators in the first few sentences.
 * There's also the issue of how much power any specific Communist ruler had. Generally, Communist bosses who defied their own party found themselves out of office, so their power was limited.
 * TFD (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Communist bosses who defied their own party i don’t think such a statement actually makes sense in this context. Is there any specific examples you have in mind?  Volunteer Marek   06:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Khrushchev, Zhao Ziyang, Gorbachev (almost), Wilhelm Pieck, Malenkov, Dubček, Imre Nagy, and Peljidiin Genden, among others. And in 1989, numerous Communist leaders were ousted when they refused to reform. In most cases, had a Communist "dictator" decided to hold open elections, remove the privileges of the Communist Party, introduce capitalism or form an alliance with the West, he would have been replaced. Or do you think that as dictators they had the power to do whatever they wanted, which is the definition of a dictator? TFD (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And now some editors are removing the neutrality template... Michael60634 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes because it’s not a consolation prize for having brought an issue to WP:NPOVN and failing to get any support.  Volunteer Marek   06:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say my position of not calling Honecker a dictator in the first sentence of the article did indeed have support. You can read the comments in this section for yourself if you haven't done so already. Michael60634 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If someone wants to move the info further down into the lede (but not out of the lede), that’s fine.  Volunteer Marek  06:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Should labels given to a website by some secondary sources that contradict the website's own statement be placed in the opening sentence in WP voice?
There’s been discussion above about Wikiislam, whether to attach "Islamophobic" or "anti-Muslim" labelling to it in the the opening sentence in WP voice because some sources say so and no other secondary sources say it is not. But I just found out that the site itself says that it “is not Islamophobic” (1). Doesn’t that mean the labelling is controversial, which is even more reason not to put it in WP voice? Also, sorry, I’m not very well versed in Wikipedia policy, but if someone is said to be a moron in some secondary sources and no other secondary sources say he is intelligent, does that mean that it can be written in the opening sentence of his WP article that "X is a moron..."? Addendum (January 1, 2023): also one more example, if some sources say that Islam is an anti-semitic religion, and no other sources say it is not, should it be written in the opening sentence that “Islam is an anti-semitic religion”? I don’t think that’s quite right. Isn't the word anti-... contentious?; edited LiuWu87 (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC) LiuWu87 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we could find RS that said that and no RS that contradicted it, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If some sources say that the US is an anti-communist country, should it be written in the opening sentence that it is “an anti-communist country”. If some sources say that DPRK say is “an anti-japanese state”, should it be written so in the opening sentence? I don’t think those would be right, since “anti-some people” is a contentious term.
 * I agreed that secondary sources should be included, but if those sources contradict with what the subject themselves say, doesn’t that make the claim controversial and should be attributed to the authors of the sources instead, and shouldn’t be written in WP voice even more so in the opening sentence. LiuWu87 (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If they represent the bulk of sources that comment on it, yes. We represent what RS say. And no to be controversial, the controversy must be between RS, not RS and one person. That is what wp:undueWP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:fringe are all about. We only care about what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a word “uncontested” in the rule, if the word “uncontroversial” after that meaning the same, then I don’t think there’s any need to write it “Uncontested and uncontroversial”. Also the rule says
 * I think anti-(some people) falls into the racist category above, which if it really wants to be used it should be attributed to the authors of the sources. LiuWu87 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is not practical in the lede, as we would need to say "according to the BBC, The Time Prof Wom, Dr thing, the royal society, the BMA, FEMA, Hate watch" and god knows who else. It also says "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. " 1 person is about as small a minority as you can get. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read again the last part of the rule
 * It doesn't have to mention all the sources, the one that proposes by @The Four Deuces, below would suffice I think. LiuWu87 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The parts quoted by Slatersteven as part of the same policy, one part doesn't over rule another. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did I say the rule I quoted above overrules the others? It's clearly written that calls like racist (which anti-Muslim seems to fall into) are contentious and if it still wants to be included then it should be attributed to the source, like "various sources call it anti-Muslim" instead of writing in WP voice as "it is an anti-Muslim site", Thank you. LiuWu87 (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not rules but policies, which have to be interrupted with other policies. Fixating on the wording of one part of one policy is what know as WP:WIKILAWYERING, something you should read along with WP:BLUDGEON -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, forgive me if I'm using the wrong term, I'm not a native in English, but my argument above still stands (at least to me). The wikipedia policies are made to be followed, one cannot follow one policy and ignore the others. LiuWu87 (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an important distinction as they are describing behaviour on Wikipedia not prescribing it. You could do something that brokes every policy but if the community were to decide it was an improvement to the encyclopedia, then well WP:IAR is also policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, but is it really necessary in this case? We talk long and hard about policies, but in the end they’re going to be ignored? LiuWu87 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They are being ignored in your opinion, I and others here disagree with you in your interpretation of policy. As I said earlier, you fixating on one sentence as if it must be followed against all other policies. That's not how it works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you're talking as if the part of the WP policies I brought up above contradicts the other WP policies, even though they just complement each other. Fringe theories such as the US didn’t land on the moon shouldn’t be given its due weight in the United States’ WP article, but that doesn’t mean saying the US is anti-communist, racist, etc. is okay in WP voice, even more so in the opening sentence, just because many sources say so and no other sources say it’s not, since those terms are contentious. I don't think this case about Wikiislam is so extraordinary that one of WP policies must be broken to improve Wikipedia. LiuWu87 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's actually a guideline, not a policy, which means that exceptions are allowed. I wonder though about the tone. Could we say anti-Muslim, anti-Islamist or generally considered Islamophobic? I don't think the intention of the guideline is that it doesn't apply to lead sentences, otherwise it would say that. TFD (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV which is policy, WP:LABEL is part of MOS. Islamaphobic should be used if the weight of reliable sources use it, any attempt to water that down is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested, there's a distinction between false balance and neutral tone, which is also recommended. We don't say for example in articles about serial killers that they are disgusting, twisted, evil social deviants, although that type of wording is used in some reliable sources. It doesn't mean that these articles are soft on serial killers. TFD (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But to say anti-islamic instead of islamaphobic isn't neutral tone, it's the opposite. Wikipedia states serial killer, not collector of souls for the afterlife. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV which is policy, WP:LABEL is part of MOS. Islamaphobic should be used if the weight of reliable sources use it, any attempt to water that down is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested, there's a distinction between false balance and neutral tone, which is also recommended. We don't say for example in articles about serial killers that they are disgusting, twisted, evil social deviants, although that type of wording is used in some reliable sources. It doesn't mean that these articles are soft on serial killers. TFD (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But to say anti-islamic instead of islamaphobic isn't neutral tone, it's the opposite. Wikipedia states serial killer, not collector of souls for the afterlife. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Self description should always be given zero weight because it is inherently biased in favour of the subject. Like, should we not describe InfoWars as a conspiracy theory website because it doesn't self describe as such? What you are proposing is basically in total contradiction to how Wikipedia articles are written. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * okay, so if some sources say that Islam is an anti-semitic religion, and no other sources say it is not, should it be written in the opening sentence that “Islam is an anti-semitic religion”? I don’t think that’s right. Isn't the word anti-… contentious? LiuWu87 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A self-published source is notoriously unreliable. The DPRK is neither democratic, nor a republic; and we don't give a golly-gosh-darn what they say about themselves. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * okay, so if some sources say that Islam is anti-semitic religion, and no other sources say it is not, should it be written in the opening sentence that “Islam is an anti-semitic religion”? I don’t think that’s quite right. Isn't the word anti-... contentious? LiuWu87 (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The DPRK can say what it likes, but multiple highly reliable sources say otherwise. So giving any weight to the DPRK self statement is undue, and introduces a false balance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * is it written in the opening sentence of its WP article that it is an anti-capitalist, anti-western, anti-japanese state? LiuWu87 (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know are those facts due? If they are or not would be a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Orangemike. Subjects have an inherent interest in pushing a positive POV. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * RS>SPS no question. Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, per WP:TONE, no article should literally say "X is a moron" in Wikipedia's voice whatever the sourcing. On the broader point of sources presenting different views on a subject, the answer is in WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa That depends; we do say in wiki-voice that X is a conpiracy theorist etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. "Conspiracy theorist" is within the scope of an encycopedic tone. "Moron" is not. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, that is obvious :3 TrangaBellam (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Conservapedia says it is The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia in its logo. Perhaps you could get better advice there? 😀 NadVolum (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My take on this (and other, similar debates) … the opening sentence of any article should avoid contentious labels. This doesn’t mean we should ignore the labels… simply that we should mention them in subsequent sentences in the lede. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that approach put forward occasionally by editors but what's the policy basis for it? If yhe "contentious" term is appropriate and needed to describe the subject per MOS:FIRST, and its prominence satisfies WP:DUE why shouldn't it go in the first sentence? DeCausa (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s more a question of style and tone than a policy issue. The first sentence should be short and barebones. Avoid adjectives.  If the subject is a politician from Freedonia, just say that. If the subject is an online magazine, just say that.  Trying to convey the subject’s reputation is inappropriate for the first sentence. It is extraneous information that should be conveyed in a subsequent sentence. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is a politician. Not a right/left wing politician? I don't see anything wrong with the latter if its a common description. If the newsorgs put it upfront, why shouldn't we? Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think being left or right in politic is the same as anti-“some people”. I mean if some sources say that DPRK is an anti-capitalist state, should it be written in the opening sentence that it is an anti-capitalist state? if some sources say that the US is an anti-communist country, and no other sources say it is not, then it is should be written in the opening sentence that is “is an anti-communist country”? LiuWu87 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If 10 sources discuss DPRK and 8 of them note DPRK to be "anti-capitalist", then yes. If 800 sources discuss discuss DPRK and 8 of them note DPRK to be "anti-capitalist", then no. I assumed that all of the sources under evaluation are equally reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a wikipedia rule that clearly states so? I strongly believe that this labelling is controversial because the subject itself says otherwise, so the labelling should be attributed to the source, not written in WP voice, more so in the opening sentence. LiuWu87 (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Countless editors have answered your original query and derivative posers. Yet, you seem unable to accept that the broader editorial consensus differs from your "belief". We are not bound to satisfy your increasingly tortous lines of enquiry and pursuing such an I-do-not-hear-that course attracts sanctions. Drop the stick and move on. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As to answering this particular query: you have been already pointed to WP:DUE by to the same question. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't be rude and put your words in other people's mouths, I respond to each of the existing arguments as much as I can, if you think my arguments are wrong please refute them, don't harass me like this.
 * My problem is that this labelling is controversial because the subject itself says otherwise.
 * If by uncontroversial you mean uncontested, then there is no point in writing it in the rule as "uncontested and uncontroversial".
 * Plus per WP:label it asks to avoid using racist labeling, which even if it is forced to be included then it should be attributed to the source. LiuWu87 (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing harassing about TrangaBellam's comment. They are quite right in that you keep replying with the exact same argument to every comment. Repeating the same thing again and again will not change other editors minds. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's okay if that's what you think, but it's not necessarily what everyone thinks. Can we just focus on the issue instead of ad hominem? thank you. LiuWu87 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Baselessly accussing others of harassment is just the same. You point has been answered again and again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not an English native so I am so sorry if I'm wrong but the meaning of harass as I read it is "subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation". The way he puts his words in everyone's mouth by using the pronoun “we” and saying that, "We are not bound to satisfy your increasingly tortuous lines of enquiry and pursuing such an I-do-not-hear-that course attracts sanctions. Drop the stick and move on." I think that falls into that category. LiuWu87 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Their words could be considered mildly uncivil, but only as an expression of their annoyance. It certainly doesn't come across as an attempt to intimidate, that might be a language issue.
 * The use of 'we' is justified by you posting the same reply to multiple editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * NPOV also says article Ledesma in particular should be written in a neutral, dispassionate tone, and throwing in something that is controversial in the first sentence immediately breaks that. DUE have no being for what content belongs in the lede (it is about the balance of viewpoints in an articke). And it is far far more neutral to wait a sentence or two to brief explain the controversial aspect in context than to throw the label around without context. M asem (t) 14:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends. That can create a false balance. If DUE requires that degree of prominence then not giving it that in order to achieve a "neutral" tone then that is a breach of NPOV. The lead should cmply with DUE in the same way as the whole article has to comply with it. The lead is supposed to reflect the article.DeCausa (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * DUE has nothing to do with the lede, it must be neutrally written. Just becayse it may seem that bulk of RSes claim one thing about a topic, we should still try to establish what the dispute is about, in a brief manner. DUE has more applicability in the body to flesh out arguments against the topic. M asem (t) 15:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I'm taken aback by you saying that. How can DUE have nothing to do with the lede? For one thing the lede has to follow the body. One has to be reflective of the other. To say DUE has nothing to do with the lede is like saying V has nothing to do with the lede. But more fundamentally, DUE is a core part of what we (WP) mean by neutrality. Take away DUE and what's left is a fake neutrality based on false balance. DUE isn't something separate from WP neutrality, it is WP neutrality. DeCausa (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I'm taken aback by you saying that. How can DUE have nothing to do with the lede? For one thing the lede has to follow the body. One has to be reflective of the other. To say DUE has nothing to do with the lede is like saying V has nothing to do with the lede. But more fundamentally, DUE is a core part of what we (WP) mean by neutrality. Take away DUE and what's left is a fake neutrality based on false balance. DUE isn't something separate from WP neutrality, it is WP neutrality. DeCausa (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * A huge number of problems are created by statement made above that say we discuss the site's own description in favor of what others have said, as that means we have taken a side in the debate. Instead we should present both sides as part of the controversy over a group's description, making sure attribution is used, and balancing the weight of arguments by UNDUE. It is far more neutral to say "/The website Wikiislam claims it is not Islamophobia, but numerous journalists claim the site is anti-Islam." M asem (t) 14:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:MANDY is a decent essay. Marjorie Taylor Greene will obviously deny being a conspiracy theorist, Robert B. Spencer will obviously deny having prejudice against Muslims, and so on. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We just had an RFC related to denials that says we should report them, making MANDY really no longer applicable. M asem (t) 14:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please try leveraging the RfC (link - ?) at Marjorie Taylor Greene or one of the doxens of articles from AmPol, that I can list. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you recall where this RFC is? Thank you. Snuish (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WT:BLP M asem (t) 20:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Although take not of the closer additional rational on their talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear the closer closed that RFC as 'option 1' should be the wording of the policy, but their talk page (and the subsequent ANI thread) didn't clarify of issue of false balance etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:WikiIslam. Snuish (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC) .
 * We go by what RS say, not what a self-serving SPS says. Very few racists never call themselves, racist, and very few criminals ever break the law (according to them), Its amazing how many Germans were on holiday for the whole of 1939-1945. Also to be contentious, RS has to contend the claim is not true, not the target. We need to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)c
 * There is zero false balance on one summaey line that says "X says this, Y says this" (a result from the recent denials RFC). It is a problem if we go over a sentence two tied only to the SPS to explain their side fully (thats where we'd need RS to cover should we include that. M asem (t) 14:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what WP:GEVAL warns against. - MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As was discussed at the RFC, including what subjects say about themselves (especially when it comes to denials of allegations) is highly appropriate, and important for maintaining neutrality. We should not give it UNDUE weight, but we do need to give it some weight. That usually means at least one sentence noting the denial. Let the reader decide whether the denial is credible or not. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, the RfC result does not insist on mentioning denial in the lead. [Note: The RfC concerns BLPs; not organizations etc.] TrangaBellam (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the thing, if there is a bunch of rs saying a thing, we can say it in wikivoice upfront and self serving denials can be mentioned down the page somewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you! TrangaBellam (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be inconsist to allow denials for BLP and not named organizations who may have named BLP in its positions. M asem (t) 15:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is disputing that denials are allowed. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At the risk of invoking Godwin's law - Stormfront says that they are 'a community of racial realists and idealists'. Should that be in the lead? That's the kind of org we're talking about. MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes that should be in there but with both clear attribution and alongside the most popular way they are described. Eg "Stormfront claims they are acimmunity of racial realists, but many scholars and journals consider the group as a racial hate gtoup" (or something like that). Then the body can go into why the later is considered true with examples in context, without needing to touch on any more.SPS sources for the group's claimed purposes. M asem  (t) 16:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A single line that is "x says one thing, y says other", and then later where plenty of coverage expanding Y's (reflecting the DUE coverage in RSes) and almost nothing about X's side, is not a GEVAL violation. That single line is simply establishing the basis of a conflict which is minimally required under NPOV. A GEVAL problem would be were X's side is artificially inflated with SPS type sources to balance it against Y's side. M asem (t) 15:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The lede is a summery of the article, and must reflect its balance. If we say X has this which Z has denied`" that is a false balance IF x is 15 sources (or even 5) and Z is one person. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is typically impossible for the lede to have equal balance of weight as the body, as it meant to summarize the points in the body, and this by necessity will leave some stuff out of it. It should balance the article structure by there's no requirement of 1-to-1 weight inclusion. M asem (t) 16:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually it's not "x says one thing, y says other" it's WP says (multiple sourced) ie stated as a fact. An SPS denial is not a fact. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that when a near plurality of sources, which may include academic sources, then we can say that as a fact. But just having multiple sources but not having anywhere close to a plurality (eg 10 out of 100 sources) then attribution is required. M asem (t) 16:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And what number do we set it at, 10 100 1000? Silence is not disagreement, indeed it maybe because they think it is so obvious it does not even need stating. What we do is (I think) have a simple standard (its called wp:npov), what do the majority of RS say, who comment on a topic. Also using this logic we can't say "X has denied it" unless a majority of sources have reported the denial. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You just pointed it out, we are looking for something like a majority of sources, so in a case where there are 100 known and available sources (all presumed reliable), we may be asking for as few as 25 of them to make the claim before we can say it in wikivoive. Otherwise, attribution of some sort (even if it handwavws it as "several journalists". What we don't want, but gas become more predominant, is the cherry picking of sourced to find a negative term and use it as wikivoice. If the SPLC names s group as a hate group but none of the other collective sources do, it has absolutely wrong to say that in unattributed wikivoice.
 * Being able to say the denial exists is required by NPPV.we want to briefly summarize the source of the debate, and including the climate and denial is necessary, even uf that us not documents by RSes. The details if why one side believes they are right then follow from following DUE, which does mean that we cannot create a false balance in coverage of debates not brought up in RDed. M asem (t) 20:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether its a majority of sources if the best that exists on the denial side is SPS. Because that means the actual sources are not disputed. Selfstudier (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When a normally reliable source claims something under a contentious term, we should assume that there us a conflict and that we cannot present that as fact. If more sources exist (approaching the majority of all sources that exist) then we start getting into the realm of using wikivkice, though we still can respect the minor dissent that may be there. 60 of 100 sources call a group as a hate group, but the group calls themselves "race idealists", then we can present that all as "The group is a hate group, despite their claim to be 'race idealists". Then in the body id expect pulling material from those 60 sources to explain how the term applies. M asem (t) 22:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between contentious (define it) and something like "right wing". If the sole denial of the latter description is the person/group being so described in reliable sources then that's good enough for wikivoice. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Context matters. Here, "anti-islam" should clearly be seen as a contentious term. "Right wing" may or may not, as it it depends how it is framed, since the term could just be about someone sitting on the right, or could be for someone who is far far on the right. M asem (t) 22:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We can agree on context and that it may not be clear as to what constitutes contentious. This makes it more of a case by case affair than any kind of firm rule. For myself, I would usually go with the sources because I am disinclined to give SPS denialism an easy time of it. Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again note the additional details of the close on the closers talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable secondary sources should be used instead of the subject's self-description. This is most obvious in the case of criminals. We wouldn't describe Al Capone for example as a wrongly imprisoned philantropist, we would describe him as a gangster.
 * However, sources making a claim that a website is Islamophobic must be reliable for the claim made and it must be clear it is a consensus opinion in academic literature. In practical terms, that means using academic articles or textbooks or expert sources such as the SPLC.
 * Furthermore, per WP:LABEL, we may have to qualify the description. For example we might say identified by the SPLC as Islamophobic or considered to be Islamophobic, provided a source actually says that. We should avoid using multiple references, then say multiple sources consider it Islamophobic, since that violates WP:WEASEL. It's alright of course if a source actually says that.
 * We could also consider saying they are "anti-Islamist" (in quotes), since that is how Islamophobes describe themselves.
 * Note that since Islamophobes usually do not consider themselves Islamophobic, they will continually argue against any suggestion that they are. Typically, they blame "left-wing liberal" disinformation. But what is important is not the ideology of the experts making the claim, but its acceptance in reliable sources.
 * TFD (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point wp:bludgeon might be worth a read. Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, S. Three editors (me, ActivelyDisinterested, and you) have suggested the OP to drop the stick; waiting for the critical mass to reach five. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of CIA drug trafficking
An editor is repeatedly misquoting a source Talk:Allegations of CIA drug trafficking and I would like to not edit war over this. User:Rja13ww33 has changed statements of fact to a quote and an editorialized quote at that. In the source the CIA's actions in the Afghan opium trade are said to be "documented." This is a statement of fact and not one person's opinion. Rja13ww33 claims that  and I have pointed out that is not correct.

Additionally this is a good time to talk about the bias of the title: It is inappropriate to include the word "allegations" because this article contains proven facts. Allegations are appropriate to include but are secondary to the subject of the article. The current title incorrectly describes all of its contents as mere allegations. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The source does not support what you wrote in the article. Though they would have been better off without using quotation marks, Rja13ww33's revision is more in line with the source, and they were correct to change it. Regarding the title of the article, it appears that this is the title that was decided upon during the article's AfD, and it is entirely appropriate in line with how Wikipedia handles allegations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In what way does the source not support my version? When is it ever appropriate to add an editorialized version of a quote and not an actual quote?
 * Are you really talking about AfD from 10.5 years ago? Invasive Spices (talk) 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The relevant passage in the source:

"Following earlier patterns, Washington looked the other way when CIA-backed Afghan insurgents battling the Soviets in the 1980s were involved in cultivating and smuggling opium poppies to help fund their cause. This was the CIA’s biggest covert operation since Vietnam, and once again, the opium trade was one of the biggest winners. As McCoy (2003, p. 18) summarizes, “To fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA, working through Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence, backed Afghan warlords who used the Agency’s arms, logistics, and protection to become major drug lords.”"


 * Your edit said in wikivoice that the CIA was supporting drug smuggling through the Pakistan ISI. The source says that the CIA worked with the Pakistan ISI to provide support to Afghan insurgents that also received funding from drug smuggling, and it quotes McCoy's opinion on the matter. Rja13ww33 fixed this by attributing the opinion to McCoy through an exact quote by McCoy lifted verbatim from the source. Personally, I think that even this was generous, as I probably would've reverted your edit for misrepresenting the source. Your edit omitted context that changed the meaning, while theirs was an exact quote with attribution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the obvious problem. Thebiguglyalien do you understand that Rja13ww33's is presenting edited quotes as verbatim quotes? Do you understand that Rja13ww33 has done so again below? I told you this above and you ignored it. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is any of this sinking in yet? I don't mean to be rude here (we are to AGF and so forth) but is English your first language? I'm trying to guess what the disconnect is. Very simply, here is what you added to the article: "During the 1980s the CIA worked through the Pakistan ISI to support Afghan cultivation of opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) and smuggling of the product.". Here is what the source says (word for word): As McCoy (2003, p. 18) summarizes, “To fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA, through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, backed Afghan warlords who used the Agency’s arms, logistics, and protection to become major drug lords.”
 * Obviously there is quite a difference between those two statements.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Telling me the sky is chartreuse is not going to work. You have again presented an edited quote. I am aware that this is Wikipedia and everyone argues without reading sources but they will if I repeatedly point it out. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How exactly is it a "edited quote" when it is verbatim from the source? I'm still waiting to hear that one.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see one comment here, and another at the article talk page, where Rja13ww33 left out the word "working" in "...the CIA, working through Pakistan's...". The block quote they added above appears correct, as does the text they actually added to the article, so I'm not seeing the problem.  Invasive Spices, it might help if you actually explained exactly what difference you see between the original quote and what Rja13ww33 is saying.  Squeakachu (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I side with Rja13ww33 on this one. First of all, the quote is verbatim from the source. (The word "To" was changed to "to", so perhaps that is part of the objection.) Secondly, the idea that the CIA trafficked drugs or facilitated drug trafficking is a contentious claim that requires attribution. For instance, the United States Department of State, Inspector General of the CIA, United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (i.e. the Church Committee) looked at McCoy's earlier, but similar claims about the CIA during the Vietnam War and found them to be unsubstantiated. - Location (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not if we have WP:RS which demonstrate it is true. We do. My original edit included precisely that. If we have opposing WP:RS we could (must) present the controversy. I would not disagree. We would do that using both sources but no one has provided any such. We cannot present Andreas's facts as if they are McCoy's unsupported speculation.
 * To repeat: no attribution is required because we have Andreas WP:RS. I am not opposed to attribution however and in fact the prominent attribution of this statement in Andreas may justify such prominent attribution in our article. However Rja13ww33 did not just attribute. Rja13ww33 changed a WP:PARAPHRASE of several Andreas paragraphs to a quote.
 * I hate to be pedantic but why would anyone cite sources on Wikipedia if they are of no consequence and ? Quotes are almost never used. Andreas is there for a reason. What is the reason?
 * Rja13ww33's edit removes the context: The source is not McCoy but a prestigious independent source which cites McCoy as one among his many sources. Our opinion is decided by WP:V. I hate to debate WP:V here as if WP:V can be ignored.
 * I will not address other matters in other articles with different sources. Afghan opium is Afghan opium. Other matters do not justify removing context and presenting cited facts as if they are uncited baseless quotes from McCoy. These situations are not analogous because this has not been found to be unsubstantiated by anyone, in fact it is substantiated by Andreas.
 * We can see from User talk:Rja13ww33 that this user has a history – for years – of WP:POV edit warring on this and related articles. Looking at Special:Contributions/Rja13ww33 shows exclusively POV edit warring on this and related articles. That editor is a WP:SPA or close to it. That is not a history of neutrality.
 * My aim is this: the over all thrust of my edit was to WP:PARAPHRASE several paragraphs from Andreas – because that excludes other material, because Wikipedia is written by its editors, because WP is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of quotes, WP is not Wikiquote – and to include the commodity in trade, opium. Opium is the thing in question and I want to distinguish it from several other commodities which could be implied by the quote alone. (Especially Cannabis.) What Thebiguglyalien said above is strange and obviously not correct: removing context and replacing it with a quote does not add context, and Rja13ww33's edit is misleading because it removes the context which shows McCoy is supported by Andreas. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're getting caught up on this quote thing, but that's not the issue here. You came to your own conclusions that were not supported by the source, and you inserted those conclusions into the article rather than summarizing what the source says. They were removed and replaced with a direct quote that more plainly states the allegation being made. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we agree that Andreas supports McCoy? I am baffled something so simple has no agreement thus far. Invasive Spices (talk) 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The absence of responses in 4 days is telling. Everyone knows there is no sourced disagreement on McCoy. As such we may not misrepresent McCoy as an opinion WP:VOICE.
 * The article as it stands misleadingly portrays McCoy as the story and misrepresents Andreas as not supporting McCoy. Most readers will not examine the reflist and so will be under the misimpression that the citation is to a publication of McCoy. Those few who do examine the reference will be given the false impression that Andreas merely lists quotes. Andreas is not a quote book. Only those very few who read Andreas thoroughly will notice that our article is misleading – Andreas says that  these facts.
 * I am open to opinions regarding phrasing however  is incorrect, reflects an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia and is explicitly WP:VOICE forbidden in such situations as this.
 * I am also open to contrary WP:RS however it is telling that no one has even attempted to present any. Invasive Spices (talk) 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody is replying to you much anymore because we can't seem to get you to listen (either that or at lot of people are on vacation). In no way does the article misrepresent "Andreas as not supporting McCoy". It's simply a direct quote (from McCoy) that doesn't take the liberties you did. So is this the issue? (Nice of you to finally tell us/be clear on the point.) We aren't clear that Andreas is supporting McCoy? The fact we are citing a article by Andreas should make that clear shouldn't it? How is directly quoting McCoy from that article diminishing Andreas's apparent support? Try to be coherent for once.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the lack of response means that your argument has not convinced anyone. To expand upon the context you touched on above, Andreas wrote: "As historian Alfred McCoy (2003) documents in detail in his classic, The Politics of Heroin, the CIA was complicit not through corruption or direct involvement in the illicit trade but rather through what he describes as a radical pragmatism that tolerated and even facilitated drug trafficking by local allies when it served larger Cold War goals." One thing that Andreas left out is that McCoy's claims that formed the basis of The Politics of Heroin were addressed by at least four governmental agencies and found that they were unsubstantiated. To this you wrote: "I will not address other matters in other articles with different sources." On one hand, you want to use material from an author citing that book. On the other, you dismiss that material (or at least the investigations of it) as irrelevant while continuing to claim there is "no sourced disagreement on McCoy". You can't have it both ways. -Location (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You correctly added this material to a different section showing you are aware this is impertinent to the Afghan poppy trade. Why are you here misrepresenting this material as relevant to the Afghan opium section? Invasive Spices (talk) 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The material is relevant to McCoy's credibility as a source for claims of CIA complicity or involvement in drug trafficking. Your argument seems to be that McCoy is an impeccable source of information and should be cited without attribution, so I provided information that shows he isn't. If Andreas can attribute material to McCoy, what's the problem with Wikipedia doing the same? - Location (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You clearly do understand that it is irrelevant. You put it in a different section. The strings "Afghan" and "opium" and any other such related concepts do not appear anywhere in the text you added.
 * because Andreas is a source and you are not. Relying upon yourself to establish that they are related despite not even mentioning each other is obvious WP:SYNTH. — Invasive Spices (talk) 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already explained how this is relevant 1) to the article and 2) to the discussion regarding explicit attribution for certain material. You came here for feedback and I gave you mine. FWIW: My edit is here if anyone wants to review/discuss the content or sources, but I would suggest continuing this on the article's talk page. (I've removed the outdent as it makes it look like Rja13ww33's comment below is in response to me instead of you.) - Location (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You've now got 4 people telling you that you are wrong. The only thing the source says regarding the Afghan opium trade in the 80's is what I quoted. (A direct quote.) Nothing in the source backs what you said about the CIA supporting Mujahadeen drug production.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 191 Using "Person-hour" in place of "Man-hour"
WP:GNL calls for gender neutral language, in which case "man-hour" is the proper noun, and does not fall within the guidelines. Man-hour already holds a gender neutral definition and has been used for centuries to describe the definition. Simply changing the name because it has "man" in the word is WP:NPOV and adds to Ideological bias of Wikipedia, since it is not based in reality. If the consensus is promote political language, then I suggest an edit to man-hour, to "person-hour" to align with the Wikipedia consensus. When I asked for source documentation proving that person-hour is a common term, I was handed an opinion article from an editor, and warned to fall in line" is this really what Wikipedia is about? Jonchache (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "Man-power" is the standard term and should be used in articles. Trying to apply "person-hour" feels like a very strained reading of WP:GNL. However, I don't see how this is an issue of NPOV or ideological bias rather than a linguistic variant (albeit an unorthodox one). I'd also note that you're coming off as rather hostile, which is not a great way to approach these things. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree I needed to take a moment before posting. sorry about that. The editors that reverted me said: "Person-hours (PH) has been the industry standard term within the aerospace industry since at least the 1980s when accounting for the number of hours allocated or actually expended on aircraft maintenance tasks. The term "man hours" has been considered obsolete in aerospace for at least 40 years, so this is not new and not at all anything political. If anything Wikipedia has been slow to catch-up on this sort of industry use of terminology." and linked This as the source. Jonchache (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also personal source: I am in the aerospace industry, and have never heard person-hour used before seeing this Wiki page. Jonchache (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion piece written by an executive that doesn't appear to be a significant figure in the field, and it even says that "man hour" is still the standard term. I suspect whoever linked that to you only read the headline without doing their due diligence by checking the source or confirming that it actually makes the claim they're saying it does. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions on how I can solve this dispute peacefully/professionally? I seem to be going against the consensus of a group of editors. Jonchache (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally the answer is to open the discussion more broadly to the community so more users can give input, which is essentially what you've done here. On Wikipedia, no user has any more authority than another, it's about what the community as a whole agrees upon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yea, "person-hour" is not a widely-accepted or used word. Some things like "manpower", "man-hour", they just are what they are. They really have nothing to do with a gender imbalance in the way "fireman" did, for example. Zaathras (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Being a new editor, yes I joined to edit that to "man-hour" (silly me) I accidentally blew the 3 edit rule, but it did force me to read all of the information on GNL, NPOV, and other editing guidelines, I still believe that "Man-hour" is the most proper noun to use in the article. with at least 3 editors, and one admin telling me that I have gone against the consensus, and that I was close to ban, I figured I would elevate the dispute, and landed here. I'm still unaware of how to solve this properly, any help would be appreciated. Jonchache (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A google books search shows aerospace-related content back as far as 1981 using "person hour". As far as I can tell, "man hour" is still more common, but "person hour" is also used, and if the consensus on that article is to use the gender-neutral version, I don't see how you can "solve" it to your satisfaction. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Replace person hour with man hour, and the books date back farther, and are more plentiful. Jonchache (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So? The use of the term isn't incorrect. Your preference is "man hour", but if the other editors on that article disagree, then you lack consensus to make that change. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * By what you have said, then it is nothing but mob rule, and whoever brings the most friends wins, that's not that way a professionally written page should be written. Though it is true what they say, history is written by the victorious. Jonchache (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on its policies and guidelines, not mob rule. The other editors have pointed out MOS:GNL, but you seem to feel it doesn't apply (I'm not clear why) It would be one thing if one choice was incorrect/inaccurate and the other was correct. In this case, however, neither is wrong. "Person-hour" is an acceptable word, just as "man-hour" is. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Has there been an actual discussion on the talk page of that article about this wording? If there hasn't, then the only consensus was WP:SILENCE, which is void as soon as someone challenges it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See discussion at User talk:Jonchache. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Jonchache was right to bring the discussion to the community. It doesn't seem there's a pre-established consensus on this particular wording, and a user talk page is not a suitable place to establish it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In this specific case, why not replace the term with "labor hours", avoiding the whole mess of if a term has been degraded or if its replacement us strained? M asem (t) 00:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great compromise. I was going to suggest "work hours", but I'd be happy with either. According to Ngrams (which is admittedly a rough measuring tool), either of these would be preferable to man hour and person hour if we're going off of recent use. Man hour is the best option by far if we're going off overall use, but I think language on Wikipedia should be contemporary when possible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP cannot be proactive on language choices...we need to be following when sources switch, not lead them. M asem (t) 00:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean labour hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly whichever version is appropriate to the established English variant in use. M asem (t) 13:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming humo(u)r? The article has the  &  templates, so it would be "labor".  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The consensus prior to the edit made, and I would say "snuck in" from 02:45, 18 October 2022‎ Meleager91 talk contribs‎  53,260 bytes −113‎  ce, was "man hour" the edit was to clean up the grammar on the page, however the editor also changed man- to person-, which is not a word. It would be the same as switching "manipulation" to "personipulation" A word is a word, no matter how much it offends your point of view. Man-hour is the common term used in the aerospace industry (and all other labor driven industries) to describe the given definition, and remains the neutral point of view. Jonchache (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Let us be wholly consistent, and replace all instances of manifold and manifest with personifold and personifest. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow, you're hilarious. ––FormalDude (talk)  00:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What is life, with no humor? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's what we're experiencing now, because you're not funny. ––FormalDude (talk)  01:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't forget manhole Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why this is an NPOV issue more than a style issue, but I do think that the more natural English style-choice here is "man-hours", which appears to be the term more frequently used in sources that describes this event. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As an observer up to now - to me the issue is not which phrase is correct, but how the decision to change from phrase "A" to phrase "B" is being made. This is obviously a contentious issue, and thus needs discussion - but Jonchache was very obviously edit-warring to keep his their preferred and proposed version in place while discussion is ongoing.  That's a separate issue that needs addressing, although I note that they haven't re-edited since I level-4 warned them.
 * In fact, I note with disappointment that several other editors are also changing the established version to the proposed version. Given that those involved are all fairly experienced and should know about BRD, and general etiquette - all they have to do is wait for the conclusion.  For the record, I agree that "person-hours" is not the best term to use, but I also agree that it's the term in current use, and as there have been several alternatives, until one that has consensus is found - the original stays in place.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Man-hour was the original. just because it was changed and missed by editors (with a certain point of view) does not make it right to stand today, thus the discussion. Man-hour is a proper noun, person-hour is not. Jonchache (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, was typing in a rush. I have edited my comment above to take that into account.  However, my main point still stands - that the original version should stay in place while an alternative is discussed.  I am against "person-hour" as I don't see it as a GNL violation, and see it as an unnecessary change.
 * PS: Please note my comment directed to you on your talk page, re impersonating an admin.  Thanks.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note,, that you keep using the term "proper noun" in an incorrect way. "Man-hour" is not a proper noun. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right, I should use "a more proper noun than". Jonchache (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * the original, prior to October 2022, was "man-hour" Jonchache (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that this discussion is ongoing at Talk:American Airlines Flight 191. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Person-hour would confuse readers. I understand trying to follow WP:GNL but changing anything with man to person is not applicable in every situation. Additionally, the term man-hour is applicable to everyone not just males. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Prime (sports drink)
Could other contributors familiar on Wikipedia policy on article neutrality (along with appropriate sourcing etc) please take a look at ? There have been endemic issues with unsourced and questionably-sourced promotional content in the article, and a recent contributor, User:Tbf69, seems insistent on filling the article with content sourced to Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, the Sun etc, along with a complete list of ingredients, a 'sponsorship' sourced to a YouTube group run by one of the drink's creators, and other questionable content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern about the page Prime (sports drink).
 * I recognize content sourced to Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, the Sun is not ideal, therefore any other contributors willing to provide other references would be beneficial.
 * The full list of ingredients as sourced from the website, along with nutritional info, is designed to match the precedent set by the page Powerade.
 * The sponsorship of the Sidemen Charity Match in 2022 was a significant sponsorship.
 * Tbf69 (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbf69 (talk • contribs)
 * Firstly, if you wish to add content, it is your responsibility to find proper sourcing when asked, not anyone else's. Secondly, using content from an article clearly marked as improperly sourced and promotional as a justification for adding content to another article is questionable, to say the least. And lastly, the Sidemen Charity Match was organised by a YouTube group run in part by KSI, one of the founders of Prime. How exactly is sponsoring your own organisation 'notable'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ATG is biased (WP:BIAS) therefore shouldn't be editing the page. Tbf69 (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbf69 (talk • contribs)
 * Are you trying to get yourself blocked?: AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Try not being so rude in the future.
 * The page had significant issues before I began editing it.
 * My main question to you is, do you agree that the competition and ingredients section match the precedent set by the page Powerade? Tbf69 (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbf69 (talk • contribs)
 * Regarding rudeness, see and . Accusing experienced contributors of 'bias' because they understand Wikipedia policy better than you is a sure-fire way to encourage the sort of response you have been getting. As for 'precedent', Wikipedia doesn't work like that. There are a great many poor articles: their existence is no reason to create more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Incidentally, the Powerade products list had been tagged for maintenance for years, and I blanked it. WP:NOTCATALOG applies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I will jump in here. First off this discussion and the talk page of Prime is getting pretty heated so I want to remind everyone of WP:HOSTILE. Now for discussion - I would be very wary of content solely sourced from Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok. I do not think this would count as a significant sponsorship as it does not appear to pass WP:N(E). Additionally, the fact that one of the founders of the company was involved in the event seems to decrease how significant the sponsorship was. The sponsorship of Arsenal F.C. and the NASCAR driver are significant as they received significant outside media coverage. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I will jump in here. First off this discussion and the talk page of Prime is getting pretty heated so I want to remind everyone of WP:HOSTILE. Now for discussion - I would be very wary of content solely sourced from Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok. I do not think this would count as a significant sponsorship as it does not appear to pass WP:N(E). Additionally, the fact that one of the founders of the company was involved in the event seems to decrease how significant the sponsorship was. The sponsorship of Arsenal F.C. and the NASCAR driver are significant as they received significant outside media coverage. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of critical content from Priyamvada Gopal
Could uninvolved editors please weigh in on this discussion around significant changes in the content of the Priyamvada Gopal article since protection was removed. The most significant diff is here and the relevant talk page section is here Talk:Priyamvada Gopal. The main NPOV issue I am raising is the ommission of notable, sourced material referencing controversies, although this is exacerbated by inclusion of non-notable, poorly sourced material about the subject's academic career and positions, and non-NPOV changes to the language. These can be seen by comparison with the more NPOV version of [|the page when protection was removed] (User talk:Samuelshraga) 14:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is also a case concerning this BLP at DRN. It appears that the issue was a removal of content by an editor who has been blocked as a sockpuppet.  I think that this case can be closed here, either as resolved by blocking the disruptive sock, or as pending mediation at DRN.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: section on Ukrainian forces
I'd welcome more contributions to the discussions going on at Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Shall the article have a section on sexual violence committed by Ukrainian armed forces and law enforcement? The section, which was present in the first version of the article, has been repeatedly removed and restored . The last version of it can be read here:.
 * Related to the above: shall the category:Ukrainian war crimes be included in the article?
 * This is yet another instance of Gitz6666 engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and not respecting consensus. (Also failing to notify relevant discussing of his posting here)  Volunteer Marek   17:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Should the article have such section and the category?. I think the answer is no because the most recent UN report on October 18 blames only Russian army of committing the significant sexual violence. One can also check the original of the report  (pages 16-18 in English version). Importantly, this most recent report also summarizes their findings from previous reports. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Was this a notable subject of itself rather than another example of wartime sexual violence? Do we have sources specifically on the topic? I don't think the citations there support it being a separate topic. I'd have thought this should be a section in something else like war crimes in the war in Ukraine. NadVolum (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Sexual violence is always significant; the question here is whether its mention is WP:DUE. The October 18th report isn't a summary of all events throughout the war, but specific to "late February and March 2022 in the four provinces of Kyiv, Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Sumy" (p. 2 here). Other reports covering the period from the beginning of February to the end of October do mention "forced nudity" and "threats of sexual violence" by Ukrainian forces. I don't think it's even remotely comparable to what Russian soldiers have been documented committing, but it is mentioned. François Robere (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not object (and never objected) to mentioning such materials on the page if they are on the subject of the page, sourced to a couple of independent RS, and describe specific cases of violence, i.e. the sources tell what exactly had happen, where and when, or reliable statistical data, etc. I also do not mind creating a section if there is enough materials for the section. But at the very least, such section should be properly titled, i.e. if the source say it was committed by civilians, police and territorial forces, this should not be titled "Ukrainian forces" which translated in the context of the page as "Ukrainian army". Something like "Vigilante justice" would be a better title, but then it would probably belong to another page. That is all I am saying here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my answer is still no. Yes, sure, such section could be created if we had enough sourced materials for such section. But we do not. Yes, "vigilante justice" is bad, but news sources do not describe them as sexual offenses, hence such "justice" arguably does not belong to this page. See also my explanation here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * How is this even a debate? Has there been a war in history in which sexual violence has been perpetrated by only one side? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Probably and 2) why is that even relevant?  Volunteer Marek   04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that Ukraine hasn't invaded Russia. I really don't think this deserves a separate page. NadVolum (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That usually depends on the territory, i.e. the invading army usually commits such crimes on the territory of another occupied country. Armies usually commit few rapes of "their own people" on their own territory. This is true even with regard to Russian/Soviet army: most rapes were committed in Germany, even though such cases were documented everywhere. For the same reason, all such cases I know about during Second Chechen War, were committed by Russian forces, e.g. rape by Yuri Budanov, etc. But this is just a matter of sourcing. If there were many well covered and documented cases by any side, that would deserve a section. Looking at the proper sources, such as the most recent official report by UN (see above ), one can see that it includes (pages 16-18) a number of specific verified cases with details, all of which are crimes by Russian forces, which is not so surprising based on the trend described above. These cases do not include the alleged threat to a single soldier, which appears in the first diffs by Gitz. This is probably another "fake". My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That would then be another "fake" made by the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, since they were the ones who spread the news here (para. 44); the video is still visible on youtube, although I've reported it as abusive multiple times. Obviously, most of the sexual war crimes in Ukraine were committed by Russian soldiers, but there are also well-documented cases of sexual violence committed by Ukrainian soldiers and policemen, and I see no good reason not to report them in the dedicated article. The 18 October report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine does not invalidate/refute/disprove the 29 June report (para. 102) and the 27 September report (para. 54) of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, this claim does not appear in the latest (October) report by the same organization, a report that also summarizes their previous reports. But even in the earlier reports, it only says: "HRMMU has also received an allegation of CRSV perpetrated by Ukrainian forces, when a captured Russian military member was threatened with castration on camera". This "received allegation" is very different from specific cases that have been confirmed and mentioned in the latest report. No, checking various YouTube records is not our responsibility, and they are primary sources anyway. Yes, this is something highly doubtful and poorly documented in sources. And you started this thread to enforce inclusion of such "facts"... My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, speaking about their report on June 29 which does not appear in your diffs above brought to his noticeboard, it says something entirely different ("Out of 108 allegations, OHCHR verified 23 cases" and so on). Is that enough to create such subsection and make such category? I would say no because we need description of specific cases to create such section, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking about their report published on September 27 (pages 21-22), which also does not appear in your diffs in the beginning of this thread, they mention specific cases of such crimes only by Russian forces. They do mention several cases by Ukrainian forces, but do not provide any details, such as where and when each of the alleged episodes had happen. Again, this is not enough for creating such section on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean this is not enough? We don't need more information, let alone more sexual abuses - we report the information we have. The section on "Ukrainian forces" (last version: ) had perfectly verifiable and relevant contents. Nonetheless, it has been removed eight times from the article starting from April 2022. Three editors, who have always collaborated closely with one another, have achieved a result that strongly affects the neutrality of the article, and I would like to know - not specifically from you, but also from other uninvolved editors - if this is acceptable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there are no meaningful statistical data on this subject (the small numbers of cases are not representative and essentially meaningless at this point), although there are no doubts that the rapes by Russian forces are happening on a large scale, generally speaking. Therefore, the page should focus on well sourced and widely publicized specific cases at this point (that is what the most recent UN reports do). My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree we should publush the information we have (specific cases). I only object to publishing the information we don't have: mass rape used as a weapon of war. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ukraine is a combatant nation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If WP:RS talk about Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine committed by Ukrainian forces NPOV does not give us any other option other than to cover it, I'm not saying we make a false equivalence but your argument is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen written on wikipedia by an experienced editor. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thing is RS don't really talk about such. There's some reallllllyyyy big stretching going on to make it seem like some do but even there it's a mention or two of a possibility or such.  Volunteer Marek   04:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I think their point is simply that it's Russian soldiers on Ukrainian territory, terrorizing Ukrainians rather than vice versa so of course it makes sense that almost all if not all cases of sexual violence are going to be perpetrated by Russians. Maybe at some point Ukraine will start its march on Moscow or whatever and then maybe things will change but for now there's nothing surprising about this.  Volunteer Marek   04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing surprising about this, right - the only surprising thing is that you and your posse want to prevent us from reporting on sexual violence perpetrated by the Ukrainian forces, at least until Ukraine starts its march on Moscow. Another surprising thing is this: . I don't even understand the point of removing the tag:POV while discussions are ongoing both here and on the article talkpage. Since there is no consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved (Template:POV) I believe this already qualifies as sanctionable behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * the only surprising thing is that you and your posse… Why should I even bother replying to an obnoxious comment like that? Unless you strike the personal attacks there’s no point in discussing this with you.  Volunteer Marek   17:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think the citations justified setting up the article in the first place. But as to your point there is the question of weight, I would be just silly to go around complaining that the pond in my back yard should be included as a lake in Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the pond in the back yard should not be included as a lake, but it should probably be included as a pond. Given that there have been at least 11 documented cases of people being forcebly stripped and publicly beaten with sticks, as reported in the international media, in dozens of Ukrainian outlets and in no less than three reports of OHCHR/HRMMU, it is not such an insignificant pond after all, and certainly not a pleasant one for those who suffered that treatment. Verifiable information on Wikipedia and public scrutiny on these practices would not be a bad thing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT  Volunteer Marek   17:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of sexual violence in your citation. And the lead section citation of the articlewhich is supposed to give it notability deals with sexual violence as one of a number of things rather thn specifically, that's why I was saying the article shouldn't exist, it should be part of the Ukrine war crimes artice. That's what the citation there was talking about. NadVolum (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the logic of this to me? Even in civil wars and domestic security operations sexual violence occurs. In a war like the one in Ukraine we would expect Ukrainian forces to commit violence including of a sexual nature against collaborators and those they viewed as traitors. I have an academic background in torture and other violence in conflict and I'm just having a real hard time squaring what you guys are saying with reality and the literature. On the specific NPOV point if WP:RS have "a mention or two of a possibility or such" then our article should as well. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Meaning they would rape collaborators and traitors? Yes, sure, that would worth inclusion to the page if reliably sourced and documented as specific incidents that occur in certain time and places. But of course we should also follow the WP:NPOV on the page, i.e. we should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So, what are "the significant views"? Nearly all publications on this subject say something like this, i.e. "UN official: Russia using rape as war strategy in Ukraine", with supporting links to  ("UN panel reports Ukrainian children have been raped, tortured by Russian forces"), etc. So, whatever these sources say, we should fairly summarize them. And the "significant view" here is that nearly all crimes of this nature have been committed by Russian forces. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Objectively there is no such thing as a traitor, that's purely POV dependent. Having the vast majority of the article focus on Russian actions does not preclude a section talking about Ukrainian actions, even if only to note that there haven't been comparable atrocities. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Sure, one can have such section if there are enough well-sourced materials for the section (which I do not see at this point) and there is WP:Consensus to create such section. But not like this (1st diff in this thread), i.e. a single "allegation", while only 23 of 108 allegations have been confirmed later, according to their next report. Moreover, the cited source does not say what exactly had happen even in this single case, where and when. One should also prefer using the most recent UN reports, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The diff you shared shows tha article as it was on 18 April 2022: an excellent stub (actually more than a stub) created by Boud. Then the article was expanded by multiple users. The last version of the controversial section - the one worth discussing - is this: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That latest version says: "Since the beginning of the Russian invasion, videos circulated on social media and local media outlets showing people believed to be "marauders", bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators being tied to electricity poles or trees and beaten in public. Perpetrators were civilians, police officers and members of the territorial defence.." OK, there are two three serious problems here. (1) Yes, being tied and beaten is a vigilante justice and a human rights violation, but hardly anything of sexual nature (arguably does not belong to the page), and (2) if some or most of the perpetrators were civilians and police officers, why this is framed as crimes by Ukrainian army? But again, I agree that such section could be included if properly written, well sourced and supported by consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Third problem. It says "videos circulated on social media and local media outlets showing...". This is a textbook example of unreliable information that can not be trusted (especially in the context of war) and should not be included in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The OHCHR says that these incidents qualify as sexual violence when the victims are stripped naked, and their opinion on this is more significant than yours ("hardly anything of sexual nature"); 2) "Forces" includes both "armed forces" and "police forces", and the subject of the article is sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which doesn't necessarily have to be perpetrated by soliders: policemen and civilians can also commit conflict-related sexual violence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well you've resoundingly won that argument... Any other questions My very best wishes? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't justify having the article in the first place. They are described as crimes or war crimes and somebody in Wikipedia haswritted an article selecting what they consider sex crimes. Yes I can see some people considering being stripped naked a crime but it happens every day in jails and people are liable to be subject to it at for instance airports. Intent has to be considered and it doesn't sound like the stripping was supposed to be sexual but a form of humiliation and would be classed as a different form of crime from a sex crime. We should follow the sources and have the article lumped in with war crimes which is what they are. NadVolum (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can nominate the article for deletion then. Do you understand how absurd your arguments sound to anyone with an academic background? You say that stripping someone is not sexual but a form of humiliation... Ignoring entirely that the sexual aspect is what makes it humiliating. I'm kind of shocked at your ignorance, in general rape as a weapon of war is not for the personal sexual gratification of the rapists... the primary point is in fact to humiliate the victim. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have an academic backgrund but luckily I haven't as a result started making foolish equvalences between being naked and being raped. NadVolum (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not have an academic background in torture and sexual violence in war otherwise you would know that both of those are forms of sexual violence. Its not a foolish equivalence, they are genuinely in the same category. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You genuinely believe that pulling someone (a looter’s) pants down is equivalent to raping parents in front of their children or raping children? That’s it. We’re done. I honestly couldn’t care less now what your views on this subject are.  Volunteer Marek   22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They are equivalent in that they are both sexual violence. I understand that you find the content matter disturbing, it is certainly among the hardest to grapple with. If you ever are interested in learning more about the subject I suggest that you start with Torture and Democracy, The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law, and Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War?. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the word “equivalent” means something else in your world than mine.  Volunteer Marek   23:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mars and Jupiter are equivalent in that they are both planets. That doesn't mean that they're the same thing, equivalence only goes as far as they category they're equivalent in... Two things being sexual violence does not mean that those two things are equally bad. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your argument though is more like “both the common cold and terminal cancer are sicknesses, therefore they’re equivalent”.  Volunteer Marek   03:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a true statement, they are equivalent in that they are both sicknesses. There are many ways in which they aren't equivalent but that is one in which they are. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ookay.  Volunteer Marek   19:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess you're disappointed the journalists writing about the stripping didn't grasp that it was a sex crime, but then again they have not been academically educated. It means however we are unable to call them sex crimes in the article in Wikipedia because of the WP:OR policy. NadVolum (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Who said we were going to do that? IMO the primary thing we should be mentioning about Ukrainian forces is that they have not engaged in the same sort of widespread sexual violence, you apparently don't want *any* mention of Ukrainian activities at all which is just bizarre. We can't just categorically exclude one side of a war from our coverage about that war. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is ass backwards. You’re starting from the *assumption* that both sides are guilty and then arguing that we therefore we have to include both. We can’t just categorically *include* one side of a war in our coverage of the war *when that side hasn’t done what the other side has* This is kind of elementary.  Volunteer Marek   00:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're talking gibberish, what you just said has no resemblance to what I've argued. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I think it’s a pretty accurate description of your reasoning here, as well as some of your comments above where you assert - without sources or evidence - that both sides must be guilty simply “just because” (quote: “ Has there been a war in history in which sexual violence has been perpetrated by only one side?”)  Volunteer Marek   03:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And where do you get "guilty" out of that? I made no comments regarding courts. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * well, NadVolum, since the OHCHR calls it "sexual violence" why couldn't we do the same? OHCHR reports are obviously a reliable source and they have also expertise in the pertinent area. Or do you have a source claiming that the OHCHR misinterpreted or misapplied the concept of conflict-related sexual violence when they referred it to the mistreatment of looters in Ukraine? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Have another look at the OHCHR report. It does not say the stripping was sexual violence. It says there may be some sexual violence related to that. I can't argue with that, it is possible just there's been no report of any. The case of sexual violence they actually talk about is the the Russian soldiers being threathened with castration. NadVolum (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you object to the article being limited to war crimes or expanded to human rights abuses instead of concentrating on sex? I don't believe we have an article on sexual violence or human rights abuses in the second world war, but if OHCHR is to be a major source and you specifically want to include sexual violence surely it should set the topic? NadVolum (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not replying to your second question because I think it's off-topic. The subject of the article is "Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". If you think it's not notable, take it to WP:AFD; if you want to change the subject, you can propose to move the article following the process detailed at WP:RM. Here we're discussing about having a section on "Ukrainian forces" in an article that has the subject and the title that it currently has. You're first remark, however, is relevant: does OHCHR say that forced public stripping amount to conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV)? The answer is: "Yes": Since we have reliable sources with specific expertise in the area of CRSV/law (WP:RSLAW) reporting that CRSV was committed by Ukrainian armed forces and police in the context of the Russian invasion, IMHO we need a strong argument to exclude these contents from the article without affecting its neutrality. This is the topic on which I opened a discussion on this noticeboard. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * March update: OHCHR also notes that binding partially or fully stripped persons to poles or trees and beating them in public could also amount to CRSV.
 * June report: Five acts of CRSV were committed by Ukrainian armed forces, including territorial defence, or other law enforcement bodies, which consisted of forced public stripping and threats of sexual violence;
 * December update: Since 24 February 2022, HRMMU has documented 86 cases of CRSV against women, men, and girls, including ... forced nudity and forced public stripping;
 * Those three citations do not say stripping is a CRSV violation. The first says some cases could amount to CRSV. The second combines it with threats of sexual violence, were these cases of Russian soldiers being threathened with castration?, the third does not specify which side did what but said the majority were by Russian forces. Its good enough for human rights abuses but not for that article. NadVolum (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're seriusly claiming that "Five acts of CRSV were committed by Ukrainian armed forces, including territorial defence, or other law enforcement bodies, which consisted of forced public stripping and threats of sexual violence", does not imply that forced public stripping is a CRSV. Is that what you're saying? Mind WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It i a bureaucratic organisation. If they wanted to be clear they would be. But they say might and could about it. And in this case they link it with a threat of sexual violence without giving the circumstances. They never say any of the stripping is an act of sexual violemce and nobody else has either. I can see you're very keen to label it as such but you need clear citations for things like that and these are most definitely not that. NadVolum (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see any justification in excluding the reports by well-respected international organisations on sexual violence attributed to Ukrainian authorities/security forces. The proportions of attention should respect WP:DUE: that doesn't mean zero sentences/paragraphs on the quantitatively/qualitatively less significant incidents of sexual violence. More reports are available now since my initial stub, but unless the more recent reports directly contradict the earlier ones, we cannot infer that the older reports are considered wrong by the same organisations. I (numbers of sections, paragraphs, sentences) what seemed to follow WP:DUE based on the 26 March 2022 report available at that time. Boud (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like a topic that RECENTISM applies...we are not going to have any clear picture of much of what is going on beyond the major offenses in the war to try to be documenting from spotty accounts and weaker RSes. We do not need to be instantly up to date and it is far better to.hold off until a better picture of events can be documented from RSes, which may be months or years from now. --M asem (t) 20:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Our articles on war crimes during the Russian invasion do not offer a clear picture of what's going on. Based on the available sources (mainly news reports and reports from international organisations and NGOs) we cannot offer such a picture: the most we can do is reject blatant propaganda and highlight the conflict between incompatible accounts of the same incident ("the Russians say x, the Ukrainians say y"). But what we're doing is neither useless nor uninformative: we're offering a chronologically and thematically ordered summary of what Wikipedia's RSs are reporting about war crimes/sexual violence/torture/etc. allegedly taking place during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the future, it will be possible to compare what we thought we knew in 2022 with what (according to future historians) actually happened. However, in order for that comparison to be meaningful, and in order to provide our current readers with a relatively neutral and reliable account of the events, we must have a section on "(sexual violence committed by) Ukrainian forces". Removing that section is obviously incompatibile with our committment to NPOV. So far, I don't see a consensus for removal - in fact, only three editors have argued for removing the section. WP:NOCON applies. But it would be desirable/less contentious if other editors made it clear that we cannot simply disregard and silence RSs reporting about conflict-related sexual violence by the Ukrainian side. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * in fact, only three editors have argued for removing the section Out of the four that are active on the article, lol. This right here folks is the problem with Gitz6666’s approach to editing in a nutshell. I AM CONSENSUS!  Volunteer Marek   20:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally we take the opinions of uninvolved editors more seriously and not less seriously than the opinions of involved editors. Are you suggesting that we are only to take seriously the opinions of those who are active on the article? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, what I’m obviously suggesting is that Gitz’s framing of the discussion so far as “only three editors argued for removing the section” is, to put it politely, disingenuous.  Volunteer Marek   21:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella has commented on the talk page but I wouldn't say she is "active on the article". And My very best wishes is not "active" on the article at all, nor is he active elsewhere, as far as I can see: he doesn't publish anything. He just removes text from articles that doesn't fit his POV on Russia, occasionally takes editors to AE and to 3RR/N, or expresses his views there, and follows Volunteer Marek's edits wherever he goes, to support his views on talk page discussions and in edit wars. I'm not sure that this way of being "active" should make his point of view particularly authoritative as fas as establishing consensus is concerned. I think that the closer, if there will be a formal close, should take this into serious consideration: between VM, MVBW and GCB there's a long-term collaboration, while Boud, Horse Eye's Back and I are three completely independent and unrelated editors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You can wiki lawyer however you like but all that you’re doing at the end of the day is pretending that you alone determine consensus even when there’s many editors who disagree with you. You have both been warned and threatened with sanction on account of such WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior before.  Volunteer Marek   21:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You too have been warned, threatened with sanction and actually even sanctioned in the recent past. Since you've removed a well-sourced section from the article no less than 6 times (maybe more) without a clear consensus behind, I would be a little less boisterous and haughty, a little more accomodating and humble, if I were you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not the one that’s been indef banned on several other wikis already. The section was not “well sourced”. Yes, there is consensus for removal. And even if there wasn’t, you’re the one who needs consensus for inclusion per WP:ONUS, not the other way around. And before you ask others to be more “accommodating and humble” you might wanna strike your personal attacks and completely false WP:ASPERSIONS about them, as already asked twice.  Volunteer Marek   03:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I had missed this comment, which requires a reply.
 * First, I haven't been banned on several other wikis. I'm currently banned only on es.wiki, and I believe that this was a blatant mistake that sooner or later they'll address (I'm not a POV-pusher on the Quran... and I made no edit war ).
 * Secondly, WP:ONUS doesn't apply here: here the guiding policy is WP:NOCON. WP:ONUS is about consensus-building and says that, when there is contentious material, leave it out of the article while discussion happens. WP:NOCON says that at the conclusion of the discussion, a "no consensus" result causes a return to status quo ante. Here the status quo is inclusion: the section has always been in the article, and 3 editors against 3 is no consensus.
 * Finally, with regard to WP:ASPERSIONS... well, I've nothing to say about this. You've done nothing but casting aspersions on this thread and elsewhere for months, so I really don't know how to reply. I'm not going to strike anything. If you have complaints about behaviour, please take them to WP:AN/I or WP:AE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: need for formal closure?. Perhaps we need a formal closure here or at least an admin/experienced user who's kind enough to guide us to the end of this discussion. If I'm not wrong, apart from myself also Horse Eye's Back, Boud and perhaps François Robere argued that the section should not be removed from the article. On the other side, My very best wishes, Volunteer Marek, NadVolum (if I'm not mistaken) and GizzyCatBella (on the article talk page) argued that the section should be removed. I think that in a case as this one WP:NOCON applies and the section should be retained: If the other editors want to remove the section, they need to build a consensus, e.g., open an RfC. However, VM  and MVBW  don't agree and reverted my attempts to restore the section. How shall we move forward? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. if YOU want to include the section, in face of disagreement from multiple editors, YOU need to build consensus. Please stop trying to WP:GAME this by turning Wikipedia policy on its ass.  Volunteer Marek   20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Asking at Closure requests might lead to an uninvolved person closing this discussion. Boud (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Let’s be perfectly clear here. The main if not only reason for including this info is so that the article can say “BOTH Ukraine and Russian forces have committed sexual violence”. On one hand we have Russian troops raping parents in front of their children, raping children, raping each other, torture, sexual mutilation and other sick and abhorrent stuff. On the other hand we have that, early in the invasion some Ukrainian vigilantes caught some looters who were trying to take advantage of the initial chaos, tied them to poles and pulled down their pants. But yeah… “BOTH Ukraine and Russian forces have committed sexual violence”. Gimme a fucking break. And don’t even try to tell me about AGF. That ship sails the moment this kind of disgusting moral equivalence is pushed in our articles and presented as “neutrality”. And oh yeah, sources don’t support this nonsense either. And it’s UNDUE given reporting in reliable sources. And there’s absolutely no consensus for it. As User:Black Kite said, “ Why has Gitz6666 not yet received a topic ban from this entire area?”   Volunteer Marek   20:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If that is genuinely what you think is going on here I suggest that you currently lack the disposition to edit this topic area. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And if you don’t think that this is exactly what is going on here then you lack the competence and the background information necessary to edit this topic area.  Volunteer Marek   21:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Today I proposed a new lead for the article, which of course MVBW removed immediately. You can read it here . Obviously it can be improved, and I'd welcome your help in making it better, but could anyone in their right mind think that this text establishes some kind of "moral equivalence" between the two sides? There's no such an equivalence: sexual crimes committed by Russian forces are more numerous and more serious than those committed by Ukrainian forces. This clearly emerges from the lead I have proposed, because it emerges from the sources on which the lead is based. Reliable sources tell us that The majority of these violations [sexual violence] were perpetrated by members of Russian armed forces or law enforcement authorities (OHCHR, 2 Dec 2022). Why on earth can't we say the same? Why should we cover up sexual violence committed by Ukrainian forces and make it appear that all violations were perpetrated by Russian soldiers and policemen? What good would come of it? The encyclopedia would be less complete, less reliable, less authoritative - and readers are not stupid, they would realise this and conclude that it's all propaganda, and if anything goes then Russia Today is as good as anything else. Do as you think it's best, but IMHO having a section on sexual violence by Ukrainian forces is the bottom line of our credibility. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not among my reasons for wanting to include the info. Are you saying that you understand my motivations but that I do not? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * After reading numerous publications on this subject it appears that almost all war crimes (I can not put an percentage here) are committed by Russian forces. Therefore, WP:GEVAL does apply here. We can not just say "both sides are guilty" as Gitz suggests. As about vigilante justice, yes, this is bad, but the typical news sources do not describe them as sexual offenses, hence the inclusion of such materials to this page is at best debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This has already been explained at least half a dozen times which is why it’s so frustrating that Gitz keeps beating this dead horse and can’t just respect consensus. The proposed phrasing is POV because it does not reflect the overall nature of the sources. Worse it doesn’t even say what the given sources, as cherry picked as they are, say. For example this source which is being used to cite the opening sentence in Gitz’s proposed text does NOT say “(sexual violence has been committed) by Ukrainian forces” or anything like it. “To a lesser extent” or not, it just simply doesn’t say Ukrainian forces committed ANY sexual violence. This is simply Gitz’s invention. And so on and so forth, I’m tired of explaining this repeatedly particularly since I’m pretty sure it will do nothing to change Gitz’s WP:TENDENTIOUSness.   Volunteer Marek   21:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We aren't debating any proposed phrasing in this discussion, perhaps that's a different discussion on the talk page? This discussion is much broader. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the fact that they’re proposing text which completely misrepresents sources and then has the chutzpah to call that “a compromise” kind of illustrates what the underlying behavioral issue here is.  Volunteer Marek   03:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From my perspective there is the general NPOV question that this noticeboard is equipped to answer and then there is the rest of it. I'm offering my opinion on the larger question of whether or not WP:NPOV supports the inclusion of at least a passing mention of Ukrainian actions and/or inactions in the war (I think we do have the sources for such a section, albeit a very small one). If there are behavioral issues you think need to be addressed I don't think this is the place to do it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As suggested by Boud answering my question, I've asked for a formal closure of this discussion: . May I suggest that we editors who have already expressed our views repeatedly in this already vey long thread disengage? If other editors want to add their views, they are welcome and free to do so until the discussion is formally closed (if it will be formally closed). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you should shift that from the Administrative discussions section to the Other types of closing requests section - there are no particular administrative powers that are needed to judge what NPOV is in this situation; this is a matter of interpreting Wikipedia policy, where admins have no particular rights above those of other editors. What's needed is someone who is uninvolved in the discussion and can close it in a sufficiently clear and justified way that any appeal to override the closing is unlikely to be accepted: that person might be an admin, but doesn't have to be. Boud (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The sources above are being completely mischaracterized and there inclusion is not only undue but off topic. There is no evidence that rape sexual violence as a tool of war or terror is being used by Ukrainian forces; there is overwhelming evidence that Russian forces are using rape sexual violence as a tool of war or terror. Crimes committed by military personnel are different from using rape sexual violence as a tool of war. I think this is an attempt to create an twisted moral equivalency between the actions of Russian forces and Ukrainian forces.
 * There is not a consensus for this inclusion. I think Gitz6666 is engaging in chronic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and believe it is WP:DE; as mentioned above, a topic ban needs to be considered.  // Timothy :: talk  17:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is neither "rape" nor "rape as a weapon of war": it is "sexual violence" related to the conflict in Ukraine. According to WP:RS Members of the Ukrainian armed forces and law enforcement agencies have occasionally engaged in conflict-related sexual violence.
 * The sentence there is overwhelming evidence that Russian forces are using rape as a tool of war or terror is false. While it may be true that they're using it as a tool of war or terror, it is sure that there is not overwhelming evidence of this. OHCHR in its latest report said it could not evaluate the scale of sexual violence and we know that by 31 October the Ukrainian authorities were investigating 43 cases of sexual violence, which is too many but, after 8 months of invasion with tens of thousands of soldiers on the ground, seems incompatible with the claim (never officially made by the UN, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch or any other major human rights organisation) about "mass rape used as a weapon of war". We shouldn't express that claim with wikivoice in the lead, and on this there's currently a thread at WP:OR/N: here. Before expressing your views there, please read the discussion.
 * There is not a consensus for this inclusion. I don't agree: there is not a consensus for this removal. In fact the section on Ukrainian forces has always been included in the article and has now been temporarily removed per WP:ONUS. Once this discussion is closed (apparently with no consensus for removal) WP:NOCON applies and the section should be restored.
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strike " rape " replace with "sexual violence". My comments stand.  // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article history shows this material is disputed and never had consensus for inclusion; the onus is on those that wish to include it to gain consensus.  // Timothy :: talk  18:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Criticism at the Samvel Karapetyan article
Could someone uninvolved look at Talk:Samvel_Karapetyan_(author) and opine whether criticism could be included one way or the other? The disagreement has led to repeated reverts. My opinion is that scholar criticism is a natural biographical part of many scholars and researchers and that particularly in case of a wikinotable author, his peer criticism could be included in the biography of another peer researcher. Thanks in advance. Brandmeistertalk  10:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not even scholarly criticism of any of Karapetyan's work, it's more of De Waal having a different opinion. No other sources have made this criticism, so it is undue and potentially libelous. Also De Waal is just a journalist, he is no peer and has no qualifications to be critical of a respected researcher like Karapetyan. --Dallavid (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Porter and Jick letter
Three different users, including an admin, have reverted to an earlier version of Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics, for reasons which have nothing to do with content. I believe these reverts have removed important details and reintroduced structural issues with the article. They've also reintroduced wording about "Methodological limitations from which the letter suffered", almost implying that there was a problem with the letter itself, though the cited sources don't characterize it that way. Also, a partial quote at the end almost makes it sound like Jick was taking some blame for this, whereas the full quote in the cited source does not give that impression. All of this could be fixed just by undoing the last revert, which again had nothing to do with content. 81.0.64.6 (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * YOu need to make a case at the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Kenneth Roth
Would be helpful to have some outside eyes on Kenneth Roth / Talk:Kenneth Roth. Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oregon Forest Resources Institute
Could a neutral third party please look at the Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) article, especially how the organization is described incorrectly at the top of the article as a "forestry trade association" and "de facto lobbying organization" to verify that this article appears to be written as an attack on OFRI from detractors of the Institute? I represent OFRI and therefore have a conflict of interest, but I believe the most recent editors of the page have a conflict of interest as well and have been citing selective details from several-years-old media coverage of the agency to paint it in a negative light. Take a look at the talk for more details about our concerns with the way this article about our organization is written. OreForests (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to join the discussion at Emrah Safa Gurkan page
Hi, we are engaged in a content dispute in the talk page of Emrah Safa Gürkan article. It is a relatively obscure page; that's why I wanted to publicize the discussion. Thank you. Man-at-Bogomil (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh
I would like to ask for third party opinions with regard to proper wording and attribution of statements by top officials of Azerbaijan and Russia. Please see here:, and relevant discussion here: In my opinion, the statements of top state officials should simply be attributed to the persons who made them, without using non-neutral wording such as "alleged". Grand master  00:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * All countries and organizations stated for Azerbaijan to lift the blockade. Third-party WP:RS clearly stated that supplies are running low or either are entirely lost due to the blockade. HRW, referring to some media reports, said trucks allegedly containing humanitarian goods were allowed to pass. Red cross helped transport a patient / delivered medicine and baby food once (from article's sources), that's it.
 * So fringe, undue and extraordinary claims of Aliev ("about four hundred trucks of peacekeepers have passed through the corridor" / "Red Cross was granted permission to pass as many times as they asked") either stay as Aliev alleged (which is completely appropriate wording for this instance given Aliev's wild claims in contradiction to majority RS, countries and orgs) or don't stay in the article at all for violating WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, that's my view. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not undue or extraordinary, because in addition to reports in Azerbaijani media, there is plenty of video evidence of Russian supply convoys passing into Karabakh daily. Some examples:   Every day dozens of Russian supply trucks move via Lachin road in both directions. Some days the number of trucks reaches 50. Also, it is not up to us to evaluate veracity of statements of officials. It is a WP:OR. Statements must be presented with attribution, as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, without any POV language such as "alleged".  Grand  master  10:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I should also add that the use of words such as "alleged" is generally not recommended by MOS:ALLEGED. Grand  master  11:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for inputs @ Talk:Islamic feminism
Request for inputs @ Talk:Islamic feminism

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking for guidance on unresolved litigation
In the Gannett article, there's a section called Gannett. An IP editor on the talk page thinks this section needs more vetting. There is no outright dispute at this time. I expect that at some point, editors at WP would have worked through how to handle content about ongoing litigation but I can't find it, so I'm just asking for a pointer to it, if it exists. Thanks. Novellasyes (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Undue additions at Enoch, Utah
User:Valereee reverted edits to re-insert text which, by its depth of detail and quantity of text, added undue weight.

The text prior to User:Valereee's reverts read: "On January 4, 2023, eight people were found dead from gunshot wounds inside a home after a welfare check by police."

My text removals:
 * 
 * 

Edits by User:Valereee:
 * 
 * 
 * 

The unresolved content dispute is at Talk:Enoch, Utah. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was a major step from just discussing at talk. Not sure why we needed to come to a discussion board, but okay. I don't really care if we include that content there, we can just create Enoch Police Department. Valereee (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Death of Keenan Anderson
I'd welcome more input in a dispute over whether to include the results of a preliminary police toxicology report in the lead of Death of Keenan Anderson. The discussion so far is at §Toxicology report in lede? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I was considering adding a comment, but then had the thought that since there's a healthy discussion in progress on the article's Talk page, starting a discussion here is likely to make the conversation difficult to follow. I understand you're seeking wider input, but just the appearance of this on the Noticeboard page may suffice in attracting editors to the Talk:Death of Keenan Anderson page. Anyway, that's where I'm headed. Hope that helps. Allreet (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Allreet. Yes, I think it make sense to keep discussion at the article talk page, so this notice is really a "Come on in! We can't decide if the water's warm or not!" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Academic bias and Rock balancing
Should the views of rock balancing artists have the same weight as the views of scientists and conservationists? Geogene (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I note here that the actual question, based on the actual sources in the article is "Are WIRED, Vice, and the Denver Post roughly equivalent sources to Smithsonian Magazine, the AP, and the Guardian?" Whose views each source is describing is irrelevant from an NPOV view: almost by definition, if a reliable source reports on the views of rock balancing artists they do in fact have the same weight as if a reliable source reports on the views of conservationists that have a problem with rock balancing. Loki (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Views on what? Rock balancing as a form of art? The environmental consequences of rock balancing? Regarding the former, I'd have to suggest that the artists themselves are hardly the best source for its artistic merit, and secondary sourcing (from the wider world of art criticism) would be preferable. As for the latter, I'd think that the Smithsonian probably knows what they are talking about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no commentary on rock balancing in the wider world of art criticism that could be used as sourcing. Geogene (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like the artists are described by secondary sources and it is a reasonable thng to do in an article like that. Peronally I think people should take more care when in community space not to destroy part of that space, but we should just follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Would be rock balancing artists should just leave Makka Pakka to be the extablished expert. NadVolum (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * These various groups aren't, I think, being given any weight at all on each others' territory: artists that say balancing rocks is relaxing and looks nice, conservationists are concerned that it causes environmental damage in protected areas, national parks say it's messing up their trail markers. The artists aren't presented or quoted as disagreeing with any of that (one of them even says that he knocks the stacks over before leaving), and the conservationists aren't offering any negative artistic critique.
 * The article could be rewritten with less direct quotation, but if we're writing about an artistic practice that damages the environment, we need to give some context and detail about what that practice actually involves, and why people are doing it. --Belbury (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Per all of the above, these are not opposing viewpoints, these are orthogonal viewpoints. There's room in the article for both.  -- Jayron 32 14:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This, as long as we're not talking about, as Andy framed it, "environmental consequences". We shouldn't be saying "a geologist interviewed by Smithsonian Magazine says it's bad, but this artist says there's no harm." &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Going on the above it suggests there are not years of sources that editors can infer what is the popular view, and as such, both should be presented with equality weight in regards to validity, and definitely not claim who is right or wrong M asem (t) 21:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Project Veritas
Project Veritas released a new covid-related video recently and as usual it's full of lies and misdirection, so expect an uptick in traffic on the article. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:44BA:33D4:C395:AEEB (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless there are sources paying attention to their claims about covid, we can not actually cover the topic. Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Needs some attention
Needs some attention @ Talk:History of slavery in the Muslim world

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Weasel words, lack of NPOV, etc. on article: Gab (social network)
The use of "Widely described as" in the second sentence is weasel words. Some other editors seem to disagree adamantly. Attempted to make changes citing sources to either replace weasel words or provide more factual context for the reader. My edits, intended to maintain NPOV, were quickly reverted by other editors for what appears to be nitpicky reasons and potentially some argumentum ad populum concerning the disputed NPOV/WW.

I'm concerned that their preconceptions about the social network (for example "Gab = bad" or "Alt tech = bad") is clouding their editorial judgment. It appears that most of the article — most alarmingly right in the first paragraph / lead section — presents heavy negative bias and criticism. In fact, I would say in the current state of the article, the controversy surrounding Gab is more emphasized than what Gab actually even is. I am concerned with "how facts are selected, presented, or organized" (Quote from: NPOV (Neutral point of view) ).

Please help resolve this issue.

See: Talk:Gab (social network) - Where I explained my reasoning in depth.

See: Gab (social network) - The article in question.

Relevant Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gab_(social_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1134253361

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gab_(social_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1134631685

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gab_(social_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1135559033

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gab_(social_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1135801747

User Page Notice(s):

I have posted "NPOVN-notice" notices on the related user talk pages, particularly to the editors who seem to have an issue with my edits. (i.e.: User talk:Shorn again | User talk:HandThatFeeds | User talk:Writ Keeper | User:Slatersteven)

I have also received an edit war accusation in the form of a notice from User:Slatersteven because of my attempts to correct the lack of NPOV in this article. The notice is currently visible on my user page: User talk:Commandur. Commandur (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * NO you received it for making 4 edits (3 reverts and an initial edit). In other words wp:editwaring. Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your argument is weak. Please substantiate how my edits are "edit warring". Please review the diffs before further comment. Commandur (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No its not, policy says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." you made three reverts did you not? Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that my good faith contributions in the Talk page as well as here provide ample evidence I am not participating in edit warring. Certainly not to some detrimental degree at any rate. Even so, I am not even remotely close to the typical three-edits-a-day guideline which you cited. Each edit was at least a day apart, January 15, January 19, January 25, and January 26, with attempts at discussing the issue on the Talk page twice in between.
 * Instead of trying to attack me with accusations of edit warring, why not properly debate my arguments about how the article can be improved?
 * According to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not a democracy that relies on majority vote, and the best argument should win any dispute. While it is much easier to cater to the majority opinion in many cases (or even to what is merely *perceived* as the majority opinion), sometimes dissent is crucial for progress. Our mutual goal should be improving the article. Not nitpicking good-faith edits. Do you have a solid argument that the article is already written entirely in NPOV? Because I am not the only one who thinks that it is not.
 * Clearly the lack of numerical representation of my opinion in this section is more due to how I did not specifically invite people here who agree with me, so much as the fact I called the editors who disagree with me here to discuss it.
 * A news company may decide that bias is acceptable on their news article, but editorial bias still has no place being in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia's purpose is to provide information. It is the reader's responsibility to decide what to do with that information. Not the editor's. Commandur (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See the posts below, academic sources say it is, it is primarily notable because of it. As to what edit war says "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.", so (and I appoligise) you did not breach 3RR, but you did repeatedly revert to your version, which is still can be seen as edit warring. Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are citations for the characterization of the site right in the lede. How would you like its userbase to be described? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The tone of the lede is all wonky. While identify that Gab is a home for many of a far right and extremist user, it puts those first before saying what Gab was originally designed for then became, in contrast with networks like Truth Social or Parker which were designed to favor the right views. The lede us overly critical in wikivoice, though these positions should not be whitewashed out if the lede M asem (t) 21:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever other stuff says, doesn’t it make sense to start with the present? Doug Weller  talk 21:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, a neutral tone starts with the most objective aspects (which would include the creation and original history of the service), and then moves into the subjective ones. Starting with subjective elements - even if there's strong support from the media for that - immediately frames the article as a strong negative critique of the service. We should never be writing that way. We can include the negative critique of the service, but the ordering when it is introduced is very key to keep our tone neutral, impartial and disinterested. M asem (t) 00:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's contrast this with the lede to United States:
 * The United States of America (U.S.A. or USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US) or America, is a country primarily located in North America. It consists of 50 states, a federal district, five major unincorporated territories, nine Minor Outlying Islands, and 326 Indian reservations. The United States is also in free association with three Pacific Island sovereign states: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. It is the world's third-largest country by both land and total area. It shares land borders with Canada to its north and with Mexico to its south. It has maritime borders with the Bahamas, Cuba, Russia, and other nations. With a population of over 333 million, it is the most populous country in the Americas and the third most populous in the world. The national capital is Washington, D.C. and the most populous city and financial center is New York City.
 * All present tense and current state, nothing about the origin. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral starts and finishes with neutrally summarising reliable sources. Because what is objective or subjective is in itself a subjective judgement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply providing citations does not excuse biased writing. Many readers are not going to take the time to check the cited sources to see who is saying it. Saying weasel words like "widely described" makes them think it is a unanimous agreement by some undefined, ambiguous group of "other people". Please state in-line who is making such a critical statement if you want to keep the statement in the article. Doing due diligence on this aspect is paramount due to the controversial nature of the article. Commandur (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any characterization we could make of the sources that describe Gab's userbase in these ways that would be based on reliable sources? If not, we can't really say anything other than these characterizations exist and are widespread. We could tone down the language to "described in the media" rather than "widely described" and "haven" could be rephrased or put in quotes perhaps (not sure of MOS etc. on using quotes for attribution if that is the case here). —DIYeditor (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good way to go about it. Really, that is the type of change I have been trying to suggest, but it has mostly been falling on deaf ears. Commandur (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really sure why I'm here. The one edit I reverted is not super consequential in terms of POV, and has nothing to do with weasel words; it's more an issue of sourcing, as I don't see any support for Commandur's addition in the source they cited. Can't speak to any of the other reversions, as I don't know about them. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For that edit, I was referring to this statement from the source:
 * "Gab launched in 2016 and bills itself as a 'social network for creators who believe in free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of information online.' But the site has run into controversy over the years for allowing extremist content with very little oversight."
 * I was trying to paraphrase as I think it's bad form to take it verbatim. I think that "very little oversight" and "lax moderation" are basically the same thing, don't you? Perhaps there is a better way to phrase it, though.
 * As for why you are here, because your removal's supporting statement, "rm; unsupported by source. "due to lax moderation" implies that that they're trying to moderate the content, but no such statement exists in the source" is incorrect, and I have just had my other edits removed by other editors, so it made sense an unmerited removal of my content seemed suspicious. As it seems I was wrong about that, sorry for disturbing you. However, now that we are here, do you understand why the source supports my "lax moderation" statement? How do you think it should be phrased? Commandur (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Lax moderation' implies that they are just bad at moderation, but the point the source is making is that they are purposefully allowing the content. MrOllie (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not here to make judgement calls about what an article intends, but rather to state facts as gleaned from various reputable sources. As far as I am concerned we do not reference sources so that we can regurgitate their original intended purpose, but so that we can glean actual facts to help us improve the article in question.
 * Regardless, I do not see any clear evidence that the source is accusing them of "purposefully allowing" such content. What I see is this statement: "allowing extremist content with very little oversight."
 * The article clearly states that moderation is very light, in other words, it is lax moderation just as I stated in my edit. It seems you are very focused on the part "allowing extremist content" without paying any heed to the last part: "very little oversight". Please explain to me how you think I have misunderstood the article's statements. Commandur (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am focused on the idea that 'allowing extremist content' means that they are allowing extremist content on their platform. MrOllie (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That just adds more evidence that it is "lax moderation". Just because you personally feel like there is no moderation whatsoever, does not make it a fact. Likewise, that they are "purposefully allowing the content" is more of a loaded statement than what is in the original source. "Allowing the content" has a completely different tone than "purposefully allowing the content", where the second infers intentional malice on the part of the platform. Commandur (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Equating "allowing the content" with "lax moderation" is a way bigger stretch than equating "allowing the content" to "purposefully allowing the content", but regardless, the revision I reverted to didn't make either assertion. Yours did make an assertion, so the onus is on you to support, and that source does not do so. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My statement asserted the fact that is mentioned in the article. If you did not agree with the phrasing or did not appreciate the wording, you could feel free to improve it instead of completely deleting it. So why did you delete it instead of improving it, then? Commandur (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article was improved by the removal of your text. That is really the beginning and the end of the matter. Zaathras (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't just make a claim. Substantiate your claim. Commandur (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @User:Slatersteven - pay attention to User:Writ Keeper's comment, "The one edit I reverted is not super consequential in terms of POV".
 * If it is inconsequential to the POV, then you may no longer logically use that specific edit to substantiate that I was "edit warring". Commandur (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how edit-warring works. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering someone needs some sort of motivation to participate in edit-warring, I do think it works like that, at least to some degree.
 * I mean, I could also argue that User talk:HandThatFeeds who removed two of my edits in a row with dubious reasons may be participating in edit warring, but perhaps that would be petty. Commandur (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, not at all how it works. People get blocked for edit warring over inconsequential stuff all the time - I can think of a case where someone got blocked over whether a dash should be an en-dash or an em-dash. MrOllie (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit warring over inconsequential stuff is actually worse, its just disruptive without arguably fulfilling a higher purpose. The most consequential area (BLP) actually has carveouts from the normal edit warring criteria. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please ask yourselves: Why are people so vehemently fighting against mentioning the source of the statement within the text of the article? What is their motivation? The reason "because it is unnecessary to do so" does not seem to warrant this magnitude of a response. Hence my mention of "censoring NPOV edits" on the article's Talk page. Commandur (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, accusing other users of "censoring" without evidence is just a personal attack. Quite frankly, this sounds like you're here to fight on behalf of Gab. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not here to fight for Gab, in fact I didn't even know about Gab until about a week and a half ago. I am here to fight for Wikipedia to remain a NPOV encyclopedia as described on the talk page. You did not address my concern that it is unusual for people to fight so strongly against including the source in the text of the article, nor did you provide any good reasons for prohibiting it. Commandur (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What? Sourcing is included in the text of the article, so this argument makes no sense. The sources you proposed were to soften the view on Gab as only coming from "critics," while there's many other sources, including academia, that draw the conclusion it is far-right.
 * You then posted a wall of text to the talk page. Suffice to say, I'm not going to point-by-point deal with that when we've already dealt with WP:WEASEL already: this is sufficiently sources in the article already and satisfies that guideline. Further, accusing me of "blatant bias" is a personal attack, another reason I have no interest in engaging that wall of text on the talk page.
 * The fact I failed to satisfy you does not mean I "did not address [your] concern". I addressed it, you disagreed. So far, you do not have consensus for the changes you want. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To further respond to this:
 * In fact, I would say in the current state of the article, the controversy surrounding Gab is more emphasized than what Gab actually even is.
 * This is because Gab's controversial nature is why they're Notable. The vast majority of reliable sources refer to them as right-wing or far-right. That is not in question. Therefore it is not weasel-wording to open the article with the current phrasing.
 * As a further point of order, WP:WEASEL is a best-practices guide, not a hard-and-fast rule. Even that guide states:
 * They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.
 * This is a situation where it is notable that reliable sources agree on the site's status and motivations. Attempting to label this as only being reported by "critics" is not compatible with NPOV, any more than attempting to describe Flat Earth as only being considered wrong by "critics." Using that term implies that the only people who see Gab as far-right are those ideologically motivated to do so, rather than the vast majority of reliable sources. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference between something like Flat Earth and "Gab is far right" is the volumes of academic analysis that has proven the earth to be round and thus discrediting the whole Flat Earth movement, while we're taking the critics of Gab to be the "word of God" in describing them as far right in Wikivoice and how it is discussed in the lede. Maybe in a good number of years, we will have deep academic analysis of "far right social media influences on the 2020s" where Gab will be firmly set by objective analysis as being at the far right, but we're not there yet. Piling on the public opinion taken from mass media only, and well within the first few years, we absolutely should be wary of taking public opinion as wikifact at this stage. That nearly all the public opinion swings in that direction is why we can safely describe them as "widely considered to be far-right..." but we're still too early and close to events to be taking that media opinion as fact. M asem (t) 18:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't think "taken from mass media only" describes the actual sources used on the Gab article, though. There are some scholarly analysis articles in there as well, including this one, supporting the statement Researchers and journalists have characterized these assertions [of dedication to free speech] as an obfuscation of its extremist ecosystem in the lead; the source says specifically: We find that, while Gab claims to be all about free speech, this seems to be merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide. It's not the only such source cited in the article. I don't think that's the most reliable scholarly source we've ever cited on Wikipedia by any means, but to characterize this article as "public opinion taken from mass media only" is to misrepresent it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The current lede of Gab at least uses phrases like "known for its far-right userbase" and "Widely described as a haven for...", which to me frames the public opinion stance outside of wikivoice. (And also correctly, doesn't describe Gab itself as far-right, just that its lax moderation leads to a haven for far-right views). That said, those are still subjective statements and should follow after the most objective statements. For example, just flipping sentence order in the lead:
 * creates a far more neutral approach in the lede while still hitting these key points which should all be there. (There's a few other smaller problems with the tone of the lede, but I'm focusing on the major one) M asem (t) 18:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * creates a far more neutral approach in the lede while still hitting these key points which should all be there. (There's a few other smaller problems with the tone of the lede, but I'm focusing on the major one) M asem (t) 18:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Since people have asked above for academic sources describing Gab as far-right:     Gab is basically one of the textbook examples of far-right social media used in academia today and is extensively studied as such; there's no way that a neutral article could avoid describing it as such in the article voice, since that is essentially its primary source of notability. --Aquillion (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * So, the main issue as far as I can see it is a misreading of WP:NPOV. What it says is "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (bold mine)  If a preponderance of reliable sources emphasize the far-right extremist nature of Gab's customer base, then Wikipedia should reflect that viewpoint in proportion to how that viewpoint is reported in reliable sources.  -- Jayron 32 17:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do, however, think Masem's point just above mine is relevant as well, some rephrasing could help with some of the objections noted; while still not downplaying the key part of Gab's story. -- Jayron 32 17:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the RFC tag you added to this discussion. An RfC here is not out of the question, but placing it where you did meant that the RfC's opening statement was neither neutral nor brief (see WP:RFCNEUTRAL. You could add a new signed comment just below the tag, or create a new subsection below for the RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)