Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64

SPLC
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says, "We monitor hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and expose their activities to the public, the media and law enforcement."

Not surprisingly, groups and individuals reported by the SPLC object to the coverage they receive. There are continuous requests to add these replies to the SPLC article as "controversy." The problem is avoiding undue weight. I would appreciate any comments in how to handle this.

For example, Frank Gaffney was included in the recent SPLC "A Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists". And editorial in The Jewish Week says, "Sharp criticism of Gaffney comes from a variety of respected sources. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls him “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes.” The ADL says he “has promulgated a number of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories over the years.” Those include charges that President Obama is a Muslim, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood and Gen. David Petraeus follows Sharia law./Republican U.S. Sens. John McCain, Marco Rubio and Scott Brown have spoken out against Gaffney, as has former House Speaker John Boehner, calling such allegations “dangerous.”"

The mainstream assessent agrees with the SPLC and only a tiny minority of people disagree. Mostly if not entirely these people hold views that mainstream sources would describe as extremist. Quoting these views in the article gives false equivalency.

TFD (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. Handling this is simple: revert them, and ask for protection if necessary. Ask people to watchlist the article. Explaining to extremists that they are extremists is often a waste of time. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that that's a contentious label, and so should be treated as a claim, and for proper neutrality, we should include any counter-argument to that claim. Clearly the number of groups that consider them extremists is very large, and their opinions will far outweigh any opinion otherwise, but no way should we factually state that a person/group is a contentious label (without gov't or court decisions) just because opinion weights against them, nor ignore, even if it is just a sentence, a rebuttal claim by the affected person/group. --M ASEM (t) 00:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please re-read what I wrote, and what the OP wrote. It seems you misunderstand me. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. BTW have you guys seen Ben_Carson? That section is very weird.


 * I suspect that TFD goes on and on about Frank Gaffney here and in the Southern Poverty Law Center article Talk page because he thinks that Gaffney is a more compelling villain than the people who are actually mentioned in the "Contoversy . . . " section of the article, Maajid Nawaz and Aayan Hirsi Ali. Moreover, the only "requests for replies" that appear on the Talk page (at least from what I've seen so far) come when reliable sources actually bring up the controversies over certain individuals or groups being listed as haters by the SPLC. Motsebboh (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I chose Gaffney because he is the most recent person to be brought up at the talk page. (See Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center.  Reliable sources have in fact brought up controversies over all three people and in fact many other people and groups mentioned.  However no reliable sources have criticized the SPLC for its listings.  Either they have been criticized in opinion pieces or news media have reported criticism from the groups or people.  Rather than voice your suspicions, stick with facts and reasoned arguments.  MASEM, if the article provided details about who and why the SPLC considers extremist, then it would be correct to report the replies.  But in this case some editors want to add criticism of the use of the labels about people who otherwise would not be mentioned.  The Quixotic Potato, interaction with supporters of groups and people the SPLC calls extremists has increased my understanding of the subject.  But you are right, at some point we need to end the dialog and ensure the article is written in a neutral manner.  TFD (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what is important here is that for opinions (which criticism of the SPLC clearly would be), those opinions don't need reliable sources, but sources that are appropriately "expert" for their opinion being important. And this is where one might have to dig into farther-right sources which will likely be the ones that hold that criticism. EG: we routinely reject Breitbart for anything factual, but they do have people that are known to be leading spokespersons for the right, and several articles jump out from theim in a google search (though I can't say which are more expert than others at the moment). And of course those that have been labeled with their opinions reported in reliable sources (eg ) should also be included for their counterclaims. The weight is clearly in favor of those that agree with SPLC's labeling and the majority of the article will be in that favor, but there's appropriate ways under policy to include these expert opinions in criticism of them without disrupting UNDUE/WEIGHT. --M ASEM (t) 02:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I love this one, TFD: "However no reliable sources have criticized the SPLC for its listings. Either they have been criticized in opinion pieces or news media have reported criticism from the groups or people." Really?? . . where else can an organization be criticized except in statements of opinion?? Quite a number of prominent folks have criticized the SPLC over the years but if one presumes, such as you apparently do, that only the SPLC itself is an expert on hate groups, then that would automatically preclude it from criticism by an outside reliable entity. How convenient! Motsebboh (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They can be criticized by experts particularly in peer-reviewed writing. They can be criticized in fact-checking sites, such as FactCheck.org.  FactCheck.org actually mentions the SPLC twice, but only as a source.  One of its mentions is "Frank Gaffney, is identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-Muslim extremist."  I do not presume the SPLC is an expert on hate groups, I recognize that it is considered one in reliable sources, including news media and academic literature.  TFD (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Attributed opinions or criticism ("X claims that...") does not need to originate from reliable sources or peer-review sources. It should come from people and agencies that are established as appropriate authorities in the area, even if their statements are published only in sources we would normally not consider reliable (as we are stating opinion, not fact, so the RS factor doesn't matter here); this would include in this case groups that have been called out as a hate group by the SPLC since they clearly would have a say in the matter. Opinions from people or agencies that do not appear to be experts in this area or have otherwise no association to the situation should not be used - we don't include the published opinion of every random person that has talked about it. (This applies to BOTH criticism for and against the SPLC). Careful attention must be made not to include anything that would otherwise violate any other policy (for example, if a response about the SPLC was made that accuses a named member in the SPLC of being a criminal, that can't be included per BLP). Now if you are talking fact-based criticism (say, contesting the SPLC's financials with actual numbers), that requires an RS for the factual nature to be valid. --M ASEM  (t) 15:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Without weighing in on the debate itself, I just want to nitpick something: does not need to originate from reliable sources -- this seems better framed as something like "what's considered reliable varies according to context..." (i.e. if we're citing them, they always need to be reliable, but sometimes biasd, primary, etc. sources can be considered reliable). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem in a case like this is that the sources that are the most reliable (on that scale) that will be critical of SPLC and that are of sufficient authority will likely be those that prior WP:RS/N discussion has deemed "unreliable", such as Breitbart, due to otherwise sensationalism reporting and thus for good reason. Now, RS/N's "unreliable" only applies to factual content, and it is repeated at RS/N discussions that opinions cited to Breitbart are completely acceptable as attributed opinions, but I have seen editors completely reject opinions from Breitbart, et al. becuase of the "unreliable" label. That's why I'm not a big fan of "reliable in scope" because that "unreliable" label will be seen as "never reliable" not "not reliable for facts but reliable for opinions." --M ASEM (t) 17:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Responding to this below to combine subthreads. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The existence of a criticism or response does not mean we need to include it. SPLC's labels are claims attributed to SPLC, not Wikipedia. The subject is the SPLC, what it does, its claims, etc. and it would be a false balance to insist on including responses to them just for the sake of something like "right of response". The SPLC's claims are included not because their claims exist but because the claims received coverage in secondary sources that justify WP:WEIGHT. If responses from the various groups/individuals SPLC classifies likewise receive such coverage in reliable sources, or if independent reliable sources provide such criticism (i.e. not the group/individual themselves) only then should we be thinking about how to include them. That said, in the main article about the organization, there's so much coverage that there's a fairly high bar for WP:WEIGHT, I think. The discussion should probably more concern the separate list of SPLC-designated hate groups. Or perhaps I'm just coming to the point of this disagreement :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At least a spot check shows that there are RSes that repeat the complaints against the SPLC (by groups they are labelled as) such as . So certainly there's appropriate criticism alongside the support, but as you say, WEIGHT does apply, and the current section in the article (2 para when I last checked) might be able to be expanded a notch, but the balance per WEIGHT seems appropriately close at this point. --M ASEM (t) 17:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (responding to the comment in the subthread above first, moved here for simplicity) -- The problem ... is that the sources that are the most reliable (on that scale) that will be critical of SPLC... I don't think I follow the point you're making with this, as the way I read it is something I don't think you would actually be arguing. i.e. That we should go out looking for criticism to bring in and create a separate measure of reliability in order to admit some. Sources like Breitbart can be reliable sources for their own opinion, but the fact that they have an opinion doesn't mean it should be included (as with any opinion piece). If weight for an argument is established by other sources, there's a stronger case to bring it in, I suppose, but then the reliable source is the other one reporting on it, not Breitbart. I don't doubt at all that there's mainstream rs coverage of criticism of the splc (the particular example of that Fox News piece is probably better for a smaller-scale discussion -- it's not ideal, but it's many steps in the right direction, away from the primary sources and e.g. Breitbart). In any event, on the topic of weight, to elaborate on something I tacked on to my last comment, I think that coverage of SPLC is substantial enough that a criticism section here (as opposed to more detail in the separate list), should be for non-news -- rather than responses to this or that announcement/classification/publication, it should be about the organization broadly. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ...Just to add some examples of what I mean. Here are some sources I would imagine make sense to include: Harper's Magazine "The church of Morris Dees" (already in the article but in "history", not "criticism"; Nieman Reports "Adapting Investigating Reporting Skills to Policy Advocacy" (maybe), the sum criticism in the Montgomery Advertiser's 1994 series (also in "history" rather than "criticism"), maybe Washington Post's op-ed by Dana Millbank (based on the amount of attention it received), maybe Christian Science Monitor's "Annual report cites rise in hate groups, but some ask: What is hate?", The Nation's "The Conscience Industry".... these are all pretty reliable, non-partisan organizations with broad criticisms rather than just a reaction to this or that listing. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the criticism section should be based on a broad critical view of the SPLC, and not necessarily just isolated responsed (barring anything that may be a lawsuit or the like), on the SPLC article. On the article about any person/group they label as a hate group, the isolated response is completely appropriate. --M ASEM (t) 20:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Variation on a theme
Masem makes the point above that if we include an SPLC claim about a group then some sort of rebuttal by the group may be in order, even if it's just a sentence. However, this should work in the other direction also. At present there is a criticism section in the article (see Southern Poverty Law Center). The last paragraph in that section concerns Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Nawaz is quoted as calling his listing as a Muslim extremist a "smear" but nowhere in the section, or anywhere else in the article, does it say why the SPLC listed him.

At present the article is locked from editing for the rest of the year over the attempt to add the following:

"In December 2016, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer condemned the SPLC for listing Maajid Nawaz, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as anti-Muslim extremists. Dermer describing the SPLC's actions as an 'Orwellian inversion of reality" and accused them of trying to "stifle debate.'" 

Again, the same problem -- there is no explanation anywhere in the article of why these people were listed by the SPLC. Editors trying to add it argue that NPOV does not apply since only the criticism, not the SPLC position, belong in a criticism section. Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Tom. Funny, I don't recall any editor saying that the SPLC's position could not appear in the Controversy over . . . listings section. Could you point that one out to me? I remember saying the pretty much the opposite, however. Motsebboh (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * These are the most recent comments made and  by one of your crew.  For your own part, I am referring to the fact that you added a  version of the contested language (see ) and it says nothing about why the SPLC had them on their list.  I called you on it with this edit ; you responded with this edit  which ignores my point. If I misjudged your position and you actually agree with me, then perhaps you can suggest some language to add to the material already in the article on the same subject. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * First, knock off the "one of your crew" bullshit, if you want to converse. Second, though in I didn't include the SPLC's rationale for putting those people on the list, I did include the retort to Dermer offered by the SPLC and Haaretz in the sourced article. Third, your comment here  seems more like the introduction of a poison pill to prevent any criticism of the SPLC's list in the first place, since it would require including the SPLC's rationale and "this type of exercise is why criticism sections get out of control."


 * No, at this point I think we should give it a two week rest. Come back in early 2017 and go from there. Since you are the one most concerned about including the SPLC's reasons for labeling those folks extremists, I would suggest that you first formulate the language, very concise language one hopes, to do so. If readers want detail they can find it in the sources. Motsebboh (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually the point of the freeze was to encourage discussion w/o edit warring. Complying with NPOV is not a poison pill.  I'm here to get opinions from folks other than those on the article page, so your refusal to discuss it any further here is a plus as far as I'm concerned. Arguing that "if readers want detail they can find it in the sources" is nowhere in wikipedia policy, but I guess it would be an effective argument to exclude virtually anything you don't like. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are your exact words regarding my addition of Dermer's criticism of the SPLC: By introducing a new issue to the paragraph (i.e. the Center for Security Policy) you open the door for requiring an explanation of why that group (not to mention Pipes and Gaffney) is targeted by the SPLC. As others have said above, this type of exercise is why criticism sections get out of control. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC) It is quite clear from this that you are using a supposed requirement to include the SPLC's reasons for listing people as a way of discouraging the inclusion of Dermer's criticism, not as sincere advice as to how it should be included Motsebboh (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As for BRIEFLY, rather than in detail, including the SPLC's reasons for naming people and/or groups to their lists it has to do with due weight. We don't want a statement such as: In a speech to the Center for Security Policy Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer criticized the SPLC for placing the CSP on its hate group list and for calling CSP president Frank Gaffney along with Daniel Pipes Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali "extremists" followed or preceded by two or three paragraphs taken from the SPLC website explaining their rationale. Motsebboh (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're not to busy reading my mind in order to question my sincerity, how about reading something that is actually written (and which I've directed you to before). From WP:UNDUE:


 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace 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. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that 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."


 * In this case we have the work of a handbook for journalists prepared by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Media Matters for America, the Center for New Community and ReThink Media versus the personal opinion of one person. Rather than a supposed requirement, it seems beyond dispute that SOMETHING about the SPLC position has to be included.   Even if you could make the impossible (IMO) argument that both POVs are equally supported, WP:BALANCE comes into play when it says:


 * "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I see no problem that if we have broad criticisms about the SPLC (not narrow on a single group), then the SPLC's reply on the broad level should also be included. If we are talking about the SPLC calling out a single group, then that does not belong on the SPLC page but on that group's page, and there should be the SPLCs reasoning and counterpoints to the group's own reaction to the SPLC. It's a scope issue that was a point in the bit prior to this section break by Rhodendrites. --M ASEM  (t) 04:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The current controversy section starts with the sentence "The SPLC's identifications and listings of hate groups have been the subject of controversy, with critics, including journalist Ken Silverstein and analyst of political fringe movements Laird Wilcox arguing that the SPLC has taken an incautious approach to assigning the label." Sourcing aside, this seems to meet the criteria for a broad criticism.


 * The balance of the section, however, is three sentences in the first paragraph relating to a single group, the Family Research Council. The second paragraph is two sentences about Ben Carson with the take home message that the SPLC admits he was targeted in error.  The third paragraph is about two people mentioned in a document by the SPLC that lists a total of 15 people.  A proposed fourth paragraph repeats two names and adds two more.  None of these seem to represent broad criticisms of the SPLC which would leave us with a one sentence section. Do you agree with me or am I missing something? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the present version needs reworking to use more broad-based criticism rather than specific instances, though my spot check does show those broad-based criticism does exist, though you might have to pull opinion from less-reliable but authoritative sources (right-leaning) to get that. The only exception to me seems to be the Ben Carson case since that was very much publicized and they eventually retracted his name off the list due to volumes of criticism. Other cases seem much more isolated and thus not the broad situation, and the individuals responses should be left on those respective articles. --M ASEM (t) 16:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @North Shoreman Thanks, but it's not hard work, your written expression conveys your thinking clearly enough. I'm sure lots of journalists are going around with that handbook prepared by the SPLC (and the other pretty much identical groups) in their pockets. However, your point about drawing on respected outside sources is well taken. While I haven't done much more than scan a couple of the articles, I notice that sources such as the "Atlantic Monthly, The Wall Street Journal, and The Spectator are already cited in the Controversy'' section and it might be a good idea to see in more detail what they and other respected outside sources have to say. Of course, that will mean a pretty damned big Controversy section rather than a small one. Motsebboh (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Masem. Keep in mind that the subtopic in question is titled "Controversy over hate group and extremist listings", not "Criticism" over those listings. "Criticism" would fall more in line with generic, broad-broad based criticism of what the SPLC does in its listings. "Controversy", applies more to well-publicized incidents of sharp disagreement. By the same token "controversy" implies at least two sides, so the SPLC side of the issue needs to be mentioned. Motsebboh (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of Polish killings by USSR as genocides
I could use some help determining if the long series of edits by fit WP:NPOV. This seems like a touchy subject, and the mass unilateral categorization of these acts seems controversial to me.

(In chronological order)
 * Addition of all three events to List of genocides by death toll
 * Categorization of pages under :
 * Polish Operation of the NKVD (1937-38)
 * Katyn massacre
 * Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-46)
 * Addition of all three pages to Template:Genocide
 * Addition of Template:Genocide to articles:
 * Polish Operation of the NKVD (1937-38)
 * Katyn massacre
 * Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-46)

Because this affects many pages, it hasn't been discussed on any particular talk page. I'm looking for a sanity check on whether this seems WP:NPOV and not any specific action. Thanks for the extra pair(s) of eyes. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 08:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All three have unarguably been described as genocides, by reputable people with varying degrees of closeness - the Polish view (that of the government and Polish historians) is that they are genocides. The Russian's obviously disagree. Outside observers range from one to the other commenting on intent and end-result. But generally the outside observers agree that they certainly satisfy most of the criteria for a genocide event. As to if this is non-neutral editing? Probably, but it is backed by reliable sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, ! I was hoping this would take the form of an "informal RfC." In that regard, I'm hoping I can get some more responses. If others generally agree that it's fine or if there are no responses after a while, then I'll consider this matter closed. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 00:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot
The Schneerson page is fervently protected by a group of editors. I have discussed this on the talk page, and placed an item on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. However given the past behavior of the editors Bus Stop, Debresser, and Kamel Tebaast, and their present intransigence to even provide an alternative entry, or placement, and recurrent raising of strawmen arguments, I have no optimism, zero optimism that this can be a consensus decision. The riots in 1991 occurred between two communities who rarely interacted. Most reviews of the events note how they almost do not see themselves. The events were convulsive for the history of New York City.

My goal is simple. The main reviews of the history of the time, or biographies of Schneerson, by third person authors, cite this event as important in his life, as linked to the leader of one of the two main communities involved in the riots. Again, we can focus on a single but important source: the obituary of Schneerson in the New York Times. Nearly 5-6 paragraphs of some thirty comment on this event or the repercussions. That alone should be a citable notion in the biography of the man.

My aim is that the biography link the fact that it was an accident in the motorcade of Schneerson that served as a trigger of the riots. After much discussion, I think we should also use the sources to say that Schneerson had nothing to say about the incident. Both these points have myriad sources. Given the controversial nature of the information according to editors, given the controversy that has ranged since, the most apt location is in the controversy section of Schneerson, which includes a discussion of whether the Rabbi dissuaded his followers from considering him the Messiah. I add this, because it does give some indication of why the article is so difficult to edit. I think other arguments about why the riots occurred, why this pedestrian accident led to a riot, the detailed responses of various communities, and community leaders and politicians, and Schneerson himself, can be discussed in the Crown Heights article. But the link exists, not because I want it, but because it is present in the neutral authoritative historical sources. To avoid it, is to belittle the role of an encyclopedia. Here was my suggested entry for the article (a subsection in controversies section):

The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991 were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots. Schneerson had no public comment on the death of the child or the riots.
 * Crown Heights Riot

I am looking for guidance on how to resolve this.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have supported addition of this paragraph on the talkpage, but as the history of the article shows, other editors remain opposed. They claim the information about the riot is not relevant to the article about the rabbi. A previous discussion on this subject, which can now be found on the talkpage, also ends noting that a something short and balanced would be acceptable.
 * On the other hand, Rococo1700 is explaining WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, posting at 4 venues at the same time (here, the talkpage, WT:JUDAISM, and WP:DR which is now closed). His posts on the talkpage are unreasonably long and passionate, on WT:JUDAISM he lies about me and on WP:DR he called this article a hagiography. All these things do little to endear himself or his point of view to me. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And WT:BIOG. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason I am here is because it is exasperating to argue with people like Debresser, who change the argument all the time. In the talk page, he stated: ''This was discussed before, at Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson/Archive_4. I stand by my opinion from then, that there is no connection to the rabbi.'' He tried to end the debate by saying it had been decided that there was no connection. Now he says he agrees with a paragraph. The discussion did not come to a consensus.

My point is simple: Reliable published sources make the point that this event is major event in his life. The present article does not mention it at all. The term hagiography has been used by numerous other editors in describing this article. It is tough not to use the term, when one of the controversies regarding Schneerson is whether he is the Messiah or not. Again, I successfully argued before after the dedicated efforts of many editors to remove a false statement from the article. This time, I do not have the patience with individuals who do not follow the guidelines of an encyclopedia. I am not interested in litigating legalities of the Crown Height riot in this article. The only point is that a major neutral and authoritative biography of Schneerson dedicates almost ten percent of the entry to this event. All the historical retrospectives of the event, discuss Schneerson's link to the events. This article includes zero. This is not going to be solved by mediation. It will require arbitration to keep the article encyclopedic.Rococo1700 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am quite fed up with your untruths. I did say that there was agreement not to have a mention of the car accident alone, but I also added that if a paragraph would include something about the riot and the rabbi's reaction as well, then all of that together would be different story. Since that is what you wrote, I support as promised. It seems as though you are complaining about my support!
 * In addition, you write overly long posts, with the result that nobody wants to take part in the discussion. You include comments about editors, instead of restricting yourself to the subject at hand. You are forum shopping: this is already the fourth venue you posted at, and now you are already mentioning arbitration!? Why not call in the army? If you continue in this way, you will soon enough simply be ignored and referred to WP:DEADHORSE. Believe me, I have seen it before, and it is a perfect way to deal with annoying WP:BATTLEGROUND editors like you. So if you don't want to go that way: 1. no more lies 2. no more comments about editors and the way you think they behave or should have behaved 3. shorten your posts 4. no more forum shopping. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What action is User:Rococo1700 asking, anyway? At DRN it wasn't clear whether they were asking for arbitration, or blocks, or mediation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is pretty obvious. He seeks support for his opinion that the paragraph he wrote is balanced and neutral and should be added to the article. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not asking for mediation. I initially had hope, but all suggestions are deleted and blocked, even if well-sourced. There has been intransigence in past, and after short discussion on talk page, there continues to be now. There is no movement. I recommend arbitration. I recommend a third party come up with a paragraph about the facts to be placed in the article, and allow outside editors including myself offer opinions. If both sides (the deletion and insertion sides) agree, we add more. If not, only the arbitration paragraph is allowed in. Following that, this article will benefit from a mechanism that prevents this task from being just deleted later. I am interested in changing the article than blocking the editors from all of Wikipedia. My fear is that they will however attempt to delete the entry. But let us begin by getting some facts in the article. I would like to write a paragraph under the heading Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot. I have provided my suggestion.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the drift of Rococo 1700's ideas in this matter for the Schneerson article. The traffic accident involving the cortege, what may have been silence or oblique references from Schneerson after, the subsequent deaths, the absence of any compensation by the perpetrator or his employer, or dangerous driving charges, the paying out of 400,000 dollars by NYC et cetera are all noteworthy and encyclopaedia material. The "superiority of jews over all others" remarks reliably attributed to Schneerson are also noticeably absent and merit a separate section and/or mention under theology or controversy section. That both are missing is another glaring example of how a coterie of editors can commandeer an article to its detriment and the detriment of WP's credibility.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 01:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Tumadoireacht, I am not going to discuss the points you brought up, not because I agree or disagree, but because my aim is to remain focused on getting at least mention of the linkage of these events to Schneerson into the article. It has been a tactic of Bus Stop, Kemal Tebaast, and Debresser to raise extraneous issues and opinions to get arguments started. I do think there is plenty of sourced and relevant material that can be added to the Crown Heights riot entry. I have focused on a paragraph with well-sourced material prominently featured in its own section in a succint retrospective biography of Schneerson, in fact his long obituary in the New York Times. The problem is that once you get them to agree on the text of the paragraph, they then argue that we can't agree where the paragraph should go, or try to hide it in the text. This information was a subsection of the Wikipedia biography from 2009 to 2013 or 2015, and a section of his obituary comprising nearly 10-20% of the biography. They now claim it is unimportant, and because we can not agree to make it a subsection or a paragraph, it can't be inserted. Ultimately I recommend focusing on a core, relevant, well sourced subsection entering into Schneerson's biography linking to Crown Heights riot. Rococo1700 (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You have offered good reference, a chance for discussion, and a sound rationale Rococo - perhaps it is time to be bold and choose a place in the article or a new section where you believe the text belongs and insert it. Agenda hounds must then offer a clear  singular  rationale if they revert you. You have my consensus and support. Oh and Merry Christmas !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Tumadoireacht He was bold already. And then he was reverted. And then he was bold (disruptive) another 3 times or so, and was again reverted each time. Your advice is a little belated. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Debresser - perhaps it is the reverters and not Rococo who are naughty/"bold"/misguided/suffering from agenda fever. your advice is a little unseasonal.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

First, after looking at the article it does seem to suffer from a significant degree of WP:PEACOCK ("renowned" etc.). I had assumed there was more of a background to the dispute regarding the riot but the talk page conversation was pretty brief. At any rate, I did not notice any compelling reasons against inclusion or clear arguments as to why this is not a "controversy" related to Schneerson. Especially since this is not a BLP, any major incidents related to the person ought to be included somewhere in the article, and if the accident and riot were significant elements of the obituary it seems like inclusion is an obvious choice. There also seems to be a lack of civility and respect on both sides of this. I'd like to remind everyone involved of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and of course WP:NPOV. Editing articles where one's personal opinions on or attachments to the topic are significant is a bad choice and there are many other articles on wikipedia that need attention. —DIY Editor (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. Rococo1700 is being very annoying, e.g. asking all editors again and again to "address the Rfc" on the talkpage. Which is precisely what editors are doing. The fact that all there disagree with him, does not mean they don't "address the Rfc". The comment regarding personal involvement is a bit awkward, since several editors involved are veteran editors. Speaking for myself only, I have an 8-year+ record of being able to make good edits, including edits opposite to my POV in various areas. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly would an edit opposite to one's POV be, including something that you don't want to see included? Editing articles where such a POV exists seems problematic. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "including something that you don't want to see included" Precisely. Yes, it is problematic. It demands strict adherence to what you know to be correct and believe in, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, over one's emotions and opinions. There is a reason Wikipedia does not restrict editing in fields of personal interest. I think there are two reasons, as a matter of fact. 1. A believe that editors are capable of good editing, even in view of personal opinions. 2. The understanding that the truth is likely to benefit from opposite points of view. Anyways, I am not reciting the credo, but when several editors, from different backgrounds, collectively disagree with a certain editor, that is IMHO more likely to be a reflection of that one editor's problems, than anything else. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, I think the recent talkpage discussion has proven that Rococo1700 is not just annoying, but has some competence issues. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Debresser - point of information- you are not stating the truth when you say all editors disagree with Rococo. As to your statement re Rococo being "annoying"-Wise folk say that no one ever  annoys one - instead one takes what others offer and annoys oneself. Finally your point on competence- if Rococo is an enthusiastic but less competent editor then you ( as you maintain), and has a shorter pedigree, perhaps it behoves you, and indeed all of us to assist him/her to greater skill with the fraternal welcome which WP aspires to.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 23:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, not all. Thank you for your advice. I hope you understand that my first reaction was also to see how to work together with him to improve the article. That is why initially I supported his edit, with some modifications. However, his continued battleground behavior has utterly antagonized me. Unfortunately, Rococo1700 is one of those editors who is not here to contribute collectively to this project. He wants to push a point, and is not susceptible to good influence. That is why he was blocked recently. Perhaps his block will put him back on the right path, but I doubt it. Debresser (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The Peruvian nitrate monopoly conspiracy
The article in question is Peruvian nitrate monopoly.

I am concerned that the creator of the article is pushing a fringe perspective that basically amounts to a conspiracy theory of the Peruvian state monopoly as the primary driver for the War of the Pacific, which was a conflict fought between Peru, Chile, and Bolivia over the control of nitrates in South America. This is the version of the article supported by the creator, Keysanger:. I have edited the article to reduce the fringe perspective and with evidence that supports the mainstream view on the topic, which is that Chilean expansionism is what caused the War of the Pacific. This is my proposed version:.

I have attempted to discuss matters with Keysanger at Talk:Peruvian nitrate monopoly, but the user obfuscates the matter by missing the point (whether purposefully or inadvertently, I don't know) and ignoring it (preferring instead to engage in edit wars).

I should clarify that my position is not against the idea that Peruvian Nitrate Company was attempting to gain an upper hand in its cartel of nitrates by purchasing a Bolivian mine. However, to manipulate the information to paint it as if Peru sought the start of war is simply ludicrous. Clearly, this exempts Chile's role in the conflict, despite the mainstream historical perspective is that Chile, which had been damaged by the Peruvian monopoly, was the country that resorted to the use of force in order to resolve the matter in its favor (much in the same way it had done during the War of the Confederation).

To sum things up, here is a straightforward quote from the historian Robert N. Burr:

"Chile justified war against Peru on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to destroy Chilean nitrate operations and establish Peruvian predominance. It was claimed that since established Chilean interests and rights in the Bolivia littoral stood in the way of that scheme, Peru became secretly allied with Bolivia which it then encouraged to resist Chile's just demands. The extent of Peruvian treachery became evident when it sent to Santiago a mediator even as it prepared for war. [...] A detailed evaluation of the merits of these and other versions of war guilt in the Pacific conflagration of 1879-1883 is beyond the scope of this work. Several conclusions do present themselves, however, in connection with the circumstances and forces that affected Chile's decision to wage war and its formulation of war objectives. The most immediately obvious casus belli was the conflict of interests arising from one country's economic predominance on the soil of another. [...] Bolivians came to entertain fears concerning ultimate Chilean political domination of the littoral. But fearful, impotent, poorly governed Bolivia could neither strengthen its economic and political position in the littoral nor develop an effective policy toward Chile. For their part Chileans came to regard the coastal desert as their own in all but name. Not only were Chilean economic interests predominant, but development of the littoral was due almost exclusively to Chilean capital, labor, and technology. The spasmodic efforts of frequently corrupt local Bolivian officials to carry out the often arbitrary orders of the Altiplano were met by Chileans with angry resentment."

Sorry for the long quote, but I think it adequately sums up the point. Best.-- MarshalN20 T al k 17:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sati
An RfC has been initiated in the talk page of the Sati article. Neutrality is one of the core issues of contention. Please comment on the article talk page if this topic interests you. Soham321 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously spamming multiple noticeboards with this 1 day old dispute? —DIY Editor (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , could we please be a little more civil here? The instructions at WP:RFC clearly endorse publicizing of an RfC in various noticeboards. As for the fact that this is only a 1 day old dispute, I am not prepared to argue with an editor who insists on inserting into an article edits which are not supported by the reference they are using. See this comment of another editor on the sati talk page endorsing my position. Soham321 (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're right, I just didn't see much of an exchange before calling for an RfC, which is certainly your prerogative. has broken out your questions with detailed text of the competing versions on the talk page. —DIY Editor (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Nehru
An RfC has been initiated on the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru. Please vote on it if the topic is of interest to you. Soham321 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

impeachment of Dilma Rousseff
I have many concerns about the Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff article, which definitely does not meet due weight standards and has a number of other problems, some of the latter just possibly caused by language issues. For example, she does not offer a defense but an "excuse". The talk page shows that then-active editors felt that her contention that removing her amounted to a coup did not warrant inclusion because she was impeached in accordance with the constitution. According to those editors. Help is especially needed from anyone who speaks Portugese, but even if you don't -- I can just barely read it sometimes -- there is still plenty you could do. I am annotating the talk page; so far nobody is answering.

BLP in *enormous* need of help. It's an important event so deletion a very last resort Elinruby (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * PS - so far I have not pinged anyone as the last edit by anyone else was a year ago, including the editors I quoted above. Then someone listed it on Pages in need of translation, which is how I came to it. I don't usually do Portuguese, but I needed a break from what I was working on, this article was languishing, and I followed these events in the news, somewhat. There is no current disagreement, although I took issue (today) with the comments above. I'll note on the page that I sought help here so watchers will know -- please advise whether I should go further and ping the people who where editing it last year. Mainly though, I am asking for help not a determination of bias. There is no question the article is defamatory, whether deliberately or not. Setting out the case for the prosecution is not a balanced account. I am going to go post a BLP warning on now and return to the language issues, and address the neutrality as best I can, as I come to it. But that will leave her version of events out, because there is no more than a sentence or two there now. I didn't really sign up to research this, or to solve every language problem for that matter -- I may well encounter stuff my very very iffy Portuguese can't handle. I might be able to fix the badly translated titles in the references, maybe. Elinruby (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * given that at least one editor is definitely paying attention, I pinged everyone on the talk page, with the exception of two users where I would have had to create a talk page for them.Elinruby (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Elinruby, that article describes the impeachment process, following strictely that sources support, imho. If you find reliable sources that support "coup theory", expand the article, please. I apologyse my poor English, as so your Portuguese. I began a revision in your last edits, concerning some lack of "trans-title" in some refs, but I'm busy in next days. Best regards. PauloMSimoes (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help with those titles, a technical issue which would have been daunting for me. I will also leave some comments in the text with questions that perhaps you can answer and which I suspect may be language issues. There is one in the lede already. Please do not apologize for your English, which is better than my Portugese.


 * The thing is, it is not a matter of proving there was a coup. Dilma Rousseff said this, not a random bystander, and therefore it is pertinent. She is an important party to the events in the article and if she disagrees with the accusations -- which she did -- then her version of events needs to be expressed. I do not see that right now, although there may be something there in the statements about blackmail, which need to be better stated, as they are confusing. Was she the one being blackmailed? Apart from this point of confusion though, we have only the statement that she denies wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing, and and another than no wrongdoing on her part was found; two widely separated sentences in a fairly long article. She *did* say the proceedings amounted to a coup. This is part of her version of events, and it can totally be qualified with "according to Rousseff" if you disagree, although as I recall NPR pretty much said that the impeachment was political. But we can go there when I have found a reference for that. For right now, here on this board, my point is that this is the epitome of a story with two sides and that both need to be presented, especially since there are serious accusations of malfeasance made by people under who were investigation against someone who was cleared, or at least not proven to be involved. Since the article has sat like this for a year, the fact that you are busy for a couple of days is minor I guess, but this does need to be addressed. Elinruby (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

meanwhile, re the "coup" remark:
 * https://theintercept.com/2016/09/23/brazils-president-michel-temer-says-rousseff-was-impeached-for-refusing-his-economic-agenda/ -- there is a portugese version of this article
 * https://theintercept.com/2016/09/28/brazils-impeached-ex-president-dilma-rousseff-says-successor-confessed-to-the-coup/ this one also
 * https://www.thenation.com/article/international-tribunal-declares-impeachment-of-brazils-dilma-rousseff-an-illegitimate-coup/ -- guest author
 * http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37271465 -says not a coup
 * http://www.wsj.com/articles/brazils-dilma-rousseff-likens-ouster-bid-to-coup-detat-1471377698
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/11/dilma-rousseff-brazils-ex-president-says-successor-temer-took-bribes
 * http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21696550-how-should-presidential-systems-deal-political-breakdown-when-coup-not-coup

The sources may not support the coup remark -- at the moment I agree that most express skepticism, although not all, so a real weighing for due weight would require more research than I am willing to do right now. But there are solid sources that she *said* this. Elinruby (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

✅ Clearly bias against Dilma. Dr. Loo Talk to me


 * It was not a coup, period. Dilma, as other populist leaders like Kirchner, Chávez or Maduro, simply tries to explain her misfortunes with some convenient conspiracy theory. But it is just that, it's just rethoric for the masses, Dilma does not believe it for real. The Constitution of Brazil says it clearly: "constitui crime inafiançável e imprescritível a ação de grupos armados, civis ou militares, contra a ordem constitucional e o Estado democrático" ("The action of armed, civilian or military groups against the constitutional order and the democratic State constitutes an unsustainable and imprescriptible crime"). Meaning, she's accusing them of committing a crime. But did she formally accused them in court? Did she provide some proof to back it up? Is she ready to have her conspiracy theory tested against the legislators' right to defense and the scrutiny of an impartial judge? No? Then there's nothing else to be said. The conspiracy theory is noteworthy enough to be mentioned, and it is, but as what it is. It can not receive equal validity, or treated as if it was a plausible and accepted theory. Cambalachero (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not saying we should say, in the voice of wikipedia, that it was a coup. At all. I am saying that SHE said so and she is entitled to have her version of events reported in the article. I repeat, this is a BLP. It does seem she has discredited herself a bit by using such an emotionally-charged word, since the news outlets of the world then focused on fact-checking this rather than the validity of the claims against her, at least in many cases. And yet. It is also true that the charges against her were at best pretty technical, which one is left to induce from the language of the article, and that she was impeached by people deeply implicated by Operation Car Wash, which has yet to find evidence against her. But for now let's start here: The article reads like the case for the prosecution written in bureaucratese intended to shore up its validity. We do hear that she denies the charges, and that she offers an "excuse" for Petrobras losing money. (It occurs to me just now to wonder what the price of oil was at the time, but again, that's background.) This is almost an attack article and the only reason I have not proposed it for deletion is the amount of work that has gone into chronicling events that are definitely notable. It seems better to keep and make neutral. And again, I am not Brazilian and not involved in the article until now; I came to the article from the translation wikignome system Elinruby (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to debate with someone that states" It was not a coup, period...., Dilma does not believe it for real." and does not present any kind of references to support the statement. The Wiki-Rules are not based on my or your personal preference. The poor neutrality of the article will continue to exist, because the Brazilian editors clearly don't like the woman and they will never accept facts based on reality if it does not mirror image they private conceptions and points of view. Noam Chomsky has informed them, "the impeachment count as a kind of soft coup", in their opinion, is just another PT's paid propaganda source. The article is a joke.  Dr. Loo Talk to me 23:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well see here is the thing. This is a bioography of a living person. It contains disputed defamatory material. The default is delete, people don't seem to realize this. The other side of this must be presented. If you think that the other side is mendacious then fine, you bring it, but it must be in the form of some sort of evidence. This will be a little hard for english wikipedia to process because of the Portugese but the page cannot remain as it is. That is not an option and I am not going away. Those are the rules -- unless someone can explain to me that I am wrong about this --- and so long as these are the rules they WILL be applied to this page. It theoretically should have been deleted already. I am open to treating it as a news story but even then the rule would be DUE WEIGHT no? Elinruby (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Dilma, her party and their supporters are actively engaged in spreading the coup discourse and provoking political division among the brazilian people. Legally, there was no coup and any brazilian with 3 or more working neurons knows better than to use wikipedia to spread the coup discourse. The people who support the coup discourse can easily be linked with some clear bias towards Dilma, PT and latin american socialist dictators and/or murderers such as Guevara, Castro, Chavez, Maduro and Kirchner. Noam Chomsky supports this gang because they antagonize US capitalism. Every brazilian artist who voiced support for Dilma either held first-tier offices in PT governments (Gilberto Gil), had close relatives in first-tier offices (Chico Buarque's sister was a minister) or received millions of reais (BRL) of taxpayer money to produce movies, plays and musical records through a law (Rouanet Law) that enabled PT to extensively buy political support. This was the case of the cast and producers of the movie Aquarius who cried coup in a protest in the 2016 Cannes festival. Some bias in the article is expected, and it probably will only be resolved when time has passed and the events can be analyzed with proper hindsight. This surely won't be the case before the next president-elect takes office in january 2019 nor before her political allies face trial for their numerous crimes. The bias exists, and it is unlikely to be properly fixed in the short term. Fbergo (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't counted my neurons lately but I am not Brazilian anyway so... Please explain artists in first-tier offices? I was not aware that artists in particular favored Rousseff. Why should I care about Chico Buarque? -- and ok then, Rouanet Law seems like something that should be in the article if that is the case. I am not aware of the Aquarius incidemt at Cannes. Is that in the article? Elinruby (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have an article on the "soft coup" conspiracy theory. Several populist leaders (Dilma, Kirchner, Maduro, etc.) seem to love it, there should be some material for an unified article about the concept. Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * yeah there should. You want to try to draft one? Maybe include a primer on how to amend the constitution, isn't that how these things are done? Elinruby (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, as evidenced by the reactions of and  the article seems to be a magnet for tendentious editing with a lack of regard for wikipedia policies and guidelines. They also seem to have no problem violating WP:FORUM in the promotion of their clear points of view and should in my opinion entirely recuse themselves from editing this article. This type of editing damages wikipedia. —DIY Editor (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you think that we should give equal validity to a fringe theory? Cambalachero (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, and I have never gotten into a fringe theory discussion so I could be wrong... However I think WP:FRINGE is intended to address ideas like chemtrails and birthers and miracles and... I dunno. It seems to me that if you are going to say someone is corrupt then you need to allow them to answer it. If you think she is lying then then thing to do -- someone feel free to jump in here -- is to say (for example) Dilma says that "so and so didn't do his evaluation report honestly and took a bribe to recommend a Petrobras expenditure" then you refute it if it is not true. As in "so and so said she used to hide the guns. She denies this but so-and-so testified to this effect at her former colleagues' trial on this date", with a reference. I can't parse what is right or wrong about a lot of this stuff, mind you. Why the big discussion about whether or not she handled guns?  I do think it is material that Cunha is in jail and Temer has someone who is he ing to indict him -- I don't know how realistically but that *is* happening. Or is this just party politics the way it always is in Brazil? Anyway. The defense in an impeachment trial is highly material to the article about the article oops impeachment.


 * In ten words or less the fact that you don't believe her doesn't make it a fringe theory. I saw an article that said that 60% of the legislative branch was under indictment, and they voted to impeach her, who notably remains unindicted I believe? I realize that members of her party were indicted and it's hard to believe her hands are clean especially on the matter of protecting Lulu by appointing him as he chielf of staff. Elinruby (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Contrast the article about the impeachment of Temer -- much more focused. I do not think that anyone, even Rousseff, disputes that the procedure to impeach a president was followed. When she calls this a coup she is saying that it is an illegitimate transfer of power, I think. It's possible she should not call it a coup as this would affect treaties and trade agreements, right? Brazil doesn't need to be on any sanctions lists. However, I would like someone to explain this budget manoeuver to me, since apparently both Rousseff and Temer have done this --- funded certain programs by executive edict? And the budget is a legislative function...Elinruby (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * NY Times said: "Vice President Michel Temer, who has been convicted of violating campaign finance limits and will now be under tremendous pressure to stem Brazil’s worst economic crisis in decades. Describing the effort to remove her as a coup, Ms. Rousseff, the first woman to be president of Brazil, has repeatedly rejected calls to resign, vowing to continue her fight to stay at the helm of Latin America’s largest country, the world’s fifth-most populous." 76.111.200.108 (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The fringe theory is only the claim that the impeachment was a coup. The popular reception (people who think it was right, people who think it was wrong, and how they all reacted) is a completely different thing, and there's nothing fringe in there. Saying that the impeachment was wrong in an opinion, but saying that it was a coup is factually wrong. If it's wrong, it matters little if it is a popular misconception. If Rouseff calls it a coup but is actually using the concept as an analogy, then we should explain that analogy (note, however, that she does not "compare" it with a coup, she flat-out says it's a coup). It still wouldn't be a coup, because it does not fit the definition. Note, by the way, that legislators are not judges, and it is legitimate for them to vote for or against something (in this case, an impeachment) for mere political reasons. If a legislator thought that she was innocent, but it was in the best interest of Brazil to remove her (there is a big economic crisis on top of this), he does have the right to vote against her. Cambalachero (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All of that may well be true. Or not, I do not know. But right now I am not trying to parse the legalities of what should or should not have taken place. The president of Brazil was impeached and removed from office. This is unquestionably notable and wikipedia should have an article. Wikipedia is supposed to be written to the neutral point of view standard. If there are mutiple points of view then they should be reflected. Fringe theory would be something more like the fairies stealing money from the Brazilian treasury.Elinruby (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rousseff's reaction to the impeachment is intrinsically notable for her biography article. The more off-base the more notable you might even say. It deserves some mention. —DIY Editor (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The general view in mainstream sources is that the motivation for the impeachment is political, not legal. The government's supporters do not support the impeachment, the opposition is willing to overlook worse abuses among its own members.  That must be made clear in the article.  TFD (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * well I seem to remember that popular sentiment was not in her favor at the time of her impeachment. But this is also true of Temer at the moment. I agree that the background should be explained but that means someone needs to enunciate it. My point at the moment is simply that surely she had something to say about this. If she called it a coup then that is one of the things that she said. The fact that she said it was a coup and people disagree, well, you say she said it, then you say that on the other hand, so and so said such and such. I never did get an answer on the consequences of calling it a coup. Wouldn't there be sanctions usually? Ambassadors recalled? I think there may have been a misuse of legislative power but it does seem that the procedures of the law were followed. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on this. But even if that is true it still matters what she said about it. Elinruby (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * to amplify the above -- some of the recent comments seem to support the coup theory. But those are still opinions until they are cited to reliable sources. So is my speculation above that there may have been misuse of legislative power, within the legal sytem perhaps. That is an opinion. It is a fact though that Dilma Rousseff said this. The people saying it was a coup need to realize that there is resistance to even quoting Rousseff saying this. Look, as I recall, she made quite a long speech at that proceeding and we should be quoting it. If she said things that were false the article can say so if there are reliable sources that support debunking, but it is still going to be true that she *said* this. Elinruby (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No mention of the fact that Peermusic is accused of stealing copyrights and misleading artists and lost a related courtcase?
This article doesn't mention the controversy at all. I have listed some reliable sources on the talkpage (BBC, the Guardian). I don't really write articles, I prefer typofixing and related gnomework, can someone (preferably an experienced editor) please fix this problem? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Its from 2005-2006. A basic explanation is this: Peer music signed up lots of Cubans prior to Castro. Once he came to power - as a US company it became difficult for them to pay/contact the musicians in Cuba. They made efforts to for a lengthy period of time but were unable to. The Cuban state-run organisation that handled its musicians obviously wanted a piece of the pie from the recordings of artists (who were mostly dead) sold in the 90's so they alleged theft, unfair contracts etc. The 'loss' for peer music was that they tried to claim a blanket copyright over all their back catalogue - which was rejected. The judge held some of the works would have still been in copyright held by Peer depending on when the artist died, and also that the Cuban governments allegations were basically rubbish. The article is not slanted as such, it was created in 2009 when the news of the court case was 3 years stale at that point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I posted the comment after watching the documentary mentioned on the talkpage. People like the composer Rosendo Ruiz Quevedo alleged that they were treated unfairly, not just the Cuban government. About 10 minutes in he gets asked: "do you think the contracts were fair?" and his response was: "no, totally unfair" (it has been translated obviously). The information seems to be relevant to the article, so I think it should be mentioned. Articles like for example O.J. Simpson contain information about stuff that happened more than 3 years ago. I wouldn't be in favor of deleting it just because the court case is "stale". &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see it was never *in* the article (I had a look through the history - if it was there, I didnt find a diff). When the article was created it was likely the editor just used the most recent information. The court case was related to Cuba, but almost every record company/publisher has a long list of people alleging unfair contracts. Its generally completely unencyclopedic. The Cuba stuff probably should be in there, but its absence does not make the article non-neutral. Its a contract dispute - par for the course for the record industry. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you wrote in this section: allegations of unfair contracts are probably usually completely unencyclopedic (most of those allegations are never mentioned in reliable sources) and contract disputes are probably par for the course for the record industry (luckily I do not work in that industry, it seems depressing!). I removed the template, the information is available on the talkpage (BBC and the Guardian are reliable sources) and if someone wants to write something about that then I will appreciate it, but I personally prefer typofixing. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping you. Are you a Warhammer 40k fan? &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC at Alternative Medicine
There is an RfC at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar concerning the use of the term pseudomedicine. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates
Below is a Request for Comment I am posting here because it deals with multiple articles and templates. The issue is WP:Weight. This is an attempt to centralize discussion and drive at an overall consensus that can guide content.

In particular, this is to get feedback and gain overall consensus on what should be the  WP:Weight of information in Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election throughout various articles that relate to United States presidential election, 2016. If Wikipedia could come to a general consensus, it will guide content inputs into several articles.

To state my position clearly, I am of the belief that Russian interference or the belief of Russian interference by US intelligence in the 2016 election is one the most historically significant aspects of the election. That being said, I am of the belief that it should be mentioned in the opening of articles that also reference the election. For example, in the current article United States presidential election, 2016 it currently reads:

Trump is projected to win the Electoral College by 74 votes, with 30 states and Maine's 2nd congressional district going to him, and 20 states and the District of Columbia going to Clinton. Clinton received about 2.8 million more votes nationwide (2.1% of the total cast). This is the fifth time after the 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 elections that the president-elect lost the popular vote. Third-party candidates Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Jill Stein (Greens) scored respectively 3.3% and 1.1% of the national vote.

It is my belief that Wikipedia should add a sentence similar to:

Seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies represented by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 United States presidential election and the Central Intelligence Agency concluded Russia influenced the election to help elect Donald Trump as President of the United States.

I believe something similar should be added to the opening of several articles, including Donald Trump. In my opinion, a foreign government's influence in another nation's election an essential fact to know in any article that relates strongly to that election. As a general rule, if another article mentions the 2016 election of Trump in its lede, it should also mention the CIA conclusions that Russia attempted influence the election in favor of Trump. I also believe it should be in several templates, such as Template:US 2016 presidential elections series and Template:Trump presidency, discussion currently here and here respectively.

Note: There are multiple ongoing discussions that somewhat relate to the question below. Many of the same editors are involved in each. I think it is important to come to an overall guiding consensus on this so it can guide inputs into multiple articles and templates. That said, I will link to this discussion on Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election, Donald Trump, and United States presidential election, 2016. I believe most editors that are currently involved will see it and post here. However, I think it is also important to get uninvolved editors to give their opinion.Casprings (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment
1. Should Wikipedia generally accept that in articles that are strongly related to the 2016 US presidential election and mention the election in the lede, it should also contain information regarding Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election?

2. Should the article Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election be included in templates related to the US's 2016 election? Casprings (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support at least one sentence in WP:LEAD of related articles, per WP:WEIGHT in thousands of reliable sources. Support inclusion in the templates, per same coverage in those thousands of sources in multiple languages. Sagecandor (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose for forcing a Russian influence article plug-in sentence into the leads of related articles; as the proper place is the "See also" section. As for templates, sure. FallingGravity 02:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support some inclusion of this info in the lede of 2016 Presidential election related articles. If this story changes later, the amount in the ledes can also change later. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. By "interfere" they mean someone leaked emails showing the DNC's very real collusion with the media to manipulate public opinion in favor of its candidate, so we might as well blame Russia. A vague reference to Russian "interference" or "influence" conceals more than it reveals.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose both – No need to "advertise" this article everywhere. Just mention the allegations and link to it where appropriate, to be discussed on a case by case basis. The story is too recent and shaky at this point to consider it a central part of the 2016 election, which has seen a lot of controversies already… — JFG talk 06:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose both - There is a strong case to be made for the inclusion of this issue in templates; the place for that discussion, however, is on the template's talk page. There is no deadline on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The proposed articles to be affected are high visibility and are deserving of our individual attention. If this issue is of such historic importance that it must be thrust to the forefront of every article related to it, it deserves our individual attention on an article-by-article basis, without handling it with a shotgun scatter shot one-size-fits-all hamfisted approach crafted during the heat of the moment while the issue is still very much in play. This is, in sum, a solution in search of a problem... the issue is being debated in our talk pages, and it is already receiving prominent coverage in related articles.  Marteau (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose both per WP:NOTNEWS - these allegations are thus far based on anonymous persons reporting in one outlet. We can't make encyclopedia-wide changes. BlueSalix (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - OP has admitted strong bias above and should be topic banned from political articles. --68.228.149.115 (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose both per comments above, esp. WP:NOTNEWS. And I'd happily bet a year's wages that the agency will change its mind very soon after the installation of the new director. The ultimate net effect of the ( ephemeral ) proposed addition would most likely be to embarrass the encyclopedia, not to help the reader . --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion I think it should be in the lede, written very carefully to state that there is current bipartisan support for an investigation, and that the accuracy of the contentions of interference, that the Russians via hacking did influence the election, is a subject of debate and dispute, with no conclusion as yet arrived at as to their accuracy. Activist (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose strongly the notion that we should attempt to categorically decide what information belongs in articles of an arbitrary type. The scope of articles that could be construed as being related to the 2016 US election is potentially monstrous. This is asking for leave to push a POV, and for myriad pointless discussions on "whether this article is related to the election" as a thin guise for "does this Russian content actually belong on the article". Article content should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I Oppose strongly, and encourage everyone' to become more involved in this article Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election, and other, related articles. -Darouet (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on three fronts. First, we don't have proof, that the Russians were actually trying to influence I don't think it's clear what level of influence really occurred.  To say influence occurred is not proven (that isn't to say the Russians didn't try).  Second, without knowing the motivations of voters we can't say the election was influenced.  I've heard at least one commentator claim that Hillary's characterization of Trump supporters as "deplorable" may have had the biggest impact beyond any basic message either side was pushing.  We don't have the historical hindsight to know how this really played out and how it actually impacted the results. Third, (and this is the biggest one) as others have said, this information should be added on a case by case basis.  We just shouldn't say such material should be universally added.  Springee (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose of the first question. These decisions are best made at each article. Support inclusion in the sidebar. Sidebars are for navigation and the article in question is very relevant to the 2016 election. - MrX 18:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion in the US Presidential Election 2016 article (duh) and in the Trump article (a bit more borderline but at this point I think justified). Support adding the Russian influence article to the template (duh).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose inclusion in the ledes of articles. Except for possibly the Election article, it would be grossly undue weight and a BLP violation in the lede of, say, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton (which the nominator has specifically mentioned as being included). Such blatant POV pushing in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the election would be embarrassing to the encyclopedia. I will, however, support usage in the template. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Given that this is an accusation made by the nations security service, it seems to be more the reasonable to include it in the lead. It does not matter if it had an influence, what matters is the nation intelligence services said they tried (and may have succeeded, they certainly got the candidate they wanted).Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support mentions in the leads of the articles said to have been influenced. Support inclusion in the template.
 * (Pinged by bot.) As per policy, the alleged Russian interference clearly belongs in the template on the elections, and in the leads of those articles whose subjects are said to be have been influenced. WP:NPOV means we report what the sources say, not that we decide for ourselves! (However, I can't see why it should be mentioned in every article on the election.)
 * I was surprised to see that the word "alleged" does not appear in the article title. There are still claims and denials flying around, and no consensus is visible.
 * However, the allegations are highly significant coming from the Director of National Intelligence and so on. These are not random accusations by involved parties. WP:NPOV says we should cover them and MOS:LEAD says they should be in the lead. This is a no-brainer to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I could probably accept that it fits well in the lede of the election article. However, do you really think it is due weight for the main biographies of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? In their decades in the public eye, is the allegation of Russian interference in the 2016 election one of the most notable things about them as living people? I don't think a negative, highly contentious statement like that should be one of the first thing a person reads about the President-elect of the United States. The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , yes, it should be part of the description of the election result. For any election, anywhere in the world, if we have information that it was less than free and fair, it should be mentioned. That is Democracy 101. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So if there is some evidence (even non-public evidence!) that at least one vote was cast by a deceased person, we must henceforth say in EVERY article that mentions a particular election result, "Candidate XYZ allegedly 'won' the election, but there is evidence zombies interfered with the result"... that is the logical conclusion of your "less than" linguistic mandate. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the sources say, and if in six months we see some state-level election officials in the federal electric chair for treason, THEN methinks we shall have cause to say "Trump won but the KGB tampered".  Not the case, given what we know right now, however.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose mention in article leads and the template for now. This Russian interference is so far unsubstantiated. What was it exactly? What impact did it have on the 2016 US election exactly? Did Trump win solely because of it? Have previous US elections been similarly affected? Until those questions have been answered, inserting mention of this everywhere is reckless and sensationalist (would we give accusations by Vladimir Putin that the US had interfered with a Russian election the same weight as this?). This could very easily fizzle out like the recounts did and end up amounting to nothing. Joshbunk (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty strong oppose, to the overall treatment of this topic, as retroactively being the Most Important Thing™ of the 2016 election cycle. By contrast, although Nigel Farage was pretty active in the 2016 election, we don't wikilink to Brexit from the intro-paragraphs of every single article and template, and there is no vast and urgent push by wikipedians to have every United States politics article give a sentence about how "seventeen news agencies agree that the United Kingdom influenced the election in favor of Trump."  There is also no attempt to use this fairly-impeccably sourced list to say that Tony Blair was running a conspiracy to help the United Kingdom influence the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.  I have a 'personal' axe to grind, with the 2016 election cycle, which is that the pollsters massively fucked up.  (Twice actually, counting this.)  They were off by *eight percentage points* in each of the key swing-states of PA + WI + MN + NH.  Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are what swung the election.  These statewide mispredictions, WAY outside the margin of error, caused super PACs to reallocate hundreds of millions of dollars, and likely 'influenced' the Senate races, as well as plausibly influencing the presidential outcome.  If the "dern KGB-funded commies" were computer-cracking the pollster data of dozens of firms to alter the swing-state figures, or if they were computer-cracking the voting-machines used in the general election, then we will soon have court convictions and executions for espionage/treason, at which point I would support inclusion of such a sentence.  But weasel-worded handwavy "some agencies currently staffed by people who work for Trump's partisan opponent's former boss claim that secret evidence indicates Russia was 'influencing' the election in some unspecified manner by spreading propaganda" is pure and simple an attempt to retroactively justify what happened.  Wikipedia *is* supposed to educate the readership, but until we know a LOT more, adding a sentence about vague 'interference' is far too point-of-view.  Suggest asking again in six months, at which point either this will turn out to be like Lois Lerner, or it will turn out to be like Herbert Hans Haupt.  Or most likely, it will turn out to be a small subsection of propaganda, right next to the oh-so-coincidentally-timed release of the infamous 2005 recording eleven years later in October 2016.  (*That* was also forcibly inserted into the intro-paragraphs of every post-1932-election-related-article, usually as a pull-quote.)  On a more general note, not speaking in any way about the support-voters nor to the wikipedian who opened this RfC in good faith, I do see this RfC as a small step in the wrong direction... I do *not* want to see every article on politics in the USA start to become a battleground like Israeli-Palestine conflict or the Balkan conflict topic areas, so I ask that folks please try and remember that wikipedia is aiming for eternity, not for righting great wrongs.  This is a fairly important substory of the 2016 post-election news cycle, but it is not the most important thing of 2016 politics, given the data we have right now. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Each article should craft its own lead. It will be relevant to many and should be added to many. But it should be discussed at each article. Discuss adding it to the template on the template talk page. I'm not too experienced with the tradition of what gets added or not. Seems plausible. Chris vLS (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Mandating that this appear in the lede of an article is quite possibly a NPOV issue. It's better to mention it in a subsection or See Also. Editors should be able to make a lede without being mandated by a checklist of things to add into it, that may or may not appear as NPOV.  Adotchar | reply here  10:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Summoned by bot. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV. This is far too early for any kind of mass inclusion and a waiting period is necessary. At best, I would support a mention in the see also section.
 * Per Wikipedia policy, the lead is only supposed to summarize the gist of the article. Therefore, I oppose any mention of it in the lead. I am however not necessarily opposed to it being mentioned in another part of the article. Summoned by bot. Prcc27❄ (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. The bot sent me. It would introduce bias into the articles and fail neutral point of view. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
This is a vague pair of questions. Just how strongly related to the election are you talking about? Maybe you could provide a list or some good examples of what sort of articles and templates you think this information should be in. This somewhat comes off as POV-pushing, I'd like to see input from editors with no dog in the race before I offer an opinion. —DIY Editor (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * United States presidential election, 2016, Donald Trump, Hilary Clinton, Template:US 2016 presidential elections series. This is not meant to be WP:POV pushing. I just think an overall opinion would help guide content inclusion.Casprings (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This eminently passes high importance in the WP:10 year test. Major reporting about demands for further investigation from the President-Elect's own party. Statements from Republicans and Democrats alike joining together in a rare show of bipartisanship over this issue. - (Examples: The Wall Street Journal Fox News The New York Times The Washington Post National Public Radio Los Angeles Times). Sagecandor (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Need further study and also more defined proposal on what will appear in the article. The Russian involvement is currently unclear. There are indications that Russian hacking of the RNC (Republicans) was somewhat unsuccessful except the emails of a few people. There are editorials that the Russians might have been trying to pretend they support Trump in the hopes that Hillary would be elected. Hillary would be less likely to retaliate in a fit of rage. Furthermore, Hillary reset relations with Russia when she was Secretary of State so the Russians might really want her. This saga is very unclear at the moment. Usernamen1 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article title currently implies that involvement is unambiguous. I think this is a major problem per WP:POVTITLE, and should be rectified ASAP. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article title reflects reliable sources. You don't like what the reliable sources say, take it up with them. It would be POV to NOT accurately represent reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And oh yeah, note that "Usernamen1"'s comment basically amount to "some people say this" kind of stuff. There isn't a single source provided for the claims some of which are plausible and some pretty ridiculous. And again, sources disagree.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * By your own admission, you think that Russian interference or the belief of Russian interference by US intelligence in the 2016 election is one the most historically significant aspects of the election. Some editors agree with you more or less strongly. Other editors, me included, think this story is merely hyperventilation by the Democrats and some elements of US intelligence community and military-industrial apparatus, amplified by journalists who need to feed their publications. Both points of view are interesting, and none should influence what Wikipedia reports. In this context, I disapprove of pushing this information to numerous articles, as you suggest, because this is advocacy of your POV on the story. I recommend noting the allegations and hypotheses, both sourced, and letting readers make up their mind. — JFG talk 06:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If another article is mentioned in an article's lede, it is often in one to three sentences that tell the reader the key facts of the ariticle. I think the key facts of the election are. 1. Trump won EC, Clinton got more votes. 2. US Intel believes Russia influenced the election. We disagree about the second, but I reject claims of POV pushing. and I find it divisive to claim that again. The correct forum for user conduct is not this one. Casprings (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Both JFG and I worry that you may be pushing your POV here, Casprings. Also, I'm a bit troubled by your use of the loaded term "divisive" in your riposte. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right. My apologies to user:JFG.
 * JFG, thanks for your opinion but, again, sources tend to agree with Casprings here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to see sources that give a ranking of the most important political events of 2016, which put Russian attempts to influence USA elections *above* wikileaks itself, and *above* Brexit. Nobody is arguing that the Russian-'interference' article is not important, just that it is not so important that we need to retroactively insert it everywhearrr.  I don't think Casprings is pushing a POV, because they asked in an RfC.  They asked in good faith, and I expect the answer they will receive is that, no in fact, the sources do NOT say that Russkie-propaganda-tactics were one of the top ten political events of 2016.  Or perhaps I'm wrong, and such sources do exist; if so, please educate me by listing the ten most-reliably-sources URLs which explicitly say such things.  I'm not asking for sources which say "Russia stuff is important" here because that is not the dispute, I'm asking for sources that say 'Russia stuff is way more important than Brexit in terms of worldwide political events in 2016' or the like.  I know of exactly zero.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been for inclusion in text and against inclusion in leads at this time. It appears that this story will have long legs and I'll change my mind. Just think the RfC is a bit premature. Objective3000 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see the "related to the US election" being a bit problematic and possibly game-able, but in the case of articles currently enummerated the info surely belongs in there (and in the lede).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * strong oppose as embarrassing to Wikipedia and to the United States. Speaking as someone with an information security background, the entire allegation is cringeworthy. Of course Russian hackers exist. They have always existed and they are not going to "cut it out," although I admire Obama's loyalty for saying they should. What is newsworthy is that the Democratic party dismissed the need for adequate security in this election, and now we have all this pearl-clutching over their discovery that yes, email security Is A Thing and maybe HRC should listened to the State Department's IT people. Imagine an aide sharing a laptop with Anthony Weiner, omg. Add, if you must, a selection of the reporting, but in god's name please don't endorse this in the voice of Wikipedia. Please make sure anything about this is clearly attributed. Personally, I think it is too soon to adequately assess these events. The same government that begs for recruits at information security conferences wants me to believe that "very sophisticated" hackers would leave a username and metadata in Cyrillic behind? Perhaps they are right -- we don't know what they are not making public -- and perhaps, as these agencies tell us at DEFCON, they lack technical expertise. It all smells like WMD to me, and I keep waiting for the discovery of a convenient set of ID documents. Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Saleh v. Bush
If some folks with a bit more expertise than me in the topic of international legal battles over alleged war crimes can please take a look, I would appreciate it. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I attempted to restart an existing discussion on the article-talkpage, but have not yet received a response (low-traffic leaf-article).
 * I then asked for some eyeballs on WP:IRC, where SparksofLight suggested an RfC, whilst AntiComposite suggested contacting this noticeboard.
 * State the article being discussed; Saleh v. Bush
 * Include diffs to the specific change being proposed: well, although I made a small change to the article (removing a weak source and inserting an ever-so-slightly-better one), but that is not the content-dispute for which I would like some NPOVN advice... rather, I would like NPOVN folks to please say whether they think the article needs WP:TNT or maybe even WP:AfD, which to my eyes seems to be the two viable options
 * Concisely state the problem perceived: the body-prose of the article is using wikivoice and WP:SYNTH to litigate the lawsuit against the defendants, most of whom are famous living people, and often the sentences are backed by either WP:ABOUTSELF sources (the plaintiffs) or WP:PRIMARY sources (the court docs)
 * I've very briefly looked over the article and think that it is written as a soapbox for the legal efforts of the plaintiff and her legal team, rather than as an encyclopedia article about the legal case and it's outcome. I think it needs a rewrite from independent sources. -Ronz (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was WP:BOLD and reverted it prior to the latest expansion of the article, done by a WP:SPA ip, . Subsequent edits are relatively minor beyond expanding the "Chronology of the lawsuit" section, and noting that the section is poorly sourced and BLP applies . --Ronz (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Chuck Blazer
The article in question is Chuck Blazer.

The following three sequential diffs are the subject of contention 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Blazer&diff=756421661&oldid=742371419 2.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Blazer&diff=756421764&oldid=756421661 3.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Blazer&diff=756443152&oldid=756421764

Chuck Blazer has two sources of notability: soccer administration, and large scale financial crime. I believe the version of the lead I modified was too 'sanitized.' By the wording, Blazer might be an innocent Whistleblower. I changed the wording to make his criminality clear to readers early on in the article, and explain how he was coerced to be a cooperating witness. No POV commentary—his criminality is well publicized. GiantSnowman responded with a blanket reversion (no summary), while leaving a Level 2 Vandalism warning on my | Talk page. I responded by opening a | discussion @ Talk:Chuck Blazer. I believe my arguments there use Wikipedia policy to thoroughly justify my changes to the article. I especially put the torch to Snowman's attempt to justify his edit with WP:UNDUE, and I want to restore my edits. Tapered (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blazer is primarily notable as a soccer administrator; his brush with the law is secondary. The current wording in the introduction has been there a ling time and is well thought-out and neutral. Your wording is NPOV and violated BLP. You seem to have some agenda in painting him as a "crook", as the wording on the talk page shows. GiantSnowman 08:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the current version is just fine; we don't know exactly why he chose to become a cooperating witness and that's too detailed of information for the lede at any rate. We should dispassionately describe people accused and/or convicted of crimes, even if they're awful people; we should let the sources do the condemnation, not us. 08:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The description of Blazer's flip doesn't belong in the lede. However, please explain why the following sentences aren't factual. Short of his actual thoughts and emotions, we know exactly why Blazer flipped—he was confronted by law enforcers who told him he could cooperate or go to jail for the rest of his life. Chuck Blazer is a white collar criminal. Tapered (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with GiantSnowman. The proposed language in Tapered's edits is unnecessarily accusatory. The second paragraph in the lead pretty much covers Blazer's actions in the scandal.-- MarshalN20 T al k 17:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to tidy things up, how was (and future is) the wording of my edit "accustory?" Also, why would some variation of 'Chuck Blazer is a white collar criminal not be appropriate for the lede? Tapered (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede as of this minute is excellent. Chuck Blazers notability, to the majority of the world's population not versed in the arcana of soccer organizations and administration, derives from his central role in a major scandal. May I be struck dead by lightning if it's otherwise. I'd like to know how my direct language about his guilt in financial crimes as a soccer admin is any harsher than what's on the page now. I'd like to thank NorthBySouthBaranof for his excellent work on the article. The lede is now better and more informative. I've added the story of Blazer's 'flip' to last section. If you're not sure why he flipped, please read the NY Daily News article that is Refs #3 and 19. It traces the chain of events flawlessly, starting with Warner and bin Hammam's ham-handed bribery at the Carribean Football Federation meeting. Couldn't be plainer. Tapered (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, if you check the number of articles in reliable sources, print and online, about Chuck Blazer, I bet my life that most come in the wake of his role in the CCF/CONCACAF/FIFA scandal. Aside from his larceny, he was good for soccer, at least as an entertainment industry. To be fair to him, it may be that he should be more, or equally, notable for his efforts, but he's not. Virtue ≠ Notability. Tapered (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) NY Daily News is a tabloid, not a reliable source; 2) if you cannot see the difference between you suggested edits and the current version then you really shouldn't be editing at all. GiantSnowman 09:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Who, besides you, has declared the NYDN not to be a reliable source?
 * The difference—what I see is that there's a detailed account of Blazer's pleas and status as an informent, and no mention of Blazer's apprehension in the lede. I acknowledged that it's a better lede than after my edit, but mine was very much an improvement over the previous one, which completely sidestepped his notability as a convicted major criminal. Blazer flipped when he was apprehended on a city street and informed by an FBI agent and an IRS agent that they knew the crimes he'd committed, and that he could be arrested or become a cooperating informant. I've changed the word "airtight" to "incontrovertible," to avoid the near occasion of 'purple prose.'
 * Please stop Wiki-harassing me. It's not the behavior of a good administrator. Tapered (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As you have been told, your choice of language is inappropriate. Why do you fail to recognise that? GiantSnowman 22:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Isnt this the guy who had an apartment for his Parrot? Is that in the lede? -edit- Actually it was his cats/pets in Trump Tower and is not mentioned in the article at all. Shame. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do (at some point, not just now!) to address your concerns. But I think some of the people @ Reliable sources/Noticeboard (New York Daily News unreliable?) might object! Tapered (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Good news! I don't expect to be struck by lightning. I didn't keep precise numbers, but the number of New York Times articles which mention Chuck Blazer before and after the crucial year of 2011 (the kickoff of the ongoing Association Football scandal), are nearly equal. The only dedicated article of note before 2011 was in 2010—a Q&A about the World Cup. 2011 saw the largest number of articles, virtually all of which concern Blazer as an administrator, but an administrator dealing with the aftermath of the CFU scandal, the primary exception being a dedicated article about his resignation from his CONCACAF offices. All articles after 2011 concern Blazer's criminal activities, and there are several dedicated articles in 2015, by far the largest concentration. The preponderance of dedicated coverage @ NYT and hence Blazer's primary notability in 2016, is for criminal activity. Please note that the NYT may have the best soccer/association football coverage in the US, that Blazer is a native of New York City, and that he lived and conducted his business in NYC. This makes it likely that he probably received more press coverage before 2011 @ the NYT than any other media outlet, and that his notability is likely even more skewed toward his criminal activities in most other media outlets in the US and elsewhere (though he probably received significant coverage outside the US around the 2022 World Cup bidding process). Tapered (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't really true, though. His primary notability is not for the criminal activity, but for revealing that criminal activity to investigators and serving as a confidential informant. The lede certainly discusses that he is also guilty of various crimes himself, but the focus of the reliable sources is on the revelations he made that led to the discovery of a much more widespread set of criminal activities. He is guilty of tax crimes, but also disclosed systematic corruption. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Had Blazer not been part and parcel of the criminal activities—purely a whistleblower—that could be said. But since he was both conspirator/criminal and informant, it's an artificial distinction. His notoriety derives from criminal behavior. Tapered (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

NPOV vs undue weight
Any article included on Wikipedia, also promotes it by virtue of its existence. Is this ever a reason to exclude an article, because its promotion amounts to WP:UNDUE weight, assuming the contents conforms to WP:V and WP:RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantresman (talk • contribs)


 * There can be no such thing as NPOV vs. undue weight because undue weight is a part of NPOV. And the answer is no - WP:UNDUE governs content within an article, not the creation of new articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there is potential that an article - typically a spinoff article - may technically meet NPOV but fail an UNDUE aspect. One common article that can be problematic but common as a spinoff is "Criticism of X". Now while normally these are written to take both constructive and negative criticism, it would be possible for some topics to find only negative criticism in the reliable sources, and next to none coverage in counterpoint to those. Per NPOV, we can't make a false balance so the fact the criticism article would only include negative points is in line with that. But that would also arguably be against UNDUE in the sense that pullng out the excessive criticism about a topic from its main article is basically making something that starts approaching an attack article. Instead, that content should be relocated back into the main topic so that it becomes far less UNDUE in the coverage of the entire topic. Another way to look at this is that NPOV covers how we as editors should write about controversial topics, but UNDUE is more specific about how to determine what sourced opinions and statements should be included and in what ratios to present a reasonable neutral balance with the rest of the facts of the article. --M ASEM (t) 23:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No topic by its existence is NPOV. Take for example "Ancient astronauts," which is about the theory that aliens visited Earth in ancient times.  Provided it is based on reliable secondary sources (none of which support the theory) then it is neutral, if it gives due weight to opinions expressed in reliable sources, that is, if it explains that there were no ancient astronauts even if it details the claims there were.
 * "Criticism of articles" are however POV nightmares, but their problem is that they fail notability, in other words, they describe a topic that does not exist in reliable sources. Take for example the article "Criticisms of socialism."  While authors have written criticisms of socialism, they do not write about criticism of socialism.  Some authors criticize socialism because they think it will lead to communism, others criticize it because it will not lead to communism.  Some define it as state ownership of the means of production, others define it as the welfare state.  If experts were to write books and articles that grouped all these criticisms together under one topic, then we could write a neutral article, explaining the different criticisms and noting the degree of support they had.
 * TFD (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Criticism of X" articles may seem to fail notability, but when these are spun-out from a larger topic under WP:SS, the notability of X generally carries into that subarticle, presuming X is a very large topic and can't be covered under WP:SIZE in a single article, . (We had this discussion around 4-5 years ago on these types of articles) It's also a natural split of such articles too for some topics. But the resulting article still must be written NPOVly, and it could be possible, as I said, that UNDUE could not be met in such a case. --M ASEM (t) 04:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that this is at least partially about WP:POVFORK, right? --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, not a povfork, unless the main article totally leaves out all mention of criticism – by which I mean, criticial assessment – AND that criticism is so predominately one way or the other that its presence or omission makes a difference in the reader's assessment of the topic.


 * I am not entirely clear on Masem's position, but there are cases where the critical assessment of something can go much deeper, and with much more detail, than is appropriate in the main article. (E.g.: Theory of continental drift.) Perhaps a distinction should be made between articles that just pile up "criticism" – usually of the negative kind – against a topic, to the extent of suggesting a result or status significantly different from that of the main article, and articles that examine the criticism itself, perhaps explaining what is only summarized in the main article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And that's why I brought up POVFORK. Forking a subtopic places a large amount of additional weight on that subtopic. Sometimes it's deserved, sometimes not. When it is not, I think POVFORK applies. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your unsupported opinion that povfork applies doesn't explain much. I am trying to sort out why povfork might, or might not, be applicable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess that related to this is, can we have a neutral article without any critical analysis? Can ideas be described neutrally (perhaps using attribution) without comment, and not violate WP:WEIGHT. What if we have minority source in support, but no mainstream sources? Is it simply a matter a framing the subject appropriately? --Iantresman (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that articles without historical context tend to be very poor, and critical analysis is usually a part of such context.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "minority" vs "mainstream" sources, but you may be referring to topics that fall within WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Now that I can agree with, that giving the historical context tends to improve an article. Also, that critical analysis tends to be for the better, because it explains why a view is accepted, or not. Even where there is no opposing view, an explanation can be good. I think the key issue here relates to the idea of a "neutral" article. That implies not favoring one side or another, which assumes some kind of opposing viewpoint. Can something be "neutral" if there are no other "sides"?  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Articles can be neutral even if there is only one 'side' which is based on biased sources. As that is not what 'neutral' means in NPOV. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This makes sense when talking about a controversial topic that does not feature a singular person or group at the center of it; eg it makes sense for topics like global warming. However, I have seen numerous cases as of late where the controversy features a person or named group at the center of it, who more than likely has a far-from-popular opinion compared to the general public which does not get shared or widely reported in RSes, leaving only the sources that critique that person or group as the only RSes that could be used. The resulting article, if we were to follow UNDUE in this manner, would thus leave that article in a state where only contrary views to the person/group are presented, making it appear as an attack article. This happens all too frequently on subjects that would fall within the alt-right, as a current example of this problem.
 * In such cases, UNDUE becomes problematic to resolving neutrality. We are supposed to document controversies, which in such cases should include some type of statement that describes what those individuals/groups state from their side, even if these are not reported in normally reliable sources. Opinions on the controversy at large should subsequently be inserted as within UNDUE, but we should not be using UNDUE to eliminate or negate voices from parties central to a controversy that is about them. The resulting article will still be likely weighed heavily against that person/group due to the opinions about it, but at least the fundamental facts of the controversy are laid out to help the reader understand why the controversy exists. --M ASEM (t) 16:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * MASEM, criticism sections have the same problems as criticism articles, which turning them into articles does not address. Criticism is best inserted in the section about whatever is being criticized.  So for Thomas Jefferson for example, we do not need a criticism section saying that he was criticized for owning slaves, we can put that in the section about his slaves.  TFD (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If the criticism can be narrowed down to a facet, it absolutely makes sense to write the criticism locally when talking about that facet. But not all criticism nicely compartmentalizes like this. Take Criticism of Christianity where many of the subjects covered are not representative of single facets of the main Christianity article. As such, you will often end up with a criticism section or a separate criticism article. The section is less a problem because its still on the same page as the fundamental facts that are being criticized so the neutral presentation is there. Criticism articles do need to be careful though to avoid just taking only the most popular views without providing sufficient context as to avoid the non-neutral attack article approach. --M ASEM (t) 19:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Like I said above, a critical article on a topic ("Criticism of ...") can go much deeper than is appropriate in the main article, and perhaps Criticism of Christianity exemplfies this. Where a "Criticism of X" article is a problem, and possibly warrants exclusion, is the kind that disputes the mainstream view of a topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Apropos of certain points that are made in this conversation, maybe an essay I wrote many years ago might help: Notability vs. prominence. I think it is helpful to look at ideas on a spectrum. The strong cut for subjects which are "not notable" is to not have articles about them. Opinions which are really obscure may be marginalized within other articles due to our WEIGHT clause. jps (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Verbatim Nazi propaganda on Talk pages
Revisiting this topic... (Prior discussion: permalink).

The matter of the WW2 German High Command press communiques (Wehrmachtbericht) has been controversial over the years. Most recently, it was discussed at this noticeboard (link above), as well as at Military History Talk page (Quoting from London Gazette versus Wehrmachtbericht), and various article Talk pages such as on Manstein (link) and Bach-Zalewski (link).

The material was deemed undue and was subsequently removed from articles. An editor has recently began reinserting this material on Talk pages of related articles, stating that this was being done for the purposes of archiving the transcripts: sample diff 1 and diff 2.

I don’t believe that this is needed or desirable, given that Talk pages are not storage areas for material that by consensus has been determined to be unsuitable for the main space. Given that the material represents unadulterated Nazi propaganda, it may be undue for the Talk pages either.

I would appreciate more input on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It is my personal opinion that this is not propaganda. Claims that a single aircrew attained "ace" status on each of three single missions, and that the radio operator shot down three more aircraft after the pilot's gun jammed when he had already shot down six aircraft... such claims are material for mockery and derision, not material for propaganda.


 * Secondly, I do not see any indication in the edits you mention, that there is any glorification of the Nazi regime.


 * Some users may take the view that "archiving" such material to the talk page is inappropriate. That is the discussion to be had. MPS1992 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting... where do you see "mockery and derision"? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's my response to those claims. I don't consider them credible. MPS1992 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What solution to this problem do you seek? Should these additions be blanked from the talkpages? Should the editor adding them be banned from making further such additions? MPS1992 (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * How many deletion notices have you left on the other editor's talkpage in the last two months? MPS1992 (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

No matter how amusing they may be to some readers, the fact is inescapable: this was Nazi Party war propaganda. No amount of minimization or ridicule can change that. While I recognize the Mel Brooks approach has merit, that's not what's available to the project on mainspace pages. The bigger issue, however, is that it is simply not necessary to include large quoted sections, either on article pages or on talkpages. These chunks are immaterial and do not expand understanding of the article subjects. There is no reason to have them on the article pages, and placing them on the talk pages after consensus has removed them from the article pages has the appearance of trying to perform an end-around. Delete and carry on. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Would propaganda from another party in the same historical conflict be handled differently? If not, specifying this material as "Nazi Party war propaganda" is meaningless, and also makes the unfair implication that the editor concerned is deliberately disseminating Nazi material. It also makes the title for this section unreasonable. MPS1992 (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Drawing the inference that I think posting Wehrmachtbericht extracts is equivalent to having an objectionable viewpoint was not my intent, and I apologize if that is how it sounded. I am, on the contrary, assuming the postings were well-meant.  But I do think there is a definite historical revisionist or denialist effect (not intent) to use of that material in biographies.  So there is meaning to posting it, and to objecting to it.  But as I said, even if we ignore that effect, there is no reason for it.  The information can easily be conveyed through text like "cited three times in the Wehrmachtbericht for exploits in the Defense of the Reich aerial campaign .  An interested party can read the text for them self, if they so desire. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC).

Apparently, editor sees the matter of transcripts differently (in addition to the original editor), as they have reverted my removal of the transcript from a Talk page:


 * "Don't remove additions to the talk page unless it is vandalism".

I don't believe these transcripts belong on Talk pages, but perhaps more input is needed to convince the two editors? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ask the editor that put them there why he did so? Did you bother to ask? Or did you, like so often, delete things you don't like first and ask questions later.
 * I'm going through the hundreds of articles you've deleted from Wikipedia without consensus on the (erroneous) charge they are not notable, exactly because of that kind of attitude.
 * You seem to forget K.e.Coffman, that you've dumped these transcripts on article talk pages as well. What's changed? Dapi89 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have placed Wehrmachtbericht transcripts on Talk pages as part of the discussion, for example here:
 * Wehrmachtbericht report, take 2
 * Please review WP:TALK; "archiving" of material removed by consensus is not listed there.
 * Also ping, as editor Dapi suggests, so that the clarify the intention behind placing the transcripts on Talk pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing me here. I am aware that the Wehrmachtbericht is propaganda and a delicate topic, requiring context to avoid the historical revisionist or denialist effect as stated earlier. The reason for my archiving the wording, as a working copy, was to counter historical revisionism. To make this evident to the casual reader, I placed the working copy in a hidden section (see Talk:Gerhard Raht). As Eggishorn suggested, my intension was and still is to work the information into the article, if needed countering the wrong information with reliable secondary sources, or if correct, confirm the information with other sources as well. What alternative storage area do you suggest? Moving the verbatim text to Wikiquote is probably also not in the best interest. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe the editor is describing a classic case of WP:OR: "if needed countering the wrong information with reliable secondary sources, or if correct, confirm the information with other sources as well", as comparing and contrasting a primary source should be left to historian and researchers, not done by Wikipedia editors.


 * In this case, the primary source (the collected Wehrmachtbericht transcripts) is highly problematic and have been deemed by various editors to be "rubbish", "unreliable Nazi propaganda", and "crap of a primary source" that "has no place in Wikipedia" (this is from collection of discussions linked above). The view that these transcripts represent "historic testimony" is clearly in the minority.


 * The "archiving" for any future use is not needed to begin with, since the transcripts exist in the article history. Please also see feedback from MilHist discussion: Talk pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When things are posted on a talk page and then discussed, at the conclusion of the discussion they are then archived, either manually or through a bot at regular time intervals. No need to be held and preserved on the talk page, nor just posted there when there is no current article discussion on them. And as for inclusion in an article, once something is removed by consensus then there is no reason to preserve them on a talk page specially unless, as I said above, they are posted there as part of a direct discussion on them; then once the discussion is over; the discussions are archived like every other discussion. Kierzek (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Current consensus on the Wehrmachtbericht
An good point was made over at MilHist: "cutting and pasting the transcripts into the talk page isn't good practice unless the consensus is currently being challenged" (link).

Question for is there an intention to challenge the current consensus? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not challenging the consensus at this moment. I understand that today, the community believes that the verbatim Wehrmachtbericht transcript should not be part of the Wikipedia articles, unless the wording is addressed and commented by other secondary reliable sources. This needs to be looked into on a case by case basis. However, I will follow up on the idea suggested by Nick-D. Nick suggested that the Wehrmachtbericht might be posted to Wikisource. I am currently checking into the copyright status of the Wehrmachtbericht. It has to be public domain in order for it to be hosted at Wikisource. The fact the Wehrmachtbericht is Nazi propaganda does not seem to be an issue at Wikisource, it is not a reason for exclusion at Wikisource (feedback from an administrator at Wikisource) Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, great, thanks for clarifying that there's no intention to challenge the existing consensus. Since the matter appears to be settled, would you mind removing the transcripts from Talk page where they have recently been added, such as at Talk:Helmut Lent and others? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Since there's been no response, I removed the transcripts from Talk pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Earthquake prediction
Looking for feedback on NPOV as applied to fringe earthquake prediction theories at this article.

Talk:Earthquake_prediction JerryRussell (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Third Way article
This is about the article Third Way, which I consider POV. On the talk page there were many attempts at generating discussion, all ignored. This is the latest. For example a years-old proposal of a secondary source has lead to no talk at all. My opinion is that there are other views: rightist or green, that are also to be included in the article. The best source could be Steve Bastow & James Martin: Third Way Discourse. Honestly, "Third way" seems to be at least partially a political marketing brand, however, there could be a useful collection of the different ideologies that can be described with it, or the adherents of which described themselves with it. Currently the article seems to serve as an advertisement of only one of these ideologies. 193.224.72.252 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and articles should be about discreet topics. That's the problem with the article.  TFD (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

British Empire NPOV tagging
There is currently an NPOV dispute regarding the British Empire article. This same dispute has surfaced several times in the past, such as the article FA review back in 2010 and this talk page discussion back in 2014. The dispute is over whether the article covers the legacy of the British Empire properly, and whether it should cover some other aspects of the British Empire besides a narrative of its history.

Three users (including myself) from one side of this dispute have been adding an NPOV tag to the top of the British Empire article. Three users from the other side have been removing it, claiming there is no NPOV dispute and we need to make a case before we can place an NPOV tag. Take a look at Talk:British Empire. We have done that. We have had a 9000 word discussion about neutrality on the talk page. 6 of the 11 sections currently on the talk page were created by the three of us to discuss the NPOV issues.

Yet the other side simply says there is no NPOV dispute and we are not entitled to tag the page. Here are the dispute participants: Can I get some affirmation that there is an ongoing NPOV dispute and we are allowed to tag articles we think have NPOV problems with NPOV tags?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * NPOV tag adders
 * User:Quality posts here
 * User:Alfie Gandon
 * User:Bertdrunk
 * Removers
 * User:Snowded
 * User:Wiki-Ed
 * User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick
 * Other involved parties (did not edit NPOV tag)
 * User:Wee Curry Monster


 * User:Quality Posts Here has neglected to explain the nature of the dispute fully: the aspects he wants to expand upon are specific themes (genocide, racism, exploitation etc) which are notoriously controversial. The (featured) article is a Level 3 overview, adopting a narrative approach - describing what happened and avoiding modern value judgements. Arguably there is a case for adding a few sentences to describe lasting effects on native populations, but this would have to be done with due care. For an example of the kind of 'neutral' content User:Quality Posts Here would like to add the reader may wish to check his user page. This kind of unbalanced synthesis is not - in my view - suitable for Wikipedia.
 * To resolve this we have suggested User QPH focus on drafting verifiable, neutral sentences (rather than lengthy paragraphs) and to test these on the talk page. Rather than do this he and others have focused on trying to add a NPOV tag. The article was locked for a week to prevent the disruption it caused. Now that lock has expired and he is returning to the charge.
 * I should add that while only three editors may have reverted the NPOV tag there have been at least five others supporting those actions.Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I got down to the section 'Genocide of indigenous peoples' and realised I had no wish to read any more. I am pretty sure from reading that userpage that I dont think they should be editing an article on the British Empire. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A quick read of Quality Posts draft on his user page indicates the problem - synthesis and OR to make a point. No case made on the talk page, its fly by tagging.   S/he should make a case for specific changes on the talk page and not threaten to make mass changes when s/he knows they are likely to be reverted  Snowded  TALK 06:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made the case for specific changes. What do you mean by 'fly-by tagging'? Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove the NPOV tag but support removing it 100%. For an article to be a Featured Article, it goes through extensive peer review, were there any NPOV problems it would never have achieved that. The tagging is not being used to draw attention to an issue, its been used because editors are not prepared to use WP:DR and are gaming the system to force the changes they want into the article - including threats to force a FA review to remove the FA status. All of the changes I've seen so far are detrimental to article quality. The material they're seeking to impose on the article is not neutral e.g. The violent expansionism and racial beliefs of the British Empire had a severely negative impact on the indigenous population.   There are multiple examples of WP:OR and WP:SYN in what is proposed new section, WP:OPINION is presented as WP:FACT throughout the new section, e.g. one authors opinion that the British are racist. And the editors are fond of expressing opinions such as "There is no academic debate about whether the British Empire was racist. " This posting here is yet another example of forum shopping in a campaign that I fear is destined to end up at WP:ARBCOM but not until a great deal of editing time is wasted unproductively. As observed quite adroitly from reading that userpage one quite quickly concludes they shouldn't be editing British Empire and in fact I'm not sure  they should be editing full stop. WCM email 16:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We are currently engaged in dispute resolution. The NPOV tag should show readers that. Three editors believe there is an NPOV problem. Just because a greater number disagree doesn't mean the dispute doesn't exist. If the dispute exists, there ought to be a tag. It's strange to want the NPOV tag removed from the British Empire article, while you added one yourself to the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples article that I have been gracious enough not to remove. I don't deny you dispute the neutrality of that article. Yet you are saying to the three of us on the British Empire page, "you are not disputing the neutrality of the article" despite our insistence that we are. How do you justify that?--Quality posts here (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not engaged in dispute resolution as far as I can see.  You have yet to explore discussion on the talk page to the point where that would be appropriate.   Snowded  TALK 20:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dispute_resolution. How are we not discussing it with the other party? WCM put an NPOV tag on the genocide of indigenous peoples article with just a 1400 word discussion. Our discussion on NPOV in the British Empire article has now exceeded 10,000 words, yet you say we are wrong to place an NPOV tag? When will it be right? When we have written 50,000 words? 100,000? I don't see how you can look at the British Empire talk page and say there is no neutrality dispute occurring. The fact that three separate editors have tried to tag the page with the NPOV dispute tag is further evidence of that.--Quality posts here (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

An un-involved observation. Its seems to me, that if there's a dispute of the usage of a dispute tag on an article, then that in itself is a sign of a dispute over an article's content. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure I like this logic, if I put a random POV tag in an article does it suddenly become an article whose POV is in dispute?Slatersteven (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * By definition, yes. When you place the tag, you dispute the neutrality and overall perspective of an article. Currently Category:NPOV disputes includes 6,864 articles with such disputes. Dimadick (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems like a trolls charter (hell a POV pushers one as well). Want to disrupt a page you do not like, NPOV it. Hell I have seen this happen multiple times over at the BNP page whenever some right winger decides he wants to play politics on Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A person placing a tag is supposed to set up a discussion thread which can navigated to by clicking on the link the tag. It is supposed to explain what they consider to be the problem.  If they don't do that, it is appropriate to remove the tag.  But unless there is agreement that the article is biased, then there is no reason to keep the tag, even if the editor continues to argue there is.  I note the tag was linked to Talk:British Empire  That is no reason for the POV tag.  TFD (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Rolfing
Can we get some unbiased contributors? It seems is not neutral like Acupuncture. The page is controlled by anti-Rolfing contributors. Example "In general serious people do not bother discussing nonsenses like Rolfing because they have better things to do." Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC) --Mikehenke (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note this has been to WP:FT/N several times, had an RfC, and recently been the subject of a failed DRN attempt. The page has recently been given extended-confirmed protection following an influx of WP:SPAs perhaps due to off-site recruiting. Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally cant take this topic seriously because the name conjures up the image of the piano-playing muppet in a doctor's coat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Historical Vedic religion
Historical Vedic religion is too euro-centric in its bias. It only references Western scholars. Unfortunately much of western scholarship on Indian history is built on layers of colonial bias. To make an article on India neutral and unbiased, it must cite modern Indian scholars in equal measure if not more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demystifiersf (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Historical Vedic religion, Demystifiersf is making a false distinction between western and South Asian scholars, based on geography and ethnicity, and making an unsubstantiated and polemical accusation: "A lot of these scholars suffer from a eurocentric bias, a lot of it a hangover of the colonial times." See Template:POV:
 * "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant."
 * That's what this article does: using high-quality sources. In the absence of any reliable source showing widespread academic doubt about the neutrality and the colonial bias of the specific authors being used here, and the absence of concrete examples of reliable south Asian sources, tagging this section with a POV-tag is misplaced and disruptive. By the way, Singh seems to be a south Asian scholar, just like B. S. Ahloowalia.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * please explain and substantiate concretely how David Anthony has an eurocentric bias, has a hangover from colonial times, and which south Asian authors are on a par with him. Same for Gavin Flood, Geoffrey Samuel and Alf Hiltebeitel.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   22:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The suggestion that Western scholarship such as David Anthony Gavin Flood, Geoffrey Samuel and Alf Hiltebeitel is of absolute High quality and no Indian researcher/historian in 5000 years of history measures up to his status is inherently biased. The origin section makes very little reference to Indian scholars. The information citing Singh is almost obvious and trivial, not a substantial one. The vast majority of this article and most substantial claims in the article come from Western citations. To deny the impact of colonialism is racist, since western scholarship has monopolized most academic scholarship in these topics especially studies written in European languages in Western Universities. Historical records and works of Indian historians in native Indian languages have no representation here. While this was alright in the past wikipedia provides an opportunity to undo that bias.


 * It is also well known that many Westerners have had a tendency to aggrandize Aryan culture and Vedic heritage since colonial times(the third Reich was a classic) and tried to deprive and distance present day Indians from their own ancient culture.That motivation still persists in the interest of several Western indologists today and many still cite works of colonial English/German language Indologists. To bring a neutral perspective on true Aryan history, especially Indo-Aryan history the perspective of Indian scholarship is essential and the countless academic institutions of India produce enough scholars fully capable of bringing that perspective, albeit not all this information may be in English.


 * Until that perspective is sourced and this article is fixed, this article will remain biased and should be open to discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demystifiersf (talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please substantiate concretely, with the use of reliable sources, your allegations against western scholars, and provide reliable Indian sources if you think those are missing. See my question on Anthony, Flood, Samuel and Hiltebeitel. Also, if you think that there are relevant views missing (since that's what an unbalanced article is about), please explain which, with reference to WP:RS. And don't misquote me; I don't say there are no reliable Indian sources; I'm asking you to provide them. Otherwise, don't use Wikipedia as a forum for your personal opiniins; see WP:NOTFORUM. Note also that at the English Wikipedia we use English sources. And be carefull with accusations of racism; such accusations are not helpfull; see WP:PERSONALATTACK.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * NB: your Nazi-argument is crossing a border:
 * "It is also well known that many Westerners have had a tendency to aggrandize Aryan culture and Vedic heritage since colonial times(the third Reich was a classic) and tried to deprive and distance present day Indians from their own ancient culture.That motivation still persists in the interest of several Western indologists today and many still cite works of colonial English/German language Indologists."
 * See Godwin's law ("there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned Hitler has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress"), and refrain from such statements. Instead, start reading Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel and Language, to get an understanding of what you're comparing with Nazism.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   22:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -, your attempt to paint all western scholars as advocates/collaborators/whatever of the Third Reich is itself a racist remark. There is nothing in any Wikipedia policies that makes distinctions based on nationalities of scholars. All that matters is whether they are reliable as per WP:RS. Please strike that remark, and get down to the hard business of demonstrating the supposed "euro-centric bias" that you claim. Without that, you have no leg to stand on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kautilya3 here. The language or origins of the sources we use is generally, at best, of dubious relevance to our content, with the exception that sources written in English, being written in English, are easier for most of us to read and verify. In a case like this, where there is an indication that some perceive some form of Western bias, the best thing to do would be to find some non-Western reference sources of some sort which present the information differently. And I do think that there are at least a few fairly good reference sources on India and early Indian religion.
 * If, however, what might be being argued here is that Western sources might not give the same degree of credibility to some sometimes dubious claims still held by Eastern sources or individuals, unfortunately, too bad. Mormon studies as a topic generally reflects the views of Mormons when they disagree with the less "believing" Western scientific community too. In cases where belief and academia or science disagree pronouncedly, we go with the scientific, historical, or independent academic view, not the believers' view.
 * And I say that as a Western Christian who has some serious doubts about the scientific views of creation and human evolution. Unfortunately, very few in the academic community share those reservations. In cases like that, we just have to learn to live with it. Science isn't expected to be able to prove and/or disprove all matters of nonscientific belief anyway. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Featured list discussion on Knights' Cross winners
Part of the discussion includes matters pertaining to WP:NPOV. Additional input from participants of this noticeboard would be welcome:
 * Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)/archive1

For specific concerns, pls see:
 * FLC: Comments by K.e.coffman.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of accolades received by Carol (film)
To keep track of all nominations and wins -- (because although the total sums can be included in the infobox, only organizations and associations with Wikipedia pages can be included in the table of accolades) -- a record of same was kept in the Talk page. This record supported the total sums. User:Tenebrae deleted this content, called it "violative" and a "serious breach of Wikipedia policy" (Revision as of 15:21, 11 December 2016).

He claimed in the Talk page (topic: Accolades on this page) that it was "disallowed content". Although he was asked to provide the exact section of the WP policy where such content is specifically disallowed in a Talk page, he has not.

I am requesting input from neutral parties regarding the deletion of this Talk page content and whether Wikipedia does or does not conclusively disallow it. And if there is no clearly defined and fixed Wikipedia policy, then the deleted content should be restored. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please do come to that discussion. I'm tired of Pyxis Solitary's name-calling and inability to abide by WP:FILM guidelines in order to turn the page into a fan page.. I would also ask editors to look at the section below "Accolades on this page", titled Talk:List of accolades received by Carol (film). --Tenebrae (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A discussion in WT:FILM regarding edits made by User:Tenebrae is also underway in Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sunni Tehreek‎
The article has been whitewashed by TheRexIsRising. It now holds that Pakistani blasphemy laws are "sacred" (I kid you not). Can I get some eyes on that article, please? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Libertarian Republican
More eyeballs are needed at Libertarian Republican; a user has repeatedly inserted and reinserted contentious original research claims into this article without a citation to any reliable source. (The user is also inserting citations to the Libertarian Party platform and to a libertarian advocacy website, but even these (unacceptable) sources don't support the claims made &mdash; in fact, they don't mention Republicans or the Republican Party once). Neutralitytalk 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Authoritative source
Not sure if this is the right place.

There is a wording dispute here over terminology. One of the arguments is the concept of using only what "the main sources we use" say. This has been followed by the idea that the sources we are using the the article say X, so we should say X (apparently irrespective of what other sources say).

So my question is, if RS say X and Y which do we go with? IS it valid to argue that because our chosen "authoritative source" says X then (no matter what other sources say) it is we go with that?

(note this is not an RS issue, or even an issue of just this page, rather it is about the general concept).Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wording issue: Invasion vs Conquest
In Talk:Japanese_invasion_of_Taiwan_(1895), there was a discussion about a wording issue. My opinion is that "invasion" implies that the territorial sovereignty did not belong to Japan and has POV issue. Therefore I proposed redirecting the article to "Japanese conquest of Taiwan", but three other editors did not agree with the redirection. I haven't heard that they explain how not POV "invasion" is, though. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wording issue: Republic vs Polity
In Talk:Republic_of_Formosa, there was a discussion about a wording issue. My opinion is that word "republic", which is being used in the article for referring to the Republic of Formosa, implies statehood and has POV issue, and thus can mislead readers into believing the Republic of Formosa was really a state. I proposed changing the word to "polity", but an editor did not agree with that. Your opinions are appreciated. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump Russia dossier
Claims of POV editing have been asserted by several editors for the article Talk:Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier. The article is somewhat troublesome because the subject of the article, namely Donald Trump, has a verified track record of making sensationalist commentary on twitter and other public media which at times fails fact checking. This results in editors of the various articles on Mr. Trump having to sift through his statements and RS to determine the veracity and content of the statements, frustrating good faith editors. Unfortunately, due to Trump being a "moving target" and the frustration of the editors involved, many folks have a negative experience attempting to write about Mr. Trump. As a result the article in question has evolved into something very unflattering to Mr. Trump, with editors who just do not trust Mr. Trumps public commentary. The article also has repeatedly been quoting unverified, salacious materials which have been removed several times by neutral editors. Please assign a neutral editor to join into the conversation on the articles talk page, and assist us in closing the POV issues with this article. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What to do with the dossier is already being discussed here. I strongly suggest we keep the discussion in one place. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that since this discussion relates to POV issues with the article, not the dossier itself, which has been repeatedly removed from the article. This discussion is in response to an editor tagging the article as POV. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it somewhat, I think I agree that most of the articles issues can be resolved by moving the discussion to the other page since all of it is related in various ways. Apologies. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But this is still an open issue due to the tag being placed in the article. After the main discussion closes on the BLP Noticeboard, someone needs to close out this notice and resolve the POV issue and close the discussion at Talk:Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with false statements from Trump and his surrogates
Food for thought, with implications for how our policies apply to Trump (and others):


 * "We believe there is an objective truth, and we will hold you to that.


 * "When you or your surrogates say or tweet something that is demonstrably wrong, we will say so, repeatedly. Facts are what we do, and we have no obligation to repeat false assertions; the fact that you or someone on your team said them is newsworthy, but so is the fact that they don’t stand up to scrutiny. Both aspects should receive equal weight." - An open letter to Trump from the US press corps, CJR

BullRangifer (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:YESPOV must be kept in mind dealing with anything along these lines. If one side said something contentious as a "fact" but without explaining the source of that "fact", we can include it as a attributed claim ("X said that..."). Similarly for non-validated counterpoints. --M ASEM (t) 15:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

POV use of the word 'miracle'?
At Talk:Splitting of the moon the sentence "The splitting of the moon (Arabic: انشقاق القمر‎‎) was a miracle attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad" has been questioned with the suggestion that "alleged" be added. We do seem to use the word without any qualification, such as at Jesus walking on water although Miracles of Joseph Smith reads " the movement is characterized by a belief that the miracles," and doesn't even mention miracle in the first sentence, despite the title. And "The Miracle of Calanda is an event that allegedly took place in Calanda". But Miracle of the cruse of oil seems to assume that a miracle took place and tries to explain it (hm, any article with a sentence ending in ! needs work). Doug Weller talk 15:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Not that I have given this a whole lot of thought, but perhaps the applicable phrase would be "according to" ... which suggests neither that the alleged event actually occurred, nor that the occurrence of the alleged event is being directly challenged. These do tend to be matters of "belief", so it's really a question of whether or not the reader chooses to believe the source.  Fabrickator (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, some kind of modifier needs to be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

'Miracle' is a religious designation. It either is a miracle according to the religion concerned or it isnt. That non-believers dont believe in miracles is irrelevant - putting a qualifier in essentially implies that there are actual miracles that could be verified. As an athiest, of course, there are no miracles whatsoever, but the group of events religious people term 'miracle' is up to them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. The article’s about tag says that it is about an Islamic theological issue. Within that context, I should think the word miracle is acceptable. If the article was a scientific article about the moon, that might be different. Objective3000 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with this above. The article is out of the gate establishing itself as a theological issue, and thus "miracle" is appropriate in context. --M ASEM (t) 19:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think as long as it is apparent to a reasonable reader that the article is not endorsing the view that an actual miracle occurred, that it is fine. I dislike excessive qualifications in articles.  TFD (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

More participation needed in RfC at Talk:Earthquake prediction
This RfC has been open for two weeks, and so far we have only a few votes. The controversy is about the appropriate weight under WP:NPOV and WP:DUE regarding several fringe earthquake prediction theories, technologies & researchers. Participants need to be willing to at least take a quick look at the sources, and determine whether there is sufficient reliable source documentation to to support including the material.

Basically, there are three editors (myself, J. Johnson (JJ), and an anonymous Athenian IP editor) who have been debating these topics for the last six months, and creating quite a wall of text. JJ argues that the IP editor should be disqualified from participating in the RfC on the basis that he is an SPA and advocate. But then, JJ has been criticized for ownership behavior from time to time, and JJ has complained that I'm too pro-fringe, so maybe all three of us should be disqualified.

JJ has complained that the RfC is poorly framed. There are six questions, and there seems to be a consensus that two of them (posed as discussion questions) need to be thrown out. Be that as it may, I'm hoping that perhaps this RfC can settle the longstanding debate about appropriate content for this important page.

Please help!! JerryRussell (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The RfC is about including certain fringe material, including "balancing" material to rebut the mainstream view of why a particular theory or method is not accepted. Appropriate weight and NPOV are the primary bases from which such inclusions are urged, but not the only bases; it is also argued that fringe views should be given space proportionate to other fringe views. (And particularly, that over-representation of one view can be mitigated by increasing the space given to other fringe views.)


 * In addition to the arguments as to how Wikipedia policy should be interpreted, there is argument about "the facts of the case" regarding the actual significance or notability of several views, methods and theories by the scientific mainstream (distinct from the popular media). In this we were fortunate to have the counsel an expert to advise us of scientific opinion and resolve some of our questions. (See Talk:Earthquake_prediction). However, Jerry does not accept those views, and I don't know how that is to be resolved.


 * The nature of the issues requires informed comment, but unfortunately the RfC provides no background, nor a neutral statement of the issues, and the "Questions" are poorly formulated. But the greatest defect of the RfC is that is not truly a request for comments (there are plenty of those already), it is a request for affirmation of views without explanations, for the purpose of collecting enough straw votes to insert questioned material.


 * I don't know if anyone is up to reviewing all of the background (starting from Archive 6), but anyone that might interested could start by asking any questions they have. (Not here, at the RfC.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Background- who is what according to source and relevant custom and law
I am claiming that sourced content, backed by proven custom should not be removed without any countering source or facts proving otherwise? Let's take a hypothetical example: According to the Jus soli legal principle, applied in Argentine nationality law, any person born in Argentine acquires Argentine citizenship at birth, even though the parents have none whatsoever connection to Argentine. So could I then add the category Category:Argentine people to John Doe's Wikipedia article, if I have a source and the legal principle that state that John Doe is born in Argentine and has thus has gained Argentine citizenship? So what would be the difference if I added the category Category:British Jews to the real and relevant Milo Yiannopoulos Wikipedia article, if: According to the general principle in Judaism and Jewish law, a person is automatically considered Jewish if their mother/grandmother is Jewish, which is the original and current definition of being Jewish. Furthermore from the Jewish perspective it does not matter if Mr. Yiannopoulos has been born into another religion or embraced another religion, as long as his blood affinity is matrilineal, ( Matrilineality in Judaism). Ethnicity and religion are intertwined in Judaism and cannot be directly compared to other monotheistic religions ex. Christianity, which emphasises primarily faith and conversion. Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is being dealt with at WP:DRN. There's no need to deal with it here as well. Brad  v  21:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems like a case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING to override the consensus to not identify Milo as Jewish. This matter has been posted at WP:DRN (The case there was closed) and WP:ANI. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

NTSB & Wikipedia's forced alignment, by an inspired "editor"
Mr Wikipedia,

could you please provide someone familiar with COPE's standards,

and science- C-o-I IRB-"conflicts"  [as opposed to financial- CoI)

to review the TALK -edits, and  "article" deletes

in Wikipedia's

TWA 841 ,

of April 4 1979.

The NTSB's Public Docket  should include the background Group Reports,

and all  Petitions  against the NTSB-AAR-81-8.

But, one  "editor" (?) DELETED all- mention and links  to the two main Petitions.

Perhaps that one "editor" should tightly control, and LIMIT that

wiki-article to  ONLY the Boeing Scenario and NTSB-AAR-81-8.

Perhaps Wikipedia's  POLICY should suppress any mention of the Petitions against AAR-81-8.

But that one "editor", who seems to lack work-background in our industry, has now taken-over.

So, OK, let one guy control that "article":

Could you subtly suggest that he allow a top-banner,

caution -- this Wilk "article" only presents the Boeing Scenario , as endorsed by the USA's "independent" Safety Board.

IGhhGI (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Would someone care to translate this? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Something to do with the recent reversions here. Labelled as refspam by one editor - probably as one of the parties has a book out. The complaint is basically that the article is biased towards the official side rather than the flight crew's view (who were blamed in the official investigation 'human error' for being the cause of the uncontrolled spin). I just read it through and it seems quite neutral, there is a summary of the official report, the crews response and explanation, and the relevant part of the report where they disregard the crew's version of events. Given the subsequent two failed appeals I dont see what more needs to be said. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

= = = = Responding to 30Jan' comment above:

"... probably as one of the parties has a book  ... refspam by one editor  ... I just read it ... seems quite neutral ..."

Please excuse me if this response seems to belittle your analysis (just above). I have NOT any any book. There is NO "Spam" in any of the "Talk" (for TWA841) -- for some unexplained motive that one "editor" wants to prevent you (or any reader) from viewing the records (facts). As a test, PLEASE: go to that "talk" page, view the ORIGINAL uncensored "talk". Do you see "spam"???

A suggestion: On that talk page, allow some contributors (qualified men who worked in Flt Test and at TWA), to "link" to actual records from that accident.

There exists some sort deception evident by that one "editor". The "facts" in the case might not be clear to you, unless you can speak-Boeing, worked at Boeing Flight Test, and flew B727 at TWA.

That Wikipedia article has so many errs: PLEASE, to counter that bias simply offer the reader a link to the TWO MAIN Petitions against NTSB-AAR-81-8 (that "editor" DELETED the links on 21Dec2016). For four decades this old case provoked controversy, assumptions became "findings", inference became "facts".

Some intervention is sought -- a balanced presentation. ==> OR,  simply  show a top-banner "This wiki-article presents ONLY the Boeing Scenario "

IGhhGI (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Nazi editor: 86.90.43.5
User:86.90.43.5 seems incapable of editing articles without skewing them towards a Nazi POV, or attempting to ameliorate the Nazi regime's responsibilities. All of his edits need to be closely examined for this bias, which the editor is not reluctant to express. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor has been blocked for edit warring, but only for 48 hours. The blocking admin cited WP:GEVAL towards Naziism in the block, so the IP will continue to need eyes on its edits. I believe I have been able to undo the majority of their biased changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wind turbine syndrome
Recent edits (example) use source http://www.shorelinebeacon.com/2013/08/26/citizens-call-for-caw-turbine-shutdown for definitive statements on the issue. Some patient explanations are needed. Perhaps the article was too firmly pushing the "psychosomatic disorder" line before the recent edits (I do not know), but its current text is obviously inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concerns. As to determining whether that source is reliable or not, you will have to go to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Before posting here, you should have also tried to resolve the dispute. Have a good day! Note: There is no current active discussion surrounding this on the article's talk page. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * John knows where to go for RS discussion, he's been here nearly as long as me. The question here is not the source, it's around WP:FRINGE pushing by, a WP:SPA devoted to pushing the "wind turbine syndrome" agenda. The edits have been reverted. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. Sorry for any confusion. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Dagestan massacre
This was listed at Pages needing cleanup after translation, which is how I found it. I am not sure how much it's been worked on since but I just did a fairly thorough copy-edit and am confident that it's quite readable. I also removed some editorial language. This, and a reference in an edit summary to "Muslim scum" make me wonder about the article's neutrality not to say accuracy.

I am profoundly ignorant in the background history, sociology and geography of this event and am trying to recruit more editors who may know more to help out. Meanwhile I am taking off the rough translation tag, as it is not true now if it ever was. Elinruby (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to note for anyone willing to help out on this matter, there is no active dispute on the article's talk page. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. It feels/sounds possibly biased, but nobody is arguing there and nobody commented on the copy edit. Elinruby (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Emmett Till RFC
There is an ongoing RFC which may be of interest to the participants of this board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emmett_Till#Emmett_Till_lead_sentence_RFC ResultingConstant (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Article on "Tiger Forces" relies on references from single bias source and author
The wikipedia article on the Tiger_Forces, a special forces unit in the Syrian Arab Army relies only on blog articles from

https://www.almasdarnews.com

The article is found here Tiger_Forces

Long passages such as "After successful operations in Latakia and Hama, Colonel Suheil al-Hassan was tasked a special project by the Syrian Armed Forces Central Command in the fall of 2013—to train and lead a Special Forces unit that would work primarily as an offensive unit. Colonel Hassan handpicked many of the soldiers that would later form the Tiger Forces." are cited to one blog article http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/colonel-suheil-al-hassan-tiger-forces/ that is unverifiable and unsupported.

The author of these articles is Leith Fadel, who has a strong bias in favor of Bahar Al-Assad and the forces supporting him. Al Masdar news is a blog written by Leith Fadel and articles do not provide any type of verification. These articles do not provide verification and cannot be considered either reliable or verifiable. Furthermore, Leith Fadel has a history of making unverifiable claims, some of which have caused harm to other individuals. Evidence of this is found in this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/world/europe/syrian-refugee-tripped-in-hungary-denies-extremist-ties.html

Example "Mr. Fadel, whose Facebook profile photograph shows him with the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, tempered his criticism of Mr. Mohsen on Wednesday, saying, “Whether he is a former fighter or not, I cannot confirm — but I am happy his son is safe.” Still, the pro-government journalist’s Facebook post appears to have helped spread the rumor that Mr. Mohsen was either a supporter or a member of Nusra far and wide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.178.3.79 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump–Russia dossier
I'm not sure the right noticeboard, but figured this was as good as any. A recent article led to a bit of back and forth at Donald Trump-Russia dossier, and I've had a bit of an unusual interaction with the locals there regarding the use and misuse of the Paul Gregory Forbes.com piece. Please opine at Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier, if you are so inclined. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OT - thank you for using the word: "opine" Maineartists (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging this noticeboard again. There is a few editors there with a novel interpretation of our policies (at least in my opinion), and could use some outside input.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still waiting outside input. As I see it, two editors there believe that Paul Gregory, a Forbes.com contributor, represents a "significant opinion" that is WP:DUE weight to be covered in the article.  I pointed out that there is zero coverage in secondary sources.  The response is a bit muddled, from "It is a secondary source. Full stop." (for the opinion of Paul Gregory), to "this statement of policy is simply false. WP:SPS refers to publication by third parties and it does not refer to peer review of those published works. Rather, peer review is a basis for evaluating RS's that deal with academic topics for which peer-reviewed analysis actually exists. Don't confuse the two."  At the discussion page, I have said that the source is a reliable source for the opinion of Paul Gregory, in that we can be reasonably sure that the person claiming to be Paul Gregory writing the opinion was who it claims to be, and that he was honestly reporting his own opinion, but it does very little to establish due weight, which normally requires secondary sources.  One editor there has pointed to his CV, which includes some writings about the security apparatus in the Soviet state.  My question is thus: (1) does his CV in itself establish that the opinions expressed in the WP:PUS Forbes contributor column are due weight, and (2) do we normally require secondary sources (apart from the original opinion) to establish due weight?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Closure of discussion on Russian influence on the 2016 U.S. election
This is a notification that, per a request at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, I have closed the archived discussion located at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64. I felt a notification was appropriate as few people watch the archives. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Info-box: "Establishment" of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
What information should be in the "Establishment" line in the infoboxes for Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

Following the Second World War, the UK provided a list of colonies or non-self governing territories to the UN. For most of these countries, the UK granted independence through an act saying they would no longer legislate for them. At the same time, the British government ceased to direct their governments, separate citizenship was established and they were admitted into the UN as sovereign states. Unlike the independence of the U.S., which was recognized by treaty, some anomalies remained. Many countries continued to share the Queen as head of state, their citizens continued to have some rights and obligations as British subjects or Commonwealth citizens in the UK, judicial appeals to the UK privy council continued and instead of the countries exchanging ambassadors, their governments exchanged high commissioners. Nonetheless, the recognized dates of independence are used for the foundation dates.

In addition to the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (which were called "dominions") were members of the UN and considered independent. They and their predecessor states had enjoyed greater independence in the 19th century than any of the colonies had enjoyed on the eve of their independence. But what the colonies achieved on independence were achieved gradually by the dominions through convention and legislation, with legislation often lagging established convention. Here is a partial list of dates for Canada:
 * 1848 executive power recognized as resting solely with cabinets of provinces that will become Canada and UK no longer able to veto ("disallow") legislation
 * 1867 Canadian provinces joined as a dominion
 * 1919 Canada recognized as sovereign state in League of Nations
 * 1926 Balfour Declaration of 1926 UK government says it has no power to direct government of Canada, disallow legislation or legislate for Canada without its permission
 * 1931 Statute of Westminster 1931 UK parliament enacts legislation that it will no longer legislate for Canada without its permission
 * 1933 appeals for criminal cases to UK Privy Council no longer allowed
 * 1947 Canada establishes own citizenship
 * 1949 appeals for all cases to UK Privy Council no longer allowed
 * 1948 UK establishes own citizenship, excluding Canadians
 * 1982 UK parliament enacts legislation that it cannot legislate for Canada

I think the proper place for all this information is in the article, not the info-box. I suggest that the info-box contain only one date, which would be Canada 1867 (Confederation) Australia 1901 (federation) and New Zealand 1907 (recognition as a dominion). These are the dates that are normally recognized as the foundation dates of these states, even though there is disagreement over when they obtained independence.

TFD (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you looking to limit the infoboxes to just 'one' date? If so, that's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree one date would be best....leave details to the article. --Moxy (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe New Zealand became a dominion in 1907, not 1927. Is that a typo? Akld guy (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have corrected it. TFD (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a push by Canadian editors to assert an early, and perhaps well defined, date. In the case of New Zealand, it's not so well defined. Akld guy (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article you linked to shows that New Zealand independence followed the same pattern as Canada and Australia. Why do you think it was any less defined?  TFD (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I said "perhaps" Canada's date is well defined (I haven't bothered to check). Then I said that any date for NZ is not so well defined, relative to what Canada's situation might be. No direct comparison. Akld guy (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Giving just one date is misleading. Australia as a concept and a federation existed before 1901, as recognised in the Commonwealth's constitution. The nation was not fully independent until quite recently. Presenting just one date is against the WP:WEIGHT considerations that apply elsewhere in Wikipedia. Why ignore that here? --Pete (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Pete, the WEIGHT would be transferred from the infobox to the content of the article. It's the infobox that's under discussion here. The question is, what date for the infobox would we settle on, when the process was a series of steps that are decades apart? Akld guy (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not the weight of the whole process, but a matter of giving weight to one date out of several. It's like a parent proclaiming that only one child in their large family deserves recognition. --Pete (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To be brutally honest, this seems like forum shopping by TFD. He has not gained support for his position at Talk:Australia, where discussions involving multiple editors have generated some 13,700 words of often irrelevant content (primarily by TFD). His notification of this discussion at Talk:Australia says this discussion is about the "Foundation" field. However, Infobox country does not have a field with that name. Nor does it have an  field. The actual field is  but the infobox provides for   -   and   -   because, as is the case with Australia, establishment was not a single date process. "Established" is also a rather vague term when it comes to any country. Even countries like the United States, which has a defined independence date, do not stick to one single date. The United States has five listed. There was a similar discussion regarding what to use in the infobox at Canada, and the consensus, as far as I can see, was to use independence and list multiple dates, like Australia and United States. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 22:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend, kindly strike out your personal attack of forum shopping. Forum shopping is "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages."  The purpose of this noticeboard is discuss issues where one "already [has] tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page."  Not only is it appropriate to take issues from talk pages to this page, but it is inappropriate to take issues here that have not been discussed on talk pages.  Furthermore note that I left a message on the talk pages.  TFD (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think this is not forum shopping, I suggest you read through your arguments at Talk:Australia, as you are effectively arguing for the same thing, despite a different wording. You haven't made any argument here that would indicate that using three well documented dates instead of an arbitrarily decided date is not maintaining a neutral point of view. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that background, AussieLegend. Akld guy (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think they are not equivalent. I think for Australia it would be fitting to list a single date, namely 1901 - however Canada was not a independent in 1867 as Australia was in 1901. In fact, Canada could not amend its own constitution until much later on while this was something Australia could do from the start. Canada's process was much less well defined and much more gradual. It has now had 2 constitutions and it started off as a very small area in eastern Canada in 1867 before growing and adding more provinces later on. In contrast, 1901 was transformative for Australia and created the exact same system and constitutional order we have today in one go. New Zealand is a case where I definitely think multi-dates are good, as there was nothing transformational like a new federal constitution. You could leave out the founding of the colony and have responsible government in the 1850s, then dominion in 1907, followed by statute of westminster, etc. Of these cases I think Australia is the only one which has a single date which was significant and transformative enough to be the only date shown in the sidebar with the other details which had more significance in theory rather than practice in the body.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Except that Australia wasn't completely independent on 1 January 1901. It took a step towards it with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in 1942 and then in 1986 with the Australia Act. TFD's proposal would result in "Establishment" being displayed in the infobox and "establishment" is a vague term at best, as I explained at Talk:Australia. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had suggested replacing the term "Establishment" with "Federation." TFD (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That's an inherent problem with info boxes which in essence try to reduce complex statements into a one word statement. IMHO, when in doubt (contested), leave it out of the infobox and just cover it properly in the text.  North8000  (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On this point, if there is no simple answer, then either leave the field blank, or included "See (section name)" where the prose has much more space to expand out the details, and avoid selecting a date that is OR or POV-ish. One is not required to enter every field of an infobox and because there is so little space, anything that's remotely controversial should not be included. --M ASEM (t) 15:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Principle
There is (I think) an issue over at the The Principle page, it mentions 4 times the film is dodgy science, whilst not actually having anything about what the film actually says.

In the summery section " although the observations to which the film refers do not do that", "contrary to the cosmological fact that there is no center to the universe" In essence the same statement is made twice.

In the criticism and controversy section (the right place for criticisms of the film) "The film was criticized by the physicists who were misled into appearing in the film for being a dishonest presentation of its material and purpose" "while the scientific consensus is that observations have confirmed the Copernican principle".

In addition the lead refers to it as pseudoscience and states that "scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas for which the film advocates ", so in a way there are in fact 6 attacks on the science of the film. Given there are only two line about what the film says in the summery section (and that is only saying the film is about X, not a summery of it's claims), and that the rest of the article is about other complaints about the film (two whole paragraphs) this seems a bit too much criticizing. In essence it is just an attack piece in which every paragraph seems to contain criticism of the film in some way.

The discussion about this is here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't get your way at the fringe board so you came here? Stop forum shopping. 2600:1017:B010:B65D:4D9:9F54:1EAF:255 (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And that is a PA, AGF. Coming to a noticeboard when you think there is a talk pager issue is not forum shopping. I also note this is a single edit account. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on including Russian influence into the election
The issue of this RFC (Which has run its course), mainly deals with WP:WEIGHT. As such, it directly involves WP:NPOV. A few other editors looking at it would help. If you have a chance to comment, please do so.

RFC: Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016

Casprings (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)
An editor is making several edits that in my opinion seem to be subtly downplaying convictions in Ian Watkins (Lostprophets), an article on a convicted sex offender. Would it please be possible for someone to have a quick look and possible keep an future eye on this high profile article? Cheers,  Я ehevkor ✉  18:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Islamization
An IP has twice inserted a bunch of "incident reports" from websites like Jihad Watch, plus dumping a short and non-NPOV "history of Islamic extremism" into the "See Also" section. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of what he said is factual, if poorly-spun, but I agree. It seems like any article concerning islam needs sanctions; if it's not people like that IP blackwashing them, it's the other side whitewashing everything.74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly (POV), making factual lists is not POV. However, their sources might need looked at. Maybe respond by making lists of other groups' crimes? Honestly, the only real response is to make sure that the facts are in context and verified. BTW Islam is normally capitalized. Endercase (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also major edits should only be made by signed in users. You could get them for that probably.Endercase (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr
Background: Several pages on Wikipedia that cover WWII German personnel use the German language version of the German Air Force as Luftwaffe.

Sample:
 * In 1956, Reinert joined the newly established West German Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr, resulting in "West German Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr". (In Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert.)

A disagreement on this has arisen at Talk:Erich_Hartmann, but the Talk page discussion did not result in reaching consensus. The diff in question is this, including "In the Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr" as a section heading. The same edit also shows the German language term for Inspekteur der Luftwaffe, while the en.wiki article is Inspector of the Air Force.

Since Luftwaffe, when used in English-language literature, is strongly associated of the air force of Nazi Germany, this usage strikes me as POV. Alternatively, it presupposes the knowledge of German not commonly found among general readers. In any case, such piping/use is unneeded as the en.wiki articles use English-language terms. Compare book search for luftwaffe bundeswehr and "German air force" bundeswehr.

I would appreciate un-involved editors weighing in on this discussion. Courtesy ping to editor.

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The phrasing "The Luftwaffe of the Bundewehr" is a needless and clunky circumlocution that only serves to squeeze in the German-language term while simultaneously making an unsuccessful attempt to distinguish and de-stigmatize it from its historical predecessor. There is even less reason to have the string of links in the quote listed.  This is the English Wikipedia.  English is the preferred language, unless using the foreign terms is better at communicating.  The malapropisms adopted to attempt preserving this one foreign term manifestly show that using it is not better communication.  The quote from the Reinert article should be simplified to: In 1956, Reinert joined the newly established German Air Force. Users that are interested enough will click on the link and find the full justification of the FRG for using that term.  The German term, no matter how "official" or "factual" is not controlling here per WP:COMMONNAME.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * But Bundesluftwaffe is not clunky, or needless. And it is the actual name of the modern German air arm. POV? Nah. Dapi89 (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See above. The "actual name" in German has no bearing on how the English Wikipedia should label things.  That's not chauvinism, it's practicality. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The argument he gives is that is non neutral point-of-view. I'm saying that's BS. Dapi89 (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, so what? If User:K.e.coffman thinks it's not in policy for one reason, there's nothing that means I have to agree for the exact same reason.  I'm saying that their opinion is right but I'm basing it in other policy.  Namely, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH.  There are exceptions to those conventions, but there need to be good reasons for those exceptions.  "That's how the Germans do it" is not a good reason: If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.. Also, basic good communication favors not using this version.  To argue that a six-syllable compound foreign language word that requires three wikilinks to explain is not clunky suggests a very different appreciation for "clunkiness".  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, WP clearly states that English should be used in this case. I suggest using the German as a subtitle. Endercase (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And you think that using google books is a good way to judge common usage? Dapi89 (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just think we should use English for English Wiki titles. Endercase (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Can sources be banned?
Reliable sources/Noticeboard is currently claiming that sources can be banned in all use cases requiring special exemption appeals for any specific use. My understanding of policy is that this isn't "by the book" as outlined in my posts there. Please join in the discussion there. Should it prove necessary (24-48hrs?) we should move the entire discussion here. Endercase (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Following the dispute resolution guide the discussion should be moved here at this time. I want to make sure that my POV is not the only one represented here. Endercase (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, it is hard to believe that no-one else has posted here still. I guess I get to make the choice all on my own *teasing*.

I think that an absolute ban on linking to a site should be applied only to a very narrow set of potentially harmful cases: malware, shock sites, persistent perpetrators of spammy links. That a publicly available list should be made of those "sources" that includes or links to open discussion to allow for NPOV, transparency, and to prevent abuse. Otherwise, the context has to be considered before making a determination on reliability and should be addressed on the talk page of that particular article or escalated with "due notification". A reliability determination in context can and generally should include an evaluation of the longstanding history of the source. In cases where a better source is available to supply or "verify" specific information that source should be used in place of or in conjunction with the less reliable source. Endercase (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So far you have forumshopped this crap at RSN, jimbo's talk page and now here. Why dont you take a hint. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Should Template:Misinformation be illustrated with a headline saying Donald Trump won the popular vote?
Template:Misinformation has an image with headlines (in small text) from websites sympathetic to Donald Trump to illustrate the concept of Fake News. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Official Russian position on U.S. Election Interference
There is an RfC discussion ongoing at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that would benefit from wider input. The question is, should Russia's denial of interference be mentioned, or excluded from the lead? The RfC can be found here. Regards, Darouet (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Criminal use of Smith & Wesson MP15
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15#Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use. Issues of due weight have been raised in discussion. In particular, some members of a Wikiproject claim a project-level due weight policy which supercedes our project's neutrality pillar. Participation from experienced editors familiar with our neutrality policy are sought. Thank you in advance. 34.207.97.139 (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC) — 34.207.97.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's not a neutral request. You already started guiding answers with your position that the project is at odds with the policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a problem with the "guideline" at WP:GUN being used to override WP:WEIGHT in a number of articles. Some editors have removed all mention of the use of commercial weapons in notable crimes regardless of the quantity or quality of sources, simply because of that project's guidance. My understanding is that no project can create special rules that contradict site-wide policies and guidelines. Felsic2 (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Size of swastika in the Nazism infobox
Located here:
 * RFC: Size of swastika in the Nazism infobox

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Icarus Project

 * Icarus Project
 * User:Icarus Historians

This SPA (with a blockable name, but I'm not going to be the one to do it) is making edits that seem to me to clearly violate NPOV. Can I get more eyes on it? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Changing an exact quote to push a political point of view
The article for the not for profit organization Foundation for Economic Education has an exact quote of, "is a non-political, non-profit, tax-exempt educational foundation," which is a common statement made by not for profit organizations for legal and taxation purposes. An editor decided that the organization is “anti-government” and so removed the quotes (which creates plagiarism) and repeatedly changes non-political to the insult neoliberal. First did this as an IP editor, then created the account User:Blahblah fee specifically to make the same edit. IP blocking will not matter and blocking an account made a few seconds ago will not matter. So the only option is to allow the editor to make any change they like ignoring all language rules? Abel (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You may want to familiarize yourself with the policy on protecting pages from vandalism. These page protection levels can prevent editing on pages by certain classes of editors, no matter what IP address they use. There is a level of page protection created to work in pretty much exactly this type of case, it's called semi-protection. Neither editors using IP addresses nor editors using new accounts can edit a page subject to semi-protection. In order to ask for a page to have these protection levels added to a page, you need to go to the Requests for Page Protection page and follow the instructions.  Hope this helps.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just filed it at raise protection thanks to your directions. Thank you for pointing me to the correct place for such problems. Abel (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're certainly welcome. Good call on your part, too, I might add.  The swiftness of the semi-protection being added backs up your point.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:English dialects by continent
XSAMPA and I are having a debate about whether or not the Transatlantic accent should be instated into the aforementioned template. Currently, we only have his and my opinion. And I would like to have a third. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Duprees
I could use some eyes on this article. Allegedly the name rights for the original group have been acquired by a "successor" band, and various editors with a probable COI have tried to add as much information as possible about the more recent band. Initially I removed all edits as promotional and unsourced, but have now rephrased and kept a short section with an independent source about the modern-day group (both incarnations share some common history, although most main members of the original group are dead). See also Talk:The Duprees for a summary of the concerns. I do hope the rephrased shorter version is an improvement, but would appreciate any additional advice about how to handle such a situation. GermanJoe (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Why the neutral point of view noticeboard exists
File:Keyboard cat.jpg She's wearing a shirt! El_C 04:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Large Criticism section in BLP of Steve Silberman
An editor is creating a large criticism section in the BLP Steve Silberman that is now by far the largest part of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Also reported at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steve_Silberman

Jewish Diaspora
(other users notified)

There is an ongoing discussion here, relating to how to describe the expert opinion on the reasons behind the diaspora, in detail, whether the diaspora is a result of forced expulsion. This is a recent revert, where the longstanding/stable version ("The widespread popular belief (...) is not accepted by historians") has been replaced with text attributing the view the diaspora is non-exilic merely to "some scholars". The operative sources are as follows:
 * "in the popular imagination of Jewish history, in contrast to the accounts of historians or official agencies, there is a widespread notion that the Jews from Judea were expelled in antiquity after the destruction of the temple and the "Great Rebellion" (70 and 135 CE, respectively). Even more misleading, there is the widespread, popular belief that this expulsion created the diaspora." ('No Return, No Refuge'' (Howard Adelman, Elazar Barkan, p. 159))
 * "Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions."(Israel Bartal, dean of humanities at the Hebrew University)
 * "Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine in one fell swoop in A.D. 70." (New York Times)
 * ""the dispersal of the Jews, even in ancient times, was connected with an array of factors, none of them clearly exilic" (Israel Yuval, in The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History (Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, Oxford University Press 2009 p.17-18))
 * "Focus on the consequences of the Temple's destruction, however, overlooks a fact of immense significance: the diaspora had a long history prior to Rome's crushing of Jerusalem. (...) Compulsory dislocation, however, cannot have accounted for more than a fraction of the diaspora", Erich S. Gruen, "Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans", pages 2-3)

The options would be e.g. to describe, after the current version, that:
 * The widespread popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina that led to the creation of the Diaspora is not accepted by historians, OR:
 * However, some scholars argue against the idea that the diaspora is entirely the result of a sudden mass expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina, OR:
 * (list the scholars cited) argue that the widespread popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina that led to the creation of the Diaspora is not accepted by historians.

Personally, my choice is the first one, since the sources present the non-exilic diaspora as a consensus view among historians, which are the reliable sources in the matter. "Some scholars" would incorrectly assign this opinion to a group that sounds much smaller than what the sources say. And attribution with names, the third option, seems unnecessary since the sources do not present the fact that historians dismiss the "myth of exile" as a contested matter, they simply state historians don't buy this myth. The guideline seems to advise against this kind of attribution as well. In other words, there are two issues going on, 1) historians dispute the "popular notion" of an exilic diaspora, and 2) it is not disputed that historians are of this view. --Dailycare (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There are reliable sources that show academic support for the opinion that at least one of the main reasons, if not the main, for the Diaspora was the Bar Kokhba revolt. I have shown part of them on the talkpage. In addition, the article itself is clear that such is the widespread opinion. For both these reasons, any statement claiming that the revolt was not the reason for the Diaspora should be attributed inline to its source per Neutral_point_of_view. All of this I explained clearly on the talkpage, and I invite editors to continue the discussion there, to make it easy to oversee the whole discussion in one central location. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since we are at WP:NPOV, perhaps somebody would like to rename that talkpage section to something more neutral...? Debresser (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Violation of fair and balanced policy
Please restore my sourced revision on the Second Sight article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_sight&action=history that seeks to balance out a blatantly unbalanced article. It is not a question of the validity of Second Sight. It is merely a question of balancing out the responses to one researcher's opinion of it. An entry this biased serves neither the skeptical or the credulous. And it most definitely violates Wikipedia's non-negotiable policy to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Compare selected revisions (cur | prev) 23:39, 16 March 2017‎ Guy Macon (talk | contribs)‎. . (8,201 bytes) (-927)‎. . (Removed edit by banned editor Jamenta) (undo)

The Jamenta thing is a complete canard as has been discussed on the Administrator's Page. I will be logging on with my actual name so I can I can effectively challenge this concerted attempt to preserve a biased portrait of Myers.17:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)71.167.134.66 (talk)
 * That article is a hot mess and I'm having a hard time seeing why it even exists. The only source that even attempts to differentiate it from other fringe topics like ESP is a wikisource link to a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article from which it borrows sentences almost verbatim. The other couple sources that sort of imply it's a significant topic unto itself are equally bad. The whole article should be nuked. If there an any actually good sources that discuss Second Sight as a notable topic they belong in a history section of the appropriate paranormal subject article. Oh, and Jamenta, if you're going to talk about other editors it's a courtesy to at least ping them. I'll ping  for you. Capeo (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not Jamenta. I did ping Mr. Macon, or at least thought I did. I agree that the article is a mess. It would be fine to nuke it. But as long as it lives, can you please weigh in on whether you feel the pileup of Myers detractors serves Wikipedia's NPOV when there are more than one renowned supporters?71.167.134.66 (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is already under discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I advise responding there and ignoring this WP:FORUMSHOP attempt. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: We don't have a "fair and balanced" policy. Quite the opposite, actually, especially when dealing with fringe topics.  So far as Wikipedia is concerned, parapsychology is bunkum, its supporters are not reliable sources, and we need not give them unwarranted validity to create an artificial balance.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here, here. As seen on the AN/I thread, the evidence is strong that this IP is Jamenta, and, in any case, the IP has admitted to creating sock accounts. This discussion should be closed as both untenable (per Ian.thomson's comment above) and as probable block evasion from the IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for your candor. Your conclusion that Wikipedia promotes a non-NPOV only (NNPOV?) for historical figures associated with parapsychology will likely prove useful on the AN/I thread underway now, or a new thread in the near future.71.167.134.66 (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no dog (or even dog tick) in this fight, but I really dislike seeing blatant mischaracterizations of good-faith efforts to assist. You made up your own internal version of NPOV and when you were called on it twisted that into something no-one has said.  There is nothing above that says that NPOV does not apply to parapsychology.  In point of fact,  points out how NPOV is specifically intended to avoid false balance.  This is not Fox News.  There is no "fair and balanced" policy to violate.  By the way, if the "Jamenta thing" was a "complete canard" as you say, why haven't you logged on with your actual name as you said you would? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If you consider parapsychology "bunkum" and its supporters "not reliable sources" it is difficult to understand how you can maintain an NPOV toward historical figures who kept an open mind about it. I have no interest in initiating any articles related to parapsychology. I am only interested in keeping the record accurate and balanced on a period of history I have spent my life writing and publishing about. I will be signing on with a named user account to avoid any further misidentification with a public computer. I will use an anonymous name at first, until I feel confident that the higher level Administrators can handle the worst excesses directed toward contributors deemed by some Editors to be supporting "bunkum." The Jamenta nonsense is just nonsense to me as long as I remain anonymous, and as long as it is no longer allowed as a rationale or excuse to block my contributions. But it becomes libel if it persists with my real identity. And I am definitely not looking to engage that. If, however, any high-up good faith Administrator, like at least one who has emerged on the ANI forum, requests to know my actual identity, I will be happy to reveal it to them.71.167.134.66 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Short version - you dont understand NPOV. Slightly longer version - Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources have to say on a subject in a neutral manner. This means we neutrally present what the accepted reliable sources say without bias. This does not mean all articles have to be 'neutral' and represent all sides, nor even be absent of bias. Especially in the fringe area where the majority of supporters of 'fringe lunacy subject X' will be complete rubbish and unreliable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I will need a longer version still to make sense of what you are trying to communicate. Perhaps a specific example might clarify. If a book, such as Myers' "Phantasms of the Living," is presented as being universally scorned by a variety of "scholars," of varying degrees of obscurity and relevant authority, is it not a proper understanding and application of NPOV to add a positive response by a well-regarded authority? In or out? Which option, as the previous Editor might ask, would more resemble the tactics of Fox News?71.167.134.66 (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone thinks the Earth is flat, we do not present both sides of the "flat vs round" debate as if there were two equally respectable positions. The consensus among reliable sources is that the Earth is roughly a sphere, and of the sources that contend the Earth is flat, they are either wholly unreliable or entirely outdated. Therefore we do not create a false sense of balance, but present the facts, as facts, as they are contained in reliable sources. This may hardly be "fair" to flat-Earthers, but we're not here to be fair; we're here to write an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Timothy. I agree that there are not 2 equally respectable positions when it comes to the question of is the earth flat or round. But since there is also not a single respected authority—professor, scientist, Nobel Laureate, etc. —who holds that position, your comparison breaks down precisely at the point of contention. 71.167.134.66 (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Alkaline diet and "false belief"
There is an extended debate going on at Talk:Alkaline diet about the usage of the term "false belief" to describe the topic. While it has degraded somewhat into incivility, the arguments on either side boil down to: While there is a slight majority of supporters of using the term "false belief", WP:NPOV states quite clearly that the policy is not subject to or overridden by consensus. There just isn't a consensus on whether the policy is being followed. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The term "false belief" is a valid paraphrase of reliable source that describes the diet as "more fiction than fact" and because facts are inherently neutral, describing the subject as a "false belief" is neutral and not a value judgment.
 * Saying "X is a false belief", regardless of the subject, violates WP:LABEL by asserting a value judgment in Wikipedia's narrative voice, the term isn't a valid paraphrasing of sources, and there are better ways to phrase the lead paragraph in a show, don't tell manner that doesn't resort to labeling.
 * 'false belief' seems like an NPOV vio to me. Using 'belief' alone is perfectly accurate and more easily satisfies NPOV. I mean, the next sentence says "Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the benefits of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals." How are we not making it clear to the reader that the claim isn't credible?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Nor is consensus determined by a simple majority. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add to the list of arguments put forth against using "false belief" at Talk:Alkaline diet that false is imprecise, having multiple meanings that can cloud the issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:FORUMSHOP. We've got this at WP:FT/N and WP:RS/N. Suggest close. Alexbrn (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The post at RSN was to ask about the reliability of several sources used in the lede (not the same thing as brought up here, as it isn't related to the question of POV issues with 'false'), and one of the posts at FT/N was a notification about said RSN discussion. This post does seem a bit forumshopy though; if Anachronist wanted input from people from this board he should have simply put a note here informing them of the topic at FT/N or on the talk page and directed input there. It isn't clear from the above post weather Anachronist wanted a discussion here, or just to direct discussion to the talk page, and for future reference this should be made much more clear. Suggest close as well.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My point was to direct parties interested in the NPOV policy to the Talk:Alkaline diet page. That's hardly forum shopping. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Improper use of the "Unreferenced Section Tag" or not for Discography sections
Is it required for a page of a singer to have the 'unreferenced section tag' in Discography section on the artist's page if there are no references in that specific area, but sources (including secondary) in other parts of the page? For example, why should the page "Joi Cardwell" be tagged with the 'unreferenced section tag', but "Beyonce" isn't? I, personally, felt like the user who added it, is guilty of tag bombing the first page because he did not give a good reason for doing so. And I inquired to him about it with the same opening question and did not receive an answer. I'm requesting a neutral answer here. Horizonlove (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My advice... Just add a citation. It takes a lot less time (and is less frustrating) than arguing about whether a source is needed or not. Blueboar (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Discographies and other *ography sections should have citations to show the connection between the artist/actor and work. While many of these links may be blue-links to notable works, not all will be, and so we would prefer to have each entry referenced. Some cases, like for books, the authorship can be shown simply by adding the ISBN number, and may be true for albums as well, but other roles like film and television do need this type of sources, and should avoid user-made databases like IMDB for that referencing. --M ASEM (t) 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , Is there a physical example that I can go by or look out for this exact case? Horizonlove (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * These sections come up a lot in the In The News part of the front page, so a recent example there include Carrie Fisher (note its not complete but its on the right path). --M ASEM (t) 16:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , In the case of Joi Cardwell, can the unreference tag be removed from that section without adding a source in that specific area? I feel like it's redundant to have the unreferenced tag there when the article already talks about the studio albums she released and has secondary sources to back those claims. I also think it falls into the category of over tagging. Horizonlove (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)