Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 66

Breitbart News lede is violating WP:BALANCE
Hello, would you please re-open the discussion that was closed a few minutes ago at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breitbart_News about sourcing? WP:BALANCE says, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." Reputable sources contradict; The NYT calls Breitbart conservative-leaning. Conservative-leaning contradicts far-right. Thus, according to WP:BALANCE, we need to describe both points of view. Técnico (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All your 38 edits at Wikipedia appear to be connected with this issue. Please respect the advice given at talk, namely that Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 5 is a recently closed discussion, and it included mentions of the discussions before that. There will always be a source that has a view somewhat different from those expressed by others, and that is not a reason to contradict reality. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, what is your point about the 38 edits? You might be committing the ad hominem fallacy.  The point is The New York Times calls Breitbart conservative-leaning.  Leaning contradicts far.  Thus, per WP:BALANCE, both views must be described. Técnico (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No one here has the motivation to spend the rest of their life arguing with accounts created for a single purpose. Editors have known since 2006 that dealing with agenda-driven accounts is unproductive—2006 is when WP:SPA was created, and it is constructive to look at the original 2006 essay. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, thank you for the link, which led me to this sentence: "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards." The Wikipedia standard WP:BALANCE is clearly being violated.  Técnico (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly told us your opinion. However, your opinion is, as repeated discussions have demonstrated, not shared by the broader Wikipedia community, which has, through several repeated discussions about this topic and a standing consensus, determined that the standard is, in fact, being upheld in this case. While consensus can change, repeatedly bringing up closed discussions can also be considered disruptive and tendentious editing, particularly when there is no significant new evidence nor is there any apparent broader movement to change the consensus. In short, it's time to drop the stick, move on from this topic and contribute productively elsewhere on the encyclopedia. If you cannot, then it will be self-evident that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BALANCE doesn't mean we should favor any one particular source, especially if it's reliability is questionable (See WP:FRINGE). It just means that sometimes in order to maintain WP:NPOV on a subject with multiple widely accepted viewpoints, each POV should be represented accordingly. Darknipples (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also "conservative leaning" dose not contradict "far right". Of course a lot depends on what you mean by conservative, but issues like Anti-immigration, attitudes towards women's right, attitudes towards, but I do not need to go on, often cross over between "conservative" and far right.


 * You can conservative and not far right, but (I would argue) you cannot be far right and not be conservative. So no it may not be a contradiction.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While it is impossible to ignore the number of sources calling Breitbart far right that it must be included, it's also a subjective term (particularly the NYT's statement) and the current first sentence of the lede violates NPOV. It's definitely a fact we can say Breitbart is right-leaning, but whether they go as far as the "label" far right suggests is a subjective measure, the opinion of many press sources, and thus that should be called out later as a claim. eg Instead of we should be saying  --M ASEM  (t) 13:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The current text reflects the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. We are not required by WP:BALANCE to replace it with weasel words and shilly-shallying flab. --14:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Brietbart is far right. In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue. This would be major WP:FALSEBALANCE. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been settled by a recent, extensive RfC in which it was shown that more than 38 diverse, reliable, international sources routinely refer to Breitbart as far-right. The WP:SPAs and throwaway accounts who don't give a damn about building an encyclopedia and who are repeatedly rehashing this are being disruptive and should be blocked if they persist.- MrX 15:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that while I agree that list of 38 sources all ID Brietbart as far right, it also seems to be a narrow set of sources. Using google news, excluding hits on Breitbart itself ("-site:breitbart.com"), I get:
 * 36,600 hits for "breitbart news" "conservative" -"far right" -"site:breitbart.com"(eg excluding that term)
 * 3,500 hits for "breitbart news" "far right" -"conservative" -"site:breitbart.com"
 * And for more narrowness, adding in Bannon's name so that we're likely focusing on articles talking about the website rather than name-dropping:
 * 12,500 hits for "breitbart news" "bannon" "conservative" -"far right" -"site:breitbart.com"
 * 2,420 hits for "breitbart news" "bannon" -"conservative" "far right" -"site:breitbart.com"
 * Now this doesn't mean all those sources are RSes, obviously, and not all of them are going to be about Breitbart news, but scanning the first 3 pages of results for all show an approximately equal hit-or-miss in terms of RSes. Every disclaimer of GHITS applies and a more detailed analysis would be needed to assure this is the right conclusion after only using RSes, discarding opinion pieces, etc. I would not disagree that a number of quality RSes do call Breitbart far right, but just to point out "here's a selected number of sources" without reviewing the whole of the sources (which from the talk page, has never been done) is a false balance, appearing to disproportionately pick and chose from a minority of sources to make it appear as the majority point. At minimum the GHIT test should be sufficient to recognize that calling Breitbart "far right" as fact is not appropriate, though it still is appropriate to note this assertion by those 38 sources. --M ASEM (t) 05:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We need to bear in mind that different sources will use different terms to describe the same thing. The term "far right" for example is favored by news media, while academic sources generally reserve that term for neo-fascists.  Articles should clearly convey information to readers and avoid ambiguous descriptions.  I think the most common description is "right-wing."  TFD (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the following argument sound? If not, which premiss or deduction is not correct?
 * 1. WP:BALANCE says, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance."
 * 2. CNN is a reputable source.
 * 3. CNN calls Breitbart far-right.
 * 4. The New York Times is a reputable source.
 * 5. The New York Times calls Breitbart conservative-leaning.
 * 6. Leaning contradicts far.
 * 7. Therefore, reputable sources contradict.
 * 8. The New York Times is relatively equal in prominence to CNN. (It can be argued that NYT is much more.)
 * 9. Hence, by WP:BALANCE, we need to  describe both points of view and work for balance. --Técnico (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much all of this has already been discussed to death. Just read the talk page archives. This is just WP:REHASH. You need *NEW* arguments here, or this is pointless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the argument above has been already discussed, then what premiss or deduction was found to be incorrect? I searched the talk pages. The word leaning appears three times. It seems to never have appeared in the context of the 9-point argument posted above. --Técnico (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Can we have a source that says that leaning and far are mutually exclusive (n this context, as after all you cannot lean against something you are far away from).Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * - The term "Far-Right" is undoubtedly not contradictory to "conservative leaning". "Far-Left" could be considered contradictory, or possibly even "liberal leaning", as they are more accurately "opposite inversions" of Far-Right and conservative leaning, but it seems like you are only trying to abide by the letter of BALANCE while violating the spirit of its underlying principles. Do not try to use WP:BALANCE just to make a WP:POINT. The best advice I can give is to try and listen to others to try and possibly find a compromise that will lead to a consensus. made a very good point about this discussion being a WP:REHASH, more or less. See...
 * [|RSN Archive "Breitbart_again"]
 * [|RSN Archive Breitbart_Global_News_Syndicate_-_Reliability_Dispute]
 * [|RSN Archive Breitbart.com]
 * DN 09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with saying that "far right" and "conservative leaning" are not contradictory. "Leaning" implies being somewhat close to the center... "far" implies being... well... FAR from the center. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that "conservative" and "right wing" are not wholly synonymous (hell neither is "Conservative" and "conservative", are they libertarian conservatives, Neoconservatives, European style conservatives (much more like the Democrat party)). "leaning" also just means Tendency or inclination. Thus whilst (it is true) some one can be conservative leaning and not far right it is not true to say that someone cannot be far right and have conservative tendencies.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If far right means fascist and conservative leaning means Tory Reform Group, then they are contradictory, but if far right means to the right of traditional Republicans and conservative means to the right of traditional Republicans, then they mean the same same thing. Hence the American conservative movement was called "far right."  Hence a USA Today article refers to Goldwater as both "conservative" and "far right," using the terms interchangeably.  Readers are able to understand the use of the terms by understanding the context in which they are used.  America has an exceptional political tradition and the application of foreign concepts such as far right and conservative can be confusing.  We should not present a difference in use of terminology as a difference of interpretation.  Also, we should not use this difference to imply something not meant by the sources.  TFD (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I am sympathetic to TFD's analysis its application raises WP:OR concerns. As always our description should reflect sources, weighing frequency (see MASEM's analysis) and source quality. Our own analyses of what ideologies constitute or comprise others are less relevant. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There appears to have been extensive discussion and consensus resulting in the current description of Breitbart News as "far-right" (the original poster really should have included pointers to those discussions, because otherwise this discussion is not properly informed). Nothing presented here has shed any new light on that consensus; this exercise does look much more akin to forum-shopping by an agenda account, and we shouldn't be enabling it. MastCell Talk 17:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * MastCell, there is no forum shopping happening here. The original post asks that the discussion be reopened at the Breitbart News talk page.  Furthermore, there is no consensus about whether leaning contradicts far.  Técnico (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see current discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Carl Fredrik talk 06:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Redskin (slang)
After a long period of stability, User:Bromley86 began editing Redskin (slang) by removing content which had citations from good sources. POV editing of this article has been a common, if not a frequent problem, and my practice had become reversion without comment, which I did initially, later responded on the talk page: Talk:Redskin_(slang). I had thought there had been a restoration of stability, but the current state of the article is the result of removal of any content that addresses whether the term "redskins" has any relationship to the history of paying bounties for scalps, except to claim the relationship was debunked by one source, which I see as a misreading of that source.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read the rubric at the top, you'll see that you're meant to have made an attempt to resolve this on the talk page first. Had you done that, rather than reverting without edit summaries (which is an awful habit), then I rather suspect we'd have managed to deal with this.  I suggest that you try that first, but if you'd rather deal with it here, that's fine with me.  For the record, I am not an American, of any kind, and literally have no dog in this fight.  Bromley86 (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I should mention that all of my changes were explained and, when you look at the cites, they now explicitly support the points that they're attached to. This was not the case before.  For example, in the first para of the Body:
 * The origin of the term "redskin" in English is debated. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) had cited its earliest use in a 1699 letter from an English colonialist, Samuel Smith, living in Hadley, Massachusetts, which supposedly contains the following passage: "Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins." Based on this source, the OED suggests the term was specifically applied to the Delaware Indians and "referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint."
 * That cite supported literally none of the points made. This is one of the issues I've addressed in my edits.  Anyhoo, I'm dealing with the dispute on the Talk page and won't check back here unless pinged.  Bromley86 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a choice not to engage further on the talk page after Bromley86 made an explicit statement that editors have the right to interpret sources based upon their own opinions rather than include all and note the discrepancies and controversies. Editors have to summarize and select, but dismissing the work of Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a PhD historian, by saying "There will be plenty of qualified people who have misrepresented things..." and saying it is biased is beyond the pale. Then there is the news report on a talk on "redskins" and bounties given by Michael Taylor in 2013, while he was a professor of anthropology at Colgate University."" This has been repeated dubbed "irrelevant" and deleted (it is currently missing), apparently based upon a mistaken assumption about the topic of this article. It is not a dictionary entry closely tied to the etymology of the term, since as "slang" there is really no such thing. Non-standard words used by different groups may have radically different meanings, yet the recent edits have removed much of the content attempting to address these meanings from a NPOV. I would welcome actual collaboration to improve the "origins and meaning" section, but that would mean recognition that all of the previous content supported by reliable sources has validity.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is also the issue of whether a statement on the existence of the debate regarding redskins, bounties, and scalping belongs in the lead section. As one of the major points of public controversy, I think that it does.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You what? What I actually said was that we should always evaluate sources.  I did not say we should ignore her opinion, just that her opinion was not sufficient for inclusion in the Lead.  Write the Body, summarise in the Lead, and it is not sufficiently important to be in the Lead.  Mind you, the fact that you seem to be unable to recognise that she appears to not present a neutral POV on this subject is of concern, as is your willingness to believe statements made with no support.  This is almost the very definition of POV pushing, and yet you accuse me of it.  Priceless!
 * As to the Taylor reference, I'm not sure what your point is. Firstly, it's not clear from that article that he actually said that.  Secondly, the article gives no evidence to support the assertion.  In the face of an article published by an expert in a journal that specifically says this etymology is made up, we assume it's made up.  Bromley86 (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

As there's now a NPOV tag added to the article by User:WriterArtistDC, I'd appreciate someone here reviewing my changes to confirm that, whatever else they might be, they're not violations of the NPOV policy, so we can remove the tag.diff Happy to answer why I don't believe my edits are POV-based (just ping me), although a quick review of my edit history should confirm that (my last foci were the Hollow Moon "hypothesis" and obscure African kings). I'd also point to the edit summary by WADC: "Extensive POV editing and OR". There's zero WP:OR in my version; if they're wrong on that count, it rather calls into question the accuracy of the POV accusation. Bromley86 (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That there is a fundamental difference requiring participation by additional editors is the reason for posting here. In my experience this may take a while, but the POV tag can remain, and there should be no further changes to the article until there is a resolution. I have begun a draft in my workspace to indicate the changes I would make. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * None of which addresses my point that your accusation of OR was as baseless as your accusation of POV editing after zero effort to discuss: that's resorting to ad hominem to try to get what you want. I offered to go down the WP:3O route, which was the correct resolution to a content dispute.
 * It's interesting to note that you appear to have had a similar view to mine a few years ago: This is not an article about scalping, but about the meaning of the slang term redskin, so scalping is barely mentioned since, as you say, scalping has only a tentative relationship to the term. Not the words of someone who one would expect to disagree with the removal of the scalping suggested etymology from the Lead, an etymological claim that has been described as an "unfounded", and "fictional", by Goddard, and "revisionist history" in Indian Country Today.  Bromley86 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Again the confusion between rejecting "redskin only means scalp" and accepting that "Redskins" was the term most often used to refer to "Indians" by those collecting scalps for bounty. The latter is what Michael Taylor is saying (thus that ref's importance), and the 19th century newspaper stories are examples. However, isolated use of the term redskins for scalps becoming part of Native American oral history is likely within the context of collecting scalps for bounty. Did a bounty hunter never point to his collected scalps and say "I have a hundred redskins here."? Is oral history to be rejected entirely? Should a non-literate society be reduced to what is reported about them by their colonizers, including a scholar from the Smithsonian Institution, which has no clean record with regard to exploitation? The problem is attempting to establish any single entomology for a slang term. There are three groupings of early usage: pigment, skin color and scalp-hunting. Each has its validity and sources, and none refutes any of the others given the doubts voiced by scholars themselves regarding the certainty of any of their work (and to say they do is OR an POV). Any or all meanings may have been used by some groups, but none consistently. Nothing close to a standard meaning emerged until American culture had standardized the stereotypes of the Native American at the turn of the 20th century; a savage redskin when they attacked "peaceful" settlers, a Friendly Indian at other times.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute, and one that is entirely due to your inability to understand a simple concept. Words come into being, and then their meaning changes over time.  The origin of the word is important, and an encyclopaedia should discuss it.  It should also discuss the meaning.  Your talk of "early usage" is inaccurate: if we have written records of Indians using the term to describe themselves without prejudice that greatly predate the evidence you supply for its possible use in a scalping context, then the scalping suggestion cannot be the origin.
 * The suggestion that the Smithsonian should be ignored, but people who say something with no support should be believed is, frankly, insane. A non-literate society does present challenges when establishing what happened in the past, but there are ways of dealing with it.  Academic review of the many interactions with literate societies, in multiple languages, is a good start (and we have Goddard's journal article to cover this).  An academic review of oral histories would also be useful.  What is not useful is revisionist oral histories put forward without support.
 * Again, the Taylor ref you supply is incredibly weak, and your insistence that it is not is concerning. You present it as if it's a quote of something he said: there is no indication of that.  This is precisely what I was talking about when I said we should evaluate sources, rather than hope that they say what we want them to.  And, anyway, even if we assume he said it, where is the research that he undertook to come to that conclusion?
 * In closing, would you care to tell me what is POV about my most recent version that you reverted. Note that I specifically say that I have not reviewed the Evolving meaning subsection, but I think the Origins subsection is entirely fair and balanced.  Compare with the rambling mess that was there before.  Bromley86 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting for third party participation, however that may be stimulated. I have no interest in further discussion with someone who, from my point of view as a social scientist, insists that their understanding of an issue is the only accurate one, and includes personal issues in the discussion. There may be underlying theoretical differences regarding language that is also preventing communications on this topic. As someone who understand language usage in terms of particular perspective on evolutionary and cognitive psychology, I can recognize when someone does not share this perspective, but I don't know how to bridge the gap in this case.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

PS. I reverted the last edits because, as I explained, the NPOV tag puts editing of the article on hold until there is some resolution. Perhaps this is not in the guidelines, but should be, since what is the point of submitting a dispute to arbitration if changes are still being made unilaterally?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My draft of a revised article is complete: User:WriterArtistDC/scratch --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The draft is now a table with the current and proposed versions; and is very much a work in progress.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * what is the exact dispute here? Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well nobody answered my question -- though I probably don't have the time this will probably take. But here are some thoughts from a skim of the discussion. Perhaps they will be useful. Or not. As you like. I need a break from my current wiki concerns so I'll spend a few minutes typing here about some things I thought I saw in the discussion. If I am wrong then perhaps explaining it to me will advance the discussion a little anyway. I've been wrong before and promise not to take it personally. I know just enough about this to know I don't know nothing.
 * Is redskin an racial term - Yes by definition, since it refers to a racial characteristic,
 * Is it a racist term - Always? Not sure. Ask a native american. It took a column by Courtland Milloy for me to understand why why white people should not say "nigger"
 * But native americans have used the word - If you say so. Is/was English their first language? Do you understand all of the cultural nuances? Are you sure?
 * but it must not be that bad if native americans say it Are you native American and are you talking to Native Americans?
 * '''Is the fact that racism and genocide took place in the past objectively true? Yes
 * Is quoting someone's past statements ok? yes if they are notable and are backed with reliable rources
 * Is the Smithsonian a reliable source? Usually and would probably be accepted as such on most topics by our dispute resolution process
 * Is our dispute resolution process perfect? No. it is in fact rather arbitrary. But at least it involves discussion
 * Is the Smithsonian a reliable source on native americans? Depends who you ask and what the question is
 * If horrible stuff happened we don't have to talk about it, right? Was the horrible stuff notable?
 * Is 'redskin' derived from flayed native american skins? Don't know. Several Native Americans have told me this
 * 'So is it? Don't know
 * What about that chief, he called himself a redskin Was he being sarcastic? Was this just the white man's word for him as far as he knew? Was he surrendering after Sand Creek? Context matters
 * In history articles do we include the doings of racists and murderers? yes we do
 * Do we quote their racists rationalizations with approval? Not if people stop to think about it. Right?

'*Is this Wikipedia policy? I don't know, though I am pretty sure Wikipedia tries not to be racist


 * But it matters because.... Yes? Go on... Context matters. Please explain. Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Since this noticeboard is on my watch list, don't know why I missed the June 9 posting. What is the dispute? With regard to NPOV, the issue is the degree to which an editor can use their personal judgement to select and summarize what is contained in reliable sources. There is no argument that we apply guidelines on what is a reliable source, and this also depends upon the topic of the article. Redskin (slang) is a cultural/social topic about the origins and meanings of a term that also has become part of a public controversy. It is therefore important to present all points of view in the controversy while maintaining the primacy of published sources from those with academic standing in the relevant fields of history, linguistics, anthropology, and sociology.

I see Bromley86 as having overstepped any reasonable application of NPOV guidelines by reducing or deleting content summarizing the reliable sources authored by Native American scholars Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz (PhD in History, UCLA) and Michael Taylor (PhD, Anthropology). Instead, there is reliance on one RS from a PhD linguist, Ives Goddard. It is my position that neutrality demands that the opinion of each scholar be summarized without bias, editorializing, or original research. Individual scholars do not refute the work of others in a single article; this is only done when secondary sources state that there is academic consensus, which does not exist for this topic. If a well-respected historian states that "redskin" was used by some white settlers as a reference to dead Indians, there is no contradiction in also stating that another academic draws a different conclusion from the meager published documents of the same era which were translations of translations by individuals of "no great learning".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Political views of Donald Trump
For reasons that I do not fully understand, there is an ongoing discussion about a perceived bias in this article. Is there anything that can be done to make the article more "neutral?" Jarble (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Without knowing what it is that is the problem it is hard to see how we can improve it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see a number of minor sections where, in the absence of Trump or an official aide making a statement towards that issue, the article uses a commentator's opinion about how Trump stands on the issue. And more often than not, as that commentator is being critical of Trump, it makes it negative-sounding. I recognize that the various "Political positions of (President)" have a standard format and required list of H2 topics, and if Trump had not said anything towards those, the section should at least mention "Trump has not indicated his position on X". However, on these minor topics, having these can be a problem. For example, the "Disable People" section does state Trump hasn't made a stance, but then includes a negative element of him not yet responding to a certain group's request. I'm sure there's a LOT of groups and issues Trump hasn't addressed yet, so it's unnecessary to include that at this point. Or take the "Education / Presidency" section. It's taking his Education secretary nomination and trying to identify that as a political position even though Trump hasn't said anything about it, and the text only describes the nomination as controversial, which says nothing about Trump's policy. Lots of small little things that allow for the tiniest bit of Trump criticism coatracking whenever possible. There are places for this, but should be in clear, called out "criticism" sections or articles, rather than mingling among stated positions by Trump himself. --M ASEM (t) 13:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely if her refuses to say what his position is (even by just not responding to a direct question) that is noteworthy? I fail to see how this is a NPOV issue. I am less sure about the education section, I would have thought that an appointment does indicate a policy choice by Donny. By can see how it could be re-worded.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Lack of a stance is only noteworthy if someone (out side of Wikipedia) has actually noted it. If no one has noted it, then it is Original Research for Wikipedia to mention it. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, But in the areas raised here I am not seeing that. It has been noticed (and commented on) that he has no stance.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Where you can source that he has not stated a stance, that's fine. But that's all you then can really say. Any added material that is others suggesting or commenting on what his stance might be really isn't appropriate at that point, as while they can be worded neutrally, it begs the question if he refuses to take a stance or not. We shouldn't be letting other sources try to guess what Trump's unstated stances are on the various policies at least in this article. It is fair in articles or sections about criticism towards Trump to use RSes that are critical of Trump not yet taking a stance, but that's not appropriate in this specific article. --M ASEM (t) 16:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, in cases where Trump has not taken a stance, but other's are interpreting that lack of stance as meaning something, that interpretation is an opinion... and must clearly be phrased as being such (ie clearly attributed) in the article. On top of that, we we must be careful not to give opinions UNDUE weight.  Being clear on who holds an opinion is very important to determining whether the opinion should be mentioned, and (if so) how it is mentioned.  Not easy, but vital to neutrality. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, the problem is I am seeing this in the areas raised. So are there any areas where we do properly attribute claims that he has not said anything?Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Disabled people, what makes that questionnaire more important than likely the hundreds of others his office has gotten from other concerned groups? Mentioning his lack of reply makes it a weak attack on him by appearing to say his doesn't care about disabled people. It's fine that we can source "He has not yet stated an opinion on disabled Americans.", but we shouldn't try to fill in the gaps with things that are not his own words. In terms of the appointment, it is more that we have no idea what the nominee's stance is from the written text, nor why Trump nominated her (which would likely indicate some of his positions too). I'm doing just a quick scan of the DeVos nomination articles, and there's very little in discussing her nomination that includes Trump's reasoning. I do see a lot describing what DeVos likely supports in terms of educational reform, but it would be OR to assume that that is also Trump's view (it has a highly likely chance of being as such, though). Instead, right now, it describes how the pick was controversial, which alluded more to how negative the Trump adminstration is broadly seen, which doesn't need to repeated in every possible place.
 * Basically it is at the end of the day that where Trump hasn't said anything specific about a policy area, filling those gaps with anything else has the potential to be a coatrack. It is better to say nothing in those cases. --M ASEM (t) 14:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Citing anti-Muslim activist's ... "questionable" reaction to anti-Muslim violence?


The section is garbage at the moment and needs expansion to include the statements by the Muslim Council of Britain and so on, but I'm torn on whether Robinson's remark should simply be blanked outright, or nuanced to point out that he experienced criticism for the offending remarks (which is what the source says).

I posted as much on the talk page some time ago but have not received much traction, as people seem to be more interested in whether ISIS's view is worth noting.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think three is a weight issue here, for all his mouth Mr Robinson is (in reality) a nobody. Why are his views worthy of note?Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Hate-speech and bigotry isn't really WP:DUE. See WP:CRIT DN (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I (to a degree) disagree (thought not in this case) hate speech is not the issue...who says it is. I*f this had been spouted by (say) Teresa May we would have to repeat it. But Mr Robison is just another street thug who has got a bit of publicity.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, since I proposed removing it, two other editors on an impartial forum agreed, and no one on the article talk page explicitly disagreed, I've gone ahead and removed it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not cool - you didn't discuss this on the article talk-page. You mentioned this in passing on an unrelated comment (on lede reversion) - which I think was corrected anyway - which is why nobody was discussing there. Mr. Robinson's comments (and subsequent interviews) received SIGCOV. We should give coverage to all sides of the conflict. Just as we quote ISIS outlets justifying ISIS attacks - we should quote UK political elements of note (such as Mr. Robinson) who appear to be possibly justifying the attack. You could re-work how this is covered - there was significant subsequent criticism of Robinson and he's made some more statements. This was Front-Page news the few days after the attack. There are obviously (as can be seen for instance in Wikipedia's trolls vandalizing the page! And of course more established ways of seeing support) - some people (maybe a very small minority) who are justifying the attack - and this is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If this has not been discussed on the article talk page why was it brought here?Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * H's phone here. iPad's out of battery. As I outlined above, I had mentioned it on the talk page but had been essentially ignored. I'm sure the reason was the length of my post, but that's irrelevant. I was considering removing it, but I was reluctant to blank ”sourced content” from an article in a controversial topic area without first getting the go-ahead from someone. Slatersteven and DN appeared to be taking an even harder line than me, so I fired ahead. As for "not cool": technically speaking there is no requirement to get prior consensus on the talk page or anywhere else for an edit like that, and I was if anything being excessively careful by seeking some kind of input prior to making the edit. 182.251.188.235 (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see why it was missed, and it should have had a separate section (after all it was not in the lead, what everyone seemed to be talking about).Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As this was discussed here, notifying here of RfC opened on this topic (following discussion at talk page) at: Talk:2017 Finsbury Park attack.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Alleged murder confession at O. J. Simpson murder case article
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:O. J. Simpson murder case. A permalink for it is here. Like I stated there, an IP has framed an alleged confession by Simpson as a true confession by Simpson.

The IP range also stated this on the talk page: "I have seen that Lee Harvey Oswald has been named as John F. Kennedy's killer on Wikipedia; I suggest the same be done to O.J. Simpson and name him as the killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Various programs (America Crime Story, Made In America) have resulted in the consensus that reliable sources state that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. The legal contexts of 'burden of proof' and 'presumption of innocence' apply to someone who is being tried for a crime. Although Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law, reliable sources firmly establish his culpability."

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely inappropriate. It is the claim of one person tat Simpson said that, and Simpson is quotes as denying he said that. The "Alleged" version is the proper version to be neutral. --M ASEM (t) 04:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Masem. I will go ahead and re-add "alleged" in the heading and text. I haven't checked if the following is supported: "Simpson has denied ever having said this. Simpson's current lawyer Yale Galanter has said that none of Gilbert's claims are true, and that Gilbert is 'a delusional drug addict who needs money. He has fallen on very hard times. He is in trouble with the IRS.'" I'll leave that out for now, mainly for WP:BLP reasons regarding the accusations toward Gilbert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You can probably leave in "Simpson's current lawyer Yale Galanter has said that none of Gilbert's claims are true." (which I assume you can source). --M ASEM (t) 22:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Amalek
I recently WP:BOLDLY edited our page on Amalek and was, as I expected, reverted. -- by a 7-day-old account with 21 edits, most of them simply adding spaces in an obvious attempt to raise the edit count.

I would like to ask some other editors to review my edit. After all. I may be wrong and simply don't see it. Or I may have inadvertently thrown out some of the good with the bad.

Here are some of my NPOV-based problems with the Amalek page:

First we have a 19th century rabbi claiming that the Germans are descended from the ancient Amalekites, with the further claim that the Hebrew Bible says that Hitler may be seen as a result of the failure of the Israelites to kill Agag.

Next we have an editorial in an Israeli newspaper as a source for the quote "The Armenians are not Jews, and according to folk tradition the Armenians are nothing more than Amaleks! Amaleks? We would give them help? To whom? To Amaleks? Heaven forbid!".

Then we have an anti-Zionist rabbi quoted as saying "The Zionists came from the seed of Amalek".

And, of course, we then have a Jewish ultra-nationalis claiming that "Amalek" refers to the hostile Gentiles who are to be revenged for the near annihilation of Jews and their God.

Not to be outdone, this is closely followed by claims that Arabs are Amalekites, that Irananins (who are Persians, not Arabs) are Amalekites, and of course there is a claim that Muslims are Amalekites.

Finally we have some really biased external links such as:
 * Wipe Out Amalek, Today? chabad.org
 * Amalek, Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe
 * Remember Amalek: A lesson in Divine Providence

Please review my edit. Thanks! BTW, I am hereby officially associating Wikipedia editors who fail to follow WP:NPOV with Amalekites. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, what is your problem with presenting different viewpoints of Jews who associate certain groups with the Amalekites? NPOV is also about showing different opinions, as long as they are properly sourced and attributed.--Arielle JS A (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * True to an extent. But being neutral does not mean presenting ALL viewpoints even if reliably sourced. Especially when they tend to be fringe. As it would give them undue weight in an article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am bumping this to the bottom because the problem is unresolved. I really need some help with this. The next step is to take this issue to ANI and then Arbcom, but I would much prefer that a couple of editors who are not batshit insane join me and try to fix the problems. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the Amalek page and agree that the insertion of often off-topic material, and the text's discussion of unreliable sources, had gotten way out of hands. The article was largely hijacked by various sorts of ethnic politics. I'll be happy to keep an eye on the article for a while. Alephb (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, if your problem is ongoing, it might not hurt to throw up a message on the talk page of WP:BIBLE. That can generally get some well-informed editors to put some eyes on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alephb (talk • contribs) 15:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Now at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The Teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but the whole article seems to be a copy-paste from a religious text. Can someone with more familiarity with Islam either revert to a clean version or take the article to AfD. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's copied from a translation, probably originally this one and may be copyvio. Doug Weller  talk 19:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stubbed, copyvio deleted. Doug Weller  talk 18:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Who is to blame for the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election?
We seem to have a content dispute issue at James Comey. It's a bit of a journey, but I will sum up the highlights. First, the material in question for reference:

Since only a few editors have actively participated and hardly any are returning to continue to the discussion, it seems an RfC wasn't exactly feasible. Thanks for reading - uninvolved third-party input would be greatly appreciated in helping us sort this out on these three issues! Hidden Tempo (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was WP:BOLD and overhauled the lead. Reverted by . He expressed his view of my content: "the vast majority of it was bad," and opined that Trump's responses regarding to the dismissal ("he wasn't doing a good job," "he's a showboat and a grandstander") were "dubious," implying that Trump's reasons for the dismissal should be excluded on based on MrX's views of the reasons.
 * After replying that MrX's personal views of Trump's reasons are irrelevant, MrX bowed out of the discussion.
 * After further discussion with, he agreed with my proposed changes regarding the speculation about why Clinton lost, and shortening the dismissal paragraph in the lead to one sentence. I re-added some of the proposed material, but then was quickly reverted by , an administrator, reasoning that the material is "not neutral and convoluted." I invited Bbb23 to the talk page to discuss his concerns as well as my own concerns with his prior interactions with  (who had been reverting and tinkering here and there in between all of this back and forth), but Bbb23 chose not to accept my invitation and never appeared on the talk page.
 * came to discuss, and after we agreed upon the neutral material, I implemented the material for which mild consensus had been established. quickly reverts (echoing Bbb23's "convoluted and POV" summary). Volunteer disappears from the article's pages for about three days while I and other editors continue to discuss.
 * ,, to a lesser extent, , and myself reach an agreement, and so I add it to the article. Volunteer arrives about an hour later to revert, and complains that using the phrase "reportedly" to describe a report that only one media outlet has been able to verify is "POV." He also accuses me of using this language to somehow "cast doubt" on the reports, although I point out that due to the stellar reputation of the New York Times in the minds of many people, it should only lend credence to its reports.
 * arrives, agrees that Silver does not deserve special recognition and removes his name from the lead, but has left the speculations of Vanity Fair and Vox in-place. The slight alteration still excludes the opinions of numerous RS and scientists who do not concur with the bloggers/writers. (Note: Clinton herself has blamed Netflix, the DNC, and Macedonian hackers for her loss, and the Comey letter is just one of dozens of excuses floating around in the ether).
 * 1>Whilst it may be true that the sources being uses are "The "analysts" are two bloggers and three writers from a fashion magazine" it is not true they are the only people who have said this [].
 * 2> I have no problem with shortening the lead of any article, I would rather they were no more then two paragraphs. It should just say he was fired, leaved the detail for the body.
 * 3>Again, we may be only using one source, but other sources repeat this. But yes we should still not be saying this is a fact. According to media reports should do it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. This replaces a concise summary, with a wordy version that dilutes the important information. The important information is that Comey is thought by many to have cost Clinton the election, not that there was criticism. It's fine to also summarize a significant minority view that Comey's press conference did not cost Clinton the election, but let's not confuse readers by avoid the meat of the topic entirely.
 * 2. This is simple: Trump is not a reliable source. The New York Times, Washington Post, and dozens of other sources that have covered this are. Comey's post-firing testimony that Trump never "asked" him to stop the Russia investigation is an straw man that has been amplified and echoed by the far-right media to promote their alternate reality.
 * 3. The "nut job" quote can be omitted as I'm concerned, and I'm not opposed better wording for this material. It's debatable that it needs attribution; I'm not aware of reliable source that have challenged its veracity. Also, the material is reported as accepted fact by other news sources, so the claim that it is "unverified by any other media outlet" is misleading.- MrX 12:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How can Trump not be a reliable source as the one in authority to dismiss Comey? We can talk hidden agendas and implied rationales behind the dismissal, but if Trump said he let Comey go due to X in official statements, that's a fact. Mind you, then all the non-official stances that are pulled in (eg relating to the Russia investigation), that throws a lot more bias in the lede. The lede is not the place to get into details of a much larger political issue for a BLP, the last para should definitely be something "Comey was dismissed from his position by President Trump on (date) amid the investigation into potential Russian ties into the 2016 election." Period. The body can spend details on all the speculation. --M ASEM  (t) 12:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "How can Trump not be a reliable source as the one in authority to dismiss Comey? " Because he has a well-documented habit of contradicting himself, deflecting, equivocating, and lying. His rambling statements frequently tend to defy comprehension and logic, and this case is no exception. - MrX 13:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * On his opinions, such as the "fake news" thing, sure. But if he says his reasoning for dismissing X, as it is his authority to do so, it is absolutely against our policies to say what is saying is wrong. You can frame it "Trump said that his reasons to dismiss Comey were X", which attributes it appropriate, rather than "Comey was dismissed for X", which frames that as a fact. I'm sure there's a lot more context that Trump's public comments have, but there is zero allowance to say "oh, but Trump lies, so we can ignore these". --M ASEM (t) 14:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely no has has suggested we say he did not have the right to sack him?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @ Masem" Let's not forget that Trump is a primary source. Our obligation is to summarize what is recorded in reliable third-party sources. We are not obligated to treat Trump's statements as factual, or to assign them more veracity or importance than what is reported by reputable news organizations. You seem to conflate his "authority to dismiss federal employees" with truthfulness. - MrX 15:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The only primary source, and the only "fact", is the letter/paperwork on Comey's dismissal and the reasons stated on that. Anything else, including what Trump has said that is not in that paperwork, is a secondary source. And because this is a controversial firing, his stance has the same valid weight for inclusion as Comey's statements, and the opinions of the media, as long as WP:V can be met (which it obviously can). Obviously, we can't just include Trump's comments, since we know that the dismissal created a media outpouring of complaints. But to ignore Trump's comments (the one that made the dismissal) over others is completely against NPOV in writing about controversial topics. --M ASEM  (t) 16:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In this case, opinions of three analysts are cited as evidence that "a number of analysts" hold this opinion. That type of wording is discouraged per "Unsupported attributions".  It implies a degree of acceptance which is something that should be cited to secondary sources that report on the various positions.  Although Clinton probably lost votes when Comey re-opened the investigation, we do not know if she would have lost anyway.  Furthermore, since the vote was close, had any of a number of things been different, she might have won.  And it is questionable whether Comey was to blame for reporting that he had found new emails.  Clinton should not have kept emails on a private server, they should not have been sent to Weiner's laptop, and she should have told the FBI that they were there or taken a hammer to the hard drive.  TFD (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Kind of messy trying to discuss three disputes at once. But:
 * 1. I think Hidden Tempo is too dismissive referring to the sources as two bloggers and a fashion magazine. Nate Silver is certainly more than a blogger; and Vanity Fair is certainly more than a fashion mag. In any case, there are far more RS. I have no problem with "His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having cost Clinton the election" as a substitute.
 * 2. I object to HT’s comment: …by his critics/the New York Times/the Washington Post. The NYT and WaPo are RS. They report news. HT has repeatedly suggested that they are not RS and their user page states that he intends to have their classification as RS re-examined. I agree with MrX’s comments on this.
 * 3. I have said before that we have to be careful with the word anonymous. That incorrectly suggests that there is one source and it is unknown to the NYT, which is ridiculous. The sources are simply unnamed. I have no problem with removing "nut job". I also have no problem with attribution. Although Trump is not a RS for why he did something, his claims as to why in a response are allowed by NPOV. Objective3000 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol I agree, but hey, there's three pieces of material in contention here so there wasn't much of a choice.
 * 1. Nate Silver has already been taken out so that point is mute (although he is just a blogger, celebrity blogger or not). Your suggestion still keeps the POV in place, and ignores many other RS and scientific studies who do not support this claim. WP:V is not satisfied by this proposal.
 * 2. That's not the crux of the issue. The point is that the NYT and WaPo (high 80%'s negative Trump coverage) do not get to determine what goes in the leads of Wikipedia. There are many other reasons for the dismissal given, but it seems that the one-sentence proposal regarding the dismissal is emerging as the preferred edit on this board, regardless. It's simply excessive given that the dismissal has its own fork.
 * 3. Wait, are you contending that the reasons that Trump gave for firing Comey are not "reliable" because you think so? I'm baffled by that rationale. Trump gave several reasons for Comey's dismissal, and regardless of what you or I think of them, they must be included to avoid POV. Maybe YOU don't think that Trump isn't a RS, but every mainstream RS reported on Trump's reasons given for Comey's ousting.Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The use of the NYTimes and WaPost in anything relating to Trump needs to be carefully reviewed in that they are not independent sources relative to all the issues in regards to Trump. This is not to say they aren't reliable, and as long as the article is not expressing a writer's opinion, can still be considered an RS, but there's a lot of pieces in both articles that are unfiltered opinion pieces and thus should not be taken as "factual" pieces compared to the other ones, due to their being "dependent" sources. --M ASEM (t) 18:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "The use of the NYTimes and WaPost in anything relating to Trump needs to be carefully reviewed in that they are not independent sources" - nonsense. They are indeed independent and reliable. I have no idea what concept of "independent" you have in mind. But just because some people dislike their reporting does not make them not independent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I haven't trusted the Washington Post to have a Neutral POV since the whole incident where they used out of context jokes to write a hit piece on a popular youtuber with the goal of getting him fired in the process (actually partially did get him fired). That's the sort of thing I expect of a tabloid, not one of the most 'highly regarded' news sources. Blindly trusting sources, even very reliable ones, isn't a good idea. Not in politically charged arena's like this one. Didn't the Editorial Board of the New York Times publicly endorse a political candidate in the election for the first time ever ? (Spoiler: It wasn't Trump) Any claim that the NYTimes is NPOV when it comes to Trump should be looked at with suspicion. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK so lets try an experiment, quote one passage in the article sources the NYT and lets see if we can find another RS to replace it?Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: I haven't trusted the Washington Post to have a Neutral POV since the whole incident where they used out of context jokes to write a hit piece on a popular youtuber with the goal of getting him fired. Just to clear this up, it was the WSJ that brought up this guy. WaPo and everybody else commented on it after he lost sponsors. Objective3000 (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Didn't the Editorial Board of the New York Times publicly endorse a political candidate in the election for the first time ever. The NYT has been endorsing presidential contenders since Lincoln in 1860. Editorial boards have nothing to do with the news sections. If you have a problem with the NYT, or WaPo, take it to WP:RSN. This is not the proper venue. Objective3000 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That used to be the case. Prior to 2000, there was nearly always a proverbial wall between editorial departments and news departments because they didn't want their news reporting to be affected by their op-eds and thus why there was no issue with them endorsing candidates. But of late, many papers, struggling to meet financial ends, have merged the editorial and reporting departments into one. This doesn't necessarily mean all such papers should be considered tainted, but we as editors must be fundamentally aware that past assumptions about how news works don't hold up anymore and can't blindly assume every article from a paper that was considered an RS in the past should be taken as "objective fact" today. --M ASEM (t) 19:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit appears to suggest this is true of the NYT. “The board is part of The Times’s editorial department, which is operated separately from The Times’s newsroom, and includes the Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed sections.”  Objective3000 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite true, Masem, and let's not forget that while it's true that the NYT has been endorsing presidential candidates since 1860, they haven't endorsed a Republican candidate for about seven decades (Eisenhower). This, coupled with the 87% negative coverage of Trump which some have defended with "Oh, well that's just because he's doing a bunch of negative stuff that I don't agree with," shows that while Wikipedia does in fact consider NYT a reliable source, its agenda must constantly be put into context before just throwing everything it says into articles. Biased sources are permitted to be used, but WP:UNDUE and WP:POV landmines are everywhere when we do this. Surely nobody would argue that the divisions of the NYT have different narratives or directives from the leadership. Anyway, I think #3 is resolved, yes? We're going with one sentence regarding the dismissal in the lead, and properly attributing the NYT for the "nut job" and "that's taken off now" reports? Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not true of the NYT. And, your constant attempts to argue that NYT should not be used as an RS belong at RSN, not here or article talk pages. Objective3000 (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The NYTimes may not have merged their departments yet, but they have just recently eliminated their copydesks that helped to review for objectivity. I have never said NYT shouldn't be an RS, just that blinding accepting "Oh, it's the NYTimes, it must be true" nowadays is problematic. --M ASEM (t) 19:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And you read that critical article in the NYT.:) Pretty objective of them. Objective3000 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What's "not true" of the NYT, O-3000? The 87% number? The seven decades without endorsing a Republican? Actually, let's just stay on topic, don't worry about clarifying, and nobody's arguing that NYT shouldn't be used as a RS (I think you misunderstood my edit). I think we're good on #2 and #3, and just need to settle on the language from #1 now. Edit conflict: Thank you, Masem. You made the point much more concisely than I could. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * SO use the source I provided.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For the "nut job" and "that's taken off now" reports? Every source that mentions those two stories uses the phrase "According to the Ne York Times" or a variation thereof. No other RS was able to independently verify the NYT stories - they are taking them at their word that the anonymous source actually read the letter over the telephone, and that letter contained the information which the New York Times is reporting. So it would be awkward to say "According to a CNN report that cites a New York Times report, Trump called Comey a 'nut job.'" I think this one is pretty much resolved. Volunteer Marek I believe is the only user voicing objection to the word "reportedly" or "According to a New York Times report." Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * HT, you have used this 87% number numerous times out of context. The report that provides that number is long and detailed. Stating that it is proof of bias is not helpful. Objective3000 (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about the Harvard media study anymore - please stay on topic. If you have a problem with Harvard's findings on the behavior of the mainstream media, we can discuss on my talk page after this is all resolved. As you noted earlier, these issues are complicated enough without trying to steer the discussion into about something else. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a habit of making a spurious claim, and then when there is a response, lecturing the responder with comments suggesting they are off-topic and trying to steer the discussion. Further, you have a habit of misstating what others have said, I have not suggested that I have any problems with Harvard's findings on the behavior of the mainstream media. In fact, you are continuing what you just called off-topic by suggesting that Harvard had any finding on the behavior of mainstream media. This is not productive. Objective3000 (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What's not productive is you not dropping the stick, and only hanging around here to argue instead of advance the NPOV discussion on points 1, 2, and 3. Stop trying to turn the discussion into your own private battleground and accept that not everyone shares your opinions on whatever point you're trying to make. Again, if you want to debate whether 87% negative coverage seems about right for a fair, balanced, non-partisan newspaper, I'm more than happy to do that with you after this is resolved. Until then, please drop the stick. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Find a mirror. Objective3000 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought we were only undecided on issue 1?Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought too, but I wasn't really sure because the NYT isn't a source for the "It's Comey's fault that Clinton lost" material. What do you think about my NPOV replacement? "Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism."
 * Why do we need to remove what the criticism was?Slatersteven (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's extremely POV, and is the POV of only three sources (1 blogger from 538, 3 writers from a left-leaning fashion magazine, and 1 writer from a left-leaning blog). The solution is to either include the opposing view (from conservative-leaning and non-partisan sources) that the idea that Clinton has Comey's letter to blame for her loss is ludicrous and is not backed by the polling data, or to simply state the facts as neutral as possible: "The presser and letter was met with bipartisan criticism." Insinuating that it's Comey's fault that Clinton lost in the lead of his BLP (based on what a couple people think) is egregiously POV and inappropriate. This speculation is already placed later in the article, anyway, which also needs to be balanced with the widely held opposing view supported by numerous RS (per WP:V). Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

[],[],[],[],[],[] now to be fair most of these are about Comeys response to the claim. none the less the claim is there. I am really going to have to spam link here?08:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any disagreement that there's enough sourcing to suggest the media considered Comey's actions to be part of the reason Clinton lost. I do question if the subtlies of the logic of how he impacted the election by a number of analysts is sufficient for the lede. Right now we have The leap of logic from one statement to the next, if I am a reader with no knowledge of what happened involving Comey makes me wonder how the second sentence relates to the first. The first sentence is fine, but unless you can summarize everything that he did in one additional sentence before the second, it's too much for the lede (Body, it's fine). --M ASEM  (t) 13:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead quickly summarizes the body. I don’t see a need for logical progressions between sentences. The first sentence points to the fact that his role was controversial (with pretty much everybody at one point or another). The second sentence talks to a possible effect. The body provides connections. Objective3000 (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The second sentence shouldn't be there in the first place, so that would eliminate the need to try to connect them. The first sentence is fine - the language is neutral and lead-worthy. But when you start cramming a select group of people's (Democrats) wild theories as to the effect of his actions? That's when the POV problems come into play, and that has no place in the lead of a biography of a man's life. The actual poll numbers and a scientific survey/polling study examining this exact subject do not support the views of the bloggers cited, further undermining the views of the bloggers. There was a statistically insignificant dip in Clinton's poll numbers by election day. Voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania knew all about Clinton's struggles with her secret private server long before they had even heard of James Comey. It wasn't the letter. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is just your opinion. And where do you get the claim that all the cited people are Democrats? Objective3000 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, O-3000. That's why we are here. To discuss our opinions on the material in question. However, the findings of AAPOR is not an opinion - it's science, and the science says that Comey's letter did not "cost" Clinton a thing. I'm not going to get into it with you yet again about who's a Democrat and who isn't, but if you can find any stories written by those bloggers favorable to Republicans/Trump, you can post them on my talk page when you're ready. Or links to any Republicans at all echoing the assertion that Comey's letter is the reason why Clinton lost (or Netflix, or Macedonian hackers for that matter). Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we are not here to discuss our opinions about why an event occurred. We use RS. Our opinions are irrelevant. Science most certainly does not say the letter didn’t cost Clinton the election. This is SYNTH. You are the one that continues to label sources as biased or Democrat. I haven’t a clue as to the parties, if any, of any of these people. Against, these are assumptions of yours. Objective3000 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, bit of a misunderstanding here. Perhaps that was partially my fault. I was stating that we are here to discuss our opinions regarding the material, not our opinions on why Clinton lost. You'll find that I said the exact same thing in my first point of the breakdown above. Anyway, did you read the study? The exact phrase the experts used was "The evidence for a meaningful effect on the election from the FBI letter is mixed at best." Real tough road for anyone who wants to argue what Vanity Fair and Vox are arguing despite the science. You may not have a clue about these people's party affiliation, but I do. This comes from extensive research of this topic. No Republican has said anything remotely close to what these bloggers are saying. It's a DNC/Clinton talking point, and has no business being in the lead. And that's why there is only one user (you) arguing that it should be. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You repeatedly, in many articles, talk about bias in respected sources and label sources as Democratic that you don’t like. I have no interest in any of this. The concept that we should rate, and disparage sources in this manner revolts me. If you don’t think a source is RS, take it to RSN and stop arguing this on article talk pages. Objective3000 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your concerns and false claims are noted. If the opinions that you don't agree with "revolt" you, perhaps you should excuse yourself from this discussion, as it appears that the number of users who side with you on this issue has dwindled to 0. I think this section could benefit from a division into three partitions to help keep the disputes separate, as we keep getting sidetracked with these silly side-debates. This noticeboard has nothing to do with the respectability of the sources - it's about the content of the article, based on disputes #1, #2, and #3. Let's keep it there. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There you go again. You repeatedly disparage sources, and then when someone responds, you demand that they are off-topic and often suggest that they go away. Apparently, no one is allowed to respond to your claims. Objective3000 (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede should not be so focused on current events, per WP:RECENTISM. It should mention in broad context that he played a role in the 2016 elections, and it should definitely mentioned he was dismissed by Trump amid the Russian involvement investigation. Those are key facts to his career. But speculation and hypothesis should be avoided, given that these are parts of his career and not the only thing he was known form. The body can get into all the complexities of that, but you don't have the space to balance that neutrally in the lede. --M ASEM (t) 14:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Recentism says that we should focus on the long-term, historical view. Whether he likes it or not, his controversial actions regarding the election, and Clinton in particular, are what brought him into the public eye and are likely to be how he is known years from now. Objective3000 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "likely to be how", that's why RECENTISM exists. You're guessing, it's a good educated guess and I wouldn't disagree with that possibility, but it is speculation. That's why we need to wait for the dust to settle (which likely won't be until Trump has been out of office for several years) to understand how to present such. I don't think his connection to the 2016 election will disappear, so that first sentence is completely fine, but the speculation around it should be avoided in the lede for now. --M ASEM (t) 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, in writing the lead for a BLP, we are always speculating about what that person will be known for in historical terms. As I posted earlier, I’m OK with softening this to: "His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having cost Clinton the election". This isn’t breaking news, which RECENTISM mostly talks to. Objective3000 (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is some speculation to guess what a BLP will be known for, but we should be using a lot more common sense to what those will be, keeping neutrality and BLP in mind. I think it's fair to address Comey's connection to the 2016 election, even though it will take years of analysts to come to a consensus to what happened, that will not change the fact Comey's name was significant during the pre-election period. But exactly what his part ended up being will take that time, and to that end, highlighting that he may have cost Clinton the election is much more speculative, and should be omitted from the lede, even if there are a fair number of sources that state that. RECENTISM is not just about near-term, its about taking the long-term view on topics, and right now, pretty much anything to do with the 2016 election is going to be in flux for years, so we need to be a lot more careful. Again, this is all just about putting in speculation (him costing Clinton the election) in the brief lede without enough room to give content; this is all fine in the body where you can give attribution and any necessary/appropriate counterpoints. --M ASEM (t) 15:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should not speculate on the effects of Comey’s actions. And we are not. We are including speculations by analysts, and stating them as such. Objective3000 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But where's the other speculations, the counterpoint, the responses? Whether he was responsible or not is a complex issue, one that will be encyclopedic material as time passes, and should be included in his article in the body. But because it is that complex, it should not be highlighted in the lede until a consensus of analysts (not journalists, and certainly not only ~a year out - it's going to take a lot of work) have made that determination. That's why this is RECENTISM, just because journalists and some analysts have pointed the figure at him for the loss, that doesn't make it true yet, so it should be seen as a contentious statement that is not proper to include in the lede, given that he is known for several other things too. It would be a different question if the only thing Comey was notable for was this role in the election, that might be a reason to include it, but that's absolutely not the case. --M ASEM  (t) 15:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence I proposed says some analysts see an effect; which is why his actions were seen as controversial. If there were no effect, there wouldn’t be a controversy. Comey himself stated in Congressional testimony that the idea he swayed the election made him somewhat nauseous. I can see combining the sentences, perhaps saying that his actions were controversial as they may have swayed the election. I don’t see ignoring what he is known for by the public at large. Objective3000 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We have to be really careful, particularly with BLP, of trying to identify "what he is known for by the public at large". The court of public opinion is very fickle. Consider, say, OJ Simpson. How much of the public think of him as an athlete rather than a (paroled) convict? Not many. The public wants to focus on the negative, that is human nature. That's where we have to be careful of that and avoid getting far too much into what the public thinks when summarizing for the lede. Back to Comey, I would certainly not see a problem saying that his role was controversial in the election, for the lede. That's fair and factual enough, and entices the reader to read further to learn more. My issue is that if you only include the stance about his having affected the election without describing the other opinions (even by implicitly saying "some analysts" and not "all analysts"), that's biasing the lede on something that is not yet resolved.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And that's really what #1 boils down to. The initial sentence says that his "role [in the election]...particularly with regard to his public communications, was highly controversial." His July 5 presser AND the letter was controversial, and both actions were met with bipartisan criticism. Who knows whether or not those two things affected the election? The opinions are pretty much torn down party lines, although Democrats have come out and dismissed the notion that Clinton can safely blame her loss on the letter, but no Republican has echoed this sentiment. The opinion of 3-5 writers is given undue weight, and I see no reason not to simply say "The decisions were met with bipartisan criticism" and be done with it. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OJ occurred to me also. Certainly his BLP before his legal difficulties would have correctly focused on his sports career. RECENTISM is a relative term, but usually talks to very recent events (STOP THE PRESSES). Mao’s supposed response to Kissinger about the French Revolution suggested he thought a couple centuries was too recent. There is a middle ground. We can say: “having possibly cost Clinton the election”. This is brief, is what the controversy is about, and leaves discussion of various analysts for the body. In any case, there aren’t enough folk in this discussion to arrive at a consensus, rendering its continuation somewhat pointless. Objective3000 (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that proposal is only marginally better and still gives far too much weight held by a very small group of individuals, which has already been refuted by the AAPOR. A far less preferable (and neutral) compromise would be to mention that some think that Clinton can blame her loss on the letter, and then state that most analysts reject this notion and a scientific study found that there is "mixed evidence at best" to support the theory. But again, this is far less preferable than simply inserting a neutral statement without trying to force a particular viewpoint down the reader's throat. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * neutral. Sorry, but that’s hilarious. Objective3000 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In regards to abandoning the noticeboard, sure, we could all go have a formal content dispute but those are drawn out and usually more complex so I think we'd all like to avoid that. I'm confused that those who dispute the NPOV revisions don't seem to want to defend their position, but have no problem adding the page to their Watchlist and immediately reverting anything they don't like. Everybody wants to go the party, but nobody wants to clean up. And no need to apologize to me. I'm not bothered by the opinions of others and am certainly not "revolted" by them. Yes, neutral. Did you want to give your reasons why the phrase "Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism." is not neutral, or did you just want to say stuff and see how people react? Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That isn’t even slightly close to what you said. And I haven't the faintest concept what you mean by your aspersions about editors reverting without commenting. This is pointless. Objective3000 (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a fact, not an aspersion. The reverting editors are not participating. I'm sorry you found this discussion pointless, but I thank you for your contributions here and wish you the best. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Masem - this is my first time bringing an issue to this board. How do resolutions work, here? It seems #3 at least has been resolved (attribute NYT-only stories to the NYT), so do we just go ahead and put in the edits, or is there some sort of formal closure with the result of each issue? Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no formal "An admin will close and make a decision" process here, but given the page in question likely falls under discretionary sanctions, you might want to alert that talk page that you plan to go ahead and implement #3 pointing back to this - they can participate here if they see a problem with that, for example. --M ASEM (t) 14:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Easy. Donald Trump. You are welcome. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even easier... The voters Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty much Hidden Tempo vs. the world, which means that after a certain point it becomes just one editor refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK and wasting everyone else's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. Most have agreed on the revisions proposed by #3, in large part on #2, and #1 is currently being worked out. Instead of treating this as an "editor vs. editor" battleground situation, wouldn't it be better to collaborate constructively and reach a compromise? Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ummm, no. Where do you see "most have agreed on the revision proposed by #3"? Where do you see "in large part on #2"? All I see is people telling you no. And you turn that around and try to claim that there's agreement here. Yeah, agreement that your proposals are not good. How in the hell do you turn that around into "most have agreed on the revision proposed"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

After thinking a while, I think "cost Clinton the election" is flawed. The relevant detail is that Comey's behavior regarding Anthony Weiner sexting scandals was front-page news the week before the election, we should be able to say that in the lede without speculating as to whether that being in the news influenced the election results. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But the jury is still out if this really affected Clinton's election chances. I would say that from a neutral stance we can call Comey's actions leading up to the 2016 election, which including his reaction to the Clinton email server stuff and reopening the Weiner scandals (both "highlights", to speak, of his career), were controversial and may have influenced the election. (note: not "cost Clinton the election"). I see no problem alluding to his actions affecting the vote, but I think in the lede it is far too much to say that he may have cost Clinton the election. In the body, you have the room to cover that in depth. --M ASEM (t) 21:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Cause" is meaningless in this context. The logic that translates "If XXX didn't happen, then YYY wouldn't have happened" into "XXX caused YYY" is flawed, even if the first part is known to be accurate. By that measure, each of 100's of items could be considered to be "the cause" of "YYY". Articles should have information, not uninformative subjective characterizations.  North8000  (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks . Agreed. Also, as an FYI, the lead has been tweaked a few times regarding this material, most recently by myself. As far as I know, there has only been one scientific study that examined the possibility of Comey's letter affecting Clinton's chances of winning, and it found "mixed evidence at best" that this is the case. There's also articles from NYT and elsewhere discussing that the Comey letter had no effect, so this view is really not widely held (not lead-worthy). This is how the disputed section currently reads:
 * Note that I also changed "analysts" to "journalists," as it more accurately reflects the job functions of writers at Vanity Fair and Vox. I'm still in favor of removing the last two sentences in favor of a generic "July 5 press conference and letter to Congress after discovering new Clinton emails were met with bipartisan criticism" line.Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , instead of deciding what should or shouldn't go into the article and then just reinstating your preferred version, wouldn't it be more productive (and efficient) to just participate here? You should explain to everyone here why you should unilaterally decide (against consensus) that New York Times-only stories should not be attributed as such, why you believe the AAPOR study that found Comey's letter did not cost Clinton the election should be excluded from the lead, and why you believe that the dismissal section should be expanded with this run-on sentence: These drive-by reverts followed by your disappearance is counter-productive. Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * HiddenTempo, wouldn't it be more productive for you to stop claiming false consensus and leave the article alone for the time being until you actually get some people to agree with you? And by that I don't mean "let me pretend people agree with me" as you try to do above, but actually agree. If you stop messing with the article against consensus, then I won't have to restore the previous version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no consensus for any of this. Who can say what that "this" might be? Maybe not anybody or nobody. SPECIFICO  talk  15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no consensus for any of this. Who can say what that "this" might be? Maybe not anybody or nobody. SPECIFICO  talk  15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I believe you're paraphrasing what I just told you: leave the article alone for the time being until you get people on your side. I have garnered ample support for removing POV material from the article, unlike your expansion of the dismissal section of the lead. This is the unofficial tally right now on board with the NPOV fixes: In contrast, you have Objective3000 and possibly MrX, and one of those users lists "Trump isn't reliable" as his reasoning for censoring his reasons. The support for your version is virtually non-existent. Specifico is just philosophizing about consensus in a general sense, and hasn’t really backed anybody’s material. So as you can see, it is you who needs consensus for your preferred version. However, if you intend to keep reverting every 24 hours as you just indicated you “have to” do, we can just take this up the ladder. Although as I stated before, I’d rather just handle this here with a compromise rather than bogged down in a content dispute. Those can be quite drawn-out and messy, as you know from your previous content disputes. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Re #1. Cbs527 said they were fine with the sentence as is, as long as the "likely" was changed to "possibly". Which it has been and that's what the article says. See, *that* is a compromise. What you're trying to do is impose your own preferred version on the article and then have the chutzpah to call that a "compromise". Likewise Masem seems to favor "may have influenced the election", whereas your proposal tries to remove any indication that it may have influenced the election. North8000 has made one off-hand comment. JFG hasn't commented in this discussion, the only comment they made in the talk page discussion is that they hope editors can edit the article in a "dispassionate" way.
 * So yeah, you're making shit up and pretending that you have consensus when you have nothing of the kind. Again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with VM’s revert. And HT, remove my handle from your tally of support. I support the current, compromise text. Objective3000 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * supports reducing the “dismissal” paragraph, in contrast to your desire to add an enormous run-on sentence. Yes, I did have the chutzpah to compromise to leave the sentence about “Vanity Fair thinks it’s Comey’s fault that Clinton lost” ‘’if’’ we added the AAPOR scientific study proving this isn’t the case. If you had been participating in the discussion, you would know that the word “likely” wasn’t the primary issue, and thus wouldn’t find yourself lost in the subject matter. seems to favor all three proposals, but I am pinging him in case he wants to back your version instead. North8000 made a comment in support of #1, not your POV version.  commented his view that “nobody” (which includes Vanity Fair and Vox) can say for certain what cost Clinton the election. That’s support, but pinging him as well in case he wants to clarify. So no, it doesn’t appear that I’m “making shit up,” now does it, ? I will again remind you to keep your focus on the material, not the editor. And no, O-3000, I will do no such thing. If you want to strike your edit of support for #3, you are more than welcome to do so. If you are willing to switch sides out of spite, I am willing to strike your name after you strike your support. It would be disingenuous to do otherwise. VM, you didn’t answer – is it your intention to revert every 24 hours until you get your way? Or are you ready to sit down and discuss? Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Except (as stated more then once) it is not only Vanity fair that has said this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, Hillary Clinton has stated this as well, but that's not the point. The point is that if you're going to put speculations about what may or may not have caused Clinton to lose the election in the lead of James Comey's biography, per WP:V and WP:RS, the AAPOR study and the views of other journalists must be included. Otherwise, you end up with POV material and that's why we're here. Because Volunteer Marek thinks he "has to" keep reverting until he gets his way, and his way is to put his views in the article to the exclusion of all others. Not acceptable. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are willing to switch sides out of spite. I’ve had enough of HT’s constant casting of aspersions. This has to stop. In no way, shape or form am I doing anything out of spite. A compromise was suggested and made and I supported and support that compromise. But apparently, HT gets to !vote for me. Objective3000 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * An aspersion is an attack on your reputation or integrity. Nobody attacked you, O-3000. These constant cries of supposed policy violations are tedious and disruptive. Nobody's "!voting for you." You are not a victim. You asked me to edit the tally after people already replied and I am politely declining. End of story. You have made your views known, and I thank you for your input. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The hell you didn’t. I have never made a decision out of spite. And VM has not reverted every 24 hours. You include some snide remark in post after post. Objective3000 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Do I really have to post those sources all over again just to be told "but none is disputing that". This needs to be closed now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You posted one source backing the "it's Comey's fault Clinton lost" false claim, and it was from Business Insider. The discussion isn't ready to be closed since Volunteer hasn't yet responded whether or not he intends to continue reverting to POV material every 24 hours because he thinks he "has to." I support all three suggestions by JFG below, or similar variations thereof, as do many others. VM's version has one supporter: O-3000. We can close if VM agrees to stop reverting without discussion, and agree to implement JFG's NPOV proposals below. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stuff me with green apples, he wants more...,, .Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is obsolete. Civil discussion on the talk page is being ignored. The text talked about in these three items has been modified according to compromises struck on that page. In falsely claiming that only I support VM’s revert, HT is completely ignoring the changed text or the editors on that page. One stated they will not come to this discussion as it is too tangled. It’s also uncivil. So uncivil, that HT claims to !vote for me. This should be closed and discussion taken back to the talk page, where actual changes have been agreed upon and implemented in a civil, collaborative manner without constant personal attacks. Objective3000 (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not obsolete - it's bringing about change, little by little. Again, nobody's "falsely claiming" anything, ignoring any editors, "uncivil(ly)" claiming to !vote for you (as I just told you above), or personally attacking you. That's quite a list of accusations, and if you feel you have a problem with an editor, you know exactly which board to go to with your grievances. Otherwise, please stop trying to cram every WP policy into every edit you make. Play the ball, not the man. Content, not the editor. Going forward, this is where the discussion is taking place, not the talk page. Two discussion pages would only further complicate an already complex content dispute. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't irony ironic? Objective3000 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM. Please stop trying to disrupt the NPOV Noticeboard discussion (3rd request I believe). Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet another false accusation. I have never in my decade here attempted to disrupt any discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I will say that I think the lede is still too non-neutral, as editors are trying to push a lot into the lede and affecting the tone of the article, which is a problem; we should not be trying to predispose the reader to assume Comey is "bad". The material is all appropriate for the body of the article - I'm not questioning the validity of what has been said, and it's all sourced. That's not an issue, but in the lede, over everything else Comey's done, there is a great deal of effort by editors involved to make his actions seem very bad, where at this point, we're only using opinions of journalists to determine this; we need the space afforded by the body to get into those necessary details that can't be spelled out in the lede. Again, I believe we're justified in saying that his actions pre-election could have influenced the election, but its too far in the lede to say that he cost Clinton the election. Similarly, for his dismissal, it should be said that he had been dismissed by Trump for (brief summary of Trump's reasons), and indicate that many political analysts and journalists felt he was dismissed in relation to issues around the Russian interference. But we don't need quotes or much more than that in the lede. --M ASEM (t) 18:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, this is obsolete. For example, the article does not state that Comey cost Clinton the election. These discussions can be difficult enough without the added complexity of concurrent discussion on two pages. Objective3000 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having possibly cost Clinton the election" in the current lede. --M ASEM (t) 19:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A truism with two added qualifiers. And, unfortunately, what he'll most likely be known for in addition to being fired. Yes, we don't know that. We don't know anything about the future. But, that sentence has been turned around from the original. Objective3000 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it is a false statement, but it is one stance out of several. It's pushing the reader to accept one side's views of his actions. It even can be fixed just be toning it down to say "may have influenced the 2016 election", rather than "may have cost Clinton the election". In the body, you have the room to elaborate, you do not have that in the lede, and its not appropriate to pick and choose views here. --M ASEM (t) 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Suggest it at the talk page where discussion has been productive. Objective3000 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See above for my response regarding this. I left a message at the talk page indicating that all discussion regarding this dispute is currently taking place here. We don't want to confuse involved editors or scatter input on the same topic across multiple pages. Anyway, Masem is right. "May have influenced" is better, and I'll add that the AAPOR scientific study showing that there is "mixed evidence at best" to suggest this should also be included. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It not a vote but lets see who at least agrees with the OP.

We should include option 1

 * Yes, although the suggested text looks a bit unclear. We need to distinguish the July and October events. I would say this:
 * — JFG talk 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

We should include option 2

 * Yes, shortest version. Or if we want some balanced exposé of motives, perhaps:
 * — JFG talk 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

We should include option 3

 * Yes, attribute statements to the New York Times when other sources refer back to them. — JFG talk 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

At least we can see if there is consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no we cannot, because WP does not determine "consensus" with a vote. It's just another round of goalpost-shifting, ,a tale signifying nothing.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What I meant is we can see who has actually agreed to what, which is a point of dispute here.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

But this really has run it's course now ans is serving no purpose. Should be closed with no consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, not yet. As I said, if VM agrees to stop reverting with no discussion, and agrees with the majority opinion that all three NPOV fixes should be implemented, I'm fine with closing. Until that happens, the debate will continue. Slater, I appreciate you helping out here, but we don't need any more editors trying to unilaterally declare when it is or isn't time to close my noticeboard post. Nobody is forcing you to edit this topic. If you are bored of the consensus-building process, there are literally millions of other pages where you could be spending your time instead. Please respect the process. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not "reverting without discussion". Stop lying about me. And others. How about you stop trying to railroad your version of the article through over others objections? And no, the freakin' debate will NOT continue. You don't get to waste other people's time, insult them, misrepresent them, weasel what they say and continuously harangue them until you think you can win by wearing others out. You've been told that your edits have no consensus. Various people have already wasted a lot of their time repeatedly trying to explain to you why. You haven't stopped. You haven't listened. Just like before, when you got topic banned for exactly the same behavior. This is stupid and needs to end.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Listen,, I pride myself on refraining from ad hominem attacks and focusing on content, but you're not going to call me a liar. You made a series of reversions any time someone makes an edit you don't like, and then just disappear half the time. You only come to discuss when I drag you to the talk page with pings and verbally shine a light on the changes you're making without explanation. In regards to your belief that you get to close Noticeboard discussions, you're very much mistaken if that's how you think the process works. And please stop throwing stones from within your glass house. You've literally been brought before ANI and AE dozens of times to defend your incivility, edit warring, countless 3RR complaints, and various other infractions. I really hope you will keep your edits on the content from this point on. Thanks. That being said, I'm asking for a third time: is it your intention to revert every 24 hours if you see something you don't like? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Well I will put it like this.
 * I have no idea now what you think you have consensus for, as such I am not willing to have my name put to it. There is no consensus and if no one now replied to you anymore in this thread that does not mean consensus has been achieved. As such I will not be replying to you anymore, as this is now over with no consensus possible given the shifting nature of this thread.Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, this is silly. We have one editor with a long history of constant attacks trying to force his will, suggesting people that disagree with their edits have malevolent motives, suggesting editors that disagree should leave, making constant snarky responses, misstating what other editors have said, making false statements about other editors’ actions, and TBANed from the same articles previously for the exact same behavior. All but one other editor left the discussion until HT hit multiple editors’ talk pages to bring them back. This board is designed to look for additional input into an NPOV discussion. The attempt has failed. There are plenty of editors on the article talk page. Meanwhile, discussion on the article talk page has been civil and productive. (Surprise, civility is more productive.) Someone uninvolved needs to close this so that we don’t have concurrent discussions as this is a distraction that will never be accepted on the article talk page, and is therefore a pointless timedrain on volunteer editors. Objective3000 (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Lotta falsehoods in there, so I'm going to briefly refute them one by one so you don't derail the discussion any further.
 * I never said that. I assume everyone involved in the discussion is here to improve the encyclopedia, and opened this noticeboard dispute to invite editors who I disagree with to participate. Very strange accusation, given the circumstances.
 * I've tried to remain as civil as possible, and given the circumstances, I think I've done a pretty good job. Sorry you disagree.
 * WP:AGF. You misunderstood several of my edits, such as above when you thought that I said we're here to express our opinions on Clinton's loss, rather than our opinions on the suggested material. It happens, but please AGF.
 * No, I got a tban for soapboxing and allegedly misstating what an article said about Clinton. What is this, the 7th time you've tried to shame me for a punitive action? Please move on from this tired attack route.
 * Yeah, that's kind of what you're supposed to do on noticeboards. From above: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {subst:NPOVN-notice} to do so." Just following the rules.
 * And no diffs for any of these claims and accusations, of course. Now, in regards to your third demand to close this noticeboard section, I've already stated what would be required to settle the content dispute. However, this thing has gotten so long and polluted with personal attacks and aspersions, I'm willing to start a clean slate with a formal content dispute. Also, since it seems Volunteer is the only editor left who has stated his intention to keep reverting stuff because he feel he "has to," I think this may be most easily and quickly settled through formal mediation. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here. I support any proposal to close this thread, and to start a new one on the talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this isn't going anywhere productive. — JFG talk 08:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani
The article has been here some time ago, but there is currently a massive pro-Iranian POV pushing in the article. The pushers want to define the subject as an Iranian mathematician. She has an Iranian nationality, but has not been employed in Iran even a single day. Consensus to define her as Iranian-American mathematician (as a compromise) has been established in the past at the talk page, but the pushers are challenging it and there are too many to get their hand. I gave up and unwatched the article, because to be honest I am tired of these battleground behavior, but someone may want to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani
The article has been here some time ago, but there is currently a massive pro-Iranian POV pushing in the article. The pushers want to define the subject as an Iranian mathematician. She has an Iranian nationality, but has not been employed in Iran even a single day. Consensus to define her as Iranian-American mathematician (as a compromise) has been established in the past at the talk page, but the pushers are challenging it and there are too many to get their hand. I gave up and unwatched the article, because to be honest I am tired of these battleground behavior, but someone may want to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Christian communism
This is about. I do not feel like reverting it, but I would like advice from third parties upon whether this is OK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Bakersfield, California
It seems to me that this edit creates some balance issues. I don't think it gives a very balanced portrayal of the recent history of the city. Not quite sure what to do about it, though. I am tempted to revert it, but parts of it are probably usable. Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Rothenberg Ventures
Here to see if there's anybody willing to take a look at a COI request posted at Talk:Rothenberg Ventures, about updating the Controversies section to make it easier to follow, and remove extraneous detail. The request is by me, as I've been advising the firm on the article. Another editor has replied to say that controversy / criticism sections aren't great practice, and I don't disagree. However, I think this my proposal is nevertheless an improvement, and more neutral than the current version. If anyone here is willing to have a look and weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100
A user is frequently removing the entire mentions of Elvis Presley from this article, despite reliable sources mentioning his 17 hits every time they talk about this list. Discussion is on: Talk:Artists_with_the_most_number-ones_on_the_U.S._Billboard_Hot_100. Excelse (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

0.999...
I have concerns over the neutrality at the article 0.999.... I have started an RfC on the matter. Opinions are welcome. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump Jr.
Seeking guidance on what needs to be done to get the Donald Trump Jr. article up to snuff re WP:NPOV

I think the hangup is about mentioning of the criticism of the Russian meeting, as it reads as if it is universal, when in reality some have criticized while others have been indifferent or even defended DJT Jr's actions.

I'm willing to listen to ideas before we go further.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a content dispute. What specifically is being disputed as POV? Once that list has been established, the editors can go on to make changes if it does not meet NPOV guidelines. Provide diffs if possible, otherwise, just post the context in question, with their respective cites. DN (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The dispute is in the lede, regarding Trump Jr's Russia meeting. The question is whether mentioning the criticism of the meeting adheres to WP:NPOV.  Is just focusing on the criticism slanted too far, or should it be more neutral in mentioning the meeting but leaving out the part of the criticism (since the criticism isn't universal) Vjmlhds (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Basically, if you look through the article's history of the past couple of days, you'll see my version, and the version with the NPOV template...long story short, would my version adhere to NPOV, or do we need to go another way? Vjmlhds (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to post the content, and or diffs, here. That way people can look at it and determine for themselves. DN (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Orlowski on Wikipedia in Residence program
At issue is. Andrew Orlowski is the writer of the piece, giving his opinion. A fruitless discussion about it happened here. The section as a whole is tagged for NPOV because of that sentence's inclusion. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 06:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV in pages providing information about Russian Military exercises
Zapad-2017 exercise

The page relies exclusively on references in Russian (or originating from Russia). Attempts are made to push the POV that the exercises are minor and defensive in nature.

I initiated NPOV dispute and used talk page to suggest adding the following sections and references to the article: - Personnel and equipment estimates by independent sources. - Goals of the exercises as seen by independent experts and observers. - Opinions and speculations about possible outcomes of the exercise, as previous exercises have been introduction to wars.

NPOV dispute tag has been removed without any discussion on the talk page. I am confident that the article is monitored and used as a tool in information war, which violates principles of NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20000roads (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Perth agreement
Perth Agreement begins, "The Act of Settlement 1701, the Bill of Rights 1689, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, and the Royal Marriages Act 1772 are part of the laws of Canada." In the third paragraph it says, "The position taken by the federal Cabinet was that Canada has no royal succession laws, the country's monarch being automatically whoever is monarch of the United Kingdom."

I find beginning sentence misleading because the implication is that the parts of these acts governing succession are part of Canadian law, while the Canadian legal scholars have determined they are not. Since these laws governed other things it is possible that parts of them are in effect in Canada. For example one of the sources provided, a 1991 Supreme Court opinion, says that section 9 which provides for parliamentary privilege is. Hence one editor argues that the sentence is sourced.

By way of background, there was an argument about whether the succession laws have been incorporated into Canadian law and would have to be changed in Canada so that it had the same succession as the UK and other "Commonwealth realms" or whether whoever succeeded to the throne of the UK would become Canada's monarch. Legal opinion settled on the second position although some editors bitterly oppose the view.

TFD (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD: it would, perhaps, be helpful to commenters, whether new or old to this controversy, if you could cite and link sources for and against the propositions in question (and any undecided). Qexigator (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * + Such as at SOQUI website, supporting proposition that Within the legal context under discussion...succession to the office or position of monarch, or head of state, or "crown", in each one of today's realms, including UK and Canada, is subordinate to the theory and practise of the rule of automatic recognition [la regle de la reconnaissance automatique] per Bouchard JSC Quebec in Motard's case, para.47 quoting Professor Oliver's report, referring to the Preamble and section 9 of the 1867 Act to declare that the rule of automatic recognition applies: (quote) 104. The Queen or King of Canada is, according to the long-standing rule of automatic recognition, whoever is the Queen of King of the United Kingdom. The preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, refers to the desire of the Provinces of Canada to be "federally united under the Crown of the United Kingdom…with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom"(endquote): per Quebec SUPERIOR COURT, Motard c. Canada (Procureure générale), 2016 QCCS 588 (CanLII) . One Summary by SOQUIJ ("We analyze, organize, enrich and disseminate law in Quebec and this added value enables us to support professionals in their search for solutions, as well as the general public in their understanding of the law. - In carrying out its mission, SOQUIJ fulfills the mandate entrusted to it by the National Assembly of Québec. SOQUIJ reports to the Minister of Justice of Quebec.") "I concur", full summary ends "Elle n'a pas donné force de loi à la loi britannique ni étendu son application au Canada, que ce soit directement ou par incorporation par renvoi. [It did not give effect to the British law or extended its application to Canada, either directly or by incorporation by reference.]"
 * Legislation cited

Constitution Act, 1982, The, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 — 2; 11; 15; 52(2) Cited by 38,203 documents Constitution Act, 1867, The, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3 — 9; 52; 96; 100; 133 Cited by 5,118 documents Official Languages Act, RSC 1985, c 31 (4th Supp) — 8; 13 Cited by 303 documents Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, SC 2013, c 6 Cited by 4 documents
 * Decisions cited

A.-G. Quebec v. Collier, 1985 CanLII 3056 (QC CA) Cited by 11 documents Campbell v. Hall, 98 ER 1045 (not available on CanLII) Cited by 11 documents Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, [2005] 1 SCR 667, 2005 SCC 30 (CanLII) Cited by 161 documents Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie‑Britannique v. British Columbia, [2013] 2 SCR 774, 2013 SCC 42 (CanLII) Cited by 32 documents Hudson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 SKCA 108 (CanLII) Cited by 5 documents Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke, [1969] 1 AC 645 (not available on CanLII) Cited by 8 documents Motard c. Canada (Procureur général), 2016 QCCS 588 (CanLII) Cited by 1 document New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), [1993] 1 SCR 319, 1993 CanLII 153 (SCC) Cited by 158 documents O'Donohue v. Canada, [2003] OJ No 2764 (QL) (not available on CanLII) Cited by 6 documents O'Donohue v. Canada, [2005] OJ No 965 (QL) (not available on CanLII) Cited by 7 documents Osborne v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1991] 2 SCR 69, 1991 CanLII 60 (SCC) Cited by 165 documents R. c. Investissements navimex inc., 1998 CanLII 12930 (QC CA) Cited by 6 documents R. v. Jebbett, 2003 BCCA 69 (CanLII) Cited by 9 documents R. v. Montague, 2010 ONCA 141 (CanLII) Cited by 10 documents R. v. Morris, [2006] 2 SCR 915, 2006 SCC 59 (CanLII) Cited by 38 documents Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 SCR 753, 1981 CanLII 25 (SCC) Cited by 114 documents Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC) Cited by 276 documents Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) Cited by 10 documents Ref re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I.; Ref re Independence and Impartiality of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I., [1997] 3 SCR 3, 1997 CanLII 317 (SCC) Cited by 381 documents Switzman v. Elbling and A.G. of Quebec, [1957] SCR 285, 1957 CanLII 2 (SCC) Cited by 164 documents Teskey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 612 (CanLII) Cited by 3 documents
 * Qexigator (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

History of Bob Jones University
History of Bob Jones University seems to be an article solely (or at least for 90%) focused on controversies surrounding this (admittedly contrversial) university, and very little on the remainder of the history (e.g. the opening of the Bob Jones University Museum & Gallery, which is how I came across this page). Multiple attempts by others at Talk:History of Bob Jones University (move and merge requests) have been rejected. The page should either be renamed or (almost completely) rewritten, and should at least be tagged with some appropriate warnings. Some more (and more experienced with this kind of stuff) eyes on this are welcome! Fram (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. There are already countless other WP pages that encompass the "History" of the University: Bob Jones U vs US Bob Jones, List of Bob Jones U People, BJU Press, Bob Jones U vs Simon Bob Jones, and Category: Bob Jones U. This page IMO shouldn't really be titled as such: "History"; as it clearly does not represent all that is going on with this place. It seems as though the motive / agenda was to create a page simply to represent the "controversial" aspects of the school into one single article (not its "History"). If it is the true and complete "History"; either it has been presented in a non-NPOV, or this place has some real troubles (which I can't believe) . I would vote to move to better represent what the article should be titled - easily done. Maineartists (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Does look rather like a POV fork. Merge all the "history pages".Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The use of the term "illegal alien"
I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue, but I'd like to explore the possibility of banning the use of "illegal alien" across Wikipedia unless it's part of quotes. I've noticed that it's a term that editors regularly try to introduce to Wikipedia articles related to immigration (see the edit-warring on this article, for instance) whereas other editors try to remove it. While lots federal and state agencies do use the term (some have moved away from it in recent years), the term is rarely, if ever, used by reliable news sources:


 * The Associated Press Style Guide doesn't allow it.
 * The Washington Post style guide: "The Post does not refer to people as “illegal aliens” or “illegals,” per its guidelines."
 * The New York Times style guide doesn't allow it, even describing it as "sinister-sounding".

Is is therefore jarring when Wikipedia uses a term that is (i) widely seen as offensive or sinister, (ii) has not been used by any reliable news outlets in decades, and (iii) has far more suitable (common in reliable sources and non-offensive) substitutes, such as "undocumented immigrant" and even the flawed "illegal immigrant". So, it's not only bad style to use it on Wikipedia but the fact that the term is allowed on Wikipedia leads to lots of needless edit-warring as users try to introduce the offensive term to pages and others try to remove it. I've also started a discussion on the Manual of Style board to get their take on the term. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoa Snooganssnoogans is misstating what the text he cites says about the NYTimes "style guide."  It is a pretty nuanced directive, What the NYTimes style guide actually says is that writers should “consider alternatives when appropriate to explain the specific circumstances of the person in question or to focus on actions: who crossed the border illegally; who overstayed a visa; who is not authorized to work in this country.”   to suggest that you immediately strike your untrue assertion that "The New York Times style guide doesn't allow it .  What the style guide forbids is the use of "illegal"  as a noun, i.e., a phrase like "the illegal worked as a chef."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this is embarrassing for you. The source that I linked to says: "Off the table entirely are “illegal,” when used as a noun, and the sinister-sounding “alien.”" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know what a "noun" is?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What on Earth are you on about? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I know there was a discussion of this on a noticeboard, but I can't find it. However, in principle, I agree that we should not use "illegal alien" unless it is a quoted word, if we are describing the meaning of the term, or in cases of historical context where the term was more common (as one might find in older works of fiction, avoiding reversioning of the past). If we are talking about a contemporary issue, even if the sources use "illegal alien", if we can paraphrase that to something less offensive but still accurate, that would be better. --M ASEM  (t) 00:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what relevance my weigh-in on this will have, but I was intrigued when I heard a United States judicial member once clarify that no one is an "illegal" anything unless they are found guilty in a court of law. Until then, they are merely "undocumented". I found that very interesting. For what it's worth. Maineartists (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent sources. The term is most often used to describe living people that have never been convicted. The term is used as a derogatory label WP:LABEL. There exists perfectly adequate language to express this without such terminology. Yes, we can use it in a properly referenced quote. Objective3000 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The term should be used where appropriate, as the term is the correct legal definition of a foreign national living without authorization in a country they are not a citizen of. Yes the term is politically charged, but that does not preclude it from being used in a encyclopedic tone. Keeping WP:GEOSCOPE in mind, the term "Alien" is in use outside of the United States where it has fewer negative tones, and in the English speaking world has the same legal standing. As far as sourcing is concerned, the federal government of the United States employs the term as do a number of dictionaries (  .) Like all terms that could induce offense or be used to defame, the term "Illegal Alien" should be used in the proper context to better serve the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that my vote is below.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Illegal alien is the proper legal term. It definitely should be used in any wiki text covering statutes and policies in which it is defined, and possibly elsewhere. There is nothing inherently sinister with either alien (a person who is not a citizen or resident) or illegal (a person who has entered illegally without a proper visa). Just because some PC speech activists are trying to move away from the proper legal term is not a reason we should do so. If at all we should ban non-legal pseudo euphemisms such as undocumented immigrant (which for instance assumes the illegal alien's intent is imiigration and not some other intent).Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "some PC speech activists" = Virtually every single reliable news source. Seriously. I dare you to find one reliable news outlet that uses "illegal aliens" except in quotes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Left leaning press has endorsed this - which is what you brought. However US code and regulations are full of the term. Want to hazard a guess as to how many times alien appears in the us tax code, guidelines, and forms? I could see how calling a BLP an illegal alien would be a violation of BLPCRIME prior to conviction. However if we are talking about an unspecified group or alternatively individuals who have been convicted or deported there really should not be a problem to refer to them as such.Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Left leaning press has endorsed this" <-- bullshit excuse to dismiss best practice of reliable sources. If you don't like an encyclopedia written on the basis of reliable sources, find a different venue for yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * VM, please try to keep this civil. As you know, comments like that serve no purpose other than creating strife and disruption. Cast your vote and leave it at that. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Labeling the NYT, WaPo and AP "left-leaning press" on the NPOV board is, IMHO, an example of irony. Objective3000 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Despite being leading RSes (and really leading, the first newsorg you would want to cite), NYT and WaPo do have a clear editorial angle. Does not mean they are not reliable (in fact they are highly reliable, and perhaps the most reliable US sources). But reliability does not equate with adopting their style guide which reflects their editorial angle, which unrelated to reliability.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC) The NYT, as a RS, recognizes that it is perceived as liberal .Icewhiz (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal, which is about as conservative as the NYT is liberal, doesn't use "illegal alien" either. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The source you provided, which might or might not be a rs for wsj's policy, actually say they prefer to use illegal immigrant. They avoid alien due to possible popular confusion with E.T. In popular news reporting that may be a concern, but in a wiki article actually dealing with a statute that uses the term? Finally I will note that if Wikipedia will blanket avoid the term, it will paint Wikipedia as biased, as avoidance of illegal in this context clearly places a source in a particular camp. Undocumented immigrant is just aas POVish as illegal.Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine the logic behind this statement: Undocumented immigrant is just as POVish as illegal. Objective3000 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Use of one over the other allows a quite stong statistical inference of the writer's political position.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perception is not reality and I’ve never before heard the claim that The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage is politically influenced by the editorial board.


 * BTW, the NYT states about the author of that piece: "Her opinions and conclusions are her own." That is, it is not RS. Objective3000 (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I will note that this is a frivolous dispute - as any astute reader would note each major news-source has a bias which is usually known. The editorial policy and substance guide are typically what is most affected by the bias as well as "tone" - what sets an RS apart - is that it doesn't (too much) alter facts and attempts to vet them - but that regards reporting - NOT style guides. The author in question works in a pretty significant capacity at the newspaper. But if you really want another source, then this summary of a journal paper (which i could pull as well) - - claims NYT has a liberal leaning bias. And one could find dozens of other RS analysises of the NYT (and WaPo) - probably the most studied paper out there - including in specific topic areas.11:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support As the npr ethics handbook says, "Strive to use words and phrases that accurately deliver information without taking sides on emotional or political issues." When we use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant," we are taking a position on the issue.  I think there should be a section on "politically loaded language" in Manual of Style/Words to watch that includes the terms, "homicide bomber" and others.  TFD (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could be an addition to WP:TERRORIST. Objective3000 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. SamHolt6's position seems perfectly sensible to me, as there will be times where "illegal alien" is the correct term to use.  I'd also like to note that this appears to be drifting into avoiding "illegal immigrant" as well which, irrespective of the current culture war going on in the US, is still perfectly acceptable elsewhere.(UKIrelandNZSouth Africa)  Bromley86 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you would read the links you provide before providing them. The first story in your UK search for example ("Grenfell fire: 'I was too afraid because I'm undocumented'", BBC), doesn't use the word "illegal immigrant", it refers to "undocumented residents."  The term "illegal immigrant" redirects to "undocumented residents," which is the preferred term in UK reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, saw that. Perhaps you missed the quote marks?  Did you see the second article? "... among 18 suspected illegal immigrants found in a lorry..."  Third: "Eighteen suspected illegal immigrants from Iraq..." Forth: "Egypt says the detainees are illegal immigrants..."  Fifth: "An illegal immigrant who was caught working..."  Etc.  Admittedly, I've been out of the UK loop for a couple of years, so things may have changed, but they were always, without question, called "illegal immigrants" rather than "undocumented migrants" in the UK in 2015.  From my memory, anyway.  Bromley86 (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I support the use of the term provided the context is appropriate. For example, the term should not be used in an article that has content cited to any entity that does not use the term per their manual(s) of style. However, the term still has legal standing, and remains a definition provided by a number of dictionaries. From a legal standpoint, in the United States a 2015 opinion by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the term has basis in legal documentation. The parlance of our time is changing, and while the term may well fall out of favor (a counter to my 5th Circuit point would be that the term has not been granted a legal opinion by the US Supreme Court), it remains in use. Without doubt the term is politically charged, but that does not preclude it from being used in a encyclopedic tone if the situation (and more importantly, the source cited in the concerning instance) warrants it. The question should always be if or not it is tactful to use the term, or if a better one can be employed to suit the same need. Per my previous posting, like all terms that could induce offense or be used to defame, "Illegal Alien" should be used in the proper context to better serve the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Dictionaries do not characterize the term illegal alien as disparaging nor offensive. It is a neutral term, used to describe "a foreign national who is living without authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen." Just because very left-leaning media outlets like the New York Times and WaPo don't want to use a term doesn't mean Wikipedia should conform to their preferred terminology. Setting a standard for adopting euphemisms in place of appropriate wording isn't a good direction for the project. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Very left-leaning media outlets like the New York Times and WaPo" - HiddenTempo, just please drop this ridiculous nonsense. Your own POV is showing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Play the ball, not the man. You don't have to personally address every single thing a fellow editor says that you disagree with. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that creator of this discussion misstated the policy of the New York Times - my fact check posted at top of discussion.  I note that an editor above has also misstates the policy of the Wall Street Journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The WSJ policy is to use "illegal immigrant" and, in some cases, "undocumented immigrant". The only mention of "illegal alien" is in the context of a term that prefer "illegal immigrant" over. A quick search shows no mention of "illegal alien" in WSJ language (unless quotes, letters and op-eds) since 2001. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are legally accurate phrases. Unlike newspapers, even the most reliable of which take editorial positions, Wikipedia avows neutrality as a goal.  Taking sides in a fraught conversation about whether to call individuals who live in a country without a legal basis for their residence, would be a gross violation of Neutral point of view, and abandonment of our pretense to political neutrality.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support — This is a straightforward application of WP:LABEL. It has become a value-laden term that implies a POV that shouldn't be expressed in the encyclopedia's voice. Exceptions are appropriate for quotations and for legal contexts where the entity involved uses the term. Also, "illegal" in the absence of judicial review may be a BLP violation. To choose (perhaps) politically contentious example, we don't use "statutory rapist" as a generic descriptor of people who have had sex with someone under the age of consent in the absence of a legal finding about that person. Nor do we use "trespasser" for European colonists in the Americas. Instead, we attribute POV.--Carwil (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All terms in this debate are value laden, the term "undocumented alien" simply supports a different set of values than the term "illegal alien." Wikipedia should not choose sides in a political contest by banning either term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The use of this term is an active political conversation with pundits and scholars weighing in on both sides, (Cf. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Sorry, but the Accurate Legal Term is 'Illegal Alien' .) Wikipedia should not be taking sides by banning politically contested terms.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The "scholar" Hans A. von Spakovsky who doesn't have a PhD, and is most known for making false and unsubstantiated about voter fraud while dabbling in some climate change denial on the side. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is that this is a political debate, and it is POV for WP to take sides.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I want to reiterate the point made above by Bromley86; progressive and mainstream newspapers in much of the Anglosphere use "illegal alien" routinely - so it would be a tad imperialistic for bien-pensant U.S. editors to impose this on the world. Here are some recent uses from around the Anglosphere:  Irish Times "Barely a year later he was deported as an illegal alien from the country of his birth. " ; The Guardian "sentenced at a federal court in Las Vegas in December last year to a year in jail after admitting charges of being an illegal alien in possession of a..." ; The Australian "Tax all illegal alien remittances out of the USA at 90%." ; an ex cathedra editorial in The New Zealand Herald "on Friday afternoon she was told that, as of yesterday, she would be an illegal alien." ;  Times of India,  "They are from Nepal and most of them or their forefathers were illegal alien into Bengal from Nepal." ; and from Jamaica's oldest newspaper, The Gleaner  "Hailing from Ewarton, St Catherine, she was living in the US for over 30 years as an illegal alien..." .   However, some offshore Anglophone newspapers do want to ban this phrase, Al Jazeera wants us to  "drop the word" .E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose while "illegal alien" may not be considered a politically correct term, it is an accurate term. WP is not part of any political machine so being politically correct is a contradiction of what WP represents. The courts use the term - see the following footnote by federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen, Southern District of Texas which references a Supreme Court decision: The Court uses the phrases ‘illegal immigrant’ and ‘illegal alien’ interchangeably…The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase ‘illegal alien’ offensive. The Court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012). Cited from this linked article. Atsme 📞📧 20:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While "homosexual" is a proper term to describe gay people, we don't use that because it's become a perogative term to call a person. While "negro" is a proper term to call an African-American, we also don't use that for the same reasons. There are places where the term had been used frequently and we shouldn't wash that away, but when we have flexibility (such as discussing immigration policies of today) there is almost no reason to use that term unless part of a quote. --M ASEM  (t) 21:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? Did you mean perjorative in your response above? I disagree with censorship and the use of political correctness. There's a big difference in being polite vs choosing words to make something seem like something it isn't. Atsme 📞📧 02:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a fine, subtle difference between political correction and avoiding offensive terms; I'd say PC-ness is when a small minority disagree with the use of a term and thus try to push for a different phrase into the larger culture, whereas an offensive term is one that the majority of the population recognize it as such and avoid it. And to that definition avoiding "alien" is a step to avoid an offensive terms that most agree is offensive, rather than trying to be politically correct. --M ASEM (t) 04:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem arises when we have to determine exactly who is offended by the term? The illegal alien? Sorry, but "offended" is far too subjective and WP editors are supposed to be editing with accuracy in a dispassionate tone. Everything about political correctness is contrary to that policy. We don't have "safe rooms" here. Atsme 📞📧 14:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooops, forgot to ping after replying above. Atsme 📞📧 14:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We look to see whom considers the term broadly as an offensive term. In this case, I think it's fair to say that non-immigrants recognize "alien" as offensive (judging by the Style Guides above) so it's not catering to a small group. Also note that for dispassionate writing we should avoid offensive terms if there is language with equal meaning that is less offensive, and in this case, it's clear "immigrant" is a more neutral term for "alien", but otherwise with equal meaning. --M ASEM  (t) 15:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per LABEL and any legal terminology needs to be identified as such. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose First, it is an accurate and legal term.  Second, we don't need to banning indivi9dual terms and start listing.  There are plenty of policies and guidelines on article content without starting to create word bans.  North8000  (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I can see why "illegal alien" would be viewed as a deprecated or insulting term considering the media has made such a marked change from it, and that alien is indeed somewhat "sinister-sounding". However I see a problem with the argument that "illegal" presumes a judgment any more than "undocumented". If a person hasn't been found undocumented in court, who is to say they are factually undocumented? When using any variation of these expressions in referring to persons you are assuming the terms actually apply. Either way the example Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is phrased is, by the very nature of applying any description, presuming that the persons discussed are as described, and any people who are not factually here illegally or without documentation are not included in who is being discussed. So for a different type of example, we probably shouldn't label a specific individual an undocumented immigrant if they weren't reported in a RS to have been found to be undocumented or illegal in court, since either way you phrase it is an allegation of having done something unlawful as in WP:BLPCRIME (even if a specific case is not handled criminally). So the distinction is moot for those purposes. Additionally I would say that "undocumented" sounds potentially confusing and like the government has merely failed to take note of an individual. It depends what the reader takes "undocumented" to mean - not having documentation (a green card say) vs. not being noted (in the census say). Since it is ambiguous (and probably euphemistic) how "undocumented" is being used and since "alien" does sound somewhat sinister (implying they are "other" or "strange"), I have to say my preference would be for "illegal immigrant" and not to use "illegal" as a noun, but I'm not convinced a universal guideline would take into account all circumstances the terms might be used in articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The people, themselves are "illegal"? Really? Where in the US Code does it state that these people are illegal?  Even cocaine isn't illegal. You just can't act in a certain manner with respect to things that are illegal.  Like being an alien within the US. There are certain actions that are prohibited, not a prohibition on their human existence.  And alien, while a term of art and a legally defined term, is not a good word anyway because Area 51 and the Killer Tomatoes. We don't call our colleagues here "Illegal Editors" even when they're POV pushing and disruptive.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are actions that are perceived to be "illegal" as they go against the law, such as speeding. Most people still speed, because that "illegal" action only becomes a crime when police action becomes involved. In the same manner, there are immigrants to the US (or other countries) that have come here without going through immigration or other allowed routes of entry (eg refugees), making them "illegal". But until a specific one is caught and convict, we don't presume that guilt on any individual . So we can broadly talk about "illegal immigrants" without being disparaging. We can't call any specific person or group as such unless that's been proven out in a court of law or otherwise confirmed by the persons themselves. --M ASEM (t) 15:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 8 USC § 1365, 1324, and 1325 for starters. The ACLU and other activist groups do use the common euphemism "undocumented immigrant," however. And yes, cocaine is still very much illegal . We shouldn't get in the habit of churching up language just because it sounds nicer and safer. If that's what we're going for, then Anthony Scaramucci needs some serious revisions, in regards to replacing certain obscenities with the "appropriate" anatomical terminology. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree with Masem.  If "illegal alien" is indeed a precise legal term, as some have suggested, then it may be applied in the precise legal meaning of that term, supported by a reliable source.  For example, "John Doe was tried and found to be an illegal alien"  (with a source).  However, I do not believe the argument that because it is a specific legal term, that therefore justifies its usage across the board.  The designation of "illegal" in "illegal alien" is a judgement of law that cannot be applied to groups of individuals whose legal status has not been settled by a court, particularly in Wikipedia's voice.  Depending on the context, "undocumented immigrant" is perhaps a more descriptive term: it is an immigrant who lacks the proper documentation, but whose immigration status has not been determined under existing statutes.  I would support considering "illegal alien" as a word-to-avoid, for this reason, but I would stop short of an outright ban.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As a legal alien who underwent thru much expense and enormous red tape across decades to so remain, it is crystal clear to me that there is a difference between a legal alien and an illegal alien.  There should be no place in the Wikipedia for fashionable political correctness and virtue signaling.  The laws of the U.S. call illegal aliens "illegal aliens" and it would be POV to use alternate words not in the laws. XavierItzm (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Sławomir, Masem, and others. I'm not a native speaker, I don't make any associations when I hear the term, so I was indifferent when I first saw this discussion open and curious to see what other editors - specially native speakers - would say. Given what has been brought up by Snooganssnoogans regarding how RSs use the term and the argument by Sławomir I would say the term shouldn't be the first option, being used only in a proper context such as quoting a legal decision or when the RSs used as reference use the term. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) is six feet long in smallish print because the language has such a long history and is based upon so many other languages. That makes English a pain to learn. But, it also provides us with so many ways of making a statement. Which is to say, there is always a polite method of expressing a thought. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As an encyclopedia, we cannot engage in Orwellian doublespeak-style censorship of any terms that do not fit a certain ideological narrative. David A (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP doesn't make blanket bans. That said, "illegal alien" is a charged term that should be used with care. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (Support?) the question is improperly/confusingly formatted. Use of such a term should only be applied when it is appropriate, such as when quoting from an article. DN (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Term should only be used when necessary in direct attribution, not as a general descriptor when discussing immigration issues. High time for the Wikipedia to move beyond using racist, outmoded terminology. TheValeyard (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose should be determined on a case by case basis, although legitimate usage is likely to be rare. This is consistent with WP:LABEL, which discourages contentious or politically loaded terms but doesn't ban them outright. An outright global ban is not the way this is usually handled. I am not interested in editors' individual political views on the subject, pro or con. Geogene (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why I thought it should be a guideline not to use the term. That way we would avoid the term unless there was a good reason to use it.  Similarly with "terrorist."  We don't want to adopt an American-centric view that their allies are freedom-fighters and their enemies are terrorists, especially when allies can become enemies and enemies become allies.  But it is hard to avoid the term when describing small groups whose only activity is carrying out terrorist attacks, rather than insurgents who occasionally or even frequently do so.  TFD (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Have any words ever been banned "across" Wikipedia? If not, then in response to the OP, this is the wrong venue. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Partial support As per DN, the problem with the proposal in the OP is that we can’t ban it completely. Obviously we must use the term when quoting someone using the term. But, it has become a value-laden label. I think it should be added to WP:LABEL . Objective3000 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Professor's commentary at the Incest article
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Incest. A permalink for it is here. It concerns whether or not the inclusion of a professor's commentary in the "Islamic" subsection of the "Religious views" section of the Incest article is undue weight. Commenting here or at the article talk page is fine, but it's best to centralize the discussion -- keep the main discussion in one place. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC labeling in lede
See Talk:Jared_Taylor Atsme 📞📧 12:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Dissident Aggressor / The New Rolling Stone Album Guide
There is a dispute about a non-qualitative description of a song, Dissident Aggressor that I would like some additional opinions on. The statement is that the song is an "apocalyptic epic" which is how it is characterized in the The New Rolling Stone Album Guide and cited as such. An editor has repeatedly removed this description of the song from the lede as being "too POV." Is The New Rolling Stone Album Guide too POV for a non-qualitative description of the song? Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What? That's really non-qualitative? By the way, he didn't respond for a while after the last post in the discussion on the article's talk page, so I assumed he'd been convinced otherwise. Esszet (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, second-to-last. Esszet (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, the issue has been resolved. Esszet (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Standstill agreement (India)
There is a RfC on the issue of 'violations of the Standstill agreement by India and Hyderabad' on Talk:Standstill agreement (India). 2405:204:33A9:962F:2133:E96C:B796:88E9 (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Harasment by User Sg Thomas, Reasons Unrelated to Article
Yesterday, the subject of an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moran_(composer), received threatening messages from a person (last name 'Thomas') on youtube, over the artists comments regarding political matters, which have no bearing on the subject of the article in question. The person, last name 'Thomas' wrote publicly on a youtube website (Democracy Now) at that time, "I found your Wiki page, unless you want it marked with a million citations needed by tomorrow, you will retract your insult to me."

Today as promised, were demands for citation on virtually every sentence of the article about the artists work, by user: Sg Thomas - same last name as the individual threatening to harass in this manner. Citations demanded by Sg Thomas included date of birth, repetitious demands where clear and well researched citations exist elsewhere in the paragraph or section, etc. Something like 30 frivolous demands, in this way. And when attempting to undo the changes by this individual, received messages in talk like 'I can do this all day', and now see attempts by this user to see the article removed.

The obtuse manner of the behavior, coupled with the exacting threat the day earlier, make it clearly an act of harassment and intimidation by this user, however professional they attempt to make their behavior appear in view of others who would inspect.

To be clear, one is not against adding citations where truly needed. And this article is well researched by several users over a period of years. The user is flagging the article for COI today, but at no point does it promote a product for sale, or point to an outside website or company. It is biographical, and full of reliable (journalistic) citations in each paragraph, and is used by journalists and students over years before this, without incident.

What can be done, in such a case where a user like Sg Thomas uses Wikipedia, and threats of seeing articles removed, as a form of harassment and intimidation over unrelated matters in this way? When attempting to file a complaint elsewhere on Wiki, we received the message 'Citations are not vandalism', but what we are reporting here, is harassment and intimidation, for reasons which are not truly legitimate.

Any help in combating this behavior would be greatly appreciated, and thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicEditor1234 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The edits have been reverted, so this may not be a big deal. If the behavior continues, report it at WP:ANI. Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You can certainly monitor their activity as Blueboar alluded; however, separate from WP - you may also wish to contact YouTube and report the user there as well. They too have policies and regulations. But it seems this editor has an agenda, and enough evidence has already presented itself to support that claim. I second the recommendation in wasting no time in reporting if it continues. Best of Luck. PS I'm surprised you received the response: "citations are not vandalism" since the behavior is certainly disruptive editing in that capacity. Maineartists (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral editing on Tara McCarthy


Blackzinnanthemum has been engaged in a campaign of whitewashing and general lack of neutrality on the Tara McCarthy article. McCarthy is a white supremacist, and Blackzinnanthemum's edits have sought to legitimize her views and make them appear mainstream. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently BlackZ has decided to leave it alone. This discussion can be closed. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
I am besides myself on the article about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Another editor added the following which was reverted. Editors on the page are arguing that Trump's response isn't related to the article about the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I have never seen Wikipedia editors literally arguing that articles about a topic are off-topic. No matter how much I explain that it's not our job as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong, it falls on deaf ears.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Ukraine A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is not about RS, it is about Undue. The argument is that this is a throw away line by Donny that has nothing to actually do with Russian interference and thus has not place in that article. No one questions the sources, they question the weight.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that WP:Reliable sources are wrong. If numerous reliable sources have reported on this (which they have), it's our duty as Wikipedia editors to report this. AQFK (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They are not saying they are wrong, they are saying this is irrelevant as it tells us nothing about Russian hacking.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, you are. Reliable sources have determined that this is relevent. You just admitted that you think it's irrelevant. AQFK (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Trivializing one party's claims or responses in a dispute they are centrally involved in is completely inappropriate for NPOV. UNDUE here would apply to views of those that are in no way involved with any of the claims; we don't want to give excessive weight to voices that aren't central to the matter and that represent fringe views. --M ASEM (t) 16:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We have one sides response to the accusations of Russian interference, this has nothing to do with that. As the source says (which the suggested text failed to mention) there are some key differences between this event and the Russian interference.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition if we have this we must also have the DNC's explanation/denial.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposed material is a diversion. It is not a direct response to the serious revelations of possible collusion with an adversary state. It doesn't matter if the material is covered by 10,000 reliable sources; consensus among editors is what determines what goes in an article. Consensus (so far) has concluded that this material is not meaningful and not relevant to the subject of the article.- MrX 16:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus cannot override NPOV policy. See WP:LOCALCON. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's no reason to not include the DNC's response to the accusations of collusion with Ukraine, as rebutting to Trump's assertion. But omitting Trump's assertion, being the central figure out this, should be included if has been given that much coverage. --M ASEM (t) 16:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Some here seem to be forgetting the basic principle "A source is relevant if I like what it says and irrelevant if I don't". It's in our policy WP:POLICIESIJUSTMADEUPTOWINANARGUMENT... Clearly when the democrats accuse the Trump administration of colluding with the Russians in order to win an election, a direct response by the Trump administration accusing the Democrats of colluding with the Ukrainians in order to win an elections is relevant and has sufficient weight. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Great so Sean Hannity is Donald Trump? As far as I can see that is who the source ascribes this claim to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not Twitter. God help us if we start writing articles that essentially say: "That's what you are, but what am I?!" By the way, it's not just Democrats saying that the Trump campaign may have colluded with Russia. Even a casual reading of a few sources makes that abundantly evident. - MrX 17:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice if you went and joined the ongoing discussion on the article talk page before making changes like this. There's a survey up and everything. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the oppose comments seem to be rebutting strawmen, e.g. "this is irrelevant as it tells us nothing about Russian hacking"; "there are some key differences between this event and the Russian interference." I explicitly acknowledged key differences between the scale of Ukrainian and Russian influence efforts in my initial comment on the matter, but then no-one has suggested creating a new section on "Ukrainian interference" in the election, and not even Sean Hannity has implied that Russian interference is somehow negated or justified by Ukrainian interference. The White House response was limited to the Trump campaign–Russian meeting, i.e. that there is an obvious and direct parallel between Don Jr. accepting Russian opposition research and the DNC accepting Ukrainian opposition research, which has not been refuted. (As Glenn Greenwald says: "What's the argument as to why that's illegal but not this?") If this content is considered too far removed from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to be allowed to stay, then so is the "Meeting with Russian lawyer" section, and probably much of the article focusing on circumstanial ties between Trump associates and Russian nationals.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See also "Trump Jr. Was Told in Email of Russian Effort to Aid Campaign," The New York Times, July 10, 2017: "The White House press office, however, accused Mrs. Clinton's team of hypocrisy. The office circulated a January 2017 article published in Politico, detailing how officials from the Ukrainian government tried to help the Democratic candidate conduct opposition research on Mr. Trump and some of his aides." If America's paper of record considers this news fit to print, in its article on the Trump Jr. affair, maybe Wikipedia should follow suit.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The story of Russian interference in the election has had massive, daily coverage in RS for some time now. Given the number of ongoing investigations, the story is likely to continue for quite a while. A few days ago, Trump basically said that Hillary did something bad somewhere else. This is actually an old story that was in RS for a brief period of time and faded away so quickly most of us forgot about it. What are the chances that this accusation will stay in the news related to the Russian interference in the 2016 election? If it does, it can be included then. But, even RS look at this as an attempted diversion. And with the massive amount of play this story has and will continue to receive, we can’t include every tit-for-tat. WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT, WP:DUE. Objective3000 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well besides The New York Times, a secondary reliable source - an open supporter of Clinton even - there are others dedicating entire articles just to the response of the White House press secretary and others, such as The Atlantic (the OP mentions others in the tp), or to the DNC's response to it, such as CNN. There's also others criticizing the response but dedicating an article to it, such as WPo. The excuse to white wash away the response on this one-sided BLP violation of an article is "meh, not enough"? You'll have to do better than that. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't read past: an open supporter of Clinton. There is a difference between news pages and editorials. Objective3000 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So, we're going to have to include everything Donald Trump and/or Sean Hannity say to try to distract away from the Russian meddling. No matter how far off-topic it is? No matter how implausible? Just because some sources covered (and debunked) it? Where will we find space to write about things that actually happened and that actually involve Russia meddling in the election? This falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. And while Wikipedians may habitually give a lot of coverage to statements that come from the White House, I'm afraid that we're living in a different world for the time being. Geogene (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not everything, just responses notable enough such as this one. And please read the material, no one "debunked" it, some people criticized the response, no one said the accusation was false or denied the Ukrainian story. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that this is not notable (more correctly, it is UNDUE) because it got hardly any coverage at all compared to the article's topic. (In fact, to answer your next argument I'm looking for a source now by searching "Democrats Ukraine" and I'm not even able to find any today, and will have to go dig that WaPo piece out of the article's talk page to do so.  And what little coverage it did get was primarily negative, or in other words, RS are debunking it as a talking point and distraction. That will be the same tone it will have to get in the article, if it must go in, and so inclusion will only make Trump's defenders look worse. Sorry, it's bunk even if it's DUE. Geogene (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There have already been numerous sources provided, and your inability to find more is besides the point. Please move on. I don't care what Trump or his supporters will look like, I care about the article including responses to an accusation that made the headlines on every newspaper (the response). If the response was criticized so be it, that is not a reason to censor it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason I can't find those sources today is because in the last few days they have been utterly buried by thousands of other sources about other aspects of the topic. That can only have happened because it's such a trivial aspect of the subject. Therefore, UNDUE. Just because something you like can, in theory, be reliably sourced if you search hard enough for a handful of news articles does not guarantee inclusion, and I'm afraid that if you think that it does then you profoundly misunderstand a key aspect of the editing process. Geogene (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need to "look hard enough", it's right there on every headline screaming at your face. Yes, newspapers cover different news different days, who would know! And yes, mainstream media has a well known feud with Trump, so you see more articles about things said against his administration than responses by it (who would know!). The fact that even so it got such ample coverage goes to show. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * mainstream media has a well known feud with Trump. I'm sorry, but that you would state such as fact on the NPOV board suggests that you don't understand the principles behind NPOV. Objective3000 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And again, you dismiss every point with "you don't know what you're talking about". I feel like this discussion is moot. I've made my point. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that in future you never put words in quotes that were never spoken? Objective3000 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am surprised that no one has suggested the obvious solution... which is to create a stand alone article on the Ukrainian interference in the 2016 United States election. There was obviously enough media coverage for it to pass Notability for a stand alone article. Plus, with a separate topic we get a different evaluation of what is DUE and UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a story that came out six months ago and died. Doesn’t pass WP:RECENTISM. Objective3000 (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's important that we don't blindly parrot every instance of finger pointing in Washington. We need to carefully judge how significant a comparison the Ukrainian interference is to the Russian. I made an attempt at doing this, skimming the Politico article, which said that Ukraine's involvement, while straining "diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections", did not rise to the level of what Russia was doing. Quoting from paragraphs 4-6 of the article: "The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race...But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails. Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials...There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine." I'll leave it to editors with more time and knowledge than I to investigate further. ~Awilley (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well put. Our job as editors is not all that complex if we simply rely on RS. Takes away any burden on us to perform OR/SYNTH. The Ukraine thingy came up about six months back (if I remember correctly) and died. The Russian thingy has been going on for at least seven months and is daily fodder in RS. An attempt to bring the Ukraine thingy to the forefront in an article on Russian interference in the 2016 elections as a distraction is unlikely to last. If it does, then we can include it. But, it’s four days old. Patience will out. Objective3000 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Per RECENTISM, we shouldn't have an article anywhere close to the depth of what the current Russia Interference is. We have no idea in the long term how much of this is actually significant, as we're still dealing with accusations and no firm conclusion. If editors are going to chose to be that indepth, then they need to treat all relevant angles with the same in-depth coverage, but per RECENTISM and NOTNEWS, this article is realistically far too much that we as an encyclopedia should be covering. --M ASEM (t) 01:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. And I find the public opinion polling egregious. But getting consensus to shrink an article isn't easy. Geogene (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter if we discus the key differences between these two incidents here, or even on the talk page of the article. Any text we include in the article must reflect the RS's doubts about the similarities. The suggested text did not do that, but rather only put the fact thew the Trump campaign had made the association. The problem with this (as well as making clear that the DNC have said that there were no official contacts) Is that we then get a paragraph or two over what is a rather lame (failed) deflection. This there is an issue with undue weight here. But until we actually see some suggested text that actually reflects what the RS have said about this I most oppose inclusion of this on principle.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what I meant by the RECENTISM problem. As soon as you start including every accusation and criticism made towards Trump and/or Russia, to be NPOV for the controversy you need to add Trump and/or Russia's own accusations and criticism, and then the counter-criticism to that. This all creates a huge rabbit trail that is puffing up the article size tremendously. None of this should be called UNDUE or FRINGE, particularly since it can be readily sourced. The other option is to keep the article at the bare bones, stating core facts and enough to establish the importance, and omit all the punditry  until the matter is well and fully resolved, at which point as an encyclopedia we can write with 20/20 hindsight on the actual points of opinion that best represent the closed situation to focus us. --M ASEM  (t) 14:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps editors should wait until/if indictments occur, before bloating up the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps editors should refuse to let a Wikipedia article contain accusations against a living person while not allowing that person's direct response into the article. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and those who allow it should be ashamed of themselves. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Oh, but it is only his view so it must be FRINGE and thus UNDUE to include" will be a response, which is BS. UNDUE/FRINGE should not be applied to those views directly at the center of a controversy, only to those viewpoints that are not directly party to the situation (eg most of the media in this case). --M ASEM (t) 19:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, &, the systemic bias is not going away anytime soon. Based on my recent experiences, NPOV appears to be nothing more than an acronym as far as political advocacies are concerned because the policy itself is loose ended and leaves interpretation to the discretion of the closer who is charged with determining consensus. It's pretty much the same democracy Ben Franklin was concerned over. All the conspiracy theories surrounding the Trump presidency and the articles that were spawned from it in this encyclopedia are chilling — Americans aren't stupid and most can see right through the facade. Having said that, I don't consider what's happening now any worse than the birther issues with Obama, or the pay-to-play scandal with Clinton, or the fact that Maddow is believed by some to be as much a conspiracy theorist as Hannity - the main difference being, her conspiracy theories resulted in a ratings surge, despite fizzeling out as nothing burgers in the end - as with Trump's 2005 tax return. Every 4 years it's "party pay-back" to settle scores for how the preceding party was treated. It's led by the MSM, which was emboldened with the repeal of the Smith–Mundt Act. Propaganda by pundits has gotten far worse than it ever was because it generates much needed $$$. The article in the Harvard Business Review is telling, as is this one. So the question is...how do we fix it in an effort to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia? Some editors may not fully understand the consequences of such bias in the encyclopedia: #1 - America is divided almost equally but Trump won and there's a Republican majority in both the House and Senate so NPOV is just as important now as it was from 2008-2016; and #2 - world leaders are showing more respect for Trump than left-leaning MSM, whose primary goal is $$$ generated by bait-click now that print is outdated. It would be naive of us to think otherwise. Atsme 📞📧 02:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as the U.S. mainstream press are considered superior sources to everything else, Wikipedia will naturally reflect the U.S. press choice of topics and angle on events. Neutrality starts with not giving excess weight to a particular group of sources, especially when those sources share a common worldview and common incentives. Changing the status quo looks like an uphill battle at WP:RSN. — JFG talk 04:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's more than just being superior sources but that we're "not allowed" to question them, but I will continue to argue that journalism today is far from what journalism was when our core policies were developed and we need to be able, as WP editors, to pull out from the walled garden of these RSes and consider what the larger pictures is, before then going back to judge how to use those RSes effectively. This is where NOT#NEWS, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:RECENTISM all have to come into play to know that we shouldn't be writing anywhere in depth on some of these controversial recent topics, and should instead to go into any analysis until a significant amount of time has passed so that a clear picture of what actually happened is known. Right now, it is too easy to take the press's court of public opinion as fact which biases the approach to recent controversies on WP. --M ASEM  (t) 04:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the standard now is that you must treat "RS" as gospel, or you're "pushing a POV," "tendentious," and are likely violating a whole host of other policies/guidelines. Don't be skeptical of what you read in The New York Times or the Washington Post or what you see on CNN or MSNBC, and if you have any criticism, you need to shut up since you "don't know what you are talking about." Journalism today barely resembles journalism from 10 years or even 5 years ago. They're just running with "stories" and all rushing to get their click-bait articles published so quickly that they keep forgetting to make sure the stories are true or are properly sourced. The basic tenets of journalism are completely out of the window. And that's why we're sitting here with endless "RS" (which pretty much means only NYT, WaPo, Vox, BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, ABC News, CBS News and other organizations that popped up in last year's WikiLeaks bombshells again and again) reporting primarily one point of view, with no distinction between hard news and opinion commentary at all. It's sort of a "post-truth" environment, so to speak. How do you ensure NPOV in an article, if all the sources are POV but call themselves NPOV? What a mess. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, guys, WP:NOTAFORUM. If you want to whine about the evil reliable sources and our policy regarding these, this is not the place to do it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussing balance in sourcing is a legitimate NPOV issue, apt to be discussed here. Nobody is talking about "evil sources", just saying that "acceptable" sources seem to be unduly clustered around a single world view, and this is detrimental to the encyclopedic spirit. We wouldn't want to sound like Kremlin propaganda, and equally we shouldn't sound like CIA propaganda. Sometimes we do. — JFG talk 05:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with, and a lot of cleanup has to be done weeks after the news cycle is stale. Some spur-of-the-momen articles can be forgotten and left in a sorry state. See the proposal for a 3-day holding period before creating "breaking news" articles: User talk:EEng. Under this scheme, news could still be mentioned in existing articles but we wouldn't spend so much energy creating forks about ephemeral stories, duplicating content, debating them at AfD, updating them by the minute, and losing sleep over hype. — JFG talk 05:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously this thread has been hijacked. But to reiterate what has been said before, 1) these proposals for the whole "holding period" conspicuously coincide with the rise of Donald Trump and all the scandals that generates. The same people weren't too concerned with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM until it became politically convenient to do that.
 * Second, and more to the point, I have yet to see any substantiation for the claim that "a lot of cleanup has to be done weeks after the news cycle is stale" or that "articles can be forgotten and left in a sorry state". Sure, some things have to be updated, articles are improved... I mean, it's Wikipedia, that's how it's suppose to work. But nothing extraordinary. Certainly I don't see any editors complaining "oh, I'm always having to clean up these old articles I don't have time for anything else" (there is complaining, but it's of the "why am I not allowed to push my POV? So unfair, that RS policy!" variety). So this is trying to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist, which suggests that... well, see 1).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, this started before then, the rise of the culture war around 2010 and later, just that given that the media generally has an average left-leaning take, and that they were rebuffed by Trump early in the cycle, they have promoted a very anti-Trump approach to their coverage, making the situation much more obvious and much more dire to how we handle these sources. Now, the media swings all the time, that's not the core problem, it also extends to editors that generally have political opinions that align with the press who circle the wagon around such articles, insisting that this is what the coverage is now and we must cover it that way now and can't look anywhere else (as this specific Russian election article is the poster boy here for this). The problem exists, but it is a very complicated problem that requires both review of some core policies, and of editor behavior. There are short term solutions, like the waiting-day period, but that's a band-aid and doesn't solve the problem. --M ASEM (t) 06:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "they have promoted a very anti-Trump approach to their coverage, making the situation much more obvious" - that's your impression, but it's not actually backed by... anything. Systematic analysis of news coverage have found that either Clinton got the worse of it or that it was about even. It might *look* like there's "anti-Trump" approach because he simply got more coverage than anyone else, so even if Clinton got 6 bad stories out of every 10, Trump got 14 bad stories out of every 30 during the same time. And oh yeah, the kind of things he does (mocking disabled reporters, starting twitter wars, insulting people, etc. etc.) just ... might ... have ... something ... to ... do ... with ... it ... ... ... no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no such balance, and it goes beyond the Trump/Clinton election season. Several studies have shown 90+% of negative coverage of Trump, including after the election. Sure, his attitude deserves some pushback, but the constant smears are beyond anything seen elsewhere. If the press did reflect public opinion, you'd wonder why he got elected in the first place. The only place in the U.S. where press coverage is aligned with public opinion is Washington D.C., which voted 90% for Clinton and a whopping 4% for Trump. Ahem. — JFG talk 06:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The electoral college system, which ignored the popular vote.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you meant to complain about The World Series of Baseball, which since 1903 has ignored the total number of runs scored? Or perhaps you meant to complain about California (Population: 39,250,017) and Wyoming (Population: 585,501) each getting two senators? Surely you can't be saying that it is OK to start a contest (World Series Championship, Presidency) with an agree-upon set of rules (most games won, most electoral votes won), wait until a winner is declared, then after-the-fact ask that the rules be changed (most runs scored, most popular votes won)? That would not be cool. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, and I did not say anything like that. I just pointed out that the coverage of trump being moistly negative in fact reflects the fact that most Americans view him negatively. That says nothing about the fairness of the contest, or the rights and wrongs of the electoral college system.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny choice of words ("which ignored the popular vote") if that is not what you were saying. If I said "The World Series of Baseball, which ignored the total number of runs scored" would you not conclude that I thought that the total count of runs scored was somehow significant? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Only if you take it out of context (context was you said " ...If the press did reflect public opinion, you'd wonder why he got elected in the first place... " I replied "The electoral college system, which ignored the popular vote"), nothing funny about the wording. He did not get elected based upon public opinion (which was against him) but because of the electoral college (which did not reflect public opinion). Nothing else was said about it legitimacy or legality or morality, just that his election was not based upon the popular vote (and thus public opinion). But this has sod all to do with the topic sop will call this the end.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (To VM) First : Forbes contributor, so not a RS. But even then their point is not that the press was anti-Clinton, but they were so anti-Trump to create a Streisand effect to draw more people to Trump. Trump himself may not present himself as a nice person, but we have reasonable expectations built in our policies that the media reporting on that will remain objective (just as we are to remain objective in our summary of these events) and ignore the slights (Report on them, yes, but not comment on them). Thats no longer the case, hence why there's a breakdown in how these play out. Now that would be mitigated on WP if editors also stuck to the objectivity we expect (we're not asking people to support Trump, but to drop any pro- or anti-biases when working within consensus) but editors refuse to do so and stand on the fact so many sources are anti-Trump that WP should be written in a tone that reflects that, which is not our goal or policies. --M ASEM (t) 12:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If I understand what you're saying; yes, Trump has received more negative than positive coverage. (As did Clinton.) We can’t look at that fact as proof, or even an indication, that the media is biased and try to force some “balance”. One study shows that slightly more Fox coverage of Trump has been negative. Fox has rarely been accused of having an anti-Republican bias. Objective3000 (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is completely possible to have negative/critical coverage and yet remain objective. Happened across Gore, both Bushes, and Bill Clinton's time. That's actually what we'd expect the press to be as acting as a fourth branch of gov't (we'd never have Watergate if this wasn't the case). But the current press is being negative/critical without retaining objectivity, in part to many many factors (loss of finances, loss of readership to citizen journalism, competition of opinionated journalism from conservative media like Fox News, timeliness of reporting against social media's speed, the culture war, etc.) all which were happening to a lesser degree before Trump too office - his presence intensified it. And its not about "balance", it is about impartiality and tone. The net result, as here in the election article, is that predominate editors around the article are writing from the media's stance that has already declared Russia guilty, so any shred of evidence that the media jumps on (like the Trump Jr. meeting) that supports that must be inserted immediately, when instead we should be holding off for a few years to be writing anything more indepth, and if not that, staying very impartial to the matter and document the controversy rather than then trying to push analysis of it. --M ASEM (t) 13:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree that many editors tend jump on new events too quickly. That could be bias – but could also simply be an overly eager desire to keep WP up-to-date without heeding RECENTISM. But, I don’t agree with a broad indictment of the press, or that we should somehow assume bias and filter out this perceived bias, simply because coverage is negative. Perhaps there is good reason that the coverage is negative. Real-life politics appears to focus more and more on the negative these days. In any case, this sounds more like a general argument on policy; and I don’t think this is the correct venue. Objective3000 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I may be missing something obvious, but do the cited sources actually support the sentence in the article? The Politico article cannot be used as a source that "The Trump administration responded by citing a January 2017 Politico report..." and the suggestion to look at the Ukrainian influence originates with Hannity, not the Trump administration, according to the Politifact article.  I am very skeptical if Hannity's opinions are due weight, and they certainly should not be presented as if they had the weight of the White House.  In any case, both the Politico and Politifact reports present the story's connection to Russian influence as a false equivalence anyway.  So, while it could conceivably be mentioned, it should be done so with considerably more attention to what these reliable sources actually say about it.  I feel like that would probably be undue weight on something that is only of peripheral relevance to the article, unless there is considerably more attention (e.g., White House response, DNC response, and further news analysis).  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a reason for the electoral college in the US - our Founding Fathers had enough foresight to see that the electoral college would help preserve liberty and justice for ALL via a fair election process unlike socialism/communism which excludes the fundamental rights of an individual and favors the collective (and that works as long as you're not that individual). Back on point,, , it appears to me that the final determination of what is or isn't NPOV will be made by whatever coordinated group happens to be protesting the loudest at the time. In the interim, we are all required to AGF, and like good little volunteers, be compliant with PAGs that are considered to be antiquated and highly ambiguous...but what do we know? It's ok if MSM drags out the Russian conspiracy theories with their bait-click revenue schemes, but it's not ok to mention Clinton's deals with the Russians or the money the Clinton Global Initiative was receiving from foreign governments, or any other incident that tarnishes their reputation. It's ok for MSM to accuse Scaramucci of wrong doing, which resulted in the firing of 3 CNN employees, but WP editors must still consider CNN & Politico as RS. They don't publish conspiracy theories - they publish reliable information - only FOXNews and conservative media publishes conspiracy theories, right? It's no secret that WP suffers from systemic biases, be it gender, religion, or politics - after all, MSM said so. We are also aware that the encyclopedia is plagued by those editors who are here for one purpose, anonymity allows it and provides the perfect platform from which they are able to push a particular POV - be it the result of paid editing or advocacy - both being hazardous to the health of the project in much the same way business promotion is hazardous.. Unfortunately, the concern has not risen to a level of urgency which appears to be the only motivator of change, although it appears WFM has to agreed to ACTRIAL, so we're moving in the right direction. Another positive step would be the breaking news moratorium we've been discussing on EEng's TP. I'm still not sure how to combat the kind of bias that allows, for example, Sean Hannity to be called a "conspiracy theorist" in WP voice (based on what rival pundits in MSM have called him) but not Rachel Maddow for the same reasons. The excuse for the reverts (while an "in use" template is still attached) is BLP violation. I guess Hannity is not a BLP in the eyes of some editors. I'm still trying to figure that one out, and looking for the best solution that is actually compliant with NPOV since that isn't what I'm seeing at those two articles now. I've often wondered if any consideration is given to the fact that FOXNews leads the ratings and is a very powerful voice in MSM because of their "fair and balanced approach". Based on MSM reporting (and ratings), FOXNews is clearly the popular choice...but wait...to equal their ratings, you have to add MSNBC & CNN together (discounting their occasional spikes based on...uhm, conspiracy theories) to equal that of FOXNews. Sounds like popular vote vs electoral college, doesn't it? I've lost count of how many times FOX has been discredited as an unreliable source, along with Breitbart, The Daily Caller, The National Review, etc...for no other reason other than their "conservative POV". There isn't one publication in MSM that hasn't had to make a retraction at one time or other so I guess it's one of those "make-up the rules as you go along" scenarios. NPOV means inclusion of relevant views that can be cited to RS. I also keep seeing WP:UNDUE used when a particular narrative doesn't fit a left leaning POV - uhm, what gives a leftist view the edge over a conservative view? I could understand it when the left dominated the House, Senate and presidency, but guess what? That is no longer the case, so when we mention UNDUE, who makes that determination? And that's when bias rears its ugly head and is the basis for the determination that Maddow is not a conspiracy theorist but Hannity is, and so it shall be. smh Time will tell. This is an intersting read if you have time.Atsme 📞📧 13:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Such naked nationalist rhetoric and offtopic rants against "MSM" has no place at the neutral point of view noticeboard. But in any case, I'm not going to assume that this is obvious to everyone here and remind them that there are discretionary sanctions in place concerning the subject of this article.  ( Also, FWIW, I don't think it is all that controversial to feel that both Hannity and Maddow, and lots of other folks, have severe issues of bias that taint their representation as far as WP:NPOV is concerned.  And Leftist rants are equally problematic. )   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

For some of us the issue was how this was worded more then it's inclusion (but it is still an issue). This was not a statement made by the white house (the text included in our article says it was), the Source pointed out as number of flaws in the analogy (out text did not). The proposed text did not only not reflect the POV of the sources, it actually made a claim the source did not. Thus (as presented) it has issues with OR, NPOV and verifiability. Maybe those who argue for it's inclusion could offer up a moire neutrally worded version of the text that actually reflects the sources claims?Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate what you mean by "This was not a statement made by the white house". Do you think that the statement made by "The White House press office" (a direct quote from the NYT piece cited in the article) does not represent the White House position? Politrukki (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * please advise. Politrukki (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the suggested text (and the source it uses), which is (by the way) the source the white house used. And why have we not been shown the white house statement itself?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The White House statement has already been quoted in this discussion (17:24, 15 July 2017). The same source is still cited in our article, and was properly cited with an inline citation in the article when this disputed content was first introduced. Politrukki (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of those two sources (in the text) mention the white house saying anything about this. And no the white house is not quoted, the NTY's is. So what did the white house actually say about it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The edit (with the inapplicable "BLP" edit summary) that was originally added and quickly reverted is typical of a large class of fake news that comes up in articles related to the Russian interference. In this case several editors pointed out the WP policies that protect our articles from this kind of false and/or UNDUE text being inserted by edits that are either disingenuous or unaware of WP content policies. This material is undue and the text did not even neutrally represent the cited source. This does not belong on WP, except possibly on an artilce concerning propaganda and the media. SPECIFICO talk  16:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven: The sentence beginning with "The Trump administration responded by citing" cited three sources. One of them is a piece from The New York Times. Please read what it says about "The White House press office" and Ukraine – or use the timestamp I provided to find the relevant NYT paragraph quoted in this discussion. Politrukki (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO: Thank you for your interesting opinion, but I don't think The New York Times (or Politico or politifact.com – I don't know which one you are referring to) has a reputation of publishing fake news. If you disagree, you should probably head to WP:RSN. Politrukki (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So that is what we should say, "According to the the New York Times the white house press office...". As no one else seems to have reported this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's see:
 * "White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders brought up the Ukrainian story on Monday." CBS News
 * "The Ukraine rebuttal has been ricocheting across right-wing media in recent days, advanced by Trump aides such as Sebastian Gorka and Sarah Sanders" The Atlantic
 * "conservatives, Trump backers, and Trump Jr. himself resurfaced the findings of a January Politico story about Ukrainian efforts to aid Hillary Clinton" Slate (This one doesn't actually say "White House", but the point remains the same.)
 * "The White House went on offense Wednesday amid the firestorm over Donald Trump Jr.'s campaign-season meeting with a Russian lawyer, trying to turn the tables by alleging the Democratic National Committee and the Clintons are the ones caught up in 'collusion'." Fox News
 * "[Ukraine something something something] ... The White House has tried to compare this arrangement with the communication that the Trump campaign had with Russians during and after the campaign." The Washington Post
 * The first three sources are from article talk page. It should be easy to find more sources. I see no reason why we shouldn't use the original edit as a starting point. Politrukki (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Now we need to work on a decent text that reflects these sources, such as drawing attention (as they do) to the major differences between these two incidents. Care to suggest a version that does not violate NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh they don't treat fake news as news, but they certainly refer to it. This thread is just a forum-shopping roadshow of editors whose POV has been rejected on article talk. That's not a useful engagemnt at this site-wide noticeboard.  Time to bury the duck and drop the hatchet.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Museum of the Bible
I started a thread here but considering the low editor participation at that article I thought that posting about it here would be a good idea. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 00:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For those interested: Talk Page and Edit History . Maineartists (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure weather to include the incidents, could be WP:UNDUE. If added back the incident list does need rewording per NPOV. This sentence "There has been little public outcry regarding the matter, even though the pieces actually “continue to be stored, preserved and studied at Cornell University..." sounds like an opinion that there should have been public outcry. The use of "questionable" here: "...have contained artifacts that were acquired with questionable practices and and thus had to be returned as well..." is, well, questionable. And "The reputations of the these institutions haven't been severely tarnished..." seems to imply that they should have been. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It indeed appears that the goal is to claim that the Museum of the Bible is victim of persecution. Thanks for your comment, — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the museum was alleged to have fake or looted pieces, an editor provided examples where the most reputable museums have also had fake or looted pieces. This is synthesis, because it takes sources that do not mention the Museum of the Bible in order to minimize the accusations against it.  In order to present the information we would need a source that explicitly drew that conclusion.  TFD (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Which label to use? An eternal problem.
Recently I've been getting into articles that involve controversial figures and organisations, and I've seen over and over again people inserting labels, fighting over labels, etc. Theres a request for change about the NPOV policy at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view, several recent discussion on this noticeboard, and numerous edit wars over many articles.

The pattern repeats over and over: journalists settle on a "spicy" label for Bob Smith; editor A inserts the spicy label when referring to Bob Smith; editor B notices this and an edit war ensues. Editor A says "Hey man I'm just using the label from RSes, and no you're not allowed to use any other label.". Editor B says "Okay whatever let's just not put a label then please.". Editor A says "No you can't take the spicy label out just because you don't like it, that would be original research.". Tempers rise because editor B believes editor A is just inserting the spicy label in order to make Bob Smith look bad, and that the RSes are biased. Editor A thinks editor B is a Smith-ist sympathiser trying to cover for Bob Smith.


 * If Bob Smith is reliably and widely reported to be a convicted criminal, when is it appropriate to refer to him as "convicted criminal Bob Smith". I don't like him very much, can I go all over wikipedia and put 'convicted criminal' next to his wikilink every time he is mentioned? What about when all the news stories say "alleged rapist"?
 * When journalists as a whole decide to condemn Bob Smith, there is little to stop them from using sensationalising labels. And in fact a good news editor will encourage this sort of language. Is it encyclopedic to simply repeat these labels, or does that bias the encyclopedia towards sensationalist and condemnative language?
 * The most inflaming cases appear when the label describes an ideology or belief that Bob Smith denies. Obviously nobody, not even the journalist, is qualified to read their mind. This gets even worse when the label is vague or evolving in meaning (e.g., alt-right), since the journo may not even intend all the consequences of the label as stated on the label's article. Moreover, beliefs change.

It appears the WP:INTEXT provision of WP:LABEL was intended to partly solve this problem but it apparently isn't working very well, as these edit wars go on and on for far longer than necessary. In-text attribution is awkward and gets rarely used, especially not in article leads. I'm not here to make the usual complaint of 'left wing bias' or whatever ... I'm just here to ask: Can someone already write a policy or essay that clarifies what editors should do in this kind of situation? At the very least just to put an end to all the tiring edit wars...

Cheers.--Nanite (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As you mentioned there is already WP:LABEL, but the attribution part is mostly ignored by editors. The problem with that RfC is that it is an ultimatum - if the subject denies the label, it cannot be used. It seems to make an exception for terrorists, which only denounces the problem with the proposal; opposing editors mention the rejection of other labels as an issue, as such labels may have a negative connotation and the people that are labeled with them may refuse them merely to not look bad, even if they were rightly labeled so and no one besides them questions the label. In that case not labeling them just because they refuse the label would be wrong. Their refusal should however be noted, right after the first labeling. When journalists as a whole decide to condemn Bob Smith ... Is it encyclopedic to simply repeat these labels Is Wikipedia a sock puppet of these journalists? If so, then yes, blindly repeat the labels. If not, then no, the labels should at the very least be attributed. But then again I guess most wikipedians are Editor A and don't really care. Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't like that RfC either and I oppose it. But something needs to be done either to shut up the editor A's or the editor B's in a firm manner. I'm at the point of "I don't care, just pick one.". --Nanite (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are three separate issues. When a label should be used, how to present that label (eg attribution), and, in the label is determined to be appropriate, when to use that label. More often than not, the latest issues arise because some editors want to stuff labels into the opening sentence of an article, even if it is one that is deemed appropriate to include somewhere, as that sets a non-partial tone for an article as well. There's a lot of questions that all need to be answered at the same time, and more often than not, only the first of these is of focus. --M ASEM  (t) 20:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As an example of why all three are important, here is Variety's obit for Jerry Lewis, which in its fourth paragraph (effectively its lede) it slams his political views, and thus immediately sets a tone for the entire article. We have to be a lot better when it comes to labels and criticism towards persons to make sure it is handled appropriately. --M ASEM (t) 23:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts are: All labels should be reliably sourced. Any label that is both subjective and could be deemed to be controversial should be properly attributed and should not be given equal status to objective labels or to non-controversial subjective labels. For a BLP, if the subject is shown through sources to have disagreed with a subjective label, then that label should be deemed controversial. Anything with "alleged" / "accused" / "claimed" etc., next to it as qualifiers is controversial. A subjective label, controversial or not, should never be worded as if it is an incontrovertible fact - it should be made clear it is an opinion expressed in some rs sources. Subjective labels, controversial or not, should not appear in the first sentence of a BLP lead. Subjective labels would be things like political labels going beyond party allegiances, sociological labels, societal labels, labels used by select groups or holders of select ideologies, labels used by the subject as a self-description, insults, labels related to intelligence, labels implying biases, etc. Objective labels would be things like citizenship or age or profession or career qualifications or membership of political bodies or - unless exceptional reasons occur - criminal convictions if convicted in a court of law in a democratic country, etc. Labels should not be stand-alone content - a label has to be justified by the article having content related to that label - so for example, if there is nothing to do with religion in a person's article, that person should not be labeled Christian or Muslim or Jewish. Ideally, editors would be forbidden from stating "xxx is yyy" in the first sentence of a lead if label yyy is subjective, and editors would be forbidden from creating content that states, without qualifying wording such as attribution, that "xxx is yyy" if label yyy is both subjective and controversial. Attribution qualifying wording would require more than just giving a ref after the label. I think none of this means excluding sourced content, it is just giving content appropriate weight. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Nanite, I agree that journalists frequently use "spicy" labels for people. A great example was Barry Goldwater, who was frequently described as "far right."  In those cases you can look for articles - particularly in scholarly sources - that discuss what description is best.  TFD (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesus
See Talk:Jesus. The content requires a source to verify the claim. QuackGuru ( talk ) 11:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think a statement that atheists deny the devinity of Jesus requires a citation... given that atheism is (by definition) the denial of any divinity.
 * That said... it has been suggested on the talk page that the statement really does not belong in the section where it is placed. I agree... and I would resolve the dispute by simply omitting the statement entirely. (No need to source something you don't say). Blueboar (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question This article is of dubious scholarship.

There has been growing evidence over the past 20 years on the subject. This article generally presents those views but twists the evidence to support a traditional view. In particular, linguistic analysis suggest many of the works had collaborators or different authors. The article ignores sources which conflict with its view and the editors stifle dissenting views. I would like the Wikipedia editors to solicit a wider range of views for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.126.58 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The mainstream view is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him. The various counter views are on the fringe, and Wikipedia needs to be clear about that per policy. We're always gonna get POV warriors wanting to expose The Truth&trade; via Wikipedia, but it ain't going to happen: we must reflect mainstream accepted scholarship. Not sure why there's a NPOV tag on the article, looks like a hostage tag. Alexbrn (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Alexbrn, the core issue is that WP:NPOV requires due weight to be given to different viewpoints. Since the consensus view of Shakespeare scholars is that he wrote the works, this should be clearly evident from the wording on Wikipedia. In particular, neutrality does not mean giving equal space and consideration to the consensus view and disagreeing fringe viewpoints. That would be a major violation of neutrality, in fact. The existence of the fringe viewpoints should be acknowledged and they should be clearly portrayed as fringe views, not serious views. --Dailycare (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly the Shakespeare authorship question article gives more weight to the fringe views than the general scientific/research community does. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There are discretionary sanctions due to the exhaustive amount of discussion on this topic in the past. I agree that the IP editor's concerns are best ignored. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)