Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 68

Transylvanian peasant revolt
, placed two tags in the article about Transylvanian peasant revolt, both questioning the neutrality of the article. The principal reason is that I reverted his edit, which was based on a book published in 1934 and on a tertiary source. The edits suggest that Vlachs, Hungarians, Székelys, Saxons were "on a footing of equality" with each other in medieval Transylvania, and that the Vlach peasants were treated almost as slaves because of their Orthodox faith in the same province. I think both claims represent marginal (or rather fringe) theories. (1) Social status did not depend primarily on nationality in medieval Transylvania: for instance, an ethnic Vlach knez (chieftain) was not "on a footing of equality" with an ethnic Hungarian/Vlach/Saxon nobleman or with a Vlach peasant, but ethnic Vlach noblemen were "on a footing of equality" with ethnic Hungarian/Slovakian/German, etc. noblemen. (2) The Vlach peasants' position was better than Hungarian peasants' position: while the Catholic Hungarian peasants were to pay the ecclesiastic tithe, the Orthodox Vlachs were exempted of this irksome tax, and they were required to pay it only if they settled in a land abandoned by a Catholic peasant. The full debate (including references to reliable sources) can be read on the article's Talk page. I also sought assistance from WikiProject Romania, but no members of the projects intervened. Later I requested 3rd opinion, but it was declined. Rqvis' edit clearly represent a copyright infridgement, but this problem could be solved. On this page, I sought your assistance to deal with the neutrality issue. Thank you for your suggestions in advance. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, since I am watching my own question I will try this one. This sounds to me like a dispute over fact that turns on whether given sources are reliable, so this might get more response at that noticeboard. But perhaps due weight and the preponderance of the sources may be applicable guidelines. Are there other sources that say otherwise? They do not necessarily need to be in English or online, although such sources are of course preferred when they are representative and available. Elinruby (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I think the reliability of the sources is not debated. However, both the book published in 1934, and the tertiary source represent marginal theories which cannot be verified by other reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are other sources, too (from different authors). As regarding the year of the publishing, I personally do not know any Wikipedia rule about this aspect - not to mention, any logical sense. More of that, the article in cause already used as references so-called "old" books (first published in 1944, for instance). I am still waiting for an explanation why editing as per Wikipedia rules is not accepted anymore!? I would also like to know if editing Wikipedia projects makes sense anymore, or it has become worthless, lately. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC))
 * , would you name other books which state that (1) social status primarily depended on nationality/ethnic background in medieval Transylvania; and (2) Vlach peasants were treated almost as slaves because of their Orthodox faith in medieval Transylvania? Would you name the source cited in the article which was first published in 1944? Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * History is one field where there is nothing wrong, per se, with older texts. I have seen many citations to 18th-century texts in some of the French history articles I sometimes work on. But as with everything it depends on a number of factors. Theories can be disproven by new finds, or shown to rest on false assumptions. There may disagreement over the interpretation of the facts. If the academics disagree WP does not try to determine who is correct, but generally goes with "X Y and Z wrote thus and such but A B and C later took issue with this view, citing facts 1 2 or 3" or some such construction. Each part of this should be backed with a verifiable citation. This citation preferably should be online but this is not required. Similarly English texts are preferred, if available, but this is not an absolute requirement. If it's a rare book in another language in another country it is still verifiable, just not easily, and when for example it's a matter of the 11th century ownership of a castle in Provence that may be the source that exists. Again, I know nothing about this part of history and this seems to boil down to a dispute over varying accounts. Perhaps some progress could be made if you could agree that certain sources are authoritative? Also, the flip side of reliable sources and weight issues is that if the source is good, and has been around a while, others have probably cited it. You might want to run this question through Google Scholar. Just a thought.

Joe Clifford
Some time ago, a tag was added disputing the neutrality of this article, which I contributed. It is not clear what the issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given, although I have asked the tagger and followed up. No discussion has been added to the talk page. Rory1262 (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * From Template:POV:
 * You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
 * I generally wait two weeks before removing such tags, just to make sure that everyone has a chance to respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't tell either, unless someone is trying to express BLP concerns and doesn't know how. Are those sources RS? In any event I agree that it's still November. Perhaps a question on the talk page, just in case someone is watching the article, not this list. Elinruby (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, I added a question on the article's talk page as well, thanks. No response yet there either. When the article was first approved, a reviewer asked for a good bit more to meet standards of notability. Rory1262 (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd welcome some more more impartial input. According to the person who added the tag questioning neutrality, "The article as it stands is the sort of thing publishers put out as PR." I am merely a reader of Mr. Clifford's work, and I sought to keep the tone restrained. I don't find the explanation satisfactory, but I'd prefer not to remove a tag when I am the article's author. Rory1262 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality on the MSG safety section
I am concerned about this section for two reasons. First, Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) says that there are inconsistent findings, not “no good evidence.” Specifically, they write, “Of five papers including six studies with food, none showed a significant difference in the incidence of headache except for the female group in one study. Of five papers including seven studies without food, four studies showed a significant difference…Because of the absence of proper blinding, and the inconsistency of the findings, we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists between MSG ingestion and headache."

“No good evidence,” implies that each of the peer reviewed studies that have found an effect are somehow flawed and that we, as Wikipedia editors, can make that determination. I have suggested the revision “Health studies have evaluated the link between MSG and headaches. However, study findings are inconsistent and there does not appear to be a link between normal consumption of MSG and headaches (Obayashi and Nagamura 2016).”

My second concern is the sentence, “Consumption and manufacture of high-salt and high-glutamate foods, which contain both sodium and glutamate, stretch back far longer, with evidence of cheese manufacture as early as 5,500 BC.” I would like this sentence removed. It has nothing to do with MSG. This article should be focused on the food additive MSG, not foods that naturally contain glutamates. Including non-additives is odd and potentially misleading. For example, the high-fructose corn syrup page doesn’t talk about the long history of humans with sugar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Already discussed ad nauseam on the Article Talk page after it was raised at WT:MED. Current wording is good, as multiple editors have explained. Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's open this up for a broader discussion. I would like more opinions than just Alexbrn. I have asked a number of individual editors. I hope for some resolution.FFN001 (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "No good evidence" is quite correct. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That quote sounds very much like "no good evidence" to me. It very clearly states that the evidence in favor is faulty (inconsistent and lacking proper blinding) - ie "not good". Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Status of Taiwan
Recent edits made to Visa policy of China by User:Nixiao1983 did not meet the consensus reached in 2012 and the user came with a potentially biased view that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China. The original intent of the article is not to take sides on the issue, but to highlight Taiwan's special status in China's relevant visa policies and laws. The user had explicitly stated that they think Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China.

My question is what we, as editors, can do to maintain NPOV in non-politically affiliated articles while avoiding self-censorship to ensure that Wikipedia is not influenced by a political entity. Looking forward to hear your thoughts. C-GAUN (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A 2012 consensus is a bit old. And editors can have a POV (including holding the Chinese POV that Taiwan is a province of China). If there were an article that should take the Chinese POV - this would be it (as it is about the Chinese visa policy that, as expected, operates per the Chinese POV). There is no recent article talk page discussion (since 2016) - everyone involved just edited this on the article itself.Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors can (and inevitably do) have a point of view, but the challenge at Wikipedia is to put one's own point of view aside to write from the WP:NPOV. In the case of the China/Taiwan issue, clearly there are those who will hold that Taiwan is and always will be a province of People's Republic of China (PRC). And there are others who will hold that Taiwan (ROC) is a de facto independent state. The point here is that the community reached consensus on this issue, and nothing has changed in the status of the two entities since that consensus was reached, so nothing should change in how we write about these entities. It is neutral to present the PRC's view of Taiwan (in this case, regarding the travels and travel restrictions of people from Taiwan to mainland China) as PRC's view, but it is not neutral to present those views as the only fact. So, it is neutral to say that:
 * The PRC views Taiwan as a province, and therefore does not consider travel from Taiwan to the mainland to constitute international travel.
 * but it is not neutral to say
 * Since Taiwan is a province of the PRC, the PRC does not consider travel from Taiwan to the mainland to constitute international travel.
 * A subtle difference, but an important one to maintain. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the consensus dates back to 2012 makes it stronger not weaker IMO. We should stick to it, unless there is a new consensus of course. Please note that I am not making any comments on the status of Taiwan, this is not the right place to discuss that complicated matter. I am just saying that if there is an existing consensus it should be respected. Of course this does not mean that it can't be challenged but this can be done only by discussing on the talk page, not by trying to push the new content into the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree: old/stable version must be restored per WP:BRD and WP:NPOV. Actually, this series of edits was an obvious nationalist POV-pushing by an SPA. That account should be blocked. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Doesn't Taiwan consider itself a province of China? TFD (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Taiwan might officially consider itself a province of China, but it definitely does not consider itself a province of the PRC. There's also the major difference between official declarations and actual policy. Taiwan formally claims rightful sovereignty over the entirety of the Qing Empire (including land in a half dozen modern countries), but in practice the government completely ignores those official claims. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the other editor involved in the incident had refused to participate in any discussions so far. However, there are several common-grounds even among the most nationalistic Chinese editors. With all these in mind, it makes very little sense for editors to ignore the existence of the ROC regime, nor was it correct to claim Taiwan as a province of the PRC. These two claims are simply false and should not be entertained due to their obvious violation of the NPOV principle. C-GAUN (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Taiwan was, and is, never a part of the People's Republic of China. I say so because the Republic of China's stance on whether it sees itself as a government of "China" is ambiguous, although its stance on whether it's a part of the PRC is clear as day. The Communist PRC regime was established four years after the KMT takeover of Taiwan, and the CCP had never mobilized any attacks on the island of Taiwan after a failed attempt to capture Quemoy in 1949.
 * The Republic of China, which governs Taiwan, Quemoy, Matsu and Penghu Islands, is a de facto independent state. The ROC still has formal diplomatic relations with 20 UN member states and maintains informal diplomatic relations with over one hundred UN members, including all five permanent members of the UN security council.
 * The ROC and the PRC have been maintaining an informal relationship with semi-official organizations for years. The two groups, the Straits Exchange Foundation and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits, are directly controlled by their respective governments.

NRA Talk and page addition
Like to get a 3rd party view/s in the Talk page discussion about a peice that has been removed and discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Rifle_Association#Philando_Castile_undue_weight I believe some editors might not be editing in good faith but like to get a outside look before really jumping in. Thanks ContentEditman (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Advice needed on how best to handle a new user at Open borders.
A newcomer has been adding creditable material at Open border. The problem [as I see it!] is that the material, although based on academic papers and publications, relies on single sources and non-notable authors and [IMO, though I agreed with it!] is rather partisan - especially as it focusses especially on US immigration policies. I feel very churlish at reverting what are clearly wp:good faith edits and 'biting the newbies' but, when the user does not engage in any discussion, I don't what else to do. I would very much welcome advice from other editors and/or their participation at talk:Open border. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Notice deleted because the user has begun to engage in discussion at their talk page. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Censoring on False accusation of rape page?
I (189.172.136.72) was adding new material to the False accusation of rape page on December 6th. My additions were deleted as I was adding them. No efforts were made to assist. Passages with references to government documents and newspaper reports of government official's statements were deleted, stating that the references were 'dubious'. It seems in other pages, on other topics a 'needs citation' flag is added rather than an entire passage deleted for want of references.

This does not seem to be in the spirit of.... A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticise.

This is the second time that I have attempted to add information to this page and it has been deleted - possibly because I was attempting to inform of the terrible effects of false accusations on its victims. There is a strident opposition to the recognition of false accusations of sexual assault and I wonder if there is some bias in the editing of the page. My references included descriptions of publications by ex Director of Pubic Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer and the Oxford Center for Criminology noting the terrible consequences of false accusations. All was deleted. I do not see this as a 'balanced' description of the topic.189.172.136.72 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The statement about creating a "tentative first draft" refers to the use of the draft space to test out edits or create a new page. What you were editing wasn't a draft, it was the main article. As the editor who removed your statement noted, there were multiple issues with the edits that were removed, and most of the issues were explained in the edit summary. For instance, this edit was removed because it cited an online calculator by a lawfirm that doesn't even claim to be an authoritative source for actual awards. The verifiability policy requires reliable sources for claims of fact, and that source probably doesn't qualify.
 * No one is censoring you, but if you want help, I would suggest beginning with reading the Five Pillars, and creating an account. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 23:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not happy with that response> It refers to one of many 'edits' which largely deleted my efforts as I was entering them. In one case an entire section was deleted with the comments that one citation was inaccurately represented. Sections were deleted as I edited, meaning that significant amounts of text were deleted before I had even had a chance to post them. The purpose of my entries is to inform readers about the SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES of false rape allegations. Information which seems to be largely ignored. The immediacy of the deletions was startling! As noted in other instructions - patience may be a virtue and waiting a few days is usually not harmful to the process of arriving at a useful and informative document. What in my edits was so objectionable that it had to be deleted immediately? The only thing I can think of is that there is a bias among editors who wish to maintain the illusion that false allegations of rape are insignificant, both in their numbers and in the impact upon the victims. Failing to acknowledge or permit information about the terrible impact upon victims seems very much a violation of a neutral point of view.
 * Reference 13 "Charging perverting the course of justice in the Wiki Article contains the text "At the outset it is important that we acknowledge the very damaging impact that a false allegation of rape or sexual assault – be it either malicious or misguided – can have on the person falsely accused. Reputations can be ruined and lives can be devastated as a result."
 * A report by the University of Oxford Centre for Criminology states "In our view, the cumulative impact of these interviews is both shocking and immense. It is widely accepted that to be described as a paedophile will be damaging. However, until we conducted this study, we had little grasp of the extent to which a false allegation is likely to affect every aspect of a person’s life, psychological, material and physical. Most of the participants, it should be recalled, were able to refute the accusations made against them at a relatively early stage of the legal process. Despite this, their lives were, to put it simply, wrecked." I, like this group have found the impact of false accusations to be "shocking and immense" and feel that the current Wiki Article is negligent in failing to report these issues. Do you regard these reports as wrong?189.172.136.72 (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)189.172.136.72 (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To start, as I said before, you would probably be best served by registering an account. While its your prerogative not to do so, rightly or wrongly I don't think an IP editor is going to have equal standing in what you want to accomplish. Further, your edits still seem to be WP:TENDENTIOUS, and it is clear from the characterizations you use that this topic has some significance to you, which is going to affect how your edits are phrased (if you aren't careful to be neutral), and how they are received by other editors. Also, please WP:INDENT your posts as I described previously. As far as NPOV in the article I don't want to have discussions about its content in two different places. I don't think you've given the talk page a chance before twice coming to the noticeboards looking for a remedy. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Crimea as a sovereign state
Here is link to relevant discussion. User:XavierGreen insists that Republic of Crimea should be included in the list of sovereign states. However, according to majority of RS and international consensus, that was an Ukrainian territory recently annexed by Russia. According to "Russian position" this is now a federal subject of Russia. According to "Ukrainian position" this is still a part of Ukraine. Neither claims it to be an independent state. Russia did claim it was an "independent state" during several days when Russian special forces occupied the legislature of Crimea, but this is hardly a reason to include the "Republic" into the list of sovereign states, in my opinion. More opinions are welcome. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not on the list of sovereign states, its on the page list of sovereign states in the 2010s page. The page is part of a series of pages which list all of the sovereign states to have existed throughout history. As such, it is irrelevant what the present situation in Crimea is. For a few days in 2014, Russia officially recognized Crimea as a sovereign state. As such it meets the inclusion criteria for the page, as all states with limited recognition are included that are recognized by at least 1 UN member (which Russia is), in consideration of the constitutive theory of statehood. There are a host of other similar examples which are included in this series of pages, from Northern Cyprus which is recognized only by Turkey to the independent Bantustans which were recognized only by South Africa [see list of sovereign states in the 1990s. In recognition that such states did not have widespread recognition during their existence, polities like Crimea are clearly marked on these pages as having limited recognition or in some instances like Somaliland and Azawad no recognition. As such, i don't see any issue with NPOV, since all the page states is that Russia recognized the independence of Crimea and the the rest of the world considered it to be a part of Ukraine during the brief time it claimed Independence.XavierGreen (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am saying it should not be included in the list of sovereign states in the 2010s page, as should be clear from the link to discussion. This is because it was not a sovereign state in 2010s. The question is about Crimea, not about Northern Cyprus or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The sovereignty of Crimea in the 2010's depends on who you ask... in the opinion of Russia, Crimea was indeed a sovereign state. Now... the list's inclusion criteria apparently requires recognition by only one UN member state for inclusion (and Russia is a UN member state)... so, technically, Crimea does qualify for inclusion on that list. The only way to remove it would be to change the lists inclusion criteria (and we can discuss that if you want)... but under the current criteria, Crimea qualifies and should be included. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I must be blind, I cannot see Bantustan on these lists. Also I would like to see where consensus was achieved for the idea that only one UN member needs to recognize them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Bantustans were the republics of Venda, Ciskei, Transkei, and Bophuthatswana. They are each clearly listed on the list of sovereign states in the 1990s, list of sovereign states in the 1980s, ect. You can find the discussions surrounding the consensus for the current inclusion criteria for the various lists of sovereign states pages in the talk page archives of the main list of sovereign states page, they have been compiled into 8 archived talk pages here], the side bar links to all 8 relevant archived pages.XavierGreen (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, you need a consensus of reliable sources telling literally this: "The Crimea is/was a sovereign state", not that "Russia claimed a certain territory to be a sovereign state" (at the time it was de facto occupied by Russia). Same can be said about any other country included to the lists (such as Cypus or whatever), but this is slightly outside the scope of the discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sure we could find Russian language sources saying that Crimea was sovereign, so that isn’t a major issue. The issue is that you don’t like the criteria for inclusion in the list.  To be honest, neither do I (I think we should require at least two UN recognitions) but we have to change the criteria if we want to change inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course there are Russian language sources telling it was independent for a few days (which contradicts to many other Russian language sources, including other claims by the same government), however there is a very clear consensus of RS in general that the event of joining Crimea to Russia represent annexation of Ukrainian territory by military force, rather than joining Crimea as an independent state to Russia. I do not mind using some informal criteria for inclusion (such as support by "n" UN states), but only in cases when this does not contradict WP:NPOV - as in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Under the constitutive theory of statehood, it does not matter what the defacto situation on the ground is, military occupation or otherwise, instead recognition is the sole factor considered. South Ossetia, Transdnistira, Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh, and Northern Cyprus are all under varying degrees of "occupation" by other states pursuant to some sources, yet they are included here as they either are partially recognized like South Ossetia or satisfy the declarative theory of statehood like Transdinistria.XavierGreen (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If it was/is under occupation is completely irrelevant. This territory simply was described as something different from "a sovereign state" by majority or sources. That was claimed only by kremlin.ru and other sources that make a reference to kremlin.ru and tell "yes, this is something claimed" by kremlin.ru, rather than telling "yes, that was a sovereign state". Do you have any 3rd party secondary scholarly sources telling "yes, it was a sovereign state"? Whatever you are trying to conclude from the constitutive theory of statehood (there are many other theories) is actually WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That Russia recognized Crimea as an independent state is a fact supported by a host of sources on the topic. For examples see [], [], []. Recognition is the sole qualifier under the constitutive theory of statehood.XavierGreen (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it did not qualify as a state according to any theory (per sources and expert opinion) - see comment by K.e.coffman below. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

All of this avoids the core issue... which is: given Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, what should Wikipedia use as an inclusion criteria for these lists? Is recognition by one single state ENOUGH, or should we require more than that? If more... then what should we require? Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the general guideline for the lists is Stand-alone_lists (please correct if I am wrong). But this is not so simple. There are different criteria what a sovereign state is - see Sovereign_state. Picking up a single statehood theory and neglecting all others (as XavierGreen suggests) is contrary to WP:NPOV. Most important, this should not be just one source which tells that something belongs to a list. There should be a consensus of sources. For example, we should place something into List of conspiracy theories only if it was defined as such in majority of RS, rather than in a single popular history article. Same about categories. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One's enough for me, provided the recognizing state is recognized by at least one likewise recognized state. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't gone through the entire archive of the discussion of criteria for list of sovereign states, but it seems that there exists an editors' consensus for the best criteria of selection based on relevant reliable sources. Under List_of_sovereign_states, The Republic of Crimea meets the standards for a sovereign state that existed in the 2010s - reliable sources agree it was recognized as a state by one UN member state (Russia) for a period of several days before it signed a treaty of accession. A universal metric for inclusion, based on reliable sources with expertise in international relations, seems like it satisfies neutrality. And it's not like the article is claiming the Republic of Crimea is equivalent to France - it says right in the entry "from 17 March 2014 to 21 March 2014" and "Partially recognized de facto self-governing entity. Claimed by the Ukraine." Three entries above Crimea are Azawad and Bangsamoro Republik, which each lasted a period of several months and were never recognized by a single country. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that participants have developed some criteria for inclusion that can probably be defined as "a weak constitutive theory of statehood" (see here (some recognition is required). However, there is a question: are these "rules" consistent with WP:RS and WP:NPOV - in general and with regard to specific cases? For example, I am looking at this scholarly source, and it tells:
 * My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two prevailing modern theories regarding what constitutes a sovereign state under international law, the constitutive theory and the declarative theory. Just because a polity satisfies one theory of statehood does not mean that it satisfies the other. For example Estonia from 1940 to 1991 controlled no territory, but was recognized as independent by several western states. As such, during that time period it qualified as a soveriegn state under the constitutive theory since it had recognition, but not under the declarative theory since it had no territory. In order to maintain a neutral stance, the various list of soveriegn states pages list entities that fall under either of the two theories. The very nature of these states with limited recognition often leads to politically charged debates about their legitimacy (virtually every ethnic Georgian will deny that Abkhazia is a sovereign state for instance), but whether or not they are legitimate in everyone eyes is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not it should be listed on these pages or not. Regardless, the fact that they are states with limited recognition is reflected in the fact that they are listed in a separate section below those states which have wide international recognition.XavierGreen (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Including country X in the main Table of the List of sovereign states assumes this is a sovereign state (currently this is just UN members and observers versus other sovereign states). If they are not sovereign states, they should be included either in footnotes or in a separate page with a different name. Same applies to any other lists.My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And your point about "politically charged debates" is certainly valid. That's why we should use independent 3rd party scholarly sources in these cases, specifically about country X, rather than claims by participants of the conflict. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To eliminate states with limited recognition from these pages creates a blatant NPOV issue. The current inclusion criteria were created specifically to address the NPOV issue. As I stated before, the current inclusion criteria were formulated after literally years of disputes and formal dispute resolution actions, there seems to be utterly no consensus to change it. If you want to completely eliminate them from the page or reduce them to a footnote, i suggest that you open a formal RFC on the main list of sovereign states page.XavierGreen (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the RfC, but with respect to Crimea this could be a simple sourcing/NPOV issue. I gave you an example of a scholarly RS, which discusses the issue in a great detail and comes to conclusion that Crimea was not a sovereign state. Can you please, provide any other scholarly RS that discusses the issue in a great detail and comes to conclusion that Crimea was a sovereign state, as opposed to simply documenting claims by sides of the conflict? My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the RfC, but with respect to Crimea this could be a simple sourcing/NPOV issue. I gave you an example of a scholarly RS, which discusses the issue in a great detail and comes to conclusion that Crimea was not a sovereign state. Can you please, provide any other scholarly RS that discusses the issue in a great detail and comes to conclusion that Crimea was a sovereign state, as opposed to simply documenting claims by sides of the conflict? My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Question - Is WP:UNDUE a factor here? By including a territory that is recognized by only one governent (and not recognized by any other) are we giving undue weight to an internationally fringe viewpoint? Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. Moreover, this is like mixing apples and oranges together. If you look at "Other states" at the bottom of main Table in the List of sovereign states, this is a strange mixture. Some of them are recognized states, but simply not UN members. But others are unrecognized states or more politely, "states with limited recognition". Perhaps they should be mentioned on the page, but only in a such way that distinction is clear, for example in footnotes, and definitely outside the Table. Telling they are merely "other" (non UN member or observer) states is contrary to international consensus and undue. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole reason why they are listed in a separate section is to distinguish them from the UN member states and observers, thus your point is moot.XavierGreen (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the unrecognized states and recognized states are mixed together in the same section of Table as "other states". However, this thread was about Crimea, and I think Blueboar was right: including it in the Table (as you did) was undue. My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * After looking at RS, it appears there are two very different types of states: (a) well established states like Taiwan that are simply not recognized by a bunch of countries for whatever reason, but recognized by a large number (usually a majority) of other countries, and (b) puppet states that have been created by a military intervention of another state and did not achieve independent statehood (could not exist on their own). This is just a few states named explicitly in the quotation above. These "states" are marked light yellow at the bottom of the Table in the List of sovereign states. They have very limited recognition and do not take any part in the work of UN. I would suggest putting these seven state to a separate Table on the same page and entitle it like "States with very limited recognition" (if "Puppet states" sounds too assertive). End of story. One could post an RfC about it if needed.My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Among the entities that you claim "have been created by a military intervention of another state and did not achieve independent statehood (could not exist on their own)" are multiple entities for which this is manifestly not true. The whole point of Somaliland is that it does exist on its own, without the support of any external government.


 * You are widening this thing beyond Crimea into an area where it makes no sense to do so, trying to rule out several far more clear-cut cases in the process. You do so by using a distinction purely of your own invention, not in any way backed by WP:RS.


 * Let us be clear though that there is a difference between List of sovereign states, dealing with the situation now using deliberately conservative inclusion criteria, and List of sovereign states in the 2010s, which can take a longer view and can judge matters with the benefit of hindsight. Nobody claims that Crimea was independent for more than a day or two.  On an article that spans a decade, it is perfectly appropriate to ask whether we should include treat such short-lived entities so similarly to entities that lasted the entire period.   This is not something we can realistically do on the list of sovereign states which documents only a snapshot in time. Kahastok talk 14:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am simply telling why BlueBoar was right: we are giving undue weight to an internationally fringe viewpoint(s). You tell: "Nobody claims that Crimea was independent for more than a day or two." No, according to quotation above, these states (and Crimea) were not at all independent states. But the quotation does not tell anything about Somaliland, so maybe it is in a proper place - I have no judgement.My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And according to other sources they are sovereign states. It should surprise nobody that the legitimacy of a state whose legitimacy is disputed is disputed.


 * I'm not discussing Crimea here. Crimea always was a bit of an edge case at most.  These aren't, particularly.  We can be clear per the sources in List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition that they are all generally regarded academically as states according to the declarative theory of statehood.  Yes, that's disputed as well.  Arguing that any claimed state whose status is disputed should be removed from a list of claimed states whose status is disputed is absurd. Kahastok talk 16:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What "other sources"? So far you provided none, here and on the article talk page. Of course I am talking about 3rd party scholarly sources, not about opinions by officials of the involved countries, such as Russia, Georgia, Turkey or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of all the sources that have to be considered to establish WP:WEIGHT, the views of the governments of the world, while not the only important views, are very clearly and very obviously the most important views. The fact that you do not like the conclusions of sovereign governments does not mean that their opinions do not have to be respected.


 * The sources are in the articles I have pointed you at. That you choose not to find them doesn't mean that they are not there. Kahastok talk 17:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I quickly checked some of them, and they do consider such "states" rather problematic . My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why they're listed separately. So far as I can tell, your proposal is still that we should remove or separate all these states because you want to.  I asked you for the basis on which you were planning on dividing your two categories and you said, no, screw the inclusion criteria, we'll just remove them.


 * If there's no basis on which to split the list we cannot split the list. Unless you're willing to break a whole series of basic content policies - WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and suchlike - solely because of your own personal preferences. Kahastok talk 20:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * After looking at this more carefully, I think the list should not be split, but the entities which do not belong to the list should be simply excluded. That does not prevent mentioning them in footnotes as something that hardly belongs to the list. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude Crimea -- I searched for ["constitutive theory" Crimea] and got the following:


 * “The more popular declaratory theory of recognition considers the effects of recognition to be merely declaratory: they evidence a pre-existing fact, namely that X satisfies the criteria of statehood, or is part of state Y. The constitutive theory deems a territory’s international status to be dependent upon the recognition of others” (emphasis mine). If Russia was the sole state to have recognized Crimea’s independence, it does not appear to meet the criteria for multiple states recognizing such.


 * Here’s a blog post by a legal scholar that addresses the topic directly:


 * ”It seems unlikely that Crimea would be considered a state on March 16, regardless of the theory one employs.  At the time of the signing, Crimea had apparently been recognized only by Russia, precluding statehood under the constitutive theory. And having asserted independence from Ukraine for no more than three weeks prior to the agreement, Crimea had not developed the capacity to function as a state, precluding statehood under the declaratory theory.” (Emphasis mine)


 * It looks like the criteria applied in the article (one-state recognition being sufficient for meeting the constitutive theory of statehood) is insufficient or that Crimea should be removed from the list (or both). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think it boils down to the following question: Should we include a territory X into the list of independent states if there is no consensus of scholarly RS that X was an independent state? . This is a very general question applicable to all lists and categories in the project. This is really important because by including something to a list we claim in WP voice that something belongs to the list/category as a matter of fact. By including someone into a "list of agents" we claim that someone was in fact a spy. By including something to a "List of conspiracy theories" we we claim that something was in fact a conspiracy theory. By including Crimea in the "List of sovereign states" we claim that it was in fact a sovereign state. At the very least, we need consensus of RS that it belongs there. But I am not sure how to proceed. Is not it already in the policy or guidelines somewhere? If not, this should be probably posted as a very general RfC about all lists and categories in the project, but where? My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If we do not include states that are disputed, we must remove China, both Koreas, Israel, Cyprus and Armenia from every list of countries, since all are disputed. The fact that you don't like the consequences of your proposals does not make them not consequences of your proposals.  And you cannot claim neutrality while rejecting out of hand the most pertinent POVs in these questions: those of the states, whose opinions actually make some difference to the situations in question. Kahastok talk 17:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No - because none of the scholarly sources mentioned above tells that China, Koreas, Cyprus and Armenia were "not independent states" or countries with "disputed statehood". These sources specifically mentioned only 6 or 7 other territories (practically the same in both scholarly sources). Someone else claiming a territory of another state X does not mean that state X is " not an independent state" or has a "disputed statehood", according to these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You are seriously suggesting that the only disputed states in the world are Abkhazia, Arsakh, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Transnistria.


 * You are seriously arguing that Iran, Syria, Lebanon all recognise Israel as a legitimate independent state.


 * You are seriously arguing that North Korea recognises South Korea as a legitimate independent state - and vice versa.


 * You are seriously arguing that PRC recognises Taiwan as a legitimate independent state, and vice versa.


 * No. We all know that that's not how it works.


 * The fact that a source discussing a few chosen states does not mention other, separate, situations does not mean that we are free to ignore other situations without breaking WP:NPOV. On the other hand, your attempts to divine out of thin air some fundamental difference between those seven on one hand, and the other entities such as SADR and Taiwan (both generally unrecognised) on the other, is pure WP:OR. Kahastok talk 19:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, these sources name only 6 or 7 specific territories. You are using a misleading terminology, "disputed state". That can mean a lot of different things. The situation is very different for different states. They should be considered on a case to case basis, just as items of any other list. I am simply telling that we should not include a territory X into the list of independent states if there is no consensus in scholarly RS that X was an independent state. Same logic should apply to all lists and all categories per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Just to clarify, the 2nd source is book The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States By James Ker-Lindsay, Oxford University Press, pages 39-59. It tells about seven specific states (same states as above + Kosovo) calling them "unrecognized" or the "territories" with "contested statehood" (no, Taiwan was not one of them!). My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Not true. There is zero difference between Greece's non-recognition of Northern Cyprus and Iran's non-recognition of Israel.  I am using the words "disputed", "contested", whatever (your terminology) according to their plain English reading with no meaning added or subtracted.  Northern Cyprus is disputed.  Israel is disputed.


 * That you can find a source saying that a disputed state is disputed is unsurprising. That you try to remove a disputed state from a list of disputed states because the state is disputed is bizarre.


 * You say, "They should be considered on a case to case basis, just as items of any other list". But WP:SAL is clear that on any stand-alone list we have to have unambiguous, objective selection criteria backed by reliable sources.  Which we have.  It is not the title that defines the list, it is the selection criteria that define the list.  We need to determine on a case-by-case basis whether they meet the selection criteria.  Which we do.  Not the title.  The selection criteria.  And then, for neutrality, given the disputed nature of some of the entries, we need to acknowledge the disputes where they exist.  Which we do, in special columns and bright colours and through the division between UN member states and other states.


 * But you are trying to undermine those criteria. You're trying to say, we should have all the states that meet the criteria, except for some of the ones that are disputed.  On what objective basis?  None.  You found this source that mentions that these ones are disputed so you want them removed.  In reality, this source is relevant - but only in that it demonstrates clearly that these seven meet the criteria (through the declarative theory of statehood), and therefore must go in the list.


 * So, you're trying to remove the objectivity, you're trying to add ambiguity, you're trying ultimately to undermine the selection criteria and with them the reliable sources that back the selection criteria. In doing this, you use your own WP:OR to fundamentally undermine the list and the quality of the article. Kahastok talk 20:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which scholarly sources tell there is no difference between Israel and Northern Cyprus? But regardless, this is not a question under discussion here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please provide your source that contradicts what I said, that "there is zero difference between Greece's non-recognition of Northern Cyprus and Iran's non-recognition of Israel". This would seem to be little more than a statement of the obvious, though you seem not to accept it.


 * But no, the question under discussion is whether it is appropriate to undermine the List of sovereign states' current objective and unambiguous selection criteria, that are based on reliable sources on the theories of statehood, solely because you found a source that demonstrates that disputed states are disputed. Kahastok talk 20:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -- the source I listed above states that the circumstances around Crimea preclud[e] statehood under the constitutive theory. Crimea should really be removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing good sources, K.e.coffman! They help a lot to clarify this question. My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Arguing that a single source should upend consensus is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Especially when the entire point of the inclusion criteria is to make sense of contradictory sources. That's what "disputed" means. Also, this discussion should really go to Talk:List of Sovereign States. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion about Crimea is on another talk page, not Talk:List of Sovereign States. There was no consensus about including Crimea whatsoever. Quite the opposite.My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus to include it, in fact if you look through the edit history of List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_2010s, its quite apparant that you were the only editor removing it from the page, while others besides me had reverted your removal.XavierGreen (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on the discussion above, I have created an RfC about this subject . My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Pink tide
There has been a long discussion in the talk page of the article Pink Tide to try to make it more neutral. My suggestion is to make it more minimalistic with very basic information to avoid edit warrings like the article is in other languages, but in the meantime several users have try to make it more neutral to no avail. The result as you can see apart from the lenght of the article is the extremely biased and un-neutral content which makes it look more like a Conservapedia article than Wikipedia. [This] was the kind of content before massive edits to make it more neutral. But currently still has lots of problems. Examples of such: a, b. --TV Guy (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Central America, the CIA, Iran-Contra etc
Another general post and/or request for additional eyes: I have been working on the history and politics of Honduras and Panama, and have discovered acres of possible problems in a number of the articles about specific events -- the US government for example almost intervenes with the best of intentions, and Central American countries tend to have a "constitutional crisis" not a coup. Aid was described in one article as "controversial" while Google Books indicates that the controversy didn't stem from illiteracy or resistance to progress and technology, as the Wikipedia article might be read to imply, but rather that the development dollars were going straight into the private sector without passing through the Treasury of the recipient country. For example. I have seen similar problems in the articles related to food for oil, come to think of it. Many of the top-level articles such as History of Honduras and associated pages are word-for-word imports of the CIA factbook for that country. I can see the value of the resource but naturally accounts of covert operations in the area are somewhat self-seeking. Help from Spanish-speaking editors who are already familiar with the history would be particularly welcome Elinruby (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be useful if you linked to the articles you think have issues, so we can see what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * History of Honduras is the one I am working on right now but the problem exists to some degree on most of the related linked pages to some degree and appears to be systemic. But ok, I will add some more wikilinks as I work back and forth. To be clear, the issue is more weasel words than total falsehood, but surely there are other sources for 19th century history than the government of a country noted for its many military incursions in the region. Elinruby (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We have both a 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and a 2009 Honduran coup d'état, neither of which I have not completely checked, but would appear on their faces to represent a POV fork. Also see Honduran fourth ballot box referendum; and I smell hand-waving in the Americas section of History of coffee. For example.
 * Check closer. The crisis covers political disputes in Honduras which started when the President announced a number of changes in the Constitution, against the wishes of the opposition and the Supreme Court. The coup was both a reaction to the disputes and part of the wider crisis. I would not oppose merging the articles, but some basic chronology should be maintained. Dimadick (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncritical use of "Aryan" in historical articles?
I was just reading our Schindler's List article, and the text the subservient position of Jewish men in relation to Aryan men stood out to me. I was sorely tempted to put quotes on "Aryan", but WP:SCAREQUOTES stopped me. At present, the only thing in the article text implying that the "Aryan race" is not actually a thing is the word being blue-linked, which is way too subtle for a Wikipedia article. What do people think? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that is overuse. I would not use them when it is clear from the context that it is Nazi terminology.  The observation is sourced to Sara Horowitz, director of the Koschitzky Centre for Jewish Studies at York University.  If she did not think it necessary to use scare quotes, I don't see why we should.  Note too that they  use the term Jewish in a non-standard way, so that would require scare quotes too.  TFD (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but an article written by the director the Koschitzky Centre for Jewish Studies at York University for inclusion in a book titled Spielberg's Holocaust: Critical Perspectives on Schindler's List and published by Indiana University Press is naturally going to have different assumptions about its readers' level of awareness of the history of that word than Wikipedia. She wouldn't need scare-quotes to indicate to her target audience that she is using a racist Nazi term for a made-up concept ironically. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence being quoted strikes me as odd, since the typical ethnonym that commonly means non-Jew is "gentile", not "Aryan". I would not use it in this context unless it's a direct quote from the source. In such case, I would attribute it to the source. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, they denote different concepts. A non-Jewish Black person would be both non-Jew (gentile) and non-"Aryan", and the article isn't referring to subservience of Jewish men to non-Jewish Black men. But your proposed solution works; honestlt I think a direct quotation, attributed inline, would be best. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to delete the entire sentence (or, rather, all this She points out that normally the woman of the house lights the Sabbath candles. In the film it is men who perform this ritual, demonstrating not only the subservient role of women, but also the subservient position of Jewish men in relation to Aryan men, especially Göth and Schindler.). Horowitz does not connect the candle lighting to the subservient role of women and definitely not to the subservient position of Jewish men to Aryan men. --regentspark (comment) 03:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh. You may be right. I also hadn't noticed until I gave it a closer reading just now that we weirdly change spelling from "Shabbat" to "Sabbath" in the same paragraph for no apparent reason. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A reasonably informed reader would realize from the context that the article is not endorsing Nazi terminology. The full sentence is,  "[Sara Horowitz, director of the Koschitzky Centre for Jewish Studies at York University] points out that normally the woman of the house lights the Sabbath candles. In the film it is men who perform this ritual, demonstrating not only the subservient role of women, but also the subservient position of Jewish men in relation to Aryan men, especially Göth and Schindler.[59]"  Besides, if you add square quotes the implication is that it is Horowitz's terminology. And don't say that a reasonably informed editor would know it is Nazi terminology, because if they know that the scare quotes are redundant.  TFD (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article says that a male voice recites the kaddish, not that men light the candle (perhaps no one is shown lighting the candles) and uses that to posit that, in the film, women "whether Jewish or Aryan, exist only as a locus of male struggle and desire"(pg. 127). So, yes, the recital of the Kaddish, rather than the explicit lighting of the candle, is used as evidence that women, all women, have a subservient role (in the film). But using this as evidence of the subservient position of Jewish men to "Aryan" ones is not clear. My guess is that the person who added this to the article probably got to this reference second hand, i.e., from some other text that used Horowitz to draw conclusions about the film. Nothing wrong with that but then the citation is incorrect. --regentspark (comment) 15:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We we have to write form the assumption any reader might not be even be ill informed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Promotional pieces being added to Quba
A large piece is being added to the article on the Azerbaijani town Quba which I find promotional and WP:UNDUE. My revert was reverted. More opinions, preferably on the talk page, will be appreciated--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Net neutrality in the United States
We have a disagreement at Net neutrality in the United States; I am at !RR and User:BrendonTheWizard is at 2RR. Rather than edit warring, I would like to have an outside set of eyes look at the issues involved (see article talk page discussion) and evaluate the arguments of both disputants. Thanks! -Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your content removal doesn't appear to be constructive (except for some of the edits by Leopheard). If you want to removed large swaths of existing content, you should probably propose it on the talk page before removing it.- MrX 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * From a quick look, a couple of issues:
 * The content in dispute seems rather weasel-like and is not very well sourced. Checking the text "Many have pointed out that sites such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon would not have been able to survive if net neutrality hadn't been in place" sourced to HuffPo (hmmm) in fact makes no reference to "many" and does not even mention amazon - so seems an outright WP:V failure. Then there's some "Concerns abound ..." claim, asserted as fact and sourced to an online course landing page.
 * 's declaration that content can't be removed "until you have a clear consensus and an RFC is closed by a 3rd party" smacks of WP:OWNership, which is not helpful.
 * I think the problem is deeper than WP:NPOV here: the text needs to pass WP:V before it can be seen what the POVs in play even are. Alexbrn (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it's WP:OWN after reading through the policy. As was said by MrX, a sweeping removal of existing content should be discussed before it takes place. Rather than asserting that the editor is not entitled to make edits, I have asserted that a consensus must be reached for the disputed changes to be reintroduced. Keep in mind the process of WP:BRD; first his bold edit was made, secondly I reverted it, and now it is being discussed. That is not claiming ownership, that is following the suggested dispute resolution protocol. As for WP:V, If the existing content is insufficiently sourced I will gladly find reliable sources to take the place of poor sources. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't poor souring. I would have posted to RSNB if it was. The problem is that you are using a definition of :net neutrality" that directly contradicts the definition in the lead of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The statement "Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality" doesn't mean there were no legal protections for net neutrality prior to 2015 - there were - just that they were unclear. The FCC attempted to use various methods to enforce some system of net neutrality, issuing new regulations as earlier ones were defeated in court. There were regulations enforcing some type of net neutrality for most of the period between 2005 and 2015, and companies that violated those regulations were punished. Years later, those regulations were declared void after long and complicated legal battles. This is pretty clear in one of the first sources cited in article, 1:

THE CLAIM: FCC Chairman "Wheeler has chosen to ignore the unprecedented Internet innovation, investment and job creation that have all thrived without government intervention and regulation." -- Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a Feb. 19 statement. THE FACTS: It is true that the Internet has flourished and is lightly regulated compared with other industries. It's also true that this exponential growth occurred under a system in which broadband providers mostly agreed not to discriminate against Web traffic. Providers operated under the threat of regulation for several years until late 2010, when the FCC adopted open Internet rules. Those rules were in effect until early 2014, when a federal court struck them down. So it's not true that there hasn't been any government regulation.


 * The articles FCC Open Internet Order 2010, Comcast Corp. v. FCC, and Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014) explain this background far better than the general Net Neutrality in the United States article, and this gives a good history. Claiming "there were no violations of net neutrality prior to 2015" is just plain wrong. Companies violated net neutrality rules and were fined by the FCC. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You make a compelling argument, and have convinced me that I should change my claim from "before 2015" to "before 2010". but I am having trouble reconciling your claim "There were regulations enforcing some type of net neutrality for most of the period between 2005 and 2015" with the source you cited, which says "Providers operated under the threat of regulation for several years until late 2010, when the FCC adopted open Internet rules" Prior to 2010, were there regulations, or was there a threat of regulations? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wired source gives some more detail on that era. This Madison River Communications case is an example from early 2005 of a company being fined for violating principles of net neutrality (it was a phone company and DSL provider that blocked internet traffic related to voice-over-IP services - cnet). I'm not sure if there were explicit regulations, but the FCC took actions like this a number of times to defend net neutrality, claiming to act under the authority of the 1934 Communications Act. In 2010 they lost a lawsuit that resulted from one of those enforcement actions, and then issued new regulations in an attempt to provide a better basis for enforcing net neutrality. I think that's what the ap factcheck is referring to when they say "threat of regulation" until 2010. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In response to Guy Macon stating "The problem is that you are using a definition of :net neutrality" that directly contradicts the definition in the lead of the article" I have responded to this in detail on the talk page of the article in question. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

inviting editors to help improve a new essay
I've written a new essay at Complaints about bias, and I welcome any help with improving it from editors here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  21:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A question of fairness.
There is a suspiciously obsessive amount of information on Chris Langham's criminal history amounting to a witch hunt. There is an over-emphasis on accusations (never proven) of paedophila and such attention to detail of this matter that I wonder what the motives are of the contributor. Wikipedia is not a revenge tool. And contacting me directly to censure me is not in the spirit of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notmrsgrundy (talk • contribs) 12:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Langham was convicted of possessing child pornography and spent six months in prison. Yes, that's not the same as being a paedophile, and that word is only used three times, all appropriately. The child porn stuff is extensive, but is all well-cited, unlike the career section which only has two cites. Perhaps a solution of sorts is to expand the career section with cited material. Edwardx (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Should it be in the lead, and the third sentence at that?Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I have to agree with the OP, this does look like a massive POV issue, the material on his arrest and conviction seems to take up most of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Langrial (Gujrat district)
This is a small town article. Lots of well-meaning locals, but fluff and nonsense and a complete lack of understanding of what we do and how we do it. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Have seen a lot worse. Have trimmed it somewhat. Edwardx (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Tying Trump to Moore by excluding information
Roy Moore is an extremely unpopular political figure who recently lost an election in Alabama. Naturally, Democrats would like to tie President Trump to Moore (an accused child molester) as closely as possible. That's to be expected, of course, but our BLP is improperly joining in that effort.

In particular, the Roy Moore lead says, "President Donald Trump endorsed Moore a week before the election". That's true, but Trump also previously opposed Moore in the GOP primary, by supporting Moore’s opponent Luther Strange. Nowhere in the Roy Moore lead (or in the entire BLP) is there any hint that Trump ever supported Strange over Moore, because this information has been assiduously deleted every time anyone tried to mention it.

At the article’s talk page, User:MrX has insisted that Trump never opposed Moore, and insists that he will never acknowledge that Trump lost in his effort to get Luther Strange elected. This strikes me as POV-pushing.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump's support of Strange in the primary belongs somewhere in the article. It doesn't belong in the lede. The same is not true for Trump's endorsement of Moore - it belongs in both. This is both because the general election is far more important than the primary and because this difference in importance is reflected in coverage by reliable sources.  Volunteer Marek   23:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if the Roy Moore lead were brief, but it is immense and includes material that received vastly less coverage in reliable sources than the involvement of the U.S. President in the primary battle. Also, we're talking about including a mere eight words to provide context.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead is a little too long (is it so important that he served as an MP?) but not egregiously so. It's a big article so it's expected that it would have a big lead. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So eight more words would not make much difference in the lead size.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am trying to eat sensibly during the holidays, so please do not put words in my mouth. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump never "opposed" Roy Moore, so we cannot say that in the lead or anywhere else. After Luther Strange lost the primary, Trump wrote "Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy, WIN in Dec!"- MrX 23:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the wording "having previously opposed Moore during the primary" isn't quite right, because I don't recall Trump ever saying a single bad thing about Moore. Instead I'd add "having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary". The distinction may be narrow, but I think it's supported by the sources, who tend not to use the term "opposed". I do think this information is worth including in the lead, since it's part of the story of this election and was covered heavily by reliable sources discussing Moore both during the election and afterwards. It's just a small addition but adds some context that's important, and so much of the article is given to the 2017 election that I think this should be considered giving due weight in the lead to the topics covered in the article. Or at least it would be, but I see there's not a single mention of the fact that Trump endorsed Luther Strange in the entire article, which seems very odd. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is important. Supporting one opponent in a political race can't be taken to assume they oppose the other, without that being explicit language. --M asem (t) 00:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the Associated Press via ABC News, “Virtually the entire Republican establishment — including President Donald Trump — opposed Moore's primary bid in September.” When a politician supports and endorses a person in a campaign, that almost always means the politician opposes everyone else in the campaign.  I've never heard of a politician endorsing two people in the same campaign.  That being said, the lead would be greatly improved by inserting "having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary".  But I would prefer adding "having previously opposed Moore during the Republican primary".&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a bit more complicated than that. Even while endorsing Strange, Trump telegraphed ambivalence, which some interpreted as hedging in favor of Moore. bd2412  T 00:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Who interpreted it as hedging in favor of Moore? According to that article you cite, Trump said, "Roy has a very good chance of not winning in the general election. It's all about the general."  He was urging people to support Strange instead of Moore.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The last line of the article says, "'Roy's going to have a hard time winning. But I will be backing him if he wins. I will be backing him, OK? I'll tell you that,' Trump hedged". Saying that you'll support the other guy if he wins the primary is not particularly ardent opposition. bd2412  T 04:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:BD2412, thanks for pointing that out. I will reciprocate by pointing out that during the GOP presidential debates every candidate pledged to support the nominee, which is standard, and does not mean that none of them opposed each other during the primaries.  In any event, three editors in this section have said they’re fine with inserting “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary” into the lead.  What about you?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that language would be absolutely correct to include. bd2412  T 04:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Endorsement of one candidate in an election cannot be assu!we to means the endorser opposed all others. It is quite possible the endorser is happy with all but recommends the one they think is best qualified (particularly in a partisan primary race). Yes, it is very often endorsement of one means they oppose the other, but that has to be made explicit and simply cannot be assumed. --M asem (t) 02:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Masem, political opposition is always relative. Many people who opposed Hillary Clinton relative to Bernie Sanders then supported Hillary Clinton relative to Jill Stein.  As between Strange and Moore, Trump supported Strange and urged people to vote against Moore, and that’s pretty much undisputed by reliable sources, AFAIK.  I’m not wedded to saying “Trump opposed Moore in the primary”, so please feel free to suggest alternative language, though I think “Trump opposed Moore in the primary” is true (not to mention supported by reliable sources like Associated Press and ABC News).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would need to see what Trump said exactly to propose the proper language. Trump could have want Strange over Moore, but didn't care as long as a Republican got in at the end. If that was the case, it is hard to say Trump was opposed to Moore, but only preferred Strange. --M asem (t) 03:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Masem, Trump urged people to vote against Moore because Trump thought Moore would probably lose in the general election. Trump said: “Roy has a very good chance of not winning in the general election. It's all about the general.”  I don’t really care how we phrase it, but the point is Moore overcame Trump’s backing of Strange.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's all he said, calling that "opposed" to Moore is too strong. Something like "Trump did not endorse Moore during his primary race against Strange, believing that Moore 'has a very good chance of not winning'." - -M asem (t) 03:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, User:Masem, but it would be more concise in the lead to say “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary". I and User:Red Rock Canyon have already said in this section that that would be fine.  What do you say?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as it's avoiding "Trump opposed Moore". --M asem (t) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the endorsement of Moore passed the WP:10YT for the lead. This was entertaining political theater as the special election was held standalone of the usual cycle, but I do not see how this will be a defining feature of Trump or Trump's presidency - at least not at the moment. It was in the news. Two years from now we will focus on the mid-terms which is a much-much bigger and significant thing regarding the balance f power.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can someone point me to a bio article on ANY other politician that mentions endorsements in the lead? If not... I would say that mentioning Trump’s endorsement in the lead of the Moore article is UNDUE.  Later in the body text, perhaps... but I seriously have to question whether the lead should get into this sort of detail. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly endorse any one of the following three outcomes, and oppose none of them: [1] Get Trump out of the lead, but mention all of his endorsements in the article body; or [2] put into the lead "having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary"; or [3] put into the lead "having previously opposed Moore during the Republican primary". Any one of them would be a big win for NPOV.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaving it the way it is would be a win for WP:NPOV. Bigly. Trump's support for Moore, a candidate who flaunted the law, wore cowboy suits in public, and was credibly accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct, was unprecedented and was significantly covered for weeks in a large number of reliable sources. That's why it belongs in the lead of Moore's bio. Trump's initial support for Strange perhaps belongs in the lead of Luther Strange, or not.- MrX 01:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead says, "During the Senate race, allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him...." Heaven forbid we should mention that the allegations were made after the primary was over; how could we sufficiently smear the GOP if we mentioned that?  And the fact that Moore was able to overcome a primary campaign waged against him by the President of the United States is less important than the irrelevant reason why Jeff Sessions vacated his seat?  I don't think so.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of those are valid points. There's another NPOV problem in the statement that "some Republicans" reversed their objections to Moore after Trump's endorsement, when in fact the Republican National Committee reversed course. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The National Republican Senatorial Committee did not reinstate support for Moore.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse the Republican National Committee with the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, I don’t confuse them.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On the one hand these multitudes of plausible-deniability-enabling sub-groups and spinoff groups of Republicans are a fig leaf that we don't need to waste our time on, but on the other hand, we should make a reasonable effort to use reasonably precise layman's terms to describe exactly which group endorsed whom. It's important to recognize that to the man in the street, the RNC and the RSC and all the other committees are part of the Republican brand, and what they do reflects on all Republicans. What Trump says is not literally what all Republicans want or agree with, but what he says unavoidably reflects on the Republican brand and on all Republicans, like it or not. But NPOV requires that we do try to be specific about who said what. Use precise language, as best you can.As a rule I would avoid saying in Wikipedia's voice that "X endorsed Y", and instead say "X said Y". So don't say "Bob endorsed Jane.". Say "Bob said Jane is the best candidate for the job" or say "Bob said vote for Jane". Be literal, if space allows, and use direct attribution and direct quotes if you can.Also, as a rule, I think Wikipedian's should realize that it's impossible to satisfy everyone's idea of what neutrality is. These groups have deliberately obfuscated their identity and their intentions, in order to please multiple constituencies. It isn't our fault if the way we describe it isn't 100% omniscient and fair. Anyone who can write an article that is about 80% fair deserves a lot of respect and possibly even one of the good barnstars we save for editors who really did something more than just showing up.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Something to remember... we are Takling about the Roy Moore bio article... not an article on Trump, or Trump’s presidency. The focus should be on Moore not Trump.
 * In other words, the question isn’t whether this all was defining for Trump, but whether it was defining for MOORE? If Trump’s endorsement had actually swayed voters (and Moore had either won or lost the election DUE TO Trump’s endorsement) it would be far more relevant to highlight. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Blueboar, as you know I wouldn’t object to removing Trump from the lead. However, there is a lot of useless info in this very long lead, such as the reason why Jeff Sessions decided to vacate his seat.  I hope you will not mind if I ask you this annoying question: if Trump stays in the lead, would it be okay with you if we insert the following to give a better idea of Trump’s role: “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary”?  The Trump angle is basically that Moore was able to overcome Trump in the primary, and Moore was beyond Trump’s ability to help in the general election; if one of these is in the lead, I think the other ought to be too, and just including the latter makes it seem like Trump was more devoted to Moore than he actually was.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This comment reads like a pushmi-pullyu: On one end you're saying the lead is too detailed, while on the other you want to add a detail. My preference would be that we trimmed the lead waaaaay back (to maybe 1/3 or so of its current length). It would be more readable, and it might have the benefit of decreasing these political arguments. But I doubt that would fly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope it flies.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a source to say that Moore overcame Trump's support of his opponent in the primary? Right now, there's no reason given at all as to why Moore won over Strange. Even the article on the special election is vague/absent of why Moore won over Strange, so without that sources, you can't say Moore overcame Trump's support of Strange, making that inclusion in the lede completely inappropriately. It is fine in the body to explain that in the main (non primary) election, Trump, who had initially endorsed Moore's opponent in the primary due to concerns Moore would not win the election, endorsed Moore in the main election. --M asem (t) 17:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest including in the lead any language about Moore overcoming Trump's support of Strange, though I can find sources for that if you would like. All I suggested to include in the lead is this: “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary" which you approved above.  Incidentally, according to the Washington Post, "With his victory, Moore became the first Republican Senate candidate since the 2014 cycle to overcome a full-scale attack during the primary from allies of Republican leadership and the U.S. Chamber. He also won despite a last-minute push by Trump for Strange that included a barrage of late tweets and a rally Friday in Alabama."&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Massem and Boris... The entire article needs extensive trimming but (even without that) the stuff about Trump definitely does not belong in the lede. Anythingyouwant... your amended language would be fine in the lower section discussing Moore’s failed Senate run... but even that little bit is too much for the lede.  I would go so far as to say that the lede should not mention anyone but Moore... mention others (Republicans or Democrats... supporters or opponents... endorsers or detractors) in the appropriate sections in the body of the text. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of us who have discussed content disputes on the article talk page (where it's supposed to happen) would disagree that that the article needs extensive trimming and would disagree that Trump's endorsement of Moore (after the sexual assault allegations came to light) does not belong in the lead.- MrX 18:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you’re willing to include in the lead when the sexual assault accusations came to light? Right now, the lead gives no clue because you kept that out of the lead.  Thus readers are now getting the impression that the Alabama GOP nominated someone who they knew had been accused of these things, which is false.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll discuss any miscellaneous proposal for improving the article on the article talk page, where those discussions belong. This noticeboard is for discussing NPOV issues that can't be resolved on the article talk page. You wanted to insert the false claim that Trump opposed Moore into the lead. We don't fix NPOV issues by adding false information to articles.- MrX 19:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are continuously and unabashedly misrepresenting facts. According to the Associated Press via ABC News, “Virtually the entire Republican establishment — including President Donald Trump — opposed Moore's primary bid in September.”  And even if you were correct, I have said over and over again that I can accept compromise language which you have refused.  Just like you have refused to say in the lead that the accusations were made public after the primary campaign.  Please stop POV-pushing.  If you won’t believe Associated Press and ABC News, then try the Washington Post, which reported that Moore “won despite a last-minute push by Trump for Strange that included a barrage of late tweets and a rally Friday in Alabama.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Mr. X and I rarely agree on much of anything, but this is one of those times. I think the lead (this is a lead, not a lede. There's a difference.) in the Roy Moore article has issues, but one of them is not including that a sitting president not only endorsed him, but actively campaigned for him. This is certainly more noteworthy than implication that he is cheating on the finances of a non-profit (why that unproven allegation is in the lead is a good question). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The finances thing does not belong in the lead because non-profit organizations don’t pay taxes and thus could not be paying insufficient taxes. There are many problems with this lead, but I thought it best to start with the biggest problem.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of anyone claiming that they paid insufficient taxes. Tax exempt organizations are required to file a Form 990 with the IRS, and the allegation is that they did not report all of Moore's pay. –dlthewave ☎ 04:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead says, "He is also the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit legal organization from which he collected more than $1 million over five years, though a far smaller amount was indicated on its tax filings.[21]" A casual reader will assume someone was trying to pay less taxes than they were supposed to.  As you say, no one has actually claimed that.  Therefore I agree with Niteshift36 who raised the question of why it's in the lead, and it seems somewhat misleading for the lead (pun intended). Anyway, I didn't raise the question here, and I don't intend to pursue it, because I'm trying to focus on why the entire primary campaign is mysteriously omitted from the lead while irrelevant details are included (like why Sessions decided to vacate his seat).  It was very unusual for a President to become deeply involved in a disputed primary, and then for the White-House backed candidate to lose; the last time was with Arlen Specter in 2010.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see, when I mentioned the issue, I said "cheating on the finances", nothing about paying too few taxes. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agreed with you to the extent that you said this: "why that unproven allegation is in the lead is a good question". And I also agree with you that our reasons are not exactly the same.  Cheers.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who have commented above, for their input. I have just made these two article edits that have both been discussed above, and both improve the neutrality of this BLP's lead. This is not meant to preclude further improvements, e.g. getting Trump out of the lead, or cutting the size of the lead. I slightly tweaked the second of those two edits here.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And User:MrX has predictably reverted Trump's stance in the primary campaign, and the lead now does not even suggest that there ever was a primary campaign. This is called deception.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Predicable, because you do not have consensus for adding that detail to the lead. You have one or two people sort of agreeing with you here, but several who don't. Your edit was poorly written and gave undue emphasis to a minor point. Feel free to start a proper RfC on the article talk page if you think you can gain consensus for your edit, but I think you better use a better argument than calling the status quo version "deception".- MrX 01:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Four editors here explicitly supported saying in the lead “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary”. So that's deception too.  Yes, I'll probably do an RFC, in time.  Your position that the entire primary was minor and not worth mentioning is absurd given the immense coverage of it in reliable sources, the very unusual failure of a President to secure victory for an incumbent in the primary, the paucity of words I have suggested to include, and the amount of truly irrelevant stuff in the lead (such as the reason Sessions vacated his seat).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * MrX beat me to the suggestion of an RfC. That's the obvious next step in a case like this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)\
 * Okay.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The RFC is here.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The part of the lede on the election is written in narrative form, and needs to be re-written to be in summary form. The first sentence in the paragraph about the election should be that he lost the election. That's not an NPOV issue, just an editing one. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 12:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Eyes needed on James Dobson
is a newish editor repeatedly adding factually incorrect material and outright puffery to James Dobson. There may be a COI. Additional eyes on the article would be appreciated.- MrX 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * All of the awards mentioned in the new material and the information about the radio broadcast are cited with outside sources. So to my knowledge, none of the claims are factually incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCWikiEdits (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't cite independent sources for many of them, and some of the awards are not even noteworthy. The Blaze is not a reliable source, especially for WP:BLPs. drjamesdobson.org is not a reliable source for the non-notable Defender of Life Award from the non-notable Justice Foundation. HSLDA is not a reliable source. Also, you put the incorrect founding date for FoF (three times) and you edit warred to force your version back into the article.- MrX 18:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Reclaim Australia
Would some editors come and join us at Reclaim Australia? There are just two of us there and I'm afraid we've reached an impasse. The basic topicz (though there's lots of other stuff going on as well) are (a) the relationship between RA an neo-nazism, and (b) whether other organisations should be included in the "see also" list. StAnselm (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lots out there...very easy source... good example is this academic book by professors . As for see also....just follow our policies.--Moxy (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC request: Bitcoin scalability problem
Hello, i proposed to remove the word "problem" from the articles name, as I think it creates an NPOV issue. Please feel free to comment at Talk:Bitcoin_scalability_problem. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fringe source in WWII bio article
I would appreciate third party input on the matter. A disagreement arose about a citation currently present in the Ernst Lindemann article; here's the diff.

The publication in question has been described as neo-Nazi in this discussion: User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2016.

The citations supports the subject's numerical position among all the other recipients, namely that he was 94th:

"Lindemann was the 94th recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in the Kriegsmarine.Range 1974, p. 116."

I consider the material to be trivial, while the source being used is highly questionable and unsuitable for a Featured Article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work. However, I'm unable to convince the other editor. The related discussion can be found here:


 * Talk:Ernst Lindemann.

I have notified the other editor here: diff.K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This individual has tried to label all books published by this house as Neo-Nazi, without offering a shred of evidence the authors are engaged in this kind thing. This latest round is symptomatic of his behaviour. His attacks on the German-related articles, specifically related to World War II, looks like a crusade. I am pleased that a score of other editors have helped rebuff his attempts to project his own views on to these articles. The fact that he will dispute such a small (but not trivial) detail is typical of his unhelpful and destructive "contributions". Dapi89 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's not turn this discussion into personal attacks, shall we? (To report editor behaviour issues, pls see: WP:ANI).


 * As it happens, some articles on German WWII personnel contain indiscriminate amounts of information; ps see this recent discussion: Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel, where sections of the article are described by another editor as meticulous investigations of insignificant details.


 * In the case of the Lindemann article, such intricate detail is cited to a highly problematic source. I consider this information to be superfluous (along with editor who has commented on Talk), and I'm seeking third party input on the matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I see a couple of questions here, one is sourcing, and one is inclusion. A quick glance seems to indicate that the source is a published book, presumably not a self-published book, and probably meets wp:rs criteria. More to the point is whether the statement of receipt the award is wp:sourcable. It looks like a pretty straightforward statement and I don't see it's veracity being contested.

The next question is whether to include it in the article. One might interpret some guidance on this from WP: NPOV but I'm thinking not. So then it comes down to editorial discretion. In that area it is a matter of opinion, and mine is that a sentence on receipt of an award like that is appropriate for an article on that person.  North8000  (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification -- the matter of the award presentation is cited to other sources. Range is used to cite that the subject was 94th such recipient in this branch of service. This is is not remarkable as he was neither the 1st nor 4th, for example. I clarified above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is another strand of a larger problem with Coffmann: a very narrow view of what is and isn't notable. Would he care to venture a guess, as to how many captains were awarded the KC for the command of a capital ship in battle? Dapi89 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How does this relate to the current discussion on the need for the article to include that the subject was 94th recipient? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Range, born 1955, is a former Bundeswehr officer turned journalist and well known for his far right political stand. His recent publications have been thrashed by historians for inaccuracy, bias and distortions of historical facts. Rainer Blasius alikened Range's "biographical dictionary" of former Wehrmacht officers in the Bundeswehr to the romancing attitude of Der Landser. I do not think that his very early work was much better.--Assayer (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

"Part of a larger crusade"
I consider the information on the Rudel article that user K.e.coffman has considered "trivial" to be actually at least as important, if not more so, than the subject's WWII service. So if a recipient of an award was 94th, so what? If he was 10007, so what. As for including whether someone was the 94th or the 93rd, can you tell me why this is NOT relevant? We note that a person graduated 286 in a class of 500, is that any less relevant? This is part of a larger "crusade", I suspect, to discredit a series of articles about military personnel in WWII in Germany. The service of Germans in their country's war is a fact. The award of medals is a fact. This are not alternative facts, regardless of who publishes the information. The "romancing" of WWII German military personnel may itself be questionable, but this does not change the facts about their service. auntieruth (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Since we are back to the topic of who may or may not be campaigning, I would appreciate if editor would clarify the exchange below, as it could be perceived as a coordinated action in support of promoting a MilHist article to Featured status:
 * "We need to deal with this. Coffman is disrupting what I thought was a resolved issue, this time at the Featured level. will you email me please?".
 * We who? What was the outcome of this discussion? And did it have any impact on the voting at Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)/archive1. Answers to these questions would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've notified the editor here: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The outcome was that one person got some sleep and played cricket with his kids, and I graded some papers. No one has clarified for me what the outcome of the previous discussion was. I'm still wondering about that and why you are so anxious to discredit these previously approved articles! auntieruth (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am interested in evidence as to the status of the publishing house and the author; I have not found any though this is sometimes difficult to track down with German publishing houses. I am troubled by a few things--User:Dapi89's accusation of a "crusade", a charge repeated by User:Auntieruth55, whose scare quotes do nothing to alleviate the lack of good faith. And I don't understand a few of the comments in this last section--"So if a recipient of an award was 94th, so what?" doesn't make a lot of sense after it was stated that the information is "at least as important" as the person's service. And that someone graduated 286 in a class of 500, I have never seen that noted in an article, though I grant that I don't MilHist much. Anyway, I've seen K.e.coffman's work, and I have never had a reason to doubt their good intentions; I would appreciate it if you all could drop the "crusade" language, since it only discredits the person using the term. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The 'so what' I believe is in reference to it being an uncontentious piece of information. The fact he is recipient of the award is not in doubt, Coffman however is saying the sourcing provided is not reliable to state the fact that he was the '94' recipient. Ultimately unless you are the first or last recipient of almost all awards, you are just a link in the chain of winners, so it really is not important if they were 94th, 95th, 105th etc. If the fact of the award is not disputed, I have not seen any evidence above the source is not reliable to say they were the 94th. If they are a right-wing publisher, then you can expect them to have done some research on right-wing figures. Its not beyond the realms of feasibility they might puff up subjects *where there is a benefit in doing so*. I cant see any reason it would be biased or romanticising to say "Subject X was the 94th recipient of award Y" over "Subject X was the recipient of award Y". Where is the motivation? If people are going to argue a source's political stance influences their reliability, you need to actually make a credible argument there is a *reason* for them to publish unreliable material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute your statement, User:Only in death--and at any rate, the rank is not the most important matter. You are right in that a right-wing outfit can be trusted to do their homework, but that same outfit can also be trusted, probably, to skew the facts whenever appropriate, as I have found in many Nazi and neo-Nazi accounts of German history. The basic statement "person X got a medal", sure, I suppose. But I'm really more interested in the evidence for the supposed POV than the medal. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Drmies should be aware there a quite a number of editors that feel that way. Dapi89 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to tell her that, Dapi; no doubt Drmies will tell you that COIN is not the place to address this topic. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why did you bring it up? Dapi89 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't, Dapi89, you did. I'm only saying that those matters are not for here. Now kindly drop the attempt to blackball your opponent. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The source (Range) is described above by editor Asssayer: Range, born 1955, is a former Bundeswehr officer turned journalist and well known for his far right political stand. His recent publications have been thrashed by historians for inaccuracy, bias and distortions of historical facts. Rainer Blasius alikened Range's "biographical dictionary" of former Wehrmacht officers in the Bundeswehr to the romancing attitude of Der Landser. I do not think that his very early work was much better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC) @ Drmies....nah, I didn't. Dapi89 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman, I read that article yesterday or the day before (I think it's linked from the German article on Range?), and it's not enough for me to make such a condemnation that the material would be unreliable, though it's clear that the tone of his writing is indeed ... fishy. A source to use with care, a source whose judgment calls should not be repeated in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On the one hand: That book by Range, published when he was only 19 years of age, is bad. It's biased to the extreme (Range uses peacock words to describe Lindemann in nearly every sentence: vorbildlich, besonnen, erfolgreich = exemplary, considerate, successful) and it does not contain much information anyway. I cannot imagine that a historian would refer to that work while writing about Lindemann. The same information, that he was the 94th recipient, could easily be referenced with Manfred Dörr (1996), Ritterkreuzträger der Überwasserstreitkräfte, vol. 2, already being used in the article. So, as was pointed out very early on, one question is sourcing, the other inclusion. The first could be resolved quickly, although I am not sure, if there isn't an interest to keep Range as a source anyway. The second touches upon WP:DUE. These kind of articles, i.e. articles dealing with Knight's Cross recipients, are stuffed with small details. Those details lend authenticity to a narrative which actually distracts from the violence of war. The article features a whole chapter on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, but skips over the fact that Lütjens and Lindemann, following Erich Raeder's order, were responsible for the hopeless final fight and thus for the death of most of their crew. (Holger Afflerbach: "Mit wehender Fahne untergehen". In: VfZ 49 (2001), p. 609.) Sure, that's the usual German military glory stuff of Wikipedia. But if "romancing" is to be critically discussed at some point, it has to include a discussion of how "facts" are selected and how they are presented. Such insight is completely missing with many of the MilHistProject.--Assayer (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My original statement in the thread was: the material [is] trivial, while the source being used is highly questionable and unsuitable for a Featured Article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work.
 * The larger question is, should Wikipedia promote articles that contain a highly selective set of facts and are largely sourced to, let's say, specialised literature (militaria / phaleristics / WP:QS and / or fringe sources, up to & including neo-Nazi publications)? For a related discussion, please see: Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel & Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel (with the same editors, actually). Or, for a more humorous take, see:
 * User:K.e.coffman#"His nose is long and straight"
 * User:K.e.coffman#Outstanding Achievements in Euphemismia
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, scrapping at the bottom of the barrel. Words like "exemplary, considerate, successful" does not make the source biased. They are observations.
 * And what does Coffmann mean by "selective set of facts"? Are there any "alternative facts"? What does this 'Trumpist' speak mean? Are there conflicting sources?
 * ::::I think it is obvious to any passing observer that these two individuals are intent on causing fights over the most trivial matters. K.e.Coffman seems to think that "anti-shipping" (maritime interdiction), "air raids", "sorties" and "missions" are also Nazi euphemisms. Now that is funny. Dapi89 (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading this thread was a headache. Everyone, please keep to the point. '94th' is only published in one book, that book is not a reliable source, and so '94' should not be included.  There is no reason to discuss triviality or notability of the fact, or predisposition of editors.  There is nothing in WP:RS that discusses pulling facts that are probably true from unreliable sources just because the unreliable source is unlikely to fabricate that particular point.  WP:RS is clear, the source must be reliable for the fact to be verifiable.  "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Does this source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy?  If not, strike the 94, and move on.  2604:6000:7B0E:8C00:B91F:4407:3AF6:3B15 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for keeping/deleting: Hope that helps to resolve this issue so this discussion can be closed. Atsme 📞📧 13:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The manner in which the information was presented made inclusion as 94th recipient misleading because there are 5 grades.
 * 2) Misleading trivia does not belong in a FA.
 * 3) Accurate information about the medal can be made available to our readers via wikilinks that provide the ranking, the number of recipients in each ranking and his position as 94th recipient for that particular rank of medal.

Is it ok to state that someone received a revelation?
I've been having a discussion at Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories about whether we can say that Joseph Smith received the text of the Book of Mormon. Neither of those articles use that language. Part of the response to me was to say that "We don't say so-and-so said he received a revelation". 1886 Revelation says "is the text of a revelation said to have been received". But I searched for "received a revelation" and find that a lot of our articles actually do use that phrase unqualified (while others qualify it). Doug Weller talk 19:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is OK to say it is claimed, but not to use language that implies it is true.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, a reliably sourced claim can be presented as a reliably sourced claim. bd2412  T 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

We need a question whose answers provide concrete community consensus. Maybe it should be posed as two possible phrasings between which respondents can choose. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "received a revelation" does not preclude self reception nor other possibilities.Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the point I was trying to make on the talkpage. Maybe poorly, I don't know. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but not (I would argue) in this context. Which is clearly "divine revelation".21:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Only if we state in Wiki's voice it was divine. "received a revelation" is perfectly NPOV, does not take a position, and is concise. As long as we do not add divine, or "from X", etc. it is the shortest way to phrase this.Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I think in the context you are using it is is "had a relation", received implies it arrived from outside. Perhaps you can give a couple of examples of where "received a revelation" is not used as a "euphemism" for divine revelation?Slatersteven (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * eg . Self reception is possible.Icewhiz (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly I cannot view it, could you provide the quote?Slatersteven (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not some unusual text refers to an individual having "received a revelation" from himself, the phrase is inappropriately ambiguous when used without qualification in an encyclopedia article. Rare ambiguous uses are not an excuse for bad writing. bd2412  T 03:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be pretty easy just to say "according to Mormon tradition Smith received a revelation of..." or similar words? Or am I overlooking something that makes it more complicated? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need for the detail about whether or not a revelation was involved—that would be UNDUE for this article which is focused on evidence-based theories. The current wording 06:08, 23 December 2017 is good as it simply says that the Book of Mormon states certain things. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as it appears this moment the text is fine. Which actually makes me even more confused as to what this is all about. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with. Whether or not Joseph Smith's retelling/translation of the Book of Mormon was a bona fide act of God should not be relevant to the encyclopedia's contents, especially in an article not directly related to religion. Describing it as a Mormon tradition is the correct option here. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I actually brought it here after finding it used elsewhere and I believe some of the articles in that search need a qualification for the phrase. Do others agree? Doug Weller  talk 08:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with this one - "At the headquarters of the Latter Day Saint in Kirtland, Ohio, Joseph Smith received a revelation from God, calling for an expedition to be raised in Kirtland, which would then march to Missouri and "redeem Zion." - as "from god" is in wiki's voice. Most of the others have claimed, said, according, etc. or are unspecified. I don't see a problem with "received a revelation" when we don't specify from whom it was allegedly received from. Note that some (or in some cases - all) of the underlying sources we're relying on may (particularly in arcane religious subjects which might only be covered by religiously oriented texts) use "received a revelation" without any qualification - redacting God/divine would OK, but adding "according to, claim, said" could be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH if we do not have a source using this language.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would rather it was changed to "had a revelation" as both less imprecise (in terms of context) and a more common usage when discussion "internal revelation".Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I greatly prefer "had a revelation". That states a fact in reasonably objective terms. It is appropriate both to books of religion and to mathematical and scientific discoveries such as quaternions and Kekulé's dream. "Received a revelation" implies reception, which implies transmission, which implies an external source. It has effectively the same meaning as "was given a revelation". IMO expressions like those last should be avoided unless they are quotes from a citation. Narky Blert (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I point out in Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories, in the "Regarding Claims from Mormon archaeology" section, the most scholarly work to date on Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling (2005), writes in such a way as to assume that the experiences of the subject are as they are claimed. Ie: Just as Muhammed calls his experiences revelations, and the texts discussing them do the same, so do scholarly works on Smith. The author of that work, Richard Bushman, points out in the introduction that he is actually following the pattern of a recent Mohammed biography in doing so. So I think the greatest shorthand that communicates how the SUBJECT understands the experience, without getting into the way the audience or the author reads it (No need to get into, "So and so did such and such but people believe this and I think that," etc.) is the best way to handle writing about any religious figure, be it Mohammed, Ghandi, Luthor, Joan of Arc, The Maccabees, or Smith. Playerpage (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Both "had a revelation" and "received a revelation" are unacceptable as statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. It has not been established as a fact in the case of Joseph Smith that any revealing actually happened.

Dictionary definition of revelation 1 a : an act of revealing or communicating divine truth 1 b : something that is revealed by God to humans 2 a : an act of revealing to view or making known 2 b : something that is revealed; especially : an enlightening or astonishing disclosure ("shocking revelations") 2 c : a pleasant often enlightening surprise ("her talent was a revelation") 3 capitalized : an apocalyptic writing addressed to early Christians of Asia Minor and included as a book in the New Testament — called also Apocalypse

Even if you use definitions 2a and 2b, it still requires some external person, event, etc. to do the revealing. An epiphany is not a revelation. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * We're not in business of endorsing (or, for that matter, rejecting) revelations. Unlike facts that can be known, it cannot be objectively known that X had a revelation. E.g. for most Christians Smith is from Satan (or merely deluded) and they would therefore deny that he had divine revelations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Later comment: I meant rejecting out of hand, but not merely stating "failed prophecy". Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

We can say something like "according to Mormon beliefs, Joseph smith had a revelation that..." without stating the belief as fact in Wiki voice. It's been moved to a Religious Claims section, which separates it from scholarly theories. –dlthewave ☎ 20:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * We can't say he received a revelation because we don't know. If we did know then we would all be Mormons.  Note that while some reliable sources may say he received a revelation, it is implied that it was what he claimed and his followers believed.  That's because it is tedious to repeated a qualification in every single sentence.  TFD (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The points in this discussion were a bit difficult to follow. Am I missing something or is it clear that we cannot state that factually someone had/received a revelation? As far as I know there is no reliable source for any such statement. Attribute the claim. It could be attributed at the beginning of a long passage, for example only once at the beginning of a description of a story, but it still should indicated as coming from some source, not as being a fact. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Suppression and gaslighting at Origins of Cold War page
Over the holiday, User:Volunteer Marek, with the support of User:Gravuritas, and User:My very best wishes, systematically removed relevant facts from the Origins of the Cold War article which cast the US and UK in a negative light. They have refused to allow any of those facts to be restored, even when they have been thoroughly Talked through and documented. On Christmas Day, Marek cut over 15,000 bytes of text, covering nearly a dozen different subjects, which he regarded as "misrepresenting sources." It isn't practical to go through all of them here, but here's a typical case: I was told that I could not support my claim that Operation Sunrise— involving the surrender of an SS general to the US in exchange for protection from the Nuremberg Trials—was part of the origins of the Cold War. On the Talk page I demonstrated that the sources said this, and they were from reputable historians. Indeed, the event was significant enough to be mentioned in Routledge's Encyclopedia of the Cold War -


 * “Operation Sunrise was also one of the early episodes of the Cold War, stoking Soviet fears that the Allies were signing a separate peace with Germany and ultimately leading to a tense exchange between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin.”

There was no acknowledgement when I'd made my case, and indeed quite a bit of gaslighting. This Talk page has essentially become a dead end if it interferes with the pro-American government position.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * First, from what you're describing here, it sounds more like your problem is with editor behavior - your complaint is about a conspiracy to "suppress" and "gaslight" you. Perhaps you should take those complaints to WP:AN/I?
 * On the issue of the text removed and the article's neutrality, from the talk page thread on that text removed, I can see that Volunteer Marek presented several examples of the text going far beyond what was said in the sources, or some sources being unreliable for the text based on them. Three other editors agreed that the text should be removed.
 * You challenged them on the issue of Karl Wolf (but none of the rest of the text) by showing more pages from the book you were using as a source. I can't see the whole book, but those pages do seem to confirm the several sentences written about him and Operation Sunsrise that had been removed. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For months now User:GPRamirez5 has been a difficult editor to work with--he routinely deletes fully sourced material with no explanation, and routinely distorts the sources he used. In this case, it was a minir episode. For a few weeks before WW2 ended Stalin was worried the US-UK were making a separate peace with Germany. Stalin discovered a few weeks later that there was no basis whatever for his fears.   The Soviets were falsely informed to the effect that the Americans were Negotiating a surrender behind their back--They demanded that a Soviet general be present for any surrender negotiations. FDR in the last days of his life strongly informed Moscow that it was mistaken.  All negotiations in Switzerland were ended by the U.S. in order to placate Moscow and meet its demands.  Let me quote a standard history that explains what happened: At Caserta [in Italy] on April 28-29 [1945], an unconditional surrender document was quickly drafted.  Generals Lemnitzer and Airey were present, as was Russian Major General A.P. Kislenko. Terms were dictated by the Allies. [ p 25] ....on May 2 at 4:00 a.m., Kesselring approved the surrender. At 2:00 p.m. Wehrmacht troops in Italy and the western areas of Austria began to lay down their arms. " [ p 27 source = "Operation Sunrise: America’s OSS, Swiss Intelligence, And The German Surrender 1945" by Stephen P. Halbrook (2006) at http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/sunrise.pdf and  cited at Operation Sunrise (World War II) ] There were no further complaints from Moscow since there misunderstandings had been cleared up, and their demands for a Russian general the involved had been accepted and implemented.  It appears to me that User:GPRamirez5 has ignored this and instead an encyclopedia source that only devotes a few sentences to the situation  and does not explain how it was resolved by April 1945.  Does this little episode represent an important contribution to the article on the origins of the Cold War?? --several years later did Stalin mis-remembered it??  No RS mentions any such effect. The dispute between the Soviets and the US in this case is one of dozens of minor episodes that irritated one side or the other– in this case it was firmly and finally resolved long before the Cold War cecame operational in 1947. Rjensen (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a plausible interpretation. Neither of the sources, present it as a critical incident leading to the Cold War, but rather as an early example that illustrates the mistrust within the Allies and the political machinations that dominated the Soviet-Western relationship later on. I guess the question then is this: out of all the incidents that led up to the Cold War, which are important enough to be included in the article? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The case of [Nazi General] Karl Wolff illustrates how political considerations that foreshadowed the coming of the Cold War began to dominate as the war ended and the Alliance crumbled…The importance of the Wolff case within…the political interests of the Western Allies…are particularly evident in the prominence of the members of the Sunrise group who protected him.


 * -Kerstin von Lingen, Allen Dulles, the OSS, and Nazi War Criminals (Cambridge University Press, 2013), page 281

The above quote is from one of my original sources cited. Being a recent monograph published by a university press, it is in fact the "standard work" on the subject, contrary to User:Rjensen's claim. What he claims is the standard work comes from the website of a lawyer, Stephen Halbrook, with no track record in Cold War history.

Also contrary to Rjensen, it can't be a "little" or "minor" episode when Roosevelt and Stalin were directly dragged into it (very peculiar logic). Their extensive correspondence is posted on Michigan State University's official Soviet history website.

Rjensen's argument actually illustrates what I'm referring to. The belittling of university level sources, and second-guessing of the peer-reviewed contents. Furthermore, Marek claimed that the source didn't connect Wolff and Sunrise to the origins of the Cold War, when in fact, it clearly does. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem as I see it. You bring statements that are not supported by sources. When others tell they are not supported by sources, you first deny it, then agree, but tell that the "90 percent of this article" are not on the subject (not true) and bring something entirely different . Obviously, other contributors do not agree with such "arguments". My very best wishes (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes, you seem to be telling me not to believe my own eyes:
 * Historians speculate that the Cold War in fact started with the negotiations between Wolff and Dulles on March 8, 1945, in Lucerne...The secret dealings between the American intelligence services and the SS in Switzerland made the Soviets paranoid about Dulles, and about clandestine contacts between Soviet operatives and the Americans, and served as a pretext for the onset of the Cold War.
 * -Prof. Istvan Rev, "An Absurdist Film That Touches on Wartime Reality" New York Times, 3/15/2010

Incidentally User:Red Rock Canyon, this was also one of my original sources.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is waste of time. If you have a disagreement about something (I have no idea what it actually is), post an RfC. If want to complain about other users, this is not a good idea because your own editing clearly falls under WP:TE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I read the pages you linked from the Kerstin von Lingen book, including that line you quoted. That source demonstrates that this was an event leading up to the Cold War, but it doesn't demonstrate that this event is important enough to put in the article, which seems to be the issue. The other editors seem to believe that it was a minor side note and shouldn't be in the article. Personally, I find that quote from the NY Times opinion piece a pretty convincing reason to mention this event in the article. I don't think the article could be used as a reliable source for factual claims, but Istvan Rev seems like an expert on the subject. I think you'd help your case by finding other sources that show that a significant number of historians think this event was an important in causing or contributing to the Cold War. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Red Rock Canyon, I've already marshaled both more sources than my challengers, and higher quality sources than my challengers. And even Rjensen's source says that “…Sunrise revealed tensions that would quickly culminate into the Cold War...”

By the extreme vetting with which we seem to be judging this, 99.9 percent of Wikipedia could be deleted right now.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not true. You still haven't addressed several instances of you misrepresenting sources at all. As for "99.9 percent of Wikipedia", if you see sources being misrepresented somewhere, feel free to correct it or bring it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Scientology
Moved from Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look at this edit:

The abstract to the citation is here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276907542_Scientology_Sect_Science_or_Scam

http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15685276-12341364

We have an article on Numen (journal).

Also interesting:

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your point, I am seeing nothing too untoward here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, Nonchalant77 is clearly a single-purpose editor, but what's the problem with that particular edit? Famous  dog   (c) 10:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This edit is certainly a bit of favorable cherry-picking. James R. Lewis (scholar) is being used precisely because he is known to be on the "uncritical" side of the study of scientology. I would not go as far as to say his ideas are "fringe", but they are clearly not the full story as to the WP:MAINSTREAM evaluation of the topic. The edit lacks a definite balance to have a paragraph that pushes only his perspective on this monumental instance in Scientology's history. This seems like it might be better suited for WP:NPOVN. jps (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also see: Scientology (James R. Lewis book) and Bad (Social) Science – The Book Scientology and James R Lewis vs 'Private Eye'. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the edit in question. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ted Bundy died as a born again Christian and went to heaven
This is about. Let me be clear: the above is not view, but it is the view of James Dobson, one of the most important leaders of the Christian right. According to WP:ASSERT, I did not render it as objective fact, but I have attributed it to the people who hold such opinion. I was reverted twice, by two astronomers, and I have invited them to the talk page to discuss, but there is only me speaking, see Talk:Ted Bundy. The NPOV problem is that views about someone's eternal destination will always be skewed and there is no way to tell who's right (theological orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder). There is no such requirement that the theological beliefs of the Christian right have to be Wikipedically neutral. All we have to do is attribute these views to the people who actually hold them. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is about Ted Bundy, a serial killer. The article is not about James Dobson or born-again Christians. Accordingly, the issue is not one of NPOV but WP:DUE. What Dobson maintains can be stated in his article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Johnuniq. That material does not add any verifiable information about Ted Bundy. At best it adds hearsay, and in some cases, hearsay of people speaking of matters of which they cannot possibly have certain knowledge. Take it to your blog. Jeh (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, WP:N and WP:V opinion does not guarantee inclusion. Well, I learned something new about Wikipedia today. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Firstly WP:N does not apply to content *within* articles. It explicitly says so. It has no bearing on if a factoid deserves mention in an article. Its entirely on 'Can this article exist'. Secondly WP:V just says that all information must be verifiable. Not that all verifiable information must be included in an article. For content within articles, WP:NPOV (WP:DUE) applies. Assuming you can reliably source it, a neutrally worded 'Bundy was a born-again Christian' would be acceptable for his biography. 'Bundy went to heaven' is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:VNOTSUFF.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the mantra written all over this place was "when there is no consensus, render all notable views from WP:SOURCES". I can't be blamed for believing it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it, where? Also I think there is pretty much a consensus here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The first guideline you link to applies specifically to determining when editors may use the term "most experts agree" or "consensus among experts" in article text to describe a consensus among academic experts in a field. It has no bearing on deciding whether it makes sense to include certain content in an article. I am fairly new as well, and I've found it helpful to read the policies and guidelines. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say that I challenge the NPOVN consensus, I have only explained my past actions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy." This page is not for justification of actions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying, but I have been away. I agree with Slatersteven's comments above. The paragraph regarding Bundy's supposed conversion to and "went to heaven" is definately WP:FRINGE and is not acceptable, nor is the manner in which the new paragraph is written. Both WP:DUE and non-neutral apply here. The Ted Bundy article received GA status as a result of efforts by DoctorJoeE and others. It would be a pity to put this status in doubt by inserting blatantly WP:FRINGE additions and I would strongly oppose this. David J Johnson (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What conceivable relevance to the Ted Bundy article could someone thinking he is going to heaven have? That's not about Ted Bundy it's about kooky Christians. Flat earthers think the earth is flat, should the earth article be riddled with statements about it? And that's not even a great example, flat earth theory at least relates to the topic of the earth. A Christian theologian is not an expert on the topic of Ted Bundy. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said, I had a misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. I consider the matter settled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology
An editor has attempted to insert a long treatise on how bad the administration of this school is.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=818925162] I've already been reverted once. This is textbook tendentious editing so I'd appreciate some eyeballs on the article, since I don't always come on English Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Section in WWII bio article
A disagreement has arisen over the inclusion of an “In popular culture” section in the Erich Hartmann article: Erich Hartmann#In popular culture. It was removed with the following rationale: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erich_Hartmann&type=revision&diff=818019765&oldid=817295411 it is only a couple reviews of a book. It is not enough to have "In popular culture" portion.]

I believe that the section meets the guidance at WP:MILPOP:
 * "In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable secondary source for the article topic.”

The section is well-cited and is within scope, I believe. Separately, it's relevant to the page, in part because most of the narrative in the article is based on the book in question, The Blond Knight of Germany.

The discussion on the talk page has stalled, so I would appreciate additional input on the matter. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Erich Hartmann.


 * Question: Should the section be kept in the article? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Reading through the article and the section "In popular culture", my sense is that you should keep it. Hartmann, a fighter pilot, became famous in the United States partly through a biography: "The Blond Knight of Germany." The section in question addresses the biography, and uses a few scholarly sources that appear (justifiably) critical. Since the book and reviews are all about Hartmann in popular culture, the effort to remove commentary on them comes across as politically motivated, if not hagiographic. -Darouet (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * My grandfather served in the RAAF during the Second World War. I do not appreciate the implication of your last comment. Kyle Delwood (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing an issue with it, Darouet got it covered with his comment and I agree with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The section "In popular culture" contains relevant information, verified by inline citations based on reliable sources. It is also in line with WP:NPOV. Consequently, I think we should keep it. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC needs additional input
See Here. Thank you. -- Jayron 32 19:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Designation of terrorism in Ukraine
I have the following problem and I will appreciate the feedback of the community. In Ukraine, there is a war which some sourced define as civil war, and others define as a war between Ukraine and Russia, which is not really important for this topic. What is important that there are currently two sides, the Ukrainian army and the armed forces of two breakaway republics, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. Ukraine officially designates these armed forces as "terrorists", and there are plenty reliable sources, in Ukrainian, English, and other languages, which just call them terrorists ("Today, terrorists shelled a town close to the ceasefire line, two civilians were killed". Of course the Ukrainian army also shells towns on the other side of the ceasefire line, and civilians also get killed, but they, for a good reason, do not designate themselves as terrorists. There is no terrorism in the common sense of this word, i.e. there are mo group or individuals which attempt to destabilize the territory of their enemy by specifically targeting civilians, no explosions in supermarkets and all this kind of things. Now, this is all fine, but some people tend to accept this neuro-linguistic programming seriously. There have been attempts to add "terrorism" (references to Ukrainian sources) in the infoboxes of the articles on the breakaway republics as "ideology", which were promptly reverted. Now, I see that this designation made its way to the articles such as List of terrorist incidents in December 2017 (search for "Donbass", there are three occurences). It definitely does not belong there - this is not terrorism, this is just a war which one of the sides designates as the terrorism activity. However, since it concerns plenty of articles, before mass-removal (which will likely cause resistance) I believe we need to discuss whether there are general ways of solving the problem - opening an RfC? Where exactly? What would be the scope of this Rfc? (I will now notify Wikiproject Ukraine, but I am mostly interested in opinions of uninvolved users). Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Ymblanter, I don't know if this helps, but there does exist two articles on government terrorism: (1) State-sponsored terrorism — about government supported terrorism, and (2) State Sponsors of Terrorism — about an official United States list of governments accused of (1).


 * Though, the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic could not qualify for (1) because they are not recognized states (see List of states with limited recognition). That article does not include it as a state even to be considered for recognition. It would seem, as according to their articles they are quasi-states. This matches the narrative that they are merely rebel groups and not states.


 * If this is the case, then they clearly are capable of terrorism like any rebel group that controls territory. They are not widely considered a terrorist organization, but there are incidences of terrorism committed by their members that should still be treated as such. To do otherwise would mischaracterize their authority to use violence (or lack thereof). Other users should help set up the RfC. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss! &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  21:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. The problem is that the incidents included in the lists are not terrorist attacks - this is usual ambush like shelling, smth the opposite side (the Ukrainian army) does as well, in roughly equal amount. To stretch it, if North Korea would ever recognize the US as a terrorist organization (which they are perfectly capable of doing) - would this make every shooting by the US army or police a terrorist attack? I guess not. --Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It might surprise you to know that I did not put in the time to check the a lot of these incidents out before I wrote my response. I probably should have checked but it is dang cold in New England and I was pressed for time. Regardless, now I see what you are talking about, Ymblanter.. A lot of these are just straight up skirmishes with the rebels and don't belong in these articles. Though, I found some actual incidents of terrorism reported to be by the Ukrainian Rebels, that includes: the 25 October 2017 Kiev Bombing, 26 August 2017 Dumbass Bombing, Two or more attacks in July 2017 (one by the Sparta Battalion), the failed 8 June 2017 US Embassy attack (suspected rebels) and the 29 June 2017 library attack purporably by the Kalmius Brigade,  the May Avdiivka 2017 Shelling, and both incidents of April 2017. That is all I can for incidents specifically caused by rebels or are suspected to be that should most likely stay in for their civilian focus. The others are either more grey (some civilians and service members), anarchists, allegedly caused by the Ukrainian government with no alternative, or like ones you previously mentioned. I hope that helps a bit more.&#8213; Matthew J. Long  -Talk-☖  03:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at all incidents, and I do not have a strong opinion. For example, I see that the May Avdiivka 2017 Shelling is clearly not a terrorist attack - civilians were killed as a result of shelling, and it is even unclear from which side the shells came - both sides point to each other, and none of the sides AFAIK ever specifically targeted civilians. I agree, however, that we need to inspect these incidents one by one and only leave those which are beyond any doubts related to terrorism (if any). My point was more broad. Imagine I go now and remove some incidents from the list. Most likely, I will get reverted with an edit summary smth like "vandalism, removal of information based on reliable sources". I can go to the talk page. Should I repeat the discussion we are now having here at every talk page, or we can refer to this discussion, or is it best to open an RfC and be done with it? It is not really acceptable that Wikipedia clearly supports one side of the conflict, even if this side has an international recognition and the other does not.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents is that the Ukrainian designation of terrorists (in the scope of the ATO - "anti terror operation") is close to worthless. We can say they have been designated as such by Ukraine. The rebels are saying similar, or even worse things, about Ukraine (e.g. a "punitive operation", fascists, Nazis). The views of both sides to this separatist conflict should be discounted. There isn't so much terrorism per se but rather guerrilla operations and bombardment/fire on civilian targets/areas (though to be fair - both sides are dug into such areas).Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Ukrainian designation clearly serves and internal politics - they can say they combat terrorism rather than that they are in war with Russia (which may have serious consequences, and now they can do basically whatever they want). I am fine with that, but we should not take the designations too seriously (indeed, we do not take the designations of the opposite side and do not write that the Ukrainian government is a Nazi regime). In the articles on both breakaway republics there is information that they are considered terrorist organizations by the Ukrainian government, nobody attempts to remove it from there, and IMO it is sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- not suitable for statements in Wiki voice. There may be instances where it would be appropriate to state that Ukrainian authorities designated such and such event as terrorism, but that's about it. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * K.e.coffman and Ymblanter make valid points. Outside of al Qaeda and IS there's no real consensus on any terrorist labeling. All the reservations of WP:PRIMARY apply.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. The entire Donbass was officially designated by Ukraine as an "Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone". But it is more important what 3rd party secondary RS tell. There are numerous non-Ukrainian scholarly RS that call DPR and LNR "terrorist organizations" and their actions "terrorism acts", such as here (just as a random example). I do not think we can dismiss these sources. One should keep in mind that actions against regular army can be regarded as terrorism acts, and the terrorism is not limited by a certain assortment of weapons. That can be shelling or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not the point. Definitely there are (or, rather, there were in 2014) actions which might have qualified as terrorist attacks. But I do not see how it can justify calling every of their action a terrorist attack, as it is routinely done in the lists I cite. I would generally agree that it there is a neutral non-involved source calling some act a terrorist attack we can call it a terrorist attack. However, Ukrainian sources are obviously neither neutral nor non-involved, they are pretty biased and should not be used by Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think DNR and LNR started to be frequently described as terrorist organizations in RS after shooting down the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Speaking about Ukrainian sources, such as that one, they mostly tell about cross-border shootings and shelling. There is no doubt these incidents had actually happen. But are they "terrorism incidents"? No doubts that a lot of civilians died in these incidents. Do we have any good 3rd party RS telling that cross-border shootings which kill civilians and have been conducted by organizations officially designated as "terrorist" by a major country should not be considered an act of terrorism? I doubt. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sure we can find Russian sources describing similar shelling by the Ukrainian army as terrorist attacks (and the army itself as a bunch of Nazis).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Btw the reference you provided does not mention "terrorism" (though there zillions of others, from the same source, which do).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are saying that an incident "X" should not be included in the lists unless this specific incident was explicitly defined in majority of non-partisan RS as a "terrorism" incident. Yes, I actually agree. There should be a consensus of sources to include something to a list. However, the lists are usually compiled on the basis of rather loose selection criteria, i.e. "This is a list of some of the terrorist, alleged terrorist or suspected terrorist incidents which took place in October 2017". The incident we are talking about arguably satisfy these criteria. Yes, the Ukrainian side alleged they were terrorist incidents. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is the case (which I am not yet sure, I would need to check the lists more carefully), this needs to be changed - there are unfortunately too many sides which allege that certain acts are terrorist attacks, whereas no neutral reliable sources call them such. Having all such events in the list is impractical (I am not sure we want to describe participation of the US in the Iraqi war as "terrorism", and I think there are sources describing it as such); making selection immediately breaks WP:NPOV. I am afraid keeping only the incidents described as terrorist attacks in independent neutral reliable sources is the only way forward. We have enough systemic bias already.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Deciding if something was/was not a terrorism incident is frequently controversial. See Definitions of terrorism. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But speaking about "Ukrainian sources" like ATO reports, you can not dismiss them as "unreliable" (there is fact-checking) or "advocacy" (those are simply reports by an official government agency). You can possibly call them "primary" (I am not sure), but such sources can be used. If there are better secondary RS that tell something different, then you can use that other sources instead of ATO reports. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of them are primary, but the problem is not only that they are primary. Again, let me give an example, There are plenty of Iranian sources, both primary and secondary, which call the US "the Great Satan" and which allege that the state of Israel does not exist. For the sake of the argument, let us only talk about English-language sources, which are plenty. Would it be appropriate to use these sources in the articles about the US writing smth like "the police of the Great Satan shot an African American man on 18 February"? Stretching it even further, would it be appropriate to add this act (shooting) to the article on satanism? I think the bright line here is to use the findings of fact, and not to repeat loaded definitions. In the case of Ukraine, the finding of fact are that somebody from the eastern side of the ceasefire line randomly shelled the city of Avdiivka, and five civilians died. The loaded definition was that it was a terrorist attack (and a similar attack from the west side of the line one day before and another one day after, which killed two civilians in the city of Horlivka, was an anti-terrorist operation). If we do something else, we just help the Ukrainian government propaganda. It is very nice for them to use the fourth popular website in the world, and even for free, but I guess this is not aligned with the Wikimedia mission.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally agree that "ATO" is mostly a full scale warfare. But you would need to change criteria for selection on these lists and have RS supporting that something should be included or should not be included. This is all what I mean. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest an RfC at the talk page of one of the lists, specifically on the scope?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because I recently submitted a very similar RfC about another list, and it seem to fail resulting in significant waste of time. But nothing prevents you or anyone else from doing this. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Per policy, Wikipedia recommends the use of peer reviewed third-party sources in difficult situations. Ideally, such third-party sources would in no way be connected to the conflict, impartial, and having no stake of any kind in its ultimate outcome. This is NOT easy. For example, Canadian soldiers are in Ukraine training Ukrainian soldiers in counter-sniper techniques. Canada pledged almost $700 million in assistance to Ukraine including for non-lethal military equipment: helmets, ballistic eyewear, protective vests, tents, sleeping bags, mobile field hospital and tactical medical kits, which is a form of direct involvement. Almost every country is involved in this conflict in some way. But the Canadian press does NOT use the word "terrorist" here, except when quoting the words of Ukrainians.   Poeticbent  talk  16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are such sources on the subject in general, and some of them do tell about terrorism by DPR and LNR . However, one can't find flawless secondary RS on each specific incident. Such incidents are sometimes covered only in ATO reports. In the absence of better sources, ATO reports can be used per our policy. If anyone doubts, a question can be posted on WP:RSNB, but I do not think it will be decided as an outright unreliable source. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ATO reports, particularly for 2014, are worse than science fiction reliability wise. Basurin's daily briefings or the "Colonel Cassad" blog are more reliable fact wise (and probably should not be used). The sole thing an ATO report can be used for is stating that the Ukranian government said something.Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not trust their numbers of casualties, because they did not report everything, but the incidents they reported did happen and were usually reported also in other sources. If not, and you know such examples, that would be a strong argument (somewhere at RSNB) that the source should not be used. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The number (and timing) of casulties is way off. As is their reporting of the situation of encircled units - e.g. Debaltseve or the troops along the pre war Russian border in summer 2014. ATO reports on the circumstances of such units are utterly unreliable (basically "our troops are fine, making deep bold moves into enemy turf" - even when any objective 3rd party sees they are encircled and/or in dire straits - ATO recognizing reality a bit after troops dissolve or remanants managed to retreat) as well as maps regarding Ukranian control of territory both during losses as well as grossly over optimistic representations during advances. It is basically akin to Soviet style propoganda (the pro-Russian sources are more in the Putin era information warfare concept - they actually tried to report truthully most of the time... So "fake news" would have a greater effect when needed - contrasted with the Soviet era information strategy of lying ("everything is great" most of the time)). I am doubtful this will pass any serious examination at RSN.Icewhiz (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is their website. I certainly agree that their coverage in 2014 was very poor. But it is currently widely used/cited by a large number of other news outlets, and not only Ukrainian ones. That other news outlets usually consider it a sufficiently reliable source (of course excluding RT and Sputnik). My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Used due to lack of better sourcing (stringers at the front are useful, not complete) - and ALWAYS attributed to the Ukranian spokeperson/source. I do not think anyone considered them to be even remotely reliable. Many outlets parroted their casulty figures and maps (attributed) for lack of better sources (the maps from 55 Savushkina Street affilated blogs were actually more reliable - but lacked official gravitas (no, BBC will not run an according to X blog when they have a UA army stmt) and Basurin's stmts also had gravitas/recognition issues). Any serious RS parroting them always did this with attribution.Icewhiz (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely agree: this source should be used only with appropriate attribution and not "in WP voice". My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like we have consensus here, I will try to implement it.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Seth Rich Murder Page
I have attempted to discuss issues with the Murder of Seth Rich Page in the open discussion on the bottom of this page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich).

I cannot show a diff as I am not allowed to edit the page.

The problem with the page is that it has not been written from a neutral point of view. Editors have stated that the article represents the news sources available, however, more impartial news articles exist (for example https://crimewatchdaily.com/2016/09/30/exclusive-murdered-dnc-staffers-family-friends-set-record-straight/) and the neutral point of view policy clearly states that either opposing points of view need to be represented or the most neutral sources. This article is about the conspiracy theorists and how much harm they've done since Seth Rich's murder, not Seth Rich's murder. The point of view of this article is not neutral, as can clearly be seen from the over references to conspiracy theory, and fake news. It can also be seen from attempts to mark it as a debunked conspiracy theory with nothing more than law enforcement saying the claims are unfounded and the fact checking web sites rating the conspiracy theory false due to law enforcement's statements. The language of the article does not reflect these actual statements. A neutral article shouldn't sound like it was wrote by a right-wing or left-wing politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:54C8:94EB:182D:8DF6 (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be because that is what it is most noted for. As to marking it as debunked, well as it is a crime and the police investigate crime if they say X then we have to accept that they have seen all the relevant evidence and have thus concluded there is nothing to prosecute on.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Transylvanian peasant revolt
I would highly appreciate all imputs on a discussion which started months ago. says, the article about the Transylvanian peasant revolt is unbalanced and disputes its neutrality, because it does not contain two sentences that he had suggested. One of the two sentences was based on a book published in the 1930s, the other one on a tertiary source. I think both sentences represent marginal (or rather fringe) theories, because they clearly contradict to all reliable sources cited in the article. I sought assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania more than a month ago, but no other editor has joined the discussion. The start of the discussion can be read here, and it was continued here. Thank you for your comments in advance. Borsoka (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is about more than "two sentences", as already mentioned by other editors, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transylvanian_peasant_revolt&diff=809990080&oldid=809988856 (Rgvis (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC))
 * , as the editor implicitly mentioned above, I would highly appreciate if you could comment my action. Borsoka (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment the above post does not clearly state what is disputed so that uninvolved editors can be of any help. So far as I can tell, this is the disputed edit: two sentences about the subservient position of Romanians, resulting from their Orthodox religion in a Catholic Kingdom, prior to the start of the peasant revolt in 1437. Is that correct? The sentences are sourced to three books:
 * East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500, U Wash Press 2013
 * A History of the Roumanians, Cambridge U Press 2015
 * Linguistic Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, Multilingual Matters 1998
 * My sense is that the obvious solution is to include the two sentences and provide attribution, e.g., "Historian Jean Sedlar writes that..." If this claim has been explicitly rejected by another historian, the disagreeing historian can be referenced too.
 * I hope that helps. -Darouet (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your above comment. Sincerely, I think all above books, which are not written by specialists, represent marginal views, but I understand that you suggested a possible compromise. Nevertheless, let me ask you, do you really think that Seton-Wattson's A History of the Roumanians, which was first published in 1934, should also be included? Its claim - ethnicity did matter in medieval Hungary - clearly contradicts to all recent reliable sources. Medieval Hungarian law did not distinguish, for instance, an ethnic Hungarian, Slovak or German nobleman from an ethnic Vlach noble, they enjoyed equal privileges independently of their ethnicity and religion. On the other hand, a Catholic Vlach knez (or chieftain/half-noble) was legally inferior to Orthodox Vlach nobles, and enjoyed a more favorable status than Orthodox or Catholic Vlach peasants. (I refer to all books cited in the article to substantiate my statements, but the following sources can also be read online: and .) Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally unless it is a section discussing the historical view of something, newer sources are preferred. If the current view is A, supported by multiple sources, and you have a historical view B which is contradictory, by a single source/very few sources, the historic view would not be included (again, unless it was in a section detailing the historical viewpoint, which is where it would be appropriate). A 1934 source that touches on religion and ethnicity is generally going to be superseded by newer research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize that I can't look into this more carefully at the moment, due to real-life obligations. I agree with Only in death that newer research will tend to supersede older research. That said, as I noted above, the material you're removing is sourced to three different books, two of which are published by prestigious universities, and two of which are recent. The old source you oppose has been republished by Cambridge University Press, which doesn't make it inviolable but... might make it relevant. One reason I'd suggest including the contested text with attribution, and including a counter-point with attribution, is that a reader motivated enough to read about the Transylvanian peasant revolt would probably be fascinated to learn about both sides of this academic debate. -Darouet (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your answer. Although two of the above books are tertiary sources, none of the two is dedicated to the subject of the article and one of the two does not mention a single year, so we cannot decide whether it is relevan for the article at all, I accept your approach as a compromise, as I mentioned above. Sorry, I do not fully understand your reference to Setton-Wattson's 1934 book and I would like to close the debate about the article. Do you say, that its quite unusual approach about ethnicity in medieval Hungary should be mentioned? Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think someone with more knowledge of the subject area than I can provide might be helpful to you. I wonder if, , , or would have ideas? -Darouet (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it is generally known that because of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics and known schism between them there was many cases of prosecution of heretics. In many cases Catholics Inquisition was involved and due to that and many other events specially in states where one religion was in minority (or state religion was different from majority} or in diocese that where neighborhoods of other religion some kind of persecution against other religion was often used. So in general it is quite possible that we have a case here of similar misconduct here and as I understand there is a source about it. In Hungary it is known fact that Louis I of Hungary was against Orthodox believers and church and that latter in many location in Hungary there was some kind of persecution. And in 1436 at time just before rebellion takes place in Hungary was present James of the Marches as inquisitor. It is clear from many sources that there is religion background in this rebellion among others possible causes so it is meaningful to mention other religions and peoples life's under such a circumstances. And if there is any opposition from other source about religion groups and conditions they lived it could and should be included but with note about disagreement between historians and a year of both sources. I think a year when historical work took place is important because we have in many cases in recent time that history is rewritten because political changes and politician will and not because new findings specially in eastern and southeastern Europe after 1990's with diminish of communism and creations of new states and nations never recorded before in history. Loesorion (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your above remarks. (1) Sorry, I do not understand your reference to the persecution of Orthodox believers "in many places" in Hungary, especially in the 15th century. There were large domains possessed by Orthodox magnates in the kingdom in this period. Could you refer to reliable sources that name places where Orthodox believers were persecuted in the 15th century? This could be an important piece of information. (2) Neither do I understand your reference to James of the Marches. I have always read that he was invited to persecute Hussite Hungarians, because Sigismund of Luxembourg feared that the Hussites wanted to rose up in Hungary. Please inform me about the reliable sources that make a connection between James of the Marches and the Orthodox Vlachs, because I would like to expand the article based on them. (3) I have never read books which state that the 1437 rebellion had a religious background: Catholic Hungarian and Orthodox Vlach commoners jointly fought against noblemen of diverse ethnic background. Yes, some scholars assume that Hussite (and not Orthodox) ideas may have influenced the rebels (this significant theory is clearly mentioned in the article). (4) If my understanding is correct you agree, that Setton-Wattson's A History of the Roumanians, which was first published in the 1930s, should not be cited in the article. Please ping me if I am wrong. Borsoka (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The Confessional Situation of Hungary until the beginning of the 14th Century + Catholic Pressure in Hungary in the 14th Century @ Testimonies on the ethno-confessional structure of medieval Transylvania and Hungary: (9th-14th centuries) - page 14/33 in pdf format (22 in the original publication - Transylvanian Review: source). (Rgvis (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC))
 * , could you refer to the pages which refer to persecution of Orthodox believers in Hungary in the 15th century and make a connection between the Transylvanian peasant revolt and the alleged persecutions of Vlachs for their Orthodox faith in the late 1360s (under Louis I)? (Please remember, Louis ordered the persecution of Vlachs because of their "disorderly behavior", not because of their Orthodox faith. In the same decree, he also prescribed that the oath taken by a Vlach knez who had been settled on royal land be equal to an oath taken by a Catholic nobleman.) Borsoka (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You have already had the answers in all references cited, even in the last one (and, there are many other). The "Background" section does not objectively reflect the general social context of the time, while the "Aftermath and assessment" section does not emphasize at all on one of the main consequences of the event, the exclusion of the Romanians (who had become "tolerated") from the social-politics life for the next centuries (as so many sources says). (Rgvis (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC))
 * , if my understanding is correct you could mention many reliable sources, but you coul not refer to pages in the same sources which mention the persecution of Orthodox believers in Hungary in the 15th century or make a connection between the Transylvanian peasant revolt and the alleged persecutions of Vlachs for their Orthodox faith in the late 1360s. Please remember, all statements in an article should be verified with an inline citation and we should add a page number. If we cannot refer to pages, we cannot use the cited source. Please remember that I already referred to a reliable source which states that the "Hungarian nation" included the full-fledged noblemen in the 15th century. Consequently, as the same source states, ethnic Magyar/Hungarian, German and Vlach noblemen were regarded Hungarians and enjoyed the same liberties, while ethnic Magyar/Hungarian, German and Vlach peasants were excluded from the "Hungarian nation" and they did not enjoy those privileges. I would be grateful if you could refer to academic sources which state that Orthodox Vlach noblemen did not enjoy the same privileges as their ethnic Hungarian peers and were excluded from the political life in Hungary/Transylvania in the 14-16th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Your understanding is not correct, because you obviously do not accept anything else, but your personal opinion. You are not interested at all in other documented references. Anyhow, be aware that Wikipedia articles must reflect all points of view (even if you like it or not). Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC))
 * , I would be grateful if you could refer to pages of reliable sources instead of making a guess about my intentions, because reliable sources can verify edits, but my intentions cannot. I still must assume that you are unable to refer to pages in reliable sources (1) which verify that Orthodox believers were persecuted in Hungary in the 15th century; or (2) which make a connection between the Transylvanian peasant revolt and the alleged persecutions of Vlachs for their Orthodox faith in the late 1360s; or (3) which state that Orthodox Vlach noblemen did not enjoy the same privileges as their ethnic Hungarian peers and were excluded from the political life in Hungary/Transylvania in the 14-16th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Leonard Lance
I removed text from Leonard Lance which stated "In January 2017, several thousand protesters, mostly women, marched to Lance's office in Westfield, New Jersey as part of the 2017 Women's March to protest GOP policies and advocate for women’s rights, human rights, LGBTQ, climate change, gun control, and other issues." I removed it because I believe it is WP:UNDUE. For one, the claim of "several thousand protesters" is attributed in the source to the event's organizer, so that's not exactly an impartial source. Second, it was the local version of the 2017 Women's March, not a protest specifically against Lance. In terms of what the two given sources say about Lance, one source says "..the crowd walked along North Avenue through Downtown Westfield to Congressman Leonard Lance's office at 425 North Ave. East..." and the other source lists six "sister marches", noting that for one of the marches "Marchers are scheduled to gather in front of the Lord & Taylor on North Avenue in Westfield and march about a half mile to the office of Rep. Leonard Lance." The text was reinserted after I removed it with my WP:UNDUE rationale, and I wanted to get some feedback here, thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this is a question about UNDUE, but it certainly is not relevant here to describe the views of Leonard Lance. Obviously his views are not shared by all, but that is a discussion about Gun Control in the United States and not about his views. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE issue at Kashmiris?
This is an off-shoot from an ongoing discussion at WP:RSN (where the OP asks us to focus purely on the reliability of a supporting source, without examining the context of why we are citing it in the first place). However, I think we need to discuss the context (ie the content) as well. So, I am asking about that side of the issue here...

The section in question includes the statement: However, some scholars and Kashmiri historians such as R.K. Parmu believe that the Kashmiri people have a Jewish origin, due to several similarities between Kashmiris and Israelites. This theory holds that Kashmiris descend from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel which settled in Kashmir after the dispersal of the Jews.

This strikes me as giving UNDUE weight to fringe opinions. The idea that ANY group of people are descended from the "lost tribes" is fairly fringe. My preference would be to simply ignore what R.K Parmu (and these other unnamed "scholars and historians") say about "lost tribes" and the origins of the Kashmiri people...  simply omit it as being UNDUE. Please share your thoughts on this. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems this, Theory of Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel, has some legs, someone even bothered recently to see if there was DNA evidence supporting this (they concluded that not). It could be in as a very short blurb - half a sentence. As is the origins has a whole slew of options.Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The theory of Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel, mentioned in two reliable sources cited in the article, is prominent enough to be included in the article. My concern is that the article does not mention that this is a minority view, refuted by most scholars, as it is clearly stated in both cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see two solutions to the problem from here. You can either source that the first is the majority view, or source that the other view is not backed up by DNA. If it should be included at all--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda
Daisaku Ikeda -- this page is really obviously biased. It's as if a devoted follower of his wrote it -- it doesn't mention any criticism aside from a journalist, and aside from that it's all devoted to praise of Ikeda. It cites a obscure scholar who's the head of a foundation founded by Ikeda and who's books are sold on Soka Gakkai websites as proof that "Ikeda's vision for the SGI has been described as a borderless Buddhist humanism that emphasizes free thinking and personal development based on respect for all life." . It also says, in the lead, that "At age 19, Ikeda began practicing Nichiren Buddhism and joined a youth group of the Soka Gakkai Buddhist association, which led to his lifelong work developing the global peace movement of SGI and founding dozens of institutions dedicated to fostering peace, culture and education" which is cited to his own website and the same obscure scholar.

I think this article should be radically rewritten to comply with NPOV. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you considered adding the criticizing views, removing the impartial tone yourself? You can also insert Template:Citation needed for the sources you find questionable. I think it is much to ask for this noticeboard to rewrite the article about a person they know very little about.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Woody Allen sexual-assault allegations
Woody Allen sexual assault allegations is a new article that currently has only nine people watching it. There is a disagreement on the talk page about which details to include and how to interpret UNDUE. More input would be very valuable, particularly as there are several issues not yet discussed that could be contentious. Could people put the article on their watchlists, please, even if you choose not to comment at the moment? SarahSV (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Nationalist dispute in RfC at Abkhazia
There is a time-wasting nationalist dispute going on in an RfC at Elbonia... I mean Talk:Abkhazia. It repeats an already properly closed 2016 RfC and failed 2017 RfC on the question of whether and where to include a large or small version of the disputed republic's flag, and follows an abortive attempt to POV-fork the article. At least one prominent figure in the disagreement hails from the region in question. The RfC is malformed, is not phrased as a simple neutral question, does not bother to link diffs, and does not ping editors who previously had an opinion. This is par for the course in Elbonia articles. This could use more eyes (and if I had my way maybe some topic bans). —DIYeditor (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * DIY... just a friendly comment... dismissing such debates by using the term "Elbonia" does nothing to resolve the issues you are raising, and makes it appear as if you have your own POV axe to grind. Please try to phrase things more neutrally. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A friendly response: That POV is a point of view on Wikipedia itself. Promoting the view that North Elbonia is or isn't a rogue insurgency is POV-pushing. Declaring that such behavior is a misuse of Wikipedia is not a misuse of Wikipedia. I don't see what's inappropriate about a slightly humorous and quite apt reference to a comic strip, or about finding the persistent bickering in these articles, not infrequently by people with apparent personal interest in the sovereignty disputes, to be a bit tedious. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it implies you view Abkhazia in the same light, a made up country.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By what logic? Referring to similarities with something fictitious implies that the referent is also fictitious? Sorry, no. I have zero opinion about the legitimacy of any of the sovereignty claims. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you shouldn’t try to use dismissive humor when talking about them. Doing so makes it appear to others as if you do have an opinion.
 * But enough about how you should have phrased things. Let’s focus on your concern:  Yes... nationalist aspirations often lead to POV editing.  From your comment, I gather that there was a previous RFC on the article in question (held a bit over a years ago) and you feel that it is too soon to reopen the discussion.  Is this a fair summary of your concern?Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an ongoing problem at Commonwealth of Independent States articles which is why they are on my watchlist. I think the most problematic part it that there is often at least one party involved who is from that very region and who predictably comes down on the side of their national(ist) interest. That's not good editing. I see a problem with both sides of this particular RfC, one for outcome shopping, the other for being persistently pro-Georgia and being from Georgia. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

How do we handle the unproven claims of alternative medicine? Pertaining to WP:VALID
I'm a fairly experienced editor and I'm familiar with the stricter standards that apply to pages in health/medicine categories. This is a question about how editors navigate providing enough context so that readers understand that claims of health benefits by many alternative medicine practitioners are unproven. It's important that we convey what those practitioners say it does, but also to make it clear that those are only unverified claims. Presently I'm focusing on Rolfing. The article states plainly in several places, especially in the Lede and in greater detail in a section called Effectiveness, that no health benefits have been proven for this method. A new source has been introduced that mentions claims of changes in movement and proprioception; these claims appear in enough other sources that it is perhaps worthy to note in the article. The same source also mentions claims of pain reduction but that is less emphasized. We have a specific source that details the science that shows that the link between biomechanics and pain is often not there (for specific health conditions), though it doesn't address the alignment ideas of Rolfing specifically. What is the best way to handle this and stay within WP:VALID? I have tried to consult other alt-med articles to see how this is handled but frankly many of them are rather sloppy. Thanks in advance. --Karinpower (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer's right there in WP:VALID: "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world". So, to deal with Rolfing's claim wrt "movement" and "proprioception" neutrally we'd need some decent mainstream sources (preferably WP:MEDRS) that discuss these topics. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We say what RS say about it and we attribute all claims. Thus "Bert Scrogins claimed that him licking your left nipple cures the dreaded Lurgy. The Royal society of I did not spend five years at medical school to be called Mr has said that it has seen no evidence for this. Dr Sir Emanuel Terrible said "this is just plan quackery.".Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Slatersteven. I understand from what you have written that if credible sources state it, it can be included. This is in accordance with my understanding. It seems to me to be appropriate and necessary to report what the sources say that proponents are claiming, regardless of whether there is scientific evidence to proof or disprove such claims. Alexbrn seems to interpret this differently. In Rolfing, there is a MEDRS source, Jones, that can be cited to discuss the claims of proponents. (This source is a meta-study that concluded that there is not sufficient evidence for any claims of medical benefit, and it is cited for this.) In fact many of the sources mention this; it seems to be a key aspect of the topic. The Neutral POV Noticeboard is the correct place to get some additional editors to weigh in on this matter, correct? --Karinpower (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The correct noticeboard for discussing WP:PSCI/WP:VALID in general is WP:FT/N, where Rolfing has already been aired a number of times. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope you will pardon me if I wait for the reply from some other editor, as you are the person that holds the opposing interpretation of this policy. Slatersteven's example was quite clear and quite different from your take.--Karinpower (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not credible, reliable (according to our polices). This then would boil down to a number of issues. Are the sources reliable, do they agree with what is being added, does this give too much weight to a minority viewpoint (scholastic, not editorial). Would you be so kind as to provide these sources?Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly. This is mentioned in many of the sources. I'll provide 3, two of which are meta-studies and the other is currently cited but inaccurately paraphrased.
 * The debated article text is the new addition: "Proponents of Rolfing claim it can be used to alleviate pain." This is a distortion of the cited source, Thompson, https://books.google.com/books?id=l8JzCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA67, who mentions pain in the context of other goals/claims: Thompson: “Proponents of Rolfing claim it improves performance, increases self-awareness and decreases pain, and improves body image.” Sidenote, this is not a very strong source but it's the one that Alexbrn chose; he added this sentence about pain when I pointed out that his recent addition about pain science did not quite connect to the current article text (as pain had not been mentioned as a claim). There are some separate problems with this addition which are being hashed out at Talk:Rolfing.
 * A more accurate-to-the-sources text would be: "Proponents of Rolfing claim it can be used to change movement patterns, increase proprioception and alleviate pain."
 * One strong sources is Jones, Tracey A. (2004). "Rolfing". Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America. 15 (4): 799–809, vi. doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2004.03.008. . (I notice that currently it is cited as "Additional Reading" but previously it was cited in the Effectiveness section as a meta-study that concluded that studies up to then were inadequate for proving medical benefit. I'm not sure when it was moved out the main article.) Excerpt: “The goal of Rolfing is to release the body from learned patterns of movement and tension that cause dysfunction and pain. In addition, the client learns about posture and alignment and becomes conscious about positioning of the body.... The goal is to create more efficient and functional patterns of movement.”
 * Some reliable sources do not directly mention pain relief as a claim, but use wording like "musculoskeletal problems" which would include both pain and movement. One of the meta-studies cited uses this description: Rolfing (also referred to as structural integration) is a system of hands-on manipulation and movement education that claims to organise the body in gravity. Rolfing is used in the management of a range of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal health problems. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/0E9129B3574FCA53CA257BF0001ACD11/$File/Natural%20Therapies%20Overview%20Report%20Final%20with%20copyright%2011%20March.pdf. p 134. I provide this to illustrate that the focus on pain is a bit reductionistic compared to what the sources are saying.
 * Thanks for being willing to take a look and weigh in on this matter.--Karinpower (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about Church of Satan POV and messy RfC at Talk:The Satanic Temple
There seems to be some obvious POV-pushing and meat puppetry going on at Talk:The Satanic Temple.

In the past, we've had people with declared connections to either TST or the Church of Satan editing the page. Having a WP:COI doesn't disqualify anyone from editing the page, obviously, but with the recent RfC it's starting to show signs of coordination.

As I started reading through the talk page and the issues people were raising, I found some of the zeal regarding whether it's a religion odd, given the sourcing. I noticed that several of the users also edit articles about the Church of Satan and saw several comments to the effect of the Church of Satan being a real religion or real Satanism or whatnot and the Satanic Temple is not.

So I started googling and found that, indeed, the Church of Satan seems to have some problems with TST (see also ). TST, in turn, looks to have started mocking the CoS.

Since this appears to be something along the lines of an official position for the CoS, and because I started noticing several SPAs in the thread above, I did a little more googling. I'm not going to out anyone, but it doesn't seem like users are trying to hide their connection to social media accounts which clearly advocate for the CoS.

I don't think there's anything actionable at this point (hence being here rather than ANI). But the matter of how to handle the way in which we characterize TST as a "religion" is tricky. IMO it's clear it won't involve simply omitting religion in the description nor calling it a religion without qualification, but how exactly to go about it is unclear and unlikely to resolve without additional voices. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your desire to keep the page Neutral and hope that you know my intentions are the same. I only began editing it when there were complaints that the page read like a press release and I tried to balance it out by adding additional cited information. I think one of the big issues is that there is confusion and accusations of positions that are unfounded. Satanism has existed for a long time before The Satanic Temple which wasn't founded until 2013. The Church Of Satan was founded in 1966 and has been the single public representative of the religion of Satanism for over 50 years, including it's founder Anton LaVey having written The Satanic Bible as well as several other books considered Satanic religious cannon. Those articles can be read for further background. I think that weighing CoS against TST is a false equivalency, and I think implying that any discussion of Satanism pre-dating TST is somehow anti-TST or pro-CoS is presumptive. Additionally TST has changed it's position several times in it's relatively short existence, I think I don't think that discussions of those changed with citations is inherently anti-TST. However there are some editor that seem to want only positive information about the position being taken today, and are calling anything else bias. Anyone who has been interested in Satanism going back further than 2013 is going to have a different take on it, which isn't inherently pro/anti anything. It's simply a result of longer experience with the topic.


 * Perhaps the larger wikipedia community can help with that, it would be wonderful. I don't think there is any disagreement on the facts that Satanism pre-existed TST, that of the two founders of TST, one of them (Jarry) claims to not have any prior knowledge of Satanism, and the other (Doug Mesner, aka Greaves) was actively involved in CoS activities for at least 10 years prior to founding TST, so clearly had knowledge of Satanism before TST. Additionally we know that TST originally claimed to have been founded by Neil Bricke (a vocal believer in Satanic Ritual Abuse) and that they originally claimed to be theistic - both claims which can be seen on internet archive of the TST website in 2013 and have been discussed in interviews, we also know that what TST claims today is "Satanism" is different that what "Satanism" has been defined as going back to 1966 so there's a disconnect there to some extent. I think those points are all well enough documented that I don't need to add each citation here but let me know if you need a reference for any of them. So, the question as far as I can tell is simply how to talk about TST in this larger context without people who seem to have a pro-TST bias complaining that discussion of these facts is anti-TST? Thank you User:Rhododendrites for your continued level headed approach to this. Seanbonner (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pssst. TST has never claimed to be "founded by Neil Blick (a vocal believer in Satanic Ritual Abuse)".  Greaves did once claim as a pun that "Neil Bricke" (a pseudonym) was the mysterious leader of TST, as he poked fun at the real Neil Brick, founder of "Stop Mind Control And Ritual Abuse Today" (SMART).  You appear to have fallen for the prank. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the Internet archive of the TST website page showing the claim, which was live for several months in 2013. That's not a one time pun. Greaves has stated repeatedly on Twitter that this claim was written before he was involved with the organization, which is another issue all together but the fact remains that it was on their website when it launched and for several months after that, so it was a claim regardless of how they try to down play it now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanbonner (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, your link is to a page using the pun-pseudonym name "Neil Bricke", a play on the name of the real "Neil Brick" (a critic and disparager of Satanism who would never found a satanic religion), as I said. If you wish to continue to believe it is an actual person long after the choice of name was "down-played" fully explained, I can't help you with that. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misunderstanding my comment Xenophrenic, I'm not claiming "Bricke" is a real person. I'm pointing to the fact that for months when it launched the TST website made a claim that they later changed, and that this is a documentable fact that plays into the history of TST and it's initial intentions, which are the kind of things that are discussed in the history sections of articles - yet some editors have taken to arguing that including historical facts is biased. This was not a one time pun or a single joke taken out of context, it was on their website for months when they were actively engaging in media stunts - this was the story they were pushing when they were trying to get media coverage initially. A story that they later changed. The after the fact justification is PR spin. From an organization that openly and actively engages in PR spin. My efforts on this article have been to try and identify the confirmable facts and separate those from the PR talking points as we don't want this article to be a promotional piece, but rather an accurate and neutral representation of facts. It's certainly true to that claiming to be a theistic religion founded by someone with a fake name which is a reference to someone who might be your most vocal critic doesn't cleanly paint the picture that have deeply held atheistic beliefs, but that isn't a reason to pretend it didn't happen. Seanbonner (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. I understood you perfectly. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you understand my point is that a statement was made on their website for several months then I'm not sure I understand your argument about what name was used or your false claim that it was only mentioned once as joke. Sounds like a deflection, but feel free to explain yourself better in reference to my point specifically. Seanbonner (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the RfC and related Talk page discussions you linked, Rhododendrites, and I can confirm what you observed: There is POV-pushing, meatpuppetry, potential COI issues, and "zealous" attempts by one faction to denigrate the other. To that, all I can say is welcome to the world of religion.  As is true with any significant flavor of religion, some branches will pre-date other branches, some will change over time, some diverge dramatically from their origins, - and each will inevitably criticize the other and exclaim, "you're not doing it right!"  You'll find this is true in the realms of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, ... and Satanism is no different (see Temple of Set, Satanic Reds, The Satanic Temple, Church of Satan, etc.).  Taking on the challenge of how to characterize religions such as The Satanic Temple is always interesting, and the lead sentence of our article on Religion should serve as a warning: There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.


 * Our only recourse is to adhere to Wikipedia's policy and convey what the reliable sources say. You'll need to cut past the feelings, opinions and original research from editors and simply go with the reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Beyond scholarly consensus there is also the matter of the religion tax break given out to only nominally religious organizations. I do however note that the first real reference source I see mentioned in the footnotes, the Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements in footnote 2, clearly indicates at least that it is a new religious movement and is presumably sufficient sourcing to use that term. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pssst. Temple of Set does not consider themselves Satanists, rather they are Setians which a separate theistic religion different from Satanism which they agree is atheistic, and specifically why they split from it. They object to being called Satanists. Seanbonner (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I misunderstood, you listed them first in your "see also" list of arguments about flavors of religions and how that is the same with Satanism. As ToS doesn't consider themselves Satanists I don't see any argument there. Seanbonner (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding here mainly to say thanks for your response/context,, and thanks for analyzing/jumping in. Noticeboard threads dealing with content can easily turn into redundant/parallel wall-of-text talk page threads that scare off previously uninvolved parties, so I'll leave it at that and cross my fingers that more people get involved. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Case in point - The "Chapters" section included information about Memberships and Chapters which are different things. I made a new section to clarify that with links to the official site showing the difference and had my edit immediately deleted, and was was then accused of POV pushing. [] Seanbonner (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I notice that what some might call problematic edits at least on the talk page seem to be ongoing at least in my eyes. Should such continue, sanctions of some sort might be a not-unrealistic option. John Carter (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree but am unsure of the appropriate way to report it, and suspect the report would have less force if it comes from me, who has been arguing with him a lot. — Demong talk 20:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  who have previously been involved in this matter. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)\
 * Thanks. The problem is that we have two extremely dedicated people, tangled in multiple edit wars, generating huge walls of text about multiple minor and major points, to the point that it's nearly impenetrable for anyone else to get involved. I scan the page every day or two as time allows, try to get a sense of the arguments, but by the time I've done so they've poured out another 10 paragraphs, 6 reverts, and another RfC. At this point, even though I have an opinion about which version is the "wrong version," it's hard to say any of them have been stable enough to objectively make that call. I'd welcome a temporary freeze on edits with either version, and a forum with word/post limits, but otherwise it's a tough situation. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In my defense, my comments are frequent, but usually short :)
 * Do you have an opinion about whether sanctions of some sort might be appropriate? — Demong talk 01:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The behavioral stuff -- the edit warring, WP:POVPUSH, WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, likely WP:CANVASSING/WP:MEAT, etc. -- is problematic, and should receive admin attention, but under it all there is still a valid content dispute that I think is resolvable and would like to see resolved. As far as I can tell, 90-95% of the disputes on that article are based upon or in some way related to the matter of whether TST is a religion or religious organization, whether it is a form of Satanism, the ways in which its members should be described relative to these terms, and the extent to which use of these terms should be qualified. At least that's my read. And that's something that would need to be resolved even if all of the behavioral issues disappeared. We do have multiple experienced Wikipedians that have come by the page and offered sometimes differing opinions. The question is how to have a discussion that will draw in people experienced with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines without requiring them to read a novella to get anywhere. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

And I guess an issue raised here is one which I thought worth pursuing at No original research/Noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And now there is a new RfC regarding the inclusion of a link to a disambiguation page. The fun never stops around here, people. John Carter (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Wing Bowl
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wing Bowl. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)