Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 69

Immigration to Sweden (effects on crime) and Sanandaji
I am trying to improve the controversial article of Immigration to Sweden and specifically the section crime. What is not disputed is that certain crimes are increasing, that immigrants are overrepresented or the reliability of Brå, but instead how to interpret the statistics. The section as several issues (eg it's too long 1500 words), but since this is NPOV lets focus on that part here. Currently the controversial Jerzy Sarnecki is given a monopoly with his hypothesis that immigration has not affected the level or type of crime, while others such as the Iran-Kurdish economist Tino Sanandaji (PhD University of Chicago and researcher at Stockholm School of Economics) has a different view. Politico Europe gave a summary of him in their "The 28 people who are shaping, shaking and stirring Europe List of 2018". The edit we are disputing for this discussion is this.

Sanandaji dedicate 5 pages in his book Massutmaning to counter Sarnecki and this misconception. For the purpose of this discussion and according to Fair Use and "Citaträtten", transcribed quotes of this so that you can temporary read the full argument using |Google Translate. User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning. The argument can be summarized as:
 * Even if crime is falling while the share of immigrants goes up, that does not prove that immigration does not affect crime. The crime among non-immigrants could be falling, while the crime among immigrants is increasing for a net zero effect. Thus the crime levels could still be lower without immigration.
 * Accounting for socioeconomic factors might explain why immigrants are overrepresented, but says nothing about how the level of immigrants effect the level of crime. Since immigration cause socioeconomic problems that can't be solved, and socioeconomic problems cause crime, immigration affect the level of crime. This is fact is used by others such as Skolverket in their studies. Accounting for things does not make them go away. You wouldn't say that eating a bag of potato chips is healthy if you account for fat, carbohydrates and salt. Eating that bag is still unhealthy.
 * It is questionable if socioeconomic factors can explain their over-representation as the study this is based on is flawed.

I don't argue that we should delete the mentioning of Sarnecki on the page, but rather that we complement the page according to NPOV with this view. First this was blocked on the premise that Massutmaning was not a reliable enough source for this statement. But this argument was dismissed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. The consensus was that the source it self was reliable for this statement, but including it was a question of NPOV. After this discussion, they have now moved the goalposts to be about NPOV and this is where we are today. They have argued that Sanandaji is a fringe view and that the journal where they let Sarnecki's mistakes through is a better source than Massutmaning. First I would like to state that according to WP:IAR, we can dismiss these reason if we know that it will improve the article. However there is no such rule and the view Sanandaji present is neither False balance nor WP:SPS. They also never raised these complains when I did the edits about Walloons and Germans in the history section

Sanandaji has been cited/used as an expert of Swedish immigration in at least 8 different countries in 5 different languages (a lot for Swedish domestic policy) based on major news papers User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning. The book has also strictly received positive reviews by Swedish media User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning and broke the financing record within Swedish publications. The only critics are Sarnecki and debunked statements from Hans Lööf. The summary from Politico Europe should be enough to state his expertise/relevance on the subject. To avoid people criticizing his sources he has strictly relied on independent studies and government reports and deliberately never researched the area himself. Researches such as Assar Lindbeck and Jan Ekberg has approved of his argumentation.

From the previous RS Noticeboard discussion
 * "As a reliability issue Tino's book has been covered, his opinion on the immigration question has been covered, he certainly qualifies as an expert on statistical methodology. And really the above section is quite neutrally worded. Even a layperson can see when you have an expert stating 'Its not because they are immigrants, its because they are poor' the obvious question 'So where are all the rich immigrants then?' appears. Which is why its a thorny issue in Sweden, given the crime statistics overwhelmingly show certain types of crime to be linked directly to 1st and 2nd generation immigrants". --Only in death does duty end
 * Yes, maybe I should have been more precise. He is an expert economist, but not an expert on immigration. And conflict-of-interest applies to books as well as papers. --Stephan Schulz
 * Well if we are being precise, neither is the criminology prof. What Tino takes exception to is the methodology involved in Sarnecki's conclusions. Sarnecki says statistics support argument A), Tino says the same statistics equally support argument B) which Sarnecki has disregarded without providing sufficient reason. Certainly Tino is more than qualified to opine on statistical methodology, and his MA is in Public Policy, which is certainly an immigration issue anyway.--Only in death does duty end

'''Can the crime section include views from other than Sarnecki? Given that 1. Sanandaji is referred to as an expert in various major news papers 2. that Massutmaning is famous in Sweden and 3. that Sarnecki is proven wrong, make his argument relevant to bring up in the crime section? '''--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The user above misrepresents the section in the Immigration to Sweden article, as well as past discussions about his proposed changes. First, Sarnecki is only explicitly mentioned twice in whole sub-section (sourced to 3 RS: FactCheck.Org, USA Today, and the Globe and Mail) and his study in the British Journal of Criminology is cited once, yet the user claims that Sarnecki has a "monopoly" on the section. Second, there are a number of scholarly publications and dozens of high-quality RS used in the article. Third, given that the subject (the relationship between immigration and crime in Sweden) has been covered extensively in RS and the fact that section already uses a large number of high-quality RS, there is no reason why we should introduce a self-published book. If Sanandaji's self-published book is to be mentioned, it should be one sentence at the end of the sub-section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What did we say about going around Wikipedia making false statements about the content of edits/artciles and other users? The entire section is either based on either based on Sarnecki 2013 which is cited three times or someone citing that study or a study from the same department at Stockholm University. Lets take the first 10 examples. 1. The 2013 study, 2. study from same department that and cites Sarnecki. 3. same incorrect argument "hese groups overwhelmingly come from socially and economically marginalised suburb" 4. Cites Sarnecki indirectly "djust for socio-economic factors, that disappears almost completely" 5. cites Sarnecki. 6. Same incorrect argument "to high levels of unemployment, poverty, exclusion, low language and other skills" 7. cites Sarnecki 8. deadlink 9. cites criminologist (i.e. sarnecki) 10. Cites Sarnecki 11. Cites Sarnecki 12. Cites Sarnecki. I could continue, but I think I have proven my point.
 * The second point is irrelevant for the discussion, but also false since it mostly cites the same group at the Stockholm University
 * The third point is where we don't agree and seek help from this noticeboard. I agree that it is too long, but it still misses important perspectives. I tried to shorten it by removing discussion about Trump's view which you have blocked . Sanandaji is not the only complaining about the incorrect method of adjusting for sociological factors, but is relevant source of this and a source that responds to Sarnecki directly. The consensus from the RS noticeboard was that Massutmaningen is a reliable source for this statement--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a self-published source by an academic who doesn't appear to have published any peer reviewed articles on crime, immigration, or statistical methodology, from what I can tell. The opinion might be worth mentioning, but it probably shouldn't be afforded the same weight as the view of a well-regarded expert. I'm especially dubious in this case because it seems to be countering a social-scientific conclusion by reference to bare assertions and speculation - e.g.: the study is flawed, immigrants cause unsolvable socio-economic problems - which is the sort of thing you can only get away with when you self-publish. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 19:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment! I just want to clarify what the argument is. He is not necessary arguing that immigration has caused crime, he is pointing out logical errors in Sarnecki's argument that it hasn't. Yet I don't think anyone seriously can suggest that poorly integrated low skilled immigration will into one of the most highly educated countries in the world with also the highest employment gap (immigrants vs natives) in world will not increase inequality in that country. He also gives an example of where Skolverket has regarded adjusting for socioeconomic factors as incorrect. Does this change your view? That Sarnecki is wrong in his argumentation is established, I would argue WP:IAR says that this says we should bring another perspective up. However since a published economic researcher with a PhD from one of the best universities in the world is more than qualified to comment on methodology and even though certain editors here doesn't think he is an expert, the various sources that claims that he is could be more relevant. Therefore we don't have to use WP:IAR and just WP:NPOV
 * He has also stated that "Däremot anser han att det kan vara önskvärt att genomföra studier med specifika frågeställningar, som likt den tyska studien, kopplar samman ursprung och brottslighet. Har brottsligheten ökat i Sverige på grund av invandringen? Det är en rimlig frågeställning och den typen av studie skulle man kunna göra även här. Men det finns en viss beröringsskräck vid ämnet, säger han." . So it is also not really clear that Sarnecki have the same view today.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't think it's a matter of whose argument we believe. It's a question of due weight. Sanandaji does seem to be a noted polemicist, but I don't see compelling evidence that he is comparable to Sarnecki when it comes to the issue of immigration and crime. You might be in a better position if, rather than citing Sanandaji's critique of Sarnecki, you simply briefly summarized a key point or two elsewhere in the article.
 * Admittedly, I'm using google translate here, but I don't think Sarnecki is actually positing that aggregate statistics alone disprove a connection between immigration and crime. Sanandaji seems to be knocking down a straw man, so I don't think the point is so compelling that we need to apply WP:IAR. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 00:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is actually quite a good idea. I need to stress again that Sarnecki is by no means an expert on immigration and crime. He has written one article which as we have established is full of flaws and does not claim what his debate post says. If you consult actual experts on immigration should as Skolverket they say:
 * When the purpose is to explain differences between pupils with Swedish and foreign background, one should take into account that the socioeconomic background differs between the groups - as the Swedish National Agency for Education is usually doing in its analyzes. 28 That pupils with a foreign background have lower school results are due in part to the fact that they have a lower socio-economic background than pupils with Swedish background. In this report, instead, the purpose is to calculate how many students with a foreign background as a group contributed to a given change in profit (in this case a decline), regardless of other background factors. Then it is not relevant to adjust the results for socioeconomic background. However, it is relevant to discuss whether any changes in background factors (eg socioeconomic background) can explain the results we arrive at. page 20
 * Same thing goes here. It is irrelevant to mention socioeconomic factors when we're discussing the impact of immigration on crime. Real multivariate studies also prove that there is no strong relationship between socioeconomic factors and crime. "There were no associations between childhood family income and subsequent violent criminality and substance misuse once we had adjusted for unobserved familial riskfactors."
 * There is no need for a strawman here. That is what he is saying. The headline is "Ökad invandring leder inte till ökat antal brott" "Increased immigration does not lead to an increased number of crime". Also "Om det vore så att brottslighetens omfattning i Sverige verkligen påverkades av antalet invandrare i landet så borde brottsligheten öka då andelen invandrare ökar. I Sverige har dock de flesta brottstyper inte ökat sedan början 1990-talet trots den kraftiga ökningen av invandrare." "If the level of crime was affected by the number of immigrants, the level of crime should increase when the immigrants' share of the population increase. However, in Sweden most types of crime has not increased since the 1990s, despite the increased number of immigrants." The later part is also no longer true as 2015 2016 was record years for murder and sexual crime etc.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The weight that should be assigned to opinions is based on their reception in reliable sources, which in this case would be academic articles on the connection between crime and immigration. In this case, an expert has chosen to publish his opinions outside the academic mainstream which usually suggests they have little support within it.  So they should be considered fringe - they have received a lot of popular support but little from experts.  We can mention them so long as we make that clear.  TFD (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no study of how immigration has affected the level crime. Sarnecki is using a newspaper to argue his case that the immigration policy has not resulted in increased level of crimes. He has one small study about of socioeconomic affect crime levels among immigrants which he base his argument on. This study is questionable as multivariate studies lead to very different results. The entire scientific community agrees that it is irrelevant to talk about socioeconomic factors when you are trying to understand the impact of immigration. Sarnecki now himself claim that there needs to be a proper study about the impact of immigration.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Last Jedi RfC
There is an RfC regarding Star Wars: The Last Jedi and how to write about the audience response in line with WP:NPOV. Editors are invited to review the proposed approaches. The RfC can be found here: Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Liberalism in Iran
An editor claim that there is POV pushing ans WP:Synthesis in the article Liberalism in Iran, A disccution took place but we can't reach consensus. I think that we need of other editors to resolve the problem, a third opinion is need. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ellen G. White has admitted guilt
This is about wherein the prophetess Ellen G. White confessed of having plagiarized various authors. There is a discussion of this topic at Talk:Ellen G. White. Or my edit has to stay, or, if it counts as WP:OR, the Ramik self-serving story has to go as factually untrue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's "I did this thing (and there's nothing wrong with that)" and then there's "I am guilty of this misdoing," and there's room inbetween the two. Where exactly her statement lies on that spectrum should be determined by secondary and tertiary sources, not editor opinion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are cited secondary sources which make the point that she has plagiarized. However, the Adventist response seems to imply that these sources would be blasphemous/heretical/apostate and therefore not an objective fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism is a 20th century issue. In the era when White lived and wrote, the 19th century, it was not the issue that it is today.  Ramik is (was?) a lawyer specializing in plagiarism law.  His expert opinion has weight in court such that no one today is taking the charge of plagiarism seriously, but those who have an ax to grind. The argument that White used sources other than from the "mouth of God" is thought to negate claims of her being a prophet. If she used other sources than from God, then obviously she is not real prophet and so there is no God.  If one doesn't believe that there is a God, then obviously there cannot be a prophet. and so any idea that detracts from someone possibly being a prophet is exclaimed.  I have no problem with the charge of plagiarism being a part of the article, so long the article takes the NPOV that some people believe that she is a prophet for this or that reason and that others believe that she is not a prophet for this or that reason.  It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to try to prove the truth of one position over another.  Ray and Numbers are cited as secondary sources, however, both are former SDA's with huge axes to grind. Ramik is a reliable secondary source. --DebbieEdwards (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim that she was/wasn't a prophet is a subjective belief, not something belonging to objective knowledge. So, this issue will never be objectively settled. So, I was not speaking about such subjective belief, I was speaking of objectively assessable facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Once again, the article should just reflect what secondary and tertiary sources say on the subject. No accusations about zealotry or heresy, no editor arguments, no editor interpretation.  If multiple sources say a variety of things, then the disagreement between them needs to be reflected.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What do you do when the existing secondary sources are by people with a vested interested in giving a negative report because they are directly involved in the conflict?


 * Remik, a Plagiarism law expert, a non-SDA (in fact he was a Roman Catholic), was hired by the SDA church to review the evidence and give his expert opinion regardless of the outcome. It is a good secondary source. The results were published: Ellen White's use of sources in the September 1981 Adventist Review. Quote:


 * "Ramik discovered that many of the books from which Mrs. White borrowed were not in fact copyrighted. But, he continued, even if they had been thus protected by law, her utilization of phraseology and even multiple paragraphs did not in law constitute copyright infringement, nor plagiarism. "If the issues had been court-tested between 1850 and 1915, Ellen G. White emphatically would not have been convicted of copyright infringement," conconcluded Ramik.


 * "This is the opinion of Vincent L. Ramik, senior partner of Diller, Ramik & Wight, Ltd., a lawyer who practices patent, trademark, and copyright law in Washington, D.C. Ramik, a Roman Catholic, spent more than 300 hours researching about 1,000 relevant cases in American legal history. He concluded his 27-page legal opinion* with an unequivocal declaration: "Based upon our review of the facts and legal precedents . . . Ellen White was not a plagiarist, and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy."  (The complete document may be obtained by sending a request, with $5.00, to the General Conference Legal Services Office, Dept. RD, Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. 20012.)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebbieEdwards (talk • contribs) 23:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The V.I.L.E. atheist bias theme. It is you who has an ax to grind: Numbers is a highly reputable academic, in fact he could be the only academic source on White's plagiarism cited in the article, self-serving views of Ramik (lawyer paid by the SDA) and Schwartz (professor paid by the SDA) aside. He was a devout Adventist who fell hard since he discovered he was deceived and sabotaged by his own church. Besides, historians work with methodological naturalism, it is part of their trade-craft: no God explanations allowed! Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Tranny
How should we define the word Tranny (slang) in the article?


 * The Cambridge Dictionary says the word is sometimes offensive,
 * Merriam-Webster calls it sometimes disparaging,
 * the Oxford Dictionary describes it as offensive, informal
 * Macmillan Dictionary describes it as informal
 * Longman Dictionary also calls it informal
 * Dictionary.com says it is a  a contemptuous term 
 * The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language considers the word as offensive slang

At the moment of writing, the term is described as a derogatory and offensive slang term in the Wikipedia-article, and uses the last two dictionary-definitions as a source. However, given the descriptions in the other five dictionaries, I believe this doesn’t give the complete consensus among the term. Thus, I wonder: can any expert in the POV-field shine a light on this? See also the Laci Green-article and the discussion over there, where I came aware of the Tranny (slang)-article. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I count two that do not say at all that it can be an insult.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Has anyone read the history section of the article? And why are we only paying attention to dictionaries and not the other sources given? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

RE: Laci Green: Green agreed with those who criticized her for using the word in 2012, and apologized for it. There was no dispute between Green and her critics over whether or not tranny is offensive. It was more to do with how women on YouTube can't cross anybody without being targeted with death threats, another issue entirely. This Wikipedia dispute is an effort to describe a controversy in a bio of Party A, on a point which Party B agrees with Party A. Apropos of nothing, a Wikipedia editor wants to insert the opinions of Party C, who wasn't involved with either A or B, to say that C thinks A and B are both wrong. We don't write BLPs in a way that sets them up for ambush and sniping by phantom critics: people who never criticized the the subject of the article, who may have never heard of the subject of the article, but whom Wikipedia editors have unearthed and brought into it for reasons of their own. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the definition at the top of the article is redundant. I think the words "derogatory and offensive" in the first line can be removed without softening the article or compromising clarity. Brad  v  18:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleting the words is equivalent to Wikipedia taking one side over another in a disagreement over what mainstream standards are. It's a mistake to act as if that would be taking a neutral position. The article describes two points of view: one that the word is acceptable, or neutral in tone, and the other that says it is offensive, meaning not neutral but rather expressing contempt and disparagement for trans people. One side consists almost entirely of drag queens age 40+ who are on television, and the other side consists of several dictionaries, the NYT style guide, GLAAD, and the Facebook community standards. Wikipedia's policy is to accept as fact the consensus of mainstream, modern authorities on question like whether the world is flat or round, or climate change is real or a fake conspiracy made up by Al Gore. It's obvious from the history described in the article that the status of this word has changed over time, and certain dictionaries haven't been updated recently, and some individuals don't wish to change with the times. Which is understandable, but that's not how Wikipedia works. If anything, we devote too much space to the minority view that tranny is not offensive, but at least it is clear to the reader why precisely the meaning of the word has changed, and exactly when that happened. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Without the words "derogatory and offensive", the lede would read:
 * Tranny (or trannie) is a slang term for a transgender, transfeminine, transsexual, transvestite, or cross-dressing person. During the early 2010s, there was confusion and debate over whether the term was a pejorative, or was still considered acceptable, or even a reappropriated term of unity and pride. By 2017, the word was banned by several major media stylebooks and considered hate speech by Facebook.
 * You would read that as picking one side over another? I think that meets the very definition of neutral point of view. Brad  v  20:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Removing those words would violate the third point at WP:WikiVoice, "Avoid stating facts as opinions." It would violate WP:UNDUE by treating a minority point of view as the consensus, creating a false equivalence between the overwhelming weight of highly respected, mainstream authorities that represent a broad community standard, and a relatively miniscule and atypical group. They can't even be called a representative cross section of all trans people; they are only celebrity drag queens above a certain age (who deserve respect, sure).--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I pointed out with the dictionaries that there is no "overwhelming weight of highly respected, mainstream authorities" to state as a fact that the word tranny is offensive. Unless you think that the majority of dictionaries is made by drag queens age 40+ who are on television, your point is invalid. WP:V states that: "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." The dictionaries I mentioned above are reliable sources. They disagree on the topic. Therefore, we should give each side its due weight. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

And concerning Laci Green: I already said there WP:NPOV tells us that a neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone. Thus, calling the disputed term "pejorative" and "offensive" is not impartial and should be removed. Moreover, as WP:PUBLICFIGURE says: BLPs should simply document what these sources say. In the Daily Dot-articles, which are the sources for this affair, the terms "pejorative" and "offensive" cannot be found. Thus, the only choice we have is to avoid use of those words and stick to the facts. And since WP:BLPSOURCE dictates that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion (emphasis not mine) we should remove the terms asap.Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The word is derogatory and offensive. If we have a Wikipedia article about it, then our article needs to say as much. If we fail to note the term's derogatory connotation, then we're being non-neutral; we're editorially suppressing an important aspect of the subject. MastCell Talk 20:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not contentious. There is solid agreement among English speakers today that the word is offensive. A non-fringe minority disagrees, and I think Kate Bornstein's reasoning is sound and she makes a compelling argument. But that argument didn't take. It's a fabrication to imply that the meaning of 'tranny' is controversial with regards to Green. Both Green and her critics in this instance agree that she should not have used the word. Why don't we just change the bio to say that she was criticized by trans activists who said the word is offensive, and Green agreed that it is offensive, and apologized. The Laci Green bio isn't about the topic of Tranny (slang), so we don't need to obsess over it. The only reason this incident is mentioned is the harassment and death threats she received from unidentified trolls. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't "want to obsess over it;" I want a good article. Please, tell me why WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV can be dismissed in the Green-article because someone on typepad.com says something? Let me quote WP:PUBLICFIGURE:

Public figures

 * In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple'' reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
 * * Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
 * This is exactly what is the case here. And, as no reliable source in the article that links to the incident says it was meant to be pejorative or offensive, those words should stay out. I fail to grasp why it so important to keep on insisting she made an "offensive comment", while she states that she, at the time she used it, "had not the slightest inkling of how the word is used to dehumanize nor its place in the cycle of violence against transfolk." Maybe we should just insert her apology, as well as the "“Hi Laci. Why do you use the word ‘tranny’ in your video about Haters from 2009? … You really shouldn’t be using that word as a cis girl and it’s really disappointing for the people who look up to you.”-comment that started the fuzz. That would at least give a better view of the situation.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Please, tell me why WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV can be dismissed". This is a loaded question that contains unjustified assumptions. One of us is misreading these policies. You're equating Green's reputation with the reputation of the word tranny. That is absurd. It is a fact that tranny is offensive, and we are indeed sticking to facts. Nothing about this incident is even defamatory to Green because she handled it appropriately. Public figures apologize all the time for not getting the memo on changing social mores, and it's not a big deal. It's the people who harassed and threatened her who made this inot a big deal and that is not a reflection on Green.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do believe it IS a reflection on Green. Now, the article says that Laci Green uses pejorative terms and makes offensive comments towards transsexuals, making her look like a transphobic, which violates the rules I've mentioned above, and is not a fact. Thus, I believe it is you who misreads the guidelines. I really hope some NPOV-expert will take a look at this. Then I will continue editing articles on 18th-century British clergymen, which do have less issues like this one.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * has it right. The term is derogatory and offensive. That is what our sources say. A number of editors seem to be deciding they can attribute viewpoints to sources because of what they don't say. This is original research. Sources may not mention this aspect of the term because it is either too obvious to mention or not an aspect they choose to cover. Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn, thanks for your input. However, your reasoning A number of editors seem to be deciding they can attribute viewpoints to sources because of what they don't say. This is original research  is not a valid one.
 * After all, the first two dictionaries I quoted DO say it. The Cambridge Dictionary says the word is sometimes offensive, while Merriam-Webster calls it sometimes disparaging. Thus, your appeal on original research falls flat, and the wikipedia-article stating that the term “Tranny” is derogatory and offensive by definition is POV-pushing. After all, I do not know of any dictionary that says that the world is sometimes round. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment It seems like we should follow the structure of other entries for pejorative terms: say it is pejorative/offensive/derogatory or (generally considered pejorative, if that's acceptable), and then discuss the nuances of the issue further if necessary in later sentences. To the extent that there is a debate about this, it appears to involve whether its acceptable for use by people within the LGBTQ community, which isn't the same as debating whether it is generally offensive for everyday speech. That's a debate that exists for lots of pejorative terms (ex), but it doesn't stop us from calling those words pejorative in Wikipedia entries. The whole notion of reappropriating a term implies that the term is already considered offensive and derogatory.[[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 00:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment Just from looking at the lead, it seems like the "derogatory and offensive" bit in the first line might be unnecessary, since the next two sentences make it very clear that this is a controversial term that many people think of as a pejorative. Also, dictionaries can be useful, but they absolutely cannot be a definitive source on whether a term is derogatory - there's rarely any kind of definitive answer to these questions that fits under a single dictionary definition. Same thing with newspaper style guidelines - all those do is reflect the opinion of those newspapers' editorial boards, they aren't authorities on wider societal usage. More specialized sources would probably be better for that determination. I assume that "tranny" has a quite a few papers or even books dedicated to its use, those should probably be the go-to sources on whether the term is considered derogatory, who considers it derogatory, and in what contexts. The definition in the lead is supposed to reflect the entirety of the article, but since the article is just a stub, that isn't really helpful here. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think you are right. Could you also give your take on the Laci Green-discussion? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we typically avoid citing dictionaries. There are plenty of reliable sources which describe tranny as widely perceived as a slur, pejorative, derogatory, etc.:
 * GLAAD
 * VICE
 * GLSEN
 * Advocate.com
 * Independent.co.uk
 * Pink News 1 and 2
 * ABC (Australia)
 * UC Davis.edu
 * Cosmopolitan
 * The Guardian
 * Unless we have plenty of sources (not sources about individual opinions like Ru Paul's), I cannot see how we'd remove that it's offensive/derogatory.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. Generally speaking, I feel dictionaries are not good sources, since they provide no context.  Different dictionaries are also written for different purposes and audiences, which isn't really something that can be easily parsed into an article.  Especially for a well-known word like this, it should be easy to find more in-depth academic coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is this article in mainspace? It could be the poster article for WP:NOT - Usage, slang, or idiom guides - and should be redirecting to Transgender sexuality. Atsme 📞📧 13:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point! Any objections?Jeff5102 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the term in order to describe relevant context beyond its dictionary definition. For similar examples, take a look through Category:Ethnic and religious slurs and Category:Pejorative terms for people. I don't think it would be appropriate to redirect it. MastCell Talk 18:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

WP's sister project, Wiktionary, defines the term as (slang, chiefly derogatory, offensive) A transsexual, transgender or transvestite person, usually a trans woman; the latter being what WP:NOT#Dictionary policy suggests. Perhaps a paragraph could be added to the main article, Transgender sexuality, which needs a bit of expansion. Perhaps a merge into the main article would be the best option. I reviewed the cited sources in the stub, and except for one, maybe two RS, we're looking at 2 dictionary sources, passing mention in opinion pieces/blogs, a FB policy article in Wired, a journal MOS ref, an apology in Huff, an article in the Life and Style section of The Guardian, etc. Atsme 📞📧 04:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If the article should be removed and the content moved to elsewhere, why Transgender sexuality? While the term is also used in pornography, it's notable because it's subject to decades-long and ongoing debate and controversies over its use as a self-descriptor, slur, etc by various groups.  This has nothing to do with sexuality. Cyrej (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I just went ahead and changed it to "is a slang term, often used in a derogatory manner," Maybe I'll catch hell for doing that; if so, sorry. I'm trying to make a decent compromise. To be honest, I'm on the side of those who think "derogatory and offensive" could just be deleted to maintain neutrality, since the next two sentences mention the debate, but I feel my version is still somewhat neutral? Maybe "often used" is not neutral enough, but what does "sometimes used" imply? or perhaps my wording accidentally implies that the word is used often (obviously not what i intended) As to whether it IS an offensive term, I would say that there seems to still be some debate over that, as this very conversation seems to show. And arguments over it in 2010 does not seem that long ago for the argument to have been entirely settled. I don't think it would violate neutrality to say that "some consider it offensive" nor that "some people use it in a derogatory manner." Ah well, I suppose I probably should have discussed it here first before editing. OwlParty (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses
I want to put a note here on my effort to keep the article neutral being hindered by user:Jeffro77. He is wearing down my edits even when reliably sourced by hanging on subtle wording issues and pushy arguments to exclude any source positive of JWs. As a result I often have to reason unnecessarily over subtle matters which in most cases I've prevailed or gave up. As editors may be aware this article can be likened to Homeopathy article, there is rarely a neutral editor to find. I am specifically bringing attention now to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. The criticism section on Jehovah's Witnesses only states one side of the story on alleged bias in "Old Testament" by a Baptist scholar. So I added a reference from a well respected Jewish Scholar who gave a highly positive opinion on "Old Testament" to the publisher of translation. The editor is so adamant in his stand that Jehovah's Witnesses publisher (Watchtower) misquotes the scholar Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, without giving a single evidence from any source to back his claim. I provided two independent sources (one from a critical work on JWs) that verifies professor's positive views, and a published research paper from professor himself that gives a positive evaluation. His logic is that positive precise wording by Kedar must have been misquoted by Watchtower, and if another letter from Kedar is published by a respected JW Hebrew scholar he must have had "vested interests". He can't seem to digest any positive opinions. Roller958 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Roller958's comments here are quite disingenuous. The claim that I have sought to 'exclude any source positive of JWs' is patently false. Roller958 has a long history of complaining about editors who disagree with him about his preferred religious group. In this latest 'episode', Roller958 added a Watch Tower Society source that quotes a scholar who gives an endorsement of the Watch Tower Society's translation of the Bible. Obviously there is a potential for conflict of interest with a source saying positive things about itself, and I requested that Roller958 provide a source independent of the Watch Tower Society for the scholar's quote. Roller958 adamantly refused, and though he said the scholar has elsewhere said positive things about the translation, he also refused to simply replace the quote and source with one from the same scholar that was not presented via the Watch Tower Society. At no point did I state that the scholar's views on the translation should not be included in the article. It later became evident that the source of the scholar's quote was from an interview conducted (and translated) by the Watch tower Society, so there is no other source for that quote, and even then, I still didn't insist that the quote be removed as falsely suggested by Roller958; instead, I said the quote should be clearly attributed. Roller958 also falsely claims that I contend that that the Watch Tower Society misquotes the scholar; though that is not impossible, I actually indicated the potential for cherry picking. Roller958 further complains that he 'verified the professor's views', which is irrelevant as they do not verify the veracity of the specific quote from the Watch Tower Society source, and I repeatedly suggested to Roller958 that he simply provide an alternative source directly quoting Kedar. As to the second 'independent source'&mdash;the "JW Hebrew scholar", it is fairly obvious that a member of the religion that publishes the translation is not independent.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User Jeffro77 removed independent sources twice here and here. Each time I have to go to talk page and convince him on this. I have been not editing for a while, even-though much younger in age with Jeffro77 I have matured over the course of time, but he haven't changed much. As editors can easily see I exercised great patience in not doing personal attacks throughout my conversations. Other than that some of his claims here are disingenuous about me having a preference. I have added negative and positive statements about Jehovah's Witnesses. Yet his silly insistence that positive statements quoted by scholars by Watchtower is not trustworthy despite multiple secondary sources being provided is wearisome and frustrating. He have to change.--Roller958 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The first 'removed independent source' does not directly support the quoted text, and it was not clear at that point in the discussion that the original quote from Kedar has no source independent of the Watch Tower Society. Since Kedar has purportedly said positive things about the NWT elsewhere, it's still not clear why you can't quote one of those statements instead, which would require no corroboration from Harris. You're making this much more difficult than it needs to be.
 * The second 'removed independent source' is not independent at all, as Furuli is a member of the religion. That source also does not directly support the quotes in question.
 * Ever so grateful that Roller958 managed to refrain from 'doing personal attacks'. The claim that Roller958 has previously 'had to go to my Talk page and convince me' misrepresents the frequency of how often I have found his arguments convincing; generally trivial matters are resolved at article Talk. Other editors, including editors responding to disputes involving Roller958, some of them raised by Roller958, have generally agreed with my positions.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Guys your both good editors, no need for it getting out of hand especially over this. Going by what both of you have said thus far, this is more of a sourcing issue. Here in Australia, going from memory with JW publications (i am an ex JW -was raised in the faith from age 2 till 18), they would at times cite a scholar (and give the citation too) when something favourable was said in their publications. As their books, tracts, magazines (Watchtower and Awake) are not peer reviewed etc just find the original source (that meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary) and have the reference be from that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Freedom Party of Austria - (and other parties)
Freedom Party of Austria A group of articles including the one mentioned here in the title seem to use a form of synthesis in order to describe the political position of the subject of the article. In the case of this one, a bunch of sources describe it as "Right-wing", while another bunch refer to them as "Far-right".

The sources have then been compiled and the two terms put together to create the phrase "Political position: Right-wing to Far right". To me this seems to create an un-sourced claim that this party is somewhere "between" the two positions right-wing and far-right. At best this is more vague than an uncontroversial description using one of the two, at worst it inaccurately portrays the idea that the party is more moderate/centrist than what reliable sources would have us believe. With people so invested in the public perceptions of these party's, (AFG notwithstanding) it would be naive not to consider that this verbiage might have been employed to detract from the idea that these party's hold extreme (and in some cases unpalatable) view points.

This is not an isolated case. Alternative for Germany also had the same issue. I attempted to change it when I saw it here per SYNTH and (not surprisingly) came up against a sizable reaction. If this issue requires addressing on a case by case basis; during the course of the discussion a list was helpfully made by an involved editor, of other articles which have employed this practice of generating verbiage. The list contains:
 * Freedom Party of Austria
 * Vlaams Belang
 * Danish People's Party
 * National Front (France)
 * Jobbik
 * Party for Freedom
 * Sweden Democrats

Is this a problem? to me it seems like it is, however if I keep raising it in the form of talk page discussion I am going to start sounding a bit WP:STICK. Advice appreciated. Edaham (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a tricky one. In the UK, I don't think there's much of an equivalent - UK Independence Party are described as right wing, British National Party are far right, extreme right. Which, in and of itself is slightly problematic, since when I hear "far right" I immediately treat that as extreme - we're dealing with very WP:SUBJECTIVE terms. Personally, I'd go with the current wording, which to me implies "somewhere between, it's subjective". Anyone more experienced, though, please respond.  &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  17:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weaselly though it is in these cases why not just say "has been described as either right wing or far right"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * well I guess (hard as it is) my distaste for people who are trying to find ways to edit the encyclopedia for personal reasons should be put aside. That being done it is not a question of liking one or the other term based on any subjective reason. It’s simply one if accuracy. If that’s the case then surely “right-wing far-right” (along with whatever citations) would accurately reflect the source text. Only the word “to” is synth, after all. We often see this kind of synth conjunction when people use “however” in sentences like, “thing x is awful, however people y love x”. In cases where people y came along and edited the article with valid texts about their loving thing x, but used the word “however” to make it seem like the initial statement about it being awful has been contradicted - and other variations on that theme. Edaham (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The term "far right" is fairly well understood and used in the literature, although some writers avoid it as pejorative. It refers to groups that have historical ties to fascism or other racist origins.  The term "Right-wing" is broader.  But when reliable sources use the term to refer to the far right, it is clear from the context what is meant.  Similarly when news media mention the possibility of a left-right coaltion in Germany, it is clear they are not referring to the AfD.  The term "right-wing" has also become a pejorative and is avoided by mainstream parties of the Right, who prefer to call themselves center-right or centrist.
 * I think it's helpful to categorize parties as far right, liberal, communist, etc., because it immediately presents the reader with a broad heads-up about what their likely policies and history are. When they read "far right" for example, they can expect historical fascism in their origins, and themes of the legitimate people versus the unassimilable immigrants, the betrayal by the elites, brushes with the authorities, etc., which one would find to a lesser degree in other parties, if at all.
 * What I would agree with however is eliminating position in the political spectrum in the info-box. With the exception of the far right, it is very subjective where in the spectrum a party lies.
 * TFD (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Very useful advice. That being said - just "right" might be a good idea for the info box. The body can expand where necessary, relevant and verifiable. Edaham (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Mega Drive vs Genesis proposal
Could use some fresh eyes at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games. This proposal is not about renaming the Sega Genesis article to Mega Drive, but about stressing the misconception that Genesis is not the WP:COMMONAME and having both names share equal weight. Editors are not accepting a compromise to a heated issue despite evidence provided. JAG UAR   15:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about this this afternoon, for maybe the third time ever. Weird to see it in my watchlist. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Rfc at Bible and violence
please comment here Talk:The_Bible_and_violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhawk777 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoice assertion of what voting method always determines the "most preferred" candidate
Our article on the Burlington_mayoral_election,_2009 discusses the use of Instant Runoff Voting.

In particular there is a paragraph that compares IRV voting to other methods. This paragraph relies on poorly represented primary sources without inline attribution. The apparent aim is to characterize the highly controversial subject of comparative voting methods as seen in this redirect:   most-preferred. Use of the redir in wikivoice is troubling, especially since one of the RS is the self pub statement of one of the main advocacy groups on one side of the controversy. I've tried to edit for faithful verification and NPOV according to the sources but have been edit warred. Ccould some others peek in please?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael Oren on the Tamimi family
Michael Oren has made a number of statements regarding the Tamimi family in general and Ahed Tamimi in particular. The proposed edit in question is this one. He initially made some comments in December 2017 immediately when this broke a tweet, which was then covered sparodically for the next month by various outlets both in news and in opinion pieces,          He was also interviewed on BBC radio (pain to locate transcript - there is reporting on the interview). Not that this is scant coverage, however what really got the ball rolling are comments on a parliamentary inquiry he made initially (on 23 January) to an Israeli newspaper, in Hebrew, Maariv. They were repeated in a number of other outlets in Hebrew -. Haaretz the next day, 25 Jan, ran a full feature rebuttal of the Tamimi family asserting that they are real. Haaretz (which vies with JPost for being the Israeli newspaper of record in English) then translated both pieces to English. This was also translated by other Israeli outlets, This was also picked up by AP, and oddly picked up by the Israeli YNET and Israel Hayom (someone was asleep the day before?) from the English AP wire. The English translations and the AP write was then repeated by a whole raft of other outlets, including first-line international ones, often attributed back to Haaretz. This was then discussed in in-depth pieces about Oren himself, Opinion pieces against Oren by highly liberal and/or pro-Palestinian writers (some in non-RS, however the opinion is attributable, others in significant outlets),     including a J Street release against him (I'd guess he's more of an American Israel Public Affairs Committee kinda fella). coverage around Tamim's trial on 13 Feburary, other coverage of Tamimi related events,    Independent re-interviews with Oren in Tamimi profiles. In which NPR says in its own voice: "ESTRIN: In 2015, Oren led a classified parliamentary inquiry to investigate whether the Tamimis were a real family and not actors dressed in Western clothing, provoking soldiers on camera. He acknowledges the inquiry found no proof. The Tamimis are a prominent family in the area. Now Israel faces another dilemma. Her arrest has given her even more international attention." And there is quite a bit more of this - Particularly in spurts (e.g. around 24-26 Jan, 29 Jan, 13 Feb due to this being in related / copied coverage) - I did not type in all of what is available. At present, citing lack of consensus, an editor (backed by other editors reverting but not discussing) is objecting to inclusion of this in Michael Oren. The relevant talk-page discussion is at: Talk:Michael Oren.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Does what was removed from the article mention that he didn't find any proof? A lot of content from Mondoweiss and The Intercept (which you call "Opinion pieces against Oren by highly liberal and/or pro-Palestinian writers") has been left out. Neither of the things you mentioned are a reason to exclude a source. This is not an opinion piece. This article by Philip Weiss is fine too. The content needs to be balanced. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oren himself has said he has reached no conclusion regarding the relationship question and that is in the diff as well as rejection by the family. Mondiweiss and the intercept (which I read as opinion in this case) are borderline RS wise and definitely polemic - as this was very widely covered the proposed edit relied on mainline sources such as the Washington Post.Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How is the Intercept borderline WP:RS? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's better than Monodweiss. It is a small outlet. Polemical. Some accuracy issues, e.g. Juan M. Thompson. And the piece in question is more of an opinion piece than reporting - but all that is besides the point - there are plenty of sources here (from all sides and POVs).Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources here, but the tone of the edit in dispute makes the "investigation" sound far more credible than the WP:RS do. It doesn't make a lot of sense to bring it up out of context, and it is distoring the WP:RS somewhat which are largely about Tamimi- maybe add a brief explanation of who Tamimi is - I don't think just a wikilink is enough. Seraphim System ( talk ) 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree some context should be provided on Tamimi. We could add another negative reaction to this hesides the family attacking the investigation or alternatively include Haaretz's findinigs which were in one of the reverted versions (synopsis - they were not able to find another MK to corroborate this, though one MK said maybe, but they conceeded that many MKs skip sessions and that Oren may have sat alone in the meeting) - this was dropped after placing the family's response of "silly and stupid" diff and seeing that some later RS, e.g. NPR, were treating the inquiry as fact and not statement, as well as adding sources and bit from later (post initial edit) independent coverage of this.Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I'd like to mention that I find the systematic deletion of all Oren->Tamimi content on both the Tamimi page and the Oren page by a small group of editors quite disturbing. Furthermore, it is distressing that one of the excuses to expunge the content from the Tamimi page was "this belongs on the Oren page, not here", and then for these same editors to go to the Oren page and memory hole it repeatedly is quite remarkable. Of course the deleters would be right if there was no WP:RS for the Oren->Tamimi content, but the coverage by WP:RS on this subject is massive and sustained and the sources include bastions such as the Washington Post, NPR, and the BBC itself (here's the Oren tweet to which the BBC refers) XavierItzm (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One should further note that Oren is the deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Office and head of public diplomacy - an official deputy minister spokesman position in the Israeli government. Oren, who is an esteemed historian, former ambassador to the US, and a member of a centrist party has been speaking at length about Tamimi since at least December 2017. His comments have been extensively covered (links above are not complete and only representative - there is that much of it that reffing it all is quite a task) - both in standalone coverage on his comments, in interviews (e.g. Oren vs. a Tamimi family representative), and in just about every profile of Tamimi since 24 January, and in on-going Tamimi related news coverage. Most RSes are treating this position as an official Israeli position given Oren's position. Considering the depth of coverage, it should be on Oren's page. Inclusion on Tamimi's page is actually even more straightforward - given she's been involved in confrontations with Israeli forces and that we're representing views favorable to said confrontations - then the official Israeli view is definitely DUE and required for NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Polish death camp" controversy
Could use more eyes. There are several issues on the page and content disputes between a Polish government line and the views taken by others (mainly outside of Poland). In addition, there is questionable use of sources, such as using Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Poland) to state facts that are very much in controversy about what Polish bill would or would not do - in preference to secondary sources such as the Washington Post and Reuters.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why this article should exist at all. Whatever useful info is there, must be merged into Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance--Ymblanter (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue pre-dates the bill by quite a bit (as does the Wikipedia article - created in 2006 (I would however argue that this article has mainly represented the inner-Polish view on the matter)). The bill started rolling in 2016. The Polish MFA has been campaigning on the issue for perhaps a decade and half (at least - maybe also earlier - not sure). There was a big bruhahah over this when Obama used the phrase in 2012 - . In 2004 - the Polish embassy in Canada attacked a piece in Canadian media - and there has been a campaign of sorts vs. journalists and other publishers to reduce use of the term (see a jounralist's description of some of this campaign here - ).Icewhiz (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by R9tgokunks
 * This article needs sanctions imposed on it. In fact, all related articles. There's too much POV pushing. It's near chaos to me. : R9tgokunks  ✡  09:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Essay
I've written an essay, after repeating many of the points contained therein to new and disruptive editors in controversial articles many, many times. I would like to invite watchers here to comment on it and help improve it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  17:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll comment on it's talk page. --M asem (t) 15:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Article title discussion at AR-15 style rifle (WikiProject Firearms)
Several dicussions are currently on-going within the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms and related pages. I've implemented a bold move for one of the articles. The discussion is listed here:
 * Talk:AR-15_style_rifle

Additional community input would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Use in mass shootings of AR-15 / Colt AR-15 rifles (WikiProject Firearms)
I discussion is on-going at the above article regarding the inclusion of material relating to the use of AR-15 / Colt AR-15 semi-automatic firearms in mass shootings. The general discussion is here:
 * Talk:Colt_AR-15

The two specific proposals are listed here:
 * Talk:Colt_AR-15 - relates to the criminal use of Colt AR-15 derivative firearms (AR-15 style rifles)
 * Talk:Colt_AR-15 - relates to the use of Colt AR-15 firearm in the Port Arthur massacre.

Additional community input would be appreciated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Shurat HaDin
Shurat HaDin is an Israeli group which poses as a "civil rights" organization and whose purpose is to punish anyone and everyone in any way linked to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign (see Shurat HaDin). It works closely with the Israeli government. In 2007, the group's director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner confided to US embassy staff in a leak published by WikiLeaks that her group "took direction … on which cases to pursue" and "receives evidence" from the Mossad and from Israel's National Security Council.

Question is, would it be appropriate to mention the group's links to the Mossad and Israeli government in the lede section of the article? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts and prayers
has wikilinked 55 occurrences of the phrase "thoughts and prayers" to our article Thoughts and prayers, which is about the politically-loaded meaning of the phrase. In my view that's 55 WP:NPOV violations, but I don't want to do 55 reverts without support for them as I would be committing myself to up to 55 parallel talk page discussions. Am I off base here, or no? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a problem at all. If the target article is too heavily weighted toward the political interpretation of the phrase, that can be addressed by editing.- MrX 🖋 12:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The political interpretation is the only reason for existence of the target article, and there is no reason to say anything else about it the phrase there. We don't have articles about common phrases merely because they are common phrases; we're not here to teach English language idioms. Hue and cry is solely about a legal definition, and Back and forth and Hot and Cold are about everything except the general usages of the phrases. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is. The phase is several things: an empty platitude; a politically-expedient way of saying this problem does not require legislation; prayers are powerful; I don't care enough to express an original thought; etc. You can nominate the article for deletion if you think it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, but as long as it exists, it is the appropriate link target for that phrase.- MrX 🖋 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't said I don't think the article belongs in the encyclopedia. I've said that we shouldn't be linking to it without support for the political context. And I've said that If the target article is too heavily weighted toward the political interpretation of the phrase, that can be addressed by editing. makes no sense at all since there is no place for anything but the political interpretation in that article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a personal preference as opposed to something based on policy.- MrX 🖋 13:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * NPOV: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well" (emphasis mine). Since these wikilinks were applied indiscriminately, there is no demonstrated RS at all, so we're talking about a proportion of zero. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The phrase itself is absolutely neutral. If you read the article, you will find however, that it has a remarkable tendency to be used incongrously. Its use in various situations, however, has been reported officially and there should not be any debate about that. It is up to the reader to decide from the largely unbiased article which context to choose. -- Kku (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To link it in that fashion is to imply something with no RS support, which violates NPOV. No, in my experience we don't make loaded wikilinks and leave it "up to the reader to decide". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My initial thoughts would be to unlink all of them, and look at the links to gun control, school shooting and mass shooting. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Given that 'thoughts and prayers' are routinely spouted by politicians I don't see a problem in wiki linking to our article on why it's a political issue. I'm with MrX, you can either attempt to make the target article less about the negative issues around the phrase or nominate it for deletion, but while it exists its the appropriate target for a wiki link. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of these links seem to be within direct quotes, and per MOS:LWQ, are improper since we don't know how the speaker intended the phrase to be taken. --M asem (t) 13:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yea, you can't do this. "Thoughts and prayers" following a tragedy truly is empty, addled rhetoric, but linking BLP subjects' quotes to thoughts and prayers is making that point in the Wikipedia's voice, which is not kosher. This would be like taking the line "Obama was born on August 4, 1961" at his article and linking it to Birtherism. TheValeyard (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of them should be unlinked. In an article like "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting", a link to thoughts and prayers would be acceptable with the right context, such as discussing the public/media backlash against the use of the phrase while referring to that specific incident. There are plenty of sources for that: . But in an article like "Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide", it's just plain overlinking, regardless of the NPOV issue. –Surachit (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The links are fine in situations where public figures, particularly political figures, use the phrase (or a close equivalent) to describe a tragic event. It is an objective fact that when public figures reference "thoughts and prayers" or the like following a tragedy, they are choosing to employ a phrase that carries pre-existing baggage of criticism for its emptiness. We are not "making a point" in Wikipedia's voice any more than if a figure were to say, "this situation is like the Tet Offensive", or, "we are trying to win hearts and minds" and we were to link Tet Offensive or Winning hearts and minds. We are linking to well-sourced and factual information about the phrase that is directly relevant to the choice of the figure to use the phrase. bd2412  T 03:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here with a specific situation, not a hypothetical, and I would prefer to have the specific situation addressed and corrected if needed. As this user applied this wikilink in 55 articles within 22 minutes, I don't think a lot of thought was put into whether the link was appropriate for each case. While I have no proof, my impression is that they linked every occurrence of the phrase "thoughts and prayers" in mainspace. If they evaluated each case at all, I don't think ~20 seconds per case was enough evaluation. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - Corrected ping. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree that mass-linking to the phrase was probably not done with a lot of thoughtful examination. That does not mean that mass-unlinking should be done with the same lack of examination. Instances should be parsed through, and unlinked if there is no relationship between the use of the phrase and the article. bd2412  T 19:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think more of these links are valid than one might guess. I looked at the first 17 links and almost all of them were instances of a United States politician using the phrase in the way described in the article lede. Many were, in fact, from gun control sections of politician articles. Some are clearly off: I would remove the link from Prayer circle. I think User:BD2412's criterion for inclusion is probably right. I would just open 55 tabs and go through them one-by-one. It will take less time than you might think. Chris vLS (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and unlinked that one, and the one in Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide. bd2412  T 20:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to add some background to, who almost diligently seems to employ a careless practice of wikilinking, I copy my recent remark on his TP here:

Would you, please, mind to take care yourself of the numerous links you introduced to the article Academic games? Please, disambiguate them in your own sphere of action instead of leaving a bot claiming about them. That is, please check links you introduce in your edits for their appropriate target. Thanks. Purgy (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Bedford Forrest
See Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest and Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest. deisenbe (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now created a section specifically for the NPOV discussion and started it off by gathering together some of the headline issues that had been raised at separate places on the Talk page (including those touched on in the two sections mentioned above) . I have also left notes at American Civil War and WP:WikiProject Military history. Hope that helps FrankP (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Water privatisation in England and Wales
I don't mean to be political here, but the article section "Post-privatisation" presents (mostly) improvements that have occurred since water privatisation in the UK.

My issue is that these improvements are not necessarily because of privatisation - the direct link is not presented.

The OECD and World Bank did not explicitly thank privatisation for all of these improvements, yet the article appears to suggest they did.

My point is backed up by evidence from other countries where similar efficiency/quality improvements have been observed, despite water industries remaining publicly owned.

The improvements are often the result of technological advances that are equally available to public and well as private operators. The article seems to neglect this.

On the other hand, I'd say too much prominence is given to the Camelford disaster.

Overall I think the article is badly laid out and may have a slight underlying bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.harrison83 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has been bugging me for some time now; I have commenced a rewrite today that should address Nick.harrison83's concerns viz post-privatisation. WRT Camelford, the 2 paragraphs as they stand are not excessive, but may appear so given the sparse text afforded to the main topic. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute of "Cult" Leader (vs. Spiritual Leader)
Calling Neutral Parties: An unnamed IP address changed the heading of a large wiki article on Sathya Sai Baba and added what is (to me) clearly an non-neutral POV description of "'cult' leader". A number of users have tried to edit it or remove it and their revisions have been undone - possibly fairly as they did not give sources for the change. However, despite objections (by me) with considerable source referencing on the talk page, no consensus has yet been reached. Need some neutral parties to it who can weigh in. To me it is obviously a violation of wikipedia neutrality as I clearly explain on the talk page and referencing from the wikipedia neutrality policy:


 * The text of Wikipedia articles should assert facts, but not assert opinions as fact.


 * When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution. Thus we write: "Mars is a planet" or "Plato was a philosopher".
 * When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.[1]". We do not write: "John Doe is the best baseball player". The inclusion of opinions is subject to weight policy, and they should be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it.
 * A simple formulation is to assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves.

Being not a neutral statement and an opinion held only by some sources it should be removed or placed in the allegations section, shouldn't it? Should we be using wikipedia's voice to call this a cult when as best I can tell from references the vast majority of references do not label it as such? See the suject's talk page for more.

My argument is that "spiritual leader" is a more neutral description as sourced by references in the diff page. Whether that is added or not - "cult" is disputed (the word is loaded - an inflammatory and dismissive one, partially supported by a tabloid), and as per wikipedia's neutrality rules, should be moved from the main description. Kindly let us know if you agree based on sources referenced?

Here's the diff page for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&type=revision&diff=825673266&oldid=825651116

Any help is appreciated. Thanks for reading. Objectiveap (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Spiritual leader" sounds like the worst kind of puffy promotion. Avoid. What does RS say? Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Guru seems pretty common.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Guru is there already and I see it as neutral, "cult" removal is main question, "spiritual leader" is from BBC, NY Times, Times of India, etc... but I don't see it as fully necessary. Objectiveap (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The BBC wrote "Nearly half a million people gathered in the southern Indian town of Puttaparthi for the funeral of the revered Indian spiritual leader Sri Sathya Sai Baba.". "Spiritual leader" is not puffy or promotional, any more than priest, pope, pastor, or any other religious title. "Cult leader" sourced to The Sun is a problem, but sourced to Anthropological Quarterly may be OK.- MrX 🖋 18:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the majority of reliable sources refrain from calling it a cult as my entries on the talk page show. Objectiveap (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * linked several academic sources on the talk page to sufficiently support the use of the word "cult." Objectiveap also provided links to sources that apparently don't use that word in their summaries.  The Essence of Hindu Doctrine and its Influence on Christianity in America and Europe cites "Ashes and Powers: Myth, Rite and Miracle in an Indian God-man’s Cult" when discussing SSB, which leaves me wary assuming that the word never appears beyond the summaries in others.  Also those sources don't necessarily argue that that word is inaccurate.  Among Objectiveap's sources one can find the Daily Fail, which raises competency concerns.   provided an alternate phrasing that puts "spiritual leader" to the forefront, which Objectiveap still refused to accept. As Objectiveap is yet another single-purpose account who will not budge until any instance of the word "cult" is removed from the article, regardless of whatever sources say, I think it's safe to assume that Objectiveap is an SSB follower who is not here to build the encyclopedia but right great wrongs. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To that end, note that another SPA,, just removed "cult" and the references thereunto. That's part of why I retracted my suggested edit: I no longer think that the changes are being sought by neutral editors; I believe that some number of editors (possibly as few as one with multiple accounts) is removing the term to align the article with their non-neutral point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think arguments based on what sources don't say are always verging on WP:OR. If it's a cult (and no serious source disputes that), then Wikipedia must call it a cult too. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * By the same token arguments based upon including claims because sources do not dispute them is also iffy. If sources do not call it a cult neither can we. If some sources call it a cult and others a spiritual movement so must we (include both claims).Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's more that if we have sources saying "A," and no sources saying "not A," then we need to include "A." Sources saying "B" don't really negate "A" sources, we specifically need "B, not A" sources for that. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And sources saying A do not negate B, so the same argument applies (my point). We include both and attribute them.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so, because it it always Wikipedia editors' WP:OR interpretation of what a non-statement means. It's classic POV-pushing ploy to say because n sources don't say (e.g.) homeopathy is pseudoscience, then it isn't. Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A, this is (in effect) a BLP, and we need sources making (what is) an accusation. B, This only applies in obvious cases where the consensus among experts is X. Yes we do not need sources saying "the sea is wet", but this is not clear cut (after all what is a cult?).Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @ian.thomson I actually agreed to let C.Fred post a small revision to his statement btw, but he backed out. As outlined in the talk page on the subject - completely objective source searching does NOT tend to turn up the word cult anywhere in the top results, making it a minority opinion or reference word, not deserving of the heading space, one can put in allegations. Objectiveap (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't label this person as a "spiritual leader" or "cult leader" in Wikipedia's voice unless most sources say as much. If there is disagreement between sources, then omit the terms or attribute them to a source. Let's not mix religious beliefs with science. It never ends well.- MrX 🖋 19:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I'm seeing at all at Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba. C.Fred suggested Sathya Sai Baba (born 'Sathya Narayana Raju; 23 November 1926 – 24 April 2011) was an Indian guru, cult spiritual leader, and philanthropist. He claimed to be the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi ; however, he was frequently characterized as a cult leader. You then immediately replied that this group is clearly not usually viewed as a cult. Chhandama presented sources demonstrating that this is incorrect, and you even acknowledged There are elements of the Sathya Sai Baba Movement that are cult-like but refused to back down on total removal of the word "cult" from the article. Be wedded to truth, not to consistency. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @MrX thank you that is my point from the beginning, "spiritual leader" may be more accurate but neither is needed.
 * @ian.thomson I like the wedded to truth line from my user page, props to you on that, but back at you because I later suggested C.Fred publish his statement with a change of one word "frequently" to "some" and he refused, you would clearly know this if you read to the end of the talk page and are (intentionally?) omitting it here. And since you are bringing it up, it's an analysis, not an admission, that some but not enough characteristics of a cult does not a cult make. By those same standards I was referring to you could call Christianity a cult. It's a disputed word and I think that isn't really disputable, though we may dispute it anyway. If it's disputed it doesn't belong in wikipedia's voice, just a fact.Objectiveap (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And now to back track and point out that to be disputed...there must be a dispute in RS. As I said above just because not all sources talking about the sea call it explicitly wet does not mean we can say it is disputed that it is wet. We need sources saying it is (explicitly) not a cult to say this is disputed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven While that would be ideal, it's not required, you don't have to have books proving Obama wasn't/isn't the antichrist to refute claims that he is. A minority educated opinion doesn't mean wikipedia's voice should be used. The majority of educated opinions usage when talking about the group is more valuable, but in the absence of any particular term being an agreed fact, we should stick with what is: guru, philanthropist for example. Objectiveap (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * BGut this is not a clear black and white case. In fact it can be argued that any Cult leader is also a spiritual leader, the two are not mutually exclusive (unlike being and not being something).Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen some cult leaders who passed themselves off as philosophers, self-help authors, or whatnot, but yeah, the terms "cult leader" and "spiritual leader" generally overlap. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, you agreed on the condition that sources using the phrase "cult" were downplayed. Also, I'll admit that early Christianity was indeed a cult, you won't be able to play on my feelings there because I understand the academic use of the term. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven Neither term is needed, he can be called a guru and philanthropist without dispute. "Cult" is inappropriate given wikipedia's rules of neutrality. If wikipedia had different rules and allowed disputed concepts to be used in its own voice than maybe "cult" could be used, even then probably shouldn't be in the heading. But wikipedia is clear that it's voice is not to be used for things that are not facts. Some call it that and the majority do not. (if you want run your own neutral test of sources). Can we agree on that? Objectiveap (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If some sources say "A," and some sources say "B," then WP:DUE requires the article to say both "A and/or B." We don't look at the "B" sources and say "well, I guess we can't say A." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Heading (and anything in wikipedia's voice) must be objective, agreed by vast majority of RS, truth only. Am I wrong? Objectiveap (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's standard of objective is to summarize what reliable sources say, regardless of any editor's personal beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone who does an objective search (just: Sathya Sai Baba) of what reliable sources say won't find much mention of the word "cult". I propose a vote from all contributors just to get a gauge: Considering Neutrality which is what this board is about: Do you think the word "cult" should be in the first line description of this topic in wikipedia's voice?
 * I'm not qualified to determine which online Indian sources are reliable (outside of the major newspapers). As far as I can tell, he is only referred to as a cult leader in a handful of sources. In other sources he's referred to as a guru or a spiritual leader. For that reason, I would omit it from the lead and include it as appropriate in the body of the article, with attribution. WP:LABEL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are the applicable guides.- MrX 🖋 23:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Concur with MrX. And "The issue is that the majority of reliable sources refrain from calling it a cult" isn't a legitimate issue, that's just "I really, really want to call this a 'cult' for PoV reasons, but can't find enough sources to excuse it." It's not WP's job to label things (and every religious movement has questionable practices and people). It's our job to faithfully reflect what the independent RS have to say about the subject. If they all indicate there's cult-like activity (in the vernacular not anthropological sense of cult) that will be apparent in the cited facts, without us using labels like "cult".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with and  also - does anyone else care to vote? If not will cite this Neutrality Board in recommending the change be made along these lines. If either of you two would be willing to make the change as a neutral party with citation of this discussion, that would be nice. Thanks to all for their input. Objectiveap (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think MrX has a point; my thanks to him for framing it from a policy standpoint and in a way I didn't see earlier. I also tried to flip to what would be the other side of the coin, and I came up with "[Subject] is an award-winning…". We already leave award-winning out of introductory paragraphs and list the awards later. By that logic, I have no objections to leaving "cult leader" or equivalent in the body of the article with clear attribution but removing it from the intro. That said, @Objectiveap: This isn't a vote, it's a discussion. It's also better to let an editor independent of the situation—not you, not me—make the call on when the discussion has run its course or reached consensus and to then make the necessary edits. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment is appreciated and while I did ask for other votes, apologies if it seemed I was being preemptive or in some way disregarding protocol. I was not planning to make the change myself. Objectiveap (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As with Mr X most sources I have found call him either A Guru or spiritual leader (but then neitehr preclude him also being a cult leader) maybe just say "is a Guru who has been characterized as either a spiritual leader or cult leader".Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Organization / Sathya Sai Baba movement
I don't think I've looked at these articles before, but surely the nub of the question (is this guy the leader of a cult), whether the Sathya Sai Organization (or Sathya Sai Baba movement - why do we have two articles?) is itself a cult. Certainly this noticeboard might want to look at that article first since at the moment it seems rather stuffed with uncritical puffery. Once this is sorted then it can be stated that Sathya is leader of "the Sathya Sai Organization, a $thingy" where $thingy is "cult", "philanthropic organization", "religious movement" or whatever. This also avoids BLP issues by characterizing the organization, not the person. &#32;Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC); Amended 17:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC) he's actually dead I see.
 * For a start lets AFD one of them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Cult" is a slur word - it's kind of like calling someone a racist in a heading of a wiki article on that person. Even if a potential RS from 35 years ago called someone a racist and a tabloid called them a racist (the two sources cited for cult) - you don't really need an RS doing a report saying they are categorically not a racist to prudently avoid using the term in a heading. IMHO opinion unless the vast majority of RS are comfortable doing it you shouldn't do it in the heading, perhaps in allegations as mentioned.
 * you're not likely to find much to suggest cult in the SSB organization. I'm happy to share a few facts on your talk page. Anyway, we seem to be building consensus amongst MrX, SMcCandlish, C.Fred, and myself - if you'd like to do your own research and come back to us before giving a full thumbs up, fine, but at the moment do you have objections to the change to the article proposed by ::? do you have an objection @Slatersteven?Objectiveap (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am unfamiliar with the topic so don't know if it applies in this case, but if something's a cult (according to RS), then Wikipedia calls it a cult. That is the very essence of neutrality, the focus of this noticeboard. We don't shy away from accurate descriptions because some people (usually adherents) don't like them. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but attributed to the source; or in Wikipedia's voice only if it is a widely-held viewpoint as evidenced by use in most reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 17:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's called a cult in RS without explicit contradiction from other RS, Wikipedia asserts that it is a cult. If the term is disputed in RS, Wikipedia attributes it. We don't attribute what isn't disputed (in RS) because it gives a false impression of controversy. This is set out in WP:ASSERT. In general, the only sources of use in considering the cult-or-not aspect of an organisation, are strong publications considering that specific aspect. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that is most definitely not how it works. It does not need to rise to level of a controversy at all. I again refer you to WP:LABEL and WP:YESPOV.- MrX 🖋 18:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:YESPOV is apposite (WP:LABEL is in a style guide). We don't give "seriously contested" opinions as facts. To show something is "seriously contested", RS is required. It's not enough for an editor to affirm it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."- MrX 🖋 18:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. If (to adopt the terminology) we have "A" and "not A" type sources, then these assertions conflict. If we have "A" and "B" sources then we do not know if they conflict, and report - if not contradicted - as additive facts. To say "b mean not A" you'd need a source for that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @Alexbrn I'm glad you've discovered this interesting subject. However, there are probably millions of statements made by RS about things that do not belong in HEADINGS of articles. You don't have to have refutations directly addressing the claim to be wise enough in view of neutrality to put it in a proper place and not the heading. Common sense and wikipedia policy dictates it and MrX is correct in his citations of wikipedia policy. If several RS described George Bush as a cowboy, and an anonymous IP address puts it in the heading attributed to a 35 year old source (a la Babb) and a tabloid as reference it doesn't mean you cannot remove or move it without an RS source saying he is 'not a cowboy'.  You don't need an article written proving he is not a cowboy. That's absurd. There are probably about 1000 books/articles written about Sathya Sai Baba, if a couple say cult, it doesn't make it one, and it doesn't mean it goes in the heading. The argument you are proposing (direct refutation in RS required to not have something in a heading) is that if one RS says something and if 999,999 other RS characterize it another way. The one description has a right to the heading unless that claim is specifically refuted in another RS. You must admit that is not a sound argument. Objectiveap (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For reasons given by multiple editors above, in view of neutrality, it's probably not required to find a scholarly source definitively disputing cult status to remove cult from the heading. However, since it's been requested by some , here is one: a specific review of Babb (the cited "cult leader" source), specifically challenging/refuting his assertion of 'cult', in a double-blind peer-reviewed journal... So 'Cult' is disputed by scholarly RS, disputed in general, and the SSB movement is generally not characterized as s cult by the majority of RS (for good reasons imo) as we have found from our searches of RS. On top of which it is a controversial slur. It is not a fact - does it belong in the heading? Question for all ye more learned Wikipedians than I - where should we go from here/do we have enough for consensus?Objectiveap (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A book review is not a great source, and as for "double-blind", the mind boggles. I think we do have consensus, that the wording is okay. I'd say a fair way to describe this movement is probably "cult-like" if a middle way is desired. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @Alexbrn It's a specific refutation of the cited source in the article, refuting the specific idea you asked to see refuted in an academic journal. If you think it's cult-like argue it in the allegations. You know full well it's a disputed idea, controversial, avoided by the majority of RS, and that most all the editors here tested the RS for themselves, before agreeing it should be moved from the heading since there are better more neutral ways of describing it. Objectiveap (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Vista Outdoor and recent mass shooting
Anger about the recent mass shooting seems to be translating into problems with the lede over at Vista Outdoor. I think this needs some uninvolved eyes. 60.234.42.253 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think first you should discus this on the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * the IP is flat out whitewashing with obvious lies like this one as I've demonstrated at Talk:Vista_Outdoor. Further I don't need concensus to add a well sourced brand new section to a page. It's POV vandalism on their part and I've warned them on their talk.  Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are here to POV push. That is coming through with your rage. That might be hard to see because you are so emotionally involved in this issue. Take a step back and compare the quality of your other edits to the quality of the edits you are making related to the NRA and gun control. The difference is night and day. 60.234.42.253 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * IP's edits are not constructive or credible. I have a long establised track record of edits across many topics. IP only shows up to make whitewash edite at this one page and misrepresent the sources in their edit summaries. Legacypac (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A;so this is the only article they have edited, so an SPA and maybe more.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Gaza
Please see my discussion with Eggishorn on my request to edit the line

"Gaza Strip, an Arab-inhabited region on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea"

to

"Gaza Strip, a small Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea"

I fail to see how the latter violates WP:NPOV, while the former does not. I think it should be obvious that the latter is a more accurate description of the linked article. Tissn (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already made most of the salient points at the referenced discussion but shows that the asked-for edit is not neutral: I certainly hope Wikipedia hasn't adopted a policy of ignoring international law and opinion to appease an illegal occupant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources generally refer to these people as Palestinians. Eggishorn do you believe that there is no such thing as Palestinians?  TFD (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My take as well, who does not refer to Gaza as a Palestinian territory?Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , Who said anything about the ethnicity of the inhabitants? wants the disambiguation article to pick one side of a political identification that is disputed and the various ABRPIA... series make it clear that we should not pick sides on this issue.  Per WP:DABNOT, disambiguation pages should only be specific enough to direct the reader correctly. , well, the Israeli government, for starters. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well for a starter this dos not say that, it says they do not occupy it (by the way which of those questioned spoke for the Isralie government?). In fact it talks about it using terms like "Palestinian".Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The common view is that Gaza is Palestinian. However, matters are complicated by the Hamas/PA split, claims (by Palestinians and their supporters) of continued Israeli occupation, and Egyptian influence. The most salient point is that Gaza is clearly not controlled by the recognozed Palestinian government - being controlled by Hamas. For a DAG, stating it is Arab inhabited skirts around all the possible geopolitical arguements.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The statement of mine that Eggishorn is referring to is irrelevant to this discussion. My personal neutrality, or lack thereof, is not the question here. His choice to use that as an argument to support his position in this case should raise some concern over his suitability to have any editorial control over articles about this issue.
 * @Icewhiz: As I've already pointed out, the supporters of the Palestinian claim of continued Israeli occupation is none other than the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council and Israel's own Supreme Court, to name a few. Gaza is widely recognized as part of the Palestinian state. The question over who currently "controls" the area is irrelevant. Refusal to refer to Gaza as a Palestinian territory cannot possibly be said to be impartial or neutral, but rather the direct opposite. Tissn (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is Gaza no longer part of the PLA? If not then should it not be called "Gaza Strip, a small Hamas territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea?"Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Gaza is controlled by Hamas. Hamas has not said it is not part of the PA, but it has, at times, contested the legitimacy of the PA government claiming at times to be the legitimate leaders of the PA. In any event - the recognized Palestinian government does not control Gaza. In a long article you can get into this level of nuance - but in a two line DAG?Icewhiz (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that the DAG should elaborate on the conflict. It should as succinctly and accurately as possible describe the linked article in a neutral way. Refusing to refer to Gaza (a political geographic entity) as Palestinian can't possibly be said to be neutral. Tissn (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Eggishorn, there is as you are no doubt aware a view among some that there are no Palestinians, just Arabs living in Israel/Palestine. Your version appears to promote that view, which is why I would object to it.  TFD (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for saying so, but there is also a view that Jews are sub-human. "Arab-inhabited region" just sounds crude. Sounds like infested. And the concept that there are no Palestinians is just plain offensive. The term goes back to ancient Greece and ancient Rome. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's helpful to discuss the origin of the term Palestinian, since it was given to the region by the Romans after the Bar Kochba revolt, to spite the Jews. Whatever the history of the term, I think the current situation is far more prescient important. You have a group of Arabs who have come to identify with the term, much as the concept of Syrian or Lebanese has emerged. I agree that the wording was somewhat off previously - frankly, I'm happy to acknowledge Gaza as an independent, de facto self-governing entity. It's a shame they're not held to the same standards as others... but I digress. The point is, I think the current wording is reasonable. But Tissn, just because the UN says something, doesn't mean Wikipedia has to agree. The UN has a majority of undemocratic regimes - frankly, I think it needs deep reform. While they are certainly influential, that doesn't make them right. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  19:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "You have a group of Arabs who have come to identify with the term, much as the concept of Syrian or Lebanese has emerged" I find your arrogant disregard for these nationalities offensive.
 * "I'm happy to acknowledge Gaza as an independent, de facto self-governing entity" Just not "Palestinian", is that it?
 * "It's a shame they're not held to the same standards as others..." Like the gold standard set by Israel, I assume?
 * "But Tissn, just because the UN says something" And the International Court of Justice, and Israel's own Supreme Court, and most of the rest of the world. Frankly, I find your whole attitude appalling, and I have no appetite to continue this toxic discussion. I'm happy the page has been corrected, and I consider the issue resolved. Tissn (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it is nasty. And talking about Roman times as if it had any relevance to rights or practically anything else nowadays is silly. Going by what Jews say themselves if we're talking about same standards could we at least limit things to the seventh generation or something like a hundred and fifty years at most thanks. Or should we still have this sort of argument still about Palestinians and Jews in two thousand years time? And personally I'd prefer if we were able to just talk about Israelis rather than Jews when talking about the trouble there thanks. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "arrogant disregard for these nationalities". That strikes me as a personal attack, and is completely misconstruing what I said. My point was that the Arab nations in the middle east are not drawn on ethnic lines. As a result, nationality there doesn't even have an ethnic element (although different nations do have different ethnic compositions). Instead, the nation exists as a concept separately. I am not belittling that at all. It is now part of the people's identity - by and large. When I referred to the "current wording", that was "Palestinian". So don't attack me for views that I don't hold. My whole point was that I don't consider it helpful to delve into the history of the term, as it will just lead to arguments. My point is, whatever the history, the current situation is what we have to work with. And, when we reach the final quote, Israel doesn't fire missiles at civilians because President Trump declared an embassy move. My politics on that issue, though, are irrelevant to this discussion. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  15:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Belgium is composed of French, Dutch and German speaking peoples and only became a nation in 1830. Yet it is correct to refer to them as Belgians, rather than French, Dutch and Germans.  In fact few if any countries are ethnically both homogeneous and distinct.  Nonetheless they are referred to as nations in reliable sources.  Most reliable sources see a distinct culture having emerged in Palestine with national consciousness developing in the early 20th century.  Today, Palestine is recognized as a nation.  While it could have been a ruse by Arabs living in Palestine, policy requires us to follow the descriptions used in reliable sources and describe them as Palestinians.  If we don't, the implication is that we reject the concept of Palestinian nationality.  TFD (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I see logic how both statements could be taken as POV, depending on which side one takes in the I/P debate. I would argue to back off a bit more "Gaza Strip, a region of dispute in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea." which is factually true, takes neither side, and also ties it to the most notable facet of the region from the disambiguation page. --M asem (t) 00:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that either. The Palestinian side might see that as disputing their territorial claims - and since Gaza is independent... Israel withdrew from Gaza. I don't think there's any dispute about Gaza's status anymore, certainly not in the mainstream. Conflict might be a better word. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  00:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, though that now would use "conflict" twice. Maybe "Gaza strip, on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea and part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." No attempt to identify it beyond being where it is and why its important. --M asem (t) 03:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's much better. Clearly national identity and territorial control are an issue in the conflict, and this avoids us taking a side.Icewhiz (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We must remember that this is not article text but just a dab page. The existing text, which is "a Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea" is brief, informative, and doesn't contain a single letter that is disputed by any of the parties mentioned (Israel, Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Egypt, United Nations). Hints at disputes over the political and legal status of the territory are not necessary in order to define the topic and lead readers to the full article, which is all we require of a dab page. Zerotalk 03:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I like 's solution. I know the last few wars have been fought in Gaza, but "a part of" (current wording) almost makes it sound like a battle (of course, only out of context). I think for the DAB, Zero has it spot on. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  09:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jeffrey St. Clair
In this stub article, an editor has created a section, "Controversies." The sole text is a single sentence, "Jeffrey St Clair has been called sexist in the way he has handled running CounterPunch." It is sourced to an opinion piece by Sharon Smith, called "Bluff, bluster and bullshit at Counterpunch" on the Socialist Worker website. In it, she complains that an article in Counterpunch by Ruth Fowler, "Angelina Jolie Under the Knife: Of Privilege, Health Care and Tits," used the word "tits," which Smith says has been used to objectify and degrade women's bodies. Although St. Clair defended Fowler, the offending word no longer appears in the article or its title.

I don't think that Smith was criticizing how St. Clair runs Counterpunch, but about a specific editorial decision. And to be neutral, it would have to explain the criticism and St. Clair's reply. Furthermore, the commentary has no weight - a column on a Trotskyist website should not be the only source for the only information in the body of the article.

In my opinion, the section should be removed. I set up a discussion thread at Talk:Jeffrey St. Clair, but the other editor has not replied.

TFD (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with TFD. I've decided to remove the section. Zerdek (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Gun control
I have concerns about this RM discussion. The gist:
 * WP:COMMONNAME (WP:UCRN) is being used as an excuse to demand an article title that of the issue say, in reliable sources, is laden with contentious political baggage and which they're avoiding.
 * Meanwhile, we clearly have neutral descriptive alternatives that are well-attested in RS.
 * The term being advanced by the UCRN argument does not at all fit the actual scope of the article.
 * We probably need an article split, to separately cover firearms policy and regulations, as such, versus the movement to eliminate or greatly restrain private gun ownership, as they are not even close to the same topic (certain forms of the former have been used as tools of the latter, but even "gun nuts" largely support certain firearms regulations, e.g. against full-auto weapons).
 * The RM seems to be dominated by generally counterfactual leftwing anti-gun PoV, exacerbated by a recent mass-shooting incident in Florida. Hyperbolic rhetoric, and falsification of statistics and other facts, are flooding social media like a tsunami in the wake of this event, and have been for over a week. This is unmistakably affecting the course and tenor of the RM discussion.
 * The RN is also overrun with the assumption that UCRN trumps everything, when this is patently false. UCRN is an instruction to pick the most common name as the default first choice to the actual WP:CRITERIA, the rest of WP:AT policy (e.g. WP:NPOVTITLE), and other policies (especially the core content policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). The way this has been heading, it's violating all of them at once, to favour the WP:SYSTEMICBIASed socio-political viewpoint of en.wikipedia's largest demographic cluster of editors – likely by reflex, not design.

This RM, if no WP:SNOWBALL results, should be closed by one of our occasional three-admin panels, with an explicit focus on policy and sourcing strengths in the arguments, and a discounting of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and extraneous political posturing. This is precisely the kind of RM that a lone closer is most likely to close in favour of a pure vote-count just to avoid ranty criticism.

PS: I am not a gun owner; this is about us doing our encyclopedic "job", not about "WP:WINNING". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Delyan Peevski
This complaint I am referring to you is in relation to the English version of Wikipedia, which contains information about Delyan Peevski. The article is available at The article contains many untrue circumstances and manipulative statements, which are not supported by reliable sources (or they refer to sources – Bulgarian media, which constantly generate “fake news”). I will briefly address some of the false statements in the article 1.	At the very beginning of the article he is defined as an “oligarch” – as per the definition of the word in Wikipedia this is „a person, who is part of a small group of people holding power in a state“. The reference to the source that is being archived presently neither justifies such a statement nor the statement is credible. 2.	False statements are made for his possession of media and property. According to the Bulgarian Commercial registry and the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria where the Bulgarian government publish the list of newspapers and their owners in Bulgaria he doesn’t own 20 newspapers or magazines. This information is published twice with the same source which is false according to the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria Furthermore his mother doesn't own the company cited in this article. This information is old and needs to be updated. 3.	The statements in the entire paragraph "Privatization controversies" are also absurd and not supported by any facts. Formally there is no source of information to which this paragraph to refer to and it is marked as “citation needed”, however the contents still stays, not redacted.

4.	The next paragraph, "Media and business empire", is again full of false facts and allegations for criminal activity. There are suggestions for large properties associated with him, described as a huge number of media, expressed as figures, without mentioning media names, without reference to an official company register, without citing reliable sources. The citation used is again by contributor, identified only with initials: “Sep 20th 2013 by V.v.B. | SOFIA”.

He is currently a Bulgarian MP in the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria and a living person. The whole article makes suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damages his good name. It creates a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggests that he is a part of criminal activities. The content described is defamatory and untruthful and as such is contrary to the law, to the Internet ethics, to the rules of morality and good faith, as well as to three of the Wikipedia content principles: - Opportunity to verify (against relibale sources); - Neutral point of view; - Encyclopedic style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee-ann-25 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, I kindly ask you to consider the removal of a page in the English version of Wikipedia, pretending to portrait the Bulgarian MP Delyan Peevski. The article is available at and contains many untrue and manipulative statements, which are not supported by reliable sources or are supported by articles in media outlets proliferating fake news. Any attempt to remove the manipulative facts and update the information with reliable sources are being blocked and the data - erased. Thus violating the Information about living persons policy of WP. I will briefly outline some of the manipulative statements in the article: 1.	False statements about the media he possesses. According to the article he is in possession of "more than 20" newspapers - a statement which is absolutely untrue. This can be checked up in the Bulgarian Commercial registry and the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria where the Bulgarian government publish the list of newspapers and their owners. 2.	The entire paragraph "Privatization controversies" is manipulative and not supported by any facts. The same applies to the next paragraph "Media and business empire". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee-ann-25 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Philippe Reines
This article is prone to POV pushing, vandalism and subtle BLP violations by IPs. (exhibit A) Apparently he was on TV last night and an argument ensued. This is how an IP added it to the article. (the first time it was added the IP didn't cite a source so I removed it due to BLP) If you read the source being used, it clearly states both guests were arguing back and forth, trading insults, etc. The show is hosted by a highly partisan commentator and both guests are highly partisan political consultants. The fact the host agrees with the person that is pro-Trump is not a surprise. If this content belongs, which I really don't think is notable enough for inclusion in his bio, what are other views on how it should be worded?  APK  whisper in my ear  03:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Open RfC at Talk:Faith healing
Please consider participating in the RfC at Talk:Faith healing. VQuakr (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)