Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 76

MS-13
The MS-13 article has been held in a non-neutral state by a particular user User:Snooganssnoogans for the past few months. Several users have attempted to remove or change non-neutral language only for their changes to be immediately reverted by the user in question. There are numerous complaints on the talk page about the neutrality of the article.

I have made some efforts to remove or change non-neutral language, however there is still a lot more work to be done and any edits made are constantly being reverted. I would appreciate if anyone could help to build consensus in the talk page and change the language of the article to be more neutral, as right now it is embarrassingly biased.

PaganPanzer (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said on the article's talk page just now, it seems like your objection isn't really to our article but to what the sources say, ie. you object to sources saying that some of the claims about MS-13 are false and want to "tone it down" to 'some people object' or the like. But WP:NPOV is about reflecting the sources, not about giving the WP:FALSEBALANCE appearance of neutrality - when the sources unanimously say eg. "there is no evidence of X", we have to say so unambiguously.  It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to present such things as seriously contested when they are not. --Aquillion (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Come on, the sources are all left-leaning news articles that do not provide any sources for their own claims. Take the claim "There is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime or gang activity" for example, both sources simply make the claim without evidence. By your logic I can just change all the sources to right-leaning news articles that claim sanctuary cities do cause crime and then state "Trump is correct, sanctuary cities do cause crime" as if it were a hard fact. Even if the sources were academic and reflected the majority-view in academia, the tone of the article is still clearly biased. PaganPanzer (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For reference, here are the sources you removed or downplayed with your last edits: Washington Post, NBC News, Propublica, AP News, factcheck.org.  Explain what's left-leaning about those sources - they seem like mainstream reliable sources to me, and since they're reliable news sources we can take their statements on things like this at face value.  If you're defining them as left-leaning based on your disagreement about what they're saying on this topic, then your arguments are obviously self-justifying, ie. no sources that state those things would ever be acceptable to you.  --Aquillion (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the two sources I just mentioned, MSNBC is self-admittedly left-leaning, and the Washington Post article is very clearly written as a left-leaning opinion piece. So once again, by your logic, I am allowed to replace the sources with right-leaning news articles and then claim that their contents are factual? So you won't mind if I cite and then claim that sanctuary cities experience increased crime? And the tone of the article is still very clearly not neutral, as numerous people on the talk page have already pointed out. PaganPanzer (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that I am not defining something as left-leaning based on my disagreement with its contents. I do not have an agenda, I do not necessarily support Trump's policies or rhetoric. I simply value neutrality and believe that the MS-13 article is embarrassingly biased. PaganPanzer (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * NBC News =/= MSNBC. The "right-leaning" content that you want to use in the article to rebut RS content is a statement by a Louisiana politician. It should of course not be added to the article, just as we would never add statements by Democratic politicians to rebut RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * NBC News is also left-leaning, and they may as well be the same entity. The statement made by the Louisiana politician is not a rebuttal, in fact the way I have presented the information it is the reverse: the left-leaning news sources are the rebuttal. The statement made by the Louisiana politician is of course relevant if the content is Republican discourse on sanctuary cities. I can instead change the wording so that the Louisiana politician is not named, and instead it is simply claimed that sanctuary cities experience an increase in crime, since that is what is said in the right-leaning sources. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You changed the reliably sourced sentence "There is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime or gang activity." to "According to Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, crime has risen in sanctuary cities across the nation, although it is disputed whether any evidence exists that sanctuary cities increase crime or gang activity." This is a NPOV violation, as it falsely portrays RS as being mixed on whether sanctuary cities increase crime when RS clearly state that here is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My sources are RS. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You used one source for the Louisiana politician's fringe statement (which should not be in the article at all), and then altered the language sourced to the WaPo and NBC News so that it no longer stated clearly that there is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I used two sources. Can you demonstrate that it is fringe? Since the RS authors agree with his statement. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Daily Wire is not a RS by any stretch, and there is no consensus about the reliability of the Washington Examiner. Furthermore, it's a brazen lie to say that the Washington Examiner agreed with his statement. WaPo and NBC News clearly and unequivocally state that there is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Which as far as I care is all well and good except that this is being used to argue for the dedication of half the lead of the article to a "Republicans are liar liar pantses on fires!" which is absolutely an NPOV issue. This is not an article titled "MS-13 as depicted by Republicans since 2016ish", it's an article titled "MS-13". 199.247.43.85 (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that the party which controls the government in the world's largest democracy has made MS-13 a core part of its messaging in elections and uses the gang to justify family separations, mass deportations and calls for a closure to the Mexico border is extremely notable. The coverage of GOP messaging about this group is entirely commensurate with RS coverage of MS-13. This is the kind of content that clearly stands the test of time, and which will attract most readers to the article today, 5 yrs from and 50 yrs now. This is the reason why this relatively small gang is renowned whereas the larger and demographically similar 18th Street gang has nearly no name recognition at all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is speculative. MS-13 were a well-known gang before Trump became president. Please stop making excuses to push your agenda. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem with the article is that the vast majority of its text is tick-tock of non-notable crimes; compare Crips and Bloods, which do not attempt to chronicle the minutia of every single crime ever committed by a gang member. If there's anything which needs to be trimmed, it's that. What will be considered important in 50 years — the minute details of a random drug bust or this gang's impact on presidential politics? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And it's not just presidential politics. This gang features heavily in congressional politics (e.g. extremely prominent in the last few election campaigns, in particular 2018) and state politics (e.g. it was front and center in Virginia's 2017 state elections). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I may be biased but from where I'm standing it's looking like a consensus in the talk page that, at the very least, the degree of focus in the lede is undue. 199.247.44.10 (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox neutrality
Infoboxes shouldn't contain an alternative facts version, generally, they should be non-controversial. The "Casualties" section on Infoboxes should be for casualties only. In particular, the case of the Philippine Drug War, where one side in the "conflict" dehumanizes the other as a media strategy. This article is as far as I know the only one where the casualty figure is not treated on its own as a casualty figure. Is there some rule that covers this, or do people agree that it should not be used in this way to promote a POV? zzz (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the “casualties” parameter should list deaths (and perhaps wounded)... and that “arrests” are not “casualties” and so don’t belong under that parameter (as is the case in the Philippine Drug War infobox).  However, I see this as a case of well intentioned editors trying to squeeze information into a pre-formatted template, and not a case of POV pushing.  The number of arrests is a valid bit of info to put in that article’s infobox. The solution is simple: add a new, separate parameter for the arrests. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017
In Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017, as well as Template:Did you know nominations/Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 and other talk page sections, some editors are an editor is claiming that sources are "clearly POVed" and "biased towards Israeli/Jewish POV" "Jewish" or "Israeli" sources (which would seem to include Newsweek, and "Israeli" seems to cover mainly Haaretz which has a rather strong Jewish-American section)are inappropriate for a protest by a few hundred nationalists in New York City in which there was Holocaust denial rhetoric and antisemitic signs were carried. Sources include: Newsweek, Forward1, Forward2, TOI, Haaretz, JC, Tablet, as well as on TPM. This was also condemned by the Wiesenthal center. While certainly there has been coverage in Jewish oriented outlets, this is not surprising given this was in New York City and antisemitism is of interest to Jews. Outside input appreciated.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Struck + modified with direct quote per request below.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC) As a single editor is quoted - use "an editor" and specific TP quote section.Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "some editors are claiming that "Jewish" or "Israeli" sources (which would seem to include Newsweek, and "Israeli" seems to cover mainly Haaretz which has a rather strong Jewish-American section) are inappropriate "
 * Holy freakin' crap that's an utterly dishonest description of the dispute.
 * NOBODY said that "Jewish" or "Israeli" sources are inappropriate!!! Why is Icewhiz putting this in quotation marks (as if was said by someone else)??? This is some devious shit.
 * Here the word "Israeli" does not appear at all. The word "Jewish" does, given the topic, but the words "Jewish sources" or anything even close to it does NOT.
 * Here the use of Israeli sources is mentioned but the commentator actually says they're reliable. The mention is by ONE editor so it's not even clear why Icewhiz is referring to "editors", plural.
 * I'm sorry but this is straight up lying. The actual problems with the article have to do with WP:SYNTH (sources which barely mention the topic of the article), misrepresentation of sources by Icewhiz (failing to note that the sources are not reporting in their own voice but rather are conveying what somebody said) and possibly WP:BALANCE. One more time: nobody, absolutely nobody, said that "Israeli" or "Jewish" (sic) sources were "inappropriate". Icewhiz is trying to make an odious insinuation here, in order to smear fellow editors and win a content dispute. This is horrible behavior on his part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did (just now) come close by saying I can see why this might be an issue in a BLP. But that was after this was posted. But I would ask that we do not discus editors action here, if there is lying its a violation of policy and should be reported.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Quote: This article uses primarily newspapers, some of them clearly POVed (ex. Israeli newspapers - reliable, but of course biased towards Israeli/Jewish POV; currently no Polish sources are used to show the POV of the other side). - top post in Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017. Multiple RSes are describing a protest involving Holocaust denial/antisemitism by a small (a few hundred) group of Polish nationalists in New York City. No RSes have been presented coloring this protest in any other light.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "top post in Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017" - Yeah, I mentioned that. But:
 * You said the same claim about "inappropriateness" was being made at Template:Did you know nominations/Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017. Can you link to a statement on that page which mentions "Israeli" or "Jewish sources"? No? Then don't make stuff up.
 * You said the claim was being made by "editorS", plural. Can you link to statement by another editor who says anything related to "Israeli" or "Jewish" sources? No? Then don't make stuff up.
 * You said "some editors" (sic) were claiming that "Israeli" or "Jewish" sources were "inappropriate". Can you provide a quote where an editor says that such sources are "inappropriate" rather than a quote which says something entirely different? No. Then don't make stuff up.
 * Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now posted other sources. Polish media refers to the protesters simply as Polish Americans. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz, are you going to retract your false accusations or not? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per your request, I struck and replaced with direct quote above. Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep going User:Icewhiz. There's also #1 and #2 up there. Especially since your use of plural and reference to the DYK talk appears to attack me personally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per your request, I struck editors plural as a single editor is quoted. I will note that diff - a different editor referred to "use of crappy sources which make obviously outlandish and false claims" in regards to rather mainstream English language sources at the DYK nomination. Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please take this who said what spat to DR or ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ranjan Gogoi and sexual harassment allegations; WP:UNDUE concerns
The Chief Justice of India has been in the news recently as sexual harassment allegations have been made against him by a former employee. There were a couple of unsourced edits, and then sourced edits discussing the event on his biographical article. I had kept out the allegations mainly due to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE concerns. There is no doubt, at this point, that there are credible sources discussing this in the mainstream media. However, WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM concerns remain unaddressed. I have been reverted four times by SPAs over the past 24 hours, so will not go ahead and revert again. However, I would like to draw the attention of regulars at this noticeboard to keep an eye on this, and possibly suggest the best resolution for this.

Pertinent questions at this point of time:
 * Should the allegations of sexual harassment be included in the article?
 * If yes, then how much weight ought to be given to these allegations?

Please note that the subject of the biography is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of India, and that there has been no formal investigation of the allegations as of yet.

Note: I have activated pending changes on the said page after two edits including allegations of sexual harassment and other details (one of which was unsourced). At that time I thought this was necessary as the subject received significant coverage in the news due to this, and that there was potential for further addition of unsourced content, with not enough editors watching the page. If any administrator believes that this was unsuitable, please feel free to deactivate the pending changes page protection.

— Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  09:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC) 09:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please note that the subject being the Chief Justice of India makes it all the more important because there is an open legal question of WHO IS TO INVESTIGATE THE CJI? The CJI decides the fate of such allegations for every other SC and HC judge but there is no defined procedure for accusations against the CJI. Above all, a 3 judge SC bench including CJI Gogoi, the accused, called for an emergency meeting to address the matter and have passed an order asking media houses to exercise self-censorship in this matter. I have been on the Wikipedia as an editor for about 2 decades now and I have always found BLP being abused in the case of famous people. I brought up the issue of Asaram Bapu rape case and was probably blocked from editing as a result of this unclear, controversial policy. I then complained to Jimmy Wales who agreed with me but he was blocked by an administrator for agreeing with me and was abused and ridiculed by the administrator for "playing God" on Wikipedia. Needless to say that the rape accusations were accepted as valid on Wikipedia. (It is another matter that Asaram Bapu is now a convicted rapist enjoying jail now.) I suspect that BLP is not actually used for protecting individual lives but allowing editors who have a secret dream of practising law in a court, a venue for pseudo-legal wrangling. What wrong would be done and to whom, by mentioning one or two sentences on an issue of such importance that the Supreme Court of India has to address an emergency meeting with the accused acting as a judge in his own case? Would his granddaughter find out about Grampa's dirty little secret that she wouldn't have had otherwise? Let us be real. Keep the accusations; we just need to figure out the extent of relative coverage. They are extremely noteworthy and a matter of court record and no amount of passage of time would diminish the unprecedented nature of what transpired.--Trickipaedia (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mmmm I can see a BLP issue here. These are unsubstantiated allegations. I would (personally) leave it out until it becomes a formal investigation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, Slatersteven. Could you consider taking out the allegations until the WP:BLPBALANCE/WP:UNDUE issue is conclusively resolved on the talk page? I am a bit hesitant to do so since I have already reverted ~three times in the past 24 hours. In this context, you may please also refer to this specific ruling by the Arbitration Committee: WP:ARBBLP. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  16:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Association for Democratic Reforms
This article seems to have been written to some extent from an "insider" perspective, if anyone is interested to take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Five Percent Nation
It's tagged for Original Research and NPOV. There has been ongoing debate on the talk page for about a year about the neutrality of certain sections. I'd like outsiders to review and chime in on this. Most of the edits are by user:OjogbonIjinle.

Here are the past and current discussions on this:


 * Talk:Five-Percent_Nation
 * Talk:Five-Percent_Nation

For my involvement, I looked at the page some time ago, and noticed a section called "Myths and Realities" that I considered not very neutral. It relied on sources that seem to be FPN apologetics or promotional, and it read more like an essay than anything. Checking the talk page, three users since 2018 have also had issues with the section. I then decided to remove it. It was then added back by OjogbonIjinle and removed by others. Now the section is gone, but a new section called "Social impacts and impressions" is there, also written by OjogbonIjinle. That's where the issue stands now. I find this section with a more essay like tone and style, and has been tagged for original research by others. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 (talk), it would be helpful if you would indicate the specific sentences or phrases that you find problematic and what you find problematic about them, so that the charge of NPOV can be properly addressed. The "Social Impacts and Impressions's" sources include FBI files, academic publications, newspaper articles, historical events, and direct quotations from politicians and historical figures. The section does not argue a position; it presents information, quotations, data about various social impacts and impressions of the Five Percent Nation, whether those impacts and impressions are that they are "unreachable, anti-white criminals" or that they are not. Please take some time to isolate the specific sentences you take issue with so that they can be addressed. OjogbonIjinle (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC:Accusations of Anti-Semitism as an ideology of Hezbollah from some very POV pro-Israel editors
(Please read Talk:Hezbollah to find the discussion prior to this one before commenting. Thank you :) ) -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
It seems like there has been considerable debate on the subject of the alleged anti-Semitic ideology of Hezbollah, but this is by no means a shared consensus either on this website or in the global community as a whole. I propose removing this from the ideology panel, as anti-Zionism and Islamism are the more accurate descriptions for this group that are widely shared by most commentators. This website need not be in the business of supporting disputable claims. --Ðrdak (T) 10:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Beyond the bombing of Argentinean Jewish targets, there is no lack of reputable sources calling the organization antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I hold the belief that the notion of Hezbollah being anti-semitic is purely based off of the party/group being against the ideology of zionism which itself would be like saying anti-nazism is anti-germanism, even though everyone knows thats just ridiculous. Being a controversial statement, it is also only given one source which i think is too little to give them such an extreme label. I have also seen videos and read various articles about how Hezhollah has got a good relationship with both lebanese christians and jews. There are also some western jews that hold positive views towards Hezbollah. I agree that the label either needs more comprehensive non-biased sourcing or should be removed! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Straight from the horse's mouth: . &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For most of us there is no way to validate what is being said in the video. Not only because it is a sound-file on top of a picture, but because a lot of us dont speak arabic and there are no subtitles! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a translation in the video description and a link to the full article.
 * In addition there is a long list of sources quoted here. There can't be any doubt that there is a non-fringe POV that Hezbollah is antisemitic. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is rather the mainstream view, present in reputable RS. Hezbollah itself doesn't really contest this (nor does antisemitism have the associated stigma it has in the West).Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a mistake to assume that the prime minister of Israel is simply delivering objective information about the leader of a group opposed to his foreign policy goals, another mistake to assume that an editorial writer is doing the same. There are scant non-opinion stories about Hezbollah in English-language sources but that seems to be par for the course for groups opposed to the US/UK. Some closer investigation is warranted:, Asasinarosa (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hezbollah is antisemitic in the same way water is wet. It is a definitional thing. This isn't up for debate. All scholars on the topic of Hezbollah and on the topic of antisemitism agree on this topic. --GHcool (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a rather absolutist statement that is, by its very nature, demonstrably false. Surely if "all" scholars on this topic agreed, we wouldn't be having these debates regularly. The point isn't whether an individual editor believes Hezbollah is anti-semitic in their heart of hearts, but rather whether this adheres to NPOV guidelines and the avoidance of bias in articles on this site whenever possible. Ðrdak (T) 03:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)



-- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your point? Carlos Latuff is an example of an anti-semite claiming to be merely legitimately critical of Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)



-- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)



-- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC) 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)



-- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)



-- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC) I don't think your source is NPOV enough. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Unless they officially declare themselves as Anti-Semitic, they are just Anti-Zionist, because Anti-Zionism ≠ Anti-Seminitism. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for editorial cartoons. Please read WP:NOTFORUM.  --GHcool (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hezbollah "Anti-Semitism" (Bullshit)
Two of the refs cited in "Reference #6" disprove the claim, and the other two have no proof of anything at all. Any editor with the ability to edit this page, and a modicum of intestinal fortitude, should read the references and delete "Anti-Semitism" from the list of ideologies. How the fuck did this garbage even come to be included in a so-called encyclopedia??? 174.89.132.146 (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See above.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which source disproves it ? Care to copy a quote here ? The two sources that I can check support the statement strongly, and I can't check the two others. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. When I was reading the blue-locked article about Hezbollah, an organisation which has an Anti-Zionist view, I noticed Anti-Semitism listed as one of the ideologies in the infobox. I looked at the article's talk page and found that a discussion was already underway. The editors who supported labelling Hezbollah as Anti-Semitic were highly acclaimed editors who were very pro-Zionist, and one of them had even explicitly written on their user page that they are 'dedicated' on Wikipedia is to promote the views of the Israeli Zionist Government! I am quite concerned that the activities and high approval of these users on this website will push towards leaning to a pro-Israeli or even Zionist bias. Could somebody please help? Thank you! ^ - ^ -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

They are User:GHcool and User:WarKosign. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I am writing this because Anti-Zionism ≠ Anti-Semitism. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I've looked at several articles regarding Hezbollah, and the statements about antisemitism are very well-sourced, to scholarly books on the subject as well as newspaper articles and statements from Hezbollah leaders and spokespeople. Generally, if a group claims not to be something but the preponderance of independent sources say they are, then the article should reflect the independent sources, while still noting the group's denial. That appears to be the case here. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur. You can be both anti-Semitic AND anti-Zionist, just anti-Semitic, or just anti-Zionist. The terms are not exclusive. As to their applicability in this instance, they are well-sourced and should stay. While someone may want to push an agenda/interest, that doesn't mean their edits are incorrect. Focus on the edits, not the editor. Buffs (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a little on the fence as to whether (per WP:CATDEF) it's a defining feature of the group because there is a lot of anti-Semitism among Islamic fundamentalist political parties. It also seems like one of the cited books is actually questioning whether Hezbollah is anti-Semitic: the author criticizes Jeffrey Goldberg and others for claiming the group is anti-Semitic without doing much actual reporting on the organization. That said, I think the weight of the scholarly evidence favors the view that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic, and I think we would need more than just one book in order to justify treating it as a contested claim. Nblund talk 18:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's of note that they claim to only be anti-Zionist (violently anti-Zionist?) but that their ideology and actions do not seem to make such a distinction. This article provides a generally appropriate balance with examples: Ideology_of_Hezbollah Buffs (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Anti-Semitism is not an ideology, although it can be part of one (such as Nazism) and therefore should not be included. The Cambridge Dictionary defines ideology as "a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based." Anti-Semitism is best seen as one of the those beliefs, not the entire set. It would only be something like Jew Watch where the central mission of the organization is anti-Semiiism that it could conceivably be described as its ideology. Some groups have more than one ideology, such as the Democratic Party of the U.S., which represent specific factions. But Hezbollah does not have separate Islamic nationalist, anti-Semitist and anti-Zionist factions competing for control.
 * Also, per Contentious labels, we generally do not describe groups as anti-Semitic but say that they have been described as such.
 * TFD (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * But Hezbollah just being against the Israeli colonisation of Palestine is definitely not Anti-Semitic. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) That is not the major reason reliable sources describe Hezbollah and antisemitic, and I really think you should read the ideology article again to get a sense of where that designation is coming from; and 2) it actually doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not. It would appear that the dominant point of view of reliable sources is that Hezbollah is antisemitic. If that doesn't sit right with you, prove that the dominant point of view is something else or at least more controversial than described, by citing reliable sources. Or you could attempt a rational argument that the sources used for the claim are not reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Jerusalem Post is a highly pro-Zionist news organisation, which promotes the message of supporting the Israeli regime, and is quite likely to spread statements that are not entirely true about its anti-Zionist opponents. I believe that a label that is disputed should not be in the ideology section of the organisation's infobox. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The Jerusalem Post may or may not be biased, but it's only one of the four sources cited for that claim in the infobox. And if you look at the article section about Hezbollah's views on Jews, there are a dozen more sources. Out of all of these, some might be flawed or biased. But others are, as far as I can tell, very high quality academic sources on Hezbollah and on antisemitism. If you want to dispute the label, I'd recommend finding equally high quality sources that say Hezbollah is not antisemitic. Cherry-picking single sources out of almost 20 and pointing out flaws is not going to work. Even if you succeed in having the Jerusalem Post removed from the article, it wouldn't change the content, since other sources back that material. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A large proportion of the Western sources would say that it is. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, I respectfully ask that &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; removes the caricature they appended here, which is both contentious and irrelevant to this discussion. Second, we're not necessarily naming complete ideologies in that infobox ("the entire set"), which would be nearly impossible in the majority of cases (what does "anti-Western imperialism" means? Is it violent resistance or political action? Does it deny Russian involvement, or accept it? Does it reject Western "soft power", or only "hard power"?), but characterizing them in common terms. If we were aiming for "complete" ideologies, then that box would be near useless: the unique ideology of Hizbollah is "Hizzbollah-ism", and that's a tautology. Keep to the sources, and stop trying to white-wash this organization. François Robere (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The article, "ANALYSIS: HEZBOLLAH’S LETHAL ANTI-SEMITISM", in the Jerusalem Post is by Benjamin Weinthal, who is described as "a European correspondent at The Jerusalem Post and a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies." ThinkProgress, which represents moderate Democrats, describes the Foundation as hawkish, interventionist and defensive of right-wing politics in Israel. It is incorrect to assume that the views in the article necessaarily represent the views of the Jerusalem Post and should be attributed to intext to the author. But that rules out its use in the info-box.
 * Equally importantly, Weinthal does not say that anti-Semitism is their ideology.
 * TFD (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a few more: François Robere (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The ICT source you cite there actually seems pretty solid (although I didn't do a deep dive), but its also a little more nuanced: "it should be emphasized from the outset that despite its anti-Semitic motifs, this attitude is not the most significant tenet of Hizballah philosophy." This is the impression I get from a lot of the higher quality sources. I'm not sure what the norm is around infoboxes - is the norm "include all relevant ideological themes" or "include only the most important"?  Nblund talk 16:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * None of these sources says that anti-Semitism is the ideology of Hezbollah or one of its factions. In fact the first source, "Anti-Semitic Motifs in the Ideology of Hizballah and Hamas," says "it must be stressed that while anti-Semitism is a basic tenet of these movements, it is by no means the central one, as it was in Western racial and religious ideologies." In fact, the title of the article is a hint that the author considers anti-Semitism to be part of the ideology, not the ideology itself. TFD (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On the 1st source (ICT) see Nblund's comment; the 2nd source (Fisk) suggests it is common in the organization; the 3rd source (Rosenberg) suggests it's common in the organization's rhetoric; the 4th source (Yaakov) is an example of such in the organization's media arm. François Robere (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The topic of this discussion thread is whether or not anti-Semitism should be included in the ideology field in the info-box. You have provided no sources that anti-Semitism is the ideology of Hezbollah. On the other hand, there are plenty of sources including those presented here that their ideology is based on support of the Shi'ite side in territorial disputes in Lebanon. TFD (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources above are pro-Israel or pro-West perspective. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the sources are RS. Trying to paint them as political because of location or nationality, as you do, is less than distasteful. François Robere (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As previously noted, it's not the ideology of anything, but it is a component of many ideologies, Hizbollah included. The sources already in the source, as well as those first presented during this discussion, clearly paint a picture of an antisemitic organization. There's nothing "anti-Zionist" in bombing a synagogue in Argentina - it's an antisemitic act, pure and simple. François Robere (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an accusation... -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that there should be a NPOV discussion because there was significant dispute on article's talk page about whether the group was just anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic, as well as the organisation officially itself denying it has any antisemitic ideology. I just want the Wikipedia page to be an encyclopaedic article that states what things really are, instead of being another echo of allegations by certain powerful groups and individuals. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably that's the reason you added the irrelevant, highly political anti-Israeli caricature some lines above? François Robere (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that Latuff would represent what I was trying to convey. I have removed the cartoon now. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

A lot of Zionists label anything or anyone against them as anti-semitic... -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When Wikipedia is used as a platform by individuals with these POVs, they change a significant amount of content is changed to align with their views, therefore intentionally disrupting the neutrality of this encyclopedia. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, we should start a RfC. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that this discussion should be moved to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, because the encyclopedia is being used by editors with pro-Israeli interests to push their views. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link to the previous discussion on the article's talk page, just in case you were wondering where the discussion is: Talk:Hezbollah :) -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a copy of that discussion, above. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is pointless. We have an editor challenging academic sources with..... cartoons? Quite odious cartoons, utilizing old tropes, per reliable aources - .Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot see why Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. The group can only be undisputably be called anti-Zionist, however, Zionists, who consider any protest against the Israeli state as anti-Semitism, will use this label to delegitimise and degrade any group that engages in such actions. Therefore, I believe that this label is being used on Hezbollah by 'journalists' who are writing such articles to push the agenda of the Western bloc on a group that is in conflict with the West. It is definitely not the role of Wikipedia tfor it to be another medium to echo these rumours. So this label, when not 100% verified to be impartial, shouldn't be used against this group which enjoys a reasonable amount of support from the international community, especially in there in a time of increase US opposition to Iran. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We generally follow the POV of mainstream media (or "by 'journalists' who are writing such articles to push the agenda of the Western bloc"). Your personal opinions matter little - and do not jive with Hezbollah's attacks against Jewish targets (e.g, Argentina) or with their speeches and stated aims (which include ethnic cleansing). There is significant overlap between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. And much more importantly - academic RSes disagree.Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * However, In Conflict with Israel =≠ Antisemitism.? -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ...I was not able to find sources on Google that say that Hezbollah is promoting ethnic cleansing. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that Wikipedia is NPOV. 'Mainstream media' is only the 'mainstream media in Western countries. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even on 'Mainstream Media', there is no unanimous consensus that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hezbollah aims to remove all "Zionists", or Jews, from Israel. Groups may be in conflict with Israel without being antisemitic, however some such griups are antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But Hezbollah does not have a racist hate policy against the Jewish people – the group is only against the takeover of the Palestinian land by Zionist groups and the subsequent expulsion of its residents in what would become the State of Israel, who will live in poverty. The group only want the land to be returned to the original residents. That is not anti-Semitic, at all. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:A/I/PIA the only place that not WP:ECP users are allowed to post is talk page."Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc." So this noticeboard discussion is off limit to them --Shrike (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought that I should transfer this discussion to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard because it seemed that the discussion is more appropriate there. -- &#61;*&#61; XHCN Quang Minh &#61;*&#61; (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

need help in the article History of domes in South Asia
There is non NPOV pushing in the article, some sources claim something which is contradictory to the direct archaeological evidences which are properly referenced and sourced, these sources claim otherwise an have been inserted into the intro of the article which i think is being non neutral. Have tried discussing the matter but there is no resolution. Hammy0007 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is certainly some "NPOV pushing" going on - who is doing it is the subject of disagreement. The subject is a complicated one. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it POV to call the SNC-Lavalin affair a scandal?
In the lead, it's described as an "ongoing political scandal" in Canada. Questions are now being raised about if it should instead be "ongoing political controversy". I'm not sure if that's appropriate, or if it would be a euphemism. The talk page section is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair#Is_it_really_WP:POV_to_call_this_a_scandal? here]. I would really appreciate outside opinion on this, to avoid another long back and forth. Safrolic (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Use of "LavScam" at SNC-Lavalin affair
This should have been announced here long ago. There is an RfC open at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair and a supplementary discussion at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair about whether the term "LavScam" has sufficient prevalence in RSes to satisfy WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV concerns for inclusion in the lead. Issues raised include the types of sources that have used the term, and how use of the term is framed and sourced. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Juan Guaidó
I tagged Juan Guaidó as biased and explained my reasoning here: Talk:Juan_Guaidó (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Estimates of Iraq War casualties
There is a relevant RfC on the Casualties of the Iraq War talk page about how to describe estimates when there is a conflict between reliable academic sources about the veracity of particular estimates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Claims that Afghanistan and India are allies of Tehrik i Taliban

 * Recently, some users have been adding Afghanistan and India to the infoboxes of the article. The sources themselves also appear to be speculative or opinionated. And furthermore there is already a section in the article about "foreign support". I tried opening up a discussion in the talk page but there has not yet been a response.Apollo4659 (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Speculation or being opinionated does not make then not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well there are even sources that say that Pakistan supports the TTP, so shouldn't that be included too? Apollo4659 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally it is WP:UNDUE, to be putting those countries in the infoboxes.Apollo4659 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffident issue, that might have some validity.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bde Maka Ska / Lake Calhoun
The largest lake in Minneapolis was renamed from Lake Calhoun to Bde Maka Ska and the Wikipedia article was moved. Minnesota's second-highest court recently ruled the state did not follow proper procedure in renaming it. There is considerable controversy about the two names, both of which continue to be in common use. Several well-meaning editors insist on putting Lake Calhoun in parenthesis to tell readers it is their less preferred name. Jonathunder (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is still a controversy this seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Even hotly contested names like Derry and Liancourt Rocks don't put one name in parenthesis to tell readers which one Wikipedia editors prefer. "Aaaa, also known as Bbbbb,..." is standard. Jonathunder (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks like what's in the lead. I see no issue here. Buffs (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's sort of like the compromise that's done well with the Denali article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Bde Maka Ska is the local and federally recognized name. The local organizations in charge of the lake also refer to it by that name only. And it is the common name used by the media since the name change. To include the former name without parenthesis is a violation of WP:UNDUE because it implies that the former name is used in some sort of official manner. Similar articles such as Denali, Devil's Tower and Black Elk Peak all follow the same naming convention and are very similar to this page as they are landmarks known by their Indigenous names. Devil's Tower has its English American name presented first because that is its legal name but includes the Native American name in parentheses. Denali and Black Elk Peak have their former English American names in parentheses as the Native American names were officially restored. Bde Maka Ska is similar, therefore Lake Calhoun remains in parentheses to follow common practice. This is not a violation of NPOV and as I said, it would be a violation to have Lake Calhoun presented without.

The mention of the court ruling here is misconstruing. The court did not rule on the name change and did not rule to change it back. It ruled on whether or not the DNR had the authority to change the name. It is being sent to the MN Supreme Court for a final decision. However, on all legal levels, the name is still Bde Maka Ska. I compromised on the issue of the court case by accepting the removal of the word "formerly" from the parentheses as it used to read in the LEAD as (also known as Lake Calhoun, it's former official name). However, it is still the former official name in a legal and common name sense. Again, there's no local, federal or common name recognition for Lake Calhoun being on equal level with Bde Maka Ska, therefore Lake Calhoun should remain in parentheses.  on camera  17:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

List of music considered the worst
For the past few months (and in fact going back even further than that) there has been a hotly debated issue at List of music considered the worst over the inclusion of a specific entry: The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Despite the fact the album is frequently regarded as being among the greatest, most popular, most influential, etc. albums of all time, it is included based solely on the fact a small contingent of people hate it. Since its addition to the article nine months ago, there have been various edits by multiple users removing the entry, only to be reverted by other editors who tell them the album's wider positive acclaim does not supersede the opinions of these few individuals, so they need a consensus before removing it. Over two months ago an RfC was started to discuss its removal, but thus far no action has taken place. The major arguments of the two sides boil down to this: In addition to the lengthy RfC, a second discussion was started about whether or not the list should be deleted. Over the past nearly fourteen years the list has been nominated for deletion six times (the most recent of which January this year ), only to reach the same conclusion each time: Keep but clean up. However, some of the editors in those discussions arguing to clean it up instead of deleting it are actively preventing any clean up from happening. Edits adding music considered the worst are reverted, edits removing critically acclaimed music from the list are reverted , and edits clarifying the wider held critical views of the entries are reverted. As a result of these actions, it has been inferred by some that their objective is not the improvement of the article but rather to maintain the status quo and keep certain entries on the list.
 * Keep - It satisfies the vaguely agreed upon inclusion criteria for the list, which is any song or album, regardless of its overall critical reception, being called the worst by at least two reliable sources.
 * Remove - Its inclusion goes against WP:NPOV, specifically (but not limited to) WP:WEIGHT as the majority view is "Sgt. Pepper is a good album", the minority view is "Sgt. Pepper is not a good album", and the view "Sgt. Pepper is the worst album ever created" is an extremely small minority, WP:BALANCE as it misconstrues the critical reception for the album to appear far harsher than it actually is, and WP:SUBJECTIVE as the common interpretation of the album is that it is good.

As with the RfC, this lengthy discussion about a possible AFD is rooted in the fact that Sgt. Pepper appears on the list, and once against it is pointed out numerous times that its inclusion appears to go against NPOV, and by extension so does the entire list. Instead of being a list of music noted for having such overwhelmingly negative receptions they are generally considered to be among the worst ever created, it is merely a list of any music called the worst by at least two people. The album's removal (and exclusion of any similarly positively acclaimed music) would improve the article by bringing it more in line with NPOV and warrant its existence, while its continued inclusion robs the list of any encyclopedic value and calls for it to be deleted, because something being called the worst by two people is not notable.

After months of numerous editors arguing the album's inclusion (and by extension the entire article) violates NPOV with no response, another flare-up over the past couple of days has resulted in two editors, more specifically two admin, who are calling for the album to remain to finally deign to acknowledge and address the argument. One stated the interpretation of NPOV calling for the removal of the album is wrong (but did not explain why), while the other referred to WP:NPOV as "some random alphabet soup page" that "does not produce any forgone conclusion". Since both sides are deeply entrenched and showing no willingness to budge, and as there seems to be no resolution in sight, the issue is being brought here.

Is the interpretation of WP:NPOV correct? Does the inclusion of a creative work widely regarded as "good" in a list reserved for works considered the "worst" based solely on the opinions of a handful of individuals violate WP:NPOV? And if so, does it need to be removed? 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:F9D8:738:A901:F251 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an active WP:RFC about this matter. This shouldn’t be here, it’s WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Sergecross73   msg me  01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What forum shopping? The notice for the RFC was removed over a month ago, something you know full well as two weeks ago you noted it had been gone for weeks, and therefore every "No" vote that came after its removal was "almost certainly more poorly coordinated canvassing" (instead of them randomly stumbling across the article, being confused about the first entry being a widely acclaimed album, heading to the talk page to find out why it's listed, only see the discussion and deciding to voice their opinion). Until today, the last post in the RfC was two weeks ago. The last "Yes" vote utilizes the same rational as the first "Yes" vote from two months ago, and the last "No" vote utilizes the same rational as the first "No" vote from two months ago. After two months of multiple editors repeatedly arguing the album's inclusion violates NPOV, today it finally got a response. It should not take that long to get a response when there are so many editors in the discussion actively arguing it should stay, but finally one has been given. Those responses were the interpretation of NPOV is wrong, and WP:NPOV is "some random alphabet soup page".


 * Since the beginning this has been an NPOV issue, but its hard to reach a consensus when one side will not even acknowledge WP:NPOV exists. Side A says a few people hate it, Side B says far more people like it, Side A says it meets the inclusion criteria, Side B says that criteria and the entry fail NPOV, Side A stops talking...until someone tries to remove the album, and then they revert the edit and say a "clear consensus" has been reached that it stays . Now that you have acknowledge the NPOV argument, we can work to get it resolved, and so it has been brought here to neutral parties removed from the lengthy, months long discussions to look at the NPOV policy and look at the list and make a determination of where or not it violates NPOV. The editors engaged in the debate who believe it violates NPOV will continue to argue it violates NPOV, while the editors engaged in the debate who believe it doesn't violate NPOV (or have completely refused to acknowledge the argument for two months) will continue to argue it doesn't (or continue to not acknowledge it), and nothing will come of it but more arguing. You yourself finally acknowledge the NPOV argument by saying I am wrong about it, but you don't explaining why. No consensus or constructive discussion can be had that way.


 * WP:WEIGHT states - "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." I have and continue to acknowledge that some people out there consider Sgt. Pepper to be the worst album every, but I contend they are an extremely small minority because even most of the sources currently being used for Sgt. Pepper's entry do not consider it the worst album ever made. You say that is an "(incorrect) application of NPOV" . Please explain what is incorrect about it.


 * WP:SUBJECTIVE states - "Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation." I maintain that means you look at the full range of reviews, surveys, books, etc. which are deemed reliable sources, and make a determination based on the ratio of positive and negative receptions. If 90 people consider it "good" and 10 people consider it "bad", the common interpretation is that it is positive; 50 "good" and 50 "bad", the common interpretation is mixed results; 10 "good" and 90 "bad", it's negative. You say I "don’t seem to understand it" . Please explain it so I can understand it.


 * Apologies for the "wall of text". I yield the remainder of my time. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:6972:38FD:873:AD4 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Says the person who deletes any sight of positive text about Sgt. Pepper's. You're being called out here, you're not following WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, and WP:SUBJECTIVE. You're doing anything you can to preserve Sgt. Pepper's in the list and delete any mention of it being a good album. It goes against WP:BIAS. Your hatred for an album should not misinform people. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 01:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article’s scope is documenting music considered the worst. If you want positive reviews, you’re in the wrong place. Just like I’d remove tigers from a “list of dogs” article. Regardless, this is still forumshopping. Sergecross73   msg me  02:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to burst your bubble, but two notable sources don't make an album "considered the worst" against thousands of good reviews. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 02:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the actual content in the article doesn’t suggest otherwise. It very clearly defines and attributes the sentiment, with a very direct “Source X considers it the worst”. Sergecross73   msg me  02:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The scope of the article is to include music considered the worst, and the vast majority consider Pepper a good album. Two sources - TWO - say that the album is bad. So that's enough to include it? Perhaps in terms you understand: I talked with 100 people yesterday. 98 said you were a good person, and 2 said you were bad. So following your logic, you should be put in a list called List of people considered the worst. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 02:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The key word is “considered”. All you need is one source for it to be considered the worst. As many participants have tried to express to you in the still-ongoing discussion, this is not an article that is tracking something like “the absolute lowest aggregated scores at Metacritic. It’s just documenting times when the statement has been made. Making a stricter inclusion criteria has been suggested, But no one has bothered to put together anything that garnered a consensus. Sergecross73   msg me  02:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, people, you can all see it. One source is enough to put it in a list called List of music considered the worst, regardless of all the other thousands of positive reviews. You be the judge and tell me if that follows a Neutral point of view. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 02:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, one source is commonly the starting point for inclusion criteria. Again, I am not against instating stronger inclusion criteria. I have not opposed this. But neither you nor any other editor has proposed any other inclusion criteria. You’ve merely whined about this particular entry. Neither you nor your IP friend have made any effort to build the list article itself, or workable inclusion criteria on a whole. You’ve just endlessly rehashed your feelings on this one particular album. Sergecross73   msg me  03:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Our criteria, that we've been repeating over and over? WP:WEIGHT. The minority of people doesn't surpass the majority. If 98 people said you were a good person, you shouldn't be "considered" a bad person, only because 2 people said so. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is fundamentally not inclusion criteria. Sergecross73   msg me  03:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Riiiiight... good arguments you have there. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, there’s nothing else to cover on it. It’s not. Your comment is about as insightful as the person who said we wouldn’t have to have any more discussion if we just “follow policy”, as if everything was so black and white, cut and clear. Randomly ending every comment with another link to NPOV or WEIGHT doesn’t magically resolve everything. Sergecross73   msg me  03:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that settles it, then. See you on that list. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, to be clear, I do not hate the album, or have any thoughts on it at all. I’ve merely maintained this list for years, and force discussions to take place any time editors try to remove entries that are reliably sourced. Ive been an active editor for over a decade and have no history of disputes regarding POV pushing, and certainly, if I was the sort of editors who decided Wikipedia was the medium to express my hate for an album, I’d have more than zero edits at the album article itself. The whole premise is absurd. I’ve argued endlessly with this group of editors (I believe most are the same person under a bunch of different IPs) but I’d say probably over half has been warnings over protocol, process, not attacking other editors, not casting aspersions, not writing in all caps, etc. Sergecross73   msg me  02:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you like I can give you a list of every IP I've posted under. I'm always in the same place with the same computer hooked up to the same wifi, but the IP keeps shuffling around. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:6972:38FD:873:AD4 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this really just underlines a fundamental issue with that list, which is that it is innumerable as currently used, and thus fundamentally shouldn't exist. Given the inclusion criteria and the other entries (and especially their sources) actually on that list, it's basically a list of times that music got bad reviews. An actual list of music considered the worst [by a significant survey of people] would be much shorter, it wouldn't include entries simply because there were some bad reviews, and it wouldn't include entries simply because the editor interpreted a source as saying "worst ever" when it did not. It might actually still include Sgt. Peppers, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It has survived 6 AFDs, and similar video game and film lists have generally survived 5+ each as well. There’s a solid consensus against deletion. Just a ton of different viewpoints on how to write it. It’s a repeating cycle. People like this will argue about a given entry for weeks, but win or lose, they disappear after the discussion about their preferred entry. No one wants to write the article or get a consensus on inclusion criteria. They just want to complain about their entry and then move on to the next thing.  Sergecross73   msg me  03:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, and the consensus says: Keep it, but clean it up. Remove entries that don't belong. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And I’m all for it. And so far we’ve spent 2 months arguing against the “Beatles Defense Team”, who have made zero suggestions for improvement outside of, surprise, removing the Beatles. Sergecross73   msg me  03:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Against the "Beatles Attack Team", who have made zero suggestions for improvement outside of, surprise, preserving the Beatles in that list. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ...Is that supposed to be in reference to me? Because I’ve been maintaining the article since as early as 2014, which I’m pretty sure was years before the Beatles entry even existed. Sergecross73   msg me  03:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to fit the criteria for inclusion, but then its a pretty weak idea for a list.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I closed the RfC referred to above as "no consensus". Basically the arguments boil down to whether the criteria for inclusion is "any song/album that has been considered the worst, regardless of the balance of opinion about the song/album." or "any song/album that has been considered the worst and the balance of opinion about the song/album is significantly negative". This is not defined on the article, and there is no consensus on the talk page or in the talk page archives about which it is. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Chairman to Chairperson
In case anyone is interested, see Talk:Chairman. SarahSV (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC for Appeal to nature
Talk:Appeal_to_nature is considering the neutrality and encyclopedic value of including a specific example into the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Phillips (activist)
Lengthy discussion about subjects military service. Seems a bit of whitewashing and proclaiming POV when anyone makes a well sourced edit. Seems the sources get scrutinized, which is good. However also seems when sources and citations meet wiki reliability standard reverts to claiming POV. The concern is reports of subjects “Vietnam vet” and “Vietnam veteran” claims are being whitewashed and undue weight is being given to editors who appear to want the subject is a more favorable light. Using the word veracity to paraphrase multiple reports that were sourced is not POV. Highly concerning. Also as soon as someone makes an edit that is sourced but less than favorable on the subject, proclaiming POV is definitely not wp:agf.0pen$0urce (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, it kind of seems like you're just accusing other editors of bias. That's not the point of this board. What content would you like to see changed and why? Nblund talk 02:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s an opinion, elaborated on issues with the article and how the article is being aggressively policed and seems to give undue weight to one POV. Very active reverting on sourced edits. As soon as a new contributor comes along, makes edits, sources edits, they are accused of POV. Would think be ideal if a larger cross section of the community get involved and chime in. The talk page is lengthy and goes in circles.0pen$0urce (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It would help if you said what article is under discussion. The link in the heading is to a disambiguation page. Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC) [Fixed 10 April 2019.  Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)]

Lot of back and fourth several folks tried to contribute sourced mention of the subjects embellishment or exaggeration of Vietnam service. Current edit states Vietnam Era Veteran, however misleading and subject is did not serve in Vietnam and did not meet the criteria to earn Vietnam Service Medal. I came along and saw folks were trying to make edits but every source got stonewalled Unreasonable sourcing demands So I figured ok maybe the souyrces are the issue fine, lets see what I can find, found about 3 carefully curated sources, tried to be careful in my wording stay NPOV, and almost immediately was accused of POV edit and reverted. Just seeking additional input here--0pen$0urce (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again: this board is not the place to air grievances about other editors. It's about content. Why does it matter if whether or not he qualified to earn a Vietnam service medal? Can you link to a diff or say what you want the article to say and what sources you want to cite? Looking at the talk page, it actually appears that there are a fair number of experienced editors participating in the conversation.    Nblund talk 01:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ”Again”, who’s airing grievances? Asking the community via this, npov notice board, to review the military service section for npov. I ask that you keep it civil and assume good faith.0pen$0urce (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The military service section should include sourced criticisms of subjects “Vietnam vet” portrayal, not just a white washed he’s a Vietnam era veteran. Several reports that subject including social media video that was reported on that subject portrayed himself inaccurately as a “Vietnam vet”. Even mention of those reports gets whitewashed, seems very POV. There happy. Geese no wonder Wikipedia struggles to attract new editors no wonder. Civility lacking for starters. 0pen$0urce (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no "civility" issues here, so stop with your transparent attempts to weaponize that. You have no suggested edits, only "it's biased".  That doesn't work for us.  You've had multiple experienced editors tell you that you're wrong.  Your comments very clearly show that you are grievance-focused.  I think you need to drop the stick and move on.--Jorm (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please focus on content not other contributors. Again keep it civil0pen$0urce (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, @0pen$0urce: Constantly accusing others of incivility is itself somewhat uncivil. I would second (or fourth, or fifth, really) what other editors are telling you: it seems WP:UNDUE to focus on this obscure question, and you're not going to convince anyone by endlessly bludgeoning this issue. It's probably not worth your time to continue tilting at this windmill.   Nblund talk 15:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment about me. “Constantly”. “Undue and obscure”whelp that’s subjective. As well as arbitrarily proclaiming a source is a blog. Reported criticisms of the subjects portrayal of his Vietnam service. Just about every major news outlet that reported Phillips a “Vietnam Veteran” retracted after his service records were recovered under the Nathan Stanard. Additional reported criticisms, some originating from military focused news outlets (Stars and Stripes, Military Times, and yes Task and Purpose). These sources specialize in military centric journalism and can clearly distinguish the “Vietnam Era Veteran, “Vietnam Vet”,”"I'm a Vietnam vet, you know," Phillips said. "I served in the Marine Corps from '72 to '76. I got discharged May 5, 1976. I got honorable discharge and one of the boxes in there shows if you were peacetime or... what my box says that I was in theater. I don't talk much about my Vietnam times. I usually say 'I don't recollect. I don't recall,' you know, those years.-Nathan Phillips Facebook video talking to Native Youth Alliance 2018, as reported by Task and Purpose, re-published Buisness Week “ Not unreasonable to ask folks to comment on content and keep it civil.0pen$0urce (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI, 0pen$0urce provides only blog posts as sources and when they're told they're no good, they cast civility aspersions and template people with. So that's what you're getting into when you tell them that they're wrong.--Jorm (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2nd request, please focus on content not other contributors and let’s keep it civil. Can you pleas provide reliable sources, not just subjective opinions that task and Purpose is a “blog” and furthermore that an article written by Task and Purpose’s Editor in Chief then republished by Business Week is merely a blog. I spent significant time researching task and Purpose. Several articles about the company in the Atlantic, huff post. There mission statement is Task & Purpose is a digital news and culture publication dedicated to issues that matter to veterans, service members, and the civilians who care about them. We aren’t just trying to speak to the next great generation of military veterans, we are actively trying to build it. If someone can find a reliable, not subjective source that task and Purpose is a blog. Sure they publish work from contributors. Proclaiming “blog” doesn’t mean it’s a blog and starting to give the perception of status quo stonewalling amongst other things going on here0pen$0urce (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I generically side with OpenSource on this one (as have others, see talk page). The fact that Mr. Phillips has indeed in the past claimed to be a "Vietnam Veteran" (which he is not) and not a "Vietnam-era Veteran" (which he is) is of note and reflects on his credibility. Likewise, there he has made confusing remarks about being a "recon ranger" that were later clarified. This establishes that he's loose/inaccurate with his choice of words, again, leading to credibility issues (see also his lies at the 2019 Lincoln Memorial incident). This is a WP:BLP and must meet those standards. Below is a closer attempt to address the issues OpenSource is trying to address:


 * Phillips entered the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves on 20 May 1972. During his time in the military, he served as a refrigerator technician in Nebraska and California and was trained as an anti-tank missileman. On 5 May 1976, Phillips was discharged as a private following disciplinary issues, including three AWOL incidents. In accordance with the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Phillips is classified as a Vietnam era veteran


 * Initial media reports in the wake of the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation were inconsistent as to the particulars of Phillip’s military service, leading to reports that conflicted with his actual service. Several media outlets erroneously reported Phillips was a “Vietnam Veteran” then subsequently issued retractions or clarifications. Contributing to the confusion, in an interview, Phillips stated he was a "recon ranger".  He has made multiple statements since that video in which he only claims to be a Vietnam era veteran and clarified his "recon ranger" remarks as a description of his actions during a protest, not that he served in that capacity during his military service.

Hopefully that would remove the T&P reference while giving both context to his discipline issues (without whitewashing) and confusing remarks. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? Buffs (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that your contention that the statements "reflect on his credibility" are kind of the problem. It makes this seem like a WP:TROJAN Horse that implies a statement of opinion without simply coming out and citing a person who criticized Phillips. The reliable sources suggest that the initial reports got it wrong (which doesn't reflect on Phillips at all) and Snopes concludes that there is no evidence that he intentionally tried to mislead people about his military service. I'm not sure that really warrants two paragraphs in a fairly short article. Nblund talk 20:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So, there are two issues here. The first is the fact that the media got a LOT wrong in that incident (that's pretty well acknowledged on all sides). The second is that he's also loose with the facts. In the 2019 January incident, he made numerous statements that were demonstrably false and others were doubtful/intentionally misleading. This is a pattern of behavior as he DID claim to be both a "Vietnam Veteran" in a video as well as "Recon Ranger". I welcome and accept his clarification on both points, but it's notable that he's loose on accuracy in spontaneous conversation (commonly known as "exaggerating"). Does this assessment seem accurate? Or is it just too much? Your thoughts? Buffs (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My thoughts (which you didn't ask for): your whole post looks a lot like original research. He's loose with the facts; he made numerous statements that were demonstrably false and others were doubtful/intentionally misleading; this is a pattern of behavior. Are there multiple reliable sources that say exactly that? The Washington Post said he "misrepresented his military history", but that's not the same thing as saying he's a wholesale liar and lacks all credibility. I welcome and accept his clarification on both points...: it looks as though you're setting yourself up as judge here, and that does bring your motivation into question. I accepted your edit on the article talk page (and why did you ping Nblund and Jorm here, rather than on the article talk page), because it seemed a good faith summary of some (marginally) interesting facts, but it seems, as Nblund says, that its true purpose is to use verifiable and marginally interesting facts to imply things which are not verifiable. Scolaire (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So, 3 points here you bring up.
 * Why I pinged them here: I pinged them here because they responded here. Their input pertained to the matters discussed on this page.
 * "it looks as though you're setting yourself up as judge here" Wow. I'm offering a substantiated opinion on the subject that is widely held/supported by third-party sources (see below). That's just putting the facts out there. As I said before,
 * I'm NOT saying he's he's a wholesale liar and lacks all credibility. I am saying that he exaggerates, like some people are prone to do; That isn't WP:OR. "He’s all over the map on his facts." His statements about himself/his actions need to be taken with a grain of salt. Since his own perception doesn't align with what actually happened, we need to give his claims context. For example "'That mass of young men surrounded me and the folks that were with me,' Phillips said, adding that when he did finally find a path to walk through the 'clear space, a person was there. I was blocked.'" when he actually waded into the middle of the students intentionally beating a drum a few feet from a teenager's face.
 * How I personally feel about Mr. Phillips is hardly the point. WP is supposed to be based on what reliable, third party sources say about the subject. Since these opinions are indeed part of the mainstream, it's important to both include his statements about military service, the errors, and any points of later clarification. To do otherwise is misleading. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you need to be a little more circumspect, and use better judgement, when citing sources in a biographical article. Looking at the sources you've cited in your comment immediately above:
 * The first is a polemical opinion piece, in which the author dismisses the mainstream media as "leftist liars". Regardless of whether you agree with that opinion, it should be obvious to a competent editor that this is not a suitable source of fact for a serious encyclopedic project, much less for a biography, where particularly strict sourcing standards apply.
 * The second is a news piece from the Washington Post, and thus an appropriate source, and your summary seems accurate enough.
 * The third source is a CNN interview with Phillips, which does not include or imply the gloss you provided. (That is, the source says nothing about any discrepancy between Phillips's statements and his actions&mdash;that is your addition, but your text makes it look as if the source directly supports it).
 * The fifth source is an opinion piece, which incidentally you have completely misrepresented; rather than calling Phillip's honesty into question, the gist of the piece was the link (in the author's view) between the actions of the Covington students and those of other icons of white supremacy.
 * So please, if you're going to cite sources, review this site's guidelines. Specifically, claims about living people require high-quality sources. Opinion pieces should not be used to support assertions of fact. And you need to honestly represent the content of sources you cite&mdash;that is not negotiable. You note, correctly, that Wikipedia must reflect what "reliable, third party sources say about the subject", but your input here is at odds with that goal. I have no opinion on the underlying content question, but any discussion needs to be grounded in site policy. MastCell Talk 16:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, MastCell, let's keep it civil and avoid personal attacks, shall we?
 * The point of my argument wasn't "let's just include these". Someone said I was conducting WP:OR; this was a demonstration that my opinions were not and could be sourced. #1 was from the Chicago Tribune. Regardless of the author's opinion of "mainstream media", that doesn't discount it as a credible source FOR THAT OPINION. Acceptable: Author ABC opined "XYZ was the sole reason...". Unacceptable: XYZ was the sole reason... It doesn't mean that it cannot be used, even in a WP:BLP. #2 is ok. #3/#4 are merely records of what Mr. Phillips said and how inaccurate they were is CLEARLY indicated in the article. But, I'm not citing their specific opinions. Only the facts of what was actually said. While some might view the incident and statements through various lenses, the facts (not their assessments) are the same in these accounts and can be used as such to document the facts; they have the reputation of these reputable publications behind them. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The purposed text seems to be an improvement with decent sources. I think it should be fine to add it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback! Buffs (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll abide by consensus here, which I'm reading as people's concerns have been addressed. Any additional concerns? Buffs (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on criteria for inclusion of topic in lead of Being and Nothingness
There is an RfC at Talk:Being_and_Nothingness discussing whether a topic is prominent enough to be discussed in the lead section of an article. --Drevolt (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: John Bolton being a "war hawk"
There is a RfC on the John Bolton page about the kind of language we can use about him being a "war hawk". The editor vetoing one version of the language claims that it's a NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

More eyes needed over at Iraq War
From what I've read, this article violates NPOV substantially by omitting crucial factual information. The lede to the article fails to note that there were no WMDs found (but does mention that US officials started the war because they believed there were), that there was no Iraq-Al-Qaeda operational relationship (but does mention that US officials started the war because they believed there was), and there is no mention that the administration pressured the intelligence community and misused raw intelligence to paint a deceptive picture of these issues. There's a throw-away line about how the rationales for the war "faced heavy criticism", which falsely presents the issue as if the debates around Iraqi WMDs and the Saddam-Al-Qaeda ties are of a partisan nature, rather than settled. Absurdly enough, the lede goes into the weeds on how "old" chemical weapons were found (which is irrelevant to the rationales for invading Iraq) - devoting three full sentences to it nonetheless!

Furthermore, there is some strange gatekeeping going in the article where several editors are edit-warring to keep statements made by Dick Cheney as assertions in wiki voice... statements made by Dick Cheney as assertions in wiki voice. So, I think the article could do with more eyes. The article appears to me to grossly violate NPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Mukesh Ambani
Someone should clean up the article - he's one of the wealthiest people in the world and should have a better-written page. Phrases like "life was hard", "loosely monitored by his father", "played all kinds of sports", "Dhirubhai cared very little about Mukesh's grades", "Dhirubhai believed that real life skills were harnessed through experiences and not by sitting in a classroom", "The company was being built from scratch with the principle of everybody contributing to the business and not heavily depend on selected individuals", "Mukesh's father treated him as a business partner", "Mukesh's success gradually increased...because of the great quality service is provided to users for cheap", and "Mukesh makes it a top priority to spend quality time with his children and family every Sunday" sound too much like puff-piece phrases rather than serious encyclopedia work. Dankster (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you have a good grasp of what qualifies as a better-written page so I encourage you to do some editing if you have time. There are so many pages like this and some are probably not getting noticed at all so when we stumble upon a poorly written piece, it would be cool if we take the initiative to edit especially if we have the capacity to do so. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If RS widely characterize a party as "populist", can we state it in Wiki voice?
There's a dispute on the Brexit Party page where multiple editors are suggesting that the term "populist" is a value-laden pejorative and that we are therefore not allowed to state in Wiki voice that the party is "populist" even though RS and political scientists widely characterize it as such. Is it a NPOV violation to state "populist" in Wiki voice? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there Reliable Sources that say the party isn’t populist? (I would assume so, but assumptions can be wrong) ... If so, then saying it in WPs voice would be non-neutral. We would have to mention both view points (and attribute so the reader knows who holds which view).  In fact, when it comes to political topics, it is probably best to attribute any label, even when widely held. Applying a label should be considered an opinion (it may be an expert opinion, but it is an opinion nevertheless) and so should be presented as such. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think in the context of the Brexit Party it seems to fit since the party is based on an issue that has majority support of the people (based on the referendum), but none of the major parties have been able to achieve "Brexit". I think the term can be used to try and equate the far-right and the far-left, but it isn't being used that way in this case. I'm an American and I don't think the term populist is pejorative except when it's used with additional qualifiers (like how "populism" is used to equate Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders). That's my two cents. -Pokerplayer513 (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The summary presented above is a mischaracterisation of the discussions on the talk page. The main ones can be read at Talk:Brexit Party and Talk:Brexit Party. I ask that anyone thinking of commenting here read these first instead of relying on the prelude to the question above. EddieHugh (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If we are talking Brexit, the bulk of the sources are too near the event in time to be able say it factually now in WP voice. In 2-3 years after whatever Brexit ends up being, when scholars are writing about it, then we can take what scholars consider to be factual. --M asem (t) 02:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If RS say it and no RS contest it, yes we can sat it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is actually an issue for RSN. Populist is a controversial term but it can be used where there is academic consensus for its use. I scanned the talk page but could not find any academic sources. I think these are important because reporters are not political scientists and tend to be less strict in their use of terms. A good source should explain what it means by populist, why the Brexit Party meets the definition and how accepted the description is. In previous discussions I have been involved in about right-wing groups, most editors have followed this approach. I haven't read enough about the party to guess how it might be classified, but even while Farage was leader, UKIP was described as a right-wing populist party. By that was meant it claimed to champion real British people against the treasonous elites and evil foreigners. TFD (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally I believe WP:WIKIVOICE says it best: If it is a widely held belief that the Brexit Party is populist, we can state pretty much exactly that (with attribution), but we should avoid casting such an opinion in the concrete of the WP voice. I also agree with  that with some historical hindsight this may change as the party's actions are analyzed in more depth by historians, but given the relative recency of this, I would tend to avoid hard definitions at this time.   C Thomas3   (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Outside input needed at Ricardo Duchesne
There is a pair of ongoing discussions at Talk:Ricardo_Duchesne that could use some additional input. The discussions concern how much discussion of Duchesne's work is WP:DUE for inclusion, and how extensively we can discuss criticisms of Duchesne's work and his ties to white nationalists. Thanks! Nblund talk 01:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

War hawk
You are invited to participate in Talk:War hawk about whether War hawk should be moved to Hawk (foreign policy), which has a neutrality angle. The discussion could be closed as early as today. Sorry for the late notice. R2 (bleep) 18:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Excessive POV on China–United States trade war
The article has been previous tagged with globalize/US + POV and IMPROVEREF by multiple users ages ago, while a specific user removed ALL tags and refuse to restore it to its former state and instead throwing out random accusation onto other editors who believe it is the case, this specific user on the other hand are use inappropriate language against a third editor, whose experience led this editor believe this article to be POV and requested for comment, he instead suggested this is not POV and these editors are just trying to install their POV other than Trump's. he then suggested others to edit the page and believe those who RFC is who "don't like that this article doesn't fit your (his) point of view but can't be bothered to change it the right way, so you (he) initiated this RFC in a desperate attempt...", which is quite uncivilized when the editor is trying to reach broader consensus and he seems to imply the editors doing so are just lazy. On the one hand, he said "nobody is stopping you from doing it" and at the same time he keeps reverting edits made that were trying to to neutralize the article, and claiming who change the article is engaging in an edit war, when he is the one keep reverting on the ground of "consensus" as if that is what he can represent, who at the same time consistently fail to present any valid arguments beside baseless accusations. Viztor (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop being so dramatic. As was already made clear to you people don't just tag bomb articles and remove heaps of material that have been sitting there for months on end without even discussing it on the talk page first (as you did here and here) And you are complaining on the noticeboard while simultaneously edit warring as you did here - another no no. I have told you multiple times to discuss your changes on the talk page FIRST - it's unfortunate that you have decided to ignore my advice and escalate the situation, but I can't say i am surprised. Recommend that this meaningless complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Syopsis (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * These tags had been there for months, you're being inconsistent, on the one hand, you are saying other should edit, on the other, you keep reverting other's changes when providing no arguments on your own if they don't support your POV, this is ridiculous. Viztor (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * These discussions have long been raised by multiple other editors over long span of time, instead of contesting these arguments, you choose to revert and again deleting ALL tags, throwing out baseless accusations while stalking others, all those that are unacceptable you've done. Viztor (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Take it up with User:TomCat4680 he was the user who removed it. Syopsis (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When you perform a edit, it's your responsibility to make sense and argue it, claiming that some other have removed it which is reverted because did without reason, does not mean you aren't hold accountable for your own edits.Viztor (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Advice needed re National_Disability_Insurance_Scheme
I think that most sections of this article are very POV. I’ve started a discussion here about how it might be fixed, but there is no one over there to discuss with. I don’t want to start hacking into it without some outside advice first (in particular because I have a minor conflict of interest). Markbrown00 (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim
I have added a section on the page "Muhammad bin Qasim", about his role in the army before he invaded Sind. This section is now a subsection of "Early Life" under the title "Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim". This section was objected upon by Kautilya3. I have improved the section painstakingly, by adding many modern scholarly sources and editing text and title more carefully. The dispute has reached a deadlock after they started questioning the neutrality of the section although it represents all aspects. They are interpreting the label in a way to undermine the credibility of the material. I think it is a case of WP:WIKILAWYER.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sabine Weyand
Request also filed at WP:3O, but may require more experienced and directly policy-based input:
 * Does WP:INDY require that a subject's publicly stated and reported views should only be given if there is context and commentary and analysis from third-party sources? If the views have been considered significant enough to report, but have not attracted commentary or analysis, should they be suppressed? Otherwise is there a danger that WP appears to be giving a non-neutral endorsement of these views in a biased way?

At issue is the degree to which it is appropriate to cover the publicly given on-the-record stated views of Sabine Weyand on the Brexit process, in the absence of wider commentary, contextualisation, or discussion of those views. (She was the chief-of-staff and deputy lead negotiator in the EU Brexit negotiation team).

Discussion at Talk:Sabine Weyand. Jheald (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Maintaining NPOV on List of most visited museums
There is a robust discussion happening about how to best define inclusion criteria that supports a neutral point of view on the List of most visited museums article. Your perspective on these matters and others listed in this RfC are welcome. Qono (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Daily Beast article on Tulsi Gabbard
Is including the following statement in Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign undue weight: "An article in The Daily Beast reported that the campaign had received contributions from individuals allegedly sympathetic to Russia and Vladimir Putin, including Stephen F. Cohen and a former RT employee."

In Reliable sources/Perennial sources, The Daily Beast is rated as "neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable."

The Daily Beast article, "Tulsi Gabbard’s Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists" identifies four of five of the over 65,000 Gabbard donors as "some of the nation’s leading Russophiles," including the actor Susan Sarandon, who donated $500. Sarandon has also contributed to the presidential campaigns of John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, Ralph Nader, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, Tom Harkin and Bernie Sanders and congressional or senate campaigns of Beto O'Rourke, Barbara Boxer, Tammy Duckworth, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Lee, Charlie Rangel, Hillary Clinton and many others.

This article's allegations have not been picked up by mainstream media, although the article has been criticized in other alternative media, such as Rolling Stone and The Intercept.

TFD (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "This article's allegations have not been picked up by mainstream media, although the article" - Really?
 * Politico: Gabbard calls unflattering report 'fake news'
 * The Hill: Gabbard says claim her campaign is getting boost from Putin apologists is 'fake news'
 * CNN: Tulsi Gabbard invokes Trump's 'fake news' rhetoric to push back on report of Russia-linked support
 * National Review: Should We Be Worried About Candidates Accepting Donations from ‘Russophiles’? - MrX 🖋 19:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The articles in CNN, the Hill and Politico all report Gabbard's response when asked about the article on a talk show. None of them repeat the information about Cohen or Goofy Grape. And the article in the National Review, which is is better grouped with publications such as Rolling Stone and The intercept, similarly is about the poor quality of journalism in the Daily Beast.
 * Otherwise, mainstream media, by which I mean the major TV networks, and respected broadsheets, with the exception of CNN, have ignored the story.
 * If you were to include the story, then you should cover it the way reliable sources do. The Hill article for example, says, "[O]n Sunday [Gabbard] called a Daily report that her campaign is being backed by prominent Russian sympathizers "fake news."" Instead, you write it like tabloid journalism. They'll have a lurid discussion of the latest conspiracy theory and wait to the final paragraph to tell you it's false. For example, they will discuss all the reasons Ted Cruz might have been the Zodiac Killer, before telling readers that the killer was active before Cruz was born.
 * TFD (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a valid comparison, since the fact that the contributions occurred is not in dispute. I think where we primarily disagree is how much weight the the original story in The Daily Beast should be given, if at all. I think this material is worth keeping since a half dozen reliable sources took notice, and I would disagree with any attempt to write the material in a way that appears to debunk what the Daily Beast reported. The three main perspective should be represented proportionally: 1. contributions from pro-Russia people occurred; 2. it's a smear; and 3. Gabbard invoked Trump's rejoinder "fake news!". - MrX 🖋 21:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The facts in the National Enquirer Ted Cruz story are not in dispute either. That's how propaganda often works. Use selective facts to reach a false conclusion. It is in dispute however whether these living persons are "Putin apologists," whether their donations are based on Gabbard's Russia policy or whether the amount of money they received are significant. I notice you said there was quid pro quo, which is what is falsely implied in your source. TFD (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, Mr X, I believe that it was the current CCO of the Clinton Foundation -- Craig Minassian -- and the Comedy Central folks who were behind the original popularization of the term "fake news" through the Daily Show.  Minassian's company has been the second most highly-paid WMF contractor, just behind the legal firm Jones Day, for a number of years now, including during the 2016 election. In my view, of course, the relative weighting should be:


 * 1) smear campaign
 * 2) see 1.
 * 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 05:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Since Gabbard used the term "fake news," CNN anchor Anderson Cooper used the term when questioning a facebook executive. Yesterday, CNN ran a headline, "Finland is winning the war on fake news." It belies their claim that it is Trumpspeak. TFD (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's try to stick to actual sources about the subject. - MrX 🖋 15:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case the subject is who uses the term "fake news." As it turns out, the claim you want to add that the term is used exclusively by Trumpists is false. Why would you want to put information into articles that you know is false? TFD (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my reply was intended for SashiRolls. I should have outdented (as I have now done). We certainly don't need to say that Gabbard invoked a Trump trope. I think it's sufficient to say that she referred to it as "fake news".- MrX 🖋 14:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would also like comment on whether or not people think this should be included on her BLP as Snoogans & MrX have been insisting. I don't really have that big a problem adding a paragraph to the entry about the campaign as it is encyclopedic to show the tactics being used to discredit the campaign.  The tradition of the Daily Beast accepting low-quality hit pieces is established (another example was the Yashar Ali article on Jill Stein in 2016).  That is just the track record of the Daily Beast.  But, this is pretty clearly not one of the most salient points about the biography of Tulsi Gabbard and is unlikely to interest readers of her biography in 2 years time, much less in 10.🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 20:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source that mostly relies on secondary sources, it is preferable to use secondary sources that discuss the politically based attacks rather than using the original attacks. When writing about hate literature for example, we would generally rely on the SPLC, news media and peer-reviewed sources for what they said, rather than the websites and publications themselves. Also, we probably would not report the information in articles about the groups they described, but put it into articles about the hate groups. TFD (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that we should prefer secondary sources, but referring to the Daily Beast article as a politically based attack does not seem so reasonable. Comparing it to hate literature is just naked rhetoric.- MrX 🖋 15:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There are two questions here. (1) Was it well sourced? Yes, it was because this is not only Daily Beast, but several other sources noted above. (2) Is it "due"/significant? Yes, it certainly is. This is the beginning of Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, see here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So you view is that sourcing to a publication for which there is no consensus per "Perennial Sources" for reliability is well-sourced and a story ignored by the overwhelming majority of broadcast, print and web media in significant. MrX, why would I think that a highly partisan organ would publish an unfair article about someone whose politics they disagreeed with? Because that's the reason they were set up. Their philosophy is "We really like the gonzo. We really like the weird. We really like the fun and we don’t give that many fucks.” TFD (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with TFD: As currently worded, with its own section header to boot, this report has been given undue weight in the article.  Leaving aside that the Daily Beast is known for publishing hit pieces, the supposed connections it "reveals" between Gabbard and Russia are scant at best.  Cohen has donated to a number of candidates, including Elizabeth Warren.  There is no evidence that Gabbard solicited his support, and certainly no evidence of any collusion between her campaign and Russia.  Perhaps a one sentence mention of actual Russian propaganda efforts to give her a boost is warranted, but as it stands now, the subject has been given far too much weight.  HappyWanderer15 (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am only saying two things: (a) the title of this thread by TFD is misleading (it was not sourced only to Daily Beast), and (b) yes, this is something really important for inclusion. How exactly this should be included (may be not as a separate section, or to another page) is debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if The Daily Beast is a reliable source. Reliable sources have reported on the controversy surrounding the story.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether any reliable sources have mentioned the story, but whether they have sufficient weight for inclusion, when the story has been ignored by all major U.S. news networks and broadsheets with possibly one exception. TFD (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, sufficient weight in relation to the rest of the coverage she has received. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree with the addition of this. The main source here is The Daily Beast and the other sources are merely voicing Gabbard's response. For example, Venezuela's CITGO donated $500,000 towards Trump's inauguration in 2017, plus additional lobbying, and The Daily Beast insinuates that Trump avoided sanctioning the company because of this. While the reason for the donations is unknown, it is widely recognized by more reliable sources that the Trump administration did not sanction CITGO and Venezuelan oil destined for the United States because it would exasperate the crisis in Venezuela. More stringent oil sanctions were later applied when the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis began and the United States began to hand over CITGO to Juan Guaidó. The appearance of these Daily Beast "donation" articles is that they are very superficial reports and that they make broad assumptions. Feeling comfortable with aligning Gabbard with "Putin Apologists" on her article is the equivalent of being comfortable with describing Trump as an alleged lackey to the Venezuelan government on his article...ZiaLater ( talk ) 21:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Juan Guaidó
Per the usual with Venezuelan-related articles, there have been some NPOV concerns among users. We are looking for some uninvovled users to evaluate and improve the Juan Guaidó article if there are any NPOV issues existing. I attempted to make a list to target specific NPOV concerns, but the responses have been vague and not as detailed as I had hoped, spiraling into arguments once more. There has been no consensus on the article's talk page as to what needs to be improved; the talk page is quite unorganized. While there has been some discussions about the lede not being NPOV, others state that the whole article appears to be a puff piece. Any help is appreciated!ZiaLater ( talk ) 18:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * the article lead reads like an advertisement or media brief for a future Guaidó presidency. The lead begins by mentioning how many countries have recognized him as acting president of Venezuela (54), when it could just as easily mention how many have not recognized him (140). The lead continues with a moralistic origin story: "After living through the Vargas tragedy as an adolescent, Guaidó determined that public office was the route to take in order to improve Venezuela." I think the lead can be improved concretely by removing some of this WP:PUFFERY, and noting his collaboration with US officials. -Darouet (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your observations (which I agree with) and these improvements. Please take a look at the infobox that declares he is the "acting president".  --David Tornheim (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

For anybody wanting to join the discussion please read Talk:Juan_Guaidó, you have brought more issues to the discussion with your modifications.--MaoGo (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC) The conversation is threading again. The usual users (including me) are still the only ones involved. --MaoGo (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * after this publication, the talk seems convoluted and has added just one more user to the mix, it is there another noticeboard or a higher authority we can appeal to in order to get a better review on the matter?.--MaoGo (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Hae Min Lee
In the name of not airing disputed assertions, Adoring nanny is not allowing significant portions of the police and prosecution story of the homicide investigation into the Murder of Hae Min Lee article.

Someone who has no knowledge of this case will be unable to explain how the police found Jay Wilds, their "key witness". An encyclopedia article about a murder should explain the police investigation in some detail. If there are doubts about the police and State's assertions as to the investigation, they can be raised in the article, however the current state of the article has an overly weighted viewpoint.

Cynistrategus (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Explain the police investigation in some detail." The police investigation according to whom? The vast majority of what the police say happened is disputed. That's the central problem. I am not and have never been opposed to adding information about the police investigation. But it has to conform to Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:WIKIVOICE. This user, who appears to have a past or present relationship with the office of the Maryland State's Attorney, has been pushing versions that take what the police say happened at treat it as fact. That's not consistent with WP:WIKIVOICE.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

BitChute
I believe the BitChute article does not present a balanced view in the current form as of. I believe it may not need much adjustment, but it needs some. There is a discussion at Talk:BitChute but I may have sanity limits on how much disruption it may cause to my real life. A POV template has been repeatedly removed. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Carahunge
Could anyone look at this person's actions please. He is POV-pushing and repeatedly removes sources that support another point of view. I suggested him to reword the text as a consensus but he prefers to delete it all. Shows a very aggressive behaviour to a new user ! Isabekian (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That's not the way I read it what happened, see my comment below. Doug Weller  talk 05:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This board is not for addressing the behavior of another user, that might be WP:AN/I but beware of the WP:BOOMERANG that will almost surely hit you. Can you be more specific about what you think the article should say and why, and why the other editor is mistaken? —DIYeditor (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: There is a parallel thread at WP:FTN already. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two main POV-s among the specialists: 1) Carahunge could have astro-nomical signiﬁcance, 2) Carahunge was just a necropolis. We should represent who supports the first POV correctly. The text I suggest to add:
 * Different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs, E. Parsamian ) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) support the view that Caragunge was an important archaeoastronomical site. Two others, I. Simonia and B. Jijelava write that "The speciﬁc geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical signiﬁcance" . Isabekian (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As this is a fringe archaeology dispute I posted to FTN (before this thread was started)what I told this editor (I think the edit above is their 26th) Note this is also about their edit at Paris Herouni]:


 * "Your text was:


 * "Subsequently, different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs, Irakli Simonia and Badri Jijelava ) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) confirmed the astronomical signiﬁcance of the Carahunge mega-lithic complex."


 * "That's a misrepresentation of the source. The source has two relevant sentences: "The expedition supported the idea that Carahunge had an astronomical significance, concluding that the monument is aligned to rising points of the sun, moon, and several bright stars." It also says "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance" - so, "probably" and "supports" - neither word is anything close to confirmed. That's the misrepresentation.


 * "Then there's our Neutral point of view policy linked in the section heading. The next part of the second sentence is "(but see also ▶Chap. 127, “Carahunge - A Critical Assessment” for a different view)." Your edit doesn't suggest that is in the source at all. To follow our policy you must include relevant information from chapter 127. I've reverted one edit entirely and am about to revert the other - please rewrite them complying with our guidelines.


 * "I realise that you are new, but I would think that without even reading our policy an editor should understand that they shouldn't use words not backed in the source and should not cherry pick just one point of view from a source. Doug Weller  talk 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "::Hi. I'm trying to assume good faith, but till now your actions are just agressive. If you believe a word I used is not fine, you could: 1) discuss it at talk at first, to not start an WP:WAR, 2) to change that word, but not delete the whole text. Your actions are against WP:NPOV. Isabekian (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I thought what I wrote was reasonable and gave the edito enough information to rewrite their text, learning in the process. I am not sure that discussing it at "talk" would help as I tried to do just that on their talk page rather than on two article talk pages. Anw now we have 2 boards involved. I did ping them in my FTN post. Doug Weller  talk 17:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest to add the position of serious specialists - Bochkarev, Parsamian, Simonia (all are professors) ect. It is not a fringe archaeology dispute, the articles were published in academic journals, and the dispute is rather over astrophysics than archeology. Isabekian (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I missed his first claim "He is POV-pushing and repeatedly removes sources that support another point of view. I suggested him to reword the text as a consensus" - my view is that I removed NPOV text and suggested ways in which he could rewrite it and learn our policies in the process. Doug Weller  talk 05:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Update for other readers: the content discussion itself is now at Talk:Carahunge. — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the statement properly verified by the source?
Is this statement verified by the supporting source?:

"According to European Intelligence and Security services, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence networks attempt to entice former opposition group members into denouncing and vilifying their former compatriots,

Source:



Thank you for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I glanced over the talk page. It's difficult to follow for editors who are not already involved. Maybe your best approach would be to ask for mediation. TFD (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Advice needed on Håkon Wium Lie
There's an ongoing dispute on the article on Håkon Wium Lie about the nature of what to include. We have tried to resolve it through the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the report was archived without any attempt at moderation. The dispute is on including in the article that the magazine Håkon Wium Lie cofounded is a controversial, right-wing magazine. In this Wikipedian's opinion, the article is lopsided and missing a major piece of information about this person without describing this engagement fully. Particularly because there's no further information about the magazine on English wikipedia. There's plenty of information added to qualify his engagement, and some of it also seems oddly out of place without the context of him now being involved in several right-wing activities (for example "..is a self declared social-democrat"). I believe the right-wing nature of his engagements should be possible to read out of the page itself, but one user in particular disagrees. I don't want to describe the nature of their disagreement, but the Talk page of the article is extensive. Elmats (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Elmats tries to use a BLP page in a political smear campaign. A senior editor has described, in a dispute resolution process, why this is incorrect. There is no need for another discussion on this topic. Permenee (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there's any reason to accuse me of a political smear campaign. I have my own suspicion that Permenee is HWL himself or working with his magazine, but I have tried to keep the topic to the article. I don't have a campaign, but when people try so hard to keep encyclopedic information off Wikipedia, I am willing to follow it up until it's settled. To refer to the dispute resolution, I don't acknowledge that the so-called senior editor's brings any authority to the table and there was no attempt at resolving the dispute. The edits and information have to stand on it's on own encyclopedic merit, not a random editors authority. Assistance in this from impartial wikipedian's would be very appreciated, as Permenee now just reverts edits on sight and also has broken the 3RR, in my opinion Elmats (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please stop your campaign, including your unfounded accusations. You claim to seek advice, but we already have advice from a senior editor on this issue. There is no need to start yet another discussion in this forum. Permenee (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not running a campaign. And again, your friend declaring himself senior editor doesn't give him any extra authority. The previous dispute round was archived without any conclusion. I'd like to try again. Elmats (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on media initiative regarding news coverage of climate change on the reliable sources noticeboard
There is a discussion on the CJR Event on Covering Climate Change and its implications on Wikipedia articles on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   21:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Exceptional claim about the WSJ
I'll begin by saying an RfC was opened May 21st and closed June 1st asking if the following text should be kept in the lede:

The Journal editorial board has promoted pseudoscientific views on the science of climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos.

The RfC was closed as keep. My concern is that it is noncompliant with NPOV for the following reasons: The statement is sourced to Merchants of Doubt which is not specifically about the WSJ, although it is mentioned occasionally in the 270+ pages along with other MSM publications. The book actually criticizes 53% of MSM for downplaying the science (pg 215), but the fact that their criticism is retrospectively based opinion doesn't appear to have been taken into consideration. To what editorial board is the claim referring? The published opinion essays/letters to the editor that were actually published in the WSJ were authored by highly respected scientists and experts in their field at the time, not all are still alive today, and the science back then was not as advanced as it is today. WSJ, like so many other publications, published different views, including opinion essays by highly qualified scientists and other experts in their field, not all of whom agreed with each other. They also published letters to the editor, some of which included rebuttals from other scientists and experts. That's what news publications do, and I do not consider routine publishing of controversial topics authored by reputable scientists in leadership positions to be confirmation that the WSJ promotes pseudoscientific views. Atsme Talk 📧 05:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Exceptional claims require multiple high quality sources, but only one source was cited.
 * 2) None of the pages listed in the citation substantiate the claim that the WSJ editorial board promoted pseudoscientific views about any of the issues mentioned.
 * 3) Opinions should not be stated as fact in WikiVoice.
 * 4) The editorial board mentioned in the lede claim has undergone changes between the time said opinion essays were first published (from 1988–2002) through today.
 * 5) NPOV policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
 * As well as the RFC linked to above, it’s probably also worth having a look at this more recent thread on the same topic. Brunton (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) This was settled in a RFC. (2) There is not just one source for this content. This is the relevant section of the body where there are by my count at least 9 sources cited. (3) The editor has not pointed out how Merchants of Doubt, which is authored by historians of science Naomi Oreskes (of Harvard University) and Erik Conway (of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology) and is considered a credible authoritative source, has been misused or alternatively, how the contents of the book are false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that this is not appropriate for the lead. Yes, the claim is reliably sourced, and I think it should be discussed in the article... however, highlighting it in the lead gives the claim UNDUE weight.  Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There's troubling issues in that RFC and the article. Yes, there are clear sources that WSJ's oped page editors will likely give more space to climate deniers and the like to other viewpoints, if any at all. That's a compliant that can be made. But the article does not have the sourcing appropriate to say what that is going into the lede, nor for this supposed section in the body  The fact that they feature op-eds (supported by the given sources) is not the the same as a direct statement from the editorial board rejecting climate change. Both the statement in the lede needs to be removed (undue weight) and the section on climate change stance reworded to better reflected the more limited facet (that the WSJ will favor op-eds from climate change deniers) --M asem  (t) 14:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've made a post at the talk page in question, feel free to comment there too. Perhaps it might make sense to modify the wording slightly, though I can't actually read all the pages being referenced from Orestes and Conway. -Darouet (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's the editorial board itself (in its own columns) that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. Here they refer to the "settled science" of climate change in scare quotes, describe the science as "still disputable" and that there are "doubts about how much our current warming is man-made as opposed to merely another of the natural climate shifts that have taken place over the centuries". Here they say, "There is still serious scientific debate about the causes, effects and possible solutions for climate change". Here they question both that the Earth has been warming, as well as that CO2 contributes to warming: "If emitting CO2 into the atmosphere causes global warming, why hasn't the globe been warming?". They refer to the IPCC saying the Earth has been warming as a "bold-face conclusion". They characterize climate science and the IPCC as follows: "Temperatures have been flat for 15 years, nobody can properly explain it (though there are some theories), and the IPCC doesn't want to spend much time doing so because it is politically inconvenient and shows that the computer models on which all climate-change predictions depend remain unreliable." The editorial board has not published a single editorial under its own name that recognizes the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what news sources do - they publish various opinions that were presented in arguments. One of the reasons WSJ received 37 Pulitzers is because of their in-depth coverage and research into topics. This isn't the first time WSJ was the opposing side of a particular topic but this is the kind of information readers expect and want to know about. Are you wanting the public at large to simply accept whatever science is most promoted without any opposing views? That would be more like State-run public dissemination - keep the public compliant and unaware. I disagree.
 * Masem, I was initially focused on the lead and had not paid much attention to the Science section until you mentioned it. The lead paragraph in the section mirrors what's in the lead, and I've already pointed out those issues, so if we get the lead issue resolved, we do need to correct the Science section. I agree with you in that there are troubling issues, and will add that there are exceptional claims in that paragraph that are either not cited at all or do not use in-text attribution. They are not cited to multiple high quality sources as required by NPOV. Worse yet, they are contentious statements (attacks, actually) that have been editorialized rather than summarized. Fact: In the past, the WSJ has published op-eds from climate change deniers and have also published the resulting rebuttals in "Letters to the editor". Other problems include dated material and an obvious political bent of the criticisms that has been published in RS sources, some of which have a COI as competitors of the WSJ. The entire secton should simply provide encyclopedic information in a dispassionate tone with strict adherence to DUE and NPOV. I had not realized how much of a role politics plays in this particular topic. It wasn't that way when I was producing environmental/conservation programming for PBS broadcast. Atsme Talk 📧 15:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We cannot read what the staff writers/editorial board include in non-op-eds and claim they take the stance against climate change or the like, without reliable third-party sources. That's both original research and POV. As DGG says below, it's fair game from your existing sources that you can say the WSJ favors editorials/opinions from climate change deniers. Now, relative to everything else, and given that this facet of the WSJ is so tiny relative to everything else about the paper, that would still be UNDUE in the lede, trying to coatrack the climate change issue that early on; fair game otherwise in the body. --M asem  (t) 15:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It could be better worded "The editorial section of the WsJ is known for frequently publishing editorials and opinion promoting ...." . Strictly speaking, we never know anyone's opinion, we only know what they say.  DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have stated at the article talk page... a paper’s editorial stance on ANY single issue is too detailed to be mentioned in the lead. The WSJ has taken editorial stances on a multitude of controversial issues through the years... from opposing Roosevelt’s New Deal, to supporting US intervention in Vietnam... and on and on. The climate stuff is but one of this multitude, and does not rise to the level of being highlighted in the lead.  It may be a good example of the Journal’s bias... but the lead isn’t the PLACE for examples. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes this notable is that it's having a serious and important impact on the world - i.e. the WSJ's fringe BS is being covered by academic books on climate change disinformation as a prominent source of climate change denial. If the WSJ had engaged in a sustained effort to push birtherism or anti-vaxx propaganda, then that would very likely also end up in the lede, because a premier news outlet pushing those things would have lent credibility to it and a had a real impact on the world. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there is a difference between a newspaper taking an editorial stance on political issues versus promoting claims that are factually incorrect. Details of the former do not seem relevant for a lead, while details of the latter may be. In this specific case, the lead material seems appropriate. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The amount of sourcing, even if it is from the seminal academic-researched work on misinformation about climate change in the media, is nowhere close to make the case for a lede standard that WSJ should be tied to climate change denial. Yes, it is a point of concern in some circles, but it is not a stance that WSJ is well-known for, and you don't have that many sources to push it to a lede point; its addition to the lede, and the rationale here feels like this is coatracking the climate change denial aspects. WP can't take the few that a work that marginalizes climate change must be called out on that, unless that is a major point the work is known for, and honestly, that's just not something well-discusses for the WSJ. --M asem  (t) 16:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's hard to definitively prove (to Wikipedia's standards) what anything is "known for", but "14% of the guest editorials presented the results of 'mainstream climate science', while the majority did not" seems to suggest that it's a major and concerted effort on the part of the editorial board in selecting who and what to publish. Certainly climate denialism is what I know WSJ for, as the only major news outlet to have this position. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the average person knows of the WSJ primarily for being the newspaper of record for American financial and business news. Similar to the FT in the UK.  Most people would not immediately think “climate” when thinking about the Journal. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. When I want to read about climate change, I go to NASA's website. The article summary in the aforementioned link is quite interesting as is this article about the use of global warming vs climate change. There is a stark difference in the way politically driven publications view things vs what actual science is telling us. Atsme Talk 📧 19:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: this is an attempt to reargue a closed discussion: RfC: WSJ editorial board's promotion of fringe science, June 2019. Consensus can change, but not so soon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No it is not an attempt to do anything other than get the article lead in compliance with NPOV which is a core content policy that cannot be overruled by editor consensus. Atsme Talk 📧 04:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Recap: In the lead we state in WikiVoice, right after acknowledging the WSJ has earned 37 Pulitzers, that they promote pseudoscientific claims on the science of climate change..." yet, a simple Google search brings up the following:
 * WSJ 11-2018 U.S. Government Report Warns of Economic Losses From Climate Change
 * WSJ - updated: "Editor’s note: This Future View is about climate change. Next week we’ll discuss unpaid internships. Are they exploitative or do they serve a purpose? Students should click here to submit opinions of fewer than 250 words before May 28. The best responses will be published that night."
 * Climate Change is Affordable 11/27/2018.

The claim which is stated in WikiVoice in the lead is based on dated technology (1990s - 2007) and reports that are based on that technology. It does not take into consideration the advancements in technology and updated reports, or the more recent news and opinion published by WSJ as I exampled in the diffs above. What about our readers? What do you think they are gleaning from the mixed message in the lead? My concern is that it reflects badly on WP for the reasons I stated above.Atsme Talk 📧 00:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The WSJ's news operation is outstanding, and wins Pulitzers, and covers climate change reasonably well. The WSJ's editorial board routinely promotes climate-change denialism and various other nonsense in its editorial section. Our goal is to inform readers about this dichotomy. You continue to conflate the WSJ's news and editorial operations, intentionally or unintentionally, although the distinction has been explained several times and is crucial to understanding the issue under discussion. Separately, your contention that the WSJ editorial board no longer traffics in climate-change denialism is easily disproven by spending 5 minutes reading WSJ editorials. From the last year or so alone, one can quickly find editorials which repeat standard-issue denialist talking points (e.g. "The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change", "Climate Change Has Run Its Course", "Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?", "Pruitt Leaves a Proud Legacy at the EPA", etc.) MastCell Talk 21:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism by Ellen G. White
This is about. I had even explained on the talk page why the previous text violated WP:NPOV and was proper for the theater of the absurd: White has confessed to plagiarism, and some decennials afterwards a lawyer paid by her own church cleared her of plagiarism (obviously in the juridical meaning, why else would a lawyer write a Memorandum of Law Literary Property Rights 1790 – 1915 in her defense?). It seems like someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, although the US SDA publishing houses offer her works with footnotes to the works from which she has creatively copy/pasted. As for Richard W. Schwarz, "Professor, I did not plagiarize my paper, but I was supernaturally inspired in more or less the same words as someone else." Such argument is pseudoscholarship used for preaching to the choir of conservative Adventists and we don't WP:GEVAL to the historical method and claims of supernatural encounters. I think that Okrent's law is of application. Only WP:FRINGE apologists deny that she has borrowed much historical information from other books without giving proper credit. I don't understand the complaint: the alleged facts turn out to be true but there is nitpicking about some words? Those words could be rephrased instead of the whole facts being deleted. After criticism, I stuck to the sources as closely as I could. I am not guilty for the words of those sources, it's their choice, not mine. We don't have to remove objective facts from Wikipedia just in order to pamper true believers. And, yes, in case you wonder Spectrum is a magazine by the Adventists and for the Adventists. Conservative Adventists got pissed off when they could no longer hide the dirt under the carpet. Moderates had no dog in that fight, and liberals were willing to embrace historical criticism. To some conservatives, historical criticism is from Satan. Other conservatives accept the bare facts of historical criticism, but nevertheless disagree with liberal theology, which is based upon historical criticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"White did not have a 'formal' education beyond the 3rd grade or so, however she became self-educated, like many in her day, through being widely read. She had a large library. She wrote some 50,000 pages of manuscript in her own hand writing; Hundreds of magazine articles; hundreds of letters; and several dozen books. She was a renown orator in great demand, who spoke to thousands and thousands of people through out the US, Australia and Europe. She sounded like she knew what she was talking about because she did. In her later life, some believers accredited everything she wrote as coming directly from the mouth of God. In her early carrier, no one who knew her ever claimed such nonsense because they knew better. White never made any such claim or intimation.  It was to dispel such silly notions that she wrote about her sources in the forward to the 1911 Great Controversy jshortly before her death. However, that claim that everything she wrote came directly from the mouth of God remained an urban legend in the SDA community and grew exponentially after her death in 1915, which is why Ray was so shocked when he discovered that it wasn't so. And why Numbers is so viciously anti White. Yes, she used other sources, just like everybody else. And like most in her day, those sources were not always noted. but her use was not for her gain or self aggrandizement. She was looking for the best ways to express what she believed that God had impressed upon her mind. She was not a mindless dictation machine. She claimed that she was shown things in vision and then she told or wrote down what she had seen and heard. Since her death, the White estate has gone to great lengths to add footnotes to her republished works giving credit to sources where known. Contrary to the claims of Ray and other critics, most of what White wrote is enough different from her sources to not constitute cut and past copyright plagiarism. It is important to note that her statement in 1911 occurred long before charges of plagiarism ever came up so I'm adding that back in. Back in her day, there were plenty of critics, but none ever charged plagiarism. Plagiarism is a distinctly mid-20th century concern. --DebbieEdwards (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)"

That is a quote from someone who does believe in EGW's inspiration, albeit not naively. So, the cause of all that rage and bitterness was an urban legend, which is now debunked. So, yes, as McArthur stated, "at least the educated mainstream church" (SDA) have acknowledged that the myth was busted and have revised their views accordingly. Everyone except Kool Aid drinkers has accepted that the myth was busted. This is an objective fact. Wikipedia is biased for objective facts. So my take does not violate WP:NPOV. A bias for the objective reality isn't a sinister cabal, see WP:GOODBIAS. The NPOV view (agreed by the secular academia, liberal and moderate Adventists) is that the myth is stubborn and has done a lot of damage to the SDA church. Wikipedia has to render that some are right and some are wrong on this matter and that far-fetched, objectively seen ridiculous explanations are not the way wherein conservative Adventists could save face. Schwarz's argument is far-fetched and ridiculous, and he should have known better. Unwillingly, he gave his students a perfect example of what to avoid like the pest in a scholarly paper: "Hey, if you want to pass your exam in any bona fide faculty don't do like me!" Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Pokémon Sword and Shield
I am growing concerned about the reception section of this article, in relation to the controversy surrounding the games. It has been getting increasingly verbose, cataloging everything that's been going down with the controversy, while failing to mention the positives coming from the other side of the argument. What should be done about this? Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 22:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd stop calling it a controversy if it really is as one-sided as three paragraphs currently have it. That's complaining, or criticism. Both sides agree the game won't have everything, and settle for letting the buyer beware. That's a compromise between capitalism and consumerism. Common, even.
 * If there is an other side the article is missing, you should certainly mention it. I can imagine fans bickering amongst themselves, if that's what you mean. As long as the dispute itself is covered by reliable sources, go for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Rachael Denhollander
Can people please keep an eye on Rachael Denhollander. Some weirdo was offended by something she wrote about her religion. 02:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.161.58.217 (talk)
 * I'll note that the website used for the "has faced criticism in the Christian community" statement is categorically not a reliable source as it is a personal website. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The real issue is UNDUE weight. The opinion of one random guy on the internet is not worth mentioning unless other sources pick up on it and comment. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Controversy at The Lancet
The addition of the issue in 2019 has been added many times, and all of them were soon reverted by the administrator Randykitty in the name of WP:UNDUE as well as WP:OR, etc.

The issue has been published in Taiwan and foreign media. Taiwan medical association, which stands for all physicians in Taiwan, and the vise president of Taiwan, who stands for the official POV of Taiwan, are also included. There's by no means a minor or insignificant POV.

The administrator Randykitty demands that this issue to be talked about a year from now to be file-able, which seems to be double-standard compared with the events in 2014 and 2010, which were added in a few months and a few days since occurred, and doesn't seem to be supported by any current policy in Wikipedia.

Can someone provide a more thorough explanation about how the policy WP:UNDUE should be applied, with reliable references?--111.243.232.158 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the kinda thing that feels very important to people with strong opinions about the status of Taiwan, but its not very important if we see it as yet another nationalistic squabble about potentially incorrect wording of the status of Taiwan in a paper published by a medical journal that was founded in 1823. The Lancet has published quite a few papers. Heck, it probably wouldn't bother you if you were born on the other side of the planet, or if it was about another place with a disputed status. I live far far from Taiwan and to me its not important at all. Randykitty described it as "a storm in a tea cup and only a blip in the history of this journal" and that seems to be correct. If the wiki article would be about this specific paper (not The Lancet as a whole) it would make more sense to include a sentence or two about this event. 77.161.58.217 (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This issue is not only about the status of Taiwan, but also the methodological flaw by comparing data from China with data from a totally different and independent health care system, and by using Taiwan data without providing the source, which commits a serious issue for an academic journal. --111.243.232.158 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is (as they point out) is that Taiwan is regarded as a province of china by international bodies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the fact that no matter what Taiwan is politically considered by international does not change the fact that Taiwan's medical system is actually not governed by China and is unrelated with China's, and data comparison among them is a methodological flaw. You may consider the status of Taiwan unimportant, but what about the methodological issue? --111.243.232.158 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not know about you, but I do not feel qualified to judge whether or not a paper published in one of (if not the) worlds leading peer revived, I.e checked by other expert, medical journals is going to be flawed. I will say that it would most likely be based upon published, and available information, and I suspect even Taiwan published medical data that can be compared to other places. So no I am not ignoring anything, I just do not agree with how you view the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The source of data about Taiwan is not confessed in the paper, which is also a mentioned and significant flaw. We don't like to judge that The Lancet has published a paper with flaw, but it did have done some, and current it seems to do so in this paper. That's why the vice president (also a medical academic), as well as several academics wrote a letter to the editor, which is mostly focus on the methodological issue. (See the letter to the editor attached in this news: )--111.243.232.158 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This is why even RS are not always RS outside their areas of expertise. But its pretty minor, and not major controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As the Lancet referred to UN/WHO designation as the guide that they follow for how they consider Taiwan, its more an issue with the UN than the Lancet. --M asem  (t) 17:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Added to which they did not write the paper, they published it, and it fits any criteria because it uses recognized geographic designations. They had no reason (as far as I can tell) to reject it or ask for a re-write. Nor are they (or we) beholden to Taiwan's sense of self image.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are still ignoring that the issue is not only about how they call Taiwan, but the methodological flaw by including Taiwan in comparison at where not appropriate. (See the letter to the editor written by vice president (also a medical academic) attached in this news: )--111.243.232.158 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I am not sure how much of a flaw that is. The data is not sourced to china, so what is flawed, its not the raw data as that is just data? the conclusions? So what is flawed about the conclusions? I note the letter mainly talks about differences in the healthcare systems, and Taiwan's independence. It seems to be more about "we are not China" then "here is how the data is flawed". It reads political, not medical.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You can read the paper if you are not sure. The data about Taiwan is not disclosed in the paper, and you think that including data with an unclear source in analysis is not a flaw? --111.243.232.158 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The medical experts who reviewed it did not, and they know a lot more about it then me.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So you choose to trust The Lancet totally, no matter what they have done and what they're actually doing now? --111.243.232.158 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but I see no reason to not trust this, as I am not seeing anything really more then "TAIWAN IS NOT PART OF CHINA!!!", from sources that are far form independent of the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm with Randykitty and IP editor 77x. This is nothing. Slater's comment that we're not in a position to judge the paper ourselves is also correct. I will add, however, that the difference between the medical systems is not prohibitive for epidemiological studies like that one - you can compare cities, provinces, countries and even entire continents. François Robere (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify this to the IP editor: I realize it's important for you personally, but from our perspective it's not a meaningful point of criticism of the Lancet, as the Lancet isn't an RS on geopolitics. If the same "error" had appeared in a source in that field, it could've made for a meaningful inclusion. More generally, people in conflict zones (or people with ties to such) are often overly protective of their narratives; attacking some 2nd rate celebrity, a minor foreign dignitary or an unrelated media outlet for a supposed miss-statement (and I've seen all three) is rarely useful, even if it can be emotionally satisfying. François Robere (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * At ip, 111. … I appreciate that the quality of the data source might be evaluated by some other factor, transparency of information and quality of each health system, and unclear on most of this discussion, however, where is that qualification is being made? Is the argument that the data quality was better and that skewed the results? cygnis insignis 18:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar
Is this statement neutrally worded:
 * Ilhan "described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to "install a far right opposition", even though Guaidó is described as a centrist and a social democrat."

To me it implies that Ilhan is wrong, although the posting editor says "It doesn't imply that as it doesn't say her claim is false."

There is controversy in reliable sources about how to describe Guaido. (See Alan Macleod, "Everyone Washington Supports, by Definition, Is a Moderate Centrist" (March 23, 2019) in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) March 23, 2019.)

TFD (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's Wikipedia's favourite failure of WP:NPOV popping up right there - if an American journalist said it, it must be true. Honestly I don't even know why Vox is ever allowed as a reliable source regardless. TL;DR burn it with fire, but be prepared for a fight that will exhaust you because it's a Venezuela related article and those are just about the least neutral articles on Wikipedia in general in 2019. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. Journalists are experts in reporting news, not determining analyzing ideologies. We can't even call the BNP far right unless we have a peer-reviewed paper that says that is the academic consensus, but we can call Guaido center-left based on the opinion of someone with a degree in journalism from Columbia. TFD (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO, either we remove the Omar claim that he is far right or we provide a response to it noting that he is generally not considered far right. Guadio and Omar are both BLPs and the claim arguably falls under BLP, as the far-right is generally affiliated with Nazis, fascists, reactionaries, and generally nasty and evil figures. Our readers might be confused into thinking he is far right. I lean towards just removing Omar’s claim entirely, as I did in this edit. Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Why? The article also mentions her opinions on free tuition, medicare for all, abolition of ICE and a number of other things that other people have differing opinions on. We don't mention the opposing views for each and every one. Only an ideologically driven article would do that. TFD (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Are there any solid, independent sources on Guaido's political leanings? Are any experts on the subject writing about it? His party claims to be progressive/center left/social democrat, and his policy proposals seem (to me) to align with that (a market-based economy with a large welfare state and high social investment), but do we have any sources better than newspapers saying that's the case? As for why we might want to note this specific issue, it's because leaving her accusation that Guaido is a fascist may violate BLP. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly no. Before the USA hung their regime change hopes on him, Guaido was a back-bencher of little repute. His failed regime change PR stunt in February is the only notable thing about him. The sources in the media surrounding Venezuela are all highly biased, although Wikipedia only accepts pro-US sources as reliable in general. Academics haven't had time since February to really do any rigorous work. But arguably a politician's assessment of another politician is pretty much the dictionary definition of WP:DUE while Wikipedia-voice editorializing is the opposite. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Could we avoid both problems (the Omar "far right" claim and the editorializing that she's wrong that's in the present wording) by changing the phrasing a little and dropping the last part? Something like: she "described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to install an opposition that would move the country to the right."  Whether Guiado is "far right" is controversial, but there is no controversy about whether an opposition government (allied with the U.S.) would be to the right of the present government (allied with Cuba).NightHeron (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So only violating WP:NPOV by omitting key details from the notable and due quote. No. Simonm223 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please clarify. What "key details" would we be omitting?  How would we be violating WP:NPOV?  My purpose was to find a NPOV-compliant and BLP-compliant wording that would be fair both to her (by not suggesting that she's wrong, as the current wording does in Wikipedia's voice) and to Guaido.NightHeron (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not violating BLP for us to accurately report what one notable politician says about another notable politician. I know that Guaido being tied to the far-right is something that conservaties would rather avoid. But it's not Wikipedia saying that, it's Omar. So as long as we attribute the source, I don't see how it violates WP:BLP but it certainly violates WP:NPOV to exclude it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And why should we mention what Omar says? She hardly has a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy, so it seems WP:UNDUE to highlight her opinion.  Surely we can find better sources for all of this.  Are there no academic sources we can rely on? Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's Venezuelanalysis. But then, that's not in line with the US narrative and so the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of Wikipedia treats it as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Omar's opinion on Venezuela is notable and should be included, and also that the present wording, in which two Americans are quoted calling Guaido "center-left" and "social democrat", is biased in favor of an American narrative. Guaido is clearly conservative and right-leaning.  However, Omar's claim that he's "far right" is inflammatory -- elsewhere in the same article the term "far right" is used to describe the Norwegian terrorist who murdered 77 people.  It's arguably also a fringe viewpoint to describe as "far right" someone who's recognized in preference to Maduro by 54 countries, including Canada.  Normally an inflammatory or fringe statement, even one by a politician, is not left standing without any mention of sources that refute it. The compromise wording I suggested would avoid the need for Wikipedia to decide which sources about Guaido are reliable, which is something that would be hard to reach consensus about. NightHeron (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Check out https://fair.org/home/everyone-washington-supports-by-definition-is-a-moderate-centrist/ 09:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.161.58.217 (talk)
 * Countries, including Canada, recognize all kinds of far-right figures as the leader of their country. The only difference between Guaido and, say, Orban of Hungary in that regard, is that Guaido is neither the de facto nor the de jure president of Venezuela and yet countries recognize him anyway. And frankly I don't know what to even say about your claim that far right includes bad people and therefore should not include people who may be less bad. Simply put, Omar is a notable politician with a notable opinion about another notable politician. And as one of the few dissenting voices in the American political establishment, her opinion is due inclusion. Efforts to keep her opinion out or to soften it are openly harmful to WP:NPOV by creating a false narrative that nobody in the US political establishment dissents. Simonm223 (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the present wording makes Omar sound a little foolish, and that's not what we want. Let me make another attempt to propose a new wording that I hope is NPOV-compliant.


 * Current wording:
 * "She described Trump's action as a 'U.S. backed coup' to 'install a far right opposition' even though Carlos Curbelo described Popular Will as centre-left or centre and Zack Beauchamp of Vox (website) described Guaidó as a social democrat."
 * New wording:
 * She described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to "install a far right opposition". Her characterization of the opposition is in sharp contrast with that of most U.S. political commentators, who describe Popular Will as centrist or even center-left and social democrat, but it agrees with the characterization of the opposition on the pro-Bolivarian Revolution website Venezuelanalysis.
 * NightHeron (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not very difficult to find sources that describe that party as right wing.

https://mondediplo.com/2019/01/10venezuela-dossier "right-wing, radical, and convinced that a military intervention would be the best way to rid Venezuela of Chavism"

https://fair.org/home/everyone-washington-supports-by-definition-is-a-moderate-centrist/ Guiadó’s Popular Will party has always represented the most radical right-wing elements of the Venezuelan opposition

https://www.thenation.com/article/venezuela-coup-guaido-maduro/ relatively unknown second-string politician from the right-wing Popular Will party, simply declared himself acting president

These were in the top 10 Google results when searching for "Popular Will party right wing".

It would probably wise to get rid of the sentence starting with: "Her characterization of the opposition is in sharp contrast with that of most U.S. political commentators" (which sounds as if she is wrong although she probably isn't) and instead write something like: "Some sources describe X as Y, others as Z" (with a top5 refs for each position). 77.161.58.217 (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The phrase at issue in this thread is not "right" but rather "far right". The term "far right" is much more extreme than "right" (which can be used for any conservative party). "Far right" appears just one other time in the Omar article, namely, for the Norwegian terrorist who killed 77 people.  None of the three sources given above use the term "far right" for Popular Will (the third source uses "far right" to refer to the Nicaraguan Contras but not to Popular Will).  Can you find a top5 set of references that describe X as Z, that is, Popular Will as "far right"?  I could find only one (other than Omar) -- Venezuelanalysis.com. NightHeron (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1: We don't necessarily have to find sources that describe the party as far right; we are talking about the fact that different people/groups have described something in different ways. Some have used labels like centrist, center-left and social democrat while others have used labels like right-wing, radical right and far right.
 * 2: The radical right is more or less the same thing as the far right; right? Wikipedia says: "Far-right politics, sometimes used interchangeably with 'radical right'." and "The ideological spectrum of the radical right extends from right-wing populism to white nationalism and neo-fascism."
 * 3: I am pretty sure there are more sources out there... https://mronline.org/2019/01/31/the-making-of-juan-guaido/ ...the 35-year-old was an obscure character in a politically marginal far-right group closely associated with gruesome acts of street violence...
 * 4: Why not just remove the second part of that sentence? Just get rid of the "even though Carlos Curbelo described Popular Will as centre-left or centre and Zack Beauchamp of Vox (website) described Guaidó as a social democrat."-part.

77.161.58.217 (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "far right" statement should just stand alone without context or explanation. Note, by the way, that, unfortunately, the first sentence of the lede in the Juan Guaido wikipedia article describes Popular Will as "social-democratic".  I'm glad you found a second source that agrees with Omar's "far right" characterization.  So here's another attempt at a new wording, along the lines you suggested above:
 * She described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to "install a far right opposition". Although some political commentators describe the Venezuelan opposition group Popular Will as centrist or even center-left and social democratic, others agree with Omar's characterization of the opposition.
 * NightHeron (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's an improvement. Thank you. 77.161.58.217 (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ve reworded slightly to note the socialist and pro-Venezuelan viewpoints of the latter two outlets. To treat them on the same level as newspapers is misleading. Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your opinion stated in your edit summary ("to describe socialist “news” outlets in the same category as others without noting that is silly") makes it clear that you want to impose your political views on the Omar article. Your edit identifies simply as "political commentators" those who support the U.S. narrative about Popular Will, as if all true political commentators agree with that narrative, and you put "news" in scare-quotes in your edit summary as if no socialist or pro-Venezuelan source could be a true news source.  Of course, you're entitled to your pro-U.S. anti-socialist opinions, but putting them into your edit is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.  Please self-revert.  Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A socialist news outlet created to support the Bolivarian revolution is hardly an impartial source on the subject, and certainly not on par with actual news outlets. There is no reason not to describe these sources as socialist or pro-Venezuelan, because they are. I’m not going to self-revert and your suggestion I should is patently ridiculous. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you find a Wikipedia policy that supports your position that U.S.-based news outlets sympathetic to the Trump Administration's Venezuela policy (e.g., the Miami Herald) are "impartial sources", whereas news outlets sympathetic to the Venezuelan government are not? Please see WP:WORLDVIEW. NightHeron (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OMG Thank you ! Yes! 19:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * None of the sources listed above mention Omar or are reliable, making it a WP:SYNTH issue. Omar's view is WP:FRINGE and should be cited as such, like the reliable sources explain. w umbolo   ^^^  19:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * TFD, when I read the sentence you supplied, I thought it would be okay - provided the quoted phrases "U.S. backed coup" and "install a far right opposition" came from the same RS that described Guaidó "as a centrist and a social democrat"
 * You trimmed the phrase "even though Guaidó is described as a centrist and a social democrat."
 * I agree that phrase does not belong in that sentence, unless a single person said both... That phrase, properly attributed, could be places nearby, as a sentence of its own.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not a synthesis issue to exclude information that is incorrect. Synthesis refers to adding information. If your source for example had mistakenly said that Omar was a Representative from Texas for example, we would be right to exclude that in the article, even though the source that she was a Representative from Minnesota did not mention her comments on Guaido.
 * I don't think her opinion is fringe, but in any case, Fringe theories says, "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." In other words, Omar's opinion could be excluded from articles about Guaido.
 * "is described as" is clearly weasel-wording since you don't identify who describes him that way. We could equally say that he has been described as far right, since Omar described him that way.
 * American politicians and even the media frequently use the terms far left and far right as superlatives, even though they don't meet the descriptions in political science texts. Yet we don't fact check them. CNN for example refers to AOC as far left. although she clearly doesn't meet any of the definitions in political science. She is only far left relative to other members of her party caucus.
 * TFD (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issue with Conservapedia Article
With Respect to the article on Consevapedia, It is my position that each and every opinion piece used as a reference needs to have a direct attribution without exception in order for the article to completely comply with WP:NPOV. Doing it this way demonstrates how much the article depends on opinion pieces rather than fact, and prevents accusations of Wikipedia being itellectually dishonest in the article. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that the IP reported User:Seraphimblade to WP:AIV for vandalism and has raised a case at WP:DRN. Doug Weller  talk 07:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Our article is based on facts, not Truth&trade;. In the Western world, facts replaced philosophical truth as the determinant of reality about 300-400 years ago. I understand that this is not true everywhere. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You would have to be more specific. What opinion pieces are being used as a source of facts? TFD (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Gibraltar
Is it neutral to say the following without mentioning the Spanish position:
 * Gibraltarians rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in a 1967 referendum and, in a 2002 referendum, the idea of shared sovereignty was also rejected.
 * Gibraltarians voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty in the 1967 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum.
 * In a referendum held in 2002, Gibraltarians rejected by an overwhelming majority (99%) a proposal of shared sovereignty on which Spain and Britain were said to have reached "broad agreement."

The Spanish position is that the referendums are invalid because the indigenous population had been expelled from Gibraltar and only British subjects resident there were allowed to vote.

In my opinion, the current wording implies that there was no question of the legitimacy of the referendums, while neutrality requires that all major positions be reported.

TFD (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait, the indigenous population that was expelled over three hundred years ago? Well, do sources that discuss those referendums mention the Spanish position? These are old enough that there could be proper academic-historical references to work with. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to say that TFD has got the wrong end of the stick completely here. There is no serious dispute that the referendums accurately reflect the views of the Gibraltarians.  And no reader is realistically going to understand the word "Gibraltarians" as including the entire population of Spain, or as including any of the townspeople who left Gibraltar in 1704


 * (FTR the sources suggest that "expelled" is factually incorrect).


 * The article does in fact put the Spanish side of the dispute. But we do need to be careful not to allow the dispute to dominate the article.  There is already an article at Status of Gibraltar, and we don't need a second. Kahastok talk 20:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources do mention the dispute. For example, "According to Spain, Gibraltar "was converted to a military base and the inhabitants were expelled....[It] rejects the notion that the interests of the inhabitants of Gibraltar are paramount because its interpretation of Article 73 of the UN Charter is that the reference to “the inhabitants of these territories” was to “indigenous populations who had their roots in the territory”, and this does not apply to the present inhabitants of Gibraltar." The author mentions several times that Spain objected to the referendums based on its interpretation of the UN Charter. (Peter Gold (2009) Gibraltar at the United Nations: Caught Between a Treaty, the Charter and the “Fundamentalism” of the Special Committee, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20:4, 697-715) A source used in the article alao says, "Even before [the 2002 referendum] happened it was dismissed as irrelevant by the British and Spanish governments....Gustavo de Aristegui, Spain's then spokesman on foreign affairs, said the referendum had not been called by "competent authorities" and was "not legally binding". ("Gibraltar", The Guardian 4 Aug 2004))
 * I am not saying that the Spanish position should be explained in detail, but should be mentioned briefly, that they did not consider the referendums to be legitimate. Your argument is that the Spanish position is "so obviously ridiculous that anyone reading it is going to conclude that the Spanish government is talking out of its hat and dismiss their POV out of hand." Whether or not it is true, it is not based on policy or guidelines.
 * TFD (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly how many "indigenous" people were expelled in the 1700's as part of the Spanish War of Succession? (Some of them left voluntarily, I imagine, not wanting to stick around while various diseases killed most of the Britishers and most of anyone that shared close quarters with them. Some of them were Jews.) Were not Spain's demands, at the time, mostly connected with denying Jews the right to live in Gibraltar or to be buried in Gibraltar? I can appreciate TFD's view, but "Spain renewed calls for joint Spanish–British control of the peninsula" is already in the article and seems to cover this. MPS1992 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The Alliance's aim in 1704 was to establish Gibraltar as a beachhead for a wider invasion of Spain. For that to work, one thing they wanted was a supportive local population.  Unfortunately, the Alliance commanders lost control of their men, who ran amok through the town.  After a few days, most of the townspeople left the town of their own accord as (in modern terms) refugees.  I am not aware of any evidence that any of them were actually expelled. Kahastok talk 21:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's right. Since 1704, things have changed. MPS1992 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many if any people were expelled. It is not our role to evaluate different arguments, merely to ensure "that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." TFD (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The sentence in the lead Gibraltarians rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in a 1967 referendum and, in a 2002 referendum, the idea of shared sovereignty was also rejected appears to be a simple statement of fact, independent of either Britain's or Spain's perspective on the matter. There were referendums, and the people of Gibraltar overwhelmingly declared their desire to remain British sovereign territory both times. Perhaps Spain's point of view on the matter should be added to the body of the article, but nothing needs to be added to the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe copy edit slightly to "The residents of Gibraltar rejected proposals..."? That would deal with the Spanish position, don't you think? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion. While the article should not dwell on the dispute it should not come down on one side or another. Calling the residents of Gibraltar the "people of Gibraltar" does that, since the issue of who the people are is disputed. TFD (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that "people of Gibraltar" is a disputed term? I think you're really misunderstanding Spain's position. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find any sources that say Spain claims the "people of Gibraltar" refers to anything different than the residents of Gibraltar. Spain's position in the dispute appears to be that Spain's right to territorial integrity supersedes Gibraltar's right to self-determination. Basically, they don't dispute that the residents of Gibraltar are the people of Gibraltar, they simply believe that those people have no legal say in the matter of Gibraltar's sovereignty. See . NPOV is about fairly representing all significant points of view reported in reliable sources. The POV that the residents of Gibraltar are not "the people of Gibraltar" is not reported in any reliable sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

According to Spain, Gibraltar "was converted to a military base and the inhabitants were expelled....[It] rejects the notion that the interests of the inhabitants of Gibraltar are paramount because its interpretation of Article 73 of the UN Charter is that the reference to “the inhabitants of these territories” was to “indigenous populations who had their roots in the territory”, and this does not apply to the present inhabitants of Gibraltar." (Peter Gold (2009) Gibraltar at the United Nations: Caught Between a Treaty, the Charter and the “Fundamentalism” of the Special Committee, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20:4, 697-715) TFD (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't say they believe the current inhabitants of Gibraltar are not "the people of Gibraltar", it just says they believe the people of Gibraltar have no legitimate interest in the sovereignty dispute, because they don't qualify as "indigenous" under UN law. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a distinction without a difference. TFD (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not sure what you're proposing. Based on this thread and what you wrote on the article talk page, I assumed you wanted to add something along the lines that Spain disputes the referendum because of some idea that the present inhabitants of Gibraltar are not "Gibraltarians" or "the people of Gibraltar". I think that is not at all supported by sources. But maybe I was incorrect. If you just want to include somewhere in the body of the article "Spain holds that these referendums are illegitimate", then I would support that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is supported by sources, which I have provided. I provided my recommendation above. You keep asking me to repeat what I have already written, which is unproductive. TFD (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Seattle is Dying (documentary)
I think the whole article needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

POV for The Cambridge Diet
I am a fully disclosed paid editor representing The Cambridge 1:1 diet on behalf of Lucre PR. I have been trying to get The Cambridge Diet page updated with information from a more up to date source but I have been struggling to make any progress on the page's talk page. Two editors have been changing the article so that it reads like negative advertising copy. I understand that they don't want to see the page turn into an advert but I think they have taken the lede and the piece too far in the opposite direction, resulting in a page which no longer gives a neutral viewpoint. The lede uses language like "guises", "very low calorie fad diet","made from commercial products" and refer to a pre-market version of the diet which presecribed a minimum caloric intake of 330. Would it be possible to get the lede changed to the correct minimum caloric intake and perhaps put the 330 calories in an early history section where it belongs?Essayist1 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the sources, the Cambridge Diet was invented in the 1970s and has produced multiple variants, for example in the US, the UK and South Africa. During its history, some of these variants have also been known as Cambridge Weight Plan and 1:1 Diet. An encyclopedia article should be covering all of these diets. It is obvious from the sources that the original form of the diet did indeed specify 330 calories a day. The South Africa site shows clearly that the first phase today specifies just three 150-calorie meals a day, and there's nothing "pre-market" about that. In the US, the minimum intake was raised to 800 calories per day following criticism. It's unclear from the sources what the current minimum UK intake is.
 * It's understandable that a paid editor working for a PR company may find the specifications of the lower calorie intakes embarrassing, and would like to see those removed in favour of mentioning just the USA figure, but we have a duty to readers to accurately summarise what the significant sources say, and I see no evidence that our article doesn't do that. The link to the "more up to date source" above gives an error for me, so I can't comment on whether it's relevant. In any case, the article talk page is the place to present new evidence of potentially useful sources. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's understandable that a paid editor working for a PR company may find the specifications of the lower calorie intakes embarrassing, and would like to see those removed in favour of mentioning just the USA figure, but we have a duty to readers to accurately summarise what the significant sources say, and I see no evidence that our article doesn't do that. The link to the "more up to date source" above gives an error for me, so I can't comment on whether it's relevant. In any case, the article talk page is the place to present new evidence of potentially useful sources. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User:RexxS, I fixed the link for you. It's a study paid for by the manufacturer.  It also reminds me of a criticism of the manufacturer that I ran across:  They cite scientific studies about any/all very-low-calorie diets, and then make claims from those other diets to support their specific products.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an RCT, a primary source, so is not going to be of much use in contradicting secondary sources in the article per WP:MEDPRI, not to mention the obvious CoI implications. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem is that individual studies are not good sources for articles. Your need to use secondary sources that explain the degree of acceptance of the study. Also, it is obvious that people who reduce their calorie intake to 850 calories per day will lose weight. People who consume no calories will loose even more weight. TFD (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * hi, U:The Four Deuces The funding agencies section of the study at the top of the page also says, "The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report." Nevertheless, if it is secondary sources that explain the degree of the acceptance of the study that you want, this article from the BBC analyses the study and discusses how the NHS are adopting these diets to combat the UK's obesity epidemic. Essayist1 (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The BBC article is not WP:MEDRS either. Also it's not true that the NHS "are adopting" the Cambridge diet. So why would we want to say that (I can see why a PR company would want us to say it, mind)? Alexbrn (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's up to the publisher to decide if the funding presented a problem. Since they apparently did not, it should not be an issue here. But individual studies lack significance for inclusion before the academic community has determined their significance. In this case we should be able to consult a standard medical textbook that has a section on the diet, has considered all the major studies and opinions and the pros and cons. The BBC article, while it does look at the pros and cons, can't be used because it is not considered rs for medical articles. Consider this: would you like your doctor to determine your treatment based on a single study or a BBC article, or would you like them to base your treatment on what they learned in medical school and continuing education? TFD (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add a note of thanks to all involved. Since this was posted, the number of sources used in the article has more than doubled, and the amount of readable prose has almost doubled.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Relatedly, Alan Howard (nutritionist) may need a look - this is largely a puff piece built on unsuitable sources (where there are any) and evidently the result of paid/COI editing. However, a happy side effect is that the "Cambridge Diet" coat-rack section contains some useful clues about how the Cambridge Diet article might be expanded ...

Abortion
I would like to note some recent unhelpful behavior at Abortion. Even though the neutrality of the second paragraph has been disputed for two days by now, my placement of Template:POV statement was reverted with the strange rationale "YOU are currently the only editor claiming that presenting all facts is non-neutral point of view", contrary to the established process where the number of disagreeing editors is irrelevant. Could an uninvolved editor have a look and/or possibly reinstate the tag? Brandmeistertalk  23:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the talk page where this subject has been discussed: Talk:Abortion --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Zomato
My request is regarding the last paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomato#Controversies

There was a recent controversy on 31st July, 2019 when a customer cancelled food order because the delivery boy was a non-Hindu as tweeted by the customer on twitter to which Zomato responded in a tweet as "food has no religion. It is a religion".

This move was appreciated not criticized through out the India. The Uber Eats, rival food aggregator in India also came in support to this. But a section of Hindutva people started campaigning against this company because it protested against bigotry which includes giving 1 star feedback in Google App Store and maligning it on Wikipedia.

Due to which the local police issued a notice against the person for spreading hatred.

At present this incident is presented from a particular point of view only and excluded the actual controversy related to this incident which can be easily found if anyone Googles "zomato controversy jabalpur" on Google India domain.

The sources which I also listed on the article's talk page are:
 * Man Cancels Order Over "Non-Hindu Rider". Zomato's Response Kills It
 * Food has no religion: tweets Zomato slamming discrimination
 * Zomato says food doesn't have religion, wins appreciation on Twitter
 * Man cancels order over delivery person's religion, Zomato wins hearts by taking stand
 * UberEats Steps In To Support Zomato's "Food Has No Religion...
 * Upset Over Uber Eats Supporting Zomato, Angry Bigot Uninstalls Uber Taxi App Instead
 * Jabalpur police to Zomato customer: Tweet hate, go to jail
 * Zomato delivery boy on Jabalpur customer controversy: I am hurt but what can I do

But the article listed only In July 2019, Zomato faced severe criticism on social media for using halal tag on food items despite claiming on Twitter that "food has no religion" which is biased towards a particular POV. To keep the integrity of Wikipedia, I request any experienced editor to step in and re-write it per guidelines. 12.189.124.50 (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Calala Island
I would like to raise an ongoing concern regarding a private island that has been converted into a luxury holiday destination. Initially something I became involved in at NPP that seems to have wider implications across NPOV, suitability of sourcing and general editing patterns.

Articles involved:  Calala Island and also related Pearl Cays, Piracy in the Caribbean, South Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region

Editors involved:  ,, , myself

Background: The article Calala Island was created by back in 2018. At NPP, the article struck me for its tendency to use of marketing language and some facts, such as the name of the island, that seemed inconsistent between various sources. Details are on the article’s talk page and a DRN that had been raised and procedurally closed. (Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 169).

Some core claims that may be suitable for marketing are around the island being part of the "golden age of piracy" and specific notes about the natural environment that can be observed in the island (endangered Hawksbill turtles).

Since then, the article has received further marketing-type edits. Given Calala is a small part of a wider region, the article leans a lot on external sources about the wider region and makes implications about the island, which in some cases is not specifically mentioned. At the same time, articles about the region seem relatively less developed, raising weighting concerns.

Many of the article's sources lean on travel magazines and tabloid mentions given some famous holiday-makers.

In addition, Wikidata has seen changes by user RAAS Nicaraguru (possibly UNAME issues) to make the island name, Calala, more prominent (,, while the same user renamed articles named “Lime Cay” on Swedish and Cebuano Wikipedia to reflect “Calala Island”. The same user also edited English Wikipedia around similar lines, especially adding “Calala” and some of the environmental claims made in the article about the island (Hawksbill turtle, piracy), see , ; plus the removal of mentions of Malaria, which may be helpful to push a point.

At this point I seek wider views on a) article neutrality and encylopedic focus, b) balance between Calala Island and other regional articles, c) editing patterns (SPA/near SPA), and lastly d) suitability of travel magazines or similar for encyclopedic contents. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC
There's a recent RfC on neutrality of abotion's lead. Brandmeistertalk  08:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

How liberal is Norway towards LGBTQ People and their issues?
Instead of repeating government propaganda about how liberal Norway supposedly is towards LGBTQ people and their issues, why don't you try asking trans males living in Norway how they feel about bureaucratic obstruction of HRT? I know of one trans male who has been waiting for years for official approval of his use of female hormones. He has had to go through psychoanalysis and had to demonstrate his willingness to live as a woman when his body continues to be male. Hormone products are interdicted by customs and people ordering them are charged with infracting the law, which is not specific with regard to the product or substance interdicted. I don't see why Wiki deserves more donations from me when it supports government disinformation about this important subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.90.28 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess we won’t get a donation from you then. Oh well. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello unregistered editor. I'm sorry that Wikipedia's articles about the issues for LGBTQ people in Norway are not comprehensive nor neutral. Many Wikipedia articles are not comprehensive nor neutral, we all have to work on improving them. Incidentally, suggestions of withholding monetary donations tend not to be very effective around here, perhaps partly because volunteer editors like you, me and Blueboar won't see a penny of any such donations. Unfortunately, personal knowledge is not well regarded as a source for Wikipedia articles. It would be great if you could find reliable sources that discuss the problems faced by trans people in Norway. You could then either boldly add such details to the relevant articles, or you could mention the sources on the talk pages of relevant articles and discuss their potential relevance and addition.


 * There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss worldwide issues of this nature, Pink News is one. If they've never covered issues of this nature in Norway, then you should write to them and tell them about the government disinformation and the cases that you have personal knowledge of. And then maybe they would cover it. And then you could use their coverage as a source for adding material to Wikipedia articles.


 * And finally, you could also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. MPS1992 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I encourage the IP editor to register an account, join up at the Wikiproject, and look for WP:RS sourcing that could add some additional perspectives to this issue. I would not necessarily support Pink News as a source, however; it would depend on the issue being covered and the exact article. Their coverage has been uneven on many of these issues. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 18:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Psychoanalysis is mostly a hobby for wealthy patients. The IP meant psychological/psychiatric scrutiny. And I find it quite normal, since once they operate the body, it cannot be undone. So the MDs have to be pretty sure that the wish to become transgender is stable and genuine, e.g. not an effect of psychosis or of unrealistic expectations. So the law built checks and balances for becoming transgender. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

False and exaggerated facts of Kashmir, Jammu, leh, ladakh
Kindly correct the neutrality of following pages about Jammu, Kashmir, ladakh and leh. According to UN, OIC, EU and all countries except India consider this region as disputed. There are numerous UN security council resolutions right from 1947 to hold a plebiscite for future of this region. It is a nuclear flash point between three nuclear states China, India and pakistan. Recent political moves of Indian BJP which is an extremist party of fascist hinduvta racial ideology have caused risk of nuclear war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leh

http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/47

From BBC article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-16069078

1948 - India raises Kashmir in the UN Security Council, which in Resolution 47 calls for a referendum on the status of the territory. The resolution also calls on Pakistan to withdraw its troops and India to cut its military presence to a minimum. A ceasefire comes into force, but Pakistan refuses to evacuate its troops. Kashmir is for practical purposes partitioned.

1951 - Elections in the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir back accession to India. India says this makes a referendum unnecessary. The UN and Pakistan say a referendum needs to take into account the views of voters throughout the former princely state.
 * We do say it is disputed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Suicide prevention on suicide methods article
There is a discussion [|on the Suicide methods] article. There have been numerous attempt to throw in disclaimers and warnings etc on the article and the current discussion relates to a hat note with not the goal of clearing up similarly titled articles but to redirect suicidal readers to a list of anti-suicide hotline numbers to call. If this isn't the right place for this please direct me to a noticeboard that is more appropriate. Shabidoo | Talk 17:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Neal's Yard Remedies page lacks neutrality
I am a fully disclosed COI editor, representing Neal's Yard Remedies. I was hoping someone could take a look at their page as both myself and my client believe the page focusses too much on their direct sales force and their unfortunate 2008 PR blunder. There is also a poorly sourced statement about a civil-suit in California which didn't actually gain any traction. The result of all this is that the page makes them out to be some sort of shady pyramid selling company specialising in selling toxic products to customers, which as anyone who is familiar with the company knows, couldn't be further from the truth. If they were as unscrupulous as the page makes them out to be, John Lewis and M&S wouldn't stock their products and they would have been hauled infront of a parliamentary ccommittee by now.

Would it be possible to update the page so it gives a fair and accurate overview of the company, without the negative advertising copy, please? Essayist1 (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you making a career out of paid editing for SCAM interests? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 12:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not seeing any POV issues, we are here to report what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think that the health snafus deserve mention, but their weight in the article makes their coverage rather undue for what is - in general - just another smellies company using direct marketing. I think the article could be made more neutral by expanding some of the more mundane business aspects of it (for which, from a quick glance, there seems ample sourcing). Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting one... Indeed, there is a lot out there about the company, but after 10 minutes of searching, I have yet to find something that is not PR-esque or a mundane review of the latest smell. The controversial stuff actually seems to be the only coverage that was "inspired" by someone other than their marketing team. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That was my conclusion too, they seem to be notable for being controversial, I just did not take as long to come to that conclusion. I did however find some trivial stuff about their marketing technique bieng similar to Avon's.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)