Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 78

Walter Kuhn
insists on emphasizing that the German historian Walter Kuhn was a Nazi and just generally a bad guy and a hack scholar. This is although I have found numerous sources, including by holocaust scholars Debórah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, which refer to Kuhn as an excellent scholar (see here) and the fact that Kuhn continued working and publishing until 1983. MyMolobaccount's focus on Kuhn's maps as propaganda appears to have been caused by this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, in which I was able to show that Kuhn's maps are still being cited in RS in the 2010s.

MyMoloboaccount has created entire sections in the article just to tell us how bad Kuhn is in the title before anyone even reads it (i.e. . When I tried to move this information to the appropriate "Appraisals and Criticism" section he simply restored it. At one point the entire Second World War section was a series of highly charged titles, (compare before and after my edit here ).  Most recently he added that Kuhn was a Nazi to the lead, in his edit summary claiming it had been removed from the lead when in fact the fact that Kuhn joined the NSDAP in 1940 is cited in the lead currently. He has insisted on adding the word Nazi to various other parts of the article, see, and has added WP:UNDUE criticism of Kuhn's scholarship to the lead.

I have tried to be fair in my assessment of Kuhn, adding most of the information now found in the article about his prewar politics and his involvement as an advisor to the Nazi resettlement program of German minorities during the war. Where criticism of Kuhn has been made, I have added it (see, e.g., my edits  ). MyMoloboaccount does not appear interested in any nuance on the issue. Often if I am able to check the source he used (sometimes he cites in such a way that this is impossible), I discover that the criticisms of Kuhn that he cites include Kuhn in a list of names and thus do not deal with Kuhn specifically at all, or that MyMoloboaccount has included a critical comment about Kuhn while leaving out a favorable one in the same work. I have only gotten him to use the talk page twice (one time he just went there to say he was undoing an edit I had made), despite having posted there numerous times about various issues.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Kuhn was an infamous Nazi who advocated superiority of German culture and was involved in planning ethnic cleansing of Jews and Poles(euphemistically named “resettlement” above).Like many Nazis he continued to work in post-war Germany.
 * There is absolutely no reason to remove his Nazi and nationalistic views from the article.And Kuhn is quite pointed out as working with SS on ethnic cleansing in Poland.
 * The user above unfortunately tries to show Kuhn as some respectable “scholar”, while sources are clear that he was a Nazi involved with ethnic cleansing.
 * Also,even sources and authors used by user above often mention his connection to Nazis and nationalism-something omitted in above statement, other sources praising him in some cases are former Nazis themselves.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is blatant POV. One of Kuhn's articles was republished in English in 2017 . Or look at the numbers of recent citations for his main works, , , . The scholars included in these citations include Poles, Germans, English-speakers. While there are justifable criticisms of Kuhn's work, you can't just dismiss him as a Nazi.
 * And I am not talking about "removing" the things he said or did in support of Nazism. I'm talking about portraying them in a neutral fashion. Kuhn is not "infamous". Only specialists know who he is. He was not a very important figure for the Nazis. He was not in the SS. He advised on the resettlement of Germans, but he was never directly involved in ethnically cleansing Poles beyond having written an academic position paper that had no impact.
 * And I'm curious how Debórah Dwork or Robert Jan van Pelt can be considered Nazis.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The question here is WP:DUE weight. The article should devote some space to personal details, some space for pre-war work, some space for post-war work (35+ years as an academic), and some space for the war (and whatever pre-war Nazi involvement). How much is DUE here? I would guesstimate (and this depends on extent of coverage in 3rd party coverage) at 20%-35% of the article - in the lead as well - devoted to role in Nazi period.Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To determine DUE weight - in RSes with full profiles on Kuhn - how much is devoted to the Nazi period?Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The most balanced profile of Kuhn I've seen is by Wilhelm Fielitz in the Handbuch der voelkischen Wissenschaften which covers his whole life. It offers slightly more than a page to Kuhn before the war, less than a page to during, and probably a whole page to after (the preview isn't showing the middle of the three pages unfortunately). Unsurprisingly, favorable or mostly favorable profiles tend to leave out what he did in the war and just focus on before and after (Angermann, Rhode, Weczerka). I'll note that only Rhode of those three is a former Nazi. At least two articles in the bibliography deal specifically with the problems of Kuhn's work pre-war and during the war (Pinwinkler, Michelsen "Von Breslau nach Hamburg", which only covers Kuhn on two pages though). Otherwise scholarship that mentions Kuhn (Burleigh's Germany Turns East, Haar's Historiker im Nationalsozialismus) mentions him mostly in passing, sometimes with more, sometimes with less, biographical information, but generally not much (if anything) post-war. What I'd consider to be a more balanced portrayal of Kuhn before and during the war (though still largely made in passing) is in Chu's The German Minority in Interwar Poland. He gets mentioned on a single page of a number of books, but these tend to rely on Burleigh, I would say. Most negative citations on Kuhn are from work by Haar, Michelsen, and Burleigh, and don't discuss him in any depth. I'm still waiting on a few sources on that, however. MyMoloboaccount cites prodominently Polish sources and I have found decyphering what those sources are very difficult. I'm currently waiting on what I expect to be a negative scholarly assessment of Kuhn's postwar work by Marek Cetwiński (ironically Kuhn tore apart Cetwinski's dissertation in a review ten years before Cetwinski wrote that).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do the Polish language sources cover just the war - or a fuller bio? Fielitz would indicate around 30% to war. Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be able to speak for Cetwinski soon, assuming Interlibrary loan actually finds the article. The other Polish sources appear just to be one-line pointed barbs aimed at Kuhn/at Kuhn and like twenty other German scholars at the same time, as far as I can tell. But as I've said, I've found it difficult to locate the Polish sources in most cases due to the way that they've been cited. In one case (that I've since removed), Kuhn was cited in the lead as having "anti-Polish prejudices" when the Polish article said something like "Kuhn, despite his anti-Polish prejudices, judged x to be a useful guide", so you can see why I'm suspicious of the way that these sources are being used. Like compare this that MyMoloboaccount recently added: Zygmunt Szultka writes that Kuhn made unbelievable errors in his work such as estimating growth of German population in Pomerania to be 10% per year in the time period of 1200-1300, which according to Szultka aren't even worthy of debate Kaszubi na Pomorzu Zachodnim na przestrzeni wieków Zygmunt Szultka Pomerania 49 page 29 October 2015. The article is actually from 1994, for one thing .--Ermenrich (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The monthly (2015) reprints the book (1994). Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Aha, thank you. No less a scholar than Robert Bartlett (historian) disagrees with Szultka though. I quote: One of the most exacting scholars to deal with the subject [of the size of the German colonist population], Walter Kuhn (The Making of Europe, p. 144).--Ermenrich (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that MyMoloboaccount has started making similar edits to other figures who worked before and after WWII, , and has started a new article of the same sort in his sandbox .--Ermenrich (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Demshuk supports Molobo in "The Lost German East: Forced Migration and the Politics of Memory, 1945-1970". His critical opinion isn't quoted in the Wiki page.Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it is. See criticism and appraisals.--Ermenrich (talk)
 * No such section in Walter Kuhn.Xx236 (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See Walter Kuhn. Demshuk is quoted in the second paragraph.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The quoted phrase doesn't summarize about one page of the text.Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He's also cited at the end of the first paragraph in Walter Kuhn. Or what specific information is it you are referring to? If you mean his takedown of Kuhn's pre-war work, we already have quite a bit of that in the article. See Walter Kuhn. I don't know what adding Demshuk's criticisms, which differ in little from anyone elses, would add to the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong summary "the loss of his pre-war work" - should be "war".Xx236 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for catching that. Will fix.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When we are dealing with Nazis like Kuhn or Conze(whose articles btw I have either created or edited years ago) that were motivators and ideologists behind Nazi ethnic cleansing and genocide, the main information will unsuprisingly concern their Nazi activities, mainly the ethnic cleaning and genocide they were involved it.Such actions are obviously of highest importance and can't be removed from articles based on personal likes and dislikes of editors.Ermenrich himself admitted that Kuhn's Nazi past is described by authors, and the main source of information on this Nazi comes from Haar and Burleigh who discuss him in depth.Ermenrich has now admitted that he has omitted parts where Kuhn's Nazi activites have been discused.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I have no interest in removing anything about Kuhn's Nazi activities. It is a question of WP:WEIGHT. Kuhn was a recognized scholar in his field after the war, even if you can find some people who have criticized his work. I can find more who don't, and they aren't, as you suggest, all Nazis or rightwingers. Robert Bartlett (historian), Debórah Dwork, and Robert Jan van Pelt are just a few of the ones in English who recognize him as an expert on the Ostsiedlung and are not at all critical of his scholarly work. I'm sure there are plenty of criticisms that can be made of his postwar work, but it needs to be kept in mind that it continues to be used and cited in the field of medieval history and that Kuhn remains recognized as an expert. You can't simply reduce him to a Nazi.
 * And that diff doesn't prove anything - Pinwinkler is cited in several places in the article, including the lead. See also here: Alexander Pinwinkler writes that Kuhn's career benefitted greatly from the Nazi's taking of power in 1933., and His naming to this post was somewhat controversial, as Kuhn was not seen as a representative folklorist and had not written a habilitation;[22] according to Alexander Pinwinkler and Ingo Haar, Kuhn achieving the professorship was mostly the work of nationally influential pro-Nazi historians Albert Brackmann and Hermann Aubin rather than the faculty in Breslau itself. And those are just where his name is mentioned. If you have some specific thing you want added from him, why don't you suggest it.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually Pinwinkler writes a bit more than that, for example that Kuhn was close in this thinking to the idea of racially pure state Nazis envisioned"neherte er sich der nationalsozialistischen Utopie eines ethnisch abgrenzbaren und rassisch homogenenStaates an, der die „Volksgemeinschaft“ als Dogma uber den Einzelnen stellte Any reason why this was omitted?''--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you say how it's different than any of the other criticism in the section Walter Kuhn. It's already pretty clear that there's a lot of racist stuff in there from that section. Is there some reason you think the way Pinwinkler states it is important? I'd support adding Pinwinkler if we remove one of the Polish scholars I can't verify and who is not actually discussing Kuhn more than in passing.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Falsification in the article
I found falsification of the source in the article The current article stated that Kuhn "promoting the issue of the German minority as a major concern for scholars in Germany." This was sourced to Ingo Haar, I checked the source and in it Haar cearly writes it was coordination of secret activities by revisionist groups within Poland on behalf of Third Reich.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is with you and unfounded accusations? Please see Talk:Walter Kuhn where I quote the book.
 * Believe it or not, I don't hate Poland or love Kuhn or whatever you think. I just want a neutral article.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

And let me quote this book too ''Walter Kuhn fungierte dabei neben Kurt Luck, AlfredLattermann und Viktor Kauder als Kontaktmann zwischen Hans Steinacher auf der einen und Otto Ulitz auf der anderen Seite. Ulitz war der Lieter des "Deutschen Volksbundes" in Kattowitz, der die geheime revisionpolitik der Reichsregierung in Polen koordinierte--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To quote myself: Dude, you need to actually read the article. What you've changed the text to be about is already covered here: Kuhn also secretly worked for German foreign intelligence to verify the population numbers on the German minority in Poland given by the Polish government.[14 (Haar, p. 272)]. You can add that he was coordinating there, this section was about something different as you can see from the quotes I've given..--Ermenrich (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would add: to say that I didn't include something mentioned on a single page of a multi-page citation is a falsification is definitely a failure to WP:assume good faith. Please try to discuss things neutrally and rationally.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read both the article and Ingo Haar. Ingo Haar mentions cooperation with Nazi intelligence in seperate paragraph below the one I mentioned. The work with pro-Nazi German minority organizations in pre-war Poland is in a seperate paragraph and has a completely different meaning from what was put in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually that's at the end of the same paragraph first paragraph. The information you want added is in the middle of that paragraph, the information I has added is in the following paragraphs in Haar.--Ermenrich (talk)

Which sources say what
Somewhat inspired by my post to Icewhiz above, I thought I would make a list of what sources actually say what about Kuhn, to help anyone judging this. I'm happy for any corrections Molobo or anyone else might have for particular details:

Sources dealing with Kuhn specifically
 * . Norbert Angermann has nothing but praise for Kuhn, omits the second world war (appears to have been written in the early 2000s, as there's a reference to Michelsen (see below).
 * . Wilhelm Fielitz is mostly negative, but does not discuss any criticism of Kuhn's postwar work, which was not on exactly the same subject as his pre-war work.
 * . Michelsen mentions Kuhn on two pages, very negative, does not criticize postwar work.
 * . Pinwinkler is extremely negative about Kuhn, but does not actually discuss his postwar work. He does discuss how Kuhn reacted to criticisms of his prewar work in the postwar period however.
 * . Rhode is extremely positive about Kuhn, leaves out the war. Molobo dismisses him because he was a member of the Nazi Party.
 * . They say Kuhn's pre-war work was apt to be used for imperialist schemes.
 * . Weczerka is positive about Kuhn, but mentions that there are problems with some of Kuhn's pre-war and postwar work, and that he faces a lot of criticism from Poland. However, Weczerka nevertheless says that even in Poland he was treated as an important scholarly.
 * I'm currently waiting on articles by Michael Cetwinski and Gerard Labuda. Labuda is supposedly critical but also has a lot of praise, Cetwinski will be negative.

Books that discuss Kuhn
 * . Michael Burleigh mentions Kuhn in various places. He focuses on his pre-war work, but does mention that Kuhn got a job (noting that some "more brown" people had an easier time) and that Kuhn frames the Teutonic Order in the terms of the Cold War. According to Pinwinkler, Burleigh started the trend of more critical reactions to Kuhn (cited in article lead).
 * . Kuhn is discussed in various places, only pre-war and during the war. Notes his disagreements with other Nazis about the Volhynian Germans.
 * . Highly critical of both Kuhn's pre-war and post-war work, mentions Kuhn on two pages.
 * . Ingo Haar only discusses Kuhn as a figure of the war and prewar, mentioning him in various places.
 * . Muehle mentions Kuhn in various places, only pre-war and during the war.

Authors that mention Kuhn once or in passing
 * . Mentions Kuhn once as having moved Germans into villages from which Poles had previously been ethnically cleansed (he actually says removed or some such thing)
 * . Calls Kuhn a "pioneer" with his prewar work.
 * . Debórah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt praise Kuhn extremely highly, but note that he doesn't address the Holocaust in his histories of the area around Auschwitz (this is taken to be representative of German scholars in general).
 * . Mentions Kuhn having supported annexations of Polish land by Nazi Germany.
 * . Kuhn is mentioned as having founded Sprachinselforschung.
 * . Mention that Kuhn's pre-war rhetoric was similar to Nazi rhetoric.
 * Molobo recently added this by Stefan Guth (but that could be the editor, haven't checked yet) which says that Kuhn "remained true" to his principles from the 30s in his postwar work.

Polish sources that appear to be negative, in no particular order, added by Molobo.


 * Rodowód Piastów śląskich: Piastowie wrocławscy, legnicko-brzescy, świdniccy, ziębiccy, głogowscy, żagańscy, oleśniccy, opolscy, cieszyńscy i oświęcimscy Kazimierz Jasiński Wydawnictwo Avalon, 2007, page 15
 * Ideologia i poznanie: społeczne funkcje mediewistyki śląskiej po 1945 roku Marek Cetwiński Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna w Częstochowie, 1993, page 24
 * Polityka Republiki Federalnej Niemiec wobec polskiej ludności rodzimej na Ṡląsku w latach 1949-1990/91 Michał Lis Wydawnictwo Instytutu Śląskiego w Opolu, 1992 page 20
 * Kartografia historyczna Ślaka XVIII-XX wieku page 102 Dariusz Przybytek Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2002
 * Kaszubi na Pomorzu Zachodnim na przestrzeni wieków Zygmunt Szultka Pomerania 49 page 29 October 2015
 * I have not been able to check most of these sources, and they are often cited incorrectly. When I can find them they have only snippet view in google.

I've left out the contemporary recensions of Kuhn's work (see Walter Kuhn). None of them simply dismiss Kuhn, but some criticize a nationalist bent.

I could add some more positive assessments of Kuhn (e.g. Robert Bartlett (historian), The Making of Europe p. 144) but that would just continue this arms race to find mentions of Kuhn. I think the numbers of citations Kuhn's books and the fact that an article of his was reprinted in English in 2017 speak for themselves, honestly: see, , , , ).

I will leave whoever is reading this to come to their own conclusions.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On the off chance that anyone actually does come to look into this rather daunting issue, here are a few more citations of Kuhn in modern books (almost all from after 2000, but a few earlier) on Google books, so you can see for yourself how specialists in medieval history treat him:, , , , , , , , , , , , , . Anyone looking at these citations in English (and a few in German) will see clearly that Kuhn is not dismissed as a Nazi by modern scholars. I could keep extending this list ad infinitum.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more than enough. The sources speak for themselves. François Robere (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Parental alienation
This caught my eye because it makes a bunch of what look like medical claims without any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to back them up, but upon closer examination began to suspect a POV problem:

So, does is this article in its present state NPOV, or not? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) There appears to be several editors editing the page who pretty much edit nothing else.
 * 2) There is a large motivation to insert bias into the article by those who are currently accusing others of PA or being accused of same.
 * 3) The lead says things like "It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence" and only way down in  the history do you discover that Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders considered and rejected PA as a diagnosis.
 * 4) Some of the sources are pretty clearly advocacy books pushing a particular POV instead of scientific papers on a psychological topic.
 * 5) The article really seems to cover only one of the following possibilities:
 * 6) * Evil parent unfairly alienates child against good parent.
 * 7) * Good parent alienates child against evil parent, and rightly so.
 * 8) * No actual alienation, but one parent falsely accuses the other of alienation.
 * 9) * Both parents are evil and both are alienating the child against the other parent.
 * (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This does not sound like an actual disorder. Psychiatric disorders are usually associated with long term distress, or an inability to perform in "normal" situations. They're usually generalized ("I'm not only afraid of this spider, I'm afraid of all spiders"), and result from a combination of factors (cognitive, emotional, experiential or neurological). This doesn't tick any of these boxes except, perhaps, stretching the definition of a "normal situation".
 * 25 out of the article's 107 sources are either by Baker (15 + 2 "further reading") or Bernet (10 + 1 FT), which is much higher than the more typical 3-5 sources. One author (Lorandos) associated with for-benefit firm PsychLaw has 4 references cited an overall 15 times (one of which was published on the firm's website). The fact a therapist builds their career on a particular theory is not in itself alarming or unique (Baker seems to have done that as well), but the fact that that particular theory isn't well established is.
 * The lack of DSM inclusion, and the fact the ICD only gives it as a reference to QE52.0 Caregiver-child relationship problem - a subsection of Ch. 24 Factors influencing health status or contact with health services (which also includes QD50 Poverty and QE20 Lack of physical exercise) - suggests this isn't a disorder in the clinical sense.
 * I would support re-writing the article per either of your suggestions at Talk:Parental alienation, but I think the first step should be going through the sources and filtering out the questionable ones according to the usual sourcing standards, just so we can get an idea of whether the subject falls more into the realm of legal arguments or WP:MEDRS. François Robere (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Good advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

POV issue on article
The article Machiavellianism (politics) has several NPOV mistakes within it. First, the article describes the concept as a "trope" while there are certainly scholars that disagree, then it states that:

"Though in discussions of Machiavelli's thought "Machiavellian" and "Machiavellianism" may be used in reasoned critiques (note the use of the word "reasoned"), in general usage the terms more often occur in political polemic.(should this be in wikipedia's voice?)"

Also, not mentioning that the article is a shameless and subpar content fork of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (a page frequented by the editor), the editor is also placing a "in use" tag to monopolize the article to quell dissent. Also on the article's talkpage, the editor says this:

(on a page speaking about Machiavelli's evil reputation):

"But we do need one on the - to various degrees - caricature version of it that was used as a term of abuse for several centuries after his death"

His use of the word "caricature" ignores other big scholars (such as Mansfield, Strauss, Hulliung, etc.) that have wholly different views on the subject. In the AfD, the editor admits the lack of neutrality:

"This should be a neutral article on what was never a neutral subject at all - SuperWikiLover223 needs to be able to tell the difference" (see entire AfD for context)

No WP policy would accept this excuse.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the latest episode in SuperWikiLover223's hysterical campaigns here. He has already today tried and failed to get the article deleted, having previously supported its creation after his split with Machiavellianism scale in pschology. He has been highly obstructive, edit-warring and hampering my attempts to refocus the article by many removals of referenced material, ignoring the "in use" template. He needs to back off, calm down, and come back in a few days to see what he makes of the article then. He also needs to think more carefully about many of his spray-gun arguments. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * All you did was insult me Johnbod, you have addressed not one of the issues I brought up.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My comments at the Afd are a good starting point, plus other in the earlier discussions on talk. You've been posting in so many places I can't spend all day responding (also ANI now!) ... Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest
I am having problem with statement "Contemporary and modern historians have generally regarded Arminius' victory over Varus as "Rome's greatest defeat", in article Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Only source for this statement is Adrian Murdoch and his book Rome's Greatest Defeat.

In my thinking there are 2 problems with that statement:

1) Only Adrian Murdoch is behind that statement (not contemporary and modern historians).

Other historians are for example writing for example:"To understand what took place in 202 at Zama—not the name of the actual locality of the engagement, but the label most easily recognized—and the reasons why the records of the event were presented in the manner in which they have been preserved, it is necessary to go back to 216, the year of the greatest defeat in the history of Roman military power, the battle of Cannae. - Yozan D. Mosig and Imene Belhassen:Revision and Reconstruction of the Battles of Cannae and Zama page 25 University of Nebraska at Kearney. It is clear that different historians are having different opinion about greatest roman defeat.

2) We need to avoid words great, greatest etc in articles Manual of Style/Words to watch Analitikos (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems easy enough to solve. Figure out 1) is Adrian Murdoch a person whose opinion is notable (sounds like an author of popular books with that title); 2) if he is, attribute the "great defeat" to him. I'll inform Wikiproject classical Greece and Rome, since they might know about this author.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is an opinon stated to be "widely held among historians" write "it is widely considered to be _____ among historians". Otherwise just state it is this persons personal opinion. I don't see this as being a big problem to solve.★Trekker (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it would be fine to say something like, "Adrian Murdoch calls the battle 'Rome's greatest defeat', because...", but there are several other candidates for that title that come to mind for me, and I suspect lots of classical scholars apart from Adrian Murdoch. The Battle of the Allia left Rome completely undefended, and led to the Gauls entering and sacking the city itself, an event not repeated for eight hundred years.  The Battle of the Caudine Forks was a total defeat (if barely a battle) in that an entire Roman army was captured without a fight, and forced to go under the yoke, in the most complete humiliation suffered by any Roman force.  Perhaps the least convincing of the group, however.  The Battle of Cannae would live in Roman history as the most terribly destructive battle to Roman morale, perhaps eclipsing the Battle of the Allia due to its scale and the reputation of Hannibal, with which even Brennus couldn't compete.  The Battle of Carrhae was a complete humiliation that forestalled Roman ambitions in the east for decades, and hastened Rome's plunge into civil war; indeed, had Crassus been less than totally defeated, the Civil War might have been forestalled or prevented, and the course of Roman history changed to an extent that a different outcome in the preceding three probably would not have seen.  At the Battle of Edessa, an entire Roman army was captured along with the emperor Valerian, who died in captivity.  And then we have the Battle of Adrianople (perhaps Ironic that "Adrian" Murdoch didn't consider this), in which the Roman army was slaughtered by the Goths, and the emperor Valens slain, on Roman territory.  It's true that Teutoburg Forest was a significant defeat that halted Roman ambitions in Germany, but many other battles helped to determine the course of various campaigns; most unsuccessful campaigns ended following a disastrous defeat (just as successful ones usually followed decisive victories).  As long as it's clear that it's just one (or a few) historians who call it this, and we're not lending that claim the "Wikipedia stamp of approval", I think it can be left in the article.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thought this might be worth adding: there is a tendency in Germany at least to downplay the importance of the Battle of the Teutoberg forest due to the shameless way it was exploited and glorified by German nationalists for hundreds of years (go visit the battlefield in Germany and they barely tell you why it's important in the museum). You could probably find a number of scholars to counter Adrian Reich who say that battle wasn't all that important at all, and, in fact, I would highly suggest that this perspective be added to the article--Ermenrich (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the lede should be corrected. There are way too many citations, which should be included in the text, and the "greatest defeat" thing is probably the publisher's marketing strategist that went too far. I suggest: "Contemporary and modern historians have generally regarded Arminius' victory over Varus as one of the most important defeats in the history of Rome. It stopped its expansion in northern Europe and fixed the Empire's northern border on the Rhine and Danube until its fall, 450 years later." T8612  (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There's also the problem that a number of other battles could be considered as "the worst defeat suffered by the Romans". As P Aculeius notes above, the Battle of the Cremera & the Battle of the Allia were considered such notable defeats by the Romans that they marked the anniversary of both battles as unlucky (nefastus). The Battle of Cannae is believed to have occasioned the worst total loss of life in combat prior to the meat-grinder battles of WW I. And then there is the Battle of Adrianople in 378, considered by Ammianus Marcellinus & others as the day of the army of the Western Roman Empire effectively died. (Ammianus also mentions two other battles as disastrous defeats, at least one of which is not listed here, but I don't have his work as hand as I type this.) At best, the Battle of Teutoberger Wald would be ranked as one of the worst defeats; I would leave it to a more weighty authority than Adrian Murdock to pick which of these was the worst. -- llywrch (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a "one of" solution is best - it is I suppose the worst defeat of the 1st century/early imperial period, but extra sources would be best for that formulation. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The source from Adrian Murdoch was added by me four years ago. Murdoch is a historian and member of the Royal Historical Society. My initial edit was later substantially changed by Malik047. I agree with the suggestion of Johnbod to change it to "one of". A search on Google Books indicates that the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was indeed one of the worst defeats suffered by the Roman army. Krakkos (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate discussion
This same issue is being discussed both here and at Talk:Battle of the Teutoburg Forest simultaneously. Participants and arguments vary between them unnecessarily. As this appears primarily as a typical article content dispute, should the discussion here be moved to article talk? --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 15:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think it ever needed to be brought here, probably a link to the discussion on the article talk at Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome or maybe Wikiproject Military History would have been enough.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Medicaid estate recovery and User:NormSpier
has recently added a very large amount of negative content related to Medicaid estate recovery to the following articles: Almost all of the edits included in the diffs were made by.
 * : Special:Diff/682619084/912949236
 * : Special:Diff/909824345/912954601
 * : Special:Diff/901904756/912699623
 * : Special:Diff/905346028/912738497
 * : Special:Diff/910497164/912742742
 * : Special:Diff/909480199/909790623

These content additions are problematic because they use original research (with primary sources and synthesized claims), some self-published sources (including promotional links to their own website, such as this page – archived here – in Special:Diff/909660591), and an unbalanced presentation of facts and opinions to introduce arguments against Medicaid estate recovery in the style of an essay.

A portion of the criticism introduced in these edits may be warranted in these articles, but it should not be presented in this way.

Since this is a large amount of content to thoroughly review, I'd like to get some input from other editors. How should these articles be changed to reflect a neutral point of view? —  Newslinger  talk   17:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Initial Response by NormSpier:

I welcome the forthcoming efforts of one or more editors to improve the article. I am new to writing for Wikipedia, so I trust you will figure out a better way to present the issues.

Let me report on what I did, to make your edits the best possible:

I built of the "Medicaid estate recovery" article from a stub in the last month or so. I added mainly, but not only, a large section on the critical issue of Medicaid estate recovery of non-long-term-care-related expenses, and how it interferes with the ACA. (I tried to have the wording be neutral on the 2nd pass of the article, after a prior essay-like comment from an editor.)

I added to a number of other articles, on aspects of the Medicaid estate recovery of non-long-term-related expenses. However, in the case of the ACA article, I added about 5 problems (section called "Problems"), which are well-known, and I have references. (About half of them were pointed out to me from a user on the VoxCare facebook site, and I had to look them up. "Family glitch", etc.)

On the ACA article, note it was found a little too positive at some point. The "talk page" has:

Note that the"talk" section of the ACA article has, from someone, "(AUG 2018) Portions of this article read as though they were written by the government and therefore should be questioned as political propaganda. Instead of reading in a more neutral manner, many of the points play out in a consecutively gratuitous manner toward the subject of the article. It reads more like a brochure and less like an objective analysis. There is far more positive POV description of the law than neutral or negative, and much time is spent in this article describing the components of the law AND "why that is good" for you, in a symbiotic relationship."

(Thus, the added problems should add balance. Also, they are a real necessity for a balanced article, as the defects are conspicuous to people familiar with the details of the ACA.)

The content I added is mostly negative, because of the nature of the issues. (I was in fact focusing on adding problems, because the ACA is up for repair or replacement.)  What I wrote does not reflecting original ideas, as far as I can tell. (Editors may find aspects where I slipped, and did inadvertantly have original ideas. But, after a caution from a prior editor of Medicaid estate recovery, I did try to remove everything that seemed original.) Note the pile of references after, in the "Medicaid estate recovery" article,  "The view that there were problematic aspects of the interaction of non-LTCR Medicaid estate recovery with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was put forth in various places starting from the time the ACA was passed", including the Washington Post and Seattle Times and Minnesota Star Tribune, as well as the academic journal Health Affairs and other think-tanky sources. (Those references document that other have seen various issues with Medicaid estate recovery of non-long-term-care-related expenses as it relates to the ACA. Later in the article, I have sub-issues, which I have attempted to document from sources.)

Please note: the issue of recovery of non-long-term-care-related Medicaid expenses post ACA is real (I ask people to think about what it says and see that it is real; and note that 6 states have acted on it to adjust since the ACA start in 2014 or soon after, as well as the Obama administration attempted to address in a 2014 issue), somewhat obscure (for political reasons--it's embarassing to some politicians and may enrage some people getting ACA expanded Medicaid, as it did in certain states where it was reported on), and most definitely not original.

So I ask the editors: in order to do the edits well, please do try and understand the technical issue of Medicaid estate recovery for non-long-term-care-related expenses, and its interaction with the ACA. It has been underpublicized lately, I think for political reasons. I'll bet few, if any, editors who will do the edits on this knew about the issue prior. The issue is that, in many states which have expanded Medicaid, people 55 or older who get expanded Medicaid in fact are only getting a loan for medical expenses. The estate has to pay the expenses paid out back. (Here, not in the encyclopedia, but here, I am using partial language, because the issue is so stunning because it is so blatant yet underpublicized. I do hope all editors see the technical issue.  Bills are paid for a person now, but have to be paid back the estate, as part of the ACAs health insurance system (for people 55 and older, in states which exercise their option to do Medicaid estate recovery, for people who get Medicaid or expanded Medicaid: that is, those with incomes to 138% Fed Pov. Level.). Editors, please see and understand the issue. I'll bet you all didn't know about it! You will of course have the article be objective about this, and my partiality, and being stunned shows here in this "Neutral Point of View" section, but of course, it should nor appear in the final article.)

(Also, since I'm being open on my personal position on the issue here, let me point out that I was and still am all for the ACA. However, my  opinion is there are serious defects that need to be cleaned up in the law. One defect of which is Medicaid estate recovery for people 55 and over in states that still do that post-ACA.  Further, there are other issues, which did make it into the ACA article only under problems, and are generally recognized. Of course, the Wikipedia entry itself needs to report on issues objectively, and in an objective tone.)

(I will be glad to help people understand the issue if they are unclear. I am not sure how familiar the editors are with the details of the ACA, and its construction.  So if anything is unclear, just ask.  You might Try also the Washington Post, Seattle Times, or Health Affairs articles.)

Please note, while you edit, that the problem isolated is specifically the recovery of non-long-term-care-related expenses from Medicaid for people 55 and older. It messes up half of the ACA (expanded Medicaid), and makes it essentially not real insurance. Bills paid out have to be paid back. (Here, in this document here, I am varying from neutral language which I tried to put into the article.)

I probably have not succeeded perfectly in making the article neutral point of view. I am new to Wikipedia writing, so certainly I could use to learn some things about being more neutral, and conforming to Wikipedia standards. Hopefully, you editors will fix and adjust wording, etc. I welcome your bringing things up to Wikipedia standards.

Note also: I am happy to have removed my own "Blog" pages on the matter from the articles. (The one cited by Newslinger, http://nasmusicsoft.com/BlogMAEstateClawback1.html, and possibly some article also has my other page: http://nasmusicsoft.com/BlogACAConsumerProblems.html. These are 2 of a total of about 80 references that I added. The "Medicaid estate recovery" article was taken up from a stub by me in the last month or so, and most of the references are mine.  That is, about 70 references, one or two of which are to my own pages.)    However, the other numerous references are not my own, and include Health Affairs (academic) and major and minor newspapers.)

I thank you all for your efforts to fix any problems with what I have added. I assume you will do this in the spirit of making the articles a more complete and fair representation of the ACA, and its associated Medicaid. I am glad to have the expertise of more experienced editors to figure out exactly how to do this.

NormSpier (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Added a little later:NormSpier (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your comprehensive response. Also, thank you for spending a large amount of time and effort into expanding these articles. The Medicaid estate recovery article is much more informative right now than it was a month ago (Special:Permalink/682619084). I've read your web page ("A List of Affordable Care Act Problems"), and I found it extremely informative. It provides a lot of useful information, and presents this confusing topic in an understandable way. Your personal experiences with the MA Estate Recovery Unit are enlightening, and your suggested solutions are thought-provoking. I could see your web page being popular on social media (e.g. certain subreddits) if it isn't already. I get the impression that you are trying to convey the information on your web page, as well as your personal knowledge of Medicaid estate recovery, in these Wikipedia articles. However, what makes for a compelling web page rarely makes for an appropriate encyclopedia entry. Some of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines are:
 * Verifiability: Readers should be able to verify every single statement in a Wikipedia article with a reliable source. Assertions, opinions, or examples that are not from reliable sources are generally unacceptable. Synthesizing multiple sources to deduce something that none of the sources directly say is also not allowed.
 * No original research: Articles should be based mostly on reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can be used for uncontroversial information in some cases, but claims that can't be verified in reliable secondary sources are usually excluded from articles.
 * Neutrality: The goal of Wikipedia is to inform readers, not to persuade them. We try to reflect all major viewpoints covered by reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. If an issue is "underpublicized", it should be featured less prominently in an article.
 * Tone: Web pages can be informal, but Wikipedia articles should be written in a dispassionate tone. Also, contractions shouldn't be used unless they are in quotes of cited sources.
 * Reliability: On Wikipedia, sources are considered reliable if they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and if they are endorsed by other reliable sources. Unfortunately, self-published sources such as personal web pages are excluded by that definition in most cases, so you wouldn't be able to cite your own web page. This also applies to most blogs, including group blogs and company blogs.
 * You've done some significant research for these articles, and you've managed to collect a large number of relevant reliable sources. (You even have too many citations in some places. It's a good practice to condense long rows of citations with the refn template to save space.) The less reliable sources should be removed, and you can always ask the reliable sources noticeboard if you're not sure whether a source is reliable. Sticking to reliable sources means that a significant portion of your additions would have to be rewritten. Please don't take this personally, since articles change all the time, and everyone's contributions eventually get altered in some way. On neutrality: I do expect much of the coverage on Medicaid estate recovery to be negative, since it is a liability from the consumer's perspective. However, editorializing can exaggerate the point of view, and its best to only use strict summaries of reliable sources. It's admirable that you are trying to communicate "the recovery of non-long-term-care-related expenses from Medicaid for people 55 and older" to the public, since this is a serious financial consideration for many American individuals. You are welcome to include information on this issue in Wikipedia articles, but only if it is adequately supported by reliable sources and explained in an appropriate amount of text for the topic of the article. Going beyond that to give undue emphasis to this aspect of Medicaid would unbalance the article.  I hope this clears up some of the expectations for Wikipedia articles, and helps clarify what is needed to improve these articles. I'll be happy to help you look over these articles, although there is a lot of content and writing articles on complex topics is always a long-term effort. If you have any questions on editing, please feel free to ask me on my talk page at any time. —  Newslinger   talk   22:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi and other editors who I get the feeling Newslinger is trying to get to look at at the articles.


 * For the main articles in question: Medicaid estate recovery and ACA, I have removed the one link to my own page on one of them, and two Daily Kos references, which were not verified by the publication, but just blog posts by users.


 * I have looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Usage_by_other_sources, as one of the issues. (This is the 5th of your issues: Reliability)


 * it says, under:


 * Statements of opinion


 * "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable."


 * I think I've used the opinion sources correctly, stating them as opinion. (HufPost, etc.)  I use terms like "viewpoint" where there is opinion.


 * Otherwise, to my eyes, I am OK on "verifiability", "No Original Research", "Neutrality", and "Tone". However, I'm not that experienced at writing for Wikipedia.  (A week or two ago,  reviewed Medicaid estate recovery, and did have issues of  "No Original Research", "Neutrality", and "Tone", and after that reviews,  but I thought I fixed them as well as possible with both deletions and rewording as opinions.  This for both the Medicaid estate recovery article, and the ACA article.)


 * Apparently not, and I think the issue is that I'm just not sensitive enough to Wikipedia standards at this point to make the articles conform without extensive help on specific sections of the text.


 * I'll see if I get any ideas on further improvements to conformance, but mainly, I think its up to you, more experienced Wikipedia editors to either:


 * a)point out specific passages that should be removed, reworded, and exactly how, if a rewording. (Or, ask for clarification, where does the reference say that?, etc.)


 * or b)do the deletion or rewording yourselves, using whatever editor consensus procedures you have to make sure there is sufficient agreement on your end.


 * So, basically, as I see it, I need to wait for more detailed feedback, or else you editors will just do the changes. (I realize no one may have time, and you may just delete my sections.  That will be O.K. if that is your best judgement.)

Also, I'll of course be happy to delete my sections myself, for all the articles, if their editor consensus is that they should be deleted, as to not make extra work for everyone. (Except parts of the ACA article, which I added, which had no comments in review.)

NormSpier (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Just adding a bit on the critical ACA article, where you may want to avoid an appearance of bias in favor of the ACA, and the covering up of problems.

Also, note. Of the various articles in question (in the messageboard), probably the most critical for it not to appear to others of bias in favor of the ACA, covering up defects, is the ACA article itself, where the section Problems (which I added) lists 5 problems,

5	Problems 5.1	Subsidy Cliff at 400% FPL 5.2	Sometimes-Unaffordable Out-of-Pocket Maximums 5.3	Family Glitch 5.4	Estate Recovery under 138% FPL 5.5	Coordination of Medicaids with On-Exchange Plans

Note that most of the problems, including estate recovery when it is done by states non-long-term-care-related, are in multiple sources, and in particular this reliable one: https://tcf.org/content/report/key-proposals-to-strengthen-the-aca/ (co-authored by Tim Jost, an academic lawyer who did most of the the Health Affairs "Covering the ACA" posts until a year or two ago.)

Specifically, 4 of the 5 wikipedia ACA section 5 "problems" are within the text of the single "proposal to strengthen" article:

5.1 is within "Increase Credits for Moderate- and Middle-Income Families" 5.2 is within "Reduce Cost-sharing and Out-of-Pocket Limits and Improve Minimum Employer Coverage Requirements." 5.3 is within "Fix the Family Glitch" (you only have to go so far as the title) 5.4 is within "Eliminate Medicaid Estate Recoveries from the Expansion Population" 5.5 is the only one not in "proposal to strengthen". But I have reliable references (last paragraph in the article), including actual continuity of coverage issues found in the GAO report.

(The comment is repeated in the "talk" section for the ACA article only).

NormSpier (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, for the articles on broader subjects (e.g. Massachusetts health care reform), I think a better alternative than deleting would be to move the new content to sandboxes at subpages of the respective article talk pages (e.g. Talk:Massachusetts health care reform/sandbox). We could then gradually reintroduce the new content back into the articles as it becomes copyedited for policy compliance, and we'll also check the proportions of the articles' coverage of Medicaid estate recovery to make sure that they do not give undue weight to this subject. If an article covers Medicaid estate recovery in too much detail, we'll keep only the parts that are most relevant to the article's subject, and use a See also hatnote to direct the reader to the Medicaid estate recovery article for general information on the subject. I'll help review the content, but we'll also solicit help from other editors on this noticeboard and in related WikiProjects such as the ones listed at the top of Talk:Medicaid estate recovery. Does this sound like an acceptable plan to you? —  Newslinger  talk   16:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It is fine to include some of the criticism listed at, although the length of the content should be reduced. For instance, the listed examples for silver/bronze plans are considered original research since they're not covered in reliable sources, and they should be removed. —  Newslinger  talk   16:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * So, sure, I'm OK with the plan, as I understand it.


 * For the articles on your list besides the ACA and Medicaid estate recovery, I'll move it to the sandbox. (Unless any of it is obviously out of standards to me, even with my lack of complete understanding of the standards, in which case I will delete it.)


 * It sounds like for the Medicaid estate recovery, you, or assigns, are gonna handle it. That's fine.  Do it however you wish.  If you have questions about the meaning of what I wrote, or where the references apply, just ask.


 * For the ACA article, I don't want to be observed pulling out the 5 problems, or over-shortening them, as I actually support the ACA and might be accused of covering up defects.  So I'll leave it to your group, to do whatever, including moving stuff to the sandbox temporarily.  (I'll of course answer any questions, etc.)


 * Also, on the issue of the ACA article silver and bronze plan (used in 2 problems), note everything can be verified from the referenced healthcare.gov website. I've given the zipcode for a Chicago locale.  A little math is needed, which may or may not be more than you want to have the readers or editors to have to do.  (I see it may have to be pulled out for reasons of Wikipedia standards, so go ahead and do it, or sandbox it, or whatever.)  However, just let me express the opinion that I find it informative, and gives people a picture of the numbers involved in people's real world premiums and copays, and the effect of the subsidy cliff.  I personally don't want to be seen pulling out the sections myself, because it looks like it might be a covering up of real problems, with substantial cost-of-premium (when over the cliff) and copay issues with the ACA.  (I guess I'm voicing a criticism of the Wikipedia policy on this--very useful information is kept out because it involves a little math and understanding of the regulations.  But I'm attacking no one in particular.  Just the principle.  I did a search, and tried to find the numbers in direct form from a reputable source before computing the numbers myself, but could not.  The numbers computed use a reputable source, Healthcare.gov, but calculation is involved.  (Also, I took FPL from a reputable source.)

NormSpier (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, for the last 4 of the 6 articles, I just deleted the stuff. As discussed above, I've left the "Problems" section of the ACA article in the editors hands, as well as the Medicaid estate recovery article. NormSpier (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

For my own continuing edification and trying to figure out Wikipedia standards, I did look up undue weight "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Text later on is unclear to me if equal text space is mandated. I hope not. That wouldn't make sense from a pursuit-of-truth point of view. It may be that one argument is more complex than the other.

In the particular case of Medicaid estate recovery, I actually did, after the first reviewer cited essay like, add in 'The moral justification for Estate Recovery has been stated as “if you’re receiving a public benefit and the state is trying to support you, you should give back if you are able".' (5th paragraph) This actually is about the whole argument. (One might add something like the government needs money to pay for Medicaid expenses.  But that's about it.  Two short arguments.)

The other side of the argument, which only comes in post-ACA, with non-long-term-care related estate recovery, is in fact complicated. You can't really understand the issue unless you get into the structure of the ACA, and think about what's going on with the collection all medical expenses from the estates of people who were supposedly insured under the ACA. Further, you have to have pointed out the exact structure of who gets real insurance where nothing has to be paid back, and who gets mislabelled insurance that has to be paid. It's people with similar incomes paying similar premiums (small or 0) and all with small copays, on either side of the 138% Federal Poverty Level divide. Additionally, there was (prior to mandate repeal) an issue of people being compelled to accept expanded Medicaid, or pay a penalty. This is done under the pretext of limiting adverse selection in order to give everyone good insurance that pools risk, but the thing is, in states that do non-long-term-care estate Recovery for people 55 and older, when it is all medical expenses, there is no pooling of risk at all for those people. There is also an economically bizarre estate recovery of a non-asset-tested benefit. (In opinionated language, O.K. here, but not for articles, there are a lot of parts to explain to see how the contraption is so cockamamie!)

Then, in the case of Medicaid estate recovery, there is also a case of both the director of the National Accociation of Medicaid Directors, and the Obama administration, acting as though they see there is a problem. And many states fixed at ACA start, or after, but as well, many have not.

These are all relevant complicated factors, where I can find no complicated factors in the 2 short arguments for the other side. So, if the Wikipedia standard does in fact mean equal text length, then I find it at fault. Something that may help with the optics, but would lead to wasted space explaining simple things, or not explaining complicated things.

Also, I see it is in the standard, to give weight based on how reported things are. ("In proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This, I guess, is the standard, but I find it intellectually faulty.  People who are familiar with "Manufacturing Consent" (Chomsky/Herman) will understand why, immediately.  (So will many Donald Trump voters!)

This mainstream business may be coming up with Medicaid estate recovery (interaction with ACA part), which, though publicized in 6 or 7 mainstream sources that I can find, including the mainstream, limited-view newspapers of Chomsky/Herman, is probably or apparently still intentionally underpublicized, in order to make the ACA look good, and to keep people from getting enraged as they have in states where the issue did manage to get publicized mainstream. (These are WA, where the issue got fixed in a few days I believe, after publicity in 2013. Also CA and MN, where publicity led to political action and changing the recovery of non-long-term-related expenses.)

So I've learned from this that wikipedia has standards forcing it to behave like a mainstream, limited-viewpoint, or viewpoint expressed- proportional-to-establishments-sources. (Just a comment. It may or may not apply to Medicaid estate recovery, but it looks like an issue.)

NormSpier (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone is working on this, note that I have now added article-specific stuff on the Talk pages for the 2 remaining articles in question. These are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medicaid_estate_recovery and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act.

NormSpier (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've set up sandboxes for all of these articles. They are listed below and also linked from the respective article talk pages (in a message box near the top).
 * Talk:Medicaid estate recovery/sandbox
 * Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/sandbox
 * Talk:Massachusetts health care reform/sandbox
 * Talk:Health insurance coverage in the United States/sandbox
 * Talk:Health insurance in the United States/sandbox
 * Talk:Medicaid/sandbox


 * Currently, these sandboxes contain the content that was removed from the related articles. (The first two sandboxes are empty, because nothing has been removed from these articles yet.) If any portions of the sandbox content are both policy-compliant and relevant to the articles, we can restore them. We can also revise or copyedit the text in the sandboxes: it's a general drafting area for the articles.


 * Regarding your "pursuit-of-truth" comment, please note that Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth. In many topics, "truth" means different things to different people, and Wikipedia's way of adjudicating different perspectives is to derive our article content from reliable sources.


 * Wikipedia tends to reflect the information published in mainstream sources, and we recognize that as a form of systemic bias. The best way to address this bias is to use a diverse selection of reliable sources that reflect all prominent perspectives. In addition to online news sources, we can also use books and academic publications from reputable publishers. (Google Books, Google Scholar, and Semantic Scholar are good resources.) Once you participate a bit more on Wikipedia, you can also obtain access to The Wikipedia Library Card Platform, which gives you access to many paywalled publications free of charge.


 * However, there is no way around using reliable sources. Since all article content is derived from the cited sources, the quality of the sources directly determines the quality of our articles. If you feel that some information is inadequately covered by reliable sources, the only policy-compliant way to get that information into Wikipedia is to get it reliably published. You may want to consider getting into contact with journalists and convincing them to write about these subjects. You can also become a journalist yourself, although that opens you to conflict of interest issues on Wikipedia.


 * Let's discuss matters regarding specific content on the related article talk pages. We can continue coordinating the review process here, but it would be best to keep this discussion as organized as possible. Thanks again for your willingness to engage with other editors. —  Newslinger  talk   13:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Requests for comment
Hi, I'm following up on the Teahouse discussion. Once again, the disputed changes to the articles are below: To use this method of dispute resolution, we need to figure out which sets of changes we agree and disagree on. For the articles which we disagree on, we can start a request for comment on the respective talk pages to ask the whole Wikipedia community whether your changes should be kept or removed. Editors who participate in the discussion might suggest other solutions, but they will usually choose one or the other.
 * : Special:Diff/682619084/912949236
 * : Special:Diff/909824345/912954601
 * : Special:Diff/901904756/912699623
 * : Special:Diff/905346028/912738497
 * : Special:Diff/910497164/912742742
 * : Special:Diff/909480199/909790623

Given the two choices (keep or remove) for each article, I would choose to keep the changes to the Medicaid estate recovery article and remove all of the changes to all of the other articles.

Which of these articles do you want to keep your changes in? —  Newslinger  talk   19:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi,, and everyone else. As I indicated prior, and reiterated at the Teahouse, I have removed several days ago my additions to 4 of the articles (to the best of my ability).  The two where the additions remain are Medicaid estate recovery (which I have built up from a stub), and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, where I've modified sections, adding stuff about "silver plan loading".  I've also added a section trying to explain the way the coverage achieved ("Outline of the coverage mechanism"), which may or may not be problematic for , but most definitely, my addition of the section "Problems", (Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act) describing 5 problems with the ACA, like "subsidy cliff", "family glitch", and "excessively high copays" is a trouble spot for.


 * . I may have missed answering your exact question above.  Of the two articles with remaining additions, ACA, and Medicaid estate recovery, I would keep both.  Subject to, as below, I find the question too coarse, keep or remove. The binary choice. See below. NormSpier (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that there have been certain additions, either for additional clarity, or to try to reasonably comply with points made by, so I don't know what, exactly, those bulleted diffs are, but note they may not be the latest version (of the articles in question).


 * Thirdly, please note that the optimal resolution is to find a person or two with time, familiar with Wikipedia standards, able to understand technical details of the ACA, able to review the text, and make by line comments, with possible iteration back and forth between us on where things come from, and what they mean, and how standards may or may not be violated. (I understand  has attempted to seek additional reviewers starting 5 or 6 days ago, but has not been able to find any.)


 * I'm uncomfortable with the binary choice on the ACA article that you've given. Reducing down to the two articles left, you are saying keep Medicaid estate recovery, and the choice is remove (or not remove) all changes to the ACA article, including the section you object to, which talks about 5 problems of the ACA.  This, in fact, seems politically suspect.  You have not indicated any errors in any section, including that section.  You have indicated the point of view is not neutral, but it is a section on problems with the ACA, that are real, and should not be covered up. No one else besides yourself has indicated they find the section incorrect or biased or any other violation of standards.

NormSpier (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi,, as in the second sentence, "The two where the additions remain are Medicaid estate recovery (which I have built up from a stub), and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"


 * Also, rather than "keep all", or "delete all" on what I put in the ACA article, if you can't find someone with appropriate time and skills take a careful look, including necessary iteration with me, a third option is to leave the "Problems with ACA" section exactly as it is, including keeping, over the section, (a) "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (August 2019)", (b)"The neutrality of this article is disputed. (August 2019)", and (c) "This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (August 2019)" all of which you put on the "Problems" with ACA section 8 days ago, and wait till people with suitable time and understanding of the issues get to it.
 * I've perused the article. Some people with understanding of the ACA technical mechanisms (rather than politics or law--not particularly relevant for the matters in question) apparently wrote parts of it.  Maybe they will come back, eventually.  There also must be people in the general public who will see the article, with the 3 disputes over "Problems", and eventually take a stab.

NormSpier (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've started a request for comment (RfC) at . Please comment with your opinion. For an example of what the RfC discussion format looks like, you can refer to this closed RfC on an unrelated topic that also asks editors to choose between two versions of an article. Since the additions to the article are very long (over 54,000 characters), a line-by-line evaluation is not feasible without enough volunteers. This RfC will be advertised throughout Wikipedia in several ways (see for details), and will likely attract enough attention from other editors to form a consensus on this article. As I mentioned in the Teahouse discussion, the result of this RfC will determine the starting point for this article, and whether to include or exclude specific portions of the added content can be discussed on the talk page afterward. The attention from the RfC will hopefully attract editors who are willing to participate in these discussions after the RfC. —  Newslinger   talk   05:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you have fallen into the Wiki world without knowing the rules. In the Teahouse you were all offended that someone could edit what you wrote without proof of their own expertise and knowledge.  All of your hard work just edited by just anyone.  You seemed to have learned who and how editing works.  You need to learn how to be brief.  I and nobody else wants to read all that you write.  In fact I do not want to get any further into your education of this Wiki world.  Good luck and listen to what a great many editors are trying to tell you.  Maybe my comment should be on your talk page? Eschoryii (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Map of United Nations member states
There is a dispute on United Nations with the map File:United Nations Members (green–grey scheme).svg shown in the infobox. In it, Taiwan and Kosovo are coloured on the basis that they appear to be part of some UN member state on UN's maps. This claim is not sourced. Even if it is true, taking the UN's position without basing on reliable sources violates WP:NOTPROMO. The vast majority of such maps treat Taiwan independently. Doing otherwise violates WP:UNDUE. The map should be switched to this one, but User:Wadaad repeatedly refused to follow WP policies. Ythlev (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid if you want to get a serious discussion going, you're probably going to have to start with better sources than a link to reddit.  G M G  talk  11:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with Reddit? I can throw a bunch of "better sources" if you like. It is absolutely not hard to demonstrate my point. Ythlev (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The map is sourced. Secondly, Taiwan falls under China according to the UN. Mind you China has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council, a vital component of the UN. Lastly, your proposed map violates the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Somalia as Somaliland is not recognized by any country (literally zero) while Somalia is a UN member-state. Your map strongly violates WP:ADVOCACY and hence should not be included and the status-quo should remain. Wadaad (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So your saying that the UN's own information on it's own membership is not reliable? Why wouldn't it be?  -- Jayron 32 11:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This link that this user keeps citing makes absolutely no reference to Taiwan. Even if UN does consider Taiwan part of China, it is only one viewpoint. Is it the majority viewpoint according to WP:WEIGHT? Ythlev (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But...on an article about the UN, isn't the UN's opinion the only one that really matters? I mean, opinions may differ about whether Taiwan should be an independent member state. But it's kindof hard to have an opinion on whether they currently are. You can have an opinion about whether Karachi should be the capital of Pakistan, but Pakistan says the capital is Islamabad, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion.  G M G  talk  13:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your feelings regarding Taiwan's independence, it is treated, by the UN, as a part of China. And that map reflects this. It would violate WP:NPOV to say otherwise. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But...on an article about the UN, isn't the UN's opinion the only one that really matters? Says who? What policy says only the subject's opinion matters on its article? WP:NPOV: Ythlev (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's difficult to see how, on the subject of UN member states, a thing that the UN decides by definition, there are any "significant views" other than the views of the UN.
 * Besides, you appear to be arguing from entirely hypothetical sources. The two you've provided regarding Taiwan don't have anything to do with the United Nations. The map you prefer seems to just throw around autonomous regions and disputed territories willy nilly, with no indication why these are being chosen out of scores of territorial disputes, and dozens of autonomous regions. Northern Cyprus is only recognized by one country. Somaliland isn't recognized by anyone. Transnistria is only recognized by other places struggling for recognition. So you are making the argument of "fairness and proportionality", when what you seem to have done is pick winners and losers in a random selection of conflicts, many of which are clearly not winning the "fair and proportional" debate. When a state has negligible or no international recognition, these do not constitute "significant views" that we must take into account on broad global subjects. Part of recognizing significant views is disregarding insignificant ones. Each of these areas have their own article, and interested readers can go there for additional information.  G M G  talk  17:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable way to resolve this would be to make a minor adjustment in the caption to the map to make it absolutely clear that it's the UN's map (without assuming that the reader will look at the source reference) rather than a map that everyone would necessarily agree with. Just change "Map of the current UN member states..." to "The UN's map of its current member states..." There's already a discussion of alternative opinions on Taiwan in the section on criticisms of the UN, so I don't think anything else is needed in order to ensure NPOV on this issue. NightHeron (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't the UN map. The map was created by a Commons user.  It describes exactly what it is: UN member states.  The status of Taiwan may be in dispute in other contexts, but it is not in dispute that the UN considers it to be under the jurisdiction of the PRC.  -- Jayron 32 18:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I saw the citation to the UN and erroneously thought it was for the map. Now I see that the citation is just for the information that was used by whomever constructed the map.  If the UN doesn't itself publish a map of this sort, don't we have a problem of OR and SYNTH, since the coloring of countries (such as Taiwan) is based on an interpretation of UN policy by an unnamed person?  There are many other countries and regions besides Taiwan that have a complicated history of disputes and shifting boundaries, and the map clearly gives a simplified picture of that history as it relates to UN membership.  If the source of the map is not the UN but an unknown person, don't we have RS and SYNTH issues? NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * it is not in dispute that the UN considers it to be under the jurisdiction of the PRC. I dispute this. There is no source for this. Ythlev (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you might be well served to read WP:RGW. It is not the place of the encyclopedia to take a position on the question of the claimed territories of any state. The United Nations recognizes the PRC as the government of China, and does not recognize Taiwan's independence. This may have realpolitik reasons (such as China's permanent security council veto backed by a nuclear arsenal) but that's the de facto reality. To treat it otherwise violates WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you can dispute anything you want. However, your individual dispute does not mean that the world at large is in dispute over the matter.  The UN is not confused by its own resolutions and statements on the matter, however, as noted here, which states among other things "The General Assembly...decides to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize [it] as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations."  Also, a clarifying statement on from the UN is made here which notes "regarding the Taiwan Province of China, the Secretary-General follows the General Assembly’s guidance incorporated in resolution 2758...The General Assembly decided to recognize the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations. Hence, instruments received from the Taiwan Province of China will not be accepted by the Secretary-General in his capacity as depositary"  Other UN documents consistently refer to Taiwan as the "Taiwan Province of China" and not as a sovereign state on its own, and do so unambiguously.  Please note that my saying this does not mean that I agree with the UN on this matter (and me saying THAT does not mean that I don't.  I hold no meaningful opinion on the issue, not that my opinion means anything) and saying all of THAT also does not mean that the matter of Taiwan's sovereignty is undisputed, but on the very narrow and specific issue of what the United Nations recognizes, the UN clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly since 1971 has recognized the island of Taiwan as being under the Jurisdiction of the PRC.  -- Jayron 32 12:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Other UN documents consistently refer to Taiwan as the "Taiwan Province of China". So your interpretation of this view is solely based on how the UN refers to Taiwan? Has the UN stated what territories are part of "Taiwan Province of China"? Does it include Kinmen?
 * Even if so, the point remains that colouring the map based on this view violates WP:UNDUE: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Colouring Taiwan independently is the majority view in sources. Ythlev (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not if the map is specifically showing what the UN considers to be the status of Taiwan. This issue with this map is not what the majority view of Taiwan's status is.  Only what the UN's view of Taiwan's status is.  For other maps showing other views, they may serve to be colored differently.  For the map of what the UN considers, this one is correct.-- Jayron 32 04:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You still don't get it do you? I'm not arguing it's correctness. This is about how information is represented in the article. The UN considers every piece of land part of it? Fine. That can be easily stated with one sentence or a paragraph. This map, if it has any value, can still be in the article, but it is the main map. The main map should be the mainstream view, which is that Taiwan, Kosovo etc have different statuses and are coloured independently. Such a map as the main map only mislead readers, especially when the footnote is not expanded. Ythlev (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, File:ICAO.png colours Taiwan independently. Almost every map does. Ythlev (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because the ICAO considers Taiwan to be independent This isn't complicated.  -- Jayron 32 18:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Source? ICAO is an agency of the UN and it considers Taiwan independent but not the UN itself? Ythlev (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The map that illustrates the lead in United Nations is the same one as in Member states of the United Nations, where it is sourced directly to the UN. However, it is too small to see any detail, and so is of questionable value. The footnote gives a qualifying statement, and there are qualifying statements in the original source about the map not implying endorsement of any party in certain disputes. The second map in United Nations, as User:Jayron32 pointed out, is not a UN map; rather, it was composed by someone who is not cited. It also is too small to show any detail, and, moreover, does not include any of the qualifying statements that are in the first map or in the UN source for the first map. I don't really see any reason not to remove both maps on the grounds that neither one is likely to be helpful to the reader, neither one contributes to the article's accuracy, and the second one violates WP:SYNTH. NightHeron (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why. We have maps all over Wikipedia created by Wikipedia users based on data from reliable sources.  The maps can be clicked to zoom in for greater detail, as do all maps.  This isn't a novel synthesis issue if the map is created from reliable sources, just as text is supposed to be created from reliable sources.  The maps are fine, and other than your mis-use of WP:SYNTH, every single map everywhere on Wikipedia is similar to this one in all of the other points you make.  -- Jayron 32 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about all those other maps, just about the two on United Nations. Take the first one, which illustrates the lead.  Yes, when you click on it, it gets bigger.  But even the bigger version is not informative.  Everything is green, except for a few tiny white portions that are unlabeled.  Most seem to be lakes, but some might be non-member countries.  Not very helpful to the reader.  The reason why the second map appears to be OR or SYNTH is that the person who composed the map did not include the caveats that the UN includes in its map, and so it implicitly invites the reader to draw conclusions from the map about the UN's stand on certain disputed areas.  The UN itself seems not to want readers to over-interpret its maps in that way.  So by including the map without caveats, Wikipedia is deviating from the source and imposing its own interpretation.  In addition, as I said before, the map is a historical map that simplifies history.  If the UN chose to do that (that is, publish this map), then fine.  But the decision to present a simplified version of the history of UN membership was not the UN's decision or the decision of some other RS, but rather the decision of a Wikipedia editor. NightHeron (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Please compare the historical map about UN membership to the cited source, which is the UN's year-by-year list of admissions of countries to the UN. The list has many footnotes explaining complicated cases.  For example, in 1973 both the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (two different countries at the time) were admitted, and in 1990 following reunification of Germany they merged into a single member state.  There are other complicated cases, as well (two different Yemens were admitted in 1947 and 1967, and they later merged into a single member state).  In contrast, the map misrepresents the source by over-simplifying and introducing glaring inaccuracies.  It portrays Germany as a united country that joined the UN between 1960 and 1989.  A map-maker and a Wikipedia editor may have felt that this simplification/distortion was acceptable in order to have a visual representation.  WP:SYNTH tells us "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source," such as that a unified Germany joined the UN between 1960-1989.  Presumably the UN would not be likely to publish such a map because they wouldn't want readers to have diminished confidence in the factual accuracy and reliability of UN documents.  For the same reason, shouldn't the map be removed from Wikipedia?  Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The map doesn't display dates of membership. Only the current status.  Former states that no longer exist aren't relevant for this map.  It doesn't show that information at all, and isn't trying to, so your point is entirely worthless here.-- Jayron 32</b> 04:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't use insulting language like "worthless" (WP:CIV: "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment"). I think we might not be talking about the same map. Of the three maps in the article, I've been raising objections to the first (for being unhelpful to readers) and the third (for being inaccurate and misrepresenting the source).  The latter map has the countries color-coded according to dates of membership.  It shows a map of Germany as it currently exists being admitted in 1960-1989.  It's a historical map that inaccurately represents the information contained in the source. NightHeron (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Just tacking on here for good measure. If you are using third party source to create maps for articles, please please please include the source on the file description on Commons (I have now added this). This map is currently used on 22 different projects, and there's nothing to otherwise indicate to a Danish editor that the original citation for the map is on the English Wikipedia, as opposed to 21 other places.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry for this long, rambling attempt at weighing in on the situation, but I'm disappointed with how this entire dispute at the talk page has been handled thus far. I'll be honest in saying that I can't be certain that either Ythlev or Wadaad are approaching this without any biases (in fact I'd suspect that this is an issue of clashing perspectives above all else). Despite how my comments at Talk:United Nations overall leaned more in favor of Ythlev's position than Wadaad's position, I must note that I do not support the exact version as proposed by Ythlev for one glaring issue that I should've noticed sooner: it includes Donetsk and Luhansk. I'm not going to articulate any of my own personal thoughts regarding the status of those entities because this is not the place to have that discussion. The key issue is that it defies the consensus at the Limited recognition article. There are exactly 10 non-member states for which it would be accurate to give the title "de facto independent state with limited international recognition." The consensus is that Donetsk and Luhansk don't belong on that list. See for the current consensus on this matter. Our goal should be to provide as much relevant information as possible without going against the consensuses which regard de facto states. I do think it's relevant that Taiwan is a former member of the United Nations, and I think it's preferable to not simply leave Western Sahara et al as empty or gray, as doing so already displays it in a separate color, so we might as well give an informative key so the readers can know why it's displayed separately. With all of that said, I condemn the comments from Wadaad that suggested that entities can be "too small and irrelevant" to put on the map, and I do not approve of Ythlev's version either. In short, it does look like a feud between WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT. I think a lot of the arguments I'm seeing need to be cut out. If you'd like to suggest that it should simply be a map of the United Nations member states and their legally recognized land claims, then that's fine, but in doing so please be consistent. Wadaad changed to list Morocco's borders and the SADR's borders separately, but every other state with limited recognition (including Palestine which is an observer and including Taiwan which was once a member) is not displayed as such. Including 1 but not the other 9 is just as problematic as including all 10 plus Donetsk and Luhansk. Just operate based on the existing consensus so we don't get bogged down by side arguments; if you want to change the consensus, do it at Limited recognition, not here or at Talk:United Nations. The "sides" of the disagreement should either be to display none of the non-member states or to display all of the non-member states, not to display some but not all, not to go too far and display ones which aren't even agreed to count as de facto states. Lastly, to editors other than Wadaad and Ythlev: Yes, Taiwan is a de-facto independent state with limited international recognition. That's not a matter of whether or not it "should" be. This isn't about whether or not it is independent, this is about whether or not it should be displayed on the map. With all due respect to GMG, cut it out with the comparisons to whether or not a city should replace Islamabad as the capital of Pakistan. We already know which countries are and are not states with limited recognition. This has been settled already after years of RS-based discussions at Talk:List of states with limited recognition, and this isn't the place to change that. This is a highly contentious issue that needs to be handled delicately, and the arguments I'm seeing are deeply troubling because they veer off into unrelated arguments that would take us back to square one by having to argue about what countries even are de facto independent states. Best wishes,     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 21:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Side-comment I hope that my ramblings above didn't come off as too harsh or too offensive to anyone. It's probably very visible that I found this entire mess to be very frustrating, but my intent isn't to burn bridges here.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 22:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the UN consider Taiwan to be a non-member independent state or does it consider the Taiwanese land to be part of the PRC, another UN member state? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The status quo version does not display all borders only as the United Nations recognizes them. I fully accept that the United Nations regards Taiwan as presently being under the sovereignty of the PRC, a current member of the United Nations, and I believe that it's a perfectly legitimate argument that we should simply display all borders only as the United Nations recognizes them, but I am critical of the fact that this argument has been used as a rationale for maintaining the status quo of the map, not to provide a new version of it. All versions of the green-gray scheme (both the original 2016 version & Wadaad's new version) display Western Sahara separate from the rest of the world by presenting it in gray. Whether the previous version, which displayed the whole of the Western Sahara region as being subject to a territorial dispute, or the new version by Wadaad, which displays the de facto borders of the SADR. By displaying it in gray, we are already making a distinction between it and the UN member states. I'm simply suggesting two things: 1) that we be consistent by displaying the other de facto states in the same color as we already display the SADR, and 2) that we provide a color key so the readers can see why we already display them separately.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 21:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The United Nations does not recognize Taiwan in the same way that it recognizes Western Sahara, so that is a bad analogy. Most relevant here, is that the United Nations, in This resolution, which AFAICT has never been revoked or superceded, recognizes the right of the people of Western Sahara to "self-determination and independence" (their words) in a way that it does not for Taiwan.  According to the UN's own recognition, Western Sahara is basically an occupied-but-should-be-independent state, while Taiwan is an integral part of the PRC.  Please try again.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * while Taiwan is an integral part of the PRC Source? Ythlev (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

So minus Donetsk and Luhansk and it's fine? Ythlev (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes. Minus those two polities, it's fine by my own assessment.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 17:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment - The page is about the United Nations, an official organization, with specific members that claim specific territories. This is a crucial aspect of the UN as member-states go to long court battles over what their territory is at the UN recognized International Court of Justice. The map should reflect the norms of international diplomacy (WP:NPOV) and therefore not include unrecognized non-member rebel territories under the jurisdiction of already existing UN member-states as this would clearly violate WP:ADVOCACY, especially not those that are not recognized by any other country on the planet. Wadaad (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As for Vanilla Wizard's claim that the local consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Limited_recognition should apply to the more formal United Nations is absurd and goes against policy WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.Wadaad (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:NPOV is it stated that reflecting the norms of international diplomacy is NPOV? Ythlev (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment - We are both Chinese, there is no difference between us, it’s just fabricated by the western powers. Besides, the whole world recognizes us as one China. Yes, I also agree that other non un regions and Somaliland enjoy barely or none acknowledgment as countries. Lo meiin (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Steve Rothman
Wasn't sure whether to post here or COIN, but more eyes on Steve Rothman are needed. I have started a talk page discussion there. It is one of the stranger biographies I've run across on Wikipedia and appears to have been substantially created by the article subject. Marquardtika (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is rather unique. I don't think I have ever seen an article so heavily and obviously edited by those close to him -- if not Mr. Rothman himself. Looking at it further. It needs to be trimmed quite significantly in my book. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work on this it looks much improved! Marquardtika (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC on including content about illegal fetal tissue dealers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy#/talk/8

I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natemup (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link: Talk:Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy Poveglia (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:CANVASSING. It says: "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief" and "at least some of the content seems relevant" doesn't seem very neutral to me. Just so you know for next time. Poveglia (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality of repetitive prefacing of the word "allegedly" when discussing war crimes
Just seeking clarification on whether overtly prefacing an alleged massacre with the words "alleged" creates NPOV. The event is already mentioned as having alleged to have occurred in the initial sentence of the article, and edits have inserted continually, that it was alleged including multiple times in the same sentence.

Article: Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre Edit here :

Previous version:
 * The Bình An / Tây Vinh massacre (타이빈 양민 학살 사건) was a series of massacres alleged to have been conducted by the ROK Capital Division of the South Korean Army between February 12, 1966 and March 17, 1966 of 1,200 unarmed citizens in the Go Dai village and other areas in the rural commune of Bình An/ Tây Vinh area, Tây Sơn District of Bình Định Province in South Vietnam.The massacre was reported' to have occurred over the course of three weeks, in which 1,004-1,200 civilians were massacred. Like other massacres occurring throughout the region, the targets were primarily women, children, elderly men and infants. They were conducted as part of Operation Maeng Ho which formed a part of Operation Masher, and were reported as "enemy KIA" and occurred alongside separate massacres in the region possibly totalling 1,600 people.

New Version
 * The Bình An / Tây Vinh massacre (타이빈 양민 학살 사건) was a series of massacres alleged to have been conducted by the ROK Capital Division of the South Korean Army between February 12, 1966 and March 17, 1966 of 1,200 unarmed citizens in the Go Dai village and other areas in the rural commune of Bình An/ Tây Vinh area, Tây Sơn District of Bình Định Province in South Vietnam. The massacre was reported to have occurred over the course of three weeks, in which 1,004-1,200 civilians were allegedly massacred, primarily women, children, elderly men and infants. They were conducted as part of Operation Maeng Ho which formed a part of Operation Masher, and were reported as "enemy KIA".

Previous NPOV edits by the user has been raised by others, including here.
 * frankly I am unsure about both versions. We should not over use alleged, nor should we put contested claims in our voice.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have opened an SPI here: Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette as I believe that Deogyusan is a sock of A bicyclette who pushed a particular POV regarding the Vietnam War and particularly real and alleged massacres. Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre was a page reinstated by A bicyclette after having previously been deleted for lack of WP:RS which Deogyusan has somehow come upon today in their 2nd burst of activity since opening their account. The objection to referring to massacres as being alleged or purported was repeatedly argued by A bicyclette and his socks, such as 116.106.89.77 here: and as I noted on the Talk Page on 5 July 2018 Talk:Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre, there is good reason to question what went on at Bình An/Tây Vinh and certainly not enough to say that a massacre took place there. Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have engaged this issue with several users, as well as other users as shown here and here . The issue in all instances isn't whether it occurred or not, wikipedia isn't the place for this. The issue is whether the phrasing that you introduced introduces NPOV descriptions Deogyusan (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not several users, the same user and his multiple socks. Mztourist (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Deogyusan has been blocked as another sock of User:A bicyclette, accordingly I believe this can be closed. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Jason Jessee
I am hoping to find better sources than these:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59q343/skateboarding-icon-jason-jessee-is-under-fire-for-use-of-swastikas-and-racist-remarks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZfRX6IMPCA

Do we include stuff like this? Should we?

Poveglia (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * YouTube? no!Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was unclear, the "Do we include stuff like this? Should we?" is specifically referring to the nazi shit; not those sources. I am sure better ones can be found. I am not sure if we should include this information. I don't know anything about the person, but it seems (based on very very little information) like he moved on and regrets his past (but of course quite a few of the people we write about do, and some of those articles do include negative information about something that happened in the past). And if so, how should we describe something like that? Poveglia (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If better ones can be found yes it should be included, it a serious allegation. AS to how to describe it "There has been a controversy over alleged racist and homophobic remarks and and the appearance of racist symbols in early interviews with him"Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that “controversy” is the right word. A controversy needs two sides and, so far, the coverage of this has been fairly one sided. Perhaps “condemnation”? Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point; the companies that severed their ties with him condemned his "views". Poveglia (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Has he denied it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the limit of ABOUTSELF?
I would like to raise a question that has come up at the Andy Ngo article. Part of the discussion centers around how people describe the subject's political views. We have a number of sources that state Ngo's beliefs are ___. We have at least two sources that are interviews with the subject where Ngo either responds to the claims of others or describes, in approximately one sentence, his own view of the subject.

First question, if 3rd party sources are describing the subject's political views, is it reasonable to include the subject's own claims as to their political views even if those claims are only from interviews rather than widely covered in RS articles (WP:ABOUTSELF related)? If yes, when does this change from a reasonable "aboutself" to self unduly promotional/self serving?

Second question, at what point is a source no longer reliable for an ABOUTSELF claim? My understanding is that in general an interview with the subject can be considered a reliable representation of what they said during that interview. The interview becomes a RS for specific statements made by the subject and thus could be used for ABOUTSELF material.

These are edits I'm interested in reviewing in this context []. But I would like to have an idea in general as I've seen this sort of thing come up several times though typically in the form of a company/organization's response to accusations made/published in a news story. For instance, a news article comes out questioning a company's actions. Is it reasonable to state the company replied and link to the reply on the company's website etc. Springee (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, a person's own explanation of his or her political beliefs is presumptively a reliable source for the fact that he or she holds those beliefs, irrespective of the medium. You don't need to wait for a reliable third-party source to report what was said in the interview.  What constitutes undue self-promotion has to be determined by context: are the subject's political beliefs relevant to the article?  Does the manner in which they're expressed suggest undeserved praise, or simply rebut the statements of others?  Remember, you can summarize relevant portions of what the subject said, without quoting portions you believe might be self-promoting.


 * I think that the source would be considered reliable for the fact that the subject said it, so long as there's no substantial doubt as to the authenticity of the interview, or the subject's mental state at the time it was given. These concerns would usually have to be raised by some reliable third-party source, unless the subject himself disavows them.  Note that this is different from the statements made in the interview being contradicted by the subject's prior or subsequent statements or actions.  It's possible for someone's beliefs to change over time, or for the subject to lie or misrepresent those beliefs.  If there's substantial evidence that one of these is the case, then that should also appear in the article.


 * The fact that a company replies to allegations in the news is relevant, as is the substance of that reply, but it would be better to summarize the company's position than to simply link to the company's statement, which could leave readers with either the impression that we don't credit what the company says, or that we consider its statement sufficiently good to make summarizing it unnecessary. Either way, it suggests to the reader that our viewpoint isn't truly neutral, which is why it would be better to describe the company's reply.  P Aculeius (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I do find it interesting that wikipedia editors seem to have no problem deferring to a subject’s expressions of self-identity when it comes to issues such as religious identity or gender identity, but when it comes to political self-identity... we have more difficulty accepting the subject’s self expression. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is entirely reasonable. There's no real reason why someone would lie about being Christian, but every reason for them to lie about being a racist, say. There are very few bigots who openly acknowledge their bigotry and most engage in all manner of special pleading to explain wy they are not a bigot really, despite all the bigoted things they say and do. Hence we limit ABOUTSELF where it is robustly contradicted by independent sources. Guy (help!) 20:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the view that we generally should allow ABOUTSELF to provide things like their own political beliefs or their opinion of the beliefs etc so long as other RS's broached the subject. I think my views align well with  here.
 * Non-controversial, basic claims can be stated in Wiki voice absent any reason to question the claim, "''Smith was born [date] in [location].[aboutself citation]
 * Claims disputed by others but that are closely related to the article/article section are reasonable for inclusion and should be be attributed. "Smith says she is a life long Democrat [aboutself citation] but [sources] say her support is motivated by self interest and has donated to both Democratic and GOP campaigns." In this case it is relevant to the subject that what they say about themselves doesn't align with evidence presented by other sources.
 * Response to accusations should be generally OK but with some caution. For example, Smith is accused of being in the pocket of big oil for objecting to a bill aimed at cutting green house emissions.  Several RS's say Smith is a GW denier and the article lists several examples where RS's say Smith's actions harmed attempts to curb GW.  Smith publishes a reply explaining her position and/or the problems with the accusations made against her.  The Wiki article can summarize Smith's response with attribution to Smith and a link to the reply.  I do not think this is unreasonable as often the initial claim gets RS coverage but frequently the follow up often does not.
 * I think in only rare cases would we outright refuse to allow any form of ABOUTSELF reply if reliable aboutself material exists. For example, a terrorist group might publish a manifesto justifying a crime.  This is a case where I think unduely self serving is an issue.  Another obvious example would be if the material is simply unrelated to any content raised by RSs.  So if Smith is notable for her political activities we wouldn't discuss her views on cooking or her upcoming healthy living cook book as this would be self serving (promoting the book) and not related to any of the topics raised by RSs.  As a general rule I think we do readers a disservice by trying to keep things like responses to criticism and relevant, self identification type claims out of articles.  Wikipedia should simply present the evidence in a neutral fashion and let the readers decide for themselves.  Springee (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue with using WP:ABOUTSELF for Ngo's claims about his political position is that they aren't non-controversial by any stretch of the imagination. Ngo was recently recorded collaborating with far-right groups to gain access in exchange for favorable writing. His claims on Joe Rogan's show that he's center-right could represent one of three possibilities:


 * 1) A sincere failure to understand the tenets of centrism.
 * 2) A deliberate mis-characterization of his views to shift the Overton Window.
 * 3) An american political climate so skewed that hanging out with Patriot Prayer is now considered normal behaviour for a centrist.


 * Furthermore, as addressed at length at article talk, the "but I'm a liberal" defense is an established tactic of far-right figures to deliberately shift the Overton Window. Now Ngo is variously described by multiple reliable sources as falling within the right wing, with some sources calling him "conservative", some calling him "right-wing" and some calling him "far right". Considering that, his claims to centrism seem unfounded at best. And as such, they're . Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would note that WP:ABOUTSELF item 1 is probably the bar that it fails to pass as his claims to the political center could be seen as unduly self-serving. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is very strange to have a section about his poltical views but then refuse to include a statement about his view of his political views. Per interviews we had in the article Ngo once said he was center and once said center right. I don't see that there is any controversy over the fact that "he claims to be...". This seems like it treads on NOTCENSORED. Is our intent to inform the readers and let them decide or to protect them from facts that we fear will confuse them? Yes, sources dispute the veracity of his claim but not that he made it. No one claims "Ngo said he is center" isn't true. It's just that many RSs don't agree that he is center. I don't think you have done a reasonable job of explaining why it is unduly self serving to publish that he claims to be center/center right. You could claim it's self serving as he doesn't want to be seen as an extremist but that isn't unduly self serving. In reading through WP_Talk:V and here it seems "unduly" has been reserved for things such as links to fund raising or product promotion. Example, BMW says the new 330 engine has 300hp (not unduly) vs BMW says the engine sets a new standard in smoothness, response and efficiency (unduly). I haven't found a case where people agreed that it was unduly self promotional to say "I think I'm a centrist" when other sources say you are right or left wing. If we say Ngo says he is center-right [sources] and others say he is [far-right] [source] then the readers can decide. Let's give our readers some credit here and let them decide if they agree or not. Springee (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As Simonm223 has pointed out, there is a history and pattern of right-wing and extreme-right-wing individuals trying to misrepresent themselves or their groups in order to shift the Overton Window and make themselves seem more acceptable. Case in point, the marketing gimmickry of having someone like Matt Schlapp call Marine Le Pen a "classical liberal", a title on which Wikipedia has a wonderfully out-of-date-sourced article on the term while missing entirely the modern usage.
 * To give a concrete Wikipedia example: Carl Benjamin aka "Sargon of Akkad" likes to call himself a "classical liberal". Nowhere in his article is this mentioned because his claim is utterly self-serving and devoid of honesty. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)  Strike per EVADE . Springee (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So in those cases how are the readers hurt or worse off if the article says, "Benjamin refers to himself as a classical liberal[cite]. Journalist have called him X, Y, Z [cites]"?  Are the readers better or worse informed? Springee (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an area where I have seen the FRINGE approach used appropriately. If the bulk of the media reporting on this person have labeled him X (X likely being a more extreme position), but the person considers themselves Y (more centralist/normative), then the statement from the person is included but treated as a FRINGE view. In the above case that would mean you flip the statement around : "Journalists have called Benjamin X, but he considers himself a Y." Gives less weight to the FRINGE view. But that's again, when the bulk of the media shares that. More often, I have seen people cherry pick from three or four sources out of hundreds to say a person is X, which is not making that person's insight a FRINGE view. --M asem (t) 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. In the article in question the original statement was in that form (RS's say ... but BLP says...).  My concern is when we refuse to allow BLP (or organization in some instances) to offer their own take.  I just can't see how that makes for a better article.  Springee (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can't see how making sure we're not repeating abject nonsense or deliberate falsehoods makes for a better article, then maybe there are larger issues with your editing? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:FOC Springee (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous response. You're the one insisting you "can't see how that makes for a better article" so I will ask you plainly, how does including abject nonsense or deliberate falsehoods improve an article in any way? There's a reason WP:ABOUTSELF specifically disallows unduly self-serving claims.6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * First, it isn't unduly self serving. His reply was in response to those saying he is "far-right" etc.  Second, the subject's own POV on the topic offers more information to the reader.  The only reason to censor that material, and censoring is what you are suggesting, is to "protect" readers from the material.  Wikipedia isn't supposed to vilify or vindicate a subject, rather the purpose is to present the facts.  Springee (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not an accurate portrayal of the interview in virtually any regard, and you are way off base in trying to suggest that anyone is trying to "vilify" Ngo by presenting the facts as observed by WP:Reliable Sources. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The wording "4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" could also be read in regard to the question of whether Ngo is authentically representing his political position, given that outside observers classify him so differently. Maybe that point should be clarified in policy as to if it means that, or merely the question of whether the interview or statement truly happened, though. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Strike per EVADE . Springee (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't a reasonable reading of #4 in this case. No one has questioned the authenticity of the quote.  They have questioned if the quote is true but not that Ngo said it.  However, I would support asking these questions at the WP:V talk page to clarify that point.  Springee (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While I disagree strongly with about whether item 1 of ABOUTSELF applies, there's no doubt that Ngo made that statement on Rogan; and that is what #4 is about. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I posted a question about the intent of ABOUTSELF exception #1 (the one containing no unduly self serving) on the WP:V talk page here []. I've posted this as an open ended question not linked to this discussion but I mention it here since as clarification there could impact the discussion here. Springee (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In the broadest terms possible, if you have to ask the question whether something is covered by ABOUTSELF, then it's almost certainly not covered by ABOUTSELF. Everything else is going to be determined by context, and there will be situations where ABOUTSELF cannot apply to what would normally be the must mundane personal details. (Everyone please wish Dolly Parton a happy 27th birthday. May 2020 be as happy as 2019 was.)  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See, this is a case where I think it's obvious that ABOUTSELF would apply. Springee (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ngo's entire career has been based around writing attack pieces about figures on the left, falling back on a rhetorical crutch of the reasonable figure at the center. As such, when the majority of sources do not call him center-right, it is unduly self-serving to Ngo for us to give credence to his claims that he's a centrist. And considering his recent, recorded, involvement with the far-right group Patriot Prayer it's also something of an extraordinary claim. As I said above, either Ngo is being dishonest, he's laughably naive to the spectrum of politics outside his echo chamber, or the Overton Window in the United States has shifted so far to the right that hanging out with a group that has been widely described as far-right extremists (Patriot Prayer) is now something we can expect of centrists. In which case, Wikipedia, as a neutral and international source, should be treating pretty much any statement regarding political orientation from the United States as being deeply suspect. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading this right, part of the RS coverage of Ngo is the fact that he is seemingly duplicity, correct? (I mean, I commented on the bus/hammer thing recently). Even in that case, highlighting his opinion on his political POV to what the media calls him seems a valid point to include, because that's part of his overall notability facets, that he misrepresents where he sits on the political scale. Its not unduly self-serving as long as that is used in context of what the media states, it actually fills out the picture more about how to understand Ngo. --M asem (t) 15:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the opposite of how his self-description of his political orientation has historically been used on his page. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The material in question was stable and only recently removed. Springee (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the sources have accused him of duplicity in his self portrayal of his political views. In most cases the source simply says he is a ____ journalist (or similar).  They don't mention his view nor dive into why they feel their description is actually correct.  Springee (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except for we have a whole RfC on his duplicity and your position on that is rather controversial to say the least. And that's excluding all these sources that call him a grifter, troll or provocateur. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Simon is correct here. If you have to have a lengthy (good faith) debate about whether the information is controversial, then the information is ipso facto controversial. This kindof thing happens all the time. For example, we regularly use ABOUTSELF content to support birth dates, up until there is serious question raised about whether the person is manipulating their birth date for self-serving reasons, which is not uncommon for at least female celebrities in the western world, obsessed with youthfulness as we tend to be.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a catch, Simonm223, I believe is referring to my comments as to if we should call Ngo a journalist, writer, right-wing writer, etc. Also, I largely disagree that if others are saying "Ngo's politics are X" that we should censor Ngo's own statements on the subject.  Simonm223, alludes to my concern that a number of the sources are clearly unsympathetic to the general view expressed by Ngo and are often assuming the worst when assigning motives to his actions.  That's not a great way to build a really neutral article.  It's also apparent those views aren't universal.  Either way, we get back to my unanswered question, how does this hurt the reader/article?    Springee (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you might want to consider that part of the reason so many disparate sources are hostile toward Ngo isn't part of some grand leftist conspiracy to smear the man; it's just that's how he's generally seen. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there is a difference between the tone of a number of these articles, even the ones that aren't flattering of Ngo. Your claim of "grand leftist conspiracy" is a poor summary of my position.  If that is what you read out of my words we have had a clear failure to communicate.  Springee (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is how you get to what you want, since at least two of those sources (media matters and second Rolling Stone) support it. The Media Matters article has this critical line So what you should be doing in the article to combine all this is to say something like:  or something along those lines. Put the political facet in a broader section about Views or Controversy or something like that. You can get to the points that are being made if you don't try to separate the politics from his writings. Boom, you have his stance (so that we're neutral on that facet) but in context that many do not believe it and that it has been used to dupe some sources. --M asem  (t) 16:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is probably a good way forward. It's better than just restoring the removed content (which had been stable in the article)  Springee (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I would definitely say that if third-party RSes have started on the questions of a person's political views, that this has been deemed appropriate to include in the article on that person in the first place, and the person has stated (ideally in an RS, but even if in an BLPSPS) that they actually hold a contrary view specifically in response to the RSes, it is reasonable to include a brief attributable statement to contrast what the RSes have said. This is not "unduly" (the key word at play) because it is being added in specific response to what others have said about that person, and not an unsolicited statement of their view, and balances the NPOV around a BLP. The only exceptions that would be made for this are general biographical elements, which is self-identity of sexual orientation, gender identity, and faith/religion, where unsoliciated statements by the BLP can be used without being unduly. --M asem (t) 15:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with your response (I'm guessing you have not reviewed the actual source before) is that Ngo's claims are not situated in that way and are not "specifically in response to the RSes", but most of the time rather are self-serving, in that they are Ngo attempting to describe himself as "center" or "center-right" to legitimize the slant he places on his journalism. And the Rogan transcript is even more clearly not a qualifying response, the answer was prompted by Rogan asking "If people feel like right-wing people are being attacked and I don't think you're even right wing are you? I mean what are what we just what would if you had a gun to your head or a mace to your face what would you, would you say you're a centrist?" 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about the Joe Rogan statement he made, given that was made in July 2019 which after his major "coverage" in the media from the May + June events, it is reasonable, knowing Joe Rogan's format, that the the question was asked in response to how the rest of the media was covering Ngo. If that statement was in 2016, before he really was a figure in the news, that would be unsolicated. But in the midst of the 2019 events? Clearly the question was selected in response to the media's portrayal of him, and thus his statement was not solicited and thus reasonable to include. (Perhaps "solicited" is the wrong word here, but key is that there was a reasonable driving factor that Ngo stated what his political position was due to external events about him.) --M asem (t) 15:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To add, this is not stating that we have to treat Ngo's statement as fact or even non-FRINGE-y. Must still be attributed, and still be given less UNDUE weight than the main sources that put him at conservative/alt-right. --M asem (t) 15:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The fundamental problem is still that Ngo attempts to describe himself as "center" or "center-right" to legitimize the slant he places on his journalism. It's self-serving in the same way that Fox News, undeniably right-wing and well documented to have been created for the purposes of right-wing advocacy, used the disingenuous slogans "fair and balanced" and "we report. you decide". The Rogan quote is the same way - not only is the answer prompted by the host, but the context is in attempting to establish Ngo as somehow uninvolved and an innocent victim, framing him as a "centrist" reporting on "far left militancy" (term used about a minute later) rather than - oh I don't know - someone who we have now found out embeds himself with violent groups like Patriot Prayer in return for giving them favorable coverage? That's what makes it unduly self-serving, by far. It's not just "he calls himself a centrist or center-right, but every news organization that's analyzed it places him firmly conservative/right-wing if not extreme right", but that he uses his own claim of being "center" to move the Overton Window and paint his targets as being "far left" while trying to paint the groups he embeds with as closer to center. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have ascribed a motive to the discrepancy between various RS's (not all would disagree with Ngo's self assessment BTW) and Ngo's own statements. If you want to imply the motive is deception you would need a source.  Currently we have no evidence he doesn't believe his view. Springee (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This (I had a reply, but this is more succinct). 6Years' analysis is on the money, but it is OR on a BLP, which is 100% not allowed. --M asem (t) 15:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're getting it backwards. This is not something I would write into the article, that would indeed be impermissible WP:OR. It is the analysis as to why Ngo's statements violate clause 1 of WP:ABOUTSELF in being self-serving and therefore under policy cannot be included either. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fair to put in that light to consider the statement self-serving but I don't know if I would use that to say it was unduly self-service, given that we are talking about a person that is the subject of negative media coverage and that we have NPOV as policy. We're supposed to be impartial on BLPs, and so trying to ascribe motive to why he said that while he was in the middle of all this negative media coverage (even if that seems a spot on analysis) to determine whether to include or not is not really appropriate. Attribution as has been done here keeps Wikiepdia out of trying to decide if he is being honest or not here. --M asem (t) 15:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the first sentence, what would it take for you to agree that something was unduly self-serving? Where do you put the goalposts? We have a situation where the interviewee is being directly prompted for the "correct" answer for the audience, but the prompting was chopped off the front of the quotation that was added to the article here on Wikipedia. Not exactly neutral in that sense either, is it? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I pointed out elsewhere in this that if that interview was taken alone and no other context, it would be unduly self-serving, but in context of the events from May onward that Ngo has been involved with, the question was clearly prompted from what external media was saying about Ngo, so the question and his reply are not unduly in this case - there's a good reason it was asked, even if we are considering the answer to be dubious as to fit what the audience for the Joe Rogan show would be. Is there a clear goal-line here? No, so each case has to be considered by consensus, but there is reasonable allowance for cases like this. --M asem (t) 23:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a Catch-22. Because on the one hand, if he were stating it under an "alone and no other context" situation, you say it would be INadmissible (but he'd have no standing reason to be self-serving), but the very circumstances that make it highly suspect and self-serving you then claim make it admissible. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me put this in another context. There was a running candidate (name I forget) that had come up on the boards because editors wanted to include her political positions which (prior to a point) were not be reported on by any RSes, nor anyone discussed her political positions. To include her positions from her own writings or comments would be unduly self-serving because no one talked about it, thus they are "unsolicited" (I wish there was a better word but I hope the meaning I'm trying to get across is recognized with that). It would be the same with Ngo if this same interview was years earlier, where he might have just barely been notable and without any controversy around him, it would be unduly at that point. But now that he is a figure embroiled in a controversy around how he presented himself/his writings to a certain audience, and we have sources that have a made a point about his political position, it is now fully acceptable (and sorta required by BLP) to include, with attribution and with reasonable due weight (a sentence, not a paragraph) relative to the press coverage.
 * Another issue I'm readily between the lines here is a point I've stressed on other boards: WP articles on BLPs embroiled in controversies should not be seen as scarlet letters or walls of shame. As editors, we should not be trying to figure out Ngo's motives, but report as neutrally as possible as presented by the sources. I recognize there is little love of Ngo here on WP (for completely fair purposes), but that does not give us any reason to throw proper BLP adherence to the side. Ngo is not going to have a whitewashed article, it is clear that he is disliked by the press, but we still can stay impartial and just report the facts, which in a case like this, is letting Ngo explain his stance, even if the media strongly disbelieves that. --M asem (t) 04:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But you still haven't addressed the Catch-22 problem. If he were "just barely notable and without any controversy", you claim it would be undue, but it would also be unnecessary and meaningless because his political positions would be essentially irrelevant. But when he has the MOST incentive to falsely portray his position in a self-serving way, suddenly it's not undue? That's amazingly backwards. As JzG stated, "Hence we limit ABOUTSELF where it is robustly contradicted by independent sources", i.e. where there is every incentive for the subject to falsely portray themselves. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We as editors cannot care if Ngo was in a position to be dubious about reporting his political view, only that he stated something about his political view in the midst of controversy around his political view. We can let the sources talk about the duplicity, but we can't be doing that as editors -when we do, we lose impartiality. As to "robustly contradicted" here, there are not that many sources that are sufficiently about Ngo to be considered that "robustly". That is, I talked about when someone's own self-statement can be taken as FRINGE, and that's when nearly all the sources about the person state one thing against what the person says. You definitely have a few here for Ngo, but not enough to apply FRINGE. --M asem  (t) 04:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See my frustration lies in that the same group of editors who has most vehemently pushed to include Ngo's self-reported political persuasion are the ones who have most aggressively pushed to avoid the article reporting on his duplicity. My concern is that, in this climate, what you're asking us to do is effectively impossible; the editors who believe we must report Ngo's beliefs have also claimed that the sources that call him a huckster, provocateur and propagandist don't count. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you keep trying to flip the argument and it's starting to seem like you're not even listening. When you argue "We can let the sources talk about the duplicity, but we can't be doing that as editors -when we do, we lose impartiality. ", you are trying to make a claim about inclusion. But the criteria for WP:ABOUTSELF are clear that the self-serving statement should NOT be included. Let the WP:RSs talk about his position and place his position in the political spectrum appropriately, and leave the "unduly self-serving" (Point 1 of WP:ABOUTSELF) item out of the article, especially as it's not in a WP:RS to begin with. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, look here's some examples of what I'm talking about. In this dif, argues against the use of the Daily Beast and Mother Jones as sources. Both are critical of Ngo. . In this edit, Springee strangely calls sources critical of Ngo "reactionary" and argues against inclusion in favour of more anodyne mentions in Washington Post and the New York Times  in this dif, Springee calls Vice and Huffington Post tabloids to argue against inclusion . So this is the challenge we've been facing in specific. Springee, and a small group of editors who hold negative POVs on antifascists, have vigorously fought the inclusion of any source that says anything critical of Ngo. This is on top of explicit resistance to inclusion of anything calling a statement by Ngo false  at this RfC. So while I'm trying very hard to assume good faith about Springee's requests on multiple noticeboards, they have not provided a complete picture. If we could easily situate Ngo's comments in context, this wouldn't be an issue. But Springee has been instrumental in keeping any context off the page that might make Ngo seem anything other than an heroic truth-teller. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the topic at hand. Taking snippets of my arguments here may misrepresent my arguments. Springee (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is entirely relevant to your discussion, because my concern that I'm expressing to Masem is that while I certainly recognize and respect his position, what he's recommending as a course of action has been actively blocked. By you. In the difs I presented, in which you argued against the use of any source that spoke unkindly of Ngo. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not the argument I made.  I did not say we should not use sources that "spoke unkindly of Ngo".  If you wish to debate that point, please do it at the article talk page.  Springee (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is directly relevant to this question. Masem has proposed a solution. Before I agree to it I need some assurance that the solution is workable. And your resistance to the use of these sources is the principal impediment to implementing this solution. So please answer the question. Are you going to keep calling sources critical of Ngo tabloids? Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"May misrepresent"? This is getting ridiculous. No, Simonm223 did not misrepresent your arguments at any point here, Springee. And he is especially correct that you have filibustered and blockaded against any source that says something you don't like. It's very revealing that you use phrasing like "the duplicity POV" to describe accurate coverage with WP:Reliable Sources. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a rather circular argument. The other side is those who want to keep Ngo's ABOUTSELF out are those who are pushing the hardest to promote the duplicity POV.  Springee (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from but I believe I'm arguing from the NPOV side here. That it, I agree with the assessment that from the view of what Ngo's trying to do with that comment from the Rogan show is clearly self-servicing and knowing his duplicity, likely unduly self-serving. But, from NPOV, we try to cover all sides of a controversy, though without creating a false balance. Moreso when a BLP is at the center of a controversy (as Ngo) is. A statement from that BLP that directly applies to the controversy that refutes or counters statements made about them is in no such way unduly in that context, from the standpoint of WP's neutrality and impartiality. To put that in a different context, lets say there is another person charged with some behavior from the past (something out of #metoo); those allegations will get wide coverage as we've seen, and nearly always either the person admits to them, or they refute them. The logic that is being used here is that a person's refuting those allegations is "unduly" self-serving because it is clearly trying to present themselves as innocent. But we would 100% include the person's statement because it is a BLP and we are expected to be neutral and impartial - in that context, the statement is not "unduly self-serving" because it is standard practice for editing Wikipedia and not something we are going out of our way to include to better serve that individual.  That's the context here - it's not whether or not the statement is excessively supportive of the person, but whether it is excessive within context of its use in the WP article. That's why I've stressed we cannot be looking to Ngo's motives here to decide if the statement should be include, only the context, which in this case is in the middle of a controversy around Ngo. --M asem  (t) 13:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So then I'd ask this question of : are they going to continue to resist the inclusion of sources that are critical of Ngo? Because for us to do that, we need to be able to make use of Vice, Jacobin, the Daily Dot, the Huffington Post, etc. without spending weeks on article talk discussing whether they're tabloids. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a similar situation happening at Talk:Richard Stallman where what someone says is Stallman's position is allowed, but Stallman himself denying it is claimed to be not allowed Quote: "Putting Stallman's defense of himself directly from his blog is, now that I've read it, a clear violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB because it is transparently self-serving." Didn't we go through this with Hillary Clinton, with some editors claiming that we can include what others say about her email server but we can't include her response to the accusations? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's where I think we need clarity on the word "unduly" in ABOUTSELF, and why I suggested something along the lines of that when a self-made statement is in response to something ("solicited" but maybe not the best word) that is directly about their person, that does not make their self-statement statement "unduly". We definitely do not want unwarranted promotion or the like. We also must consider how outing one's sexual preferrences or gender identity may be seen as self-serving to some, but we include those without question. There is a proper limit, but it is nuanced. --M asem (t) 15:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any dispute about what Ngo's political views are, but which term is most appropriate. Sara Diamond explains that from the 1950s these views were described as extreme right or radical right, but the propents called themselves conservative. She uses the term right-wing. I think first it is important that the article correctly convey to the reader what Ngo's ideology is. I believe that the term right-wing does that, since the term is normally used to describe people to the right of the mainstream Right (Bush/McCain/Romney Republicans, Cameron/May conservatives, Merkel Christian Democrats), who are more often referred to as center-right. Conservative is misleading because it is usually used as a synonym for center-right.
 * And no, we don't use someone's self-description, because reliable secondary sources don't. Vladimir Putin is not called a conservative, Silvio Berlusconi is not called a liberal and Tony Blair is not called a democratic socialist in their articles. And Bernie Sanders article says he "is a self-described democratic socialist," before quoting a number of unnoteworthy op-eds saying he isn't.
 * TFD (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Putin:
 * Berlusconi:
 * Blair:.
 * Note that we are very clear that these are self-identified labels, not in Wikivoice. That's the correct way to do that. --M asem (t) 19:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said. I think the same principle is the answer on the Stallman page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Most people are quite bad at describing their own ideologies. Its not like describing your date or birth. Even if we see Ngo as trustworthy on this topic (and that's questionable) he may not have given a whole lot of thought to his self-description in that interview. At best, it might be acceptable to say something along the lines of "person X describes themselves as BLANK", but even then, editors should be careful to avoid cherry-picking. In nearly all cases, characterizations that show up in reliable secondary sources should be given more weight, and we should avoid elaborating too much when a person's self description are potentially misleading, incoherent, or fringe-y. If a self-description is notable enough for the lead, it will probably be picked up by an RS. Nblund talk 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Masem’s take on all of this. Well argued. Blueboar (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They are reliable for what they claim (I.E. "Bert Terrible has said he is a seven day wonder"), not for it being true. Many people are not honest about their politics.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not comment on users or their actions, if you think any user has canvased report it at wp:ani, please do not discus it here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Springee - Why did you ask for an opinion and then argue with anyone who responded? What does crossed out text mean? Thanks. Eschoryii (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Burgeoning coat rack article: No-go area
Here we have an article that is ostensibly about a topic that is both hotly contested and poorly-defined. This is a recipe for disaster. The article's lede section puts forth some plausible definitions for a "no-go area" and the body of the article proceeds to violate that definition six ways from Sunday. Can we somehow agree to limit this article's scope to something reasonable? The recent incidents in Poland are informative: some local governments have declared their territories should be free of a certain ideology. Does that constitute a "no-go area" as defined in this article? At least two WP:RS provided have cited a Tweet containing this claim. Are political Tweets competent to define "no-go areas" sufficiently for inclusion in this article? I am not sure. Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

José Filomeno dos Santos
José Filomeno dos Santos needs a lot of help, since there are definite spin problems, and the sources, which are in English, don't really back up the text. I have made a few changes but would welcome the assistance of other editors. Elinruby (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

BBC News: China and Taiwan clash over Wikipedia edits
Quote from BBC News:


 * "Ask Google or Siri: 'What is Taiwan'? 'A state', they will answer, 'in East Asia'."


 * "But earlier in September, it would have been a 'province in the People's Republic of China'."


 * "For questions of fact, many search engines, digital assistants and phones all point to one place: Wikipedia. And Wikipedia had suddenly changed."


 * "The edit was reversed, but soon made again. And again. It became an editorial tug of war that - as far as the encyclopedia was concerned - caused the state of Taiwan to constantly blink in and out of existence over the course of a single day."


 * Source: BBC News: China and Taiwan clash over Wikipedia edits

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Bible POV
I have recently come across several pages reflecting what I would consider a systemic POV problem, regarding Biblical authorship. For example, "Today scholars are virtually unanimous in rejecting Mosaic authorship of the Torah" (Composition of the Torah), and, "It is generally accepted that the Book of Daniel is a product of the mid-2nd century bc" (Daniel 7). Surely countless Biblical scholars would disagree. Whether these scholars are correct is not the point (and not an argument I'd care to get involved in), merely that the expressed views are hardly unanimous. It baffles me that anyone would maintain otherwise.

So far, the examples I've noticed are in C-class or lower articles. The Torah article (B-class), in contrast, claims: "Rabbinic tradition's understanding is that all of the teachings found in the Torah ... were written down by Moses ... The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian captivity (c. 6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, and that it was completed with final revisions during the post-Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE)." It is at least plausible (and presumably supported by sources) that this is a majority view, and therefore a reasonable statement. (Heck, it even leaves open the possibility that Moses authored some of those earlier written sources.)

I do not ask that authors change their content, merely that they respect NPOV and avoid weasel words. I have discovered, however, that some militantly disagree. I hope a consensus here might resolve this issue. See also: WP:FTN. –Blue Hoopy Frood (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Since my original post, I discovered another example where attribution is left out altogether, and the majority view is simply stated as fact (Book of Daniel). 15:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The statement about Mosaic authorship of the Torah is correct unless you include WP:FRINGE sources, which we don't. Many scholars don't even believe that Moses existed. If there is a bias here it is toward academic sources. Both statements you mention are sourced as well. There is no bias problem here.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe your statement of policy regarding WP:FRINGE sources is overly simplistic. According to WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE/PS, and WP:RS, non-majority (a.k.a. fringe) views should be represented, albeit without attributing equal validity, so long as they are held by a significant minority of scholars, and are within the realm of scientific discourse (my paraphrase, but accurate, I think). This is the case we are talking about here.


 * Just because a statement cites a source doesn't mean it's sourced, in the sense of verifiable. For the statement, "Today scholars are virtually unanimous in rejecting Mosaic authorship of the Torah," its linked source states, "There is a consensus among modern biblical scholars that the present text of the Bible is the final product in a long evolution..." This is a much more modest (and plausible) statement in terms of both acceptance ("consensus" vs. "virtually unanimous") and content (it does not reject the possibility that Moses was part of that evolution). I do not have easy access to the other source, but I would wager it, too, makes a more measured claim.


 * To be clear, I am not challenging the reliability of the sources or their theories, nor would I have the credentials to do so. I am challenging the (understandable) tendency of Wikipedia articles to exaggerate the degree of scholarly acceptance beyond what the sources, themselves, attest; or to misrepresent the theories, themselves, as in the above case. –Blue Hoopy Frood (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Your 2 quotes says basically the same thing, since "Rabbinic tradition" is a theological position, not a scholarly one (for a certain value of "scholarly"). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * One quote says, "[Biblical] scholars are virtually unanimous...", and the other says, "The majority of Biblical scholars believe..." You maintain those are basically the same thing?


 * As for the definition of "scholarly", I'm assuming the criteria in WP:SCHOLAR. Do you have a different one? –Blue Hoopy Frood (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

To sum up: fideist scholars from fideist universities and seminaries, who only publish in fideist journals are WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Tgeorgescu, are you citing Wikpedia policy, or is that your personal opinion? In either case, see above discussion of WP:FRINGE. (I am curious which universities and journals you consider fideist, though. Is Oxford one of them?)


 * As for what you pasted above (or your more recent comment, for that matter), I don't see anything relevant to the discussion, or anything I'd particularly disagree with. Please clarify if I am missing something. (I presume you're aware that lecture notes do not meet the Wikipedia standard for reliable source.) –Blue Hoopy Frood (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The question here is one of DUE WEIGHT for views that do not agree with scholarly consensus. For widely held (but minority) views, DUE weight can mean we mention the view, but don’t go into details. However, for extremely fringe views, DUE weight means we don’t mention the view at all.  So... what we need to determine in this case is: where on the scale of “fringeness” does a particular view fall. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I concur (although that's not the only question, more below). –Blue Hoopy Frood (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * My argument was: biblical inerrancy is WP:FRINGE in WP:MAINSTREAM Bible WP:SCHOLARSHIP. By default, the historical method does not allow for inerrant sources. If from Ivy Plus to state universities and from mainline Protestant to Catholic seminaries all scholars toe the line that the Bible is errant, it is pseudohistory to affirm that the Bible is inerrant.


 * Miracles (including genuine prophecy) have been purged from history since the Enlightenment. Some editors are unaware that proclaiming that miracles do happen is pseudohistory (yes, this includes the claim that the Book of Daniel is a 6th century BCE writing). Conclusion: dating it to the 6th century BCE is WP:FRINGE/PS. Oh, yes, Shaye J.D. Cohen has been recorded on vimeo.com by Beardsley Ruml. You could check the first video of the series in order to WP:Verify the above claims. Cohen's course is here: (On the background you will see chunks of the above quote.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed references. I'm still puzzled, though. How does any of this relate to the topic? I've said nothing regarding inerrancy, miracles, or the historicity of the Bible. (BTW, thank you for introducing me to Re.) –Blue Hoopy Frood (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If this is about biblical inerrancy... then Tgeorgescue is correct. That is a very Fringe theory.  If about something else, we would need to examine in more detail (please supply specifics). Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I introduced this topic with examples of people exaggerating claims of consensus. If someone says, "Scholars are unanimous about X" (or nearly unanimous, or split 74-26), they should be able to back the claim up with sources. If they cannot, they should limit themselves to assertions that sources do support. –Blue Hoopy Frood (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * To clarify, of course people slip up, and I don't mean to align such authors. Corrections of such errors should be simple, painless, and expected. –Blue Hoopy Frood (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * IMHO, conflates WP:NPOV with false balance. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Is that a personal attack? If not, please clarify. I am, indeed, new to these terms. –Blue Hoopy Frood (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The term scholar in this context refers to people whose publish articles in scholarly journals and write textbooks. They are unanimous that the Torah was not written by Moses, hence the article should mention this. we mention the fringe view that the Torah is literally true, since we are writing about religious literature, but cannot say that this view has any acceptance among scholars. I don't see why you would have a problem with that. It could be that Moses really did part the Red Sea, but historians lack the competence to accept that. But that's a discussion for religious sites, not encyclopedia articles. TFD (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "The term scholar in this context refers to people whose publish articles in scholarly journals and write textbooks. They are unanimous that the Torah was not written by Moses..." That's a bold statement. Can you back it up? –Blue Hoopy Frood (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a substitute for adult education. You might read WP:CIR, previously it had a sub-section for bias-based incompetence of editing according to WP:RULES. I think that your bias for biblical inerrancy turns you into a POV-pusher for WP:FRINGE WP:POV. And no, this isn't a personal attack. It is simply obvious to the rest of competent editors that you cannot edit neutrally on biblical topics, see e.g. what wrote at WP:FTN. In the future please avoid baseless claims of personal attacks. It is not a personal attack that you are a fringe POV-pusher as long as it is manifest that you push frige POVs, such as biblical inerrancy.


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Blue Hoopy Frood, there's no need to repeat what I wrote. I am quite able to remember what I wrote. It is quite simple to find sources that no scholars support the view that Moses wrote the Torah. But since you claim the statement is false and want to change the article, it is up to you to find a source that says otherwise. TFD (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu. Oh, yes, clarify: WP:FALSEBALANCE. These being said, he is a man with a plan: he wants to make Wikipedia inerrantist-friendly, as it is manifest at User:Blue Hoopy Frood. His method is casting doubt upon WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP by giving it equal validity with the inerrantist fringe (aka Civil POV pushing).


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu. I also note that here the OP replied always civil, but repeatedly failed to address the arguments of his opponents, namely that giving equal validity to mainstream academic learning and fringe fideism is prohibited by WP:PAGs. His behavior is described by WP:RGW. As Collins stated, fundamentalists lost in the academia (more than a century ago and still very much ongoing). Wikipedia sides with the mainstream academia, therefore fundamentalists lost inside Wikipedia. WP:CHOPSY don't teach fringe fideistic views as true, objective facts. So why should Wikipedia teach those as such?


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Whatever you are doing,, it is very confusing. I have tried to clean up your quotes of other users with the template. Your formatting and overall spamming of these quotes renders the page nearly unreadable. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly surprised to see this talk page tornado come from a Wikipedia user of 16 years. The way you pasted quotes of other users made it look like many more people were talking in this thread than actually were, among other formatting and indentation problems not solely attributable to you. What did you hope to accomplish by this barrage of ill-formatted quotes? Sorry to have to say something but it is some of the most ham-fisted talk page editing I have seen. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have collapsed the quotes. The role of the quotes was proving that inerrantist dating of the Book of Daniel and Torah, and inerrantism itself are WP:FRINGE and that it is ok to WP:SPADE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, it helps with readability. No disagreement from me on inerrantist or any similar interpretations of the bible being extreme fringe. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, the recipe is historical method + holy book = blasphemy. Some people didn't get the memo. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Assertion that "peer-reviewed journals" means an absent of POV in an article
As seen at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (permalink here), editors have expressed a concern that the newly-created article has a lot of POV and WP:Puffery language and/or reads like a fansite. In that discussion, SNUGGUMS and Popcornduff took the time to detail issues with the article.

In the Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson section (permalink here), the article's creator, Partytemple, has asserted that contested text in the article that is supported by peer-reviewed journals means that the contested text does not violate WP:POV. This is despite what WP:YESPOV, WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:INTEXT state. Popcornduff has tried to enlighten Partytemple to the fact that a source being peer-reviewed does not mean that what the source is saying cannot be an opinion. It certainly doesn't mean that how a Wikipedia editor decides to word something based on whatever source is not an opinion and therefore should be stated in Wikipedia's voice. The discussion continued in the following section as well: Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (permalink here).

Needless to state, we need other opinions on this matter. I will also alert Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view to this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I would think there is something to be said that if peer-reviewed sources said, today, "Mozart was one of the greatest composers of all time." we would be stating that factually, as there's been more than enough time for broad public and academic opinion to be established in a case like this. For Michael Jackson, we may be too close to his death for that opinion to have gelled to be treated as fact. But this should only start when multiple peer-reviewed sources make the assertion as fact, not just one. --M asem (t) 02:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Something to keep in mind is that peer review is not the same thing as literature review. We prefer secondary and tertiary sources to primary sources for reasons noted at WP:PSTS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I haven't yet checked to see what, if any, sources in the article are peer-reviewed journals, but the opinion of an author of a peer-reviewed journal is still that author's opinion. And regardless, we have wording and presentation standards. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Popcornduff and I seem to have different interpretations of WP policy. My position is not that the article is entirely absent of POV, but that the issues addressed are not violating POV. Flyer22 please do not misinterpret my words. If you have questions about what I mean, ask first. I also would like more editors outside of the MJ articles to offer an opinion on this matter, as I do not think this issue is limited to the Jackson articles. It would help a lot to clarify some understandings of policy. There are many statements in question. I prefer that these issues should be asked to me directly, instead of accusing me editorial bias. I did not distort or exaggerate any of the claims. If they sound egregious, it's because I cited the author. —Partytemple (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No misinterpretation at all. I read your flawed arguments, just like I read your flawed and deeply troubling understanding of our BLP policy. Nowhere did I state or imply that your position is that the article is entirely absent of POV. But if you think that all or most of the POV issues highlighted at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson are not POV issues, I fail to see how that is not you thinking that the article is mostly or completely absent of POV. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think anyone can see that the article does not comprise of peer-reviewed journals only, which is the material being addressed. And the main statement in dispute was the "child prodigy" statement that was cited with a journal. It would be extremely unfair to me if my words were distorted. —Partytemple (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Without any distortions or misinterpretation, let me make this clear: peer-reviewed journals can and have contained personal thoughts of authors. Same goes for just about any other type of reference one can think of. However, that doesn't mean it's impossible for them or us to neutrally discuss such opinions. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we can say things like "Critics overall felt _____" or "Scholars believe that _______" when sharing stances people have. Now, the Cultural Impact article being discussed above could be vastly improved by attributing some opinions to the authors. I fully realize that not every reference used is a peer-reviewed journal. Regardless of citation type, it is fully possible to insert biased text even when referencing something that supports the opinion conveyed within an article. We're supposed to describe what others have written and their views, but shouldn't make it sound like Wikipedia's own stance. While I fully realize that much of what I've typed here was already written before with different phrasing, I felt it had to be said anyway. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SNUGGUMS, I read your comments but I did not know how to respond since there were so many and some of them sound like you weren't sure. We can go through every single one, if you'd like. I can provide the source text, but I cannot reproduce them entirely (because of copyright). And as far as I know, of the many academic literature I read, there are certain statements that have multiple scholars saying relatively the same thing, hence an academic consensus. —Partytemple (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I admittedly was iffy on certain parts, though discussion of all my individual points is better for that article's talk page. In cases of academic consensus, see my above comments on WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. In other words, we attribute the shared opinion to the scholars (i.e. "Most/Multiple scholars felt that Jackson ___________"). Hopefully that makes sense. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will echo what Masem said. There is a policy that says "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." Attaching attributions would make the statement sound like its contested by reliable sources, hence no academic consensus. But I don't know any reliable sources that say Michael Jackson was not a child prodigy (or other variants of this). Wouldn't using attributions so broadly also be WP:WEASEL? And what about this: "When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution."—Partytemple (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Partytemple does not seem able or willing to understand the POV problems even though several of us have tried to explain them. They either misinterpret policy (taking us on strange rambling philosophical debates about how Wikipedia defines opinions and facts, for example) or claim not to understand the problem. They have reverted attempts to make the article more neutral, and repeatedly removed the puffery template despite the consensus on the talk page. They seem unwilling to work with the numerous editors who now have identified POV problems with the article and I am pessimistic about improvement. As far as I am concerned this is now disruptive behaviour as per WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Popcornduff (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and let's not get bogged down arguing about any one bit of puffery in the article, such as the specific debate about how OK it is say that Michael Jackson was talented. Scan the article and you'll see there are dozens of WP:POV-violating claims. Popcornduff (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Jesuit topics written by a Jesuit
Hello, it appears that user talk engagement will not be effective, so I will bring it to a wider audience. I must say that your recent patterns of editing have raised some concern in my mind. I have seen a distinct bias of adding Jesuit-friendly sources such as America (magazine) and promoting Jesuit theologians and Jesuit-written articles. (Not to mention the coincidence of Pope Francis being the first Jesuit Pope.) And it's not merely promoting the Society's views, you're removing substantial contrasting views at the same time. You've drastically overhauled Sacrament of Penance — along with a proposed name change to match — and now you've removed some well-substantiated criticism of Jesuit vocations from Society of Jesus because it was in a 'conservative' periodical (and apparently because you wish parity for the removal of an unsubstantiated peek 15 years into the future?)
 * Regardless of whether you have an actual conflict of interest due to your membership in the Society of Jesus and an ordained representative of the Catholic Church, it would be good to see some good-faith adherence to neutrality in your selections of source material, your reflections of the myriad of perspectives on doctrine and belief in the Church, rather than gradually making Wikipedia as Jesuit as possible, which is what I see taking shape here now with your edits in the past few weeks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Jzsj replied on my user talk page: Please be specific about which edits you think are inappropriate. It is not helpful when you refer to "reverts" that don't exist. If you don't think my additions or references are helpful then let's discuss them one-by-one, as we did here. I tried to explain why my original contribution was correct, and your criticism of it was ill-founded, and responded to your criticism by making changes, which didn't please you. But the original sources that I inserted (not my "synthesis" but The New Yorker's) might have warranted your restoral of my first version. You kept making inaccurate statements: most unhelpful! And as to my "drastically overhaul[ing]" the Sacrament of Penance, note the call for this on the talk page: "The history section of this article needs improvement to describe more clearly what was new in various centuries." I then offered to do it 17 May 2017 and no one objected. So I undertook it just now, along with shortening of the verbose lede that the talk page called for. Give me some credit! ... and be assured of my readiness to yield to your wisdom and experience where it is manifest. And shouldn't you open an Rfc if we have an honest disagreement on content matters? Jzsj (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand by what you've quoted in the third paragraph. Now I must mention inaccuracies in your first paragraph. I have no intention of "removing substantial contrasting views" and it has never been my practice. Please give references to where you claim to find this. My extensive improvements to Sacrament of Penance were a rare effort of mine to respond to multiple calls for work on an article that was overly verbose and very short on references. I'd invite specific criticism of my arduous effort to record the history there, simply for accuracy and backed up by very reliable sources. Your "well-substantiated criticism of Jesuit vocations" gives no facts on the number of vocations (which I have just added), 28 novices taking vows for the US and Haiti in 2019. You'd have to compare this with the religious congregations that are getting no vocations before giving an objective opinion whether there is any "Francis effect" that vocation directors can most reliably report on. Jzsj (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for sources to be neutral and in fact most academic sources are not. TFD (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I hope this section will result in more eyes on Jzsj's editing. He is an SPA for Jesuit-related subjects and IMO a problematic user, see his block log. The latest block listed there, three months for repeated topic ban violations, expired as recently as 24 September. (For his topic ban, see this ANI thread.) It's fairly alarming to see him already brought to a noticeboard for tendentious editing a mere five days after this lengthy block expired, and I have to agree with Elizium23 that this edit to Society of Jesus is downright promotion. I have myself engaged with him on his talkpage, such as here in March this year, but it gets fairly exhausting, since I'm no kind of expert on Catholicism, let alone on the Society of Jesus. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC).
 * There's been a lot of loose talk about "Jesuit-related" articles and "Jesuit views" etc, but most of the articles mentioned above, such as Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School (run by nuns), Sacrament of Penance and George Pell are just Catholic topics, not Jesuit ones. I don't really see that "this edit to Society of Jesus is downright promotion" at all - in a long article the trend in membership of the order (a much-discussed topic with all types of Catholic clergy) seems something that should obviously be covered. Elizium23 seems also to be a Catholic, but from the conservative wing of the church, with an anti-Jesuit bee in his bonnet, if not quite as strong a one as the duc de Saint-Simon and some other Catholic figures. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I also do not see promotion in this particular edit. The preceding content talked about a decline in membership and the edit in question cited an estimate that is lower than the 17,287 Jesuits, a number indicated in the section's table covering the year 2013. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)