Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 85

Project Veritas
The lead section at Project Veritas does not follow NPOV. My attempt to resolve this issue on the talk page was greeted with little interest, and my hope is that the readership of this noticeboard is more sensitive to NPOV issues and can more effectively avoid the kind of partisanship that characterizes some of the discussions at Talk:Project Veritas. (Pinging and, who each posted in the discussion thread.)

To summarize what I wrote on the Talk page: By stating, "The group is known for producing deceptively edited videos," Wikipedia's voice suggests that all or most of Project Veritas's videos are "deceptively edited," when in fact most of the group's videos never received any such criticism from reliable sources. The wording also implies that the videos were deceptively edited as an undisputed fact, when in fact this criticism has been disputed in multiple reliable sources, such as by Clark Hoyt of the New York Times (cited in the Wikipedia article itself) and by Mona Charen of National Review.

My proposal is to change the sentence to: "The group is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, some of which have been widely criticized for being deceptively edited." I think this version satisfies NPOV, while the current version does not. Disclosure: I work for Project Veritas, and have disclosed this on my user page and on the article's Talk page. Sal at PV (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does their targets matter?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And we are supposed to take this WP:MANDY seriously because? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I should be taken seriously because I am being reasonable and making a good point, rooted in Wikipedia policy. And WP:MANDY is about creating false balance in an article by presenting the subject's denial of allegations against it, which is not at all what I am proposing here. It certainly doesn't say that you should be dismissive and patronizing whenever an article's (properly disclosed) subject wants to be involved in a discussion about the content of the article. Sal at PV (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I just read the entire Clark Hoyt article that you cited. It seems damning to me. He points out that O’Keefe did not wear the pimp outfit in the filming, as if that’s in his favor. Quite the opposite. The point was that the video was faked to look as if he did, making it seem that he was an obvious pimp to ACORN staff and greatly changing the narrative of the video. Which is to say, the video was deceptively edited. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Clark Hoyt writes that while the videos were heavily edited, "the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context." That is the opposite of "deceptively edited." Regarding O'Keefe presenting himself as a pimp, Hoyt writes (emphasis mine): "Acorn's supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O'Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O'Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman - sometimes along with under-age girls - in a house where they would work as prostitutes."


 * I acknowledge that most reliable sources did not agree with Hoyt and Charen's view that the ACORN and NPR videos were not deceptively edited. But to state it as axiomatic in Wikipedia's voice that Project Veritas's videos are all deceptively edited, without acknowledging that this is an opinion that is not shared by all reliable sources presents an imbalanced and POV picture of the organization. Sal at PV (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I gave more examples below. And as you say, most reliable sources did not agree with Hoyt in this case. You can always find someone who disagrees, even if you say the sky is blue. O3000 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , for values of "reasonable" that include relentlessly pushing for more positive coverage of a bunch of grifters. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * MRDA means more broadly that denials by the subject should be viewed with a grain of salt, or in Mandy Rice-Davies's own words: "Well he would say that wouldn't he?". Of course as somebody who is directly paid by Project Veritas you are going to dispute the idea that PV deceptively edits videos, which it is widely reported by reliable sources. With a lack of reliable sources to the contrary, there's not really a reason to introduce WP:WEASEL words to soften the current lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * First, if you want to write your own essay saying that an article's subject shouldn't be able to defend itself on Wikipedia Talk pages (after properly disclosing COI), please go ahead. But that is absolutely not what WP:MANDY says. Second, my entire point is that there are prominent reliable sources that dispute the "deceptive editing" trope (Hoyt and Charen), not to mention the fact that most of Project Veritas's videos never received that criticism in the first place, even from the organization's detractors. Sal at PV (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Mona Charen works for a right-wing think-tank, and that is an opinion piece. Hoyt is also an opinion piece that predates the results of the legal inquiries and settlement surrounding O'Keefe's fraudulent Acorn sting, and the June GAO report that showed no evidence of mishandling of funds. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Some examples of how PV is viewed by sources:
 * “On Monday afternoon, Project Veritas, the discredited rightwing attack organization run by James O’Keefe that specializes in sting operations against liberal groups and the established media, was itself thoroughly exposed.”


 * ”Like most of O’Keefe’s work, it’s deceptively edited and doesn’t add up to much, but he managed to catch one executive in a pretty poor choice of words.”


 * “Although O’Keefe has defended the organization’s methods as journalistically sound, mainstream news organizations have largely abandoned the practice of infiltrating businesses or organizations to record video without a subject’s knowledge or consent. News organizations generally consider the practice deceptive, and doing so can subject them to criminal trespass penalties.”


 * “James O’Keefe, the conservative filmmaker known for his outlandish, selectively edited undercover videos, is back in the spotlight for embarrassing himself as he tried to embarrass someone else.”


 * “The videos are, as is typical of O’Keefe’s, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions.”


 * “At the same time, journalism that seeks to destroy institutions is not journalism at all. And that's pretty much what O'Keefe practices with his mean-spirited, deceptive videos. ‘We did not reject journalistic ethics,’ he writes in his own defense. ‘We simply had to create those ethics anew.’” O3000 (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, I never argued that there are no sources that criticize Project Veritas for deceptive editing. Obviously there are many who have made and continue to make that allegation, despite the organization's strong objections to it. I'm only saying that it is wrong to claim that the reliable sources are so unanimous regarding this allegation that it should be presented in Wikipedia's voice as an undisputed fact. Sal at PV (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There are two issues raised, I do not see why we need to say "left wing" it is both an assumption and tells us nothing other then they have a political bias. As to how often they deceptively edit videos, has any source given any indication of how often the deceptively edit videos? They do do it (so we can say they do), but can it be shown its not a majority of the stuff they produce?Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [] "Like most of O’Keefe’s work, it’s deceptively edited".Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the sources I provided say this is what he is known for. And, unanimity is not required for WikiVoice. Unanimity is rare. O3000 (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I would be careful about the list above. Most are clearly left leaning and they are applying a contentious description/somewhat vague accusation at a source that is ideologically on the other side.  Note that the WP doesn't make claims like PV is "discredited" etc.  They are more careful in their wording noting the issues with hidden camera type reporting.  WP doesn't say the videos are edited in a deceptive fashion.  The above examples are why I think we should always be careful about using sources that are politically opposed to describe one another.  Vice, Slate, HuffPo etc are often too slanted in their own writing to treat their claims as 100% objective.  That doesn't mean they are inventing issues but it means they are showing clear bias by how they emphasis certain aspects while overlooking others.  Note, this last bit is my general concern with those sources rather than a concern specific to this topic.  This is why I feel that such claims need to be attributed. Springee (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * According to WP:DUE, significant minority views - in contrast to tiny minority views - should be given their due weight in Wikipedia articles, and should not be ignored entirely. The view that Project Veritas's video editing is not deceptive is certainly a significant minority view, with prominent adherents (Clark Hoyt and Mona Charen), whose views are expressed in reliable sources. To say "the group is known for producing deceptively edited videos" is to pretend that the minority view is tiny or nonexistent, when in fact it is a significant viewpoint held by prominent journalists. So by all means, give the majority viewpoint more space and emphasis in the article and in the lead specifically. But don't violate NPOV by refusing to give the significant minority viewpoint its due weight as well. Sal at PV (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Only if you can produce at least more RS that say it does not then say it does. A "minority view is a view held by a minority, not a view "not openly expressed by many". So produce some RS that say they do not deceptively edit most of their videos.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Without seeing the specific sources I won' claim Sal at PV is correct, however, if Hoyt and Charen claim the videos were not deceptively edited or dispute claims made by others I would say that should be included as a decenting POV. Also, based on this list above we do not have sufficient sourcing to make the claim in Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Who is refusing to give the significant minority viewpoint its due weight as well? Hoyt is already in the article -- although he only commented on one video and said it was heavily edited. Mona Charen referred to PV as the: "ironically named Project Veritas". This doesn't look like a significant view endorsing PV. O3000 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The specific sources for Hoyt and Charen are here and here. Hoyt said the videos were heavily edited, but critically, not deceptively edited. And regarding Mona Charen, the fact that she may not "endorse" PV, as O3000 says, is irrelevant - she stated outright that the NPR video was not deceptively edited, and that is the question at hand. Sal at PV (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note Hoyt also does not say "the videos were not deceptively edited". But it may be time for fresh eyes, as we are going round in circles.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So what we have is a one paragraph op-edd talking about one video.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and each of the two sources provided gave their personal opinions on one video each. Neither contradicts the statement: "The group is known for producing deceptively edited videos". O3000 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Which neutral sources, not left leaning sources, centrist (and I count WP in centrist), make the claim that the group is known for. Even if the group has been found to deceptively edit videos are they known for that?  Are the sources that say they deceptively edit the videos impartial?  If they aren't how can we decide their description is neutral vs partisan.  Would a right leaning source use the same description?  It's notable that the WP does not even if they criticize the use of hidden video footage.  If this is going to be described in Wiki voice it needs to be rock solid.  Based on what is presented here it isn't.  Springee (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Verge, Snoops, and The Guardian are all considered reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Business insider []?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * BI is a yellow source per WP:RSP. I would not accept their qualitative assessment as sufficient to state something like known for deceptively editing videos in Wiki voice.  Springee (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * O3000, don't confuse Wikipedia RS with impartial. This is where we need to be careful with what is opinion within an article and the facts reported by the article.  As an example, if I quote you but remove some words is that misleading?  "Verge, Snoops, and The Guardian are ... reliable sources"  Is my edit of your statement misleading?  That would probably depend on context.  Both your original sentence and my edit convey the idea that the listed sources are reliable thus I can argue my edit isn't misleading.  However, my edit makes it look like you are expressing your opinion while your actual statement (and the context of this discussion) imply that Wikipedia consensus has found those sources to be reliable.  I mention this to show how "deceptive" in the case of my edit of your sentence can be subjective.  This would be especially important if you personally didn't like those sources but you were speaking to the Wikipedia consensus.  My point is that "deceptive" has a level of value judgement.  I might claim my edit of your sentence was not deceptive.  However, if your personal feelings regarding those sources was different than the consensus Wikipedia view then you could rightly claim my edit was deceptive since it ascribed an opinion to you rather than to the group.  Vox is hardly a centrist news source and they certainly aren't right leaning.  If Vox says, "the following was edited out of the video" that is a statement of objective fact.  If they say this changes the meaning, that is arguably objective.  Saying that this is deceptive is now subjective (ie the opinion of the Vox author).  It then becomes more subjective to for Vox to say PV is known for.  How did they establish that fact?  Did they conduct a pole and find that x% of people who had heard of PV associated them with deceptive video edits?  This is effectively a contentious label and thus the sourcing either needs to be rock solid or we should attribute the claim.  It's a problem with Wikipedia that this sort of issue comes up so often.   Springee (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What I meant by "Verge, Snoops, and The Guardian are all considered reliable sources" was "Verge, Snoops, and The Guardian are all considered reliable sources." No more, no less. My opinion is not relevant. I provided sources that we consider reliable. That's what we do here. If you think there are systemic problems with WP procedures, take it to the proper forum. (And, I don't know what Vox has to do with this.) O3000 (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you missed the example. I'm not taking issue with the statement, I'm showing how an edit to the statement could change it's meaning and thus could be considered deceptive depending on the POV of the reader as well as the person who originally made the statement.  The point was to illustrate that "deceptive" is a subjective claim.  That is what we are dealing with here.  While I trust Vox to report facts like "PV recorded this video after hours at a bar", I wouldn't trust the left leaning Vox to neutrally on a partisan topic.  Even in a "factual article" there are parts where the topic becomes subjective and in cases like that we need to be careful about treating what are in effect opinions of the writer as reliable fact.  If Vox interviews a prof of ethics and journalism and then says "Prof X says this is deceptive", that is an objective statement (the prof did say...).  The Prof is making a subjective claim but presumably they are qualified to make it.  The reporter is objectively quoting the professor.  If the author of the article says it's deceptive then that is a subjective claim.  A subjective, contentious label/claim applied by a source that is politically at odds with the article subject should be attributed.  Springee (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't use Vox. I used The Verge for technical reporting, as in deceptively edited. O3000 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, The Verge, not Vox. The one is part of the other and their reporting seems to show that.  Either way, yes, I meant The Verge as that was your source.  Do keep in mind The Verge has limits on it's status as a RS per WP:RSP, There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles.  Political topics like PV is not within that range of reliable uses.  Regardless, this is beating around the bush.  Springee (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The national review is also a yellow source, and it is being used for an Op-edSlatersteven (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it being attributed vs stated in Wikivoice? Springee (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you going to reject every source by opining that they are left-leaning? And everything is owned by something else these days. These are green sources. O3000 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you get it. I'm not rejecting sources.  I'm saying that they are not of sufficient quality to accept their subjective claims without attribution.  Springee (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is to say you are rejecting them. Thanks, but I think I get it. These sources are RS. ALL sources along these lines are "subjective". Indeed, adjectives in general are commonly "subjective". WP uses the preponderance of RS. OTOH, your opinion that these sources are left-leaning is subjective. Let us just use RS according to guidelines. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, rejecting them means we can't use them for a claim in any capacity. Being a "RS" is not a rubber stamp for inclusion of any claim in wiki voice.  You are correct that a claim of "deceptive" is generally subjective.  I'm sure someone could set up a psychology experiment to objectively measure deceptive but I doubt The Verge did that.  That is why we treat that subjective claim like an opinion embedded within an otherwise (presumably) objective article.  The easy way around this is attribution.  That is acting according to guidelines as it balances the nature of the claim against the quality of the source.  As for left leaning, well we can see what the various media bias sources say.  Do you think they would call those sources right leaning? Springee (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in an WP:OR experiment as that is not our job. We use RS constantly to show the preponderance of RS. And yes, it is subjective. That's why we use RS instead of our own judgement. Basically, you are rejecting multiple RS because of your personal views about them. And would I call them right-leaning? Quite possibly if I looked at the term from a worldwide perspective. But, I have no interest in expressing my personal view here on such, or even thinking about it, as it's irrelevant. The rules here are really simple. Just follow them. WP RS cites say what the text says. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not OR to differentiate between a subjective claim vs an objective one. Objective: "33 seconds was removed from the middle of that video"

Subjective: "the missing 33 seconds was a deceptive edit". Yes, the rules are simple, a contentious claims should be attributed. Note here that Politico doesn't claim "deceptive editing" in their own voice. [] ''The operation is known for its hidden-camera interviews in which it looks to lure members of established news outlets into making supposedly compromising ethical statements. It has been criticized for deceptively editing footage to misrepresent the subjects’ comments.''. If Politico is unwilling to say it in their own voice why should we? Do your proposed sources state in their own voice that PV is known for deceptive edits? Springee (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , also note that Mona Charen works for a right-wing think-tank and Hoyt's opinion was written before O'Keefe settled and paid $100,000 in compensation, and before the GAO produced its report showing no evidence of financial mismanagement by ACORN. Sal at PV is cherry-picking. Very much on-brand for Project Veritas. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , re : from past experience, that is exactly what defenders of every right-wing grifter do. The right has built a walled garden of media that is effectively insulated from disconfirming fact, and presents all mainstream and fact-based sources as "left wing" because admitting that reality-based and conservative-leaning are antonyms would be saying the quiet part out loud. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * They are "known for producing deceptively edited videos". Other than their fairly limited cult following, that's what's most notable about them.  G M G  talk  00:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I know they produce hidden camera "sting" videos but I don't know if the videos are deceptively edited. Politico said they were criticised for it but didn't say they are known for it. Springee (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are doing it again. I gave cites. First you twice complained about Vox. I didn't cite Vox. Now it's Politico. I didn't cite Polico either. I don't cite controversial sources. These are straw men, and it's getting tiresome. And frankly, I can't imagine how anyone can see these videos as non-deceptive. O3000 (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How you imagine things is fine but it's OR to base the article text on your POV vs what RS say. As for "doing it again", no, I cited Politico above. I looked at your list of sources. Not one says, "PV is known for deceptively edited videos".  So how can we have text that says, in Wiki voice, "PV is known for deceptively edited videos" if none of the sources say that?  Based on the Politico summary I think something like  said but pushed towards Politico's version would be acceptable. Perhaps a compromise is follow something like what Politico said, "PV is known for hidden-camera videos intending to discredit established news outlets by capturing statements that suggest compromised ethics. It has been criticized for misrepresenting the video subjects through deceptive editing". This would put the part that I think all would agree could be in Wiki voice (they do "sting" hidden camera videos) with the part that, thus far, no source says in their own voice "the videos in general are deceptively edited" kept as an attributed statement. Note that none of the sources here say PV is known for deceptive editing even if they say some of their videos were deceptively edited or they have been criticized for deceptive editing. Springee (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not my opinion or my imagination. This is what RS say. Do they all use those exact words in that exact order? No. They don't have to. The current text accurately summarizes RS. O3000 (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So now you are suggesting it's OK to not follow what RS are actually saying. I understand that sometimes we summarize RSs.  However, when doing so we need to make sure we don't claim more than the summary of the sources.  You don't have any RS saying PV is known for deceptive edits thus per WP:V you can't summarize the sources with that phrasing.  If other sources exist that support that specific text fine but extending the summary to beyond what the sources say is WP:OR. Springee (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's policy. If it's in quotes, it must be a quote. It isn't in quotes. It does say what the preponderance of RS say, with no exaggeration. O3000 (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are simply wrong. If no source says "known for X" then you may not summarize the sources as such.  To do so is a violation of WP:SYNTH.  Springee (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , AFL-CIO cedrtainly seem to think so: . Nieman Lab says they are widely criticised for it . The Intercept doesn't say deceptive, they cut the crap and go with "mendacious" . NPR says they edited video "in deceiving ways" . Washington Post says they use "deceptive tactics" . Even Florida Man knows about "Project Veritas’s deceptive techniques and splashy videos" . What's much harder to find is anything approaching a credible source that describes PV as anything other than deceptive. It's not an honest enterprise, it's just another bunch of dark money funded right-wing grifters. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, I'm not claiming PV videos aren't deceptively edited. I think people are confusing "expecting editors to follow WP:V and WP:NOR" with generalized defending of PV.  I see two issues with the part of the lead in question.  Fist, I personally think the bar for describing the something negative about anyone or thing in Wikivoice should be very high.  Thus even though we have a number of source that say "deceptive edit" we should still attribute that (see how Politico did it).  Something like "widely criticized" would be appropriate in this case.  Second, where are the sources that say the organization "is known for".  This suggests that John Q Public is going to associate the organization with "deceptive edits", not sting hidden camera videos or something else.  That is a violation of WP:OR since we don't have sources that support it. Springee (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have tried and failed to find any source about PV that is both reliable and treats them as an honest endeavour. Feel free to drop some here. In the absence of such sources, the consensus of RS we cite is that they are deceptive, so we can describe them as such in Wiki-voice wihtout violating NPOV, as says below. The main source of argumentation against this is Sal, who works for them. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they are. I'm saying "known for" suggests what the public or some other unknown entity thinks of when they think of PV.  We don't have sources saying that thus saying "PV is known for X" is WP:OR.  Saying "PV is widely accused of X" is not.  We do have source saying the edits are deceptive so say that.  Again, given the negative claim I think it should not be in Wiki-voice though I will concede the argument that enough reliable sources have said it.  Springee (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * that's relatively easy to fix. Just say "The group produces deceptively edited videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups". That's a documented fact. Or "The group uses deceptive tactics to produce videos attacking media organizations and left-leaning groups", which is equally true and encompasses both the selective editing and the deceptions they use to gain access. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While I object on principle to using wikivoice for negative, subjective characterizations, your suggestion would address my objection. Springee (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If it helps end this discussion, I would accept "The group uses deceptive tactics," as JzG suggested. O'Keefe has himself stated that "We do use deception as a means to gain access to people." Sal at PV (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And that mischaracterizes the issue entirely. Let's not act like we're talking about Candid Camera. You know, no way people lose their job, get dragged into court, or get charged with a felony or anything. All in good fun. We'll all have a laugh about it over drinks later.  G M G  talk  20:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Deceptive tactics" was 's idea, not mine. Pardon me for showing support for a suggestion that would satisfy all sides in the discussion. JzG's suggestion would also resolve 's issue with using Wiki-voice inappropriately. The language is factually accurate, doesn't whitewash the organization, and can encompass "deceptively edited" for those who wish to read it that way. Let's just settle on this and move on. Sal at PV (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, at this point DR may be needed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably would be helpful. It would allow people to sort out and align what the source actually say with the statements in the lead.  Perhaps then we can find the source that actually says "known for". Springee (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * (9,000 edit conflicts later) If we're writing about...I dunno...Usain Bolt, we don't necessarily need to have a direct quote saying he is "widely considered to be the greatest sprinter of all time." We're perfectly capable of looking at a pile of secondary sources that describe him as the greatest, pointing, and going "that's awfully wide". When the preponderance of sources describe PV in the context of things they deceptively edited, and/or feel the need to put them in the context of that history, then Wikipedia is the tertiary source that summarizes the content of these secondary sources.
 * Yes, it's often quite nice when we enjoy the luxury of tertiary sources describing the secondary sources describing the primary sources. But requiring it is getting more into MEDRS territory, rather than the normal standard that is applied in the editorial decision making process across non-medical articles.  G M G  talk  12:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If you support the language in the Usain Bolt article saying "widely considered," why wouldn't you support language in the PV article saying "widely criticized" (as proposed)? If the lead sentence about Usain Bolt were equivalent to the current language about PV, it would say that Usain Bolt is "known for being the greatest sprinter of all time" - which is obviously not NPOV, since that assertion is not a fact, but a widely held opinion. Just like the assertion about PV - a widely held opinion about the organization that has been contested by prominent journalists and thus should not be expressed in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. Sal at PV (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because one of these is a superlative that is clearly a matter of opinion and comparative ranking, in the sense of "Project Veritas is widely considered among the most deceptive such organizations." That the primary factor in the notoriety of PV in secondary sources derives from repeated, industrial and intentional lying is simply a matter of fact, and a fair summation of the content of the sources. In comparison, Gavrilo Princip surely did lots of things during his time on Earth, but he's pretty clearly notable for one specific type of thing in particular.
 * I'm sorry you take issue with that. Maybe you should find a job with someone that doesn't lie for a living.  G M G  talk  15:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

break o'convenience
So the state of play so far, two users object, one with a massive COI vs 5(?) users who say its fine. I think we have a consensus here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Sal is perfectly able to make suggestions or start discussions, but their opinion doesn't really factor into the determination of consensus... at all.  G M G  talk  15:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Never said they could not state an opinion, they have now done so exhaustively. We now either need others to chime in, close or escalate to DR. Not just make the same points over and over again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sal has been doing nothing else for months. It's here because Sal is consistently not getting the answer PV wants. Some see this as a feature, not a bug. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see this as a compelling rationale that the user is not operating in good faith, and is intent on wasting an indefinite amount of community time. Some might say they are here for some purpose other than building an encyclopedia. Perhaps we ought to consider "broader community input".  G M G  talk  23:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see it as an article subject who does not believe in our core values. Which is not quite the same thing. PV, as an enterprise, certainly does not act in good faith, but I think Sal's issue is primarily that he does not get it. For multiple values of it. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So I will ask again, which source says PV "is known for X"? "Is known for" is different than "produces X" or "had made X".  Is known for says this is the public's(?) perception of the group.  "Produces" or "had made" doesn't imply some general knowledge and speaks only to the actions of the group.  5:2 doesn't matter if we are violating the OR policy. Springee (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe there has already been a fairly decent job done of addressing this point. You don't have to agree with it, but that doesn't constitute a requirement for others to continue to repeat what's already been said. At some point WP:1AM starts to come into play there.  G M G  talk  15:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 6(?). GMG's characterization is accurate. Not sure why WP:OR was raised, as the article's lead seems exhaustively sourced. François Robere (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It was raised because none of the sources are saying "known for" which implies a general, public understanding. I was clearly not successfully conveying the issue though Guy did understand the issue I was concerned about and proposed a change that would address it. []  When dealing with "unpopular" groups we should strive to be our most clear cut and objective and be most cautious about not embellishing things that RSs are actually saying (part of a general philosophy of "do no harm").  I think it would be good practice to avoid, as often as possible saying clearly negative, subjective things about any article subject in Wiki-voice but as I said earlier, I would certainly concede the number of RS saying deceptive editing is more than we would usually require for wiki-voice.  Springee (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The principle of doing no harm cuts both ways. We do not wish to do harm to subjects because we take undue liberties with our articles. But we also do not wish to do harm to readers by couching widely accepted facts in vague language and euphemisms. I'm sure the public relations folks at PV take none-too-kindly to that. But they're not the first people to show up peeved because Wikipedia wont fall in line with their narrative as poor misunderstood journalistic vigilantes, and they wont be the last.
 * If they want to change that, then they need to stop sending employees to argue on noticeboards, and go do the kinds of things that get them widespread secondary coverage for their journalistic prowess and integrity, and not one or two dissenting opinion pieces that themselves recognize they are in the vast minority. It wouldn't be the first Wikipedia has changed course on an organization, both as source and subject. But whining about it isn't the way to do it. They can go ask Breitbart how well that's worked out for them so far.  G M G  talk  12:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , theya re actually known for remarkably little. In as much as they are known, it is for this. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If they are known for remarkably little then I'm not sure how we can claim "they are known for". I think you already found better phrasing by just saying "they have [done]" rather than suggest a survey found this is what people know of them.  Springee (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , see the second hal;f of the sentence. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that PV's deceptively edited videos targeted specific, named living people and implied extremely serious wrongdoing by them. Wording absolutely anything in the PV article in a way that remotely implies that there may be a sliver of truth to that therefore raises far more serious WP:BLP issues.  There is little risk of harm to PV because their reputation is already, obviously, as an organization that releases deceptively-edited videos; but there is significant and serious risk of harm to their victims if we hem and haw about it or try to WP:FALSEBALANCE our way out of saying anything at all.  --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be good practice to avoid, as often as possible saying clearly negative, subjective things about any article subject in Wiki-voice. There is nothing subjective about the fact that PV's videos are deceptively edited; it is objective, widely-reported fact.  People can still disagree about such facts (and it's naturally expected that for a highly partisan subject like PV, both it the foot-soldiers in its cause would strenuously disagree with any facts that make them look bad); this does not free us from our responsibility to accurately cover them according to the most reliable sources we have.  But beyond that, I strenuously and completely disagree with your argument that even things you personally feel are "subjective" and negative cannot be stated in wiki-voice.  Our obligation as an encyclopedia is to cover the truth according to the best sources available; if we hedge on it and censor ourselves out of fear that what those sources say is too "negative", we are doing far more harm both to our projects and to the people involved.  For example, in the particular example at hand, you are arguing that we should essentially smear PV's victims by implying, despite overwhelming consensus among reliable sources otherwise, that there is a possibility that they are actually guilty of the misdeeds PV has falsely accused them of.  We minimize such harm to subjects by hewing as closely as possible to what the sources say, not by censoring it into the sort of groundless WP:FALSEBALANCE you are suggesting here. --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , exactly. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that isn't your POV. I prefer that Wikipedia should as much as possible deliver information in an impartial tone and avoid trying to paint scarlet letters on any article subject no matter how much we personally think they deserve it.  Rather than use labels or generalizations we should be able to let the evidence support the conclusion rather than just reporting the conclusion.  My version errors on the side of not condemning (or praising) enough while yours risks condemning too much.  I understand this has, in the past, put us on opposing sides of edit discussions and each of us have had examples where consensus ended up supporting our respective points of view.  Springee (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously high-quality sourcing is needed when saying exceptional things, but if we avoid clearly stating, as fact, a conclusion that is overwhelmingly reported as fact by high-quality reliable sources, we are using WP:WEASEL / MOS:ALLEGED words to cast doubt on it, which is a form of POV-pushing.
 * More importantly, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the equivocation you are requesting that we inject here would functionally mean that we would be, in the article voice, lending our weight to the possibility that the accusations they have leveled against specific living people might (contrary to all reliable sourcing) be true. This is obviously unacceptable - you say want to avoid what you identify as unwarranted "red letters of shame"; but in practice, if you base editorial decisions on that subjective feeling of "is this the unvarnished hard truth, or is it just a red letter of shame" rather than on reliable sourcing and due weight, you end up simply pushing the article voice towards whatever point of view you personally feel is more reasonable rather than what the sources say.
 * I do not think this is your intent, but in practice your position here means that any assertion you personally find objectionable can easily become a "red letter" in your head; and your views on that are inevitably biased by your outlook on the world. In a case like this, your insistence on a subjective standard of "avoid red-letter descriptions Springee finds objectionable" inevitably puts you in a position where you are pushing for a version that lends unwarranted credibility to smears against targets you view less favorably, because the content of PD's smears reads to you as less objectionable or obviously-alarming and, therefore, less worthy of concern than the well-cited and (among reliable sources) uncontested fact that they are baseless smears.
 * That sort of thing is why we need to base our coverage on what the actual sources say and the relative weight they require, not on subjective touchy-feely sense of "well, this is what Springee's gut finds to be an unacceptable red-letter claim." Yes, more exceptional judgements require high-quality sources, and we can reasonably disagree over what's exceptional or what sources are good enough, but at the end of the day we go with what those sources say - not your gut feeling of "this is too spicy for me, whatever the sources say."  We can assess and weigh the sources, but it is ultimately not your call (or mine!) what is or isn't appropriate to report as fact, and you need to stop trying to substitute your perspective for that of the sources in that regard.
 * Impartiality (to the extent that it is possible) can come only from hewing closely to the sources; when we have overwhelming statements of fact from high-quality sources and no comparable sources disagreeing with them, it is entirely inappropriate to occlude or tone down what they. You can say "we need better sources for this" or "I don't think the sources say this", absolutely. You cannot reasonably say "this statement can never be made as fact in the article voice, no matter what, regardless of the level and unanimity of sources."  When you reach that point you are no longer writing an encyclopedia - you are substituting your own judgement for those of the sources.  (And apologies if you wouldn't go that far, but that is the sense I am generally getting from your statements - that you take issue with large swaths of the media, and feel that there are some things that, even if they are widely reported as fact, cannot be reported the same way here, because you personally think they are subjective.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that saying that attributing accusations against PV in general terms (ie "widely considered" vs "X, Y and Z consider" would suggest anything PV did was right or valid. I feel that is just as much a stretch as the one you feel I am making.  As for "what actual sources say", this seems to vary.  For example, Politico used an attributed claim, something like "critics accuse PV of...".  But moving this a bit beyond PV, what if 5 sources say "critics say X is a racist organization" and 2 sources say "X is a racist organization".  How do we average the difference?  What if 16 other sources don't mention racism when talking about X?  How do we decide the few sources that take an interest in what appears to be an ideological opponent are really impartially summarizing vs adding a bit of subjective editorializing into an otherwise reasonably factual article?  How do we handle a case when many sources simply don't use the label or negative claim when discussing X?  Understand that much of my concern here is systemic things I've seen with Wikipedia vs a specific wish to replace the unsupported claim "known for deceptive editing" with something like "produces deceptively edited videos".  I think your comment, "in practice your position here means that any assertion you personally find objectionable can easily become a "red letter" in your head; and your views on that are inevitably biased by your outlook on the world." can be turned around just as easily.  When we see say an organization described as Z in some but not all sources do we take that to mean 100% of sources think the organization is Z (ie those that didn't say would have objected if they disagreed)?  The issue isn't that I'm trying to say a source didn't claim organization X was racist.  The issue is I'm trying to say that if "racist" is a negative thing then we need to make sure it's damn near universally used as a descriptor before we apply it in Wiki voice.  That means if 5 of 10 sources say racist and the others don't, we attribute. If 4 of 10 say "is racist" while the other 6 say "accused of racism" then we do not say "is racist" in wiki voice.  You seem to be suggesting I'm saying tone down what the sources say.  No, I'm saying we need to show this is a near universal position before we state it in Wiki voice.  If only half state in their own voice while have attribute, we attribute.  As a point of reference, I would be interested to know how other encyclopedias handle such negative assertions/descriptors?  Springee (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Current language accurately summarizes the situation; naturally, the subject disagrees, and disingenuously pretends there is substantial controversy. Tough; NPOV does not mean we accept a fictitious narrative being pushed by an employee of the subject. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there really a point in keeping this open? It's going on a week and half now and the entire thread has been everyone taking turns arguing against the same two users, one of whom is an employee. We have fairly well moved from a lack of consensus to change the article, to an affirmative consensus to keep it the same. I believe there is an essay floating around somewhere about trying to win a content dispute through sheer willingness to indefinitely belabor the same argument until the other side wanders off to go do something actually productive.  G M G  talk  11:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, take out the one wp:coi editor and it is one against many, even with its two against many. This really has run its course.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, could I ask if you understand what part I'm opposed to? I don't support much of what Sal at PV is suggesting. My only concern here is the easily correctable OR stating what PV is "widely known for". I understand that there isn't much difference between saying they engage in vs they are known for but when editors say we need to strictly follow the sources, well why have "known for". That said, I'm certainly not interested in editing the article. Springee (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 Delhi Riots
In article 2020 Delhi Riots there are violations of NPOV. NPOV says"Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." While in the article lead, in there are two following lines which violate this.

1. "Muslims were marked as targets for violence."

2. "In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males— who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised."

Both the statements in RS are in quote attribution to someone else. What is anecdotal in the Reliable Source is presented as an overarching fact in the article. I had discussions on the talk page, but the only reply given is that the source is reliable, which is not even the discussion. Request resolution. Notice to editors - and — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.cba (talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , and that is just for starters.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If we are considering news articles then, must be taken into account. Both these news items completely contradict the opening statements in the current version of the said article. This issue is currently under active investigation. Thus, it would not be wise to make statements based on any of the recent news pieces. Cwarrior (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ and there should be edit about involvement of Tahir Hussain (politician) in Riot instead of Kapil Mishra as Tahir Himself admitted that he was involved in 2020 Delhi riots using his political power, he admitted that he wanted to teach Hindus a lesson through riot, pogrom and arson, Kapil Mishra has no such involvements as he is only accused by some people but Tahir Hussain (politician) is the one who accepted his crimes. Should add a section about this too to maintain WP:NPOV    Branstarx3 (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * More updates on this issue today: "[Delhi High Court] The court said the riots took place in a “planned manner”, resulting from a “well-hatched conspiracy”", and “Hussain also facilitated them to the rooftop of his building and provided other logistics support with a view that large-scale riots may be there, causing resultant loss to life and the property of the other community… Prima facie the accused Tahir Hussain was leading the mob from his house and also from the Masjid near Chand Bagh Pulia on February 24 and 25, and he was instrumental for gathering of the unlawful assembly in conspiracy with accused persons, namely Haseen (alias Salman), Nazim, Kasim, Sameer Khan, Anas, Firoj, Javed, Gulfam and Shoaib Alam, having common intention and unlawful object,” Cwarrior (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Absurdity
See.

This edit has several problems: Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reliable independent sources. We have multiple reliable independent sources for the dissolution of German monarchies after the First World War - the former titles were converted to family names. Royalty fansites and society pages cannot then roll back history by declaring people to be princes. There's a walled garden of royalty fandom sites that are being used to assert a parallel reality in which Germany still has princes, and a few Wikipedians are taking that ball and running with it. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It reintroduces multiple unreliable sources (thepeerage.com, angelfire.com "online Gotha");
 * 2) It reintroduces infobox royalty although the Hohenzollerns are not royalty - the area they supposedly rule has been a republic for over a century (a reversal, if you will, of the famous scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail);
 * 3) It reintroduces styles and titles such as His Serene Highness Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Hohenzollern, which are royal titles that do not apply to private individuals and for which no reliable source is cited;
 * 4) It translates the family name "Prinz von Hohenzollern" to "Prince of Hohenzollern" - this is a lazy error.
 * I know I had seen some discussion that I squirreled away in my head about these "fake nobility" concerns that passed on my watchlist that generally we were getting rid of them as the "official" stance (simply acknowledging the past in the body), but I can't remember where that was for the life of me. --M asem (t) 18:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Why are you spamming up this noticeboard, there is already a thread about issues like this here, that you started?
 * Happy to replace the sources
 * So your happy to have him described as head of the former Princely House of Hohenzollern but using a infobox royalty is a step too far? How are you head of a former house, seems illogical? Are you saying it exists then? When he was born his family ruled the Kingdom of Romania and his branch were placed high in the line of succession.
 * Happy to cite reliable sources. His family ruled Romania during part of his lifetime.
 * What’s your reliable source his name is Prinz von Hohenzollern? In German he was known as Fürst von Hohenzollern after his father died, Erbprinz von Hohenzollern after his grandfather died and Prinz before that, ie from birth. You seen his passport or ID card, great Orginal Research if you have. The Telegraph obituary in the article calls him His Highness Prince Friedrich Wilhelm. Presumably that’s not a reliable source because it disagrees with your POV. - dwc lr (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The Kingdom of Romania was ruled by legitimate descendants (who do not include Friedrich Wilhelm) of Carol I, who was a member of the same princely branch of Hohenzollern as Friedrich Wilhelm--however, other members of this family weren't even considered for succession unless Carol's direct male line died out (which is now irrelevant, since Romania is a republic). His "family" ruled Romania the same way the "family" of practically any European royalty "ruled Great Britain" and "is in the line of succession to the British throne". For the Hohenzollerns to gain the Romanian crown, Romania would have to have restored its monarchy AND Michael's decree declaring absolute primogeniture would have to have been overruled (assuming Carol II's 1923 constitution permitting succession along the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen line (which directly contradicted Prince Wilhelm's renunciation of succession rights) would even still be in effect at this point). Anyway, how can having a connection to a different, still-monarchic country entitle a person to all the royalty paraphernalia they would have had in their own country if that country hadn't abolished its monarchy? And why should being head of a house automatically confer royalty infobox status? The citations to news/non-academic royalty books/magazines represent a point of view that is not necessarily comparable in weight to the governmental/academic point of view stating unequivocally those citations cannot be correct.
 * And we know his name isn't "Prince Friedrich Wilhelm" or "Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern" because those titles did not legally exist when he was born and still do not exist, with primogeniture-based names being clarified as illegal (Furthermore, this law stipulated that the name of the previous noble families and their relatives should be the name that was previously passed on to the not particularly privileged family members as a family name (e.g. prinz instead of fürst, herzog instead of könig)) in 1966 (source includes this snappy (translated) quote: Many of them have long since refrained from giving the registry offices their false names for entry in the civil register, and only figure as prince of the telephone book, letterhead or champagne). Precisely because this is a contentious, perennially-litigated issue with entire legal bodies dedicated to sorting out who even gets a nobiliary particle in their surname, Wikipedia cannot default to the minority royalist POV. From the official German authority on aristocracy: The nobility in Germany has been officially abolished for almost 90 years. Since then, traditionalist aristocratic associations have been working to ensure that no one notices this. The same body, quoting and affirming this text in Der Spiegel May 10 1999 describing the current naming laws and attempts to contravene them:
 * JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is utterly absurd. This person Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern wasn't a prince and he wasn't royal. Germany abolished such things more than a hundred years ago yet for some reason WP has lots of editors who want us all to dwell in "fairy tales" and pretend we are living in a pre WWI world. German ex royals and ex nobles were allowed to legally change their last names to their titles so his last name was "Fürst von Hohenzollern", "Hohenzollern Prince", but that is not a title but his last name. So why in the world do we translate his last name and put a comma in it?Ludicrous. This is a HUGE problem on this site, Franz, Duke of Bavaria (he's not Duke of Bavaria, there is no such thing, it's his last name "Herzog von Bayern") or Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, for instance (he's not a prince and there's not even such a country as Prussia any more.) There are innumerable articles like those. All this stuff is utterly ridiculous and needs to be removed, people who want to divert themselves with such delusions can do it elsewhere. Smeat75 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has editors who want to reflect Reliable Sources and Editors who want to make stuff up. As your so concerned about this issue please tell us what Friedrich Wilhelm’s surname was? Because in Germany he was called Fürst von Hohenzollern after his father died. Did he change his surname with the authorities? What about Franz of a Bavaria did he change his surname too from Prinz to Herzog von Bayern when his father died? - dwc lr (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , there are reliable geopolitical sources that say Germany abolished the monarchy. There are sources on nobility that ignore that. The geopolitical sources are more reliable, so override the fantasy royalty bullshit. This isn't hard.
 * I can find reliable sources that consider homeopathy to be medicine, but the sources that show it to be bollocks are much more reliable. Same thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's wonderful and everything, but are you familiar with No Original Research? Where's your reliable source that says his surname is Prinz von Hohenzollern? Why was he called Fürst von Hohenzollern in Germany if (as you say without having presented a single reliable source) that his surname was Prinz von Hohenzollern? Which of these superior sources you refer to say his last name was Prinz von Hohenzollern then? In English sources as is a common and well established practice he is called Prince of Hohenzollern, in French sources he was called prince de Hohenzollern and so on. - dwc lr (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are misisng the point. We have extremely reliable geopolitical sources that describe the end of the monarchy in Germany. We have extremely reliable geopolitical sources that describe Germany as a Federal republic with no hereditary component. We have extremely reliable geopolitical sources that describe the Habsburg Laws and their effect in Austria. Compared with these, the walled garden of sources that like to pretend 1918 didn't happen, do not cut it. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK so what your saying is you don't have "extremely reliable geopolitical sources that..." say his surname was 'Prinz von Hohenzollern'? Do you know if Romania recognised his title at birth, do you know if he had citizenship of another country that recognised his title. In summary what you saying is you can put an "extremely reliable" reference into an article saying Germany is a republic but you've got nothing you can put into this article saying what this mans legal name was. Glad we've cleared that up now. - dwc lr (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , His family name is Prinz von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, as the lesser title (see above). And whatever his legal name is, it is not "Prince of Hohenzollern". If you can't even source the name without claiming a title that doesn't exist then you have a serious WP:V problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t see any sources above that mention him, are you talking about JoelleJay’s post? I see how using OR/Synth above you would say that, but I see nothing that says what his surname was? Wikipedia’s standards are very high. - dwc lr (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Carol I died without surviving descendants. The succession went back to the Hohenzollern line and Prince Ferdinand. On the extinction of his male line the succession again was to go back to the Hohenzollern line. The Romanians consulted their Fürst as head of the family on different matters. - dwc lr (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , succession of what? There is no such thing as a Hohenzollern prince. It's part of the Federal Republic of Germany. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom of Romania up to 1947. - dwc lr (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

So Reliable Sources say Karl von Habsburg is head of the House of Habsburg, Franz, Duke of Bavaria is head of the House of Wittelsbach and so on, so naturally Wikipedia reflects that. ,, etc are you happy with that or is that an absurdity too that needs correction. I assume you are opposed to that practice too, or is it fine saying someone is head of a royal house, or a former royal house, but using a royal title per Reliable Sources or even worse using infobox royalty is completely unacceptable as it “gives the wrong impression” (but your fine with giving the wrong impression by inventing or supporting made up last names for BLPs, ?) Because how can the House of Habsburg exist, where does it exist, we can’t even presumably call them head of the family because how can a family have a formal head? Presumably one could say they “claim to be” but how do we source that, no doubt you are likely all against using the term “pretender” for those very reasons. - dwc lr (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no problem with describing them as heads of the former royal houses of Habsburg or whatever. That's fine. I do have a problem with using infobox royalty and describing them as princes and archdukes, because they are not.
 * In most cases there are virtually no reality-based sources about these people. They appear in almanacs that behave as if 1918 never happened. Those almanacs are reliable for lines of succession, but clearly unreliable for the continued existence of royalty within Republics.
 * I think there should be no disagreement that using infobox royalty is completely inappropriate for people born after the monarchy was abolished. If you can't tolerate infobox person then fork an infobox for former royalty, heads and scions of former royal houses, but this fantasy has to stop. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So how can you be head of a former Royal House, but you can't be a Prince. What's the difference then. Is a former royal house a legally recognised post then? - dwc lr (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you can be the head of a household, the acknowledged senior member of an ancient family, without claiming to rule an area that you no longer rule. The UK has a monarchy. So does the Netherlands. Germany does not. We have articles on this. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So who acknowledges these people as head of such and such house? Who says so and so is head of a household? Are these legally recognised positions then? Or is it like the titles not legally recognised. Using a title does not imply any claim to rule, otherwise we would be saying Prince Charles is claiming to rule Wales. - dwc lr (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , see above. We have reliable geopolitical sources that say Germany has no monarchies. We have reliable-for-context nobility sources that say X is head of the house of Y. These are not in tension. The tension arrives when you assert tat being head of the house of Y makes you royalty and a prince of some part of Germany that no longer has a monarchy. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So what your saying is Germany has no monarchies, but it does have noble/royal houses, only the people who belong to said houses are neither royal/noble, but that doesn't matter and we can still say they belong/head up said noble/royal house but we can't use a royal/noble title or use an infobox that has a field for membership of a 'House' because that gives the wrong impression, but in the text its fine to say someone is a member of such and such House even though we are definitely not trying to imply they are royal/noble just because they belong to a House, because while Germany is a republic with no princes/dukes, it also has royal/noble houses, only with no royal/noble members only commoner members. I have understood that right? - dwc lr (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , is there some part of "former royal house" that is hard to understand? Guy (help! - typo?) 13:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you can be head or a member of a “former royal house” which is something without any legal status, but you can’t be called a Prince which is also without any legal status? So Michael of Romania had the power make his daughter “head of the former royal house” but did not have the power to make her husband a Prince of Romania? - dwc lr (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , have you ever heard of the terms patriarch and matriarch? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are they legally recognised positions? Is “head of the former reigning House of Romania” a legally recognised post, Will the courts rule on who is head of a formerly reigning house? - dwc lr (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Germany has no noble/royal houses. They ABOLISHED them. It would be OK to describe these people as heads or members of FORMER ruling or noble houses but they are not royal, they are not Princes or Princesses or Dukes or Duchesses. Smeat75 (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So the (former ruling) House of Habsburg still exists, it has a Head, it has lots of members, it has a line of succession and rules determining the succession (otherwise how is the head determined), it has rules setting out who is a member of the House, the head can confer the Order of the Golden Fleece and other orders. So we are happy to accept and recognise all that per Reliable Sources, the only thing we are saying the Reliable Sources are wrong about is the members of the House having titles like Archduke? - dwc lr (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They can make up their own rules and give out decorations if they want to, it doesn't mean they are royal or have titles because such things were abolished in their countries more than 100 years ago. Yes, they should not be called "Prince " or "Duchess ", etc.,  they're not,  and it shouldn't be pretended that they are noble or royal. Smeat75 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So they can “make up” anything, which we can cover, other than a title (irrespective of the countless reliable sources attributing such titles)? At least I know if I go and look at re-creating Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne, as Line of succession to the headship of the House of Habsburg it shouldn’t get deleted. - dwc lr (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is that historically having a substantive title, which usually coincided with membership/headship in a house, conferred specific privileges legally recognized, bestowed, and protected by the state--e.g. automatic positions in government/military, the seigneurial system for landed titles, exemption from peasant taxes, etc. But dynastic notoriety is decoupled from these perquisites--well-known, wealthy families can have "heads" without (ever) being ennobled.
 * I think it was u|Aquillion who brought up an important facet of this debate in the last thread: the inherent bias in the type of sources that cover former nobility. That is, the media that tend to report on these people the most are also generally more likely to exaggerate titulature and the importance of aristocracy, and to ignore any legal constraints imposed by the state. These media may therefore not represent the actual widespread usage COMMONNAME assumes. This is a weakness of COMMONNAME that perhaps needs to be clarified: if the preponderance of sources attribute a title to someone, is that title automatically part of their name even if all those sources are low-quality tabloids, and even if that attribution contradicts the laws of the relevant country? But as I've said several times, while this impacts how we title the article, what is (apparently) even more unclear is how this should affect how we treat the noble title itself, both in relation to and independent of the person in question. An example would be a hypothetical article on an American naturopath whose notability is derived from writing popular alt med books: despite perhaps a majority of sources referring to her as "doctor", should we require sources stating that she specifically is not a physician in order to exclude her from our physician and doctor categories? I would argue in this case if the relevant U.S. state explicitly rejects NDs from their definition of doctor/physician, we would not need a source disputing her use of the title. The corollary for noble/royal titles would therefore be: when a government explicitly defines what a title is and its legal status, Wikipedia should default to this definition in the article body and templates irrespective of the COMMONNAME article title (e.g. not referring to someone whose COMMONNAME is "Princess Marie of Bavaria" as "the princess" or "HRH", or including her in royalty navboxes). JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know: the King of the Netherlands is a Prince of Orange. Orange was a principality in France, which is now a republic. So, which government should be followed: the government of the Netherlands or that of France? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See diff. JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not that IP and I don't have knowledge of the subjects he/she was blocked for. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I guess the oldid doesn't change when you click "next edit"?. should be correct. JoelleJay (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t know of any wealthy family with a “head”, a clearly defined membership, a line of succession to the “headship”, the ability to rule a marriage morganatic thereby depriving any children of membership of the family and succession, the ability to regulate titles. The only people who object to calling someone from a “former royal house” by a title is some Wikipedia editors. Hanover is part of Germany, yet Monaco says the sister of the Prince is HRH The Princess of Hanover. Presumably to various Wikipedia editors she Caroline Prinzessin von Hannover Herzogin zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Königlicher Prinzessin von Großbritannien und Irland, born HSH Princess Caroline of Monaco. The uncles of Carl XVI Gustaf lost their titles for marrying commoners yet, no doubt to the mind of Wikipedia Editors his mother Miss Sibylla Prinzessin von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha Herzogin zu Sachsen, born HH Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha but a commoner when she married, was no different to a Miss Patzek. This business of saying we can’t call them by a title is frankly a fringe view not reflected in the real world. The King of Sweden decided a load of his grandkids were no longer to be HRH, yet if he we were to deposed tomorrow the only thing we seem to be suggesting he would lose the ability to do is regulate titles and styles in his “former royal family”. Anything else, no problem he is free to do whatever he wants in his “former ruling House”,award decorations, change the succession rules etc - dwc lr (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The only people who object to calling someone from a “former royal house” by a title is some Wikipedia editors. Did you not read the tqb Der Spiegel passages quoted on the official German Institute for the Recognition of Aristocracy website? In the section "Explanations on the concept of nobility in the opinion of the Association of German Adelsverband e. V. (VdDA) and representatives of the historic German nobility"--apparently drawing background from the German wiki on Adel, but nevertheless useful as a proxy for their own stated opinion--they stress that the modern titling by aristocratic associations "applies exclusively within the association and has no legal effect outside of these associations" and furthermore advance this rather scathing indictment of those who support titling: "The self-image of the aristocratic associations and their relatives, based on the historical concept of nobility, as well as corresponding reporting, above all in the rainbow press, but also in reputable media, has meant that in some sections of the population the fact that the German nobility has been extinct since 1919 is not noticed." So no, it is not just "some Wikipedia editors" who are bothered by improper ennoblement. JoelleJay (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Der Spiegel article is over 20 years old. What have successive governments down about it? Nothing, because it’s only a small fringe that get animated about this issue. The “Association” cites Wikipedia, everyone knows Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It’s like drawing on the opinions of the few EN Wiki editors who get animated about this, and ignoring all the reliable sources that attribute titles still, so I should probably say just EN and DE Wiki and people who cite those people. Frankly it’s downright lazy from them, they are clearly not expert in anything and not even Wikipedia would touch anything there as being a Reliable Source. - dwc lr (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's only a small fringe that pretends that there is still an active German nobility. Well done. Who is the ruling Duke of Bavaria? If your answer is not "nobody, Bavaria does not have a ruling duke any more", go back to square one and try again. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There hasn’t been a ruling Duke of Bavaria in about 400 years as far as I can tell? There are plenty of reliable sources who say who the non reigning Duke of Bavaria is (sorry you only like the term “head of the former ruling House”, I’m not even sure there is sources that use that precise term so are we allowed to say it? (Not that you seem overly concerned by nuisances like Verifiability, you certainly have not not cited a single source which states the surname of the subject of this thread, yet you boldly profess to know it)), and even the previous President of Germany even called this individual His Royal Highness and Duke Franz. And yet no one cared, no scandal nothing? The President of Germany apparently ignored the law and no one cared? Well I assume an insignificant fringe who live an echo chamber, probably class warriors consumed with bigotry and an overinflated sense of self importance, cared out there in the real world. The rest of the world doesn’t bat an eyelid. - dwc lr (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I assume an insignificant fringe who live an echo chamber, probably class warriors consumed with bigotry and an overinflated sense of self importance, cared out there in the real world. • (Not that you seem overly concerned by nuisances like Verifiability, you certainly have not not cited a single source which states the surname of the subject of this thread, yet you boldly profess to know it) Seriously? Those are some pretty bold personal attacks. And the German wiki cites this obituary for the name (Friedrich Wilhelm Fürst von Hohenzollern) registered at his death. I don't see why we shouldn't as well. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok so now you think he changed his surname at some point, when previously you were saying people couldn’t? I can’t verify from that article snippet that his “legal surname” was changed to Fürst von Hohenzollern can you? We have already established that most people don’t care and attribute titles and styles still, including Presidents of Germany. - dwc lr (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's like they are cosplaying Tannhäuser or something. wo lange noch der frohe Ruf erschalle: Thüringens Fürsten, Landgraf Hermann, Heil! Guy (help! - typo?) 00:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We should desribe the subject however he is normally described in reliable sources. In reply to : there is a distinction between a title that implies an office, such as head of state, and titles that do not. We should not refer to anyone as Emperor of Austria-Hungary, King of the United Kingdom, Duke of Bavaria, etc., unless such an office exists and the person actually holds it. If someone claims these offices, then we refer to them as pretenders.The fact that lesser titles often included privileges is irrelevant. Titles and privileges are severable. Lords of the United Kingdom for example lost the right to sit in the House of Lords, but they are still lords.
 * The laws on using titles is murky and would take a great deal of original research by editors to resolve. For example, a peer in Scotland is not a peer in England, they are an esquire. Ireland is a republic, but Irish titles are stilled used in Great Britain. France is a republic, but the courts protect the use of titles. Germany abolished the privileges of nobility, including use of titles, but not nobility itself. The Pope awarded titles of nobility to people in countries that no longer have nobility. The heir apparent to the British throne is the Prince of Wales, but Wales is no longer a principality in law, having been incorporated into England. The heir apparent to the Dutch throne is the Prince of Orange, but Orange is in the French republic.
 * Alternatively, some nobles do not use their titles and in those cases they should not be used. For example, David Thomson does not use his title and it is not used in UK articles about him, but for some reason, it is in his Wikipedia article.
 * TFD (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest we do re: inclusion in a royalty navbox or category (e.g. "Archduchesses of Austria" or "Tuscan Princes") for people with royal ancestry whose titles have been abolished and are not explicitly recognized by any state? Should Georg Friedrich (according to us, "the great-great-grandson and historic heir of Wilhelm II, the last German Emperor and King of Prussia, who abdicated and went into exile upon Germany's defeat in World War I in 1918") be listed as a "Prince of Prussia" alongside Fredrick William IV of Prussia? It wasn't an "office", but the title did confer particular rights and social functions and was regulated by the state, which is fundamentally different from how the title is treated by the (successor) state now. To me, it is misleading to mix people whose titles today, at best, only indicate membership in a particular family, with those whose titles were tied to government-administered privileges. It also introduces a major discrepancy when it comes to people who are not (most) notable for having noble heritage--if our policy is to go by what a person is called by reliable sources, why do we automatically list various non-notable children as being titled in their parents' articles irrespective of what RS call them? What about people who are far more notable for other activities, whose ancestry may be occasionally mentioned but always with the caveat of "he could have been Prince of XXX if not for..."? Surely such sources couldn't be used to support his inclusion in a royalty navbox? JoelleJay (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, although some titled people had privileges, their privileges were severable from their titles. The Duke of Westminster like all peers had the right to sit in the House of Lords. Now he doesn't. It doesn't mean he has ceased to be a duke. In fact calling him a duke is misleading because Westminster is not a duchy, it's a borough. And the duke has no authority beyond his private landholdings there. There's an Earl of Wessex although Wessex ceased to exist over 1,000 years age. It is basic policy in Wikipedia that articles reflect sources and editors do not use their expertise to correct the errors in reliable sources.
 * Regarding your comment about people who are not most notable for having royal heritage, COMMONNAME comes to the rescue. If they are not known by their titles, don't use them. Look at my example, David Thomson, 3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet. There is no need to include his title in his name. I persuaded other editors to remove the title of John Buchan, because he is not usually known by it.
 * TFD (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD, you'd think that would be enough, but these individuals are always edited back in based on their family members' (supposed) titles. There are multiple issues even with using COMMONNAME as guidance:
 * Inconsistency: do we list all the non-notable "issue" of a titled person as also being titled, or only the ones with reliable sources giving them a title? When a monarchy is extant, presumably we don't require sources explicitly calling someone "princess" for them to be titled as such in an article (for example, if a Saudi prince had a baby but RS didn't specifically call the infant "Princess X" or "the new princess", would we have to wait until such a source appeared before we could list her as a princess alongside her titled siblings on her parents' pages?). However, when royal titles are abolished and illegal, as is the case in Austria, to some extent in Germany, and in several other European countries, even with RS it would be POV to automatically title people and even more POV to place them in categories with legally-recognized holders of that title. Not to mention OR to do so without any sourcing.
 * How many RS does it take for a person to "receive" a title in wikivoice? Does legal recognition not matter at all, with just a one-sentence mention from a royalty-enthusiast magazine or "laughably sloppy" unquestionably biased royal genealogy book announcing his birth being enough to call someone "archduke" and place him in all archduke categories? See for example the constant conflict over how to refer to Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg and his family (most recently was this between  and, but the conflict has been ongoing for a ). Mind you, this is a dude with his own notable career unrelated to his ancestry; whose coverage pretty unambiguously indicates a non-noble COMMONNAME; whose claim to a title is disrupted not only by it having been constitutionally abolished and made illegal three generations earlier, but also by his grandfather formally renouncing all royal pretensions for himself and his descendants. He is still titled "Archduke Ferdinand" in the Austrian Royalty: House of Habsburg-Lorraine navbar, the Austrian archdukes navbox, and the Austrian princes category. Is it just not possible to lose a title, even if you wouldn't be allowed in your home country if you didn't disclaim it?
 * Re: British peerage: Britain still recognizes, grants, and regulates nobility; titles are legally granted via prerogative powers confided to the sovereign. There is no sovereign authority recognizing or granting nobility in the countries in question, and their regulation takes the form of abolishing and outlawing nobility. In Austria, public titles, like those held by all the men in our Archdukes of Austria navbox up to and including Otto, ceased to exist in 1918. Use of the titles in Austria is illegal, but if it weren't they would still be considered private rather than public and only accorded internationally as a courtesy, which is a pretty fundamental difference separating family members born pre- and post-1918. And it's not a modern or Wikipedia-only or even particularly controversial interpretation that noble titles are lost upon the dissolution of the granting kingdom or constitutional abolition--much of international law and relations is founded on the philosophy of Kant, who in the 18th century said in The Metaphysics of Morals Hence, if the State alters its constitution, no one who thereby loses his title and rank would be justified in saying that what was his own had been taken from him; because he could only call it his own under the condition of the continued duration of the previous form of the State. Obviously I'm not advocating using OR here, just countering DWC LR's claim that only a couple Wikipedia editors care at all about who is titled. JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep comparing British nobility/ royal titles with these defunct ones. They are not comparable.  British royal and noble positions still exist. Austria,Germany. other countries specifically ABOLISHED them, they do not exist any more, there's no such thing,  there is an infinity of reliable sources to that effect. Pretending otherwise is delusional or misinformed. Smeat75 (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not bound to reflect the laws of certain countries in how it refers to people. Even the previous President of Germany was perfectly happy to address Franz, Duke of Bavaria as “Herzog Franz” and “Königliche Hoheit”. It’s only a small fringe that either care or get animated about this issue. To the majority it’s a harmless tradition and long established custom. Which in terms of Wikipedia is backed up by Reliable Sources. - dwc lr (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't (only) about how Wikipedia refers to people, but how it treats an item defined externally from the person. The items in a category should meet definitional criteria according to the parent article; currently our articles on these titles state they were abolished, that their last holder was so-and-so, that there is no legal recognition of them. These statements are supported by government and academic sources explicitly detailing the status of the title; therefore we would need sources of equivalent weight specifically documenting any new title status if we wanted to expand the definition. Even then it would require consensus to state that this new definition overrides the prior definition. This is in accordance with our categorization guidelines, which state an article's inclusion must be verifiable and have a neutral point of view, and the category must be a defining characteristic. JoelleJay (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No legal recognition in the host country. You’ve got the law of Germany saying titles don’t exist. Yet you’ve got a Sovereign State saying a member of its family is HRH The Princess of Hanover. We are guided by Reliable Sources say, not what a law says. As far as I’m aware the Constitution of Argentina says it has sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, does that make it so? Lots of reliable sources recognise titles even if the laws of a certain country don’t. We are not bound by the laws of anyone country, just because X country says Y the rest of the world does not have to recognise Y. There are also countless laws that are ignored and not enforced, even the President of Germany didn’t care. - dwc lr (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the laws of Austria say, it's what reliable sources say. Note that British titles have no legal status except where recognized by law. Irish and Scottish titles don't even have legal status in England. The concern seems to be that editors are creating articles about non-notable people who claim to hold noble titles. Well delete them. Titles don't confer notability. Incidentally, the name North Korea is not the legal name of the country, yet we use it in Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The concern seems to be that editors are creating articles about non-notable people who claim to hold noble titles. Where do you get the idea that this is the concern? How would this apply to Ferdinand von Habsburg, who is notable as a race car driver? And would you agree that the Austrian government and academic articles on the nobility in Austria are reliable sources on the title "Archduke of Austria"? Not on a particular person, but the status of the title itself. Also, what does it matter whether an Irish title has legal status in the UK (Scottish peers have been recognized since 1963), or that North Korea is officially the DPRK (we cite academic and governmental sources on the name to support our name usage, which is what should be used for titles too if you are really trying to make this comparison)? JoelleJay (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , reliable sources say that Austria does not have an archduke. Sources reliable for genealogy claim that there is one, or at least imply it from lineage, but they are a lower tier of source than the sources that describe the end of the Austrian monarchy. Seriously, it's like Arthur King of the Britons, but in reverse. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Austria has not had an archduke since 1804, when the archduchy was absorbed into the Austrian Empire and the title was assigned to the emperor's heir apparent. In the German duchies, when the dukes abdicated, they no longer used the title of duke, instead using the title of prince, which was the title assigned to the sons of reigning dukes in the German Empire. Similarly Wales was incorporated into England and ceased to have a prince, but the title Prince of Wales was assigned to the heir apparent to the English throne. The Queen not her son is the sovereign of Wales. I totally agree that we should not refer to people using offices they do not hold, such as Emperor of Germany, Austria or Russia, or King of Italy or Greece or Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. TFD (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, all those titles were officially and legally changed/assigned by sovereign authorities, permitting use of titles no longer landed to extant regions. The exact same thing happened here: the sovereign authority constitutionally changed the titles--they were abolished. If we acknowledge the governmental decrees that shift a ducal title to a princely one, or the monarchic prerogative to redefine an incorporated state's princely title, or the various effects of switching from absolute to constitutional monarchy, why don't we do the same when the sovereign authority eliminates a title fully? After all, nobiliary law is/was generally codified or at least empowered by language in state constitutions (e.g. Article 14 of the 1815 Constitution of the German Confederation, which explicitly preserved the titles and privileges of the princely houses the Confederation united). It was the state, not the heads of houses, that enforced the family contracts governing succession rights. JoelleJay (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this the winner?
Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia is "[a] member of the Royal House of Yugoslavia". That's a remarklable feat given that Yuygoslavia hasn't existed since 1992, and the Yugoslavia that had a monarchy (unlike the 1945 foundation, which was a Communist republic) only existed for 25 years, ending 15 years before his birth. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And what is he known as? Prince Dimitri, but sure let’s just make up a name for him. Do we think it’s the English Karageorgevitch, the Serb version, maybe it’s the French de Yougoslavie like his brother could be. Shall we just pick one out of a hat? - dwc lr (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , he brands himself as Prince Dimitri. It's a marketing name. His name is Dimitri Karageorgevich. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ignoring the fact you have not given any reliable source saying what his surname is, you’re now saying some surnames are translated then? Thereby contradicting what you have said initially in your first post in this thread, where you say there not. As Karageorgevich is not the Serbian version. - dwc lr (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , they exist, but let's be clear here: Yugoslavia does not have a monarchy. And pretending it does? That's a really bad idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I would add that as well as a monarchist bias in using these titles, there could also be an anti-Italian and anti-German bias in some cases, acting as if the unification of these countries in the mid-19th century, which swept aside various mini-states like Tuscany and Hanover, never happened. PatGallacher (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Ireland is a republic but there is nonetheless an Earl of Limerick and a Duke of Leinster. Noble titles are near-forbidden in Ireland. GPinkerton (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Frank Gehry
My evaluation of the article is that it unduly leans towards embellishing favorable points of view and make excessive use of direct opinion quotes and quotations of subject'self statements. There is an excessive amount of indiscriminate images as well. Furthermore, the article contains editorialized puffery like "prestigious" "famous" that are not properly cited or cited at all. I've made changes to those and left detailed edit, but it has not been a productive engagement with My Beyond My Ken and I would like additional inputs and edit.

" This designation stems from the Los Angeles area's producing a group of the most influential postmodern architects, including such notable Gehry contemporaries as Eric Owen Moss and Pritzker Prize-winner Thom Mayne of Morphosis, as well as the famous schools of architecture at the Southern California Institute of Architecture (co‑founded by Mayne), UCLA, and USC, where Gehry is a member of the board of directors.[citation needed]"

"Gehry is known for his sometimes cantankerous personality. During a trip to Oviedo, Spain, to accept the prestigious Prince of Asturias Award in October 2014, he received a significant amount of attention, both positive and negative, for publicly flipping off a reporter at a press conference who accused him of being a "showy" architect." (this is unsupportable for sources provided within the article) Graywalls (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Since Graywalls has not made any argument on the article talk page to support his edits, and instead came here, this is forumshopping before the fact. If Graywalls makes arguments on the article page and is not successful, and he feels that his arguments have been treated unfairly, then he can come here, but NPOVN is not intended to be a substitute for discussion on the article talk page.I will move Graywalls comment verbatim to the article talk page, so that discussion can begin there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Everything I've done is explained in summary. You continue to restore things including weasel words that can not be attributed to sources, so this is a NPOV issue. Graywalls (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This looks to me like a routine content dispute that should be discussed and debated in detail at Talk:Frank Gehry. I see that a discussion is in its early stages there. Why bring this here at this time, ? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've browsed through the talk history; as well as user continuing to restore weasel that can not be substantiated by sources. I felt it'd be better to have neutral set of eyes look over. Graywalls (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how the talk page looks to me, . Haven't you been asked to explain and discuss your edits? That is your responsibility if you want your edits to stand. You need consensus. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Can all sources still treated as valid despite a considerable time has passed and proved that the interpretation in that source is not true ?
Not all news-articles or sources maintain a neutral point of view nor have a true depiction of the fact. There are a few articles that still have some claims based out of old sources which have been proved wrong by little more recent sources. If there are recent sources of information that have a better factual and intelligent interpretation of facts, can those sources be treated as a reason to correct the articles ? If so, will it be appropriate for someone to raise a flag saying that it's in violation of WP:NPOV if such edits are reverted by another editor/author ? RamRaghubn (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Without some examples its hard to say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources can become outdated. And we do favor updated sources over outdated ones. To know whether a specific source has become outdated, we would need to look at the specific source in question. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But it depends a lot on what is meant by "outdated", the implication of "little more recent sources" is something rather less then modern Vs old scholarship, so much as a new theory that may not in fact even be a mainstream view yet. So we also have to take into account issues like wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a complicated question. For example, Robert Blake's biography of Disraeli is now over fifty years old, but it's still the modern standard. It's been supplemented by other books. Adam Kirsch's recent short volume on Disraeli's Jewishness is probably preferred over Blake on that topic because Kirsch focused on that aspect of Disraeli's life. Kirsch himself discusses Blake as the standard biography and relies on him; anyone writing about Disraeli today will spend some time explaining the relationship of their work to Blake's, and possibly also to Monypenny & Buckle, the previous standard biography. Blake himself discussed at length how his approach was different from M&B; this included (a) using sources that M&B did not have access to, (b) using sources that M&B deliberately suppressed, and (c) his own judgments and interpretations, which he clearly indicated in the main text. Moving back to the general, a source can be old but not outdated. In an ideal world, newer sources explicitly state that the old source has been superseded. In a less ideal world, if we're confronted with sources that appear to conflict but no reliable sources have stated that they conflict, then that's a judgment call. Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm also in the depends camp. The Mother Jones report on the Ford Pinto has not aged well.  An article on best practices in surgical methods is like to age out rather quickly.  An article on the contemporary capabilities of the world wide web even more so!  However, a 100 year old text book talking about the fundamental statics and the equations of beam deflection is just as valid today as it was back then.  I think this is something where you have to see if newer work has invalidated the older work.  Springee (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the question relates to news reports... which can become outdated rather quickly. If we state something as fact, based on a news report, and subsequent reporting updates what that original report says, we SHOULD update what we say to match the subsequent updated news reports. However, This does not mean we must always remove the content... sometimes, how the press reported on an event is part of the story we need to tell... and if so, we can note that “initial reporting said X, but subsequent reporting said Y.” Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of speculating about generalities or discussing my favorite case of sources, I took a look at 's recent edits and found this. RamRaghubn, nowhere in either the article history edit summaries nor in the talk page discussion do you identify any supposed "more recent sources" which prove that is justified.  If you want to claim that a new source supersedes and older one, you need to actually present it and not make a vague handwave to newer sources exist.  As it stands now, your removal is not justified under WP:NPOV or the sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Slatersteven, User:Blueboar, User:Eggishorn, User:Springee, and User:Mackensen that definitely has helped to get a definite answer to my question. RamRaghubn (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then wp:notnews comes into it. I have long argued we should wait at least a month before having articles on current events. But "it depends" still applies. More recent does not always mean "more accurate" in news stories.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Article detailing extremist ideology Anti-Japaneseism probably doesn't meet WP:NPOV
Copy pasted from the talk page:

"The wording in this article is extremely suspicious.


 * Anti-Japaneseism radicalized this argument by claiming that even communist revolution could not redeem Japan because the Japanese themselves possess an inherent "aggressive nature".
 * Proponents of this theory believe that the only way to redeem oneself from the "oppressor and criminal Japanese race" is to fight against all Japanese interests until the "Japanese" archipelago has been purged of anything Japanese.
 * The so-called "final solution" of Anti-Japaneseism is to wipe the nation called "Japan" from the face of the earth and exterminate the Japanese race.
 * A section titled: Strategy to extinguish Japanese ethnicity

There's a genuine possibility this could be neutral but I'm going to use my Occam's razor here and say that either:


 * This is a hoax.
 * This is an ideology that is so radically fringe, with so few members, that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards.
 * It is, in some way, being inaccurately represented.

I have full confidence that, considering this article is only linked to by eleven actual articles that are, for the most part, obscure topics themselves, this article is not going to have enough traffic to be source-vetted by a native Japanese speaker. Despite this, it seems to have been linked to or cited on numerous online sources where some degree of political discussion, however immature, is bound to take place. For this reason, I'm going to copy-paste this message onto the NPOV noticeboard so someone more knowledgeable than me can take a look at the issue."

96.55.212.210 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Men Going Their Own Way
the article "me going their own way" has been warring. users declaring the movement is anti feminist as well as misogynist instead of making claims that the "movement" has links to anti-feminism, misogyny and so fourth

an other concern is an article pertaining to domestic abuse has been deleted or redirected to an an article with a feminist bias instead of a being gender neutral.

sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.181.41 (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree: In my view, this article has failed WP:NPOV at least since April 2018. I recommend reversion to the article version on 00:30, 23 February 2018‎ and start over from there by adding a "Criticisms" section that meets the WP:NPOV standard. I also recommend that after the reversion-plus action, the article protection level be bumped up to WP:Full protection. The criticisms could be summarized at the end of the intro but both the main part of the intro and the added criticisms need to be NPOV. Smulthaup (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No attempt has been made by this user to engage on the talk page constructively. --Jorm (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Please do not refactor other users' comments as you did with the IP's comment above (WP:TPNO). As I've said over at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way, the first step in addressing an NPOV concern is to discuss it on the talk page of the article. I would recommend being more specific about your concerns, rather than suggesting we revert the page to a 2-year-old version as you originally did there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Smulthaup (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC) I propose the following edit to the intro section to make it NPOV. This proposed intro includes 100% of the sourced content from the current article plus sourced content from the February and April 2018 versions:


 * Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW ) is a mostly pseudonymous online community supported by websites and social media presences cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage.  The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere. .  According to the columnist Martin Daubney, members of the MGTOW community believe that legal and romantic entanglements with women fail a cost–benefit analysis and risk–benefit analysis.


 * Mainstream critics such as Scott Wright, Angela Nagle, Donna Zuckerberg, and the Southern Poverty Law Center claim that MGTOW is is an anti-feminist, misogynist, online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism. These critics claim the manosphere is a collection of anti-feminist websites and online communities that also includes the men's rights movement, incels, pickup artists, alt-right and white supremacist movements, and it has been implicated in online harassment of women. The Southern Poverty Law Center categorizes MGTOW as a part of the male supremacist ideology, a category they began tracking on their hate group tracking project, Hate Map, in 2018.

Smalthaup has posted this same thing over at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way and I've replied there, so I won't bother copying my response here unless someone particularly wants me to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.  Dumuzid (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure why Smulthaup has copied only a small portion of our discussion from the talk page to here—I have wrapped it in a tqb so it doesn't look like I'm replying to thin air. Any outside observers who wish to weigh in should probably read the full conversation at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way, where I've also explained that it is not some kind of "compromise" for them to acquiesce on one bad suggestion in order to get a second bad suggestion added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, Smulthaup is begging for a topic ban from gender issues, broadly construed, based on CIR and IDHT.--Jorm (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Title IX - Sexual harassment and sexual violence
This entire section is severely biased toward the progressive agenda mentioning only cases of claimed victims of sexual harassment and not providing any standing for false accusation.

The following excerpt clearly exhibits the bias : "The Trump administration has made changes to guidelines that were implemented during the Obama administration. These changes shift the determination of sexual assault from "preponderance of the evidence" to a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, which is typically used for civil cases in which serious allegations are made (as opposed to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases).[68] On September 22, 2017, US Department of Education Secretary Betsy Devos rescinded the Obama-era guidelines which had prodded colleges and universities to more aggressively investigate campus sexual assaults"

Whereas the Obama-era guidelines did NOT prod universities to aggressively INVESTIGATE  of sexual assault, but merely provided a platform for universities to punish the accused without representation or due process.

There was never a "preponderance of evidence" standard because the accusation alone provided that in the realm of unqualified personnel within colleges. Rather, the updated Title IX is designed to restore DUE PROCESS so that all involved can expect fair and unbiased treatment.

For more info on the new Title IX: https://www.thefire.org/new-title-ix-regulations-carefully-balance-the-rights-of-all-students/?fbclid=IwAR2fFtZvnbbYuGULpEYAjXnOFcZ_qgGh_srMUl44t_HLYECqG1WRIGHD6kM

This whole Wiki article should be reviewed and at least provide a reference to the FIRE (https://www.thefire.org/) organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdelapointe (talk • contribs) 09:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure that would pass wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * We have an article on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education which looks as though it's mainly written by its supporters, although the talk page suggests it was less pov in the past. For instance it doesn't mention that it was a member of the State Policy Network - a network of conservative and libertarian think groups - at one time, or its affiliations with the Cato Institute. Or that, according to an article in the Virginia Law Review, "Despite FIRE’s self-characterization as a nonpartisan foundation, its “funding, board members, and closest associations are heavily right wing.”. So certainly it's not a non-partisan source - and its article needs a rewrite for NPOV. Doug Weller  talk 10:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Radio Farda
Looks like there is some POV pushing going on, but I am having trouble figuring out what the NPOV should be. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , what sort of POV pushing are you seeing? Previous edits mention criticism of the outlet (which would certainly help neutralize some aspects of the article). I think the NPOV should recognize that this is a US-Government funded media organization and has a particular agenda, but that it's provided a small sense of editorial freedom. Additionally, while its aims are clear, whether it is successful in those aims is another story (see Radio y Televisión Martí) Bkissin (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * How do you imagine that US government would react if Iran set up a high powered transmitter in Cuba with the stated goal of "Advancing the goals of Iranian foreign policy against the United States" and "countering U.S. ideology-based media coverage"? How do you think Wikipedia would cover that? I am seeing a few right-leaning US sources and a few sources from Radio Farda itself but zero Iranian or pro-Iranian sources. A NPOV article would contains the Iranian side of the story as well. Things like "...Radio Farda journalists being unjustly convicted of crimes against the state" only tell one side of the story. Does Iran unjustly convict journalists? Almost certainly. Does Iran justly convict so-called journalists who are actually CIA agents? Almost certainly. Is citing only US sources on the question of whether these particular journalists are CIA agents NPOV? Sources that are not in a position to know whether someone is or is not a CIA agent? I don't think so. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is heavily slanted toward US government viewpoints, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:GLOBAL. In contrast, we have reasonably balanced articles about Radio Liberty (a similar US government effort during the Cold War) and Freedom House (which is cited in the Radio Farda article as if it's an unbiased source). NightHeron (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

battered person syndrome
The "battered person syndrome" article pertaining to domestic abuse has been deleted or redirected to an an article with a feminist bias instead of a being gender neutral.

sincerely

20:12, 29 July 2020‎ 216.180.181.41

@user:216.180.181.41 See the talk page for that article: the consensus was to merge "battered person syndrome" and "battered woman syndrome" to "battered woman syndrome" as almost of all of the literature about the subject pertained to women, and the more common name used in courts is "battered woman syndrome". If more articles and cases focused on gender neutral attacks using this term, then the Wikipedia article may be changed. Changing the title without those sources would be original research. If you would like to read about domestic abuse against men and other people, then see those respective articles. Also, your use of "feminism" is a bit inaccurate here, as the primary idea of feminism is gender equality and neutrality. RealSanix (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Scott Adams


"On July 1, 2020, Adams predicted" something. Then something else happened which someone interpreted as that something, but too early. No reliable source noticed that, but User:WikiFan11427 did and wrote it into the article. The same user also wrote more observations and opinions there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest restoring it back to the last version before that editor made their changes, for a more discerning discussion. BD2412  T 18:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Iqbal and Rumi
NPOV patrollers may want to look in to the RfC on Rumi and Iqbal, where two editors have been removing mentions of Iqbal, apparently because they object to connecting him to Pakistan rather than India. --Macrakis (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It possible that a good-faith mention of Pakistan in this article might be justified, but the revert warriors don't have the right idea. In my opinion, reverting 'Pakistan' in and out of the article is enough reason to give people an alert under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

New Federal State of China - a real government in exile or a publicity exercise?
The article treats this as a real thing rather than what it appears to be, some sort of publicity attempt - my web search turned up nothing that indicates it exists. It even uses the country infobox. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Chinese Foreign ministers comment, "To these absurd statements, to this farce, I don’t have any interest in commenting" about sums it up, definite merge. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a NPOV issue in the Helmut Norpoth description?
There is a disagreement between myself and another editor CentristCentrist regarding the Wikipedia page on Helmut Norpoth. Norpoth is a political scientist who created a model for predicting US Presidential Election results. His 2020 model and results were published on March 2, 2020, declaring that President Donald Trump had a 91% chance of winning re-election. (This model has since been criticized for not taking into account the fall-out of the COVID-19 pandemic, but this is I don't believe necessary to include on the Norpoth page.) In August 2020, Stonybrook University wrote an article sharing these same results (https://news.stonybrook.edu/facultystaff/maverick-modeller-helmut-norpoth-predicts-another-win-for-trump/).

My concern is with the following statement in the Wikipedia article: "On August 3, 2020 Norpoth stated that his model gave incumbent United States President Donald Trump a 90% chance of winning re-election amidst his strong stance on law and order in response to riots across the US between June and September 2020." I believe this statement is non-neutral for the following reasons: (1) The statement implies that Norpoth first stated his model outcome in Aug 2020, when in fact it was published in March 2020; (2) It gives the impression that the model's outcome is based on Donald Trump's stance on law and order in response to riots, when again, the model predates any such "riots", and (3) The term riots may be misconstrued as purposely inflammatory and dismissive of legitimate protests against police brutality. I proposed a change to matter-of-fact language, which was reversed by the other editor.

I am requesting others' input as I believe politically-neutral language is preferable when editing Wikipedia. UltravioletAlien (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)(talk) 17:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the two cited references don’t even mention Norpoth, and the other doesn’t mention anything regarding "riots" nor "law and order" as you mentioned. These fail verifiability, so I have removed them for the time being. About the wording about Norpoth making those statements on the Stony Brook website in August or not, that does seem ambiguous.By the way, you need to post the NPOV notice on User talk:CentristCentrist, not here. — MarkH21talk 21:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback and for the correction, I am awful at figuring out the wikipedia codes! Cheers. (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries! But you need to literally paste  on their talk page, not  — MarkH21talk 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a NPOV issue in inferring a description based on behaviour for Drew Pavlou?
There's some disagreement between myself and another editor if Drew Pavlou is just a student activist, or if it's okay to call him an anti-Chinese government student activist based on his activism. My claim is that since a supermajority (I think I counted 13 out of 19 news sources) describe Pavlou's activism and his notability as anti-Chinese government, it therefore is okay to describe Pavlou as an anti-Chinese government student activist. FOARP claims that it is a violation to infer this and that it gives undue weight to terms that don't support Pavlou.

Examples of what I mean by descriptions of his activism:
 * "[Pavlou's] on-campus activism... criticising the Chinese Communist Party"
 * "known for his criticism of Beijing"
 * "vocal critic of China"
 * "activism on campus against the Chinese Communist Party".

Is there a NPOV issue in describing someone based on their activism? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The sources are divided, using a range of decriptions. I think the problem with your suggestion of "anti-Chinese government student activist" is that it suggests that that is all he is, and indeed that an "anti-Chinese government student activist" is a well defined thing one can be, while the sources see him as a "student activist" who is best known for his criticisms of the Chinese government. So perhaps the first sentence should be something like "Drew Pavlou is an Australian student activist, suspended student and former university senator from the University of Queensland who is best known for his criticisms of the Chinese government.[1][2][3][4]" Though one could argue that since the whole of the second paragraph of the lede fleshes out this point there is no need to add it to the opening sentence. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'm unaware of any activism of his that isn't critical of the Chinese government. That being said, I'm happy to compromise with something like you've suggested . Consequentially, I'd probably merge the last sentence of the second paragraph in the lead: How is that for you? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, but that level of detail is really a matter for the article's talk page. Glancing at the discussions there, they have clearly become quite heated but I don't think the actual disagreement is quite as deep as it first appears, and it looks to me that something like this compromise might work. It's usually better to concentrate on what people have done or are known for, for which it is usually easy to obtain sourcing, rather than on what they are, which can easily lead to disagreements and suggestions of WP:OR. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 👍 I've updated the article with this, and I'll use the talk page for any more changes. I think the talk page was just becoming too flared and heated as you said to be effective in actually reaching a conclusion (which is my fault as much as anyone elses) :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

NYPD article lead again: "crime rate has declined", "public support for the NYPD"
Editors on the NYPD article keep edit-warring text into the lead that says:


 * "The crime rate in New York City has been declining over the last few decades"
 * "public support for the NYPD is generally favorable"

None of this content is covered in the body. Furthermore, the poll used to support the claim that public support for the NYPD is favorable also says that most respondents consider "police corruption" and "police brutality" to be serious problems. It seems like a clear-cut NPOV problem to only mention parts of a poll that are positive while omitting mixed or negative parts. That said, I'm generally very opposed to including survey results in leads unless its for organizations or policies whose notability and importance is tied to their level of public support (e.g. Social Security, the War on Terror, Obamacare) or whose level of public support is unique. The mention of the "crime rate" was addressed in a previous NPOV discussion (this board unanimously rejected its inclusion), but has been added again. The suggestion to readers is that the NYPD is the reason for the declining crime rate, which is not substantiated by the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "including survey results in leads" If it not covered in the body, it should not be included in the lead. However it is reasonable to include survey results in the body. The declining crime rate should not be attributed to the NYPD when no sources support the connection. Dimadick (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Please note there was a recent RFC on this issue, which is probably worth taking into consideration: Talk:New_York_City_Police_Department Tobus (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It is Snooganssnoogans who is edit warring. Their version which is only negative is clearly disfavored per this discussion (it was an RfC, but was never officially closed). We can see in the edit history there was ongoing effort from all editors to develop consensus. Weeks later (waiting to see if certain editors would be out of the way?) Snooganssnoogans shows up again and tries to implement a POV lead that does not mention that the NYPD has public support, but does mention criticism. Yeah, the polling does mention negative aspects, but it also mentions the positive ones. The argument about WP:LEAD is irrelevant - the solution is to add that material to the body, not to make the lead be all negative and thus create a misrepresentation of what people and sources think of the NYPD. The article is not a WP:SOAPBOX for summer 2020 Defund the Police activism. I also see no reason not to include the crime stats. The part about crime declining could be discussed IMO (I haven't checked the sources thoroughly), but Snooganssnoogans ran here instead in favor of a version that obviously fails NPOV. Crossroads -talk- 01:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My behavior is entirely in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I have reverted newly added content to the lead. The content in question was contested, is not in the body, and has the support of only two editors. That is entirely consistent with WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. After one of my reverts, I sought input on the NPOV noticeboard and received unanimous support for my proposed revert (removing text which claimed that the broken windows policy brought down the crime rate). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Newly added" 3 weeks ago. And you were apparently fine with the public support aspect then, but then tried to remove it now. Hmm. The "not in the body" aspect has been taken care of. Crossroads -talk- 02:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What a strange attempt at a gotcha. I literally added the full poll results for actual balance and to reflect what the source said, which is what NPOV requires (and what the crux of my complain is about). When you say the body aspect has been "taken care of", you're referring to you just now copy-pasting the exact same sentences from the lead into the body. That's WP:TENDENTIOUS and inconsistent with the spirit of the WP:LEAD which is that the lead is supposed to be constructed from the body, not vice versa. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not tendentious or against any perceived "spirit" at all. It should have been covered in the body no matter what and now it is. Crossroads -talk- 03:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The full sentence in question is: "The crime rate in New York City has been declining over the last few decades[12][13][14] and public support for the NYPD is generally favorable,[15][16] although critics highlight instances of police brutality and corruption, as well as discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality."
 * It is intended, as per the RFC, to be a more neutral statement than: "The NYPD has an extensive history of police brutality, misconduct, and corruption, as well as discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality.[9][10][11][12][13][14] Critics, including from within the NYPD, have accused the NYPD of rampantly manipulating crime statistics.[15][16] The NYPD has a culture of retaliation against whistleblowers and resisting attempts at criminal justice reform.[16]"
 * I feel like both the context and the content have been misconstrued here and would advise reviewers not to take the complainant's statement as a necessarily accurate representation, and to look at the Talk page discussion and Edit History in making your assessment. In particular, contrary to the opening paragraph of this discussion:
 * * There is no edit war
 * * The phrases raised for review are the results of an RFC to bring NPOV to the lede
 * * Corruption and brutality *are* mentioned, in the very same sentence
 * * There are no survey results in the lede (although a poll and a news article on a survey are used as references)
 * * The previous NPOV disucssion was about the mention of broken windows policing, not "crime rate".
 * * The text removed after the previous NPOV discussion has not been added again.
 * * The lede does not suggest that the NYPD is responsible for the decline in crime (it suggests that the decline in crime is responsible for the general public support of the NYPD)
 * Tobus (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Most of those bullet points are inaccurate or misleading. You've edit-warred text that does not have consensus into the lead. No RfC has been conducted on the language you want in the lead and no one except you and Crossroads have advocated for the language that is under dispute. I want to highlight the last bullet point: "The lede does not suggest that the NYPD is responsible for the decline in crime (it suggests that the decline in crime is responsible for the general public support of the NYPD)" – There is absolutely nothing in the body of the Wikipedia article or in any of the sources for this iffy-sounding causal claim. It's absurd that it's in the lead of a major article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The phrasing implies connections between the police, the fall in crime and police popularity, which is implicit synthesis. TFD (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've re-removed the phrase about the drop in crime rates. Crossroads -talk- 02:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there's a geniune connection between the fall in crime and police popularity that is well documented and isn't being disputed (eg ), it's the connection between the NYPD and lower crime that is controversial... is there a better way to phrase it to avoid the SYNTH concerns? Tobus (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your source says, "Residents’ perception of the level of crime and disorder in their neighborhood was a significant factor shaping their opinion of the police." It doesn't say that if crime rates drop that makes the police popular. The data could probably be interpreted differently anyway. Middle class people like police and live in safe neighborhoods. Poor people are less likely to like police and more likely to live in cheaper, higher crime neighborhoods. Middle class people are more likely to see the police as protecting them while poorer people are more likely to see them as harassing them. Gentrification in NYC has led to both lower crime and a population more likely to have a positive view of police in general. TFD (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true that Tobus would need a source explicitly connecting (1) reduced crime to (2) public support for (3) the NYPD to add anything of that sort to the article. But, for the record, your point about poor people is unsupported and likely small in size if there is such a phenomenon. Regarding Black Americans - who are more likely than other surveyed groups to be in poverty and who frankly have the most reason to dislike police - 81% want the police to spend an equal or greater amount of time in their area (61% the same, 20% more). Crossroads -talk- 02:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Gallup, in 2015, 43 percent of blacks had a positive opinion of police compared with 70% of whites. And yes you are right that want the police to spend more time in their area, but that doesn't necessarily mean they support them. Before we make claims like that we need reliable sources. (I imagine you got the statistics from a right-wing editorial.) TFD (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1: "Prior victimization, especially violent crime victimization, significantly lowered residents’ approval of the police... 57 percent of respondents who were violent crime victims and 70 percent who were property (but not violent) crime victims approved of police performance. In comparison, 85 percent of residents who were not crime victims approved of the job their local police were doing. This pattern held for respondents’ opinions of officer demeanor, although the difference in perceptions between crime victims and nonvictims was not as great. The lower approval ratings for crime victims are consistent with past research." - higher crime (ie less victims) = lower police approval, lower crime = higher police approval.
 * 2: It's a nice theory, but gentrification has simply moved poverty around within the city, the poverty rate hasn't really changed much since the 90s, whereas crime has decreased well over 50% in the same period, see https://nickconwayblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/chart-21.png (from
 * Tobus (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While that would make a fascinating discussion at our Young Republican Campus Club, articles must reflect sources, not our interpretation of them. And no source has said that lower crime rates have caused increased favorability of the NYPD. Even if such sources are found, it must be stated explicitly in the Wikipedia article and not implicitly, which is the problem with the edits that Snooganssnoogans identified.TFD (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , stop trying to discredit your opponents' statements by calling them right-wing. And that is the obvious intent of your repeated irrelevant statements about right-wing/Republican. Read WP:NPA: Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.
 * And as for Before we make claims like that we need reliable sources - and you don't need a reliable source for your claim that poorer people are more likely to see [police] as harassing them? Crossroads -talk- 05:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha! That's funny - I'm not American so the attempted slur when right over my head, I thought he was seriously saying he's a Young Republican! It's a bit concerning that this kind of political statement would appear on the NPOV noticeboard though, makes you wonder how "neutral" the reviewer can be. In any case I've proposed a suggested reworking below which I think may sidestep the issue, would appreciate constructive comments on its neutrality/non-synthesis. Tobus (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are expressing opinions American politics and have never heard of the Republican Party? The argument that blacks are satisfied with police and it is mostly privileged whites who complain about police mistreatment of blacks is a popular right-wing argument. See for example "Poll: Most Black Americans Want Police to Remain in Their Areas" in the U.S. conservative National Review. It conflates a desire for more police with popularity of police. But whether it's right or wrong, when arguments are inserted into articles, they must be presented explicitly and attributed. Articles should never make arguments implicitly, which is the problem with the wording of the text. It implies that police are popular because crime has declined and crime has declined because the police are doing their job. But we cannot assume a causal connection when there are other possible explanations. TFD (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't about politics, or race... perhaps you should excuse yourself from this NPOV discussion as you're quite clearly coming at it from an ideological basis, not an evidence-based one? I've already provided evidence that shows lower crime increases public opinion as well as evidence that your alternate theory about a change in class demographics (which _you've_ given zero evidence for) can't be the cause - class demographics in NYC are roughly the same as they were at the peak of crime (here's another one: "Results: The childhood poverty rate in New York City was steady over time, at 31% in 1990, 32% in 2000, and 32% in 2010, and those rates were significantly higher than national childhood poverty rates (22% in 2010).".
 * The point is moot anyway, the contested statement has already been removed and I've suggested an alternate way of including the same information in an NPOV/non-SYNTH way below - this is what we should be talking about, without letting our own personal politics get in the way.
 * Tobus (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You haven't provided any sources that lower crime increases public opinion and just your own selective interpretation of facts to show that lower levels of crime can be attributed to the police. And policing is a political issue. What do you think all those people out in the streets are there for? Why do you think the protests have polarized the U.S. along ideological lines? TFD (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But we're not policing, we're writing an encyclopedia... and in this particular case we are trying to ensure an article gives a neutral point of view. Leave your politics at home, *ESPECIALLY* on this noticeboard!
 * I'm really not sure what more evidence you're looking for: "the most important factors influencing favorable opinion of the police were ... less victimization, less fear of crime" clearly shows that less crime results in a more favourable opinion ("factors influencing" means they've got a range of crime levels, a range of opinions, and found an "important" correlation between them). Further down it also says "factors associated with lower approval ratings— such as residents’ perceptions that their neighborhoods are crime ridden" - "associated" is a statistical term meaning correlated. Indeed, in many studies low crime and public opinion of police are almost a tautology, eg this study uses how well the police are "fighting crime" as an implicit measure of public support! The two are not even separated! This seems so clear cut to me, are you sure it's not just that your ideology is getting in the way of reason?
 * Tobus (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But does that source tie it specifically to the NYPD? I may have missed it if it did, but if it doesn't, it's still better not to per SYNTH. Also, let's all agree to drop the accusations of ideology. If someone else does it, it's okay to point it out and ask them to stop, but it's better not to retaliate. Crossroads -talk- 03:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The DoJ source says that "Residents’ perception of the level of crime and disorder in their neighborhood was a significant factor shaping their opinion of the police." You can't use that statement to conclude that police are popular because crime declined. For one thing we don't have stats on whether police are more popular now than they were then. For another, we don't know what other factors were involved. For another thing, people's perception of crime rates and actual rates are not necessarily the same. As editors, we cannot examine the evidence and form a conclusion, we can only rely on the explicit conclusions in reliable sources. It's synthesis. TFD (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion
''The NYPD responded to nearly 500,000 reports of crime and made over 200,000 arrests during 2019, down from over 1 million when crime in New York peaked in the 1980s-1990s. Public support for the NYPD is generally favorable, although critics highlight instances of police brutality and corruption, as well as discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality.'' - would this resolve both WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH concerns? I think it successfully separates the drop in crime and the public support so there's no implication that they are connected. Tobus (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, except that it should include links to Police brutality and Police corruption. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 17:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Provided the numbers are sourced, this should be fine. I would suggest dividing the sentence about criticisms to two sections, to avoid a paragraph-long sentence. Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Cuties
Can people keep an eye on the Cuties aritlce? I'm sure you've all heard the controversy so I don't think I need to recount it here. There's a lot of editing by infrequently active users and lots of uses of dubious sources (like forbes blogs) which require a cleanup. Kind Regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Navid Afkari
I have been trying to clear the Navid Afkari article of original research and non-neutral content. However, User:Ali mjr keeps reverting it. The problem is their additions are trying to advance a certain point of view, namely that Afkari is innocent and the execution is unlawful. The additions also include original research. They admit as much on their.

Some examples of this content are:
 * calling the murder "alleged" (even though the defendant was convicted)
 * adding multiple quotes from the subject about the illegitimacy of his conviction, with certain parts bolded for emphasis
 * making unsourced claims about the lack of evidence: "For one, they used the CCTV footage of a street near where Torkman was found dead; The footage was from more than some two hours before Torkman's death and henceforth, one cannot base that as evidence."
 * other non-neutral and unsourced statements such as "Despite all the flaws in the murder case with the no actual footage of the murder scene and the false testimonies, the court persisted with holding Navid accountable."
 * otherwise engaging in original research by coming to conclusions based on reported facts: "This raises the questions as was this an actual execution by hanging or perhaps it was a mishap where Navid had been tortured to death, so officials said he was executed in order to avoid an even greater public anger."

I had previously opened a on the article's talk page, and also communicated on the user's talk page, but the user does not engage in dialogue and simply re-adds the content. ... disco spinster   talk  21:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

All the additions have been cited. If anyone had put the time to read and educate themselves on the matter, would know what is being said and why is being said. Everything that has been bolded is there for a reason and that is clear. To explain your call,
 * It is "alleged" because even though the defendant was convicted, the conviction was unlawful. The reasons as to why that is the case have been cited fully.
 * The addition of the included quotes was a must. Without them, the reader would never know that the convicted actually was against the ruling (as oppose to accepting the charges) and would think that a "criminal" had been justly executed. It is only fair to know both sides of any story.
 * All the claims are included with multiple sources somewhere in the text. You just did not bother putting the time to read the text fully, nor have you read the citations included.
 * Neutrality of a paragraph is independent of the truth. One might believe that the sky is yellow, but in reality, the sky is blue. There have been flaws in the case and there are no questions regarding that. There was no footage of the murder scene either, nor were the testimonies reliable. The citations are an affirmation of the preceding statements. Please read them.
 * there were no conclusions made. The final paragraph is an invitation for thinking. The reader is free to decide for themself.

I tried to answer you to the best I could but you did not want to listen, nor did you "simply" read the citations. There is nothing I can do when you turn a blind eye to what was said. mjrx (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC) am

GetUp! and Addressing NPOV Issues
The page for the progressive organization GetUp! seems to indicate biased reporting. Particularly with its insistence in pushing for a connection with George Soros and its repeated citing of the Morning Mail. Soros as I recall, is a figure commonly associated with various biases in his reporting, and is subject to various theories in regards to his political involvement. I am unfamiliar with the organization by-large and I would appreciate some insight onto what should be done for this page. Hopefully this is the correct venue to do so. --Ornithoptera (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Public opinion of Portland protests
Comments are requested here: Talk:George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon. Crossroads -talk- 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 SCOTUS vacancy
Hello all,

There's currently a dispute regarding NPOV (and SYNTH) over at Talk:2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy. Given the small editorship of the article, more eyes on the discussion couldn't go amiss. Sceptre (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Public Interest Legal Foundation
Hi, could I get some assistance at this article? I surfed in on a link last week and noticed the POV was seriously negative. I tidied up and added more info, including a notable lawsuit (see history). My edit was reverted, and I put up a POV tag, which has also been removed without discussion. Just made another effort to edit the intro to balance the POV, but the rewrite and info I added to the article last week have all been reverted again. Thanks for any help. Pkeets (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Concern on neutrality of the Spitnik V (vaccine) page
I have concern about this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gam-COVID-Vac

There is an ongoing dispute and editing wars between different "parties" which clearly indicates there is a neutrality issue. My main concern is the "Scientific assessment" section which is full of political statements and opinions of the official from different countries. I propose either to remove all the information in the section and replace it with the scientific research assessment or to rename it "Political and other statements of the officials from different countries and organizations", which it is now. It is very misleading to call "political and other statements" "scientific assessments". 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:102C:3581:147C:582F (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Recheck
can you tell me if this edit by this guy breaches pov rule for wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&diff=979414452&oldid=979248952 Baratiiman (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , personally, I can see both sides of this argument. However he explicitly states that there is no evidence of this being taken in Isfahan.  Heart  Glow (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * again  showing he won't need NPOV
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&diff=979907351&oldid=979881663
 * Baratiiman (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fashion_in_Iran&diff=980451588&oldid=980441033 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yousef_Tabatabai_Nejad&diff=980451190&oldid=980427046 Baratiiman (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Iran&oldid=prev&diff=980594867 Baratiiman (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&type=revision&diff=980594777&oldid=980594561 Baratiiman (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Addressing bias (Robert E. Lee Academy)
To Whom it may concern: There is currently an ongoing dispute regarding NPOV of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee_Academy You can see it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_E._Lee_Academy

or in the revision history. I left a lot of edits requests for BillHPike, Jacona but those editors ignored most of my reasoning. I think the editors are clearly biased and cannot edit the page from the NPOV. Here is the proof of their bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Billhpike/Archive_4 The section “Rober E. Lee Academy “ Jakona (the editor heavily involved in the editing) cites: “I believe that the article is WP:NPOV because it doesn't delve sufficiently into the white supremacy. The naming of the school for Lee, a man who was famous as a traitor to the U.S., a slaveholder, and a particularly violent one, and an emblem of white power needs far more attention. Some of this can be found here. More about Lee as a slaveholder, torturer, murderer, traitor, and symbol of white supremacy is easily sourced.” Question: how the person who edit encyclopedia can neutrally edit the page on the same topic? While Robert E. Lee page is balanced and neutral, this cannot be said about the school.

The most important thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_addressing_bias

Due to the bias, the editors refuse to see the positive changes for the school for the last years and use the information in the sources selectively to reflect their bias opinion. Even a request to change the page name by using proper sources, was rejected. I’m asking non-biased editors to come and read the Talk page and check the page for neutrality.

Disclaimer: I also have a conflict of interest and I admitted it on my talk page. I only asked for the edits requests according to the Wikipedia policy. Fritzsmith20 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Balanced and neutral" does not mean complimentary. It is well-sourced that Lee was a slaveholder who violently beat his slaves until their flesh was a blood pulp and poured brine on their wounds. He was a traitor to the United States and is frequently used as a symbol of repression of African-Americans. In contrast to the verbage above, Lee's page discusses his slaveholding, his brutality towards slaves, and more.
 * It appears that the editors idea of "neutral" point of view is actually the idea to whitewash the article of any factual history.
 * While User talk:Fritzsmith20 claims the school has changed it's name, and even provided a source, I checked court records and found that there is a different corporation of that name elsewhere in the state that uses the "new" name, and has for decades. The newspaper articles about the subject stated that they were changing the name but hadn't yet done so officially. Based on that, I didn't think it's wise to move the article to the "new" name - they're probably not going to be able to use the new name. If it's appropriate to change the name based on the fact the school changed it on their website and acknowledged the change wasn't yet official, have at it!Jacona (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Jacona, after all what you said on BillHPike’ Talk Page, (see your own words cited above) I doubt that you can edit Lee Academy page without bias and I don’t think it is appropriate to edit on this topic while representing your own ideology. Do you have any conflict of interest related to the subject, such as your friends or relatives related somehow to the topic? If “yes”, please, recognize it as I did on my page and give unbiased editors to do their volunteer work properly.
 * Regarding the school name. Your refusal to update the school page is beyond any reason and looks more like an attempt to use Wikipedia knowledge only to prevent the inevitable. The new school name reflects our policy change and it looks like you feel uncomfortable about it. I have a feeling that you wish to punish the school for its past issues (which were real many years ago but that has changed) and thus refuse to accept the fact that the school is reforming. Our new name change has been well received by parents, students and community and everyone sees it as a positive change. The name has been updated on the website and can be confirmed by secondary sources. Now the name change “officially” as you call it, will happen very soon – with a large non-profit like this, it takes time to make sure everything is done correctly. Hundreds of our students, the school staff and other people in the community already call us “Lee Academy” and that will continue into the future. Our lawyers have told us that even if the name change we record with the state of South Carolina has to be something in the line of "Lee Academy of Bishopville" our dba can easily and legally be "Lee Academy".Fritzsmith20 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that not being a white supremacist is a conflict of interest? Jacona (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * you still haven't complied with WP:COI despite your obvious close relationship to the school - you are clearly a connected contributor and that should be declared on the talk page of the school as well as on your talk page. Doug Weller  talk 12:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Genetically modified food controversies
This is not my field, but edits to the article appear to have introduced a strong bias in favour of the views of GMO organisations. There are some strong claims, with links to questionable surveys funded by big GM players. I have added a section in talk - but do not feel qualified enough to review the content as it stands. Bear in mind that, at first, it may appear to be fairly written; source tracing and analysis begins to uncover the bias.

Personally I feel that there is little room for statements as ‘fact’’, on a controversial subject - especially in an article supposed to be depicting the controversy; unless those facts concern the controversy rather than the positions taken by the parties to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 (talk • contribs)


 * I have a strong background in genetically modified organisms and medicine. I've actually genetically modified species before. The science behind genetically modified foods is strong because the techniques used are safe. Also, the genes that are being introduced into foods is done by a process called transgenesis; which means that the genes already existed in organisms that are already in human diets and put into a different species. This means that the GMO foods are getting genes that have been vetted for quite some time.


 * Lastly, the scientific basis for why GMO is that the genes eventually leads to protein. DNA -> RNA -> usable protein (the central dogma of Biology). You body does an awesome job of breaking down proteins to the point that they are nonfunctional while they're in your stomach. In essence, it's next to impossible for these proteins from genetic modification will cause you harm.Axelremain (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've alerted 20040302 to the discretionary sanctions in this topic, especially on WP:ASPERSIONS with the comment this article is currently a thinly veiled attempt by the GM lobby to argue the GM case. For anyone not familiar, we had a DS-enforced WP:GMORFC a while ago when it comes to neutrality of content (e.g., scientific consensus and the public perception mismatch with it) while dealing with WP:FRINGE points of view. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

User:AxelRemain seems to have missed my point. The article (and the responses above) depict the issues of the argument, not the argument itself. When we describe a conflict in an encyclopaedia we don’t try to determine who is right! It’s ludicrous. The point is to explain the conflict, describe the antagonists, and understand - at the very least empathise with their motives for investing in the conflict. The article mentioned here does none of that. Moreover, the attacks above seem to imply that my views are somehow WP:FRINGE yet all I have argued is that 1) the arguments are in the wrong place, and 2) the sources of those arguments are clearly backed, and owned by, one of the antagonists. My own view - that the source used comes across more as pseudoscientific claptrap written to impress investors and legislators - may well be seen to be fringe by those who defend such a position - but do you not find it interesting that articles such as “The more favorable attitude of the citizens toward GMOs supports a new regulatory framework in the European Union” are not being covered by the press? No press releases for this sort of thing - because the media is not the intended audience. 20040302 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Axelremain and Kingofaces43 have it right. We don't give equal validity to fringe views alongside science. And the scientific consensus is clear. Crossroads -talk- 02:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Peer reviewed sources are not psuedoscientific claptrap written to impress investors and legislators. If there's a peer reviewed source that demostrates observable detriment to genetically modified organisms I'd be happy to read that and change my view. So far, I've seen thousands of articles pointing in the direction that there are no negative side effects to eating GMO foods. I'll also reference back to my original post that describes why, from a basic science point of view, of why the theory behind GMO causing caustic side effects lacks merit. Axelremain (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There doesn’t seem to be a consensus that there’s a consensus on GMOs: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

The arguments given above concern whether or not GMOs can be eaten safely. But no mention is given of devastating economic, environmental, or social impacts that -at least some - GMO practices have already shown. I say “there’s an ongoing debate concerning GMOs”, and I am told “it’s safe to eat GMO food” Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 (talk • contribs)
 * First, please WP:SIGN your comments so others don't have to do that for you (and read WP:THREAD). Please keep in mind Wikipedia is not the place to WP:SOAPBOX against scientific consensus on topics like GMOs, etc.


 * The Hilbeck source you now mention was already dealt with at WP:GMORFC and discounted as very WP:UNDUE akin to cherry-picking those that claim no consensus in the climate change denial subject. Likewise, you seem to be going on a tangent about the arguments about the consensus being backed financially. As mentioned at the article talk page, the source you are criticizing doesn't even appear to exist at the article. There doesn't appear to be a specific content issue to address on the article talk page, so it's not clear why this noticeboard was opened. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally we would treat a review study published by Springer as the final word on whether or not there was consensus among scientists. If it's wrong, then it should have been retracted, or at least we could find reliable source that say it is wrong or more recent review studies that come to different conclusions.
 * GMO at present is used almost exclusively to produce animal feed, cooking oil and high fructose corn syrup in the U.S., the production is heavily subsidized and contributes to the obesity epidemic. Most production relies on Round Up fertilizer which according to U.S. courts are carcinogenic. The technology is being expanded to Atlantic salmon which has had a devastating impact on coastal regions. Yet none of this is mentioned in the article because the non-GMO versions of these products have the same negative consequences.
 * We also know that Monsanto had a policy of paying supposedly independent voices to defend GMO and trash anyone who criticized them. Bayer, which bought Monsanto, subsequently revealed and stopped the program. Some of the independent voices were previously involved in defending the safety of tobacco products and in climate change denial. Yet none of that is mentioned in the article.
 * There are of course conspiracy theorists who have made unfounded claims against Monsanto and GMO. Per weight, we should not give them equal validity.
 * TFD (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally we would treat a review study published by Springer as the final word on whether or not there was consensus among scientists. Not when there are numerous other reviews and statements from scientific societies saying something else. And no, being wrong does not mean it will necessarily be retracted. By your logic, any so-called review article, so long as it was published by an academic publisher (not automatically a green light), could overrule any other set of sources. Crossroads -talk- 21:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A review study is "an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic." Since determining the current understanding of the topic is the major goal, if it gets it wrong it's a fatal error and it should be withdrawn. Failing that one would expect that its conclusions would be challenged in scientific publications. I did say that we could also look at other reviews, particularly those published after this one. But AFAIK, there are no other similar independent studies. Instead we relied on the expertise of editors such as yourself to tell us that they were aware of the relevant literature and found that there was a consensus. Incidentally, it's offensive to repeat my words. I have the cognitive ability to read what I posted without your repeating it for me. TFD (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My quote of you wasn't for you. And I know what the purpose of a review article is supposed to be. The fact is, though, that non-withdrawn fringe "reviews" published by academic publishers do exist. I'm not saying that Environmental Sciences Europe is as disreputable as Homeopathy, but I am showing that it is wrong that non-withdrawn reviews necessarily carry much weight. The crucial factor is what other reviews and scientific society statements say. And that was established at WP:GMORFC. Crossroads -talk- 23:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The homeopathy article is not a traditional review article. Its authors examine a number of recent papers, conduct experiments and form a hypothesis. All kinds of wacky theories and unexpected results of experiments are published in academic journals which is why we rely on review studies to "summarize[] the current state of understanding on a topic." Ironically the homeopathy article does not say that there is a lack of consensus among scientists about homeopathy. That would be false and would warrant retraction from even a homeopathy journal.
 * You keep saying that there are independent review studies in academic journals that say there is a consensus about the safety of GMO foods. But no one has presented one.
 * Note also that lack of consensus does not mean that much credence is given to the opposing view, just that it has some credence.
 * TFD (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD, this is getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory at this point as it's not focused on specific content, but do read WP:GMORFC as you are severely mischaracterizing what editors have done (and some of your views here were not considered WP:DUE there). If you want to claim no one has presented independent sources, that time has long passed and is ignoring all the work other editors have done in that area providing just that. Remember that due weight was the relevant policy at that RfC. We can't cherry-pick a single review like that against all the other independent sources from major scientific organizations and reviews (climate change denial again as an example of why that isn't done). There's no need to rehash that further though since the RfC is long complete and nothing has really changed in the literature since to refute it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No it's not getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory since I am not publishing my own thoughts and analyses or new information. I have no opinion and have expressed no opinion on the safety of GMO products. This is WP:NPOVN which is the appropriate forum for discussing the neutrality of articles. In other words, you are unable to provide any review studies about the safety of GMO and instead refer to earlier conversations. I'll take that as your answer.

The climate change denial actually cites a review, "Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015." If climate change deniers said it was cherry-picked then I would ask them to present an alternative review that came to different conclusions. Cherry picking means to search for examples that support one's conclusions. The proper approach, which both the Climate Change Denial article and I follow is to look for sources without prejudice and accurately reflect them. It's not as if I neglected any review studies. I asked you to provide any and you are unwilling or unable to do so.

Incidentally, I did not participate in WP:GMORFC so please don't imply that I did. No idea what you mean by my ideas were not considered WP:DUE. WP:DUE refers to article content not arguments about content.

TFD (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is well into WP:NOTFORUM territory because the matter has already been decided at WP:GMORFC, so there are no changes to discuss, even though you continue to imply that the scientific consensus around the safety of GMOs doesn't exist. I thought about posting some reviews, but decided against it as it would imply that something remains to be established. The sources are right there at WP:GMORFC. If you will refuse to hear that, well, I've done my part.
 * The review of studies about denialism doesn't fit in here, and your analogy of "if climate change deniers said it was cherry-picked" has it backwards. The point is that climate change deniers seize on small portions of the literature to claim that no scientific consensus exists, and that GMO safety deniers do the same. It is the GMO safety deniers who are engaging in the cherry picking.
 * And as for WP:DUE, I think it's clear that the point is that material that denies there is a scientific consensus was determined not to have due weight at GMORFC, and that arguing that same way now is arguing for undue weight. Crossroads -talk- 22:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't continue to imply that the scientific consensus around the safety of GMOs doesn't exist, I merely stated that the only review study presented says that. Articles should not be based on our personal opinions, but on what reliable sources say, whether or not we agree with them.

While one editor who voted against the proposal in WP:GMORFC mentioned the Hilbeck study, it does not appear to have been discussed.

Since the RfC, Bayer (which bought Monsanto) was settled for claims that Round up caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bayer has also confirmed that Monsanto hired scientists to prepare reports that said GMO was safe and paid people to defend them on the internet.

The final thing I would mention about the RfC is that it is rare for discretionary sanctions to cover content rather than behavioral disputes.

So it seems that there is good reason to revisit the RfC. I have asked here for someone to provide a definitive academic review study that says there is consensus about the safety of GMO and have been assured they exist but will not be provided.

I certainly don't want to open an RfC that has no chance of success. Bear in mind that they occupy a great deal of time for all concerned. So before I do that I would like to ask you once again to show that the review study has been debunked or that subsequent review studies have come to different conclusions.

TFD (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The well-sourced science around GMO safety has not AIUI changed since that mega RFC. If users want to discuss the rumours &c. around the "dangers" of GMOs they'd best be discussed in context at the GMO conspiracy theories article. The OP seems to be advocating for WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * @TFD: You are completely on the wrong track here. Also, you wrote a misleading sentence above. Since you do not like being told what you wrote, I cannot tell you which sentence it is, but scientific questions are definitely not decided by lawyers. (That would be horrible.) Roundup (herbicide) tells you what you need to know; ignore the primary sources quoted there, concentrate on what the scientific bodies say.
 * And yes, the analogy to climate change denial is fully justified. Pseudoscience inspired by political opinion, just the opinion in question is different. Even the rhetorics is the same:
 * "This is not my field, but" - just like Republican know-nothings saying "I'm not a scientist, but". Why don't people see that the less they know about a subject, the less their opinion is likely to be correct? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * When I edit articles, I look for academic review studies and textbooks to determine the weight of expert opinion. What I have found is different from the conclusions of the 2016 RfC. If you can point to a review study that came to a different conclusion or cite textbooks that support your position, then that would help me. I don't really think the comparison with Republicans is accurate. They don't look at review studies and textbooks and in fact ask us to reject them, instead citing isolated studies. TFD (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, on one side, we have (among other things) this 2016 Consensus Study Report from the National Academy of Sciences: Many reviews have indicated that foods from GE crops are as safe as foods from non-GE crops, but the committee re-examined the original studies of this subject. The design and analysis of many animal-feeding studies were not optimal, but the large number of experimental studies provided reasonable evidence that animals were not harmed by eating food derived from GE crops. Additionally, long-term data on livestock health before and after the introduction of GE crops showed no adverse effects associated with GE crops. The committee also examined epidemiological data on incidence of cancers and other human-health problems over time and found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops. And this statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, referring to multiple other scientific societies: The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques. (Though from 2012, if the scientific consensus had actually changed since then, we would see a retraction or updated contradictory opinion from one or more of these societies. No such statement exists.)
 * On the anti-GMO side, we have this Hilbeck et al. "review" published in Environmental Sciences Europe, a pay-to-publish journal that published without any peer-review the discredited Séralini paper after it was retracted from a reputable journal. The "review" cites the Séralini paper approvingly.
 * So, for good reason, the Hilbeck et al. paper carried little weight at GMORFC. A paper published in an ideologically-slanted journal by a small group of activist scientists cannot rebut the findings of numerous scientific societies as they each reviewed the studies and reviews in this area.
 * Here's how politically motivated science denial works. (1) Start with an ideology (pro-corporate for climate change denial or anti-corporate for GMO safety denial, though more on that in a bit), (2) reject the science, (3) fund organizations staffed by activists and sympathetic fringe scientists, (4) seize on contrary research (whether from those organizations or elsewhere), (5) claim that a scientific consensus does not exist. That is the obfuscation that occurs relating to climate change and GMOs. And as for bringing up corporations like Monsanto, editors may be interested in comparing the size of the organic food industry to that of biotech companies. Crossroads -talk- 20:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Added more links. Crossroads -talk- 21:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I shall read the material you provided and get back to you. TFD (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Andy Ngo a "journalist" - RFC notice
A RfC has been opened is asking to revisit this question, should Andy Ngo be described as a journalist in wikivoice in the lead sentence of the article. In related discussions what other terms may be OK in wiki or attributed voice. Editors have suggested "writer" and "provocateur" be included in the lead in Wiki voice. Discussion here Talk:Andy_Ngo. Springee (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification about an RfC on Infobox Chinese at Democratic Progressive Party
There is an RfC here about whether Democratic Progressive Party should be one of the MOS:CHINA exceptions to including both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese in the Infobox Chinese. Part of it concerns whether inclusion/exclusion satisfies WP:NPOV. The participation of interested editors is appreciated. — MarkH21talk 20:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Weird discussion at Talk:Hamas
I asked for a copyedit to a locked article, and was answered by condescension, accusations of "POV pushing", and WP:WALLS of irrelevant material. Input welcome. François Robere (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait 3 days and then edit it yourself.Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Or... we can discuss it now. How 'bout that? François Robere (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You asked for input. Not my fault if you don't like it.Selfstudier (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your input was limited to "you're POV pushing", "I don't want to discuss it", and "you can do it yourself". That's not constructive. François Robere (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your input was limited to "do it my way"...about 7 or 8 times I think.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah... what? François Robere (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There, some quote marks.Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone should close this...NOSNOW.Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked for a copyedit. You and Nishidani accused me of "POV pushing" because of the existing version, which I didn't write. Letting you get away with spurious accusations isn't "do it my way", it's "stop playing games". François Robere (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The Family International
There is a discussion on the Family International’s talk page (section "Cult vs. New religious movement (again)") as to whether it should be labelled as a “cult” or as a “new religious movement”.

The word "cult" has been named as one of Wikipedia’s “words to watch”, as an example of a word that is “best avoided” and cannot be used without an in-text attribution. According to Wikipedia's definition of "cult", it is “considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices.” Because of this, the term has long been abandoned in academia, and the neutral term of “new religious movement” is used instead.

Since academic sources consistently call this organization a “new religious movement”, and sources that call it a “cult” are generally biased and focus on negative and controversial aspects of the group, I believe that the organization should be labelled as a “new religious organization”, in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies regarding a NPOV, Words to Watch, and academic sources.

However, another editor believes that the organization should be primarily referred to as a cult, since this term is used in certain unspecified sources. So far, we have not been able to come to an agreement. Theobvioushero (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support use of the term "cult". GPinkerton (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you provide evidence that academic sources have replaced the word cult with new religious movement? TFD (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Couple of things: Firstly the sources currently used to support the word cult are not remotely scholarly and are openly biased. They need to be removed from the lead; but there is no reason they cannot be contextually used elsewhere in the body. Secondly there are undoubtedly scholarly sources which refer to the subject as a cult (e.g. ), and there are other scholarly sources which explicitly deny it is a cult and refer to it as a movement (e.g. ) Thirdly, there is no reason it has to be a dichotomy. Just state that it has been variously defined as a cult, movement... whatever else you find. But cult is frequent in the literature, so it has to be in there in the first couple of sentences. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial Yellowing</i><b style="color:#218000">❧</b> 17:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, but want to note that contemporary scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a "cult" are uncommon and use this word in the sociological sense, rather than the sense used by the general public. I agree though that we should mention that they have been called a "cult" in the introduction as long as we include an in-text attribution, in accordance with the “words to watch” policy, rather than presenting it as an objective fact. For example, "They have been accused of being a cult by counter-cult organizations such as ICSA and the Cult Education Institute." Theobvioushero (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources published via university presses are usually acceptable. If sources also call it a NRM (it is likely applicable as a more general category), it would be possible to mention both NRM and to say that it has also been described as a cult (although avoiding to mention specific people as if it was a minor opinion).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * To quote from one of the sources I presented earlier, “the sociological concept of a cult, as a certain type of religious innovation, has not retained its morally neutral meaning in the arena of public discourse…. For this reason, the morally neutral term of new religious movements (NRM’s) has come to replace the pejorative label of ‘cults’ in the lexicon of most social science scholars of new religions.” Theobvioushero (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Simply put, GPinkerton has repeatedly asserted that the term "cult" is biased, while providing nothing to back that up. Editor also claims all sources referring to it as a cult are biased and therefore should be dismissed. Sources use both "cult" and "new religious movement" to refer to the group, so both terms are appropriate. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion is taking one bias and merely replacing it with one in the other direction. It's not clear why you consider a link to a google scholar search of "the family international" evidence that references are uncommon; I appended the world "cult" to your search and 344 results were returned. As I already stated in my reply above, I agree that it's fair to say that "they have been described" or "defined" as a cult, as a NRM, etc, rather than stating it as fact in WP voice. But the word "accused" is not neutral. They have been described as a cult in the academic literature, and frequently in mainstream news sources (recently by BBC, The Times, The Guardian) not just by "counter-cult organizations". <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 00:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 344 is still a small percentage of the total (2,740) though, and the vast majority of those sources do not call the organization a “cult”, but use the term in a different way. Academic sources point out that “most social science scholars of new religions” do not use the term “cult”; that the term “new religious movement” has been the “preferred” term of religious scholars since the early 1970’s; and that "the term 'new religions' would virtually replace 'cult’" by the end of the 1970’s.


 * I don’t see any issue with using the term “described” rather than “accused” though, and agree that it is also be appropriate to mention news sources that have used that term; it would just would require additional citations. For example, "They have been described as a cult by counter-cult organizations and various news organizations such as the BBC, New York Times, and the Guardian.” This point can be expanded on in the “reception” section, and uncontroversial terms such as “new religious movement”, “group” and “organization” can be used to refer to the group generally without the need for in-text attributions. Theobvioushero (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s better if we don’t have an extended exercise in sophistry; nor will doing so support your case. The only place I mentioned appending "cult" to your search for "the family international", was in the context of pointing out the shortcomings of your citing such a search as evidence that scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a "cult" are uncommon. It isn't evidence for that. If I were looking to cite google searches as evidence for the counterfactual ("scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a cult are common") I would have substituted "children of god"+ cult and pointed toward the ~16,000 results. I didn't do that, because search result numbers alone are not evidence to buttress either POV, nor would they form a method of framing a NPOV if they were. Stick to actual evidence, not google search pages.


 * It's true that scholars in different fields have different words for things, sometimes for non-academic reasons. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology puts the issue with regards to movements neatly: "Most NRMs would fit into the sociological category of either sect or cult, but scholars came to favor the term NRM in order to avoid the pejorative overtones associated in the public mind with these labels." WP:LABEL, which I assume is what you were intending to cite in your OP, states that words like cult are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The argument you are trying to make has no basis in the policies used to determine content on WP. There is no suggestion in the MOS, nor in any policy, that we should censor academically published use of specific words because they have fallen out of fashion amongst scholars in certain disciplines. If numerous scholars have stated that the subject of the article is a cult – and a brief perusal of the contents of some of the 16,000+ g scholar results on the subject indicate that numerous scholars have done so, including recently – then the article should state as much.


 * Finally, the notion that "new religious movement" is somehow neutral takes as a given your POV that the subject is a religious organization. Clearly, that is part of the controversy and resistance to your proposed changes, and given that so many sources from reliable news media and scholarship refer to it as a "cult", using "new religious movement" as a pretended neutral term does not produce a NPOV. “New religious movement” must instead be listed as one of the various definitions it has been given by scholars, and perhaps by reliable news sources (though in a brief search I couldn't find the latter; every news source referred to the organization as a cult, not as a religious movement, new or otherwise). <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 23:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * We can disregard the Google Scholar searches if you do not believe they are productive. I want to make sure that they do not distract from the scholarly citations that I also provided. According to the academic sources, "new religious movement/new religion" is a "morally neutral" term that has been "almost unanimously adopted" by scholars in order to avoid the terms "cult" and "sect." It is currently "the generally accepted term" for such groups, and has "virtually replace[d]" the word "cult" in academia. To clarify, I am not saying that the term "cult" should be censored, just that it needs in-text attributions, due to its "pejorative"  connotations.


 * I have never heard anyone deny that the Family International is a religious group. From what I have seen, those who prefer to call it a "cult" do not believe that terms such as "religious organization" or "new religious movement" are inaccurate. Instead, they prefer "cult" because it is a more specific term. Who are you referring to that denies this group is a religious organization? Theobvioushero (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not saying that the term "cult" should be censored, just that it needs in-text attributions – so we agree that in the lead paragraph it should state that scholars and media organisations have described it as both a cult and a new religious movement, with some specific examples. The subject of the article is the Children of God/The Family, not two sociologists’ views about what is or is not “morally neutral”. For the same reason, what an encyclopaedia, or an undergraduate writing a term paper, thinks is generally true, does not countervail the widespread use of the term cult in this specific instance. Are you suggesting that a cult and a new religious movement are the same thing? If so, your proposed changes and this thread is a waste of time. If not, in a situation where many scholars call it one thing, while many scholars, media, and NGOs call it something different, choosing one over the other as a neutral term is not a NPOV. A neutral term would be something which is a category into which both terms clearly fall – i.e. a “movement”, or a “group”, or an “organization”. It doesn’t say very much because it’s designed not to, in order to be neutral. We don’t give more weight to one set of scholars because they represent the POV you happen to prefer.

First couple of pages of results of news organizations which refer to it as a cult, with no mention of religion:       <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 11:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "Cult" should be used for deviants. Generally speaking Theosophists, despite their weird beliefs, aren't deviants. Generally speaking monks, despite their professed celibacy, aren't deviants. I think there is enough evidence to say that TFI is a group of deviants, rather than a group of decently behaving people who happen to have other religious opinions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Read wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one making the call, WP:RS make the call. And even if we don't use the word "cult" our article about TFI is pretty unflattering for them. The RS speak about pervasive sexual abuse of children. Don't you think that's deviant? I mean Catholics and Protestants still have a dogma that child abuse is not done. TFI apparently had a dogma that encouraged child abuse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What I think is irrelevant, have the courts said they all deviant? BLP protect everyone even people accused of being pedos.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has been convicted of pedophilla, abuse, or any other crime. They also ended their controversial practices 25 years ago.
 * I think that Cambial Yellowing and I are actually close to agreement. It seems like we both believe that the word "cult" should be included in the article, but would need in-text attributions.
 * Our disagreement now is if the it is controversial to call it a religious organization. If the term is controversial, it should have an in-text attribution as well. However, the links he gave do not deny that they are a religious organization. They simply don't use the term because they focus on other topics instead. It seems to me like they are clearly a religious group, with well defined religious and practices that influence all other aspects of the organization, and I have never heard any argument to the contrary. If there are people that deny that this is a religious organization, then they should be cited, but if not, then the term is uncontroversial. Theobvioushero (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that where stating that scholars have described it as a new religious movement, no specific individual in-text examples are needed. Whether the subject is "deviant" is not relevant. Whether it is controversial to call it a religious organisation is not relevant. Whether a phrase is "morally neutral" is not relevant. The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss how to maintain a neutral point of view, specifically and exclusively the understanding of that phrase laid out in the principles of WP:NPOV. For the reasons already given in my last post, which subsequent commentary has not affected, stating that the subject is a "religious organisation" in WP voice does not maintain NPOV. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 13:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV policy question, history: Antonius Verancius' quote, which version is more neutral?
I'm having a discussion with another user on which of these 2 versions is more netural:

(A) According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks",[59] while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".

(B) According to Antun Vrančić, Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks". According to the Romanian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that they easily equal all of the others,[59] while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".

This is the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Transylvania#Antonius_Verancius'_quote My diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=979026390&oldid=978024079 His diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=979473136&oldid=979026390

The original text in Latin is the following: Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant." doesn't specify the word "any" in its translation. The word for word translation is as following: qui = who or whom, quamlibet = however, harum = these, facile = easily, magnitudine = size, aequant = match. The word "any" is non existent and not implied by the author.

The other user argues that: Quamlibet means as well "any", to any extent, any degree, "quamlibet harum" in this context appoints this, as the three main nations are listed in the first place, and added one to be mentioned which number may be equal with any of these. While I argue that: Quamlibet does have more meanings depending on context, but the context "quamlibet" is used here doesn't imply the use of quamlibet as "any". This is the debate that scholars had as well. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. Anyway, this doesn't matter that much as our personal opinions on the subject doesn't matter, we only have the sources to work with and through. I just posted this so you know it was already discussed. We have 2 sources contradicting each other and need to find a balance.

The other user argues that: the page has a consensus on the current content sourced. I argue that: the current content is sourced correctly but interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. It is not a problem of sources, both sources are already present in the article, but rather a problem of wording.

I argue that: His edits with language that implied one is objectively correct is clear violation of WP:NEUTRALITY. While I on the other hand, simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources on equal grounds, despite the clean latin version supporting the Romanian translation. He argues that: What you did is the assertion some expressions the sources did not say, on the other hand the last stable version properly summarizes what the sources in fact say, without taking sides.

Eventually, I told him again that: The text you are trying to keep, is worded overwhelmingly in favor of Hungarian historians implying the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one. Clear Hungarian bias. I simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources, and removed the language that implied one is objectively correct. Despite the Romanian version being supported by the clean Latin translation, I did not mention that because of WP:NEUTRALITY. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While as far as I know, only Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. The sources, for both versions, are already listed in the article, but are interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. My job here is not to tell which one is right, I simply list both versions on equal grounds. Unlike you, who wants to list the clearly in favor of the Hungarians version wording. I get that you disagree, but you can't disagree simply on the grounds that you don't like it. Wikipedia is for education not personal opinions. Which is why I believe the only solution is a 3rd opinion.

He argued that: There has been not any bias, sources were cited and summarized (the Romanian and Hungarian interpretations are both identified, in this order), what you do here is pure OR, and yes, your personal opinions should be ignored, which you don't do. I argued that: a version with a wording such as "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", which falsely implies that one is objectively correct, is far from neutral.

What do you think, which version is compliant with WP:NEUTRALITY and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn (talk • contribs) 23:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I see no reason to bring this issue here, which is purely your OR, as it has pointed out in the article's talk page, where anyone interested may see how you ignore important points and refuse to understand our policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, your summarization is as well suffers from all of these. This issue earlier wen't through a noticeboard and both Romanian and Hungarian editors agreed the current (longstanding) version, which in fact summarize what the sources tell us. This user tendentiously failing to recognize this. The Romanian interpretations are summarized - on the first place indeed - the Hungarian in the second place, and only the latter notes about the translation's proper interpretation. We cannot summarize something from a source, which is not stated. This is not (cannot be) a neutrality issue, since both viewpoints are summarized accordingly to the sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC))
 * The reason to bring this issue here is because we cannot reach consensus by ourselves. Please, specify that the person who "it has pointed out in the article's talk page" was you. I also pointed out violation of WP:NEUTRALITY in the talk page, but I will not talk about myself in 3rd person to make it seem like someone else has said it. If such a noticeboard existed, you gave no link to it, please post a link if it exists. If this is about the discussion above our discussion in the talk page, that discussion did not involve me and was not related to the wording of this parahgraph, which is what our discussion is about. Hypothetical scenario on neutrality: We have source (A) and source (B), source A claims that "the sky is blue", source B claims that "source A claims the sky is blue, however the proper color of the sky is red". We do not pick sides. Which wording is more neutral? To say that source A claims that "the sky is blue" while source B claims that "the sky is red"; or to say that source A claims that "the sky is blue" while source B noted that "however the proper color of the sky is red"? In the 2nd version, I believe the phrasing is clearly in favor of source B and violates WP:NEUTRALITY. Everything I utilized from both sources is something that was started by both sources. That is not how it works. Both viewpoints can be summarized accordingly, but still worded in a non-neutral way. A Wikipedia article is not simply "copy-paste from the source", we add our own words and make our own sentences around it. For example: "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", this sentence is not present in either source. It is a phrase added by the editor. This is where the bias can happen. LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no violation of neutrality, discussed also here and there (along with links) and involved the issues we talk. Your demonstration fails since such like however the proper color of the sky is red does not play, there is no is, but would be, etc. Similarly you utilized things the sources did not say, do not confuse this with close pharaphasing/copyedit.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC))
 * Yes, we discussed it, and you failed to convince me it isn't, and I failed to convince you it is, that's why we are here. The difference between 'is' and 'would be' is just semantics that doesn't strongly imply the benefit of doubt. When you say "according to John", you are not implying John is objective, when you say "John noted that the proper order would be", you are implying John is objective and right. I already told you that I did not utilize things the sources did not say. Unless you can actually give examples, all you have are empty words with no weight, as usual. Constantly making empty accusation with nothing to back them up will get you nowhere. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Constantly making empty accusation with nothing to back them up will get you nowhere." -> again, drop such remarks, because the opposite is happening. You believe falsely about something that would be an NPOV issue, although it isn't, and still fail to understand that "John noted that the proper order would be" is describing what's in the source. You did utilize, but we have also discussed this earlier. You lack of the necessary attention to the details.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC))
 * I won't drop such remarks, because the opposite is not happening. You want evidence that this "Constantly making empty accusation with nothing to back them up will get you nowhere." is ture for you? In an ironic twist of events, look at your quote "argument": "drop such remarks, because the opposite is happening". You made no argument there, you only stated an opinion, a declaration, that's all your stances are in generals, personal opinions with nothing to back them up. Then let's move on to your very next phrase: "You believe falsely about something that would be an NPOV issue, although it isn't", that's it, that was your "argument": "although it isn't". This is one of the many clear cases, but it will make no difference to you. As for the last part, I didn't fail to understand that part, but you're so far off that explaining what the real problem is to you will take another paragraph, I don't know whether you're going for a strawman or genuinely missing the point but just re-read our previous conversation. With all respect, this is your style of debate in general, regardless of your point you have no arguments to support your stance. But you insist on your empty accusation in a WP:BLUDGEON style, and you wonder why I'm here asking for a 3rd opinion. Please, consider your style or reasoning before accusting others that they lack the attention to the details. In a childish naivety, you expect your empty stances to simply be believed, this is not what happens in real life, where you have to back up your stances with evidence and arguments. So naturally, I didn't believe most of the things you said, sorry, but you're not as all knowledgeable and rational as you think you are. Re-read our conversation with that in mind and things will start to make sense for you. As for me, I'm done with this conversation for it's the equivalent of trying to argue with a stone, I'll wait for a 3rd opinion and we can continue from there. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this wall of text is useless, you have to re-read everything if you still don't understand what you fail. WP:COMPETENCE is required, I won't explain something the 11th time when it was already discussed clearly and explained not just in the article's talk page, but here.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Comment: I do not understand what is the core of the debate. I think nobody is willing to read lengthy threads to comment on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The original version of the article is (A), I changed it to (B) arguing that version (A) violates WP:NEUTRALITY. In this instance, there are 2 sources contradicting each other: a Romanian and a Hungarian one. In version (A), the Romanian source is listed first, afterwards the Hungarian version is listed with what I find a non-neutral language: "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be", implying that the Hungarian interpretation is the correct one. In version (B), the original quote of Antun Vrančić that both sources agree upon is listed first, following the point where both sources diverge: with the Romanian source arguing that it means "they easily equal all of the others" while the Hungarian source arguing that it means "they easily equal any of the others in number". Concenring version (A): Another user changed the language to "while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part" but was reverted back to "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part". LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this "Hungarians vs Romanians/Romanians vs Hungarians" approach verified? Are there reliable sources stating that a "Hungarian" and a "Romanian" interpretation exist? I assume there are scholars who translate the Latin text differently. Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't have a specific source to state that a "Hungarian" and a "Romanian" interpretation exists, only the two sources with different translation. Historians Jean W. Sedlar [East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000–1500] and George W. White [Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe] based part of their work on the quote in question as well, so they may have translations of their own for the Latin text, although I don't have the books themselves to verify whether they have indeed made a translation of the Latin text. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These two authors just directly copied the Romanian sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC))
 * I see, were their translations the same as the Romanian source or they referenced the Romanian source with its translation? Regardless of whether it was a personal translation of their own that is the same as the Romanian source or making a footnote reference to the Romanian translation, the simple consensus with the Romanian source implies they agree with the Romanian source. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Surely there are other scholars who have translated the relevant passage into English. Before we can choose between A and B, we need to see how C, D, E, F (etc) translate it. It may be that one of the translations you are focused on (either A or B) is an outlier... not in sync with the rest of the academic community.  IF so, then that outlier translation can be discarded as being fringe.  And IF not, we can describe the debate without it becoming a Hungarian vs Romanian thing. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't have to choose between A and B, the user fail to understand how sources are summarized, believeing by mistake it would be a neutrality issue, which is not, just and only becuase he fails to understand in one source it is noted what would be the proper translation (which is anyway attributed).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC))
 * I think Blueboar's advice should be accepted. You probably can find translations in different languages. I am sure, Verancsics's work was translated to German and Slovakian. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea. However, how could we establish what is academic consensus? Considering the way Wikipedia works (as far as I can tell) we can only establish academic consensus if one secondary source directly says that there is an academic consensus on a matter. We could gather different translations from other sources to make a reasonable idea, but even then, wouldn't that technically be OR? Not that I'm against the idea, as we probably have no better choice, just asking for the technicalities. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If academic consensus does not exist, we should not create it. Translations published in reliable sources can hardly be regarded as OR if the core of the debate is the proper translation of a Latin text. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Borsoka, I have no problem to investigate other translations, but I hope you see this misplaced issue, when a user simply does not like what a source tell us, which highlights the translation issue, which is relevant in this particular context of the historiography of this topic, which has an approved history on this matter anyway (i.e. Pascu's recurrent distortions). In other words, more translations does not change or influence the earlier mentioned facts.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Borsoka, the cause of this debate, at least from my part, is not which source is right and wrong, for that is the work of scholarly debate. Although Blueboar's initiative to see whether one of the sources is an outlier not in sync with the rest of the academic community is a good method of solving this issue. My concern however, was with the langauge used by the editor, not with the quotes from the source itself. Which I believe is biased because it implies one source is the correct one. This part: "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part", is neither from the Romanian source or the Hungarian source, it's the editor's own words. KIENGIR's reply to you is a lie, I make no stance on what either source tell us. I would argue that he is projecting, as you can see from his own words: "(i.e. Pascu's recurrent distortions)" he has a clear bias in this issue, strongly believing that one source is in fact the correct one. I have no problem with this, he can have whatever opinion he wants, the problem is that he is trying to insert this strong belief that one source is in fact the correct one in the article. LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think is able to read sources, and interpret them appropriately. Hence you again boomeranged yourself, and your accusations may be easily disproved.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC))
 * There are no accusations of the sources themselves (lol), merely a mention of lack of neutrality in the way they are presented. I think he has already read the sources at this point. LordRogalDorn (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are making accusations, and the point is there is not any lacking neutrality, yes he surely did as he agreed about the longstanding representation.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Can you name the accusations that I make? Wrong, the point is that there is a lack of neutrality. I will let user Borsoka speak for himself, as he didn't post here any message saying he agrees with either version yet. LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's evident, you just have read your earlier post. No, there is not, it has been explained more times, btw. the issue's history speak for itself.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC))
 * I have looked, but still can't find them. You must not know what explaining means then, shouting your opinion does not make it right, let alone when you failed to prove wrong the contradictory opinion. You are right, the issue's history speaks for itself, that's why we're here. Anyway, I hope we can both agree this conversation is not useful in finding a solution, let us stick exclusively to the subject at hand, Antonius Verancius' quote, regardless of what we think the other supposedly did, do you agree? LordRogalDorn (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you did not look good. "You must not know what explaining means then, shouting your opinion does not make it right, let alone when you failed to prove wrong the contradictory opinion." -> Sorry, this is an issue with you again, not me, you are the one failing to understand appropriately things, even when more editors explained to you something you still recurrently continue bludgeoning. No, the issue's history imply the opposite, that the presence here is useless.
 * let us stick exclusively to the subject -> I've been always, you are spreading and rendering a discussion that should have been already stopped, since everywhere it turned to help you to understand some things, which you reject, hence the conversations became a case study how you cannot deal with an editor regardless how you wish to help him if he is not willing to understand basic things which others possibly far more earlier. Highly extensive information is present already in two talk pages, no need for further repetitions.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC))


 * Quick question... are either of the two sources under discussion translating directly from Latin into English? Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Romanian source is in English and the Hungarian source is in Hungarian. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar and Borsoka, it has been 10 days since you requested we find other sources. So far we've found 2 other sources: Jean W. Sedlar and George W. White, using same interpretation as the Romanian version in their works. And no other sources using the Hungarian version. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you refer to the pages where Sedlar and White refer to Verancius/Verantius/Verancsis? Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have their books [], user KIENGIR said that the two authors directly copied the Romanian sources [] so I assume he has the books and looked it up. The only thing I could find about them was on Wikipedia, that Jean W. Sedlar argues there were 66% Romanians in 1241 and George W. White argues there were 60% Romanians in 1600. Which does seem to confirm what KIENGIR said, for it implies they agreed with with the Romanian version of Antun Vrančić's quote. Since according to the Romanian version 'easily equal (all of) the others' means >50% Romanians in 1549-1551 (Pop Ioan Aurel and Ioan Bolovan), while according to the Hungarian version 'easily equal the others' means >25% Romanians in 1549-1551 (Károly Nyárády R). LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So you cannot prove that either Sedlar or White refers to Verancius. In this case, we should ignore them as a source for the proper translation of Verancius' text. Borsoka (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was hoping KIENGIR can prove based on his sayings. Ok, that means we have no other sources after 10 days, chances are we aren't going to find other sources. Should we only stick to attempting to create a neutral langauge used by the editor while posting both quotes from both sources? Both versions (A) and (B) use the same quotes from the Romanian version and Hungarian version. The difference is that the meaning of "all any of the others" is not mentioned in version (A), despite being presented in the article and source, see the demograhpics table. And (A) has impartial wording such as" while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", the are noted part falsely implies that this one is objectively correct, it is far from neutral. I attempted to fix this with version (B). Which states both sources with their differences. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite interesting why you feel the need/think repeating the nth time your point of view? People can read. Only you think it is a neutrality issue which is not, we don't need to choose on your interpretations, just because you don't like the summarization of one source, a scholarly opinion, shall it be Romanian or Hungarian, it is an opinion, and they are represented as they are, and since both viewpoints are respresented, it fully complies with neutrality. Also opinions on the Daco-Roman theory or the Immigrationist theory are described/summarized, and we don't remove any content based on just because anyone would see some implications on it. It is irrelevant personally what it implies to you, that is what part of scholars said from the subject.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC))
 * People can read, you cannot. Since we cannot find other sources, I suggested we go back to the initial idea of judging which diff is more neutral, this is very different from repeating my point of view. Only you said and keep repeating the nth time that this is not a neutrality issue which it is. If you'd pay attention, you would know that one of the 2 (A) and (B) is your interpretation. Just because you think the summarization of one of the contradictory sources is correct, a scholarly opinion, shall it be Romanian or Hungarian, it is an opinion, you must respresent both scholarly opinions on equal grounds in the Wikipedia article regardless of your personal preference. It's not enough that both viewpoints are respresented for neutrality, they have to be respresented fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. That's what neutrality is about.
 * Again misleading and fallacious argumentation, when have I removed any content from the Daco-Roman theory or the Immigrationist theory page? go ahead and post the diffs. But you won't, because "it's self-evident", in honest translation "I can't, because there aren't any". Nor have I removed any content from the summarization of one source in this case for that matter. Hence you again boomeranged yourself, and your accusations may be easily disproved. LordRogalDorn (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, so in case I cannot read, but people do, why you think if you repeat the same x time will change something? Why you think in every post of yours you have to describe a narrative although everything may be read above? The scholarly interpretation is not my interpretation, and both scholarly opinions is represented on equal grounds, fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, accusing me with any personal viewpoint when indeed you have it, won't help. Again misleading and fallacious argumentation - Really? Who said you removed anything? (that's all about paying attention, and a perfect demonstration of your nonsensical way of argumentation, as your accusations are mostly a copy-paste of what you have been told earlier). Just stop this WP:BLUDGEONING.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC))
 * You might as well ask yourself that, for my "repetition" is merely the same reply to the same accusations you keep making. Although everything may be read above, you failed to get the point, I described the narrative to show you the fallacy of your accusation, which you again failed to notice as evidenced by your "why you think if you repeat the same x time" despite me clearly telling you that "I suggested we go back to the initial idea". Whether you fail to WP:LISTEN or don't want to listen is really your problem, but if you wouldn't keep accusing me "just because you don't like the summarization of one source" despite me constantly telling you that I did not dislike them, I wouldn't have to redescribe the narrative to show your faults. Exactly, the scholarly interpretation is not your interpretation. But you insist that any change to your text outside what the source says must be "because I don't like what the other source says". Unfortunately, both scholarly opinions are not represented on equal grounds, fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, and going for a mirror/inverse accusation when indeed you have it, won't help.
 * You: "Also opinions on the Daco-Roman theory or the Immigrationist theory are described/summarized, and we don't remove any content based on just because anyone would see some implications on it."
 * Also you: "Really? Who said you removed anything?"
 * If you asked why I keep descrbing the narrative, this is why. You would deny even the most basic things, despite them being easily available above. Why would you tell me this? Why bring up the Daco-Roman theory or the Immigrationist theory on a subject that has nothing to do with it? And why say after a comma that we don't remove any content (...) despite me not doing that? Obviously because you're fallaciously trying to imply that I did it. So I had to call you out for it.
 * Anyway, I won't engage in this pointlessly long charade anymore, I know that arguing with you leads nowhere and most of the time is spent debunking false accusations rather than talking about the subject itself, so excuse me but I will wait for 3rd opinions, as this is why we are here. LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazing try, since you are the one who is performing repetitive and long walloftext, despite your narratives are already readable in multiple editions (if anyone want to go back, just scrolls up), it has nothing to with me (inverting accusations are useless, everyone may see the situation anway, recurrently copy-pasting my sentences back are very lame). You again repeat your point of view, which anyway did not tell anything new, your are preaching your belief as fact, which is not (the source given, it is approriately summarized, you don't like one part of the scholaly opinion of it)."You would deny even the most basic things" is again not on me, this is just boring. Once you tell me I cannot read, on the contrary in the same blurb, you don't read appropriately what I have written, don't you think others won't notice these very embarassing contradictions? And you even try to explain out yourself from this, I just told an example, did not imply anything/anyone specific ("we", e.g.), so it is again just a boomerang fail. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC))

Ok, let's WP:DROPTHESTICK. Blueboar and Borsoka, we were unable to find any other translations, what else can we do? If everything else fails, I suggest we go back to the initial idea of judging which diff is more neutral, or if we can't agree on version (A) or (B), we can create together a new version with a neutral wording, a version that we can all agree is not misleading in favor of one side or another. What do you think about this one?
 * LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your "Hungarians vs Romanians" approach could hardly be verified. I think this discussion should be closed. Nobody is willing to read lengthy texts. Sorry, I stop commenting on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Very well, fair point. For the record, it's not my "Hungarians vs Romanians" approach as it was already present in the article. LordRogalDorn (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The new proposal here resembles much with one of the alternatives - having a very little grammatical issues which does not influence the main meaning -, as I see the it is noted is the difference. As I demonstrated earlier, in case a narrative desribes Opinion X and after Opinion Y, and in both cases According to is preceding any opininon, the further content could be anything, that's why it is a particular opinion, it cannot harm neutrality/neutral wording. In case there would be a Saxon interpretation, and it would be attested like "According to the Saxon interpretations, it is noted that Transylvania should be part of the Holy Roman Empire because anyway Vrancic described a Saxon supermajority", regardless how the one would jugde the validity or realistic being of the Saxon opinion, regardless what it would imply to the reader, it would be just the Saxon opinion. But since this opinion is attributed, it cannot harm NPOV. Conclusively, as I pointed out earlier, altering/censoring anyside's opinion by taste is not an option, hence this issue has never been a neutrality issue, and I as well agree this discussion should be just closed.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Finally we can have a productive discussion! I believe the other version I proposed also does not influence the main meaning, but anyway, let's focus on this one. As I pointed previously in our discussion, the problem is it is noted which I believe is POV. I am not opposed to According to, as you can see from my suggestion, I'm treating both nationalities equally: "According to Romanian interpretations ... while according to Hungarian interpretations". In case there would be a Saxon interpretation, one could simply say "According to the Saxon interpretations, Transylvania should be part of the Holy Roman Empire because anyway Vrancic described a Saxon supermajority". The absence of the words it is noted does not make the sentence less gramatically correct. But since it is noted implies objectivity in his opinion, it harms NPOV. Conclusively, as I pointed out earlier, no altering/censoring anyside's opinion by taste was made. LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I just demonstrated, it is noted cannot harm NPOV, since it is attributed, if with according to or just Hungarian interpretations, does not matter, as well if it would be "Saxon interpretations it is fostered/rendered/explained", or anything (and yes, the source&interpretation noting it). Grammatics is not this, but the word "that" is not necessary.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC))
 * One does not exclude the other, it is noted is attributed but at the same time the editor implies the objectivity of one author's opinion, harming NPOV. The POV stands in the difference between the Romanain wording and the Hungarian wording. Where as in the Romanian wording it is not noted, in the Hungarian wording "it is noted". One can make the argument that writing "it is noted" in front of them both is a repetition, but at the same time not writing "it is noted" for either of them is not a repetition and is still completely grammatically correct. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I explained, not any editor implies anything, but it is part of the source/Hungarian interpretation, while the other interpretation does not have such notions. I reiterate, this is unrelated to grammatical questions, I was just reffering to the word that. I finished the discussion of this issue, everything has been told, already overdicussed.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC))
 * The it is noted is not part of quotation marks, therefore it doesn't alter what the source is saying. The editor could write it is noted/it is expalined/it is mentioned or nothing at all, and it wouldn't alter what the source is saying in the slightest, because it's not part of the source/Hungarian interpretation. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The very last reaction to this content issue, because I really want you to help to understand, as I was already outlining it does not matter if it is part of the quotation marks or not, beucase it could have been expanded like that, and such notion is part of the source/Hungarian interpretation. After attribution, does not matter what follows, it can be direct quotation, summarization, combinations of these or anything.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Thanks for wanting to help me understand. I understand your perspective. But I argue that it could have also not been expanded like that, and it would have still been grammatically correct. Therefore such notion is not an inherent part of the source/Hungarian interpretation, and violates NPOV by making differences. Precisely because after attribution, does not matter what follows, the word it is noted can be omitted. As long as the direct quotations are exact and the summarization is accurate. I believe we can agree to disagree and see what 3rd opinions have to say. I'll wait and see if other users reply to this. In the meantime, may I delete the huge wall of text above and rephrase the NPOV request to only what we discussed currently? I imagine most users are going to see this huge wall of text and avoid it. LordRogalDorn (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)