Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 86

Baháʼí prophecies
The Baháʼí prophecies use to have this openning:

"The writings of founding members of the Baháʼí Faith include predictions of future events, the most specific of which are related to the rise and fall of leaders and organizations. Most of these can be found in Baháʼu'lláh's tablets to the kings and rulers of the world and in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.[1]"

I changed to:

"The writings of founding members of the Baháʼí Faith include alleged predictions of future events. The most specific predictions are related to the alleged rise and fall of leaders and organizations. Most of these can be found in Baháʼu'lláh's tablets to the kings and rulers of the world and in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.[1]"

But user has insistently reverted it with no reason given in the Talk page. Several users had pointed out problems of neutrality on the article. I'm not saying that my redaction is perfect, can be improved, but certainly that as the article is in its present form is clearly endorsing the idea that the Bahai' prophecies were correct and accurately predicted world events. Of course this is doubtful but in any case is not how Wikipedia should present the issue. Other articles about prophecies like the Prophecy of the Popes present a more clear skepticism while other like Prophecy in the Seventh-day Adventist Church contantly mention that is what Adventist believe or claim, not presenting them as fact value. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that brief discussion was happening in the edit summaries, and neither of us were using the talk page. As I mentioned here: "saying that someone made a prophecy is not saying that prophecies are real". All you did was add "alleged" in a few places and it ruined the flow of writing (and unnecessary). Third party sources in the article use the same terminology of "prophecy" for the same thing. Anyway I agree that the article could use a more neutral tone, and I'll try to fix it up. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If you want to get on someone about NPOV, look at Bible prophecy: "the passages of the Bible that reflect communications from God to humans through prophets". Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really seeing much of an issue with the original text quoted above. Saying that predictions or prophecies were made does not imply that they were accurate, correct or divinely inspired. I don't think we need "alleged" here. - Ryk72 talk 18:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with the current redaction made by Cuñado, I think is objective enough as it is. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Regan Russell
I've reviewed the article, edits, and talk regarding Regan Russell.

I find that much of the information regarding her death and the response to it is missing, and that over time much of the information, references, and facts have been dismissed under the pretense of neutrality or cross-promotion.

I can say, as a member of her family, that she would absolutely want these groups associated with her death as they were parties to what happened and ultimately what has followed, which has largely included a response from those who seek to use her death to advance Bill 156, an AGGAG law in Canada, not just those from the animal rights community.

Essentially, I find it concerning that an article that has a clear error in it currently, and several errors in the previous versions that are related to a lack of reading comprehension of the articles they are sourced from, is the article people are reading with regard to Regan.

Several facts have been suppressed, such as the fact that the counter-protests were a direct response to her death and began with disparaging her with signs that claimed she commit suicide.

Before her death, much of these things were not happening, nor were protests in Niagara-on-the-Lake of major note until those being protested against attended the above counter protests with the offending signs in an attempt to antagonize their opposition.

Promotion is not an issue because these groups, events, etc are all directly relevant to her death. Furthermore, she would hope her death would have some impact on the momentum in the movement she supported, but of course we must remain neutral here on Wikiepdia.

I sincerely hope more seasoned, professional editors, will properly cite the material available and cited over time and write a proper article which states both sides of the controversy surrounding her death.

So far, it has been an article rife with edits and cuts of information, which has been greatly frustrating to watch over time as an internet-savvy member of her family.

Sincerely,

Joshua Powell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC
Please contribute at Talk:Devi Sridhar to an RfC on, a scientist and government public health adviser on COVID-19. GPinkerton (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

White supremacy and the Proud Boys
There is an ongoing debate about how best to reflect the Proud Boys connections to white supremacy (sources). While it's broadly represented on reliable secondary sources that the Proud Boys have affiliations to white supremacists and have been involved in white supremacy (a Proud Boy member organised the Unite the Right rally where a white supremacist drove through a group of counter-protesters etc), the group's website officially rejects racism and their chairman, Enrique Tarrio, is a black Cuban-American. The main issues is if it is a NPOV and sourcing issue to qualify statements about white supremacy with a mention of Tarrio's ethnicity? I mention sourcing because this Daily Beast article appears to be the only source that explicitly parallels Tarrio's ethnicity to the group's broad affiliations with white supremacy, so WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE may be of relevance.

For context about the status quo, the article's lead currently says that the Proud Boys are "affiliated" with white supremacists, with the body saying: "Some men who are not white, including the group's chairman Enrique Tarrio, have joined the Proud Boys, drawn by the organization's advocacy for men, anti-immigrant stance, and embrace of violence. Officially, the Proud Boys condemn racism, with Tarrio stating that the group has "longstanding regulations prohibiting racist, white supremacist or violent activity". However, the ADL has deemed the group as having antisemitic, Islamophobic and racist views, with the group known to threaten, intimidate or violently assault anti-racism protesters. The group has claimed there is an "inherent superiority of the West", going to great lengths to mask members' connections to white supremacy." ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling the MRA movement "advocacy for men" is pretty laughable on its face. It's a misogynist movement, not "advocacy for men". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a failure of some kind to constantly qualify statements about the group with "but they put a token (Tokenism) guy Enrique Tarrio a faux leadership position". Especially considering the stuff said and the positions set for the group by the original group founder Gavin McInnes. Tarrio's presence is an example of the "black friend defense"; the group is still racist, and by all accounts McInnes is still in charge (quotation from article: "On 21 November 2018, shortly after news broke that the FBI had reportedly classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group with ties to white nationalists, McInnes said that his lawyers had advised him that quitting might help the nine members being prosecuted for the incidents in October and he said "this is 100% a legal gesture, and it is 100% about alleviating sentencing", and said it was a "'stepping down gesture', in quotation marks.")2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * A number of far right groups officially renounce racism or fascism but it's cosmetic rather than genuine. I think it is important to reflect what reliable sources say about them, rather than give equal validity with what they say about themselves. I would say something like, "the Proud Boys is a white supremacist group that tries to present an image of racial diversity." As you pointed out, news media routinely refer to them as white supremacist. I have always taken the view that news reporters do not have the expertise to make this determination. But presumably they don't do this themselves but get the information from academic sources and groups such as the ADL and SPLC. So it needs stronger sourcing than media usage. But media usage does show that it's not an unusual description. The term "Western chauvinism" is a clear giveaway. Western means white. And there's a long history of racists showing admiration for some minority groups.
 * The current U.S. presidential election has brought the group to the forefront. It's probably best to wait until after the election to resolve it.
 * TFD (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * A group officially rejecting racism or having a black chairman aren't adequate reasons to ignore or downplay strong WP:RS sourcing describing them as white supremacist; the first one is a violation of the WP:ABOUTSELF prohibition on using a source for "unduly self-serving" claims about themselves, while the second argument is WP:OR. If the statements about themselves and the arguments you are talking about are significant, there should be high-quality sources covering them of comparable weight to the ones describing them as white supremacist.  If we can't find such sources, then presenting the question as seriously in doubt would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, not NPOV; NPOV means accurately stating what the sources, as a whole, say about them. --Aquillion (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's just one facet of it. Sources should be selected and used, ideally so it represents how things are perceived world wide. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A common issue with this and other extremist groups they tend to co-exist with such as Rose City Antifa, Antifa (United States) is sources are gathered to support opinion statement of facts. Such as as saying "far right" and citing a bunch of sources. Common argument in these articles are far right vs right; far left vs left. It can be avoided by saying some sources describe them as far right, some describe them as right. WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:V and WP:YESPOV are worth reading. Graywalls (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It would probably be best to note that the group is widely viewed as white supremacists and then find a good source to say why. Also, ABOUTSELF should allow posting of the group's denial and it appears that a number of RS have said the group denies the claim.  Specific responses to accusations against individuals or organizations are not violations of ABOUTSELF.  The fact that the Daily Beast looked into the subject suggests it probably is due for inclusion but with limited weight.  A number of recent articles have noted both the white supremacist links and that the leader is cuban-american [][][][].  It should be clear that sources haven't taken this as proof that the ties to white supremacist don't exist and details as to what the ties are would better inform the reader as to why the group is seen as such regardless of the ethnicity of various members.  Springee (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to draw this conversation together, it sounds like we're all in agreement that chiefly, the label white supremacy is well-grounded in reliable sources, and that the groups official rejection of racism should be attributed and mentioned per WP:ABOUTSELF. Does that sound right to everyone? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say that the denials are more pro-forma than real and may be unduly self-serving. For instance, in the latest escapade with the #proudboys hashtag, the public statements were clearly contradicted by the behavior of the group's official parler account (run by Tarrios himself). This is now reflected in the article but it's a consistent pattern for the group to issue self-serving denials that are contradicted by their own actions and language before or after a specific event. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I think that if no one has any objections, it'd be best to include a short neutral statement like to the talk header (possibly in the FAQ, maybe as a standalone Tmbox)? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I second this suggestion. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B074:56CF:36AE:9C24 (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

ADL says members of varying ethnicity, Hosang who is cited as calling them fascist despite only saying they approach fascism calls them multi cultural. I think it would be best if we're not going to stick with the ADL or SLPC description as the lede as is the case with the vast majority of right wing hate groups, would be to say some call them white supremacist despite having members of varying ethnicity, being multicultural and having a black cuban leader. If further RS material pops up citing tokenism then it should be included-RS material to this effect does not exist despite aspersions to it being posted over and over and over again. Lastly, despite RS sources using white supremacist label more recently, it is still like fascist the minority POV as portrayed in the RS. THey are most commonly referred to as a far right wing hate group and that is probably because that is the description from the SLPC. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2461:5DFD:6A2C:87C5 (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would not mention it, per Mandy Rice-Davies: "well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"
 * It always comes across as "we're not white supremacists, we just think people with brown skin should go back where they came from and leave us alone with this land we stole from the Native Americans and built with the labor of slaves". I may be paraphrasing. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you give a quick look at the Tmbox that I added to Talk:Proud Boys? I do think that it's necessary since the very very vast plethora of requested edits to the article is either using OR or the Proud Boys' statements, but I don't want to in itself be a POV issue. I've tried to write the box as neutral as possible while still conveying the need, but I fear that it'll be spun out to a claim of censorship of Proud Boys or something stupid like that. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 00:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Like. I am sure we will refine the exact text over time, but that is a decent summary as I see it. Others may, of course, disagree. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly. had a few ideas of how we might improve it, but I think we need to find a balance between the authority of the current one and the more gentle version on my talk page}}. I fear it might be a sort of thing that there's innately going to be a tad bit of POV regardless... [[User:ItsPugle|ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As per the discussion and sources in the article, the consensus amongst sources is that the group has significant ties to white supremacy, and as explained in the article's lead, the group does officially reject racism. The Hosang sources explicitly calls them a proto-fascist group, too (relevant quotation viewable in the citation). With their leader being a black Cuban-American, this has often been brought up in discussion, and it is considered original research to say they aren't based on that (without sources), and there is no evidence that this official appointment reflects any ideological changes with several reliable sources, including the FBI, highlighting their white supremacist connections. We would only mention in the article that Tarrio's appointment is tokenism is if that is commonly covered in reliable sources. Do you have any evidence that there is a consensus amongst independent reliable sources that the Proud Boys are not fascist? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought this thread was asking about using the term “white supremacist”, not about the term “fascist”? These two terms are not identical. Not all white supremacists are fascists, and not all fascists are white supremacists.    Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears the PB's have been posting to Parler, Reddit and probably their various private forums trying to get their members to come to the site and repeat centrally provided talking points over and over again. Some of them are a bit more "screamy" than others, some a bit more sea lioning than others. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The lack of assumption of good faith on this topic with the continued warrantless attacks on editors that seek the page to adhere to WP guidelines is in direct violation of WP policy and should cease immediately. I posted the lede should say right wing extremist hate group, something wholly not congruent with the obvious personal attack posted above. I have no issue using ties to white supremacy provided it is weighted properly as most RS do not include that in their description even though it is hardly tenable upon further inspection.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B424:DCDD:60B9:9757 (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The way the group should be presented in the body to be neutral would be something like this order of discussion:
 * What the group is on paper - its clearly not like a non-profit, but its some type of foundation or organization with a leadership and this needs to be stated upfront and factually. A brief mission statement should be here, why the organization exists.
 * What the broader public opinion of them are, which is where the white supremacy facets will come into play. This is where attribution and mentioning the ADL and other comments will be mentioned
 * What the Proud Boys have actually said in response to the public opinion in that they (claim they) are not a group that promotes racism, with brief statements as to why. They clearly are going beyond just denying this but because most everyone else thinks they are in fact racist, we can't give them false balance of coverage, but it is inappropriate not to give them the coverage of why they say they aren't supporting racism, which become obvious on the final point...
 * Why the media distrust the PB when they say they are not a group promoting racism. In otherwords, the counter-counterarguments to the PB's counterarguments. That does seem to exist separately from the accusations that PB is a group that supports racism.
 * In this order, you have a logical narrative flow and covers both sides neutrally but with appropriate weight. As that reflects to the lede, the lede should start with the most factual information (what the PB entity actually is) then move to the fact that the group is seen as having ties to white supremacy and far right despite their denials of this position. Ledes of articles need to start from impartial tones with the most objectives/factual information, not the most notable stuff, though what makes a topic notable should be hit by the second or third sentences once the key facts have been doled out. The problem is that editors seem to be racing to include the notable criticism first and forgetting the factual stuff which is absolutely necessary to be put first. --M asem  (t) 17:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In theory, I would agree. The problem is that it is impossible to structure the article in this way. Reliable sources don’t AGREE about what the Proud Boys (as an entity) actually IS. All we have is opinion.  To some, it is a fascist white supremacy group. To others, it is a controversial conservative advocacy group, to yet others it is a “western chauvinist fraternity”. Some say it is part of the “men’s rights” movement, others say it isn’t.  Which view is correct?  THAT depends on who you ask.  Again, it is a group that is defined by opinion. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources don't agree then we report their disagreements. We don't cherry-pick to fit some editors political bias, who then goes reverting any change claiming it is against consensus and the reliable sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Somewhere, there has to be something on paper of what the PB is, if they are an organization with leadership. Reading what the SPLC says about them, the shortest factual statement is a "fraternal organization" which is very neutral and objective. Their mission from this would be, "protect and promote western values" by the same So a simple statement would be "The Proud Boys are a fraternal organization established by Gavin McInnes in 2016 to protect and promote western values." Then we lay into the media's criticism: "The group has widely been condemned as supporting far-right and white supremacy..." and so on at that point. That's it, that's all the reworking to hit NPOV at the top and then get into the meat of opinions and commentary that make the group notable. --M asem  (t) 19:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Something like that seems like a good idea. Obviously remember that WT:RSP says "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) is one of the most controversially classified sources in this list." -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, all I'm saying is that from what NPOV and where WP's impartialness should be, the first statement about the PB should be a brief objective statement of what they are without any view through the opinionated lens, which I think what I stated is correct. (we're not endorsing their mission by stating it that way). We would do the same describing, say, the Shiners or any other similar fraternal group; that brief statement I cannot see how that can be taken as "unduly self-serving". Then after that, its "fair game" to lay into the media's coverage and vast criticism of the group. We can't erase that away at all, but we can establish a more neutral tone to start and give the group at least a brief, reasonable statement of what they were founded as. --M asem (t) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV does not justify putting a claim in wikivoice in the first sentence of the lead that, according to RS, is a falsehood. The definition of fraternal organization on dictionary.com (a society of men associated in brotherly union, as for mutual aid or benefit) does not include a racist gang, and the purpose for which it was established was not to "protect and promote western values" unless western values here means racism and violence. This proposed sentence is the opposite of "a brief objective statement of what they are". The claim that Proud Boys is a fraternal organization that protects and promotes western values, if in the article at all, needs to be attributed and doesn't belong in the lead. NightHeron (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your WP:OR of them not being a fraternal organization does not overrule WP:NPOV. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not OR. The first sentence in the lead, and in fact any statement that's presented in wikivoice rather than attributed, has to be consistent with RS, and I'm just pointing out that the proposed first sentence is not. Are you claiming that independent RS describe it as a fraternal organization? NightHeron (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I pulled that straight out of SPLC. It's also how they call themselves, and repeated oft by many news sources. Again, its simply describing the group in a neutral term (and seriously, regardless of all that they do, that does seem to be a completely appropriate term to use for them) before launching off into criticism. --M asem (t) 22:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * SPLC is very clear that that's their self-description, and Haaretz also used it as the way they describe themselves. But other RS such as The New York Times use their own terminology, which is certainly not fraternal organization; for example, see, where the short description used is extremist organization. According to WP:NPOV, we're not supposed to use political-spin terms, but rather the terms that are most commonly used by independent RS. NightHeron (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But I would think most editors would recognize that "far right", "white supremacy", "extremist organization" are all political spin terms, especially in light of the recent debates. They're all value-laden labels and lack objective criteria, though as applied to a group and not a BLP, we have a lower bar for inclusion.
 * That said, this is where I sense too many editors in this convo feel that we must make sure the reader is away this is a bad group. And I don't disagree that at the end of the day, a reader should be walking away from this article with the understanding that the group is readily seen as being associated with far right, white supremacy tones. We absolutely cannot whitewash that away (as I see some newer editors/IPs suggesting). That's staying, as per WEIGHT. But WEIGHT does not override NPOV in terms of Wikivoice's tone and impartiality. We are not here to right great wrongs. Wikivoice cannot start in a stance that is critical of the Proud Boys despite how hated the group is by mass media. This is why the first sentence and how it is approached must start with a minimally objective statement of what the group actually is. And it seems to be best described objectively as a fraternal/men's organization, founded in 2017 by McGinnis to support pro-West views. That's all facially true, and so it is impartial and neutral. And then you can get to the meat that this is very much challenged by the popular media. Its a simple initial detour to set a neutral tone for how the article starts that brings better in line with what NPOV expects. (Consider that the flip side, organizations/groups that are widely praised, or the like, we don't lead their articles in the first sentence with the heaps of praise but simply establish the facts then dig into the positive criticism.) --M asem (t) 22:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your framing problems are betrayed when you use language like "how hated the group is by mass media". The group is not "hated" by "mass media", the consensus of Reliable Sources is overwhelming simply because of the facts. Your framing falls into the category of false balance. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B074:56CF:36AE:9C24 (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What "facts" are at play here? If we're talking about how the group is called far-right, white supremacy, extremist and all that, those are still value-laden labels with subjective criteria which are impossible to prove out, similar to proving out a negative. Wikivoice cannot call them as such as a fact, but we can certainly can and pretty much have to include the media's mass condemnation of the group with those terms, lay out the media's evidence for why they call them that (of which there's numerous pieces) and very little for the PB to explain against that. The false balance would be giving equal air time to the PB to explain their side with the same number of words/etc. A false balance is not giving one or two sentences to explain exactly what they are objectively on paper, particularly in context of NPOV. --M asem (t) 23:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "exactly what they are objectively" is an extremist organization. That's not political spin, it's a fact. The description in your proposed opening sentence of the lead, a fraternal organization formed to protect and promote western values, is political spin. NightHeron (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * An "extremist organization" is still subjective: extremist to whom? And the statement I said is this: "The Proud Boys are a fraternal organization established by Gavin McInnes in 2016 to protect and promote western values." That it is a fraternal or men's organization is very objective - that's the basic structure of the group without applying spin. The statement "established ... to protect and promote western values" is not political spin, that's a factual statement of why it was formed as part of its charter, but obviously that's not how the group behaves. Politically spinning this would be trying to whitewash away the criticism of the press and stick to that, but to briefly mention what its purpose was when founding and then get into the criticism is standard practice for nearly any organization. Neutrality demands that nearly every article about organizations should start with the same type of framing sentence before getting into the meat of the issues with the organization. --M asem  (t) 00:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that its version of "western values" has as much relation to the normal definition as scientology's version of "ethics" does to actual ethics, that's a laughable line of argument. Once again this is a false balance argument. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP cannot make those judgement calls. Simply presenting the brief, facial reason the group was set up by founders is an objective statement. But I will say we could also write it as "The Proud Boys is a fraternal organization founded by Gavin McInnis in 2017. Purportedly established to protect and promote pro-west values, the Proud Boy are commonly considered to be associated with far-right and white supremacy..." --M asem (t) 04:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Simply presenting the brief, facial reason the group was set up by founders" is not "an objective statement", it's a failure to account and properly present what is obviously unduly self serving. This is especially true when a group or individual uses dog whistling terms or their own internal definitions of words or phrases such as "western values" that would not be correctly presented if not clarified in text. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , The root claim of "fraternal" seems consistently to be McInnes himself, and should be framed as such, as it is in every source I have seen that eevn mentions it (whihc the vast majority do not). It's not generally covered in high level overviews of the group so would go in the body, not the lead,. anyway. And any such claim would have to include the context that McInness is a racist misoynist Islamophobe according to his own admissions in print. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur that "fraternal organization", if included, should be framed as coming from McInnes; as it's attributed in the sources. Also concur that, if included, it should go in the body, not the lead. - Ryk72 talk 22:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , even Fox News, $DEITY help us, calls them a far-right group. Anything else constitutes an outlier, I'd say. The Haaretz source Emir provided says "a far-right, 'western chauvinist' fraternal organization". Nobody puts it first: their defining characteristic is not fraternalism, it's being far-right. There are books sources for them being (or at least claiming to be) a fraternal organization, but as I say the defining and dominant descriptor is far-right group.
 * At some point dismissing the obvious as political spin slips into denialism. It's hard to find a single mainstream source that does not identify them as far-right - and I suspect that this is primarily because if you cal;l someone fascist, it is often interpreted as invoking Godwin's Law (which, incidentally, is officially suspended for the duration, according to Mike himself). Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We clearly aren't going to ignore that pretty much everyone seems to call PB as far-right, though we still have to recognize the term is a value-laden label and have to speak to it out of wikivoice ("is widely considered far-right" rather than "is far-right"). But that's a minor point to the main issue here in that we need to simply lead off with a brief objective statement of what the PB is free of subjective commentary from any source before getting to the meat of notability. This is the "X is/was a Y" statement I've talked of here, and what's important is that in that statement, "Y" does not need to be why X is notable, but should be an objective characterization of X into some taxonomity of knowledge, with the statement of notability following up after that's been said. This is how is done on almost all other articles, and that should be maintained here. In this case, if we are talking an organization, then calling the PB a "fraternal organization" or a "men's organization" is about the best we can do to fit it into the various classifications of other organizations. After that, the rest of the WEIGHT of media sources are fair game. --M asem (t) 23:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , position on the left-right political axis is a subjective judgment, but when virtually every reliable source is in agreement that the position is at the far right, that becomes a fact. We do not say that the Nazis were "widely identified as far right", that would be very silly. When you look at the Venn diagram of views espoused by the Proud Boys, and especially by McInness when speaking for them, you end up with the intersection of homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, antisemitisim, white supremacy, overt racism against blacks, Puerto Ricans, Asians and open admission of preference for white skin and English speaking. If you can find a single source that would put this collection of views anywhere else on the political spectrum, I'd be very interested to read it. In fact sources use far-right onlyt because they shy away from neo-Nazi. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a whole separate issue related to "virtually every RS says it so it must be fact" in an area where there is no type of scientific process involved (this would be true if we were talking MEDRS or SCIRS sourcing, and there's the whole aspect of not being able to prove a negative), but that's not as relevant to the issue that taking the basis that virtually every RS calls the PB a white suprmacist group which is undeniable and required information to be included, this is still characterizing the group rather than talking about what the group objectively is, which is a distinction we make everywhere else. We don't call Casablanca the greatest film ever as the first thing we say about it nor in wikivoice, for example, because that's characterizing the film, but we do start with establishing what the film is (when it was made, who produced it, who started in it, what it was about), and then move onto the characterization of the film - why its so notable - attributing the mass praise outside of wikivoice. If we are to be keeping to a neutral and impartial tone, we should b keeping the characterization out of the very first sentence or phrase of the lede, but obviously move quickly to it if that is what the group is most notable form; instead, we need to still state the non-characterized factual elements of what this group to set a neutral tone for the article. --M asem (t) 15:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , not really, no. You are really arguing against your own point here: far-right is not like greatest film, it's like great film. Nobody would seriously dispute that Casablanca belongs in the category of great films, just as no source seriously disputes that the Proud Boys belong in the category of far-right. To say that they are the furthest right would be an opinion requiring attribution (we'll always have Patriot Front), but it's still the same old story: a fight for a white homeland and glory. I would be shocked - shocked! - to hear that there are any sources that put them anywhere else. Sourcing for far right is not merely a matter of "round up the usual suspects", after all. Even Fox has called them that as a statement of fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're still missing my point, that we should be distinguishing statements of objectively what something tangibly is, in terms of how it fits into a classification schema, and what something is characterized as. Doesn't matter if we're talking condemnation, praise, or even mediocracy of characterization, this should be a separate statement from what something actually is when first presented to the reader, because whatever that characterization will affect the tone of the article, and if we're leading with that before anything else, we're not being appropriately impartial and dispassionate in our writing style, even if using appropriate attribution outside of wikivoice. We're normally taking the approach used by academic writings: Most topics we cover are notable for what they are characterized as, and not for what they tangibly are, but we still lead off with discussing these objective bases to establish where that topic sits as a neutral, impartial phrase to frame the content, buld up a narrative, and prepare the reader for what is to come. We normally save the characterization - usually what the topic is notable for - for the second sentence or later in the lede where it naturally flows in that, and thus don't need to step back and awkwardly explain what the topic is without confusing the reader. --M asem (t) 20:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, I think I understand your point, but we';re arguing from different premises. You argue that left-right is a subjective classification scheme. That's true. I argue that when pretty much every source, including Fox, positions them on the far right of that spectrum, then the position as far right becomes a fact. The approach taken by academic writings is to state, as fact, that they are far-right.
 * You keep saying that they are "characterized as" far-right, but they are not a group known for something who are characterized as far right, they are a group that is known for being far-right. In as much as they are known, it is because of their participation in far-right marches and rhetoric. They are not known for anything other than being neo-fascists.
 * For comparison, the Knights of Columbus is a fraternal organization, it is known for a lot of things and its hard-line anti-abortion, anti-LGBT stance is only part of it. But Proud Boys are not a social club, they are a group of neofascists founded to fight. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're still bringing "a group that known for..." which is still characterization. What I am saying is we need to lede with a definition that has no one's claim or supposition on the group's intentions or motives or reason for being, a simple statement of fact that also (per other parts of this conversation as I will also agree) also does not propaate the group's own claims. We need a plain, non-descriptive statement of what the group is. That statement first and foremost is critical to keeping a neutral/impartial tone. Then after that one's free to move into the WEIGHTed characterization of the group and what they are notable for. Again, spotcheck nearly any other topic on WP which has had many eyes on it, and you'll find this structure most of the time. Sentence 1 is the "X is a Y" objective statement without any characterization or subjective labels, and then the remainder of the lede moves into why that subject is notable. Now, what that is for the PBs is not clear with the only simplest one I can see being "an organization founded in 2017 by McInnis." Saying anything else either brings in characterization from others or questionable details about their formation which should be held off after that one sentence --M asem (t) 14:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "objectively what something tangibly is, in terms of how it fits into a classification schema" - What the Proud Boys are, tangibly, in classification schema, happens to be "a far-right,[1][2] neo-fascist[3] and male-only organization[4] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.[5][6][7][8][9]". That you don't like it and believe the issue is "how hated the group is by mass media" or some other conspiracy theory, is irrelevant. The reliable sources are quite clear. Wikipedia is not here to whitewash the pages of groups merely because of WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories that there is a secret media conspiracy against them. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are several problems with this proposal, chief among them that any mission statement or position statement put out by the Proud Boys is straddling or jumping past the line of unduly self-serving, I personally would say outright dishonest or doubletalk. Starting with "what the group is on paper" is also inconsistent with the pages for other hate groups such as Patriot Prayer, Identity Evropa or the Ku Klux Klan. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The difference is that there is nearly universal agreement about what labels apply to these hate groups (in some cases, even agreement among their members), while with Proud Boys there isn’t. Reliable sources DON’T universally agree on what labels apply to them. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Use content with the strongest RS sources- all RS are not created equal- and most to least in the mainstream and add to the article considering greater and lesser weight. The PB website is not a reliable source. If we want to say PB says they are not racist the best source is a secondary source that reports this. Since this is a relatively extraordinary claim given evidence in other RS it should probably be inline cited and attributed. Facists and white supremacists are not the same although they may overlap. Use what the sources say and if the claims seem hard to buy into inline cite and attribute the claim to the group-don't make the claim in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia cites sources that are opinion all the time. That opinion is sometimes blatant sometimes hidden but possible opinion in reliable sources is a given. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The three right wing hate groups above as with most right wing hate groups on WP lede with the SLPC's description. In this case the SLPC labels them a far right extremist hate group or something similar. The majority of RS labels them something along those same lines. Why is WP deciding this time is different and using minority RS opinion over the majority and the exoert notable opinion of the SLPC and ADL as the lede?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B424:DCDD:60B9:9757 (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with that approach, as long as we don't stray too far from WP:SPADE with the primary description: "Proud Boys are a group of young men who enjoy strolls in the spring sunshine while coincidentally armed to the teeth and carrying Confederate flags because they like the colour" isn't going to cut it, as you acknowledge. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The right wing vs. far right argument is a red herring. These terms can be used interchangeably when the context is understood. For example, if someone writes, "neonazis, neofascists and other right-wing groups," it is clear from the context that the other right-right groups aren't moderate Republicans and UK Conservatives. It's similar to if someone referred to the former leaders of East Germany as socialists. It's not that they are saying they are not Communists like the leaders of other Eastern European countries and should be grouped with social democrats, it's just that they are using a different term to mean the same thing. TFD (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think is 100% right on how this should be handled. The first sentence should be 100% objective and no matter how much we dislike the subject should not be the sentence where the negativity starts. I also agree with Masem that all articles should be written as if we have no emotional attachment to the subject at all (ie IMPARTIAL). As an encyclopedia we should not be trying to persuade others that this person/group is good or bad. We should simply state the facts. The reader can make up their own mind if they wish. This sort of format isn't something that should be unique to this article. It should basically apply to all articles. It's something that should be done as a mater of principle not just editor preference. Springee (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In our article on Osama bin Laden the first sentence of the lead describes him as the leader of a "terrorist" organization. So are you suggesting that we should remove that, so that no matter how much we dislike the subject [the first sentence] should not be the sentence where the negativity starts? NightHeron (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well NightHeron, that's exactly how Whitewashing (censorship) an article works! 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * We put terrorist in the first line because that is what makes Bin Laden notable. We can't compare one article to another. Within the first few lines of every article we must indicate where notability lies. All of our articles must present a WP: NPOV; this is applicable to all articles across Wikipedia, and is policy; we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can't understand that the violence/terrorism is what makes the Proud Boys notable, what we have here isn't a policies issue but a WP:COMPETENCE issue, Masem. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , and what makes Proud Boys notable is that they are far-right. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if their notability is simply that they are far-right. I haven't looked at the sources much, but I do watch the news and the group has taken far-right to another level; that may be their notability. Just a comment; I'm not disagreeing so much as suggesting there's much more than far-right to describe them and their notability. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , all the things for which they are notable, are subsets of far-right: white nationalist, white supremacist, self-appointed militia, MRA. You're not wrong to say that they have raised it to another level, and I think it would be a serious error to water this down by treating them, as Masem increasingly seems to suggest, as a normal group.
 * Contemporaneous coverage of the rise of the NSDAP and the Fascisti shows a similar struggle to cope with the brazenness of their agenda, and misguided attempts to frame them as part of normal politics. They are not part of normal politics. They are part of normal neo-fascism. That's not the same thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks Guy. I'm very aware of far-right groups. Such groups are decades old in the US with distinct MOs. For that reason whatever is added must about any group must be sourced so that those distinctions are made clear. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , sure - and in the case of Proud Boys, it absolutely is sourced. They are uniformly identified as far-right and misogynist, and containing strong elements of racism. Of course Gavin "at least they're not fucking n[redacted] or Puerto Ricans" McInnes says it's not a racist group. But he is on record as saying "I love being white and I think it’s something to be very proud of . . . . I don’t want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life." . It's hard to describe calling Asian-Americans "slopes" and "rice balls" anything other than racist. And he openly admits that he is Islamophobic.<ref9The America First Fraternity Pledges Trump, NBC News Left Field, Nov. 1, 2017 at 3:17
 * So really the only question is: are the Proud Boys less misogynist, racist, Islamophobic and in sundry other ways bigoted, than their founder? The sources suggest, if anything, the opposite.


 * Whether they are less or more of anything has to be sourced. Otherwise classic OR. My personal or anyone's personal opinion of this group and how it compares, and believe me I find this kind of thing more than repulsive and their actions unconscionable, can't be confused with how we write articles. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy (help! - typo?) 13:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What's actually important on the Bin Laden article is that it starts "was a founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda", with the rest of the phrase of that first sentence being how al-Qaeda is described (note this actually doesn't label Bin Laden directly). The part in quotes is a neutral, impartial identification of who bin Laden, with the second phrase getting to the notable facet of the orgnization. This is completely reasonable and on parity to what I am proposing. --M asem (t) 04:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was responding to another post rather than to the Bin Laden article and was suggesting that what we put in the first few lines must indicate what is notable rather than what is negative or positive or any other subjective way of judging the subject or article. Whitewashing doesn't enter into the discussion if editors are writing from a NPOV since whitewashing is both a subjective way of writing and a subjective way of describing the content. We can't compare articles in a specific sense although general points might be similar. I think the Bin Laden lead is very well written, by the way, and is a good example of how to deal with notability. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And I will agree with that, my comment was more to NightHeron's comment suggesting we should remove "terrorist" from it. The lede of bid Laden, outside of a lengthy first sentence, is what I consider the right approach, and can be applied here in the same manner. --M asem (t) 04:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , and the equivalent here would be the reverse (since this is the group): Proud Boys was founded by racist misogynist white supremacist Gavin McInness. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Our article on Osama bin Laden specifically does not describe him as the leader of a terrorist organisation. It describes him as a founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda, designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, and various countries. I concur with Littleolive oil that that is very well written; an excellent example of quality NPOV-aligned attribution. - Ryk72 talk 04:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that would be relevant in the article on Gavin McInness (or at least it would if he were known only for founding Proud Boys, rather than for being a far-right white supremacist misogynist, as sources describe him).
 * Describing it as far-right is the equivalent of the "pan-Islamic militant" part of the characterisation of al-Qaeda. In both cases, the sources are pretty much unanimous. Describing PB as a terrorist organisation would indeed require attribution, as it does for al-Qaeda. In both cases, the sources attribute the characterisation. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you might have inadvertently misread my comment as a reply to your subsequent, interposed comment. It wasn't. Mine was a direct reply to this statement; suggesting that it was incorrect. I've not said that our article on Osama bin Laden is relevant to our article on Proud Boys; simply that the description above of our article on Osama bin Laden was not accurate. - Ryk72 talk 13:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that there's anything wrong with the Osama bin Laden article. I was simply pointing out that, if one accepts Springee's claim that "all articles" (Springee's emphasis) must have first sentences that do not convey anything negative, then the term "terrorist" would have to be removed from the lead sentence on Osama bin Laden. My rhetorical question was a reductio ad absurdum of Springee's statement about all articles. I'm sorry if that was unclear. I was disputing Springee's statement about policy in all articles; I was not advocating any changes in the Osama bin Laden page.

If the lead sentence in the PB article describes PB correctly as an extremist organization characterized by racism and violence, that doesn't necessarily have to be in wikivoice. It could be attributed to the NY Times, SPLC, and numerous other sources. Generally, extensive citations are not needed in the lead, but they're not prohibited either. As pointed out, the "terrorist" designation on Osama bin Laden is attributed. NightHeron (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

But note that the lead sentence already has extensive citations (9 of them). If some editors are squeamish about stating the nature of PB in wikivoice, then some words could be inserted, such as "...is an American political group widely characterized as...". That would be a bit wordy and weasle-ish. Perhaps a better comparison than the Osama bin Laden article would be the Ku Klux Klan article, where the first sentence states in wikivoice that the KKK "is an American white supremacist hate group." We would have to change the KKK article and many others if we were to adopt Springee's policy that all articles should have no negativity in the first sentence. NightHeron (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the bin Laden article would comply with my intent. It's objective in describing bin Laden's role in the organization and, as Masem says, it is the organization that is described as X and all descriptions are attributed to governmental/international organizations.  I wasn't previously aware of the bin Laden intro but I think it makes a strong template to follow.  I'll leave it to others to figure out how to translate that intro into the PB article.  Springee (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily the first "sentence" but the first part, where we same "X is/was a Y", or often "X is/was a A, B, and C". Now, that might be one sentence by itself, it might be the first phrase of the first sentence (as in the case of bin Laden), but whatever that is, that should be factual and objective to quickly classify what the topic X is into a taxological or heirarchical position of human knowledge. It also establishes quickly an impartial tone for the article. At this stage of the article it is NOT about identifying why X is notable but basically to quickly establish to the reader what X is. (Remember that notability is a guideline and not policy like NPOV). Then after that it varies depending on the topic, but usually when we talk persons or groups, the next phrase or the next sentence is likely going to stress the reason why we have the article, and that's the notability factor; we're getting to that right away after establishing a fact to build on. In the case of bid Laden, we explain the terrorist nature of the organization he ran as defined by the UN. As I've proposed for the PB, you define them first as a fraternal organization founded by McInnis in 2017 (that's factual), and then go on to explain they claim to be pro-west ideals but are regularly seen by media as a group associated with far right/white supremacy and criticized for that, immediately after that. Now every reader's clear by the end of the second sentence that the group has possibly deceitful purposes, but established in a tone that is dispassionate and impartial from the way the media treats the topic. That's how we are required to write in Wikivoice per NPOV. We are not ignore the RSes, but we are making sure the neutrality and impartiality of the tone of our writing, which also must be kept to, is upheld. --M asem  (t) 14:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your original proposal was to replace the first sentence by the sentence The Proud Boys are a fraternal organization established by Gavin McInnes in 2016 to protect and promote western values. This states as a fact in wikivoice that the purpose of establishing PB was quite noble. I see that you've now dropped "to protect and promote western values" from your proposed first sentence. But you still want to keep "fraternal". Why? The current wording "male-only" is clearer; fraternal is less clear, because it often implies other things as well, such as brotherly and comradely.
 * If we really want to invent a new policy for this article (regarding the absence of negativity in the first sentence [which was Springee's proposal], or at least the absence of negativity stated in wikivoice), then the policy would have to be appled to the Ku Klux Klan article and many others, isn't that right? NightHeron (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the issues of concern on my initial suggestion, just that "fraternal organization" is used by many good RSes, so it wasn't a term I pulled out of thin air. I understand the concerns, just that it is the focus on some factual statement right up front to establish where in the whole of knowledge the organization sits that is key. We need to stop first and explain what the PB are factually before launching into why its notable. The KKK is a bit different since there's three different versions of it, but I do think its lede sentence can be structured better. But again, lets use bid Laden or (and I'll be the one to evoke Godwin's law here) Adolf Hitler as examples of ledes that lay out the facts before laying out the criticisms that made that person notable or notorious. We have to be dispassionate and it should not be the goal of our writings to get to how "bad" a person or group our the door - that's what causes the lack of impartiality and neutrality in tone. We have to write in a disinterested tone, and many of these articles lack that in the race to include all these criticisms. We have to include them, but they don't have to be featured as soon or predominately as some do present. --M asem (t) 15:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So now you're really saying that you'd want to change the lead to the KKK article as well. How about the BLP for David Duke? The first sentence there also has some negativity stated in wikivoice.
 * The reality is that there's no wikipolicy forbidding negativity in wikivoice in the first sentence. You and Springee are proposing a new policy that, if adopted, would have to be applied everywhere and would basically be a whitewashing of articles on Proud Boys, Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, etc. NightHeron (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it has been a problem for the last 5-6 years, that due to external events, editors have gotten .. emboldened, I guess? on articles of people/groups associated with the far/alt right to paint them in as bad a picture as possible as allowed by RSes but forgoing what NPOV says in terms of how we write in Wikivoice. (I don't blame them, the situation is very dire and this is a very tempting position to take, so it is only human nature to go this way, coupled with a media that is not letting down on their criticism of these groups or people) Look at any other bio or group article that otherwise not on that side of the spectrum that has been vetted by many eyes, and nearly every such article will start with the factual statement, even for those that are generally universally praised or elevated, and only after getting them sorted into where they fall into the taxonomity of human knowledge, then move on to why they are important and introduce subjective or other forms of praise, criticism or other non-objective facets. (eg Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein, Nelson Mandela, etc. Our articles cannot be "scarlet letters" on these groups even if that is the bulk of their coverage in the media. And again, this is not saying the first sentence wholly has to be this, just the first "X is/was an A, B, and C" phrase, everything beyond that should be clear. As yet another consideration here, this "X is/was an A, B, and C" phrase also now should be matching up with the new short descriptions that are being deployed for search engine purposes among other things, and these absolutely cannot use subjective terms, so all the more importance that the first phrase stay to the objective facts.
 * What we really need to be doing is thinking, how do we write this to be parallel to all other similar organizations that have been written on WP, and then how to we deviate appropriate to account for the massive criticism they have received? Maintaining the similar structure, tone, and approach to other organization articles where possible with appropriate sourcing is part of neutrality policy, and then we can talk about the WEIGHT of addition material related to the criticism of the group to add atop that. So this means we still need to objective state what the organization is in the lede upfront, and in the body objectively state their history and briefly their claimed purpose and activities (we aren't giving weight to being their real purpose, just what's said on paper), and then we're ready to consider all the calls labeling the PBs as far-right/white supremacy and the like. That's how we should be thinking of these, but instead, most editors appear to think from the last point because that's just where the sourcing clearly is, and not giving the first point any consideration. --M asem  (t) 16:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "to be parallel to all other similar organizations that have been written on WP", it has already been demonstrated above that your proposal is not consistent with other similar organizations that have been written on WP. But just to demonstrate how facially ridiculous your argument is I'll provide some examples here, from organizations or people that are also in Category:Alt-right.
 * Ku Klux Klan - "The Ku Klux Klan (/ˌkuː klʌks ˈklæn, ˌkjuː-/),[a] commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist hate group..."
 * Identity Evropa - "Identity Evropa (/juːˈroʊpə/), rebranded[10] as American Identity Movement in March 2019,[2][11] is an American neo-Nazi[12][13][14] and white supremacist[14][15][16][17][18] organization..."
 * Alt-Right - "The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement..."
 * Richard B. Spencer - "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born 1978) is an American neo-Nazi,[1][2] antisemitic conspiracy theorist and white supremacist..."
 * VDARE - "VDARE is an American website focusing on opposition to immigration to the United States and is associated with white supremacy,[2][3] white nationalism,[4][5][6] and the alt-right.[7][8][9]"
 * Vanguard America - "Vanguard America is an American white supremacist, neo-Nazi, neo-fascist organization. The organization is also a member of the Nationalist Front.[1][2]"
 * National Policy Institute - "The National Policy Institute (NPI) is a white supremacist think tank and lobby group based in Alexandria, Virginia.[1][2][3][4] It lobbies for white supremacists and the alt-right.[5]"
 * New Century Foundation - "The New Century Foundation is a white supremacist[1] organization founded in 1994 by Jared Taylor known primarily for publishing a magazine, American Renaissance, which promotes white supremacy."
 * Northwest Territorial Imperative - "The Northwest Territorial Imperative (often shortened to Northwest Imperative or known simply as the Northwest Front)[2] is a white separatist, neo-Nazi idea that has been popularized since the 1970s–80s by white nationalist, white supremacist and white separatist groups within the United States."
 * League of the South - "The League of the South (LS) is a white nationalist, neo-Confederate, white supremacist organization,[6][7][8][9][10]..."
 * The Daily Stormer - "The Daily Stormer is an American far-right neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and Holocaust denial commentary and message board website that advocates for the genocide of Jews.[1][2][3][4]"
 * I could make this list even longer but I think the point is made. There does not appear to be any legitimate concern for "consistency with other articles", or any real policy reason to whitewash the lead by starting with the facially false, unduly self serving claims of the Proud Boys organization. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If those articles have a problem we fix them, we don't ruin another article for in the name of consistency. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you really just suggest that those articles are "ruined"??? The argument made by Masem and Springee was that wording needed to be removed from the Proud Boys lead to be "consistent" with other articles. This is clearly a false argument, as demonstrated by checking "other similar organizations that have been written on WP" (Masem's words).
 * Also to Masem, if you are going to suggest that the Proud Boys should be listed at List of general fraternities as a "fraternal organization" you're going to need to provide some REALLY good sourcing to back that up. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First, I never said the wording has to be removed from the lede. That's whitewashing and 100% agreement we can't do that. I am pointing out it should be shifted to slightly later in the lede after establishing the factual placement of the group/person in the taxological knowledge structure. Far far different. Second, in the case of PB, I don't think a "fraternal organization" is necessarily the same as a "fraternity" as we apply that latter term (that's more for college-based groups), but if it is objective founded as a fraternal organization it should be categorized like that. As WP editors, we can't take this type of stance that "oh this group's offensive so it shouldn't belong with the rest of these others". It's similar to the argument happening at Andy Ngo whether he should be called a journalist, with some arguing that calling him a journalist against "actual" journalists like Woodward and Burnstein would be doing a disservice to those journalists. Unfortunately, this is what being neutral and impartial is - we cannot judge in wikivoice, and that's what you're asking us to do. --M asem (t) 17:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, btw, you are proving the point that this is an issue that affects any person/group associated with far/alt-right ideologies. It is nearly impossible to spot check and find examples of the same type of wording of those you give that exist in articles for liberal groups or even for people or groups that are in great regard. I'm sure there's some but it is very difficult to find these, while you can trip over any of these when you go searching for this for people/groups on the far right. Which indicates there's a significant problem here. --M asem (t) 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "It is nearly impossible to spot check and find examples of the same type of wording of those you give that exist in articles for liberal groups..." So, your position here is that you believe that the Proud Boys, and other extremist right-wing groups (up to and including neo-nazi and white supremacist groups) are somehow being done a disservice because they are accurately represented in the lead sentences of articles? This appears to be a false balance ploy, similar to the coining of the term "alt-left" to create a bogeyman. That you cannot find, as you term, "liberal groups" who have "the same type of wording" is more evidence of a specific agenda - especially since if one looks at organizations like the Young Communist League USA one finds them described as "The Young Communist League USA (YCLUSA) is a communist youth organization in the United States", and I think everyone here understands that the term "communist" is understood to carry derogatory connotations by most of the USA no matter where they sit on the political spectrum. The underlying issue you have here is that, factually, left-wing groups tend not to be hate groups or associate with hate groups. That is a factual observation, and attempts to create a false equivalence where none exists in the name of "neutrality" do wikipedia a disservice by creating whitewashed, inaccurate articles. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That example of the Youth Communist League is exactly the same as the bin Laden where he is described as a leader of a militant organization, which in both cases is acceptable because those are objectively what they are. That group is founded on communism, that a fact, so it makes no sense to remove that out of there. With the PB, the issue is that they were founded on pro-West ideas, which is what people do have problems with including as a fact, and I agree in this case deferring this to put it against what they are more publicly seen as is probably more correct. --M asem (t) 18:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And further, it is the problem that we have created a completely different approach and structure to articles on the far/alt-right than any other ideology. This is not being neutral or impartial. As I said, we should start with trying to write with the same structure and then add on top the WEIGHT of criticism these groups have drawn. This keeps all that is probably in most of these articles in place, but shifts where it is discussed to keep a more impartial tone. --M asem (t) 18:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "pro-West ideas"... No, they were founded as a white supremacist hate group. The "pro-west ideas", "western chauvinism", and other doubletalk terminology designed to obfuscate is unduly self-serving and disingenuous. Your push to whitewash the article in the feigned name of "neutrality" seems to be exactly what is referred to in WP:NPOV's warning that "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance" since the group "purports to be against white supremacy, while overtly promoting the precise theories and narratives that white supremacists are known for." https://www.insider.com/proud-boys-trump-debate-who-what-comments-hate-group-2020-9 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In wikivoice, we cannot question what McInnis said what he founded the PB as, as that is documented fact, and we certainly cannot said it was founded to promote white supremacy because he never said that. But we can present the fact in wikivoice that the bulk of the media seriously doubt that the "pro-west" goals were the legitimate reason for the group's establishment due to the fact the group engages repeated in far-right/white supremacy activities and behavior. No one is going to be able to prove that unless McInnis self-asserts this, which is unlikely. So to address the false balance argument, that would be stating factually, "PB is a group that promotes pro-west values" without any further clarifiers, as clearly that is disputed. What is not a false balance is stating "PB is a group founded by McInnis to promote pro-west values. The group is frequently criticized for its racism views." or "While the group purports to promote pro-west values, it is frequently called out as racist." Both of these establish why there's a controversy over the group. And both of those do not whitewash anything but maintain neutrality and impartial tone. --M asem  (t) 19:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Part of establishing false balance is putting their claims first, and then the overwhelming weight of reliable sources second. Given the imbalance in the case of the Proud Boys, this is definitionally false balance. It's not a 1v1 "he says this, other guy says this" situation - it's the overwhelming weight of reliable sources, against the unduly self-serving claims of the Proud Boys. The impartial description for the Proud Boys should be as the lead currently is, well sourced to multiple reliable sources of high quality that establish what the group really is, not what it duplicitiously claims to be in doubletalk. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a false balance concern about overloading the article with unduly self-serving claims, I agree. That's not what is being called for here at. Identifying briefly what the group can be categorized as based on how it was founded, and the purported reason it was founded, is the farthest from being unduly self-serving. Unduly self-serving would be including their entire mission statement, how the organization works, their internal literature they share with its members and the like (which we know many consider farcical) as to try to demonstrate the group is pro-west, given that nearly no RS goes into any length on this. No one is calling to add these at all.
 * False balance does not mean that the side with the most weight goes first. That's no where in policy. But we do have policy on our tone to stay neutral and impartial, and that's where presenting brief objective statements before piling on the lengthy amount of criticism is absolutely in line with that. To lead with criticism, even if it is written out of wikivoice with attribution immediately creates a non-encyclopedic tone for these articles and makes them stand out compared to equivalent topics, which is why these are a problem. --M asem (t) 20:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "pro-west" is a doubletalk term that readers will not understand without clarification, and further, no reliable source uses that when describing the group without it being a "the group describes themselves as" quoting that falls under guidelines for unduly self-serving self-published statements. Giving it weight and prominence in the lead is inappropriate. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Doubletalk is a redirect so readers will not understand that without clarification. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that RSes do state that PB claim their group is pro-west, this clearly is not a unduly self-serving statement, since it is being made by 3rd parties. The frequent use by RSes gives actual weight to mention it, but to respect the false balance concern, it needs to be made right up against the assertions the group is far right/white supremacy/racist by the media. Which is all part of the various solutions I've presented. It would be a problem to present "PB is purported to be pro-west" in isolation of anything else. --M asem (t) 20:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , pro-West is code. It means Aryan. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming the RSes point this out, then this can be said "While the group state their are "pro-West", many of their critics state this represens Aryan values and support far right/white supremacy views." or something like that. We know what the cover of the book claims to say, and we know what many many many sources say what is actually in the book but we should still address the fact that the book cover and the contents are far different (which is a point in the RSes that there's a duplicity in how the group presents itself). --M asem (t) 21:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources do NOT state in their own words that the group is "pro-west". At most they repeat that "pro-west" (sometimes "western chauvinist", sometimes other internally defined dog whistling terms) is how the group describes themselves. That's a self-serving claim being given way too much undue weight in your proposals. And yes, Guy is correct: "pro-west" is a dog whistling term with white supremacist connections, the same as nonsense such as "anti-white-guilt" or "white pride". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A unduly self-serving claim would be one that we would be pulling from the PB's own website or their own social media accounts with no other source talking about it. We do not want to pull from these at all, that's creating the false balance. But when we have RSes talking about what the group has said, even in discussing the dubious nature, these are no longer self-serving claims, they become part of the sourced discussion that is covered by WEIGHT that should be included, framed within the context of these sources doubting that purpose and not factually, of course. To omit when even RSes are discussing those would be actually violating NPOV, but I fully agree framing is very important to avoid claiming these as fact. But I want to stress yet again: Wikivoice cannot judge. We can report the stance of the majority of sources call the pro-west view of the PB as BS and that they are actually far more racist, but there's plenty of reason both from a NPOV/neutrality and from a sourcing stance to include that information briefly and wth the proper framing. --M asem (t) 22:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have a distorted view of "what can be said in WP:Wikivoice". Your proposal fails to account for clarity, and fails to "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity". The group's self-description and reliable source analysis should be covered in the article body, but it's such a self-serving load of hooey that it belongs at the back of the lead and very carefully worded to make clear that these are the claims only, not backed up in any factual sense. For a good example look at David Duke's lead which waits until the last line before mentioning "western culture" and "traditionalist Christian family values" while making clear that these are in a "what he considers to be" sense rather than the normal definitions. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A statement like "While the group was purported founded to support pro-West values, it is broadly characterized as a far-right and white supremacy organization by the media and advocacy groups." (What I would propose as the second sentence) is a statement that matches what is said out of many many RSes discussing the PB. Those reliable sources briefly touch on the duplicity of the "pro-West" claim before jumping into why they're a racist group. There is not one iota anything self-serving when RSes are saying that, and framing it using a word like "purportedly" or "claims to be" or any other combination, similar to what the RSes say, avoids stating it as fact in wikivoice. This is comparable to what you're pointing about Duke's lede and "what he considers to be"; we're taking the "pro-West" out of Wikivoice and putting it to a claim the group makes, as stated by RSes covering the group. (That said, Duke's lede has the same overall problem that it bypasses the fundamental "X is a Y" objective statement to get to the scarlet lettering ASAP even if that's what RSes focus on).
 * Especially when we are trying to cover a topic that is controversial, we should always lede in with a very brief statement of what the controversy is as part of taking a neutral and impartial tone, and which that can usually be done in one sentence. Then you can take WEIGHT into account and go into the added details that one side may have over the other. So it is clear that in the case of the PB, it is not only just that they are racist, but that they adamantly admit they are not racist. Now, very little RS agree with their view, so we can't write much to support that, but we can still address the core issue, their claimed "pro-West" purpose vs their observed actions being taken as racist by nearly everyone else in the world. Remember: we cannot judge, we can only report how the media and other judge, and we have to take a disinterested tone in writing these. It can be hard for groups that are this hated in the world, but we have to try a lot better because if we don't take careful steps now, it will spread further by example. --M asem  (t) 23:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem you are arguing that the article should be propaganda - that the article should use the PB’s preferred, euphemistic, silly-formal self-description (the formality of “fraternal organization” is also ‘’a joke’’ - that kind of snark is how they roll.) That is not what Wikipedia does. We want to describe them, not sanitize or platform them - on that, see this ‘’On the Media’’ episode.24.90.99.159 (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem always argues that we put the propaganda first. They did it for Gamergate - so much so that those deplorable fucks refer to them as "Based Masem".  Masem will always carry water like this.  Keep that in mind while developing consensus. Jorm (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Back off the personal attacks, please. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem is making a case based on principle and they are right to do so. The whole encyclopedia would be better for more people writing with this same clarity of principle.  Springee (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing on what should be a brief statement to keep the initial tone of the article impartial before you get into everything else that exists already in the article, because we are supposed to be neutral, impartial, and dispassionate about these topics, period. We are supposed to be trying to write this in an academic standard, not a media standard. --M asem (t) 00:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "fascist" is a specific term of art in security/terrorism studies, cf. Hoffman? More than that, the discourse of the SPLC is very much geared towards gov't practitioners and domain experts so it's very specific and uses precisely the words it means to use. Fascism is a salient political characteristic of a movement they would mention if the Proud Boys were clearly characterized under it. It's not something one neglects to mention any more than one would neglect to mention that Nazi Germany was fascist. While it's true that the SPLC has had hiccups in the past, it's way overstating the position to say that it's unreliable. Two points: first, fascist-adjacent is not enough to be fascist (if the claim is even true), any more than is communist-adjacent enough to be communist. Second, far-right populism is compatible with fascism only in the sense that it's a NECESSARY condition. It's not a SUFFICIENT condition. Academic press is not the same as academic -- anyone non-academic can publish (and they definitely do allow conspiracy theorists, e.g. genocide revisionists) and there's no peer review. There is no source by a recognized academic, think-tank, or gov't agency categorizing the hate group of consideration as explicitly fascist. This is a precise categorization, an academic term of art, and cannot be inferred if absent. Non-academics, e.g. every one of the authors of the various forms of fascist sources, incorrectly use terms like this frequently. As for why the sources are not valid note they do not conceive of fascism a la the standard academic conception of the term, i.e. O'Sullivan (1983) or Gilbert's entry (2005) in Honderich's Oxford Companion. Citing them would be like citing popsci articles and one academic press publication using gravity incorrectly and claiming that since no general relativity textbook explicitly called their description wrong their claims are valid. Either find an academic/research org claim or gov't source, or we're citing newsmag articles using "fascist" in a nonsense popsci fashion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:191E:5CB6:A14D:C35F (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Where did I say anything about fascism and PBs??? --M asem (t) 01:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was a general comment on the article rather than a direct reply to your points. - Ryk72 talk 01:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this but having googled it and read up on it I see what you mean. Thank you for helping me make sense of what wasn't making sense. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FD59:4855:C8D6:F3B9 (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a place to vent your views on the Gamergate debate/discussion. Masem is just trying to write logically instead of unneutral propaganda. The project would be a better with more editors like them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I understanding you correctly? Do you consider the first sentences in the leads of Proud Boys (current version), Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, etc. to be unneutral propaganda?? NightHeron (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the difference... Duke (as an individual) and the KKK (as an organization) openly admit to being white supremacist... However, the Proud Boys explicitly deny that label. I feel that the ledes of Duke and KKK articles are therefore neutral, while the lead of the Proud Boys article is not. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Literally from the David Duke article, "An ADL profile of Duke states: "Although Duke denies that he is a white supremacist and avoids the term in public speeches and writings, the policies and positions he advocates state clearly that white people are the only ones morally qualified to determine the rights that should apply to other ethnic groups."[5]" you really made a poor argument that showed you haven't even read the articles or the wikipedia guidelines. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2C26:E795:C811:3DED (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, "Masem is just trying to write logically instead of unneutral propaganda is an inversion. The sentence ought to be "Masem is trying to write unneutral propaganda instead of trying to write logically" given their consistent trying to over-weight unduly self-serving WP:ABOUTSELF statements while minimizing reliable sources. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2C26:E795:C811:3DED (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

,, So you're saying that the first sentence of the lead of a BLP or an article about an organization must not contain anything that the subject of the article would disagree with? Thus, the first sentence must sound like the beginning of a puff-piece; the non-puff-piece content can come in only after the first sentence. That's an interesting proposal, but it's not consistent with Wikipedia policy, it's not what neutrality normally means, and if you propose such a policy change in an RfC, my guess is that it will not garner much support from other editors. NightHeron (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s not what either has said. Please stop trying to put words in the mouths of those you disagree with. Are you aware that Masem has been involved in crafting the NPOV policy for about 15 years now?... he knows what it says because he helped WRITE a lot of it.  More importantly, he knows the INTENT behind what is written. His take is spot on. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just re-read their comments and yes, that's EXACTLY what they are saying. And after rereading the policy pages, it's pretty clear Masem is misrepresenting them. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:ACBB:DDDC:F690:A1EA (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As a thought. The first paragraph perhaps even the first sentence of the lead should indicate notability. I'm not convinced that the explanatory statement or mission statement PB have posted about themselves is what makes this group notable. Nor do I think calling the group far-right indicates notability. I suspect there are multiple far-right groups meeting in the living rooms (or basements) of American homes. What makes this group notable when others are not? It is important and necessary to outline how the group sees itself, and although the PB website is a primary source, (this is an accepted use of primary sourcing), however placement of that source/content is not the primary issue in the lead nor are concerns about whitewashing or negativity The primary  issue is placement and agreement of  what is notable, whatever that is. Focus on whitewashing and negativity are not where attention has to be in constructing the lead for a neutral article. Notability which may be either negative or positive or a combination of other factors is the primary issue. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They are notable because they are "a far-right,[1][2] neo-fascist[3] and male-only organization[4] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.[5][6][7][8][9]". Consistent with similar other entries on Wikipedia that were posted earlier. " It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable..."
 * It establishes the topic as being the Proud Boys organization.
 * It establishes the context: they are a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only organization.
 * It establishes the reason for notability: they promote and engage in political violence in the United States and Canada.
 * This opening sentence is very consistent with the policy written at WP:LEAD. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:ACBB:DDDC:F690:A1EA (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The lede section must identify why a topic is notable, but it says nothing about the lede sentence doing that job. which is exactly what is still being proposed. And as per MOS:LEAD,  --M asem  (t) 01:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that the lede section is multiple paragraphs in this case, destroys that completely disingenuous argument that the first sentence is somehow "overloaded." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:ACBB:DDDC:F690:A1EA (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of the most recent list of right wing hate groups posted, eight use the SLPC description as the lede, two others use an RS version of it and the last notably doesn't cite the SLPC at all. Neither the SLPC or ADL purposely label this group: fascist, white surpremacist or racist. While the ADL notes mutiple ethnicities, using these labels anywhere else but in the body of the page does not reflect WP:BESTSOURCES. Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available.   Instead going with the claims of among others non expert, non peer reveiwed souurces like Vitolo Hadid a woman recently busted for race misappropration. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:49C6:4C51:38BB:C569 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All I was pointing out is that the page you pointed to does not say that we must include why a topic is notable in the first sentence of the lede, but somewhere in the first few sentences of the lead. We certainly do not want to bury why a topic is notable, particularly like the PBs, beyond the 2nd or 3rd sentence at most, but its not required to be in the first as you asserted. --M asem (t) 02:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise the current lede and these various updated versions of it do not reflect what the majority of RS refer to this group, the maority of editors who have chimed in over the course of the past year. Why not share exactly what is so special about this particular right wing extremist hate group, that WP precedent, balance, best sources and the majority of the editors chiming in should be superceded? Lacking substantive reason which hasn't forth come in year, the first paragraph should be entirely SLPC and ADL, the second paragraph should be their denials and the rest can be filled in with the factually incorrect fascist or contradictory among the academic press sources neo and proto fascist(both words of no academic standing), the racist claims and the rest of the non notable minority opinion.2601:46:C801:B1F0:49C6:4C51:38BB:C569 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How exactly does the current lead (not a lede, which is a news-style introduction) not reflect the consensus from RS? Also, the lead is meant to summarise the entire article, not just disagreements over classifications. Basing an entire third of the lead on two sources, although both are very reliable, is undue weight when compared to the mammoth number of sources that agree on other classifications such as white supremacist. Similarly, the terms neo- and proto-fascist do in fact hold academic merit: see the 16,400 scholarly sources that use the term "neo-fascist", for example. Similarly, do you have any evidence that the classification of the group is a minority viewpoint? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That in now way shape or form "destroys" the argument. It just means that there are multiple paragraphs in lead, which may or may not be a separate issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly how the lead is written. The first sentence sums up the critical foundations of the group. The second sentence explains the significant secondary classification of white supremacy; the third, fourth, and fifth explaining the group's creation and leadership. The first sentence is not overloaded at all. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is perhaps important: while the article covers the RS's broad coverage of the "critical foundations of the group" (the far right/white supremacy/racism aspects), which absolutely has appropriate WEIGHT to be a predominate part of the article and cannot be removed, the point that is still missing as an encyclopedia is the basic factual aspects about the group. Who founded them, when, for what purpose (on its face value, without any judgment calls) and the like, as that is what the critical foundation builds upon. That's why we have to start by treating these subjects from more in the academic sense and not from how the media treats them, and that's being dispassionate about the fact this group is as "bad" as we all know they seem to present themselves. Doesn't mean we're whitewashing that media criticism, because that's why we have an article on them, but its how we write about that. As I've said before, this same principle applies across the board: we don't write gushingly about people, groups, or other things that are universally beloved with that type of praise kicking off in the lede sentence but usually some sentences later. Articles on past "villains" in mankind's history are also similarly tame in how they do not vilify the person the first sentence but establish their objective position in history before going on to explain why they villified. It is only these people and groups on the far/alt-right that have this problem with their neutrality in ledes and often into the bodies and its usually argued "but that's how the RSes present them!" We still have to follow the RSes for the bulk of the content, but we cannot take the tone of the RSes and still must maintain that of a neutral academic work. In a case like PB, it will still mean by the end of the second sentence of the lede we're still getting right to the point of explaining their criticism tied to far right/white suprmacy, no question, but establishing what we can say of the group facturally at least tones the article to a more impartial level comparable to every other article on WP. --M asem  (t) 14:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The trouble with your proposed sentence is that it is not factual or impartial to describe the group as a "fraternal organization" (a term that brings to mind the Boy Scouts, university fraternities, and the Rotary Club) that was set up for the noble purpose of protecting and promoting Western values. Your sentence is consistent with PB's self-description, but it conveys the exact opposite of what the vast majority of RS say about the group. You repeatedly claim that the first sentence that's currently there is not factual, but it seems that the only reason you're giving is that it doesn't agree with the group's political-spin self-description. NightHeron (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will concede that "fraternal organization" appears only to be their label and nothing official, as I've found nothing official to what they actually are registered as (if they are even registered). But I would stress that "men's organization" as an objective term applies still.
 * I had a longer writeup but I realized the crux comes down to understanding that we want to separate the objective terminology of the group from the characterization of the group made by the media sources. We should never lede off with that characterization, per NPOV, no matter how universal that is. We need to say in an encycopedic fashion what type of group this is (not how the group is characterized) and then we can move into the notability factors that include its characterization. With the above change, something like "The Proud Boys is an American men's organization founded by McInnis in 2017. Though purportedly created as a fraternal organization to "promote and protect pro-West values" (SPLC source), the group's purpose is often challenged, and is broadly considered to be associated with far right and white supremacy movements. etc..." (or something like that). Still hits the key required notes, still denotes what is BS from the PBs, but keeps the tone neutral. --M asem (t) 18:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We should never lede off with that characterization, per NPOV, no matter how universal that is. That is absurd and entirely against policy. We should always (without exception) lead with the most important facts and descriptor of the subject according to reliable sources.  If those sources say that the most important fact is that it is a white supremacist organization, then we must lead with that, and trying to put your "thumb" on the scale to downplay that aspect solely because you, personally, do not feel that those sources are being "objective" is a severe NPOV violation. Neutrality means accurately reflecting what the sources say, fullstop. --Aquillion (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely not what I am trying to do and I am getting sick of people trying to second guess what I am suggesting here. First, neutrality is more than just making sure we reflect what is in the sources, it also about the tone and language choice we use to present the topic and this is part of that requirement (WP:IMPARTIAL), which means we don't take the same tone as the sources and that we may have work material around in a different set of presentation that the sources use. Second, I've said repeatedly I'm not talking of any whitewashing of the existing criticism of the group but this is all characterization of the group before anyone has actually said what it is, and as an encyclopedia, we should be starting with the basic facts and building on that, not trying to work like a newspaper where starting with those basic facts would be burying the lede. Putting the basic "X is a Y" statement at the start before jumping into characterization, the condemnation of the group by the media, drastically improves the impartial tone of the article off the bat with minimal other changes, and that's all that practically has to be done. It is not like the article has to be rebuilt from scratch. Doing this will get the impartial tone that I've stated, but will still show clearly to the reader that the group is dubious and highly contentious with its activities, leaving them to judge the rest themselves. --M asem  (t) 23:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If those sources say that the most important fact is that it is a white supremacist organization... The sourcing for that, at least as linked above, appears weak. Either the sources attribute as opinion (to various agencies & advocacy groups), or they couch it as "with ties to" or they're passing mentions, or they require interpretation to get there. If the condition is not met, then... Neutrality means accurately reflecting what the sources say, fullstop. If "reflecting" is a euphemism for "repeating", then... no, not really. - Ryk72 talk 23:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But we determine the basic facts and what the topic is according to the sources. What you are doing is saying "no, no, I find this part controversial, so we need to push it down in the lead."  However, WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL do not state that we base such decisions on "how Masem views the topic", but on how it is represented in the preponderance of sources.  And those sources treat the fact that the Proud Boys is a white supremacist organization as an uncontroversial statement of objective fact that is essential to understanding the topic as a whole. Therefore, saying so immediately is an impartial treatment of the topic, while hemming and hewing is presenting an unacceptably WP:POV-tainted view.  We absolutely should start with an objective and impartial "X is a Y" statement; that is what describing them as a white supremacist organization is - that is, based on sources, perhaps the single most important objective fact about the organization. and therefore needs to be the most prominent one in the lead.  Wikipedia is not censored; we do not hide or downplay facts that some people might find objectionable. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And those sources treat the fact that the Proud Boys is a white supremacist organization as an uncontroversial statement of objective fact that is essential to understanding the topic as a whole. Which sources? Because, as I outlined in my previous comment, the sources linked above certainly don't. If there are better sources, then lets have them, so we can all move on. - Ryk72 talk 23:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the article should be written logically and encyclopedic. The article should cover "disagreements" if they are from WP:RSs, but that doesn't mean they should leave "agreements" to the last sentence of the article either. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Should? Should requires consensus. I'm having a very hard time understanding what you're trying to say because the points you're making are entangled in syntax/grammatical problems. There is no requirement to express notability in the first sentence. There is no consensus on what is actually notable about this particular group. But notability must be clearly highlighted and one way of doing that is to indicate notability in the first few lines. I'm just not sure what is being said here, though. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can parse it, this IP (2601:46:...) is suggesting that the current lede does not accurately reflect the balance of viewpoints in reliable sources - that the view of the SPLC & ADL is not to describe the article subject as "white supremacist" or "white nationalist", but simply as "far-right", etc - and that this viewpoint is being excluded or played down in favour of other viewpoints. They also suggest that the viewpoint which is being favoured in the lead sentence/section is a minority view in the best sources. The other IP (2601:2C0:...) is suggesting that the article subject is the whole box & dice of deplores, including "white supremacist/nationalist", and so we should just say it. Hopefully that helps. If I've got it wrong, either IP should feel free to correct me. - Ryk72 talk 04:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On quick review, IP 2601:46:... seems to have a point about at least some of the sourcing for the lead sentence. This is in an academic journal, but it's an article about rhetoric & demagoguery, not about politics or history or any of the topic areas for which there would be some expertise in categorising or labelling political groups; and it's written by a graduate student. This is an editorial; and mentions the Proud Boys exactly once, in passing. These might be accurate, but they're not exactly reliable in this context; nor the best sources. This says "protofascist", not "neo-fascist"; there is a difference between those terms. This doesn't seem to support the text that its used as a reference for. - Ryk72 talk 04:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If an article was admitted into such a prominent journal and published, it shouldn't be up to us to decide that the article is not valid simply based on the author's qualifications. Also, how does demagoguery, which literally means the "political activity or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people" not relate to politics? It's effectively a branch of populism. And that editorial was authored by Peter McLaren, a hugely notable scholar; the number of mentions is hardly relevant to the accuracy of their labels. While I agree that there are better sources to be used, these sources are reliable, independent sources, and they support the classifications they follow. And how does the BBC article that starts with "The five men identify as members of the "Proud Boys", a right-wing group with chapters in the US and Canada." not support the statement that the Proud Boys exist in the US and Canada? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * i) We commonly decide that certain sources are not good to reference certain content, for any number of reasons; including the qualifications of the author, the field of the journal, and the nature of the referenced academic article - WP:MEDRS possibly being the epitome of this. For CV Haddad's article: It's an article about rhetoric, in a journal about rhetoric, written by a grad student. It's not the best source for political labels, particularly for a strong, and contested, label in the lead sentence. And has anyone involved in these discussions read anything more than the abstract? Does Haddad say anything more about this particular label, or is it just used as an introductory statement? a passing mention? ii) Editorials are reliable for attributed opinion only. See: WP:RSOPINION. We're using it to reference a statement of fact - again, a strong, and contested, label. ii.b) McLaren, whose field is listed as Education, Critical Pedagogy, Marxist humanism, is also outside his wheelhouse here. iii) Passing mentions are not (charitably we might include "necessarily") reliable. They tend not to have been tested by the academic or journalistic process, but to be something which has been accepted by the authors on faith. See: WP:RSCONTEXT. They're also prone to WP:CITOGENESIS, which looks to be an issue with some of the content in this article - sources with passing mentions, likely created based on Wikipedia content, later used to backfill that same, previously unsourced, content. If there are better sources to be used, then we should use them, and move towards a better article; one that is more robust to challenges. While we use lower quality sources, we are open to criticism, and for that criticism to be, in some part at least, valid. Hence: 2601:46:... has a point. z) I think we may have been using the BBC article for something more when I checked. - Ryk72 talk 11:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

At this point what is probably needed is a discussion, or RFC, on the newly proposed "rule" by the likes of Masem and Springee that somehow nothing that the subject of an article disagrees with (no matter how disingenuous or unduly self serving the statements by the subject may have proven to be) may be allowed into the first sentence of an article. As long as we're having to deal with people just making up nonexistent rules out of whole cloth... 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's deeply misrepresentative. Neither of those two editors have suggested that nothing that the subject of an article disagrees with may be allowed into the first sentence of an article, nor anything that could reasonably be construed as such. - Ryk72 talk 02:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's deeply dishonest, both of them have, right on this page.
 * "The first sentence should be 100% objective and no matter how much we dislike the subject should not be the sentence where the negativity starts" - Springee
 * "We should never lede off with that characterization, per NPOV, no matter how universal that is." - Masem, literally saying that to be "neutral" we have to ignore WP:SPADE.
 * Don't piss on my leg and try to tell me it's raining. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are equivalent to nothing that the subject of an article disagrees with (no matter how disingenuous or unduly self serving the statements by the subject may have proven to be) may be allowed into the first sentence of an article. And I think you'll find that's not my piss. - Ryk72 talk 03:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, both NightHeron and Aquillon have noted that these two individuals are trying to make up a new policy that doesn't exist, that would have to be applied to many other articles (including a set that per Masem's own argument I pointed out!!!), above. So I don't think I'm out of line at this point saying that if this needs to be settled, fine, wikipedia should actually have the discussion on whether that new policy should be invented or not. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Creating new policy is not done lightly. Even quite simple changes to an existing policy can require a lot of discussion and time, so I wouldn't hold your breath.
 * I don't think anyone, though, is trying to create a new policy. Everyone here is trying to understand how to interpret the policy we have in play here. I'd suggest that what Masem is saying, and I apologize for speaking for him, is that criticism of the article topic should not be placed in the first line. Generally, it's a good idea to describe the topic/subject so the reader knows what is being criticized before actually adding that criticism. Criticism must be anchored-something must exist and be described in order to be criticized. This is logical. For example, first I describe the rattlesnake then I can go on to discuss the dangers the animal creates for human beings. It makes no logical sense to describe the danger before we know what is actually dangerous. As a very simplistic example: Logical progression-This snake is a kind of reptile. The bite of this snake is poisonous... or....Not so logical: The bite of this snake is poisonous. This snake is a kind of reptile. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, this definitely matches your proposal then "The Proud Boys are a far-right,[1][2] neo-fascist[3] and male-only organization[4] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada." It describes the rattlesnake, then discusses the danger the rattlesnake creates for human beings. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I first describe the more general, the snake is a reptile, then go on to describe criticism of the snake. You are jumping right into the danger the snake represents and part of that is your opinion that the rattlesnake implies negativity, but in fact it doesn't. I agree with Masem below. You are trying to flag this article to immediately present the criticism of the group. There is no one that dislikes this kind of group more than me, but we are writing and encyclopedia and I am not allowed to voice my opinion in the first line in a way that defies the logic a writer must bring to an article. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no way we can approach any topic like that on WP, that's outright a neutrality violation, see WP:OUTRAGE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. PB may be the worst possible human beings on the planet, but we are still an encyclopedia and we still have to write with a certain decorum of impartiality if we are going to call ourselves neutral and impartial. --M asem (t) 05:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You were the one who proposed checking similar articles and you're still grossly making nonsense up. I see Jorm was very right. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What the hell, I'll even quote your own words yet again and repeat myself. "to be parallel to all other similar organizations that have been written on WP", it has already been demonstrated above that your proposal is not consistent with other similar organizations that have been written on WP. Examples here, from organizations or people that are also in Category:Alt-right.
 * Ku Klux Klan - "The Ku Klux Klan (/ˌkuː klʌks ˈklæn, ˌkjuː-/),[a] commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist hate group..."
 * Identity Evropa - "Identity Evropa (/juːˈroʊpə/), rebranded[10] as American Identity Movement in March 2019,[2][11] is an American neo-Nazi[12][13][14] and white supremacist[14][15][16][17][18] organization..."
 * Alt-Right - "The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement..."
 * Richard B. Spencer - "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born 1978) is an American neo-Nazi,[1][2] antisemitic conspiracy theorist and white supremacist..."
 * VDARE - "VDARE is an American website focusing on opposition to immigration to the United States and is associated with white supremacy,[2][3] white nationalism,[4][5][6] and the alt-right.[7][8][9]"
 * Vanguard America - "Vanguard America is an American white supremacist, neo-Nazi, neo-fascist organization. The organization is also a member of the Nationalist Front.[1][2]"
 * National Policy Institute - "The National Policy Institute (NPI) is a white supremacist think tank and lobby group based in Alexandria, Virginia.[1][2][3][4] It lobbies for white supremacists and the alt-right.[5]"
 * New Century Foundation - "The New Century Foundation is a white supremacist[1] organization founded in 1994 by Jared Taylor known primarily for publishing a magazine, American Renaissance, which promotes white supremacy."
 * Northwest Territorial Imperative - "The Northwest Territorial Imperative (often shortened to Northwest Imperative or known simply as the Northwest Front)[2] is a white separatist, neo-Nazi idea that has been popularized since the 1970s–80s by white nationalist, white supremacist and white separatist groups within the United States."
 * League of the South - "The League of the South (LS) is a white nationalist, neo-Confederate, white supremacist organization,[6][7][8][9][10]..."
 * The Daily Stormer - "The Daily Stormer is an American far-right neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and Holocaust denial commentary and message board website that advocates for the genocide of Jews.[1][2][3][4]"
 * I could make this list even longer but I think the point is made. There does not appear to be any legitimate concern for "consistency with other articles", or any real policy reason to whitewash the lead by starting with the facially false, unduly self serving claims of the Proud Boys organization.2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out several times in this, this is a problem specific to any person or group associated with the far or alt right on WP within the five to six years, and no where else. You're not comparing to other organizations outside of that group, which is where the issue is. I've given my reasons for it, a combination of external political climate outside of our control, and human nature to want to be critical of these groups on WP. No where else on WP do we have any type of articles written this way. You sorta prove my point that this is a problem specific to this topic area, and not the usual way we write articles on WP. I understand the far/alt right is a serious issue and we should not be given them a platform on WP for their vies, and I am not suggesting anything like that at all, but simply what tone we take with these. --M asem (t) 06:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "No where else on WP do we have any type of articles written this way" you claim falsely, and in previous responses I have linked another article as well from a different category. And you have made it very plain that you are not neutral as you claim, but rather operate out of sympathy for the Proud Boys when you make statements like the following:
 * "It can be hard for groups that are this hated in the world"
 * "how the media treats them"
 * "despite how hated the group is by mass media"
 * What these show is that your goal is, in fact, to have the article whitewashed by treating the Proud Boys as if there is some kind of conspiracy against them. This is about as far from WP:IMPARTIAL or WP:NEUTRAL as could be. Further, your claim that there is a "problem specific to this topic area", and your earlier claim that one could not similarly check 'liberal' groups, are ridiculous. The leads of John Brown Anti-Klan Committee, The Camden 28, Black Revolutionary Assault Team have similar openings, as do non-American organization pages such as Irish People's Liberation Organisation or Saor Éire (1967–75) linking to the specific movements they are members of just as the Proud Boys are part of the far-right and neo-fascist movements. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the those leads have anywhere close to the use of subjective language that this article or the list you provide have. In particular, there's no value-laden labels being used in those lead sentences. They're not all perfect (the Black Revolutionary Assault Team is a bit off) but these are tame compared to what's being presented here. --M asem (t) 07:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "subjective language" is not a synonym for "the consensus of how reliable sources describe the group." You're being dishonest again. The language in the lead is there sourced to multiple reliable sources because that is the language that reliable sources use to describe what the group actually is. You keep trying to insist that the group's unduly self-serving claims about itself go first, due to a clearly demonstrated agenda as quoted above from yoour own words. Again, if a group is described as "communist", in the USA that's probably "subjective language" in that most of the USA understands negative connotations to "communism" and "socialism" ever since the 1950s and the Red Scare, but it can at the same time be 100% accurate. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, that's all describing how the group is characterized which of course we have to cover, but it is not what the group is tangibly - are they a non-profit, are they a formal organization, are they a chapter-based system, etc.? The very basic who/what/when/where that you'd expect at the start of any encyclopedic article before we get into characterizing that topic. That's the distinction I'm making here. And again, the fact that these are elements we can source to third-party reliable sources, not from the PB's themselves, eliminates any issue with those being "unduly self-serving claims", because they simply can't be when filtered through a third-party RS. --M asem (t) 16:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, no personal attacks. I have zero sympathy for PB or any groups on the far-right. I *am* all for a impartial and neutral wikivoice that we're support to maintain for all articles even those that may cause WP:OUTRAGE. Do not mix trying to argue for a neutral voice with trying to side with these groups. Those are very much different things. --M asem (t) 17:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Three citations of your own words above show that you are in fact trying to side with the Proud Boys and create a narrative claiming that they are somehow victims, that the media is against them, and that "It can be hard for groups that are this hated in the world." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SPADE is an essay while things like like WP:IMPARTIAL and MOS:LEDE are policy and guideline, and thus have more weight. --M asem (t) 03:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC): BTW, Masem is completley uninvolved in this topic or any of the related stuff. You all take a look at Adolf Hitler and Nazi Party. They're not written anything like Proud Boys. Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ironically I think Adolf Hitler (WP:GOODARTICLE) and the Nazi Party are probably two of the most widely hated things on Wikipedia, and yet there leads are better than others like the PB's. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hitler is called the leader of the Nazi Party in the first sentence of his article, and a dictator in the third; the Nazi Party itself is called far-right in the first sentence of the article and racist in the first sentence of the second paragraph; the third paragraph begins by describing pseudoscientific racist theories as central to Nazi ideology. All of these are obviously extremely well-cited facts and are therefore rightfully stated as such in the article voice, but I think it's reasonable to say that if we applied that standard to any organizations today, there would be substantial pushback from people who dislike the use of those terms in academia and the media, and who seek to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by censoring them on Wikipedia or by downgrading them to opinions regardless of sourcing. The underlying issue here is that many editors need to recognize that their personal Overton Windows cannot be used to determine article content and have no relation to what is neutral; we determine neutrality and factuality based on the sources, not the gut feelings of editors. --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think this is, once again, getting way out of hand and off topic. This seems to have become saturated with personal opinions, somewhat tangential comparisons to other articles, and is not absent with personal attacks. There seem to be suggestions of how to approach this, which then others are trying to take as policy proposals, with semantics being lost within. While NPOV/N is meant to be used to discuss neutrality issues, a lot of what is being discussed here like new policies and random interpretations of existing policies being passed off as convention when they're not. As a note, any claims about conventions or consensuses from other articles should be made with links to specific discussions that have taken place, not just to articles - the inclusion or exclusion of content without discussion does not constitute a consensus. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Add: This discussion has become permeated with personal attacks which is unacceptable. I've seen editors blocked for a week for calling others liars; I'd be really careful. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Proposal: no consensus. Per my comment above and the general lack of any agreement, I propose that this be closed with no consensus. This would therefore default back to the status quo and the local consensus that's been build on the Proud Boys' article talk page, which I think will just need formalising in the near future. That is not to say that the article's lead cannot be improved, but a lot of what is happening here is so far removed from the article that it's not practical or effective in actually coming to a conclusion about what needs to happen.ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As you were involved in this matter I am not sure if it is appropriate for you to propose that. Some might also see it as an attempt to WP:Supervote. -- -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I absolutely get what you're saying, but I really don't mean to be trying to supervote here. This is just a bit of a proposal, so if people think there's still a reasonable chance of a consensus, or think that there's an existing consensus somewhere in the rubble, that's perfectly fine. And as I said, this isn't to say that there isn't an issue or anything - I'm perfectly happy (and probably think it would be good) to have a bit more of a moderated discussion on the article's talk page to formalise a consensus. I reached out to an admin for a bit of guidance about what could be a good way to do this, so I'll see what they come back with and maybe go from there? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that sounds good. Let's hope the admin can help sort this out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay! So the admin's just said that at this stage, we have enough of a consensus that we can probably remove the sort of original research and opinion edit requests that we normally get under WP:FORUM (see: Special:Diff/982778570 and Special:Diff/982609813 etc). They said they would suggest a RfC, which is happening, so hopefully that doesn't end up like this again 😂 By the looks of where the RfC is right now, and this unreverted diff, it looks like we're come to a consensus (lord knows how we got here). It might be a bit of a waiting game for a while to see what happens, but I think the RfC is going to be the end of these shenanigans! ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No it's not, the robustness of the status quo will be challenged regularly. As it should be given it's epic weakness.
 * To sum up the cite bomb by Davide King
 * Vitolo-Hadad a recently disgraced grad student teacher with no expertise of any sort in the field claims they are advancing a facist politic.
 * Mcclaren-an academic scholar in unrelated fields but at least explicitly calls them neo fascist.
 * Alvarez her first book. It is about violence against women. An anthropology and sociology professor at New Mexico Highlands University. One has to buy the book to see what she does or does not label this group.
 * Daou is a partisan having worked for Kerry, Clinton et al who's notability is political blogging.
 * Sernau is a sociology professor at UCSB. The book Social Inequality in a Global Age provides a sociological framework for analyzing inequality within the United States.  Again, one has to buy the book to see what he does or does not label this group.
 * Hosang the closest thing to an RS here-says nothing of neo fascism and concludes with this group approaches fascism.
 * Kutner-is a research consultant with degrees in psychology and communications. She calls herself The Proud Boys Whisperer. Fairly heavily conflicted as her vocation is tracking The Proud Boys. That said her material is relatively interesting.  "Scholars  can  think  of  cryptofascism  as  Fascism  2.0." She is already inventing the next fake moniker.  This neither introduces them as fascists nor concludes with them being fascist. Although she defines fascism herself at one point, completely lacking the central tenants of dictatorial and immense cental control in such a manner so as to include this group. Her primary contention is cypto fascist or fascist but preyending not to be. Using that as a basis, one can attribute anything.  The entire point of this paper is to try and prove that they use fascist techniques to recruit new candidates.
 * Willfred Reilly a professor with a PHD in political science who's research focuses on empirical testing of political claims- that about 10% to 20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, Although it is of the we don't like, won't cover this therefore it didn't happen MSM material, Kutner took offense and responded with largely victims identifying with their attackers.
 * These are not notable scholarly academics as a whole, they do not call them fascist or neo fascist as a whole and weighting their opinion over the SLPC and ADL is ridiculous.     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:1C62:B9D7:AE9A:BEB0 (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please start signing your comments - people using WP:REPLYLINK aren't able to reply using the software, which is quite annoying and takes a considerably longer time. Claiming that a source is invalid because "one has to buy the book to see what he does or does not label this group" goes against existing policy: offline sources are just as valid as any other source. You also seem to be trying to dismiss evidence from very well respected and competent academics and scholars just because the entire publication is not about the Proud Boys, which is somewhat absurd. A lot of what has been listed here appears to me to be nothing but your personal opinion about sources (some of which aren't actually cited), and seems to want to not include content supported by a plethora of sources because one specific source you prefer does not say it. It seems a bit to me like you're trying to discredit other sources to force the sources you personally prefer, which happen to use more soft language about the group, to be used. Also, please see my comment on the RfC about censorship and undue weight/lack of balance. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I forget from time to time, my apologies to all of those adversely effected. I will try to do a better job remembering in the future. Thank you for formatting it properly. I'm not dismissing the sources that are inaccessible to me but for example New Mexico Highlands University is not Harvard. If they were very well respected and competent academic scholar sources, there would be no need to actually read the underlying material.  If they were very well respected and competent academic sources they would reach the same conclusion instead of each one accessible to me largely reaching different conclusions. I don't have to read the ADL or SLPC as they are language specific domain experts. This is a matter of fact not opinion, they are either fascist or not and there is no adjacent fascism. It is softer, not more soft and leading with an extreme right wing hate group seems harsher to me than incorrectly labeling them fascists. I took the time to read through the material that was available to me and summarized it above.   You continue to repeat this charade as if they authored the Oxford dictionary.  I do not like to cast doubt, but I highly doubt anyone else bothered to read anything but the buzzwords if even that much. If the status quo is it, there will be deservedly frequent challenges.
 * Maybe you answered one of the great mysteries here, the minority opinion as exhibited by the number of editors having voiced their opinion on the talk page over the course of the last year actually considers it more pejorative to call them fascists? That's interesting as the avg right wing hate group would significantly prefer that over being labeled a hate group by the SLPC, in essence denying them access to banking, social media etc......calling them fascists results in nothing but me wasting endless time pointing out over and over again that it is factually incorrect. I see no messages from you. I'm going to pretend that it was something complimentary and not another point towards inhibiting discourse.   2601:46:C801:B1F0:1C62:B9D7:AE9A:BEB0 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Talk
See talk:Proud Boys. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC about public support for the New York Police Department
Editors here are invited to weigh in at the following RfC:

Talk:New York City Police Department/Archive 3

Crossroads -talk- 15:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Campaign for Real Education
There is a pattern of editing on this page Campaign for Real Education that demonstrates lack of neutral point of view editing [], []; including prejudicial and derogatory material being added with references that do not back up the statements being made [], ; reliance of unreliable sources, or claims with no reliable sources or evidence referenced at all, and removal of referenced material that puts material into context and/or balances the neutrality of the article. [], [], [], [], [], [].

There are also BLP issues relating to the orgnasation's founder - again with claims being made that are WP:UNDUE, non neutral and prejudicial; in the form of quotes taken out of context and unverified, or unverifiable material. Any attempt to improve the article in terms of referencing, and neutrlity appear to be reverted on sight by one editor: [], [], [].

Tonyinman (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the dearth of sources about this group (92 Google hits in total) leads me to believe the article should be deleted, so I have nominated it per Articles for deletion/Campaign for Real Education Guy (help! - typo?) 22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The claim above a about "references that do not back up the statements being made" and the message left on my talkpage alongside the notification of this discussion ("Please do not add unreferenced, unsourced or poorly sourced material to the article. Any material needs to be backed up with a reliable third party source. The claims in your content were not backed up by reliable third party sources, and several references were entirely irrelevant and did not in fact back up your claims") is one of the more bizarre I have received for some time. I reinstated a few bits of text removed by Tonyinman, having added sources (in some cases two or three) to every sentence. Specifically:
 * References to the organisation being right wing:
 * Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Challenge for Multi-ethnic Societies "One right-wing group, for example, the Campaign for Real Education, opposes the teaching of..."
 * Education And Politics For The 1990s: Conflict Or Consensus? "Right-Wing Pressure Groups and Some of Their Publications... CRE (Campaign for Real Education)"
 * Dictionary of British Education "Campaign for Real Education (CRE) The CRE was formed in 1987 by a group of parents concerned by 'failing standard'. Although its ideas are right-wing..."
 * Direct quote "press for higher standards and more parental choice in state education." taken from The Courier
 * References for the organisation opposing the teaching of sociology and politics
 * Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Challenge for Multi-ethnic Societies "the Campaign for Real Education opposes the teaching of sociology, politics, peace studies, world studies and political education"
 * The Politics of Race, Class and Special Education: The selected works of Sally Tomlinson "the Campaign for Real Education, which opposes the teaching of sociology, peace studies, world studies, political education..."
 * References for the organisation opposing anti-racism and anti-sexism claims
 * Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Challenge for Multi-ethnic Societies "the Campaign for Real Education... is critical of anti-racism and anti-sexism"
 * The Politics of Race, Class and Special Education: The selected works of Sally Tomlinson "the Campaign for Real Education which opposes... anti racist or anti-sexist initiatives"
 * It is unclear whether Tonyinman has actually bothered to read the references, or has somehow been unable to spot the text quoted above in them. Number   5  7  22:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reminder that this is an WP:NPOV discussion and not a WP:RS discussion. Number 57 has failed to make clear how any other these sources are WP:RS. Tellingly, all the material s/he/they has added/reverted has been negative and prejudicial to the subject of the article. (Hence this WP:NPOV discussion.) I would argue that none of the sources highlighted by Number 57 above are WP:RS since they amount to a collection of personal opinions or unevidenced assertions from various non-notable individuals who happen to have their views included in non-notable and small circulation publications. Furthermore, some of the quotes relied upon are more than 30 years old and are thus stale. Given this lack of evidence and biased one-sided editing, there is a clear WP:NPOV issue here. There is also the issue of WP:BLP, which remains unanswered by this editor. In particular, the content related to the founder of the organization is not neutral, is WP:Undue and uses inappropriate tone, eg: "ran it from his bedroom" WP:BLPSTYLE, is not balanced WP:BLPBALANCE and should be removed per WP:GRAPEVINE. There's also an argument that the founder of this organization doesn't meet notability standards, and therefore text relating to him should be removed per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Tonyinman (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, unanswered, is the question of why Number 57 has repeatedly removed/reverted correctly referenced material that has sought to balance the article. Tonyinman (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the books cited are published by Routledge, one of the UK's main academic publishers. The founder is deceased (in 2012), so it's also not clear how BLP is an issue. The reasons for various text removals were clearly explained in my edit summaries.
 * Can you explain why you said that the references did not back up the claims, when they very clearly do? Number   5  7  23:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I already have. Secondly, this is an WP:NPOV discussion and not a WP:RS discussion. Perhaps you might explain why you have repeatedly removed material added by other users that attempts to improve the article in terms of balance, and neutrality? [], [], [].
 * What? You are the one that brought up the WP:RS issue. Re those diffs, I give quite clear reasons for removing the text in the edit summaries of the latter two. Regarding the first, I didn't see the relevance or usefulness of the expanded quote you added (which has since been removed entirely by JzG for being from an unreliable source, the Daily Express) or the Hansard statement. Number   5  7  23:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is an WP:NPOV discussion and not a WP:RS discussion. Despite being asked politely, you have avoided any attempt to explain why you have repeatedly removed material added by other users that attempts to improve the article in terms of balance, and neutrality. This is a clear instance of bias and breach of WP:NPOV guidelines. I'm taking a Wiki Break from this discussion since ample evidence has been provided to demonstrate the lack of neutrality, and this particular conversation is not being met with a response that will improve the article for other editors or Wikipedia readers. Your edit summaries have also been uncivil [], so I choose to no longer engage with you in discussion. Tonyinman (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this isn't a RS discussion, why did you say "Number 57 has failed to make clear how any other these sources are WP:RS."?? In both my last two responses I've either explained why I removed text or pointed to where I stated the reason why. The string of bizarre claims and comments is behind my view expressed in the final edit summary mentioned. Number   5  7  00:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , are we in the Twilight Zone? You complained about non-neutral material and unreliable sources; the material reinstated by Number 57 is neutral and sourced to reliable sources. If you think that somehow reliable sources calling something "right wing" is not neutral, then you do not really understand what neutral is. That you keep repeating "this is an NPOV discussion and not an RS discussion", that's just disruptive. I think a good outcome would be you accept what the sources say and not get blocked, because I'm going to drop a note on your talk page for harassment: that is in fact what you are doing. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. Please see the previous discussions re WP:NPOV and this article here: []Tonyinman (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Nope, Drmies is correct. Your referring to a 6 year old discussion started by an editor banned from all Wikipedia sites and with no participants other than Number 57 and a sarky IP doesn't impress. Your giving an Admin a 3RR warning without even using the article talk page doesn't show good faith. Doug Weller  talk 14:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the lede and body of the article Alexis Texas mention she co-hosted the 2015 AVN Awards?


We have two reliable sources Las Vegas Weekly and Uproxx -- to confirm that Alexis Texas co-hosted the 2015 AVN Awards:



Should the lede and body of the article Alexis Texas mention she co-hosted the 2015 AVN Awards? Thank you, Right cite (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Leads are not news paper style leaders, they are summaries of our article. As it does not seem to be a major part of our article no.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your third-party opinion! Can it be mentioned in the body of the article itself? Right cite (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See no reason why not, its not exactly a major achievement but one line should be OK.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay great, thank you! Right cite (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

GenScript Biotech
The article GenScript Biotech is currently an advertisement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

EnlightenedWikipedian

 * I am submitting this here because of the text "An administrator can repair damage made by a malicious user more quickly than other users: if someone is making multiple damaging edits, it will be easier for you to report them than try to repair everything yourself. To see whether a user is making many damaging edits, click their username, and then User contributions" on the page Requests for administrator attention, This user seems to have edited the Niccolo Machiavelli page according to his/hers own opinion on how machiavelli should be remebered in history, If one checks the users edit-history this only confirms that the user has personal interest in rewriting the historic view on machiavelli. And achording the the previously scited wikipage i ask you administrators to take a look at this. I only noticed this because the user had changed the italian title of the book Florentine Histories to "Florentine" instead of "Fiorentine", the later being confirmed by e.g. the wikipage for the book. Tobbe s 97 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have now reparied the damage, please voice your opinion here instead of changing back again. Tobbe s 97 (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"Charlie Kirk lost his spot at West Point to a minority woman"
The editor 'Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d' (who has edited for less than three weeks, yet somehow knows Wikipedia policy) has edit-warred out variations of long-standing text (with the help of veteran editor 'Emir of Wikipedia') so that the page for Charlie Kirk (activist) now states that Kirk lost his spot at West Point to a minority woman. There is no evidence that Kirk lost his spot to such a person. These editors also omit that Kirk has at varying times claimed that he (i) was sarcastic and (ii) had never said it. In other words, they are leaving out crucial context and feeding the readers with unfounded white grievance politics stories of how women and minorities are taking away opportunities from white men like Charlie Kirk. It's a clear-cut NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I suppose the problem is how to use the fewest words to (neutrally) express the idea that a claim was made while also casting doubt on its veracity. If I were writing the section I'd try this: "Kirk claims he applied to the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, and was passed over in favor of 'a far less-qualified candidate of a different gender and a different persuasion.' Kirk would later deny making the claim or pass it off as sarcasm." Citations omitted for brevity. I think both disputed versions are clear on the point that Kirk is making a claim, and that the claim hasn't been independently confirmed. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The talkpage back and forth on it is definitely not helpful, and there's a lot more going on with Emir. In the middle of discussions about this issue, Emir made a ton more edits that look like Whitewashing (censorship). 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of the way Kirk presents himself, there are an unlimited amount of baseless and unverified claims that he had made. As an encyclopedic article, his BLP page is not required to include all of the misinformation he had put forth, especially about himself and his background. His page currently says he claims to have applied West Point and was rejected. This is probably worthy of inclusion under the “Early life and education” section. Unsubstantiated claims Kirk has made about being passed over for a less qualified minority candidate have no place in the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't see the present need to include it. Were he to known to be on a more long-term "crusade" against West Point because of being not being accepted based on his claim, that would be a reason to include, but this seems like a very one-off thing that never comes up again in discussing him, and because there's no way to verify that, it's unnecesssary to include. --M asem  (t) 14:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem, I was commenting to agree with you, but then I double-checked the citations/article on question and recalled that his activism is associated with colleges specifically. I don't think it needs to be a grievance against West Point in particular for us to say that this "founding myth" of his ties into his notability. I do of course think that it is necessary to frame this unverifiable claim appropriately, so that we are not saying that he actually lost his spot, but rather that he attributes his failure to qualify for West Point to affirmative action. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I favor Mackensen's method. Write that: "Kirk claims he applied to the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, and was passed over in favor of 'a far less-qualified candidate of a different gender and a different persuasion." Kirk would later deny making the claim or pass it off as sarcasm. Seems to be very explicit about what both of your are implying. To really get to the bottom of this, you should look for sources that (a) he said the first part (b) he later denied it or passeed it off as sarcasm. LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and Anti-racism
A while back an editor edited the two above articles to include claims that Blumenbach, an anthropologist who is now best known for his white supremacist theories on race, was actually an early proponent of scientific anti-racism. To support this claim they cited a few sources which at best seem to claim that Blumenbach is not quite as racist as he's commonly assumed to be. (He certainly didn't consider himself racist, but a benevolent helper to these poor degenerate races, but given that white supremacist simply means that one believes whites are the superior race, I don't know why calling him one should be controversial.) They also created a large section in the article arguing in a rather unencyclopedic tone that modern perspective of his theories as having advanced white supremacy are due to mistranslations of his work, rather than due to the fact that he clearly, uncontroversial believed that non-white races were inferior to his own. When I removed these claims, a new editor began reverting me and has been disinterested in engaging on the talk page. Thoughts on how better to use these sources, if they're needed at all? It doesn't seem to be a particularly widespread belief, and including a long defense of Blumenbach and the uncritical claim that he 'considered an early pioneer of scientific anti-racism' seems like undue weight. Vary &#124; (Talk) 23:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You may want to take another look.
 * Can dig up more if needed. fiveby(zero) 00:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, I understand that he was not a hateful person, but it is quite a significant stretch to call him an early proponent of scientific anti-racism (even the quote you suggest acknowledges that was not his legacy,) and the argumentative tone of the long digression insisting that those who find his theories about race white supremacist are just misunderstanding him seems very unencyclopedic in tone to me. Vary &#124; (Talk) 00:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your first characterization was off the mark, but missed scientific anti-racism. Is that even a term that should be used? I only see it in the index of the cited work. generally considered an early pioneer in what is now called scientific anti-racism does absolutely need some good sources. I don't think scientific anti-racism is generally considered a real thing, let alone with 'pioneers'. fiveby(zero) 01:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-racist work in the sciences is a thing, at least, but Blumenbach wouldn't have even had a concept of it, much less been a proponent of it, so a few authors who say he wasn't personally racist don't justify the much stronger claims being made in the article. Vary &#124; (Talk) 03:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Blumenbach was the least racist and most genial of all Enlightenment thinkers" seems pretty far from "at best seem to claim that Blumenbach is not quite as racist as he's commonly assumed to be" by all means. That source is clearly meant as "not racist". Blumenbach or authors who say he wasn't personally racist don't need to justify themselves, there's no need to justify yourself if the accusation has no basis, the ones who accuse him of racism need to justify themselves, as they are the ones making the accusation. At least that's how it should be in a normal world. You say there are much stronger claims being made in the article, can you post them? fiveby, can you post your counter-claims as well? only the soruces saying he was/wasn't racist or white supremacist. So we can have an accurate picture. LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Blumenbach was the least racist and most genial of all Enlightenment thinkers" seems pretty far from "at best seem to claim that Blumenbach is not quite as racist as he's commonly assumed to be" by all means. That source is clearly meant as "not racist". Blumenbach or authors who say he wasn't personally racist don't need to justify themselves, there's no need to justify yourself if the accusation has no basis, the ones who accuse him of racism need to justify themselves, as they are the ones making the accusation. At least that's how it should be in a normal world. You say there are much stronger claims being made in the article, can you post them? fiveby, can you post your counter-claims as well? only the soruces saying he was/wasn't racist or white supremacist. So we can have an accurate picture. LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality
Should the Catholic Church's (non-)"acceptance of same-sex relationships" be mentioned in this article's lede? I argue that this fact is clearly indicated by the sources, both as a general body of sourcing and as specific ones already cited in the lede such as this one. On the other side, Jzsj and Bealtainemí have repeatedly attempted to remove it, saying that this is not acceptable language because the church is fine with friendships or business partnerships between people of the same sex and citing fringe groups advocating "reparative therapy" for homosexuality to support their argument.

It's a curious case because Jzsj seems at the same time to acknowledge that the longstanding text was accurate, but feels that concealing it would WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in some way.

Previous discussion at Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I find yours a prejudicial summary of what I was saying. You can at least quote my words which lead you to arrive at this conclusion. My point is simply that we should change the current last sentence in the lead from "that gay relationships should be recognized" to "that sexual activity between gay persons should be recognized".Jzsj (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, if that is "simply" your point, then why did you neither make nor discuss that edit, and instead edit other parts of the lede? Secondly, that's a nonsensical sentence. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to what Roscelese said of me here, perhaps this is sufficient reply. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an article about homosexuality, not about same-sex friendships. The church's stance against homosexual sex should be made explicit, right from the first sentence. Move the bolded "dissent" title to the second or third sentence, after establishing the church's stance. The dissent should follow the acknowledgement of the Church's longstanding position against homosexual sex. Don't try to hide the Church's monolithic posture on this. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Bink, to clarify, the current text after these users' disruption reads "A number of Roman Catholics and Catholic groups have sought to change Church teaching to allow for sexual acts between members of the same gender and for gay marriage", but this isn't an accurate précis of the article or of the sources, which talk about the church accepting same-sex relationships generally, and not just standing aside and ceasing their political activism against marriage. It gives the mistaken impression that these are isolated and separate issues, rather than a self-evident condemnation of same-sex relationships, which no one is likely to accidentally misinterpret as "friendships" or "business partnerships." (I had suggested "romantic and sexual relationships" as a potential compromise to address this ridiculous objection, but no, these users don't want to compromise, they want to pretend that gay relationships are just about sex.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that. We should not be giving the reader a mistaken impression that the Church is standing aside, allowing the dissenters free rein. One way to do that is to first establish the church position against sex for mere pleasure. The church prefers procreative sex inside marriage, and they allow "unitive" sex for older married couples past childbearing age, which is the crack in the door allowing dissenters to push for a sort of church-sanctioned unitive sex between same-sex couples. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow, Bink. I think we do a good job in Catholic Church and homosexuality of explaining the reasoning the church gives for its intolerance of homosexuality, but I don't think we need to re-create that entire article in the lede here. The important thing to do is to accurately and fully convey what it is these dissenters support and/or oppose, which, based on the sources and the article text, cannot clearly be compartmentalized into "the church's opposition to sex" and "the church's campaigns against marriage," but also "the church's non-acceptance of same-sex relationships generally." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't need to justify why an article should be kept when the ones who try to remove it have no basis to remove them on. Fringe sources should not take priority. I think the difference between you two stands in the subtile difference between the meaning of "the acceptance of same-sex relationships". You can interpret it as "friendship" but I think it's common sense and the vast majority of people, when they hear "the acceptance of same-sex relationships" will interpret it as "gay/lesbian relationships". Therefore, saying that "the church is fine with friendships or business partnerships between people of the same sex" is misleading. This is not a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because the church is very open about it's anti-gay stance. I agree that the change from "that gay relationships should be recognized" to "that sexual activity between gay persons should be recognized" is nonsense. The opposition doesn't have a basis to justify their removal. I'm in favor of keeping the status quo version. As a possible compromise, if you want to be more explicit, you could say: "the acceptance of same-sex romantic relationships" so that there won't be any room left for misinterpreting it as "friendship", although I don't think anyone would misinterpret it as friendship. LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody proposed removing the article. In the discussion, Roscelese was asked to accept either rewording or removal of a phrase only ambiguously sourced. She has since agreed to reword the phrase. The matter is concluded. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

TERF has an RFC
TERF has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Loki (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that link does need go direct to a discussion just the talkpage. If you are editing headings please use anchors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Grr, I changed the title of the RFC after posting this without realizing that it would break all the links I posted. Gonna fix now. Loki (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning the use of "pappu" to insult Rahul Gandhi
"Pappu", a Hindi term meaning something like "not-very-bright young boy", has been widely used to insult Rahul Gandhi, one of the most prominent politicians in India; it has now become a significant facet of his public image. This is substantiated in at least a hundred reliable sources; I've provided a selection in Talk:Pappu and am happy to provide more if it matters.

Recently, I added this fact to Pappu, but was reverted. I then started a discussion a discussion on the talk page, where most participants opposed my edit on the grounds that (1) it would violate the BLP policy, (2) journalistic sources were insufficient to substantiate the fact, and (3) such insults, as "propaganda" and "political gaming" should not be mentioned on Wikipedia.

The question here: would it be undue weight to devote a few sentences or, at most, a paragraph to this insult and its evolution on Pappu or in a "public perception" section on Rahul Gandhi?—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * since you have either participated in or been invited to a previous discussion of this topic, I am inviting you to this one too.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All seems a bit trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not just a random nickname; it's part of a broader narrative that he's a political lightweight who has only become a leader because he's part of a huge Indian political dynasty. And, probably more importantly, reliable sources consider it significant enough to mention it over and over again.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then it is appropriate in his article, but not in an article that is not about him. In the grand scheme of things this is not its sole, main or even majority use.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would say that this is its majority use. If you asked random people in India to name a person known as "pappu", I think Rahul Gandhi would be by far the most common answer (obviously my sense is not a reliable source, but I think the volume of sources using the nickname backs me up). But in any case, most of Pappu is a list of people known by that name, and at least mentioning that Rahul Gandhi is one of them seems totally appropriate.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Notable people named Pappu", that his not his name.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I went through several dozen Google News articles. With three exceptions, every headline that referred only to Pappu (i.e., not a first and last name) was about Rahul Gandhi.  Those three exceptions were about a child raped in the 1970s (preasumably the child's full legal name isn't given for privacy reasons), a traditional food dish with the same name (think Johnny and Johnnycake), and an unrelated politician who was being accused of similar behavior.  AFAICT sources really are using this primarily to refer to Rahul Gandhi. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the basic principles of NPOV is do not state opinions as facts. The OP seems unable to distinguish between the two. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My edit which started this discussion said: "In politics, pappu has come to be an insulting nickname for Rahul Gandhi." This is a fact. Many people do call him "pappu" (I don't). What would violate NPOV is taking a side on whether the nickname is fair or unfair.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But is it its sole use, or just one of many uses?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Does it need to be? Karen (slang) doesn't seem to be any the worse off for naming several people who acquired that nickname. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Compare that to what the Washington Post wrote:
 * That is how an OPINION is stated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really? We WP:ASSERT facts, including facts about opinions, but we don't assert opinions themselves.  "In politics, pappu has come to be an insulting nickname for Rahul Gandhi" is not an opinion:  it is a fact that this person is called this name.  "BJP leaders called him "pappu"" is not an opinion:  it is a fact that these people call this person this name.
 * An opinion – which we would not put in the article – would sound something like "Rahul Gandhi doesn't deserve to be called Pappu by his political opponents". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * An opinion – which we would not put in the article – would sound something like "Rahul Gandhi doesn't deserve to be called Pappu by his political opponents". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since I've been pinged. Generally, derogatory political nicknames should be avoided because they are, um, political. The exception is if it is explicitly included in an article or list on derogatory political nicknames. If you want to start an article List of derogatory political nicknames in India, assuming all this is well sourced (I haven't checked), and assuming that there are other such nicknames (I don't know), that would probably be ok. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark, what would you advise editors of Brenda? The article describes it as an "irreverent" nickname for Elizabeth II.  Would you remove it because that article isn't exclusively about derogatory nicknames? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although the issue is in the grey area, I tend to believe that unless this is an article dedicated to Rahul Gandhi, this mention shouldn't be made even if it fulfills NPOV, V and NOR. Because biograhpies of living people must be treated with a high degree of sensitivity. The article in question has 3 sections: the first that is for a summary, obviously "Pappu" is first and foremost a name and should be treated as such, even if informally it has another meaning to the people of India. Despite the popularity of Rahul Gandhi's nickname, "Pappu" is still first and foremost a name. Use in ad campaigns is out of the question, as this is "propaganda" and "political gaming" rather than an ad. And notable people named Pappu, his name is not Pappu. LordRogalDorn (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We do want to avoid off-handed, single use names dropped as insults or the like, no question, but the weight of coverage and that this isn't a flash in the pan (2013 at least ) tells me this is something that should definitely be included as well as how he's played off that image. It is completely possible to do this in a neutral voice as suggested above as long as we explain the background of why the term is derogatory and how it got attached. --M asem (t) 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem, I think that would be ideal. Would you be willing to have a go at doing that?  I think it might help the situation if a neutral admin made the edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have tried to write a neutral para or two about the term and connection to Rahul here. --M asem (t) 23:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Masem, it appears that @Kautilya3 reverted your addition a few hours later, with a request for further discussion. What do you think we should do now?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be good to see if the addition you asked to me make seems reasonable under NPOV given the commentary on the talk page and above. There are valid concerns on BLP issues but to ignore the application of Pappu to Gandhi particularly in terms of timing seems a major WEIGHT omission given how it persists today. --M asem (t) 01:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC relist at Talk:Pit bull
I've relisted an RFC at Talk:Pit bull concerning weight of sources for the lede and am requesting outside editors to take a look at the issue. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * [just commented after seeing this] - yes, this could use more attention. It seems strange to me that people are saying a newspaper or magazine article about pit bulls biting people would be more (or equally) reliable to peer reviewed scientific journals... complete with claims that the whole field of veterinary scholarship is biased. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"School of Advanced Studies"
Discussed article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Advanced_Studies Dispute not resolved on Talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacquelin5624

Diffs: Several points of Controversy (Line 118->), too many to copy paste, which are either lacking citations or containing biased language. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=School_of_Advanced_Studies&type=revision&diff=986484146&oldid=986437377)

The problem: The section under dispute seems to include many sentences without proper citations, citations in the wrong places, or citations which seem to be inaccurate. Moreover, the language used in the section seems to be biased, which is why I suspect the viewpoint is not neutral. I tried to use the Talk page to discuss these missing references. However, the user reverting edits insisted that the citations are accurate. Furthermore, they admitted Conflict of Interest, as well as refused to provide proper citations. They also blame me for having a conflict of interest, though my edits include both sides of the controversy instead of just one; I've suggested a neutral version of the page, whereas the reverting editor insists on keeping a CoI version. Another external opinion is requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: "Of archdukes and princes"
The RfC at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_84 has been lingering at Requests for Closure for quite some time so I have provided a summary non-administrator close. Normally, archived RfC's are unarchived to close but the relevant thread was >89kb so I am posting this notice instead. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 23:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should neutral countries and the UN Assembly figure in the lead in Hamas?
There's an RfC taking place at Talk:Hamas regarding the designation of Hamas a "terrorist organization". The RfC was listed in the wrong category (History and Geography rather than Politics, government and law), and I think it would benefit from being mentioned here.

At the core of the RfC are these two question:
 * 1) Whether neutral countries maintaining their neutrality towards a specific entity is WP:NOTABLE enough for a lead.
 * 2) Whether the UN not passing a resolution is WP:NOTABLE enough for a lead, or whether one should consider passed votes and failed votes differently (in other words, whether by rejecting a resolution one automatically adopts the opposite position, or just remains undecided). This is complicated by a technicality associated with that particular vote, which meant that it failed despite gaining a majority.

There are some sourcing issues, as well as misrepresentation of what the resolution draft actually states. More eyes welcome. François Robere (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It is an NPOV issue and the more eyes the merrier but that is all that is needed here, a request for more eyes, there is no need to litigate here what is already being litigated at the rfc.Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The article "Chaldean Catholics"
User:Ninnyçizzy says that the article Chaldean Catholics must have the introductory phrase "This article is about ethnic Assyrian adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church". I say that the question of whether Chaldean Catholics are "ethnic Assyrian" should be addressed within the article, not imposed as a preliminary prejudged definition. I personally accept that Chaldean Catholics fit into the generally accepted definition of ethnic Assyrians, but I do not exclude from the definition of "Chaldean Catholics" those members of the community who avoid that definition.

Ninnyçizzy sees as inadmissible within the article "Chaldean Catholics" any mention that the term "Assyrian" can also refer to adherents of a particular Church distinct from the Chaldean Catholic Church. He calls any mention of it "redundant and fallacious". I hold that, if this article uses the term "Assyrian" (as it does), it ought to indicate the sense or senses in which it uses it.

There has been no meeting of our minds on the Discussion page. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The dispute seems definitively ended, and this notice may be removed. Bealtainemí (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

POV edits by Francis Schonken on Murder of Samuel Paty
Having reached a deadlock with the user in question on the relevant talk page, as you can see here and here, I'd like to report the chief editor's persistent manipulation of content. It started with him refusing to qualify Charlie Hebdo cartoons as controversial/inflammatory, as I managed to include here after a lot of hit-and-run. Given that we already shouldn't include both drawings in the article as per WP:GRATUITOUS and that we should instead approximate their content in the prose, it appears accurate and objective for him to describe the drawings as merely cartoons depicting Muhammad, instead of the more contextual controversial cartoons mocking/ridiculing Muhammad. Please see the sources provided there, considering both their reliability and relevancy. Since we were on the verge of an edit war, for which he posted a warning on my talk page, I refrained from further editing the page. As I was in the process of filing an RfC, then, he suggested resolving the matter by making some fune-tuning to address the opposite view. A few days later, however, he decided the cartoons shouldn't even be described as a motive for the crime, which makes me question why they still appear on the article then. According to him, as once mentioned in the discussions above, encyclopedic content is only one that can be found verbatim in the references (i.e. semantic meaning). Any pragmatic meaning inferred by another editor with an opposing stance to his is labeled original research. Thus, the word "motive" must be explicitly mentioned in the sources, even though the source says, for example, Blood has been spilled before in France over satire targeting Islam. Another example of arbitrary manipulation can be found here, where he thought clearly, solely a proof by assertion, is enough ground to undermine consensus as put in WP:RSPSOURCES. I tried to trace his claims and found no evidence for the allegations whatsoever. Assem Khidhr (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's an alternative overview to Francis's somehow twisted account below: Assem Khidhr (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 20:20, 23 October 2020: Assem Khidhr introduces "defamatorily" in the article
 * 1) * 22:14, 23 October 2020: reverted by
 * 11:03, 24 October 2020: Assem Khidhr re-introduces the same word
 * 1) * 11:11, 24 October 2020: rephrased by Passant67
 * 2) * 11:14, 24 October 2020: rephrasing removed by Francis Schonken
 * 14:13, 24 October 2020‎: Assem Khidhr starts a discussion on "defamtorily"
 * 17:43, 25 October 2020: Discussion reaches an impasse
 * 10:54, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr introduces "inflammatory" in lead section
 * 1) * 11:57, 30 October 2020: reverted by Francis Schonken
 * 11:57, 30 October 2020: Francis Schonken starts a discussion on UNAOC (the source provided in #5)
 * 12:54, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr reintroduces "inflammatory" in lead section with another source
 * 1) * 13:05, 30 October 2020: reverted by on grounds of a dubious source
 * 14:22, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr re-reintroduces "inflammatory" in lead section with new sources and quotes
 * 1) * 14:27, 30 October 2020: reverted again by Francis Schonken on grounds of lead unworthiness and POV.
 * 10:47, 4 November 2020: Francis Schonken removes "motive" from lead section
 * 10:40, 5 November 2020: Francis Schonken removes Aljazaeera source based on OR

Overview: For the related talk page discussions: participated in both talk page discussions, taking, afaics from their relatively short intervertions, somewhat of a middle position. But if you'd like to see that as support for Assem Khidhr's approach, feel free to do so.
 * 20:20, 23 October 2020: Assem Khidhr introduces "defamatorily" in the article
 * 1) * 22:14, 23 October 2020: reverted by
 * 11:03, 24 October 2020: Assem Khidhr re-introduces the same word
 * 1) * 11:11, 24 October 2020: rephrased by Passant67
 * 2) * 11:14, 24 October 2020: rephrasing removed by Francis Schonken
 * 10:54, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr introduces "inflammatory" in lead section
 * 1) * 11:57, 30 October 2020: reverted by Francis Schonken
 * 12:54, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr reintroduces "inflammatory" in lead section
 * 1) * 13:05, 30 October 2020: reverted by
 * 14:22, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr re-reintroduces "inflammatory" in lead section
 * 1) * 14:27, 30 October 2020: reverted again by Francis Schonken.
 * 1) Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty/Archive 1: Assem Khidhr unable to convince Francis Schonken and Passant67
 * 2) Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty: Assem Khidhr unable to convince Francis Schonken and

I think Assem Khidhr would do well to understand that on this point there are more editors to convince than me. Assem Khidhr was, in mainspace, reverted by three different editors. In talk page discussions there were three editors unconvinced by Assem Khidhr's rationale. Coming to this noticeboard seems rather like clasping at last straws, than a serious attempt at convincing anyone who starts from a different approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Only chipping in to say that 's assessment of my position is one that I agree with. Also I diagree with Khidr's edits to add inflammatory/etc as a qualifier. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * We cannot say in wikivoice that something is "controversial/inflammatory" unless that opinion is universal, as that would be a breach of NPOV. We can only say that "X found the material to be controversial/inflammatory". WWGB (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This. Its clear that sources are presenting that the person in question found the cartoons inflammatory, hence their reaction, but we cannot say in wikivoice that the cartoons to be inflammatory. --M asem (t) 03:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Omission of the discussions timeline and the subjective wording impose an interpretation on a supposedly descriptive account of the events. For example, how would we know which interlocutor is unable to convince the other? It could be me failing to convince you or the other way around. To avoid redundancy, I'm inserting notes for a more disinterested version, lest a strike be taken as disruptive. Further, with the article subject being a typical flamewar, we'd expect some degree of a naturally arising factionalism that well explains why my contention seemed like a heterodox position. As evidence for this, see e.g. the discussion here, where 1kwords and Passant67 suggest there's systemic bias for Islam in enWP. Assem Khidhr (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * please see WP:TPG – don't modify someone else's talk page comments. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You bet! I moved my annotated version to my own comment and left yours as was. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the added details, you continued to add the term "inflammatory" in wikivoice, when it clear that was a problem. --M asem  (t) 03:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, being universal isn't required for inclusion on Wikipedia. In this case, we'd hardly have anything left on the site. Wikipedia is concerned with reliable sources. If the shape of earth is reported to be round in reliable sources, then we don't require flat earthers' assent to achieve universality. We speak of roundness in Wikivoice and still deliver flat earthers' theory as an assertion. Not to fall in a slippery slope, when an event evokes controversy that can be verified in sources deemed neutral, then they are controversial in Wikivoice. Again, being controversial isn't per se a negative description, it just reflects people's reactions. When these reactions are notable enough, they can be verified and hence be objectively reported. Assem Khidhr (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling a situation controversial in wikivoice by judging what's going on in reliable sources (recognizing there is a mix of opinions on a topic), is different from trying to assess the nature of some cartoons to call them inflammatory in Wikivoice, which is something we cannot do because that requires Wikipedia to take an opinion on the actual pictures. --M asem (t) 04:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If enough people find something inflammatory, then can't we call that thing "controversial" in wikivoice? The very definition of the word "controversial" indicates that significant people disapprove of it.VR talk 19:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the read I'm getting from the article, is that at the point where "inflammatory" was being added, the nature of the cartoons was not clear (after the fact they might be), and only the person in question was considering the cartoons inflammatory as to take action. In a post-analysis of the situations, we could describe the cartoons were considered controversial in Wikivoice, but not at the specific point they wanted to be introduced. --M asem (t) 19:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad someone's starting to see an impartial picture. Here's some extra evidence of controversy that I partly mentioned on different occasions during the discussions, noting that the cartoons date back to 2012, which is more than enough to objectively assess the situation and have a neutral say at the time of my edits:


 * 1) French ex-Foreign minister Laurent Fabius described the same cartoons as pouring oil on the fire.
 * 2) French ex-president Jacques Chirac condemned the magazine's decision to republish previous cartoons of Muhammad and described it as overt provocations.
 * 3) American ex-president Barack Obama commented on the same cartoons: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam".
 * 4) Charlie Hebdo was banned before in France for disparaging the death of General de Gaulle, a national symbol (note the Times article being titled The Provocative History of French Weekly Newspaper Charlie Hebdo)
 * 5) Well-aware of WP:POINTy behavior, I'll refer to these examples only to show how often such qualifier was judged compatible with Wiki policies by other contributors in the community, some of which are pretty apt, judging by the articles assessments:
 * 6) * See the description of a white-supremacist cartoon as inflammatory in the Class B article Lynching in the United States
 * 7) * Class C Charlie Hebdo lead section reads: "The magazine has been the target of three terrorist attacks: in 2011, 2015, and 2020. All of them were presumed to be in response to a number of cartoons that it published controversially depicting Muhammad."


 * 1) * In a reference to previous Danish cartoons, Class C The Cartoons that Shook the World lead section reads: "The book itself caused controversy before its publication when Yale University Press removed all images from the book, including the controversial cartoons themselves and some other images of Muhammad"


 * 1) In 18:59, 2 November 2020: 1kwords admitted that it's fair to say the cartoons didn't merely depict (as stated now on the article), but rather ridiculed. He said: "Instead the showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons ridiculing prophet Muhammad which Muslims find blasphemous would be a more appropriate phrasing."

Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The only POV edits I see are the ones trying to label as inflammatory some perfectly ordinary cartoons. The only thing deserving of the term inflammatory in this case was the Muslim responses from the parent, the imam, and the numerous propaganda outlets and world "leaders"  who have decided to burnish their Islamist credentials by calling for Macron's head, a boycott of France, and so on, just as they did when the self-same cartoons were in the news the last time an extremist decided they were "inflammatory" and killed numerous people to prove their piety. GPinkerton (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Showing pornographic cartoons to minors is certainly inflammatory, wouldn't you agree? In some jurisdictions it would also be criminal. VR talk 19:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What editors think of images is completely irrelevant per WP:NOTFORUM. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What relevance would that have? No-one is suggesting showing pornography to children - why would you even mention it? ... GPinkerton (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that Islamists have killed before because of the same drawings (and other drawings) does not make the practice of drawing controversial or inflammatory. It makes Islamism controversial and inflammatory and it makes Islamists tragically inflammed. Provactive action is all theirs. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reuters France has allowed displays of the cartoons, which are considered blasphemous by Muslims. In some Muslim countries, politicians and other figures have made rhetorical attacks on French leaders, accusing them of being anti-Islam and calling for a boycott of French products. ergo, Reuters doesn't write that the cartoons themselves are controversial, but that Muslims find them blasphemous. A Thousand Words (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, much less absence of evidence in a single quote from a single source. Assem Khidhr (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is your evidence? This is going nowhere. GPinkerton (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

PhD candidate as a reliable source for a denial of Syrian Kurdistan against the views of multiple professors stating otherwise?
At the article Syrian Kurdistan there is currently a dispute going on which we have discussed at the RSN where we were told that due weight be rather an issue of the discussion. So there is me who wants to have included an undoubtedly existence of Syrian Kurdistan, and Amr ibn, who claims there does exists enough doubt about the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan to merit the inclusion of the mention that only "some regional experts" and "many Kurds" refer to the Syrian part of Kurdistan as a Syrian Kurdistan, Rojava or Western Kurdistan. As some people might know, the Kurds were and are fighting against ISIS, (which it defeated in October 2017 in Raqqa), and Turkey specifically waged and wages a war against the Kurds in Syria. Then the Kurdish population was divided into the countries Syria, Turkey and Iraq following the partition of the Ottoman Empire. So Kurds are really present in Syria and the areas of Syrian Kurdistan are adjacent to the other parts of Kurdistan. This is WP:commonsense. But Amr Ibn denies the (by scholars undoubted) existence of a Syrian Part of Kurdistan and brings Mustapha Hamza, a PhD candidate with no Wikipedia article as a reliable source against multiple well known scholars and professors (most with an own Wikipedia entry) on the topic and wants to have mentioned that only "some regional experts" and "many Kurds" call it Syrian Kurdistan, Rojava or Western Kurdistan. He brought books of McDowall (well respected scholar on Kurds who sure mentions a Kurdish population in Syria and Denise Natali, who also accepts the existence of Kurds in Syria). As to me, there doesn't exist an expert on Kurds in Syria that denies the fact of a Syrian part of Kurdistan adjacent to the other parts of Kurdistan as it is also stated and depicted in the Kurdistan article on Wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_book_by_the_PhD_candidate_Mustafa_Hamza_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_a_Syrian_Kurdistan? Here] you can read the discussion at the RSN and here our discussion at the article talk page. My demand is that commonsense and the view of multiple respected scholars are the views presented in the lead and the doubt is removed.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You fail to make distinction between presence of Kurds in Syria (just like in any other country) and Syrian Kurdistan. Respected maps and books have not shown the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan, although they still talk about Kurdish communities. PKK/PYD portal have started this rhetoric of a "Syrian kurdistan" during the Syrian civil war and the control of large swaths in northern Syria by PYD militias. See the differing maps for this area corresponding to the military control of YPG militias.

Furthermore, this article is not unique in saying "Syrian Kurdistan" is a nationalist Kurdish invention. Below are some books talking about Kurdistan without any mention of a "Syrian Kurdistan": Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Book chapter by Kaya and Lowe
 * David McDowall, 1997. A Modern History of the Kurds
 * Denise Natali, 2005. The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran.
 * Edgar O'Ballance, 2004. The Kurdish Struggle.
 * BTW, there was a long discussion involving many users (not just me) on the Talk page before adopting the text ""some regional experts" and "many Kurds" refer ". Also, the Treaty of Sevres map (1920), which is used as the foundation for all Kurdistan statehood claims does not even touch the Syrian border, this latter became even farther south with the Treaty of Ankara (1921). One more, thing, as you know, a peer-reviewed article is by definition a reputable source, whether the author is a PhD scholar or a full professor. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there you see how Amr Ibn argues, he defends a source by a Phd candidate against numerable well known and really very often cited Professors on the topic.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is one more reference (page 1) from the prestigious International Crisis Group. I quote: The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this was after they captured the territory from ISIS. And yes they wanted to rule themselves instead of being ruled by Assad, who is widely viewed to be a hereditary dictator who defends the prohibition of the Kurdish culture. Still, the PYD/SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces)) is/are a legit and firm defender of the Syrian territorial integrity, as they are the main force against the Turkish invaders. It will be interesting to know, if Wikipedia has the POV of Assad and ISIS or of a democracy which allows all nations to live their culture.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am glad you are exposing your POV-pushing agenda and opinionated nature of edits for admins here to judge. I am sure you think yourself on a propaganda website, not WP. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'd be glad, too if an admin would look into the dispute. Just to clarify also to you. I am referring to the Point-of-View of Assad and ISIS who's views of terror and autoritarian non-democratic government are not really well seen in the academic world, and the Point-of-View of a democracy governing in the Autonomous Administration of North East Syria who's valors and policies can be found in the vast majority of the movements and parties of the academic society. I'd say it is commonsense pushing what I do. There exists a part of Kurdistan in Syria and this is commonsense.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's also ironic that someone with your POV pushing history and refusal of arbitration results and ban log opens a claim here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments 1.) If either editor in this dispute wants administrator action this is the wrong place to seek it. 2.) What is the actual dispute here? All nations are, by definition, nationalist … inventions, so what's the issue at hand? A map is not a territory: the area called Syrian Kurdistan certainly exists. It's not deniable that conflicts exist as to whether this is Kurdish Syria or Syrian Kurdistan, so what's the dispute here? GPinkerton (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, when you bring these topics to any outside page, you need to summarize first by putting bullet points, diffs and things like that. You should also attempt to bring it first in a neutral wording. Then you can dispute it as much as you want. So I'll try to summarize.

This seems to began with the wish to remove "many Kurds and some regional experts" in the sentence "regarded by many Kurds and some regional experts as one of the four parts of Kurdistan" Paradise Chronicle is of the opinion that this is an undisputed fact and therefore we can remove "many Kurds and some regional experts" Amr ibn Kulthoum then responded with a number of links, which I suppose oppose the undisputed fact. After a small amount of back and forth, they brought their concerns to WP:RSN. In that conversation, ElKevbo concluded that the books bought were likely reliable sources, but they had concerns over WP:UNDUE. Then, they brought the conversation here, where they returned to back and forth before other editors commented.

My Concerns:

typically WP:COMMONSENSE is not viewed as a concrete argument, more as a "I believe my edit was common sense" but it is not something which you can repeat over and over, because if there is a lot of opposition clearly it isn't viewed as common sense.

I share ElKevbo's concerns about putting too much weight on this idea. Admittedly, I have absolutely no knowledge in this issue. Presently, Paradise Chronicle hasn't brought any evidence which shows WP:UNDUE applies here. If one of you two can find sources like AP, Reuters, BBC etc using/not using Syrian Kurdistan, then that will most likely settle the debate since they follow similar policies as we do.

Both: This is not the avenue that should've been followed. The RSN was fine as it was requesting the correctness of a source, but this is quite clearly an attempt to win a debate, not attempting to reach a neutral point of view. Dispute Resolution, RfC or asking an admin to attempt to mediate would've been much better. Also, both of you are not presently attempting to reach a consensus. Wikipedia isn't about winning, but finding solutions that both follow our policies, maintain an encyclopedic tone and having broad consensus among editors. I suggest requesting mediation. I'm also going to request for the article to be protected to stop the high amounts of edit warring. Thanks, SixulaTalk 13:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

There is one paper of a nobody (I can't find anything on him on the internet) who even supports the cultural right of the Kurds in Syria. If you google Mustapha Hamza he is either a medical doctor or scientist who studies noise (yes this exists). Sixula's not very well founded judgement places a no name Phd candidate as an accepted pare for an academic authority (widely and often cited also in other books on the topic) and professor on the topic like Jordi Tejel. Tejel was actually already cited in the article so I didn't think I need to bring this up here again. Reuters was also already cited. I've now added at least three more professors to sort of WP:overkill the phrase with 10 sources of which several are sitting professors or university lecturers and others are well known authorities on the topic. There are David Romano, Thomas Schmiedinger or Michael Gunter and all of them one can google and find them as academics. Less well known academics I do not name here.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * you are putting words in my mouth. I at no point actually made an analysis which stated that certain sources were or were not WP:RS, I simply stated that you had, at that point, given no evidence to show that Syrian Kurdistan existed or to show WP:UNDUE. You have now done that. However, I don't think I emphasized my last point enough; this is not the correct route. You need to seek mediation, ask an a RfC, do something, but this isn't it. If you disagree with my judgement on my summaries or my concerns, that's fine. But please attempt to heed my last point of advice, that this is not the place to do it. Also pinging if he wishes to comment on the new sources brought. Thanks, SixulaTalk 20:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No thanks; this all seems to be off-topic for this noticeboard. ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, I agree. Thanks, SixulaTalk 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Here a some others sources, all of which use "Syrian Kurdistan" and none of which post dates the Civil War. Some even discuss the definition and usage of the term and its suitability.: This is a common name and need not be attributed or equivocated. GPinkerton (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is great. I support GPinkerton in his conclusion. Thanks, SixulaTalk 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work GPinkerton. Thank you for your patience, Sixula.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I stopped watching this noticeboard after the first comment of Sixula telling us this is not the right place for this debate, so I didn't see Pinkerton jump in and make conclusions for everybody, and then run to the admin noticeboard to report me as if I am the one starting an edit war and refusing to compromise. Obviously, they did not bother to visit the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page to see what's going on. I provided the all-important Treaty of Sevres map above, and a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan". This issue is really too long to explain here, so I would rather have people visit the Talk page mentioned above. In brief, two or three users are trying to show this as an entity that has long existed and three other users do not agree with that, and argue that this term was produced by Kurdish nationalists. On a quick factcheck, it is interesting that none of the links provided above by Paradise has "Syrian Kurdistan" in the name. We are not arguing about the presence of a Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria. One last thing, I just visited one of the links provided above by Paradise and could not even find Syria in there. There is Iran, Iraq and Turkey. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All my suspicions are confirmed and reinforced. Thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Religious views of Adolf Hitler
User:Hardyplants is removing stable, relevant and well-sourced content from the article because they hold the opinion that Hitler committed the holocaust solely because of "science" (as they have argued in edit summaries). This is against what the source (who happens to be a christian historian) says. -  (talk)  22:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Solved. -   (talk)  06:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Catherine de Zegher
A user has completely rewritten the article, whitewashing it (one mention that the subject was suspended has been left, everything else removed, sources removed as well) and reverted me twice. Anybody wants to have a look? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I (Curatorslog) am the user who rewritten the article. The page as it was was not neutral, it was too focused on a single part of the career of the person the page is about. the page was not balanced. Moreover, it is about a controversial case. the previous version of the page was not objective because it gave undue attention to one aspect of the person's career and not the entire career. In addition, it concerns a court case that has not yet been completed. What is necessary, namely to mention that the person was suspended was indeed mentioned in my version. But the full description of the person was not objective and balanced. All this gives the impression that there was a conflict of interest with the person who wrote the original article. What I have done is to give the full picture of the person in a balanced way. Does anybody want to have a look? Thanks.--Curatorslog (talk) 20:57 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And they continue reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't blame them. It's not desirable to use a BLP to coatrack someone's view of a "controversy". BTW, there is a recently created article: Toporovski collection controversy. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Even in the original version the whole controversy section is only a small part of the article. The user appears to have a connection with the subject, as they have created and made substantial edits to mutliple related topics, an example being the Toporovski collection controversy article you mentioned above, as well as List of exhibitions curated by Catherine de Zegher, Kanaal Art Foundation. Might be UPE, but its not clear cut. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Basically all public interest to the activity of de Zegher is because of the Toporovski affair due to which she was suspended, then fired, suspected of fraud and faces criminal charges. There are many reliable sources reflecting this, and they were cited in the previous version of the article, but now they magically disappeared after the revisions by Curatorslog who is likely a COI editor, and the whole Toporovski affair has been reduced to two sentences.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And now the mention of her suspension which I yesterday added to the lede, has been removed. I am sorry, I do not think we should continue assuming good faith here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you so keen to use a BLP to rubbish the subject? If the person is only known for a problem, the article should be about the problem. If the article is about the person, any problem should be mentioned minimally in the article. If they end up in prison, a mention in the lead would be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the person is not only known for a problem, but the problem was a big deal in the media.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, James Watson who is undoubtedly notable for a lot of things, including his Nobel Prize, was fired for making one-time inappropriate comments. In his (quite extensive) article this is one paragraph out of four in the lede, and a section of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * James Watson has a long history of making inappropriate or racist comments, most were removed from the article. Hardyplants (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it however be appropriate to remove the mention of his firing from the lede? This is more or less what happened here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with a sentence in the lead mentioning the issue since the lead should be an overview of the body.Hardyplants (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was indeed first reduced to a couple of sentences in the body, (followed by edit-warring) and subsequently removed from the lede .--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Rebecca Sockbeson
I figured this was more a worry of POV/PUFF than COI, but I approved this draft yesterday but I have concerns that it may be borderline when it comes to POV. The original author has only worked on this article, which makes me concerned about a COI or SPA. This person may just be a fan of Sockbeson or wants to increase the number of articles on indigenous women on WP to combat Systemic bias, which is totally fine. I just need another pair of eyes on the article to see if I'm overthinking the whole thing. Thanks in advance! Bkissin (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Emily W. Murphy - BLP vios & DUE issues
A NPOV tag has been placed at Emily W. Murphy (by another editor, but still). This was also posted on BLPN by but sufficient outside input not generated, so cross-posting here. The article had serious NPOV & WEIGHT issues and BLP violations (which valereee has - more tolerantly than I - tried to discuss since early Nov). I caught the article on BLPN and have made some adjustments removing unsourced accusations and rewriting some prose to accurately reflect sources. There's 3 distinct categories of disputed content (explicit BLP violations, blatant UNDUE, and then just indiscriminate information), some I assume will be challenged in good faith and we'll work those out, but I'm concerned explicitly about POV pushing part here. A secondary issue with the article is that all RS discussing the subject as a whole seem to view her in a relatively positive light (eg CNN or LA Times, ), but our article (even after my changes - before, after - includes removals from others also) is the exact opposite impression.

I'd greatly appreciate some uninvolved eyes and participation from editors, and admins given the editor's prior strays at ANI for POV issues. Ideally I can pass this off to someone else and crawl back into my technical hole. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've opened a related thread at AN concerning edit-warring accusations at that article. —valereee (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump Page
I thought Wikipedia was suppose to be a neutral information page on any subject matter, not a political commentary on someone they don't personally like.

"Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency." (2nd paragraph) - That sounds like very biased and partisan-like. Is Wikipedia political now?

"The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." - "Fact checkers" are incredibly biased too and are under heavy scrutiny by the right for their partisan loyalty to the left. Why would you even include them when they're grossly inaccurate like most of the mainstream news media out there?

"A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia.[c] Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that offense." (4th paragraph) - "Trump and his campaign BENEFITED from Russian interference in the 2016 election" yet the only reference you have is some biased Liberal news article that offers NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. "..his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that offense." So you can say that about anything anyone is accused of. They weren't charged or or indicted but OH THEY WEREN'T EXONERATED EITHER! Yeah and? Does that suggest that they're guilty of something. There was no evidence and he wasn't charged. What does that even mean? I know what you want to look like because you guys are obviously political-minded when you wrote this.

"Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic. He downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." (5th paragraph) So now we're using Wikipedia to write opinion pieces? Because that's EXACTLY what this state IS.

I could go but you get the point. Since when is Wikipedia a political news paper? This whole thing looks like it was written by CNN! I think all it does is alienates you from a certain group because you guys can't keep your opinions to yourselves and yet every year you're asking for donations. Good luck getting any from the group you're siding against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MFrn2345 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you disagree with the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. That's not something we can fix, and we don't care about your threats. Cope harder, perhaps. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Opindia backdoor POV pushing

 * Village pump (policy) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:In Praise of Blood
Need more eyes on this one... Is it true that I am a "biased uncooperative editor" as well as "lack expertise and understanding and are completely disrepectful"? You decide! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Safieni seconds this question. Buidhe admitted that he did not read the book and several of the sources he cites. Yet he does not respect the edits and explanations of those who did read everything and understand the subject. It looks like Buidhe has formed his opinion based on a few non-expert sources and is enforcing that view without seeing the bigger picture 08:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs)