Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 88

Great Barrington Declaration
User will not allow an NPOV tag on the article when there's a clear dispute. See the ​Talk page. It would also help if a non-involved editor could review the entire article and comment on its neutrality. In my opinion it's one of the worst, most biased, articles on Wikipedia. Arcturus (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * More eyes are certainly needed; at the moment, Arcturus is editwarring to include a tag although consensus was reached on the article's NPOV in November, and some of the issues raised in the most recent diatribe have been discussed on the Talk page even more recently. Newimpartial (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was certainly not achieved: most of the issues I raised were not even addressed, such as the complaint about the fake signatories. Others were "answered" hastily and dismissively. For instance, how is it possible to object to my request to cite some of the credentials of the authors of the Declaration without calling into questions the credentials of the critics, which are cited profusely and off-topic? While my points are different from the other ones raised in the talk, the fact that the neutrality of the article is continuously disputed should raise concern. In the meanwhile, I have made further research and read an article about the Declaration on The Lancet by Talha Khan Burki. Wikipedia should imitate the balanced way such scientific issues are discussed in such journals, and avoid ad hominem, confusing, and unbalanced treatment on such important, controversial issues. The Declaration has been signed by more than 13 thousand medical scientists and 40 thousand medical practitioners. Whatever one thinks of their views, they deserve being treated with respect. Their positions cannot be associated with the flat-earth society or other nonsensical science fiction, as happened in the replies to my thread in the talk. Interventions from non-involved editors are urgent to avoid this article becomes a shame for the whole Wikipedia community. In the meanwhile, the tag on the disputed neutrality has to be restored. Αλογόμυγα (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If this article is Wikipedia policies in action, clearly they do not work, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The question of fake signatories was raised and consensus reached in this discussion in December. Given that the more than 13 thousand medical scientists and 40 thousand medical practitioners that the tagging editor has just referred to include "Professor Cominic Dummings" and "Doctor Johnny Bananas", mention of the fake signatures is rather on-point. And where editors get the idea that it is OK to add drive-by tags or post WALLOFTEXT change requests without reading an article's (quite recent) Talk page history, I have no idea. Newimpartial (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * how is it possible to object to my request to cite some of the credentials of the authors of the Declaration without calling into questions the credentials of the critics In my response I did call those into question: we should remove the honorifics that are there. Nobody else "object[ed] to [your] request to cite some of the credentials". So, what are you talking about?
 * the fact that the neutrality of the article is continuously disputed should raise concern The neutrality of every article on fringe topics is continuously disputed. Every day, I see several new sections "This article is BIASED!" on Talk pages of the fringe articles I watch. Should that raise concern? Should we do WP:FALSEBALANCE for all of those or only for those fringe ideas you like? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is not fringe. Arcturus (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is not FRINGE but the GBD is most definitely a FRINGE 'science' intervention into the public health debate. And no number of 'verified' retirees and people with unrelated expertise signing the petition will change that. This is climate change denial literally all over again, complete with Koch. Newimpartial (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Arcturus is right, the article is not fringe, nor is the Great Barrington Declaration or its content. It is issued and signed by a large number of respected scientists: approximately 3 times more many than the opposing "John Snow's Memorandum", as I recalled in the talk page. I also recalled that signatures from scientists (currently more than 13 000) and from more than 40 000 medical practitioners are now verified and vetted. This is explained on the Great Barrington Declaration's webpage, but the Wikipedia entry would suggest the opposite. And there are many other issues. The NPOV tag reflects the reasons of readers such as Arcturus and me, of many others who have written in the "talk" page, and of countless readers who would have identified with it, had it not been taken away arbitrarily, without even addressing the issues. It is a matter of fact that the neutrality of the article is routinely called into question: the tag must stay there. Αλογόμυγα (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The two of you repeatedly saying a thing does not make it true, nor does it make the GBD less FRINGE, nor does or justify the tagging against consensus. Please stop edit warring and participate in discussion on the Talk page, preferably without WALLOFTEXT manifestos. Newimpartial (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note the "NPOV" tag has been added again, against repeated recent consensus. Could we please have more editorial eyeballs on this? Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The matter is being discussed here. That should be enough justification in itself for the tag. Arcturus (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the way tags work. Each page is not an open invitation to add an NPOV tag and open a Talk page discussion to re-hash issues that have recently been resolved on the same Talk page. This is the third NPOV discussion on Talk:Great Barrington Declaration in less than 90 days. Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Newimpartial and the rest; the article is scrupulously neutral, and that the argumentum ad populum is a poor logical fallacy to choose when claiming to represent one's position as supported by facts, as poor as any. Where are the reliable sources? GPinkerton (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have outlined here what I believe to be some flaws in the way this article is written.--JBchrch (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the examples given I would agree with 's concerns. I think that is less a question of NPOV and more IMPARTIAL.  Springee (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine hammers in the term "pseudoscience" excessively
I think that the article for Traditional Chinese Medicine hammers in the term "pseudoscience" excessively. Although many aspects of it are pseudoscientific, some Chinese medicines are clinically proven, and under WP:FRINGE/PS, I think it would more accurately be described as "questionable science". Félix An (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree, we do not need to say it every other paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I think is a problem: it keeps saying "x and pseudoscience", "y and pseudoscience", "z and pseudoscience", etc. Félix An (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the article talk page.  DGG ( talk )

List of one-hit wonders on the UK Singles Chart
Hello, can you have a look at the List of one-hit wonders on the UK Singles Chart article about what constitutes a one-hit wonder in the UK chart, was I think some editors are making their own rules up rather than just reflecting what is posted on the Official Charts Company site...but first some background information...

Originally in 2008, Cexycy updated the list and put this in the comments page...


 * "I have the Guiness Hit Singles book, edition 7. Yes I know this is a long time ago, however later versions do not seem to include the One Hit Wonders and other interesting bits of pop trivia.  I did e-mail them and asked them to include bits and they said they would in the next edition.  Sadly this was not the case. In the edition I have, they list the One Hit Wonders, up to 1988, then they list the ones which appeared in different guises, such and Frank and Nancy Sinatra with Something Stupid, etc. It is in this list that John Denver appears as on his own, he IS a OHW, however him and Placido Domingo are technically another artist.  Therefore under the guide of (just) John Denver, he IS a ONW, not the sort that should be included in the main list. should be included in the Worthy Note section of the article for this very reason.  As should all the other artist collabortations.  They have just as much right to be there as the charity acts, who are just the same. I forgot to add, the article itself says Guinness Book of Hit Singles' policy will be used, and they have included John Denver in their list of OHWs in other guises.  I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but please bear this in mind".  --Cexycy (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

and the reply years later was...

As for the Nancy and Frank Sinatra case - that's a tricky one really, the Guinness Book of does list all those instances as well, as an act in their own right, they are technically a OHW, but I feel that common sense needs to come into it a little bit with these artists - as well as the fact that the list will become very long. If you look - Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin are listed seperately although their No.1 was together, but are in the list because neither had another hit. It's a bit of a grey issue, but it would seem a bit silly to have Frank Sinatra listed as a OHW, but I won't argue on a technicality and it's up to consensus really. But yes, I agree with you now, John Denver would be worth mentioning at least". --Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Yes, I agree, the Guinness Book of does list all the collaborations, so fair enough. It's probably worth listing given that he's never had another hit otherwise.

Now a few days ago I added "Party Rock Anthem" by LMFAO/Lauren Bennett/GoonRock as it was missing from the list...at a point that the one hit wonders list was full of secondary/featured artists and so added it and put the following info in the comments section...

"Info about GoonRock (see below) added under 'Collaborations classified as one-hit wonders' though you might want to move him to the main section. I only have the Virgin book to hand, not the Guinness ones so I cannot check how they listed collaborations between three artists listed equally...though it is likely to be separate in the early days of the Guinness books as something like 'DAVID GUETTA & CHRIS WILLIS' would have been listed as a separate recording act to David Guetta on his own as they've had 4 hits together (if it was just one David Guetta ft Chris Willis that would be added to Guetta's hit total) As the methodology stated in the intro is about two artists releasing a record together and getting to number one and not three artists credited equally by the OCC getting to number one, I wasn't sure where to add GoonRock, but obviously it needs to be on here...

''According to the Official Charts Company (OCC), "Party Rock Anthem" is a number one record credited jointly to LMFAO/Lauren Bennett/GoonRock. Of these three acts LMFAO are credited with having five Top 75 hits with their other number one "Gettin' Over You" only credited to David Guetta and Chris Willis at this moment (the OCC have decided not to credit LMFAO and Fergie, even though their names are shown on the website, appearing on the single's cover) Lauren Bennett has never had any other hits under her own name, but has had a few hits as part of the band G.R.L., while GoonRock is a producer who has also never had any credited hits of his own.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.169.1 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

...however at this point Tuzapicabit came back after deleting the information...and said...


 * "I've already removed the entry. The OCC doesn't give accurate credits probably due to space. The single was by LMFAO and featured the other two, so not eligible". Tuzapicabit (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

...however I think that this is not just reporting on what the OCC have put, but turning into a bit of 'original research' by Tuzapicabit as he has put no links to this reasoning...with Tuzapicabit deciding what can or cannot be on the list. However as he didn't want all the secondary artists listed they were all removed from the main list as a compromise...I replied...

"...but you can only go off what the OCC states not what Wikipedia is saying and if the OCC state they are credited jointly then so be it. By the way I have removed all the featured artists from the list because that is your reasoning for GoonRock not being in the main list (he should be, though note that I didn't add him directly to the main list). I have not removed Avery Storm at this point at this point as if you look at the wikipedia article for Nasty Girl (The Notorious B.I.G. song) you can see the cover of the record an it it by Notorious B.I.G. featuring Diddy, Nelly Jagged Edge, and Avery Storm. You can be overly pedantic if you want but all information has to be treated equally, and therefore I expect you to delete Avery Storm from the list if you believe all featured artists are not eligible". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.237.218 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Now the inclusion of featured artists (or more correctly secondary artists) boils down to the introduction in a very old chart book...which is probably 30 years out of date and one which has not kept up to date with the charts, as in the 1980s any artist with an '&' and 'versus' on their name were seen as a completely separate act and given their own entry. However, now the OCC state that Tina Turner's first hit was "RIVER DEEP, MOUNTAIN HIGH" (number 3 in 1966 with Ike) with Tina having 44 UK Top 75s between 1966 - 2020. Its the same for Cher, who had had 42 UK Top 75s between 1965 - 2013 with her first hit being "I GOT YOU BABE", a number one. So are you going to argue with the Official Charts Company, who are the people whose information we are basing the facts on, the people who make the rules? By the way, there seems to be no information to what makes a hit in the current chart rules for a secondary artist...with the only information being found being the following...


 * "5.0 Combining of Transactions
 * i) A maximum of three singles within the Top 100 by the same artist will be chart eligible. These will be the three most popular singles in a week based on combined sales and streams. (Also see 6.0 Exclusions)
 * ii) In the case of singles featuring a secondary artist(s), they will only count towards the primary named artist’s maximum of three chart eligible singles.
 * iii) In the case of singles that are equal collaborations between two or more artists, a single will count towards the maximum of three chart eligible singles of the artist on the releasing label".

However from the lists of edits it looks like some people have been making it up as they go along, deciding what the rules are...doesn't this go against the idea of Wikipedia, the 'No original research', the neutral point of view, the just 'report on the information from the primary source' idea of the site. I deleted the featured artists from the main list to give people the benefit of the doubt, in good faith, because that what the advice was. But I don't think this is correct, I don't think they should be deleted, I still believe its important information, and I would expect someone to re-edit the information back at some point and maybe put elsewhere in the article.

Its one thing to continue a list from a 1989 Guinness Book of British Hit Singles because the book is not being published, but it does seem that people are sitting on the article, making up their own rules as they go along which is not helping help the wikipedia project, not welcoming to newcomers and you might as well scrap the article and merge it into the main One-hit wonders list as it becomes and as worthy as OnePoll's The Nation's Favourite One Hit Wonders list.

Some of the entries that remain even contradict the OCC's information provided on their site ( "...records with re-recorded vocals (for example, live versions) and Remixes released with substantially different catalogue numbers did not count towards the total and were seen as new hits (see "Blue Monday" as an example). "]] but if its the Official Charts Company information that people are using to state what is number one then it should always be the primary source.

Accuracy/neutrality of the Metrodora article challenged
The lead article of today's "Kurier", the German Wikipedia's "Signpost" equivalent, criticizes the accuracy of a German article's translation source, Metrodora.


 * Talk:Metrodora
 * de:Special:PermanentLink/208448526, 2021-02-04, top left
 * Special:Permalink/988814535, criticized source revision

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Holodomor in modern politics
Holodomor in modern politics

Communism in the 20th century is always contentious. I don't expect Wikipedia to say "Stalin defeated the Nazis with his amazing good looks". Let's criticize the past, but do so within acceptable research.

has been adding unsourced, original research. When I remove them, he reverts them. See:


 * plagarism: []
 * original research (not supported by source): [], 'The United Nations has passed multiple resolutions commemerating [sic] the Holodomor ' is not in any source.
 * original research [], there are no sources stating that 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide"'. The sources he cites just refer to the Holodomor Memorial.
 * original research[], reverting edits that were explicitly stated in the source.


 * I've tried to have a discussion at Talk:Holodomor in modern politics/Archive 1. That countries like Albania "recognized the Holodomor" is not supported by the source.


 * He's trying to have a war with me at []. Despite another editor telling him that my edits are correct, he's still arguing. He keeps reverting edits without making meaningful changes. Looking at his history, he's heavily involved in POV pushing and edit wars in pages about communism. I hate to be personal, but he strikes me as someone that struggles to admit when he's wrong. He reverts edits without trying to fix them and without talking about them.Stix1776 (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the ANI thread. The above is nonsense and completely without merit. The false accusations against me do need to be addressed.  // Timothy :: talk  09:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Kalaripayattu
I would really appreciate if someone could take effort in cleaning up this article for NPOV, OR, and non-RS issues. Relevant discussions can be seen at here and here.--2409:4073:2E80:F2A6:6C13:B647:F9F6:9303 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Dispute concerning the removal of a photo
Article: Persecution of Falun Gong This discussion was concerning 's removal of a photo (on the right) that shows the subject matter in the background section. Binksternet's edit summary said that the photo is irrelevant. However, when I pointed out that it’s an appropriate photo to let people know what Falun Gong looks like, Binksternet turned to arguing that it’s "rah-rah cheerleading stuff" and thus not neutral to insert.

I then pointed to FLG’s demographics, saying that: "77% of adherents hold at least a university degree in Toronto, Montreal, and Boston”, indirectly proving that the photo conforms to reality (the photo is taken in Toronto, per WikiCommons). However, Binksternet said: No promo photos. Just no

Though commented that they have no problem adding the photo back, I’m more inclined to obtain a clearer consensus here due to Binksternet's strong opinion against it. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This is an article about persecution. Does the image illustrate that? No. WP:IMGCONTENT says that images are intended "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." There is nothing relevant to persecution in the disputed image. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Binksternet here. While illustrating the background section of that article with a free image would be nice, the image selection needs to be neutral, and given the nature of Falun Gong, perhaps something less recent, like File:Origins-GuangzhouPractice.jpg (from 1999) before it was the subject of persecution would make more sense, as long as that is added in the body. --M asem (t) 23:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a great solution, with a caption that links the large size of the group with government fears of their power, as described in the David Palmer source. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Tim Eyman
This article appears to have been written by the subject or a super fan. Much of the sourcing is Eyman’s own writing. Anyone looking for coverage of his legal woes - banned from being treasurer of a PAC then banned from running one - has to go hunting in the small print. The major contributor, “Chanjagent”, has edited no other articles and has not responded to questions about COI. 82.20.240.157 (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Nazi war criminals converting to Christianity on death row



 * Fritz Sauckel
 * Albert Speer
 * Baldur von Schirach
 * Wilhelm Keitel

and I have been disputing whether a Nazi war criminal can be categorized as a Christian if they converted in Spandau prison. Fenetrejones has inserted such classification here, here and here.

I have pointed to WP:CATDEF which says that categories must be "commonly and consistently" applied to the subject, and in these cases, the main body of sources do not call the person a Christian or even a converted Christian. But Fenetrejones feels that a death row conversion absolutely applies to these men, redefining them. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Albert Speer was not executed. If some RS say it so can we, do any RS contest they were not Christians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)
 * That's not what is said at WP:CATDEF, which is looking for labels that are commonly applied. So the question remains: is the term "Christian" commonly applied to these guys? Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

How come it was already applied too: Ans van Dijk, Oswald Pohl, Hans Frank are also included even though it happened after being captured. (I did not do those edits). I didn't say they were redefined as people.Fenetrejones (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These are also WP:NONDEF and should be removed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Quote in BLP that compares subject to Joseph Goebbels
Controversial commentator Andy Ngo recently released a book about antifa. Thus far the only review published in RS media is a scathing article from the LA Times.[] As part of the article the reviewer compares Ngo to Joseph Goebbels (Nazi propaganda minister). This was done in context to make a point about Ngo's handling of material about antifa. Is it IMPARTIAL to include the specific comparison of Ngo to Goebbels in Ngo's BLP page? Edit in question [] and talk page discussion []? Springee (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe it is not impartial, due to the truly evil things associated with Goebbels and the Nazis. 777burger user talk contribs  02:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The L.A. Times article associates Andy Ngo with the evil things associated with Goebbels and the Nazis. "Ngo crosses the line into truly despicable," the article contends. "Every act of violence by antifa, meanwhile, is described so meticulously and ominously that Herr Goebbels would have been proud. In no way do I make that allusion flippantly. Maligning the opposition was central to the Nazi strategy, and it is critical to today's far-right extremists. Ngo's intention here seems not just to discredit antifa, but to run a diversionary tactic for Patriot Prayer and other groups that are far more dangerous than their leftist counterparts." To reference this article in our BLP, we must not gloss over its accusations against Ngo. Whitewashing what the L.A. Times says about him would be a disservice to Wikipedia readers, who must understand what a "truly despicable" human being Andy Ngo is, in the attributed words of a major American news organization. NedFausa (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @, In what way would the article be whitewashed? Also, while I am still a bit confused, you do make a good point. I believe that if we reference the L.A. Times article, we should indeed provide context, rather than just saying that Ngo was compared to Goebbels. 777burger user talk contribs  02:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The L.A. Times article would be whitewashed by our removing any explicit comparison of Ngo to Goebbels, substituting instead something vague such as the reviewer disapproved of Unmasked, and overlooking the newspaper's character assassination of Andy Ngo. We must remain true to the source, not sanitize it. NedFausa (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is a stretch. The comparison to Goebbels in the LAT article was at least presented with some level of context.  The contextual point could be summarized in the BLP article without including the hyperbole.  Conversely, if we only include the hyperbolic comparison then we are no longer being impartial.  I would also point out that many claims were made in the review.  Why is this particular one, one which was later in the review, the material that we must quote?  Springee (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it constitutes the heart of the review. If we're going to quote other portions, and provide additional context, that's fine—as long as we retain the undiluted essence of what makes Andy Ngo, in the eyes of the L.A. Times, "truly despicable." NedFausa (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've seen the comparison in the press elsewhere, but I don't recall just where. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Think this is probably due and apt criticism rather than a mere hasty reductio ad Hitlerum. This should be summarized carefully and tied specifically to his methods in this book, (not just "the LA Times says he a Nazi") but assuming that's done right I think it is a notable criticism from a decent source and not to be omitted in the context of the street-fighting ideologues of modern America to which the Times compares Ngo. GPinkerton (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * When reporting opinions, neutrality requires we should explain who holds them and how extensive they are. If we just quote an opinion then we are implying that it is universally shared. We should use a source that explains the various reactions to the book. It might say something like, "The book was largely ignored by the press. The only review came from Alexander Navaryan in the LA Times, who wrote...."
 * Until we have a secondary source that reports the reactions to the book, it is not neutral to include them. While this is probably a fair description of Ngo's book, not everything written in every book review is. Perhaps we could provide a link to the review in the Further Reading or similar section.
 * TFD (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * On the article talk page noted that the writer, Nazaryan has previously be quick to throw out Nazi comparisons and Newsweek apologized for one such case.  "Newsweek apologizes after writer Alexander Nazaryan compares Ted Cruz fans to Nazis".  This would suggest such comparisons were over the top vs a clear rational analysis we should include in the article.  Springee (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , why? Neither comparison seems especially unusual or unreasonable. GPinkerton (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

List of military disasters
I am not sure, but I think this is the right place to report a problem in List of military disasters. I have tried to resolve this problem on talk page and after a lengthy discussion users I was discussing with decided to ignore my comments. Discussion can be viewed here.

Problem is - does Battle of Vukovar belong on this list. This battle was first added on list in October, by an IP address, without any sources to back that claim up. Up until February this year battle would be removed from the list and repeatedly added back.

Several issues here:

1. End result for Battle of Vukovar is Pyrrhic victory, yet here it is regarded as a military disaster. I find those two claims to be contradictory, that someone achieved a Pyrrhic victory (a claim I find suspicious to use for this battle) and suffered a military disaster at the same time.

2. What is a military disaster? One could find many conditions that determine what one is, but on page in question three rules were set using McNab, C. "World's Worst Military Disasters" as a source and those are: chronic mission failure (the key factor), successful enemy action and (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure. These factors are used so that not very battle could be added to the list and to create some sort of standard that needs to be followed. I explained on the talk page why this battle does not meet these three rules.

3. No reliable sources. During discussion on talk page, it came to light that only source which claims this battle was a disaster is a Balkan Battlegrounds Vol. 1, pp. 99-100. Another user quoted this source saying "the strategic offensive as a whole is described as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA". An offensive, but not battle. The only source on the internet which uses this term and it paints with a rather broad brush describing everything as a disaster.

Putting this battle on the list is problematic because to put it shortly - Yugoslav Army captured the town, killed or captured most of the opposing Croatian force, struck a blow to the enemy morale, had casualties which were about the same as the Croatian ones, continued offensive after capturing town and after international pressure which led to Vance plan and a ceasefire - has still somehow suffered a military disaster. This is why I believe battle of Vukovar should be removed from the list of military disasters. Istinar (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"God" or "Gods"?
Hey there,

I've opened a discussion at Template talk:God three days ago after being reverted on a change I made. Since I haven't gotten a reply, I'm inviting the community to opine. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I need help in our dispute
I'll try to make it very simple. I have problem trying to reach a consensus with another wiki user. I currently have a wording problem in the Genetic section of Uyghurs [1], which lead to a long wall discussion in the Uyghur talk page [2]. I want you to tell me who correct and who is wrong because my dispute with the user Hzn have lasted for weeks and getting nowhere. The problem is in our wording and interpretation of a genetic paper. I interpreted everything exactly from the genetic paper but user Hzn user insist in interpretation in a different way, by removing some important elements in the source and claiming the source is not accurate. After reading this rule WP:MEDRS I believe there is Neutral point of view and original research by the Hzn user.

The roots of the problem is here

I edited the genetic section of Uyghur by using the 2009 Li's paper " Genetic Landscape of Eurasia and “Admixture” in Uyghurs " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790568/

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE


 * "STRUCTURE cannot distinguish recent admixture from a cline of other origin, and these analyses cannot prove admixture in the Uyghurs; however, historical records indicate that the present Uyghurs were formed by admixture between Tocharians from the west and Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu, according to present Chinese pronunciation) from the east in the 8th century CE.14 The Uyghur Empire was originally located in Mongolia and conquered the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang. Tocharians such as Kroran have been shown by archaeological findings to appear phenotypically similar to northern Europeans,15 whereas the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolians. The two groups of people subsequently mixed in Xinjiang to become one population, the present Uyghurs. We do not know the genetic constitution of the Tocharians, but if they were similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty, admixture would already be biased toward similarity with East Asian populations. "

I originally added the source with quotation [3], that was later removed by the user Hzn [4]

Weeks later I tried another attempt in editing it .Here is how I later edited it (it's basically exactly the same, everything based on the source, no misinterpretation)
 * According to the paper by Li et al. Historical records indicates Uyghurs were formed through admixture between the conquered Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang and the invading Orkhon Uyghur people from Mongolia, the two population eventually mixed and became one population that formed present Uyghurs. Archaeological findings shows Tocharians such as Kroran phenotypically similar to northern Europeans while the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolians. Overall, genetic study shows western East Asians are more closely related to Uyghurs than to eastern East Asians, but it is unsure what constituted the exact original genetics of the Tocharians. The study also indicates that the analysis cannot distinguish the original ancient component of Tocharians originated from the West from the more recent Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu) of the East. It was speculated they were similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty, admixture would already be biased toward similarity with East Asian populations.

But the user Hzn decided to reword the entire paragraph like this [5]. I mean we dicussed on talk page, I asked him to refute the study made by Li, but he doesn't provide any sources and insist on rewording the genetic study of Li how he likes it. For several weeks there were no replies until now but still he doesn't show me any source to refute Li's 2009 study but just kept rewording the source.
 * "A different study by Li et al. (2009) used a larger sample of individuals from a wider area and found a higher East Asian component of about 70%, with much more similarity to "Western East" Eurasians than East Asian populations, while the European/West Asian component was about 30%. The paper by Li et al. noted that historical records suggest that Uyghurs may be formed through admixture between the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang and the Orkhon Uyghur people from Mongolia, but the study cannot distinguish the original ancient component of the Tocharians. It speculated that the Tocharians may be genetically similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty people, and admixture would already be biased toward the East Asian populations. "

The problem here is Hzn basically 1) Removed the entire archeological information of Tocharians from the Li paper, 2) Removed information of Tocharians in Xinjiang were conquered by the Uyghur empire from Mongolia, when such information is historical record and also provided in full history in wikipedia article of the Uyghur Qocho kingdom, which shows they conquered territories of Xinjiang and assimilated the Tocharians) ,3) Also the wording on Tocharians being genetic similar to Khanty seems a bit too off with the original aswell. So please tell me. Am I correct, is he committing Neutral point of view (and doing original research) in the genetic section? Vamlos (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I waited for 5 days. Any good help or advice would be greatly appreciated.Vamlos (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I suspect you are not getting a reply because nobody has a good answer. I know I don't. I see you have recently opened an RFC. Since I don't have an opinion on the "right" answer I did not reply, but you may want to push that. But in the spirit of someone who is somewhat interested but just barely knows enough to know I know nothing, I do have some questions that may help you get closer if you give them some thought.
 * What is the importance of the genetic background of the Uyghur? To the article, that is; I have seen huge disputes over whether this or that people in that region is Turkic, or descended from Chinese settlers, etc. Then there is China's treatment of the Uyghur. The topic seems likely to be contentious, and also may fall under WP:MEDRS, which is an additional standard for medical information. They have their own project and maybe you should ask there.
 * You seem to have only one source. I have not attempted to evaluate it, but I also find it unlikely that only one source exists if this has been studied at all, and then you will have to weigh relative reliability, nature of the source, and number of times cited.
 * The other editor did not comment. You did notify him of your question here, right?
 * I realize that articles about ethnic groups tend to have an origin story, but this is often legend or oral history rather than science. Once you in science the process is quite different, and likely would involve weighing so many pros and cons that the topic possibly should be its own sub-article for reasons of WEIGHT. There is a lot else to be said about the Uyghur beyond their genotype.


 * I do not have the availability to try to settle this, or the knowledge, or the authority. But. I would, personally, write about the origin of the Uyghur from a historical point of view in this article. If there are a LOT of studies maybe do the sub-article; if you have not looked at scholar.google.com I suggest that. Unless you yourself have a background in genetics I would try to enlist some help. Perhaps there is a Central Asia or genetics project where you could find editors with topic knowledge. One final thought: I spent some time, recently, trying to find references for the origin story of a certain 7th-century Khanate, and found that a lot of the Google hits were in Turkish, Kazakh, or (especially) Chinese. The Chinese apparently have some records made by travelling scribes, but I don't speak any of those languages, they are not terribly understandable in machine translation, and the article had been nominated for deletion. But if this is going to be a long-term project, Wikipedia and Wikipedia maintain lists of editors who speak other languages and might be willing to help out; possibly you could get one or more of them to do some searches for you, and let you know of any pertinent results that are worth translating.

Hope some of that helps. Elinruby (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Komala party of Iranian Kurdistan for dispute resolution
I’m starting this dispute resolution after I tried the Talk Page and the problem was not resolved.

This DR is filed for the Wikipedia page of the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan. As a platform to provide valid and accurate information about entities, Wikipedia has provided tools for contributors to edit articles.

The article about Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan includes disinformation and misinformation, and I have tried to correct the wrong information posted through friendly discussions with sources and links on the Talk page. Specifically speaking, this organization is a Kurdish opposition group which works for the promotions of democracy and freedoms in Iran and its Kurdish region. It’s one of the two major Kurdish political parties with a long history. Through its long history, it has gone through a lot of changes in its values and policies. At some point, the organization joined forces with the Communist Party of Iran. It’s fine to mention that in the history of the organization, but Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan is NOT a communist party these days. In fact, KPIK is promoting social democracy and it has been its ideological and political basis for a long time passed in its convention. KPIC is a member of international organizations of social democratic organizations. The article should reflect this fact to be valid and reliable.

As an opposition group opposing the values and policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, KPIC has been named a terrorist group by the Iranian government. To be neutral, we would like the article to mention Iran as a state-sponsor or terrorism and it’s IRGC as a terrorist organization. As far as the Japanese government is concerned, we are in contact with their missions to resolve the issue and we believe the source for that news story is invalid and unreliable. There are theee organizations in Iran using the acronym Komala and the Japanese website does NOT clearly mention which organization it is referring to in that brief description. Besides, KPIC has condemned that act in a press release immediately after the incident.

Iran is famous for having a cyber army of well-trained hackers. It’s obvious this page is being controlled by the Iranian hackers. If you look at the history of the article, you will find out changes and additions are immediately reversed or removed by those users. In a normal situation, it would take a while for such changes to be reviewed. Unless you are assigned to monitor this page and reverse edits, you cannot change, remove or reverse things instantly. Please refer to the history to find out.

I am filing this application for a DR in hopes for the article about Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan to be valid, accurate and neutral. This article needs to a be reliable source with contributions from neutral editors but most editors and users working on this article are not neutral. Instead they are mostly trying their best to define KPIC as an evil force and that’s what the hackers of the Iranian cyber army want. These hackers are very professional and well trained and these sabotage actions is part of their job indeed. I’m formally asking for a third party to help resolve this dispute. I’m willing to provide reliable sources for all my comments and arguments here Komala Party is a social democratic political party     Kak kayvan (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan is NOT a communist party:

Compulsory public education in the United States
The talk page for Compulsory public education in the United States generally agrees that NPOV has been violated there. The "Massive Public Education System" section stands out in particular - it includes things like:

"It is essential to train the youth in becoming dynamic contributors in self-government. Casting votes is not enough. Citizens of the United States must help look after the common good which entails nurturing debate proficiency, critical thinking, and civic virtues of students."

(That's not a quote placed in the article, that's a quote of the article itself.)

Weirdly, the KKK part at the top of the article is not part of my complaint; it turns out that's true. If it were more neutral it would probably note their objection to desegregation later on...

Really, I feel like this article needs a "This article has multiple issues" flag.

Colin Fredericks (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem was that the topic of the article had become muddled. As far as I can tell, it's supposed to be about compulsory public education (i.e., prohibiting private schools and requiring all children to attend public schools), but a bunch of information had been added about U.S. public education in general. I've removed the off-topic information and I think the article looks somewhat better now, though it still needs work. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Posting an example in support of a statement, with citation, where a citation is needed for the statement.
I made a few edits here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Star-Spangled_Banner&action=history

Had a user dispute both, one of which I agreed to (lack of citations). However, Ive proposed my other is a direct example of a previous statement made by others, which supports this statement. This statement further had a citation needed tag. My example further was cited.

Whats wrong here? What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapman987 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Undue
Please explain to me wp:undue issue in Jovan Rašković article. I have two sources which say that mother of Jovan Rašković is Croat and father was judge in NDH. Can I do something to prevent wp:undue issue? Or for some reason such information should not be included in the article, maybe this information is not important or more sources for confirmation is needed? I don't understand entirely that rule, so if someone could explain in more detail what exactly undue problem means in this case? Tnx. Mikola22 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It means "what do most experts say". If a view is only held by a few (or is not even considered relevant by most) it may be undue to give it any prominence. For example, why does it matter what nationality his mother was (and let's not forget Croatia did not even exist as a nation at the time)? Why does it matter if his father was a judge in the NHD (was he a judge before this, was he a judge after?).Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * UNDUE usually doesn't apply to factual information like the parent of a BIO/BLP, however; UNDUE is when there's different opinions in the RSes to determine. UNDUE would apply if we've got far too much attention on one part of an article that's not indicative of how the topic is covered otherwise in the media; if we only had one source to expand into 5 pages of pre-career bio, but then condensed the rest of the bio's career to one paragraph based on twenty other sources, that's a problem too. But neither seems to be the case here: It is usually standard in BIOs that if we can reliably source info like nationality and jobs of the parents directly, we usually include that. (That is, we want one single or maybe a couple sources that directly say that. We don't want a source that says so-and-so parents' were, and then we synthesize the rest by going to national databases to look that up). So the question should be, is the source being used here reliable for those fact?  --M asem  (t) 14:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, for this information one source is strong RS. But it probably needs more sources. I think I understand that information about his mother and father is not so important and goes in one direction ie probably Pov. I thought that this information was important in the context of his activities in Croatia, pro-Serbian or Greater Serbian policy. In that sense, the sources also have that context.

I used Jovan Rašković article as an example, but there are more articles and more examples which I cannot understand. Article Statuta Valachorum and there was information about Vlachs which are mostly Serbs, also we have and this information from same article "A large migration of Serbs (called "people of Rascians or Vlachs" into Croatia and Slavonia from Ottoman territory took place in 1600" (based on two sources from 1914 and 1911), and in some other articles I came across mentions of "Vlachs (Serbs)" information. Behind information(Vlachs which are mostly Serbs, from introductory section, Statuta Valachorum]) there are several sources which speak of Vlach-Serbs fact but there are different historical and historical time contexts in these sources.

Since I found 10 or 9 strong sources(Military Frontier,introductory section) which talk about Serbs and Vlachs as separate groups as Vlachs and Serbs who come or live in Military Frontier, is it because of that information "Vlachs (Serbs)" undue? They were mostly Croatian, Serbian, German, Vlach and other colonists.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. I guess everything is clean here and in NPOV because we must respect all sources but I have to ask that when I'm already here. It is not clear to me, so the Vlachs are Serbs information and Vlachs and Serbs information, whether it can be in a common context or in same article? I also say this from the Croatian perspective because Vlachs are historically and today's Croats so maybe someone could conclude that the Croats are actually of Serbian origin. Mikola22 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue of Article Statuta Valachorum has been discussed over at RSN, undue, NPOV and god knows where else.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, but this is a more specific question given that 9 or 10 sources not so long ago are included in the Military Frontier article, and Croat, Serb, Vlach etc information. This is a recent fact that has not been discussed, in this context. It would be good to hear opinion of the wider community. Mikola22 (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Its also changing the topic of your question to a more broader point, that you have had a wider opinion of since (at least) [].Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Trump shaming in "COVID-19 pandemic in the United States"
I recently removed some unsubstantiated, partisan views such as from the above article, but "Love of Corey" keeps reverting to the statements that violate the Neutral Point of View principle. I tried to discuss with "Love of Corey", but to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmwittko (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Meanwhile, Trump remained optimistic on the future of the coronavirus in the United States." and
 * "because the Trump administration worried about 'bad optics'" (which was also misquoted)
 * "The theory correctly stated" - "correctly" is opinion
 * "Correctly" is opinion - no, that seems supported by the source - we clearly know that asymptomatic people can easily transmit COVID. There is no substantial medical debate on that point.
 * It is not a "partisan view" to note that Trump downplayed the pandemic for weeks and months. That seems easily sourced and substantiated. That you don't like that fact does not mean you can remove it from Wikipedia.
 * Have you discussed your proposed changes on the article talk page? It's incumbent on you to gain support for them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing surprises me anymore about how values change in the wake of “COVID”. I’m not even American, so I have little emotions rather than having been appalled by what I noted. If you want Wikipedia to transition from an encyclopedia to a partisan pamphlet, so be it. Apologies if I don’t always know all of the secret handshakes to be used with this somewhat anachronistic user interface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmwittko (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:NPOV doesn't mean we treat Trump with half positive and half negative information. It means we neutrally reflect was is in the WP:RS, and what the RS say is that Trump didn't take the pandemic seriously, downplayed it, and turned wearing masks another front in the culture wars. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Demographics of Eritrea has an RFC
Demographics of Eritrea 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. Boud (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm putting this on the NPOV Noticeboard because one of the three options proposed is an NPOV option, and there are too few active participants. A partly overlapping discussion on the same talk page is Talk:Demographics of Eritrea Boud (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV despute in Kaworu Nagisa
Hello. This is for the Kaworu Nagisa article. The other editor that has been updating the Neon Genesis Evangelion articles, as a new film has recently been released, but he is much more adamant about some of the stuff here than he was in the other articles and though his work is generally good it did need adjustments before. I already made hundreds of edits to his previous rewrites. I think he doesn't realize he's not close enough to NPOV - he used a lot of inaccurate translations and was way too selective in his representation of facts, lots of undue weight, non-neutral language, blatant mistranslations, etc. I presented some 10+ new sources that were necessary to improve things and had to rewrite about a third of the article. He agreed to that initially but after a while just started to stonewall me. He has accused me of vandalism and now refuses to reply to my arguments, accusing me of sophistry. It bugs me because I don't want to discourage him.


 * About a third of the article was rewritten already and this was agreed by him before, but now we're at an impasse as he insists on his changes, though he either just says "no", or responds to an argument I didn't make. Here is the diff. I have asked a number of experts outside Wikipedia for consultation on how to adjust the article (as before). One of them has also expressed his agreement in the talk page. There were, earlier on, several problematic practices like insisting on Google Translator over professional translations of sources (despite those translations being referenced in sources used elsewhere in the article), to use non-neutral language. I have also asked some other WP users involved to a lesser degree and one of them has broadly agreed, but suggested I go here as content is fairly esoteric and the discussion got really long over a few days. In Talk:Kaworu_Nagisa I have re-explained my remaining disputes. Those were explained further before in more detail, but I do not require you to go through all of that as it includes things that were already resolved. I'll just briefly reiterate my points, not going over the evidence proper which is available on the talk page. I believe the current state of the article leads the reader to assume an intent on the creator's part that is not true and a particular POV and interpretation of the character and work:


 * I am not defending the deletion of the early episode drafts as the other editor says, but to balance their depiction. Instead of long, detailed and puffery descriptions of individual rejected scenes, I simply referred to their differing tone from the accepted, canon version. I used the same argument for replacing the long spin-off detailing with more numerous instances instead. These early drafts were done independently by an episode writer, and ultimately rejected by staff and the director, something which the original rewrite of the article neglected to include.


 * Removal of fan speculation identified as such, on the character being based on the creator of another show. This is a persistent fan rumor motivated by Shipping (fandom), and he insisted on including an interview with the target of this speculation in a fan book, a fairly normal way for interviewers looking for a scoop to fish for some bombastic revelation. In this interview, he is dismissive of the rumours, but mentions he understands why some people would think that. However, it was denied by the creator and the character designer directly in sources already mentioned in the article. It was additionally never even alluded to in more than one source that details the character's design process, including sources already used in the article.


 * Including the creator's comments on the ambiguity, open-endedness and value of the interpretation of the series as a whole. This is supported previously by talking about the depiction of the character and language. Ambiguity doesn't disprove or prove any particular point of view, it just says that both sides are plausible. People may argue that either side is undisputable, and the editor has done so in the past, so I had to add in more stuff from the same sources he was using. A few were misattributed, or had third-parties presented as official information. One source was a fan book with a reprinted comic panel, with the page presented as an official guide on the character.


 * Removal of a joke made by an assistant director, and half of the quotation fails presents something an interviewer said as coming from this director. I quoted the translator himself saying it. It's not just because something is in a reliable source that it needs to be included. The director responds jokingly and makes fun of fans. In that very same section, he does the same with another character, Rei Ayanami, along with other humorous remarks of all sorts. That joke isn't included in that character's page, but I provided it as an example of how ludicrous it'd sound to take something a non-staffer says.


 * Inclusion of additional context in the Reception section, including from a book specifically dealing with the series and including a part on the character's depiction and the cultural phenomenon he's part of, to counterbalance an extremely over-represented view by biased sources (including an advocacy group) made around a fan controversy that gathered media attention back in 2019. Those sources were, additionally, taking an extremely Western point of view to give their views on the Japanese media landscape and culture. Again, I have been asked to include this from the people that translated the material used and provided me consultation and are familiar with that landscape. It might not look like it, but it's quite a sensationalist claim. They find it culturally offensive.


 * One more review. WP:RS says that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." This writer is used in reference #97, writing for IGN, an independent publication, so I assume he can be considered reliable in his own site too, particularly just for a critical reception.


 * Lastly, Legacy has one mention of a bonus material that is not related to the character at all, but this isn't made explicit(and it'd look silly if it was) so it naturally leads the reader to assume it is, so I removed it.FelipeFritschF (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Livi Zheng
I'll try to make this very simple as I've been going from different noticeboards to noticeboards trying to get help to resolve the issue, including leaving messages to discuss with the user on their talk page + asking for help from admins.

A few weeks ago, I added substantial information to both pages to reflect important aspects of both individuals (who are siblings in the film industry) that have been major points of public interest. This includes a string of controversies regarding the former claims of her achievements in the industry. The other problem that led me to make the edits was that both pages read too much like promotional advertisements of them as people in the film industry. It only highlights self-made claims and statements quoted by obscure publications. Some examples:


 * "She began her career as a stuntwoman at the age of fifteen" -- not supported by any credible source/film credit
 * "Zheng represented Washington State’s Karate team during her college years and won more than 25 medals and trophies for regional as well as national competition throughout the United States. Zheng won competitions ranging from 2009 US Open, Orlando, 36th Annual Shorinryu Open Karate Championships, to 2010 Washington State Karate Federation Invitational Tournament and USA National Karate Federation Qualifier. Livi started her career in stunts." -- not supported by any credible source
 * "Livi produced and directed her first feature film “Brush with Danger” at the age of 23. “Brush with Danger” tells a story about a painter, and a fighter - both artists in their own ways. The brother and sister, forced to flee their home, and they arrive at Seattle, the Emerald City, inside a shipping container. Trying to make their way in a new strange world, the pair struggle to survive. Until, one day, an art dealer takes an interest in the sister’s painting, and the pair find themselves living a dream come true. The sister loses herself in her art, painting, and the brother seizes the opportunity to express himself, as a fighter. But it really is all just a dream. Conned by her patron into forging a long lost Van Gogh that was purchased by a ruthless criminal with a passion for fine art. The brother and sister soon find themselves embroiled in Seattle’s criminal underworld and a Brush With Danger. “Brush with Danger” was released theatrically both in the US and internationally in 2014." -- no source whatsoever, which raised my suspicion that the IP address making these edits are either connected to her/herself/paid to make these edits.
 * "After “Brush with Danger”, Livi produced and directed “Bali: Beats of Paradise” starring Grammy Award Winning American singer-songwriter Judith Hill, Nyoman Wenten and Nanik Wenten. “Bali: Beats a Paradise” is a story of this profound and irreplicable love. Love - it’s more than a relationship between two people. It is a connection between two souls that embodies a passion for music and culture. This film explores the story of Indonesian couple Pak Wenten and Bu Nanik - two artists who bonded over their love for traditional Indonesian dance and its accompanying musical style of gamelan. When they moved to the U.S. from Bali in the 1970’s, Pak Wenten and Bu Nanik gained acclaim as ambassadors for their respective crafts. As the sun is beginning to set on this aging, yet ever energetic couple, they wanted to share gamelan and Indonesian dance one more time in an inspiring way before their retirement to Indonesia. They decided to break the paradigm and teamed up with Grammy winning musician and songwriter, Judith Hill and filmmaker, Livi Zheng. Their ambitious project is unlike anything else in the music industry: the creation of a music video that bends the rules of gamelan and Funk to create an awe inspiring music video set in Joshua Tree National Park. This film is the story behind the art and the music video. It is an unforgettable blend of documentary, love story, and genre shattering music." -- reads more like a promotional adverts.

In addition, the edits made by the aforementioned IP address does not follow the standard formula used in making a biography article. Would appreciate your attention and help on this as the last thing I'd like to be involved in is a warring edit. In their editing notes, the person behind the IP address suggests that the references used to highlight her family political connections have been deemed infactual by the Indonesian Press Council (which had since been removed from the article) and that my edits are not neutral (which is just the pot calling the kettle black, given that if I was not neutral, I'd include a lot of rumors about the person but instead I only included information that are confirmed through verifiable sources).

If you ask me, given that this IP address seems familiar with how to edit a Wikipedia page, including in using the coding, as well as because their only "contributions" to Wikipedia have been on both pages, my suspicion is that they are engaged in UPE and/or related in some ways to the subjects and seek to use Wikipedia as promotional avenues that only include what could be deemed "positive" of the persons and not the unpretty facts.CalliPatra (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The current version of the article is strikingly negative. I did a bit of searching online and got the impression that this negativity may not fully reflect the consensus of reliable sources. That said, the IP's version of the article is certainly not neutral either. I've made a small edit per WP:CSECTION and will try to look at this more closely later today. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly these sources, some of which I found in a previous revision, could be used to expand the Livi Zheng article and make it more balanced: Some more detail could be added from these sources:
 * As for the Ken Zheng article – I think it's too focused on Livi Zheng instead of Ken Zheng. I'd say we should cut down the amount of information about Livi Zheng's comments in that article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for pitching in Mx. Granger. Your inputs are very insightful and I'd take a good look and re-edit the article to portray better, more neutral narrative of her based on the available sources (including the ones you tagged) tomorrow. CalliPatra (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting assistance at Vineyard Vines
Hello! My name is Nicole and I work for Vineyard Vines. I've clearly disclosed my employer and conflict of interest on my profile and at Talk:Vineyard Vines, where I've been working with a very helpful editor (User:Crystallizedcarbon) to update the page by submitting a series of edit requests. I understand this is the preferred community process and I'm happy to abide. However, I am concerned about a single editor who seems solely focused on adding allegations about the company to the page, even when User:Crystallizedcarbon has attempted to remove not once, not twice, but three times over the span of a couple months.

I believe the editor's early attempts introduced copyright violations, violated WP:BLPCRIME, and included Category:Discrimination and Category:Lawsuits, which I think speak to this editor's motives. The sources about the allegations are local and I assume Legal Newsline is not considered a reputable publication by Wikipedia. I understand editors can and should be skeptical when companies attempt to update their Wikipedia articles, but I also think these edits are a clear violation of Wikipedia's rules. User:Crystallizedcarbon has asked User:OdinNeith to discuss on the Talk page; the invitation has not been accepted. OdinNeith has also said they will "escalate to wiki administrators", so I'm taking them up on this offer. I should note, Crystallizedcarbon has said they wish to avoid engaging in an edit war and are willing to remove the Legal Issues section again in March. I appreciate this offer, but would prefer to address sooner. Again, I thank Crystallizedcarbon for their continued help and willingness to review update requests.

I'm hoping some editors here may be willing to address this issue. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Nicole at Vineyard Vines (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , (formality) yet not had a look on the edits but you must notice the User about that there is a discussion ongoing, just noticing that I have done this for you in the meantime. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have two issues with the contributions by one is with the content and the other is with the failure to follow advice on our policies. The user added the section: (Vineyard_Vines). I removed it as undue because in my opinion it violated WP:BLPCRIME for the first part and WP:NOTNEWS for the rest, as it was referenced by routine coverage. I asked the editor to follow WP:BRD and discuss in talk before adding the disputed content back. I tried both with edit summaries and in the user's talk page. You can see the response here: User_talk:OdinNeith. I did not know how best to proceed, as it was not just a matter for dispute resolution, and after three failed attempts I simply gave up to avoid an edit war. When  requested help on the talk page about this issue I contacted an admin but got no response, so I decided to let it sit for a while in the hope that some new editors would get involved.


 * I don't think that edit warring is the right way to impose changes to an article. OdinNeith is a single purpose account that only edited this article (see here: Special:Contributions/OdinNeith) and made bold changes by introducing that negative section about lawsuits, my attempts to restore the status quo and my pleads to the user to follow WP:BRD and discuss to reach a consensus on the talk page all failed. The user made small changes, but the section is still in the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

On the class action lawsuit: Sourcing is extremely thin here. WP:UNDUE, it seems. On the discrimination lawsuit: When someone sues a company, even if the lawsuit names the owners of the company, I have a hard time seeing a justification of removal from the company page based on BLPCRIME. Justification for being careful with the wording? Sure. The lawsuit was picked up by the Hartford Courant and Vineyard Gazette. That's not a bad start to establish WP:WEIGHT, but it's not a sure thing either. Certainly doesn't seem like enough to justify its own section, but I can see why it was separated out given the current organization of the page. On the behavioral issues: OdinNeith is a single-purpose account who has made no attempt at discussion and is instead just edit warring. Wikipedia relies on volunteers talking things out rather than just repeatedly adding material over objections of others. If you don't find consensus on the talk page, you will almost definitely be blocked (either altogether or blocked from editing that page).

In sum: remove the class action suit and remove the discrimination lawsuit pending discussion on the talk page about how best to include it. Don't restore until consensus is reached per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no hidden agenda here. Wiki is intended as a public open source fact based exchange of information. I do not post information that does not have multiple references. And none of my posts contain personal opinions. If you take issue with the articles referenced or dispute the fact based information then I suggest you take it up with the authors of the source materials referenced in the section. I will also point you to several other similar wiki pages such as “legal issues” on the Abercrombie & Fitch wiki page, the “other issues” and “labor practices” contained on the H&M wiki page, there are hundreds of equivalent examples contained and published on Wikipedia. It is a standard practice and quite typical. To suppress this info runs counter to the terms of Wikipedia. If you would like to present information that refutes the references please do so, but suppression is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 00:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do take the time to read WP:UNDUE, WP:ONUS and specially WP:BRD. When we make a bold edit and it gets reverted, the course of action is to discuss in the talk page and reach a consensus before adding back the contentious content, not to edit war by continue to add it back. Some of the content you added might be notable enough to be included in the article, but this is a collaborative project. The way forward is to debate first and once consensus is reached then the changes can be introduced. It is not correct to just to keep adding what you think is right, disregarding other editors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are very thin arguments at best and in the context you provided which is also very thin one could suppress pretty much any publicly referenced factual info. Do you have a hidden agenda here? Do you work for a company trying to “clean up” or suppress public factual information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are of course entitled to your opinion, and you are of course welcome to provide arguments to defend it at the article's talk page and to try to reach a consensus there. To answer your question, No, I can assure you that I have absolutely no hidden agenda and I do not work or edit for pay for any company. My only interest is improving Wikipedia, but since you raise the point of a possible conflict of interest, please clarify why your only contributions to our project have been to insert a lawsuit section in the article about that company and to repeatedly engage in edit-warring to repost it despite the many requests to follow WP:BRD. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

[Following is moved from an unnecessary new section below &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)]

Hello, what recourse is there if a company is disputing and potentially suppressing public info with multiple references from appearing on their wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs)
 * , why are you starting a new discussion when this issue is under discussion earlier on the page? Schazjmd   (talk)  00:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is no evidence that the company itself is suppressing information on these legal matters. Rather, the issue appears to be the proper degree to which those legal matters should be brought up at all; you have been directed in edit summaries viewable on the history page to first reach consensus on the article's talk page, but have failed to do so. That is the first step you should take before bringing it to this Noticeboard: creating a section on the talk page explaining your reasoning, pinging involved editors (in this case, the one/s who have reverted your edits), and going from there. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * that people are objecting to your additions does not mean there's a conspiracy here. Wikipedia operates according to consensus and doesn't prioritize one person over another. If you want to add something that has been challenged -- regardless of what that is -- it is your responsibility to convince people to add it on the talk page. Forums like this are intended as a secondary discussion venue when talk page threads have been unsuccessful. It looks like you have not participated at all on the talk page but jumped here. Make your case there (Talk:Vineyard Vines), and don't restore the material until there is consensus to do so. See above for my assessment of the material. I'm watching the page now, so you can be assured at least one more person with no connection to VV (even as a customer) will be involved. There is no need to keep this noticeboard thread open before article talk has been tried. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * clearly this is an attempt to suppress publicly accessible and factual referenced informations from respectable and established newspapers, public proceedings, and open source factual public information all of which been accurately referenced. Stop suppressing the info without due cause or you will undoubtedly be suspended. It is not my job to convince you that open, public, factual, relevant and referenced data and info be included. It is now your job to demonstrate why it should not be. Let’s hear your case sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * [sigh] This is now at WP:ANI. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID misinformation and PPP loans at PragerU
This is currently under discussion at RSN and Talk:PragerU.

Two sources, [https://www.yahoo.com/now/exclusive-pandemic-relief-aid-went-to-media-that-promoted-covid-misinformation-100022099.html Yahoo! News] and Slate, have covered PragerU's Paycheck Protection Program loan. Slate discusses it in the context of right-wing organizations that have received PPP loans, while Yahoo states "The analysis by Global Disinformation Index and Alethea Group also flagged Prager University, or PragerU, as both a top source of COVID-19 misinformation and recipient of a PPP loan of between $350,000 and $1 million." Several options have been suggested:
 * 1) Include the PPP loan in the Financials section. (example)
 * 2) Include COVID misinformation in the Reception section. (example)
 * 3) Include both pieces of information together as reported by Yahoo

Arguments for inclusion:
 * Reported in multiple reliable sources
 * Yahoo News is a reputable source
 * The Yahoo News source is not promotional; it includes in-depth reporting and responses from the organizations mentioned
 * Misinformation is a significant aspect of PragerU

Arguments against inclusion:
 * There are only two sources, and the Alethea/GDI report has only been reported by Yahoo
 * The Yahoo News source is a puff piece/warmed-over press release/churnalism
 * Content is undue/promotional because Alethea Group and Global Disinformation Index are redlinked/non-notable
 * What constitutes COVID misinformation is highly subjective
 * Neither Yahoo News nor Alethea are "prominent"
 * It's unclear how the PPP loan is relevant; it doesn't tie in with the rest of the article and we don't tell the reader why they should care
 * The PPP loan sources imply something negative about PragerU, as an "appeal to outrage"
 * We shouldn't just insert standalone facts into articles
 * "Including it as a sort of easteregg to get the desired "PragerU is hypocritical" content linked to the article is a problem."
 * "Neither Slate nor Yahoo have much weight"
 * The claim that Yahoo News has wide readership seems suspect

Is this content DUE in any form? –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Pinging involved editors: –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There are strong arguments to treat Yahoo! News (shortened to Y!N) original reporting in general as standard NEWSORG RS, as discussed on RSN and the article page. The piece in particular is extensive, including multiple avenues of inquiry: a joint report from two nonprofits, an investigation into PragerU's media output by the reporter, inclusion of financial data from the Small Business Administration compiled by ProPublica, attempts to reach out to the discussed companies for their perspectives, and analysis weaving these pieces together. Since this is reported in an RS, and since this is a substantive exploration of both financial details and misinformation, discussion of both features is DUE.


 * The brief discussion by Slate also helps establish weight for the financial information. There is also extensive (though more ticky-tacky) discussion of PragerU's coronavirus misinformation in other sources that could bolster support for inclusion, though the Y!N piece seems strong enough.


 * Finally, it seems like the behaviors and fates of any company during a (hopefully) once-in-a-lifetime pandemic should have some enduring significance. The fact that PPP loans have been discussed regarding many entities suggests that it is generally of interest. Jlevi (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Edited: 04:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the object to say we should cover the response to PragerU's COVID related videos? I don't see an issue with that as COVID is a big topic.  Like their climate change videos their positions and what others think of those positions should be covered.  But why should that mean we cover the PPP loan?  It seems little more than a moralist rant by Slate and AG.  Springee (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A comment on the PPP loan stuff - a LOT of entities that questionably shouldn't have qualified for the first round of PPP funding ended up getting funds, an issue that I presume is covered on that page. That PragerU was one of those seems to be something we shouldn't stress unless there is additional commentary about PragerU's specific loan request. It would be different if it were the only entity that abused the program but that's definitely not the case. --M asem (t) 04:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the sources said that PragerU didn't properly qualify or somehow shouldn't have been able to accept the loans. Springee (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then even in general, thousands of businesses got PPP loans, and unless there was something unusual about PragerU's, bringing it up seems trivial and unnecessary. --M asem (t) 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This doesn't pass the 10Y test. No sources have actually claimed PragerU didn't rightly qualify for the loans.  The Alethea Group tried to suggest it was hypocritical for a group that it felt was spreading COVID misinformation to then take COVID relief money.  That's a logically disconnected claim since the relief money was meant to help organizations that have been harmed by the response to COVID (ie shutdowns etc).  None of the sources are specifically about PragerU.  All mention PragerU deeper in the articles as "one example of" sort of things.  An argument has been made that Y!N is reliable but that doesn't mean it carries any weight.  How many people see Y!N articles on their home pages because they haven't changed the Edge default settings?  Should we care what the Alethea Group says?  We don't have an article on them which suggests they aren't a very significant special interest group.  That means there is basically no weight for the "spreads COVID misinformation but takes PPP loan" angle.  Slate has a similar but not identical "hypocrite" angle talking about various companies that rail against big government then took the loans.  Clearly PragerU wasn't their primary focus since it was only mentioned with a few others in the last paragraph of the article.  So what about just the "Org participated in the PPP loans" angle?  Why would that be significant?  What does that add to the article?  What is the reader supposed to take from such a statement?  Again, why would we care in 10 years?  No one doubts that PragerU took the loans since Propublica lists them with many other companies.  The question is why should the readers care?  The outrange angles are UNDUE.  Springee (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping, but I already said my peace and sort of left. IMO both should be left out for the sake of article quality. They are just spin swipes / talking points  by their opponents and are not info about nor informative about PragerU. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there is general agreement that the PPP info does not need to be and/or should not be connected with the COVID misinformation with the current sources we have, and that expressing it as just financial information in the 'Finances' section is NPOV. The current content on the page seems to fulfil this, so unless opinions differ from the current content, or my characterisation of viewpoints, then I believe we should put more focus into discussion of whether inclusion of the COVID misinformation with our current sources is NPOV. Also, several sources have been brought up elsewhere and I think it may be useful to repeat some of them here: thedailybeast, reuters fact check, huffingtonpost, healthfeedback, MSN/Y!N. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Putting aside this US culture war/partisan nonsense that certain editors here are obsessed  with, sources pass WP:RS, and - relative to the coverage of other aspects in the article - the content passes WP:DUE. Whether or not they qualified for PPP is not the issue, the reason receipt of payment is notable is that PragerU actively participated in a COVID19 disinformation campaign. It's notable that a bailed out organization worked against the public interest during the pandemic, that's why mention is due. Acousmana (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying editors involved with the PragerU article are acting that way or some editors generally on Wikipedia? Suggesting that motive in this case is failing to AGF.  As for RSs, please see ONUS.  DUE is being debated here and yes, if PragerU qualified is an issue.  As was said before, if PragerU was being harmed by the response to the pandemic then why shouldn't they use a program for which they were qualified?  If the only reason to cover this is the "hypocritical" angle then we have very limited sourcing and sources that don't have much WEIGHT.  The sources are conflating legitimate criticism of Covid coverage with some sort of moralistic opinion that critics of the governemtn response couldn't have been harmed and thus shouldn't use PPP loans.  That's a logically flawed position.  Springee (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * sources are WP:RS, it's WP:VER, and article content stemming from cited material meets WP:BALASP, there really is very little more to say on the matter that doesn't stink of political bias. Acousmana (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see ONUS. Yes, BALASP does apply and "controversies" that are trivial or have no lasting impact are UNDUE.  Springee (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When the Yahoo source was brought up at RSN, I did point out that it would be far better if the article was structured to have a section that talked broadly about PragerU and its problems with misinformation, where this Yahoo piece would fit much better in a summary piece, rather than as a standalone fact. That seems to be the crux here as well - by itself it seems pointy but if a proper summary that talked of how PragerU has been criticized for misinformation was put together, it would be wholly appropriate there. --M asem (t) 14:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Acousmana and Masem, and am concerned that behavioral problems are disrupting consensus-making. We've spent more than enough time on the factoid that PragerU received PPP loans. That factoid should be included in the article. We need to move on to determining what context it should be presented in. Thirteen potential references are listed in Talk:PragerU, yet with all the discussion there's still no proposal for how to expand the article from them. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just in case, I want to make it clear I am for putting information regarding responses to PragerU's COVID videos. I think the PPP loan material is not worth including but I'm not opposed to including it in context of "PragerU used the program".  My concern is only when we try to highlight what a few sources have claimed is hypocritical behavior.  Springee (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Which source mentions hypocrisy, and what's wrong with highlighting it if they do? –dlthewave ☎ 18:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jlevi and Acousmana: these are clearly RSes and they're clearly due. I agree with Masem they should be put in the context where the criticism makes sense, but I would have thought that was obvious, honestly. Loki (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So what is the correct context? Since this isn't a case of all or nothing perhaps a discussion regarding what to put in and where?  Springee (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the correct context is to have just a small mention of the PPP info in the 'Finances' section, as has already been implemented, and a COVID disinformation passage should be placed in the 'Content' section until there is a separate 'Misinformation' section or similar. They should be separate unless further sources link PU to more significant hypocrisy than has already been discussed i.e. if it turned out they had argued against COVID relief or something like that. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless there was something "special" about PragerU's PPP loan that differs from all other companies that got PPP loans, it's an unnecessary fact here. We are not required to document everything that is published by RSes, and unless the concern is that PragerU should not have gotten that loan (and moreso beyond the general problems that the PPP loan program has had) then this is just random info that doesn't fit into a summary article. --M asem (t) 23:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes obviously due and the source is acceptable. Most against-arguments cited by dlthewave appear invalid...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"[The U.S.] is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world."
Good evening, I've recently come across this claim on the page United States: "[The US] is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world. Considered a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, its population has been profoundly shaped by centuries of immigration."'

This claim is placed in the introduction of the article, with no source being cited. It was originally added by Ovinus in revision 975555920. Given WP:V, I started searching for empirical studies to back up this claim and did not find any. In fact, the studies that I did find opposed this claim. ) and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"Philanthropist" in the first sentence of Sheldon Adelson.
A few months ago, an IP added "philanthropist" to the lead of Sheldon Adelson, cited primarily to obituaries shortly after his death. While there are certainly sources that use the term, most of them only use it in passing; none of them present it as central to his notability, and several of them are careful to note that the donations in question were intended overwhelmingly to “strengthen the State of Israel and the Jewish people”". I feel that it's inappropriate to characterize him solely as a philanthropist (a term with clear emotive weight and one which should therefore require extremely strong sourcing) with no further detail in the first sentence of the lead under those circumstances, and that it's undue to make his philanthropy a focus in the first sentence of the lead in any case when it is at best secondary to his actual notability.  I also have concerns about relying so heavily on obituaries to establish weight for the first sentence of the lead; they are, after all, often focused more on eulogizing the dead than on strict neutrality. I objected when the word was added, and have raised several objections since; but it has been repeatedly reverted back in, so I figured I ought to raise the question here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP was not the one who originally added it in. "Philanthropist" had been in the lead up until Jan 12. before someone removed it: Special:Permalink/999891172. The IP placed it back here. I have already provided a plethora of sources that 1) describe him as a philanthropist and 2) mention what charitable causes he donated to. See: the talk page. And, once again, I find the argument, "He only donated to Jewish/Israeli causes so he's not a real philanthropist" quite dubious. Why does it matter which causes he donated to? Is someone not a philanthropist because they support a special interest? For the record, the Adelson Foundation donates heavily to medical research too. Per the Forward: "And their philanthropy extends far beyond the Jewish sphere. The Adelsons, whose fortune stems from a casino empire headquartered in Las Vegas, also funded the Adelson Medical Research Foundation, which gave nearly $38 million in 2018, according to the most recent annual filing available online, to causes like the Boston Children’s Hospital Trust, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, the John Wayne Cancer Center and universities in Israel and the United States. (Miriam Adelson is a doctor.)Through yet another nonprofit, Adelson, whose son Mitchell died of a drug overdose in 2005, also quietly funded a drug treatment and rehabilitation facility for opioid-addicted patients."  Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of whether we think the fact that his philanthropy was heavily focused on strengthening the state of Israel "disqualifies" it or not - the point is that almost every source that discusses his philanthropy at all focuses on that point, which makes it inappropriate to separate those points out and present him as a nebulously-defined philanthropist in the lead; a word with such heavy emotional meaning shouldn't be stripped of its context in a way that implies that his philanthropy was broader, more general, or more apolitical than it was. (Yes, he did donate to other causes as well, but even those sources specifically note that this was a small portion of his giving - a footnote to something that is already just a footnote to his notability.) And beyond that, none of your sources establish that his philanthropy is his primary point of notability - in fact, outside of one or two of the obituaries, the fast majority of them are worded along the lines of "hey, you know that guy who is famous for this?  Well, you probably don't know this, but he also donated money to these causes!"  That's exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't go in the first sentence of an article's lead.  Almost everyone who has a lot of money gives some of it away to advance their favored causes; we don't normally describe them as a "philanthropist" in the first sentence of their lead unless that is specifically a major part of what they are notable for. Otherwise we risk turning articles on wealthy individuals into hagiographies, since any donations by a wealthy individual at all will attract some coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * George Soros is labeled a philanthropist in the first sentence. I find it really wrong to discount someone's philanthropy based on the target, and I note that Adelson didn't just donate to Jewish or Israeli causes and in fact he continued to pay payroll for his company during the pandemic and his medical foundation is religious agnostic. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly Adelson was a philanthropist in that he contributed substantial funds to charity. The determinant for what we say in the first sentence is how often it is mentioned in reliable sources. The late Glen Davis, who spent most of his time with charities, is routinely referred to as a philanthropist, and I would expect the description to be used in the first sentence of an article about him. TFD (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As the RS points out, "His philanthropic giving surpassed his political contributions." Sir Joseph (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pointing to my comments in the ""Propaganda" as the introductory description for Radio Free Asia" section above, "Philanthropist" should be something clearly sourced to RSes to be included as such, not because its a value-laden label but it can be an inappropriate term to be applied due to improper SYNTH by editors (one or two donations != philanthropy) From what Sir Joseph and Aquillion have stated, it appears that a source review on his death clearly shows the term used by RSes and thus appropriate for us to use. If there's additional issues about the solitary focus of the donations that are documented in sources within the scope of UNDUE, that can be brought up, but that doesn't seem to be the case. --M asem (t) 22:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What said. We should characterize the subject as RS characterizes him. And if they don't lead with philanthropist, neither should we. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Call me cynical, but in general the use of the word "philanthropist" is generally a good indication of COI/UP editing, and seems to have become a puff word often used merely to stand for "somebody who gave some money to charity". I do think if somebody is really to be described as such to be put alongside Andrew Carnegie et al, it's kind of an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and needs very strong sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It absolutely should be (a good source survey should be done to make sure the term is used frequently enough by high quality sources before we use it) since it can be misapplied and be used for puffery by dependent sources, absolutely. In this case, it seems that all those checkboxes are met. If "philanthropist" is used, there better be a section of the body that expands on this (what type of donations/philanthropic work they did) and inclusion of the sources that used the term, if those cannot easily be summarized in the lede. --M asem (t) 12:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

World language
There is disagreement about whether the current version of World language is neutral. Suffice it to say that talk page discussion at Talk:World language has reached an impasse. I'll let the editor who raised objections——explain the issue as they see it. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * TBAN, maybe? –Austronesier (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Issues with this article Discussions can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language#No_special_importance_given_to_French,_and_other_major_issues_with_the_article. Dajo767 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) French is not given equal position with English as a World Language, despite French fulfilling the criteria of a World Language as much as English. The article gives the position of the World Language only to English and lists French among potential World language. French deserves equal status with English as the World Language. But this article declares English as the sole World language.
 * 2) Languages such as Japanese, Dutch, Malay, Hindi, and Swahili are among the languages listed as potential World languages when they are not widely accepted as such. The number of potential world languages can be limited to only Spanish, Arabic, Russian and Chinese. Dajo767 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This looks to me to be a fairly clear-cut case of an editor trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Dajo767 appears not to have produced a source that backs their POV that French is a world language of the same importance as English.


 * The argument they're making appears to be that we must ignore all sources that do not adhere to their POV. Most editors will doubtless not need it explaining that WP:NPOV and WP:V do not allow this argument.  Note also the Nazi comparison in that message.


 * Ultimately, this needs to come down to the WP:WEIGHT given to each point in reliable secondary sources. But it seems fair to me to say that if Dajo767 is not willing or not able produce sources backing their POV, it's fair to assume that that's because there aren't any. Kahastok talk 21:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It might depend on context, too. The article is I think talking about general usage, but there is a least one other context https://ask.un.org/faq/14463 Selfstudier (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you go through all edits for the past eight months, and all the talk page bickering, I believe you'll find two editors righting great wrongs back and forth, back and forth. The rest of us just had to drop out at some point because the constant fighting at the article is exhausting. Just take a look at how many edits Dajo767 and TompaDoma each have. On the positive side, I believe them both to have good intentions. On the negative side, both are part of the problem. Dajo767 is of course wrong we should put truth before sources, that's not how WP functions. TompaDoma is wrong to OWN the article to this extent. The current version is nothing short of parody and could be useful for an example of WP:CHERRYPICKING. Unfortunately, the toxic back-and-forth scares away all other user. Jeppiz (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

−	As someone who has followed the discussion for many months, I should point out the issue runs much deeper than some comments above seem to assume. The article is a complete mess, although I don't think neutrality is the issue as much as rampant original research. In 2020 and 2021, different users have fought hard for their own definition, often producing ludicrous results (the article in its current form is an example). The problem is that almost anyone can find some to include to support their own preferred version. This gives rise to downright silliness such as the current version grouping together languages at very different levels under the same heading. I wouldn't agree with Dajo767 that French is at the same level as English - although that is no less silly than the current version of the article putting French at the level of Dutch. Last but not least: after months of following the discussion closely, I dare say it would be wrong to point finger at any one user in particular. Jeppiz (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It would be fair to say I was looking fairly narrowly at recent exchanges.


 * I can perfectly accept your point that the problem may be POV caused by OR. In my experience, POV problems and OR problems often go together on this kind of article, because there's no way to judge what WP:WEIGHT to give original research.  And I guess the correct way to resolve that is to get rid of everything whose weight can't be justified based on secondary sources on the topic at hand.  Even if that's more than half the article, as it probably would be in this case.


 * (And, of course, if there are not sufficient secondary sources to make a judgement on WP:WEIGHT, then we have to start asking whether the article should exist at all.) Kahastok talk 22:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have come to the same conclusion. Perhaps a short article about the concept but without examples, as the examples are what people fight over - what language to include or not to include. The current article is the opposite of that: very little about the actual concept, and more than 95% dedicated to examples of language X, Y, Z etc. Having done my PhD on this, I know that the current article would draw smiles (for all the wrong reasons) but ai do not think solution is to change how we describe language X or language Z (as all the fighting is about). Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I've made a WP:BOLD attempt to solve the issue and bypass all the brinkmanship and back-and-forth of the two users (Dajo767 and TompaDompa) by removing the examples as WP:CHERRYPICKING and keeping all information on the concept. My edit can be found here and my explanation on the talk page here. I won't revert back to it if someone reverts my edit, but I do hope neither Dajo767 nor TompaDompa is the one to revert. The idea of the article should be to explain what the concept of World language means, not to argue over "My language is bigger than yours" as much of the examples boiled down to. Jeppiz (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , I rather object to your characterisation of my actions as WP:Righting Great Wrongs. I don't particularly care what the article says, I care that it accurately reflects what the sources say. To this end, I have removed material that failed WP:V and/or WP:NOR and tried to locate additional sources (with some, though surely incomplete success). I believe my track record on both the article itself and the associated talk page demonstrate that sourcing has always been my main concern.I would like to note for the record that I suggested that one option could be to not list world languages at all, but instead having the article only describe the concept . I still consider that a valid option—and while I was writing this, it was implemented by way of a WP:BOLD edit—but I think that it would be even better to expand the article based on additional sources. The only problem with the latter option is that we have yet to locate the additional sources that would allow us to do so—if there are any important sources that have been missed, please do add them (or point them out, at least).With regards to WP:NPOV, I think the version prior to your WP:BOLD edit was policy-compliant—sources disagree, and we described their disagreement without taking sides. The main point I'm unsure about is WP:WEIGHT, which is not altogether easy to assess (especially when we have a comparatively small sample of sources that may not be entirely representative). With regards to WP:OR, I wholeheartedly agree about that being the main problem until mid-February—which is why I rewrote basically the entire article then—but I honestly don't see what you're referring to when it comes to the version prior to your WP:BOLD edit. Perhaps you can give examples as to what about that version was WP:OR? The same thing goes for WP:CHERRYPICKING.The issue of whether and how to group languages hierarchically from a world language perspective is something that I,, and discussed at some length over at Talk:World language about two months ago (after the discussion last year at Talk:World language failed to resolve the issue and after some additional sources were located and added to the article). Having Dutch and French in the same category was even specifically mentioned——as something that would be a problem. We didn't end up coming up with a grouping that we were happy with, so the status quo of simply listing the languages in alphabetical order was retained.Finally, I really don't see how you arrived at more than 95% dedicated to examples. By word count, it was (prior to your WP:BOLD edit) about two-thirds, with the last third being dedicated to the concept itself. TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , you're right and I should have said nobody is righting great wrongs; my reply was more about this not being the case of one disruptive user but rather a (too) long back and forth between two users, both with good intentions. Apologies if you took it as me questioning your motives, that was not the intention. I do think the article reads a bit too much of "Person A says this, person B says that" ; it still does. I can see why, as academics from different fields will approach the topic differently. Perhaps that's an avenue we could take the article, more looking at how linguistics treat it, how political science treats it? Grouping the academics in question into topics instead? Again, apologies if my earlier comments came across as in any way casting doubts on your intentions; that was not my intention. I believe the last month in particular has been too much back and forth (and I have deliberately stayed out) but I do not doubt the good intentions of anyone involved. Jeppiz (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It is going too far to have absolutely no examples. Right now, English is the dominant international language. It is relevant to at least discuss certain others which do not quite "make the grade" - say, French, Spanish, Russian, Standard Arabic (and possibly Mandarin Chinese and Portuguese). --DLMcN (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I quite agree with that having no examples is not the right way to go about this. The status of English as a world language features so prominently in the literature on world languages that not mentioning it would be a highly conspicuous omission, and I frankly think it would be counter to WP:NPOV by not giving it WP:Due weight proportionate to its treatment by the sources. The issue then becomes what to do with the other languages. We have to come up with a method for determining what languages to include based on the sources, otherwise we are just arbitrarily picking and choosing which viewpoints to represent in the article—in clear violation of WP:NPOV. TompaDompa (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Interligne (organization)
seems to need a major rewrite, but I'd prefer to stay uninvolved as I have blocked the major contributor. A simple revert won't work, as there seem to have been factual corrections as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:ToBeFree, I did some rewriting and pruning.VikingDrummer (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you very much! :) I was afraid noone would deal with it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to oblige.VikingDrummer (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Rwandan genocide
I'm concerned that this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide_denial) states as fact at the end of the first paragraph that authors who don't entirely embrace the Rwandan government's narrative are "disputing reality".

To be clear... there is a world of difference between genocide-deniers and those such as Susan Thomson (who is cross-referenced in that paragraph) who state that atrocities were carried out by both sides.
 * That paragraph doesn't mention the Rwandan government, it mentions the "scholarly consensus". The second paragraph states that people who disagree with the Rwandan government's narrative may be accused of genocide denial, but doesn't state that they are denyong genocide. - Sylvester Penn Yell at meStuff I did 18:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry, I should have made my point clearer.

I think my concern is the use of the word "fringe" in the first paragraph here. Although it's probably technically right to use that word, "fringe" gives the impression of a small group of lunatics.

And given that the Rwandan government is the biggest proponent of the alternative view, calling those writers "fringe writers" unjustly dismisses them as being potentially extremist.

2021 Jersey dispute
There is a debate at Talk:2021 Jersey dispute to determine if the article 2021 Jersey dispute should use Infobox civil conflict or Infobox military conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Salomon Morel
I have been locked out of editing for Salomon Morel, who was a Jewish man whose family was murdered in the Holocaust. The information on his wikipedia page is provided by Polish nationalists, and one of the sources cited is the many citations in that article is from the "Institute of National Remembrance", which is an anti-Semitic organization known to spread anti-Jewish lies and propaganda since inception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genealogykid82 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , you have not been specifically locked out, it's just protected from editing by users with fewer than 500 edits because of recent disruption. You can edit the talk page and propose changes there. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)