Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 93

Wall Street Journal lead content
There is a discussion related to the neutrality of the Wall Street Journal lead. Please see the discussion here Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal Springee (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To sum up what I have been stating: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today and other major newspapers all have no mention of their supposed editorial opinions in the lead, meaning the specific targeting of the WSJ is not a NPOV. Additionally, the only sources in the article are referring to individual guest columnists and not the editorial board, meaning the claims in the lead are quite literally false by stating that the editorial board "promoted" these things. Other than the book, only a single source states anything about this, and it is referring to 30 year old editorials on acid rain and ozone, even though the source states that the editorial board has changed its opinion on the matter, and this web article was a decade ago, so no coverage of this has occurred since. Regardless, even the acid rain and ozone topics are never mentioned in another reliable source, meaning this is clearly completely UNDUE for the lead if it is never covered outside of two sources. If we were to include two sources to cover every supposed "controversy" with every newspaper, the leads of the article would be filled with random nonsense. Bill Williams 16:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly asked editors to provide multiple other reliable sources to prove that this is somehow a major controversy worthy of the lead of the article, but nobody has provided anything, only claiming that it is major enough for the lead without any actual sources to prove that this is well covered. Bill Williams 16:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

There is not a standard format for writing articles on Newspapers. Lead content depends on what is mentioned at the main body. Hence, the argument: "other major newspapers all have no mention of their supposed editorial opinions in the lead, meaning the specific targeting of the WSJ is not a NPOV" is invalid. Cinadon36 17:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, which means that there must be a specific reason as to why the WSJ is different from every other major newspaper article. Nobody has provided a single reason or a single source to back this up. My main point is that a few random opinion articles published in the Wall Street Journal is falsely stated to be "the editorial board has promoted."
 * Also, nothing about "health dangers of passive smoking, pesticides, and asbestos" is "mentioned at the main body" so I have no idea how this warrants inclusion in the lead. Bill Williams 17:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is a section or a subsection at the main body of the article on these topics, it should be mentioned in the lead. Arguments involving WP articles of other media are fallacious. Also, see Manual of Style/Lead section: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". I do not see an infringement of NPOV policy. Cinadon36 17:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a neutral point of view, i.e. "representing fairly, proportionately," to put this in the lead when it is seldom mentioned in reliable sources. Again, it is not even mentioned in the body concerning second hand smoke, asbestos, and pesticides, so how does it warrant inclusion in the lead. If this is not a violating of NPOV, then adding "The New York Times editorial board has promoted abolishing or defunding the police" simply because they have published random opinion articles with those opinions, even though the editorial board itself never had them. Bill Williams 17:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If you feel NYT is wrong, why wont you discuss it at the Talk page of the related article? It warrant inclussion in the lead since there is a subchapter dedicated to the issue at the main body of the article. Cinadon36 07:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 23 subsections in the article below the five main sections, and only one, the part insulting WSJ reliability based on what random opinion editors published decades ago, is the only one of those 23 subsections described in detail in the lead, because to describe any others would make the lead far too long. There is no reason as to why random opinion editors' scientific coverage decades ago is more notable than the 22 other subsections, making it completely violate NPOV to shove that in the lead. Bill Williams 20:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The solution would be to also add other important points/subsection at the lede. The specific issue is important, well covered, there are academic articles on this specific topic.Cinadon36 20:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It would probably be better to tone down the climate change material from the lead and increase (within reason) other lead content. However, if the lead is going to be on the shorter side then the climate content should be removed to preserve WEIGHT.  Springee (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I'm saying, if this article had a six paragraph lead like Donald Trump, multiple of which went into extensive detail, I would understand having at least the climate change section. But that is not the case, and the lead only include basic information on the WSJ, such as it focusing on business and finance, winning Pulitzer prizes (which is mentioned in the lead of every other newspaper that has), its founding and readership, and the different languages and locations it exists in. What it had to say about climate change a decade ago and before does not outweigh any of that in the slightest. Bill Williams 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to plug my edit here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wall_Street_Journal&action=history> because I think the debate here misses the point. It was a really bad sentence for a lead, because it was a list that was basically repeated in the body of the article. It was more of a restatement than a summary (per WP:LEAD, a lead should SUMMARIZE). I don't even like having that sentence about the editorial stuff in the lead, but it concerns me far less when it's actually a summary rather than a list, or a restatement. My edit was reverted by someone on unknown grounds, and I didn't even change any of the stuff being debated here, I just made it more of a summary than it had been. We're here to write a good encyclopedia, and some more objective things, like my edit, should be allowed to happen, even while debates like this (which are also part of the process) happen. Some of us want whatever the hell is communicated here to be done well. 2600:1012:B068:D777:3172:6FCB:3354:9A46 (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mostly think your edit is better, but one change I would make: for neutrality's sake, climate change needs to be mentioned explicitly; "an number of environmental issues" unduly downplays an issue a great number people view as of the most urgent importance. I agree there's no need to be listing off things like acid rain and asbestos, etc in the lede. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:F14A:CD95:FAAA:9671 (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am the IP you just replied to--that is indeed the most prominent issue on the list, both in terms of the effect on the environment as well as the huge importance of the fossil fuel sector to the economy, that WSJ was defending (if we became carbon neutral tomorrow, it would be far more painful than banning tobacco or switching to refrigerants that don't harm the ozone later or banning asbestos ever would be). Although I think currently the WSJ position is more of, "we'd rather it be Texas shale than Venezuelan or Saudi crude, because why pump $$$ into the MBS -> NSO group -> dead WaPo journalist pipeline or whatever crank crypto thing Venezuela is doing?" That's how I see it--it's more of an economic nationalist argument than an anti-environment one. Of course, they are definitely still anti-anti-fossil fuel, but it isn't like anyone in the US govt is, no matter what party, once they enter the driver's seat and have to determine petrol policy. Here in California, last I heard, Newsom has a newfound love affair with natural gas peaker plants because guess what, people don't like constant power outages while ironically having to pay neighboring states to take excess solar energy...yes, climate change is also not a bygone issue unlike acid rain or asbestos, so that's good too. So ending that sentence with "...health and environmental issues, including anthropogenic climate change." is indeed a good way to say it. 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for Assistance on Talk: Assault Weapon
Hello, I am attempting to make an edit to the page Assault Weapon which is presently under dispute. I believe the article as it stands suffers from a failure of neutrality, as a small but committed group of users who believe they "own" the page have attempted to stifle discussion and omit mention of opposing viewpoints in the article. Most importantly the article fails to discuss the reasons why some individuals and organizations support restrictions on assault weapons. I have created a discussion at the article talk page regarding my concerns on the page's neutrality, and would like to invite others to contribute to the discussion at Talk: Assault weapon.

The edit in question (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault_weapon&oldid=1057437485) is as follows: "Many groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, support bans on assault weapons, stating "Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time." [1] Other groups are opposed to restrictions on the use of assault weapons, arguing that ""the term 'assault weapon'... is a media invention."[2]. After the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, many news organizations ran stories about assault weapons, explaining their varying definitions and presenting varying opinions about whether they should be banned again at the federal level.[3][4][5]"

Some opposing editors would like to omit the 1st sentence (and the edit was reverted citing WP:ONUS.) However, I believe that doing so violates Wikipedia neutrality policies, including the requirement to discuss all significant controversies regarding a topic in the lead, as well as the necessity of citing multiple points of view on a topic, not solely one side's position in a debate. I have also attempted to begin a discussion at the article talk page regarding concerns of neutrality in the article page. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC on whether and how to cover J. K. Rowling's trans-related views in the lead of her article
Please see: Talk:J. K. Rowling

I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.

Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Women Writers are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single socio-political viewpoint suggests major blind spots on the part of the poster.
 * However, we do need fresh eyes on the lead of the article. The discussion so far has seen a great deal of tendentious misapplication and misconstrual of WP:NPOV, so watchers of this page might be especially helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

António de Oliveira Salazar first paragraph is not neutral
Hi, albeit that this article states many times that he was a dictator and that it provides sources to prove that, the first paragraph is very enthusiastic and completely omits that. There's support within the talk page to include that he was a dictator in the first paragraph and it seems that most of the issue surrounding that is if he was a fascist dictator or an authoritarian dictator but the dictator part is always firmly secured anyways so I can't see how this article can maintain it's neutrality if it doesn't state that in the first paragraph. I know relying on other wiki pages is usually not that strong of an argument but the truth is that the Portuguese one does state that right away. Shexantidote (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

World Chess Championship - possible violation of neutrality.
Hello, everyone. I noticed that this page may not comply with the Wikipedia policy of neutrality as the Russian challenger doesn't have a Russian flag next to his name in the Infobox and some other places in the article. It is well understood that WADA imposed sanctions on the Russia's sports events but it is not clear how it has any impact on Wikipedia's guidelines. The only rationale behind not showing the flag could be sources but in the case of this particular sport even I found plenty of sources that speak of the Russian chess player Ian Nepomniachtchi representing Russia. Please check this section I initiated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2021

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Chess_Championship_2021#Wikipedia_bias_against_Russian_sportspeople_and_its_own_rules_violation

P/S: For at least, there is no consensus in the sources as many of them talk about Nepomniachtchi as representing Russia. It is not clear why the editors of the "World Chess Championship 2021" decided to take one side. I'd like to hear from more editors and reach a more clear consensus here regarding the Wikipedia's policy.

--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:A056:F425:465E:703F (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The flagicon does not refer to the country of origin or nationality of the player, but which country he is representing. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This is consistent with articles relating to the 2020 Summer Olympics (e.g. 2020 Summer Olympics medal table) and other events where Russian athletes have competed under a neutral flag. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cinadon. I feel that the anti-doping rule involved here is kind of silly, and also the insistence in using flags in the infobox of the Wikipedia article is silly.  But with where we are, using the FIDE flag in reference to Nepo at the World Championship (and the Russian flag for the Candidates) is correct. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 00:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Censoring all criticism of Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Nableezy is censoring all criticism of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Though his justifications for doing so keep shifting:


 * He deleted one criticism claiming it was from an unreliable source. That's not true, as The Jerusalem Chronicle is listed as a reliable in the list of perennial sources. diff
 * Then he deleted the same criticism again, now claiming it doesn't have sufficient weight to be included. talk diff
 * As for the two other paragraphs, he said (correctly) that some of the criticism didn't match what the sources said. That's totally fair.  diff
 * But after that was fixed, he came up with other reasons for why he was yet again, removing all criticism from the article.

As for what's being deleted, here's the diff

Paragraph #1: This is a verbatim quote from one of the co-founders of the group, speaking about the group, as published in a RS. It can be up to the reader to determine what he meant exactly.

Paragraph #2: This is from an opinion piece in a RS, that is written in the article as an opinion. Seems 100% appropriate for the criticism section.

Paragraph #3: An 80 page report was written about the group, and it's the focus of an article by a RS. It boggles my mind that this is being excluded from the criticism section. Is the publication possibly biased? Sure, but that is why it's included as their opinion in the criticism section.

- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not impressed with the way you habitually accuse another editor of "censorship". Kleinpecan (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any diffs to support that accusation? If not, I'll ask you to retract it.
 * It's very possible that I've used that word before, I don't recall. I think it's a word I use selectively, and that is appropriate when a user has chosen to remove _all_ criticism regarding a group. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My take: the entry for The Jewish Chronicle (not The Jerusalem Chronicle) at WP:RSP says that it is "generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting" (emphasis mine) and that in-text attribution is recommended for content about Palestine/Palestinians due to bias. These articles are from 2011 and 2017, about a Palestinian organization, and you didn't attribute the viewpoints. Maybe the lack of attribution is a good thing, because the viewpoints in your edits aren't from The JC, but from people The JC is itself quoting. In fact, The JC doesn't seem to be giving its own viewpoint at all. As far as I'm concerned, two articles with second-hand criticism from a biased sourced is UNDUE to support one paragraph, let alone two. I'll also note that you only pulled pro-Greenstein and pro-Collier claims from those articles and not any criticism of Greenstein or defense from the PSC, which is cherry-picking. Then we have the Haaretz article, an opinion piece, supporting another entire paragraph. Also UNDUE. I know nothing about the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, but if there are documented cases of anti-semitism, then reliable sources have probably reported on it, in actual news articles written in the editorial voice of the source. Woodroar (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, "criticism" need not be "anti-semitism", right? If the criticism is that they don't do enough to distance themselves from antisemites, then that's what it is.  As for cherry picking, I personally have no issue with solving that by adding to the article, as opposed to just removing all criticism. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There are several issues here. The first is Collier, a non-notable blogger who routinely makes less than plausible claims about any number of people (including calling a number of Wikipedia editors "terrorists"). One biased source picked up a "report" he made. That report is not a RS, Collier has no expertise in the matter, but yes one source covered him calling an organization antisemitic. As far as I can tell, nobody else gave half a crap. That does not meet anything close to the lowest bar to be dedicated even a sentence in the article on that organization. Second, the piece on Greenstein is not criticizing PSC. It is criticizing Lauren Booth for criticizing PSC. Third, the op-ed in Haaretz makes one claim about one meeting of one chapter of PSC. Even if it were the work of an established expert, which it is not, that would still not merit mention in the article on the organization. I am totally fine including actual reliably sourced criticism about this or any other topic so long as it meets WP:DUE. But that is not what has been offered. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And the idea I am censoring anything, as opposed to removing straight up fabrications as added here is a straightforward personal attack. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I edited the text for accuracy. Was there a single fabrication in the latest version of the criticism that you removed from the article? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that Greenstein was criticizing PSC at all. The rest of it is a WP:WEIGHT violation. You know what I do when somebody says get better sources? I get better sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The nature of the problem can be clearly seen from the first paragraph, which I'll quote:
 * Tony Greenstein, who is one of the co-founders of Palestinian Solidarity Campaign wrote: "PSC needs to take decisive action to root out, once and for all, those who evince sympathy for racism - of whatever description. Gilad Atzmon is deeply antisemitic. He subscribes to every myth and libel that has ever been written about Jews, from the world Jewish conspiracy theory, to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the Holocaust itself." (Lauren Booth's attack points up new split in PSC)

However, the source begins "Pro-Palestinian activist Lauren Booth has launched a vitriolic attack on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign for dissociating itself from antisemitic musician Gilad Atzmon" (my emphasis). By omitting the dissociation, Bob drobbs constructed a paragraph that invites readers to assign Atzmon's views to PSC. It is the opposite of what the source says. Does Bob drobbs think that this misrepresentation of a source is so precious that someone who removes it should be brought to a noticeboard? The third paragraph gives a forum to an unqualified activist-blogger who writes like half the world is antisemitic (including multiple Wikipedia editors). Anyone can write a "report"; that doesn't mean we have to cite it. The source for the second paragraph is the only one that should be considered seriously; my opinion matches those who argue for its omission since it is hard to extract anything from it that is both meaningful and representative. Zerotalk 01:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Greenstein was responding to Lauren Booth's criticism of the PSC. His statement is a defense of PSC for publicly disassociating itself from Atzmon, which Booth criticized. Just throwing Atzmon in to the article at all, when the only relation he has is that the PSC says there is no relation, and very publicly so, is an attempt at guilt by association, made only more improper because there is no association. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Zero0000, I welcome constructive feedback to improve text. If the first quote needs to go, that's fine.  But as for Collier, his opinions and/or reports been referenced in the Guardian and BBC, along with other sources.  That seems like he's more than qualified to give an opinion after writing an 80 page report on this group.  -- Bob drobbs (talk)
 * Here's more. The Irish Times referring to another one of his reports: "'The comments were made during a “periodic review” of Ireland’s human rights record before the Geneva-based commission, and come in the wake of a highly critical report last month on anti-Semitism in Ireland by researcher David Collier.'"
 * So I really don't understand how anyone can try to just completely blow off Collier with claims he's an inconsequential blogger and "censor" his criticism. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Collier is mentioned as having made a highly critical report in that Irish Times link. The only person who has used "censor" here is you, so you appear to be quoting yourself. Yes, he has made the news, lots of non-notable and non-expert people make the news. Collier isn't cited by them though, sometimes if something he writes has some sort of impact he might be covered by them. And if more than one partisan source covered something he did you could argue it was consequential enough to merit coverage in our article. But that is not the case here. Collier's "report" on PSC has been covered by one partisan source, it has had zero impact on anything, and since Collier himself is not in any way an expert on the topic, covering his views is UNDUE weight here. Finally, this is an encyclopedia article, not a compendium of opinions by non-experts and non-notable bloggers. You keep harping on it's just being offered as his opinion. Yes, and his opinion does not matter here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your POV is showing through here as you continue to try to disparage and demean Collier as just a "blogger" and put "report" in quotes. Multiple RS call him a "researcher".  He researched this group and produced an 80 page report on them. That would seem to qualify him as a subject matter expert on the topic of PSC's antisemitism. Here's examples of anti-semitism from PSC members from his report:
 * Claiming Israel was harvesting Palestinian organs
 * Suggesting Mossad had attacked Paris.
 * Sharing a video claiming the Holocaust was “the greatest lie ever told”.
 * If this report was covered in depth by a multiple sources and had a lasting impact, it might merit it's own article. But that cannot be the standard for inclusion in an article.  An extensive report on a group, done by a researcher, covered in depth by a RS, deserves a mention. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * David Collier (political activist) is notable now. I believe the article passes WP:BIO.
 * And along with that, I did a bit more research. The same article in Jewish Chronicle is also in the Jewish News with a few tweaks. There's also an opinion piece in the Middle East Eye, written by Kieron Monks, mentioning the report and it's impact. Is that not enough to get the criticism included in the article yet? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Collier still remains not notable despite your effort to get 6 or 7 mentions of him in 3/4 sources,- in a shouting activist career so far lasting 2 decades- only one of which is mainstream (The Guardian) to document that his Social Media and Twitter flagging as anti-Semitic virtually anything associated with criticism of Israel. Antisemitism is, like the Israel-Palestinian conflict, one of the most rigorously studied topics in the academic world, with a huge output of reliable scholarly analysis and debate, and in that literature Collier is invisible. Jake Angeli is notable (compare the sourcing depth) but no one would cite him in an encyclopedia for his views on American politics. Collier is even more marginal - a specialist in the petty bickering and gossip of UK Labour Party chapters, but has nothing to tell an encyclopedia about anti-Semitism, esp. because if you disagree with him, you fit that category (as several wikipedian editors do, by his 'lights'). So handing him a stub to make him 'notable' ergo 'quotable' is just a technical ruse, whose fragility is attested by the fact that serious sources on that issue don't take his views, as opposed to his provincial rhetorical militancy, seriously. One figure behind the endless flybynight attack-Wikipedia organizations tried to make himself and his family notable some time ago by scratching up a similar ragged assortment of minor news mentions. The articles were duly deleted.  Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As to your mention that Middle East Eye mentions Collier, it is interesting that you cite here this for his notability, and yet on the Collier page you edit, you have avoided using this source. So I expect that, since you are so concerned about Collier's importance you would add what the article states in his regard. This is what it writes of Collier's views about people who support Palestinian rights.
 * "''Palestinianism' is a disease that is anathema to freedom, to debate, to openness and to human rights,' Collier blogged. 'It will infect those who catch the disease with anti-Semitism just as it provides them with a denial mechanism to protest their innocence.' This highlights an issue that many of the charges of anti-Semitism against Palestine solidarity activists are coming from partisan political opponents rather than objective racism monitors. Collier is a longstanding Israel advocate and critic of Palestinian activism who has described his mission as 'showing everybody how toxic our enemies are'.Kieron Monks, Labour’s anti-Semitism scandal has spilled over into attacks on Palestine solidarity Middle East Eye 17 July 2018"
 * Likewise I would expect someone arguing that censorship is abroad on Wikipedia to harvest the same article for what it notes about double standards re anti-Semitism: any rumour of anti-Semitism in Labourite social media is profiled vigorously, but racism in Zionist organizations' social media is ignored. So consider putting the following into the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland
 * "The Zionist Federation UK Facebook page contains comments referring to Palestinians as 'subhumans' and 'evil made up people', with one post reading 'Fakestinians...would slaughter their own mother if they had one.' The StandWithUs page contains numerous references to Palestinians as 'animals' and 'savages'. One popular comment suggested 'Napalm Gaza' and another taunts a victim of the Gaza fence shootings - 'one leg will suit you buddy'. A 2017 report on social media in Israel found that messages of anti-Arab racism were posted at a rate of just over one per minute, with frequent incitements to violence. There has been no parallel scrutiny of hate speech in Israel advocacy, far less any suggestion that the field is discredited as a result, whereas pro-Palestinian activism is now suffering a crisis of legitimacy.'Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)"


 * Comment The Collier article has 2 incoming links, one from here (the one above) and the other from Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party where Bob drobbs has added material (JC source, unattributed) that probably has zero weight. 4 of 8 refs for the Collier article are sourced to the JC, I think this is likely an AfD candidate. I would also mention that Bob drobbs spent a large amount of time insisting on the antisemitism POV at the BDS article, given that PSC is a BDS supporter this seems an extension of that editing. Persistent pushing of a single POV (essentially that of the Israeli government via proxy) is not a good look.Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed redirect: Race and crime→Race and crime in the United States
A redirect proposal based partially on NPOV concerns is taking place at. –– FormalDude  talk 05:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

unattributed claim of a terror attack
At 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, an article on a Palestinian stabbing to death an armed Israeli settler in the West Bank, the unattributed view that this was a terror attack is offered in Wikipedia's voice. The justification for inclusion is a number of Israeli news sources (Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ynet) called it a terror attack. The reason others (waves hand) have offered to remove it is that third party uninvolved sources such as the BBC, AP, Financial Times do not use that language in their own voice, and in the case of the AP explicitly attributes it to an Israeli police spokesperson. WP:WTA seems pretty clear to me, but an editor has claimed that an RFC is needed to show that there is not consensus for the inclusion of this value laden label in Wikipedia's voice, and that's just silly so here I am. Should Wikipedia call something a terrorist attack when sources outside of the area of conflict do not do so? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You cannot describe it as "unattributed" when as you point out a bunch of RS, in their own voice, call the attack a "terror attack".  And I don't know what you're reading into WP:WTA, but here's what it says about words like "terrorist":  ...best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
 * That bar has been met. And I have never seen anything in regards to inclusion be based upon whether or not a RS happens to be within a conflict zone!  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I point out that RS also do not use that term in their voice, making the usage decidedly not "widely used". Israeli press calls all Palestinian violence terrorism, that and other shocking developments at 11. And yes, without attribution in our article it is unattributed. Im not sure if youre using words in some way besides their definition, but that is what "unattributed" means. And what WTA says is, even if widely used, use in-text attribution. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The group that "took responsibility" for the attack is an internationally-designated terrorist organization. But it wasn't conclusive that they were behind it. But if we accept the conclusion that that group was behind it, then would it not be a terrorist attack? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be a judgment best left to others to make, not Wikipedia. The African National Congress was once an internationally-designated terrorist organization. I dont personally think attacking an armed participant in a war crime is best described as a "terror attack", but I acknowledge that others do see it that way, which is why I think attributing "terror attack" to the Israeli police as the [AP does would be the best way for us to go. And not just accepting one "sides" POV as though it were unimpeachable fact. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">[[User talk:Nableezy| nableezy ]] - 21:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree and I would support removal or attribution to the source, rather than Wiki's voice. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, we should be avoiding these "absolute" motives (like terrorism, murder, assassination) until we have a firm statement from the investigative body responsible for that event (police, etc.) and avoid using RSes' own assessments of these terms. We often jump too fast to label these with these extreme terms that are guestimates by people that do not have the position of expertise to make that determination. --M asem (t) 21:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The investigative body responsible for that event (Israeli Police) have said it was a terrorist attack. Inf-in MD (talk)
 * Assuming that nableezy is right about only Israeli media using the label, we should absolutely not use it in wiki-voice. We can't rightfully say a label is "widely used by reliable sources" when only media outlets affiliated with one side of a conflict use the value-laden label. Firefangledfeathers 21:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I have not done an exhaustive search, the ones offered for the label are all Israeli news orgs (RS all of them no doubt, but certainly have a partisan tint), and the ones Ive seen from outside of Israel that picked up this story have not. There may well be others that do use the label, but the major international news sources dont seem to. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I would say my view here is susceptible to a showing that independent RS are using the term in their own voice. Even then, I think the way it's currently used in the article is untenable. A redirect link to Palestinian terror, which targets Palestinian political violence is ... not great. When specifically referring to the perpretrator of the attack, I would be greatly surprised to learn that independent RS refer to him as simply "the terrorist" as the current version of the article does. Firefangledfeathers 22:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Jerusalem Post is considered both independent and reliable. They said this:
 * "Israeli man killed in West Bank terror attack ... stabbed to death in a terror attack ... The Palestinian terrorist, Salam Azal..."'
 * But at this point, I'm personally fine with adjusting the article so "terror attack" in the lead isn't in wikipedia's voice. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. I could have been more clear: I meant 'independent' here as in 'not affiliated with one side of the conflict'. Firefangledfeathers 03:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A misleading presentation of the way the term is used. Non-Israeli, independent and reliable sources describe it a "terrorism", e.g - Mickolus, Edward (2016-08-08). Terrorism, 2013-2015: A Worldwide Chronology. McFarland. ISBN 9781476664378, and the OP knows this because it is (a) used as a reference in the article, and (b) discussed on the talk page. There are many others- Evyatar Borowski, 14, who was killed in a terrorist attack at Tapuach Junction in 2013.; Terror Stabbing Victim Laid to Rest, etc... If the redirect link is a problem, we can remove it Inf-in MD (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of those websites are reliable sources, and one book with a brief mention does not make the term widely used. And it is beyond silly to claim I know what every single source in an article says, nearly as silly as claiming that it is widely used when you start citing websites that describe its own views as coming "from a pro-American, pro-Israel perspective". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of them are reliable sources, the Jewish Voice is a reputable weekly newspaper, as is the Jewish Press. Having a pro-American, pro-Israeli perspective does not make something unreliable, nor does it make it Israeli. The book source highlighted was mentioned several times in a discussion on the talk page that you participated in, and in the AfD of the article you participated in. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The question is, is the pro-Israeli perspective the neutral point of view for the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim I was addressing was that these are not reliable sources. Do you agree that they are? Inf-in MD (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliability =/= Neutral point of view, we both know that. If international outlets are attributing the terrorist aspect, then that's likely to be the NPOV as well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop deflecting - are these reliable sources? Are they "international" outlets (i.e non-Israeli) ? If yes, we can address how to best achieve a NPOV on the article. Sources don't have to be neutral, articles do. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's deflecting happening here, it's not Hemiauchenia. I agree with the point: this is not a question of reliability, and it's a good thing we're here at NPOVN. Firefangledfeathers 03:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)]
 * Please read the comments by Nableezy, which are repeatedly about reliability. 14:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Press promoted an empty book titled A History of the Palestinian People on Amazon, until it was removed as a racist tripe, and bragged about doing so (here). A publisher pushing racist tripe and goading others in to doing so alongside is your idea of a reliable source? The Jewish Voice may be reliable for local news among the Sephardic community in Brooklyn, but no it is not a reliable source for violence in the West Bank. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The JP published as satirical review of a satirical book (and tagged it as satire). Some may have found the satire offensive, but this is not in any way a reflection on its news reporting reliability. Th policy on reliable sources does not limit a paper's reliability to the neighborhood where its headquarters are located . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inf-in MD (talk • contribs)
 * No, that was their news desk. See where it says "By Jewish Press News Desk". Very publicly pushing racist propaganda. And of course the headquarters are not relevant lol, but a small local paper focused on the Sephardic community of Brooklyn is not reliable for material on acts of violence in the West Bank. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely essential that we don't adopt the language of one side of a conflict. This is pretty basic NPOV territory. In Israel, it is commonplace for everyone from a kid throwing a stone to a regular soldier of an enemy country to be called a "terrorist". We can use it with attribution, but it is not a neutral term. As pointed out, reliability is irrelevant; this is not an issue of fact but an issue of label. Using "terrorist" without attribution would be the same as using "shahid" (martyr) without attribution. Zerotalk 04:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The comments of User:Zero0000 are especially apt here. Nableezy demonstrates above that neutral international sources do not use the term terror attack, therefore we shouldn't either. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments has an RFC
Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments 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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Opening paragraph of Gary Glitter article
There is an active disagreement as to how the opening sentence (and opening paragraph) of the Gary Glitter article should read - the discussion is at Talk:Gary Glitter. For context, Gary Glitter was formerly a highly successful musician in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s. From the late 90s to the present day he has been convicted of various sexual offences involving children in both the UK and Vietnam, and is currently imprisoned in the UK for a lengthy prison term. He is therefore one of the most infamous people in the UK today.

My concern about the article is that I feel the opening paragraph places undue weight on his prominence as a musician by burying the lead on his current fame as a convicted sex offender, which is primarily what he is known for in the present day. Absolutely no mention of this is made until the fourth sentence of the article, which has the effect of making his convictions appear to be of secondary importance. My issues with this are:


 * 1) It places undue weight on his fame as a musician, given that secondary details about his musical achievements are mentioned before his sex offences are referred to at all.
 * 2) It also puts the casual reader at risk of missing it, given the numerous and repetitive achievements listed in the second and third sentences. Someone who is just trying to get the gist of who he is may stop reading before reaching the fourth sentence. (I know that I sometimes read articles like that if I just want to find out why someone is notable ASAP when reading something else, as I'm unlikely to care about a slew of career highlights in that situation.)
 * 3) Without preface, the mention of Glitter as a sex offender is missed from Google results containing the article (given they only show around 20 words).

I would propose changing the first sentence to describe Glitter as a "former glam rock singer and convicted sex offender" (or the other way around), in the same fashion as Ian Watkins. This allows the reader to anticipate the elaboration in the fourth sentence, and prevents the (somewhat lengthy) detail on Glitter's achievements from obscuring his current status.

However, there has been pushback against this on the basis that he is only notable as a sex offender because of his notability as a musician. My response to this is that notability is not assessed chronologically but by degree, and no sources since around 2006 have shown any interest in anything other than Glitter's fame for his sex offences. We are past the point of recentism being an issue. I should also note that the reason he is a famous sex offender is because he was already a famous person, and has nothing to do with why he was a famous person. It is therefore incorrect to say that his fame for sexual offences is secondary to his fame as a musician, as knowledge of both is necessary to get a full picture of why he is famous today. —Theknightwho (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should probably open something like "Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944),[3] known professionally as Gary Glitter, is an English former glam rock singer and convicted sex offender who...." In line with our other articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which other articles did you have in mind? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly not Jimmy Saville then, who wasn't convicted and whose abusive nature doesn't appear in the google search thingy in exactly the same way as Gadds doesn't. -Roxy the dog . wooF 20:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ian Watkins is an example. Theknightwho (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do only "sources since around 2006" dictate the order of content in the first sentence. That's just another form of "recentism", isn't it? I'm also not sure that Glitter and Ian Watkins are very comparable (and I'm not sure that's really because I'm a raving glam-rock fan). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Jeffrey Epstein, James Hydrick, and many others, see . Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How many UK top ten hits did Terapon Adhahn have in the 1970s?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying that Glitter wasn't a signficant musical figure, but he's about as notable for his sex offences as his musical work now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a misleading example. Most people on the list of search results are only famous sexual offenders because of their prior fame for something else, but for most of them their current notoriety is proportionate to their pre-existing fame. In other words: the fact that Glitter was already very famous means he is particularly notable for being a paedophile. This is the point I was making when I said that it's to do with the fact that he was already famous at all and not why he was already famous. Theknightwho (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't need to ping me. I do actually have this page on my watchlist, thanks. My point was that different people may be proportionately notable, in different ways, for different reasons. I realise that Wikipedia generally tends to assume a dichotomy of "notable or not". Most people will not first become notable for being sex offenders. If they do, they are unlikely to be also notable later for anything else. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies - it was to make it clear I was directing my response at you without forking the discussion. I have actually addressed this point in my previous reply, though. Barring anything particularly notable about their crimes (e.g. Epstein), fame as a sex offender correlates 1:1 with their pre-existing fame, given that public interest in their sexual offences will obviously correlate with how much interest people had in them in the first place. This is why Gary Glitter is a lot more famous for being a paedophile than Tesfaye Bramble. Theknightwho (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I find that a simple indent usually does just fine. No forking required. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Oh no, Larry, that glam-rock Gary can't be the one I'm searching for. I'm after Vietnam peado Gary..." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about people who don't know who he is but might Google him because his name came up somewhere. Come on. Play nice. Theknightwho (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not the best example - a better example is when the article comes up in searches for things other than "Gary Glitter". Theknightwho (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How Wikipedia articles appear in Google search results is pretty irrelevant. This is a red herring as WP:LEAD is what matters. I'm open to tweaking the opening paragraph, but saying "he is a sex offender" in the opening sentence is unnecessary. Do credit the reader with an attention span longer than a goldfish.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to take out some of the detail that is now in the opening paragraph, to leave a shorter paragraph such as: "Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944), known professionally as Gary Glitter, is an English former glam rock singer who achieved considerable chart success in the 1970s and 1980s. Known for his extreme glam image and his energetic live performances, his career ended after he was imprisoned for downloading child pornography in 1999, and child sexual abuse and attempted rape in 2006 and 2015." The details about his singles chart hits, the critic's comments and the reference to TOTP should then be added in to the second and third paragraphs.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also agree with . This tightens up the opening paragraph and does not hide or downplay the sex offence convictions.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be an improvement, but I don't see what the objection to calling him a sex offender in the opening paragraph is - particularly when it is laid out that way in so many other articles. His notability today (not his notability in the 1980s) comes from both, and the average person (that knows who he is) would describe him by saying that he's a singer that got done for being a paedophile. Both facets of who he is are intrinsic to that. Theknightwho (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Except we don't label him in that way, in the entire article. You don't "get done for being a paedophile" (which is a psychosexual diagnosis), you get done for "having sex with children" (which is usually illegal). The only mention of the p-word is: "In an interview with BBC News in May 2006, Glitter denied that he was a paedophile, and claimed not to have knowingly had sex with anyone under 18." Come on. Play nice. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which addresses absolutely none of what I said, as I was obviously speaking informally. Have you got a response to the substantive point? Theknightwho (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this "average person (that knows who he is)" is obviously a very useful source. I guess we ought to run all Wikipedia article lead sections by him, just to check they sound ok? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Collectively, they're a very useful source for establishing notability, yes. What's your point? Theknightwho (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * We're an encyclopedia. We're more interested in what the reasons for his notability will be in 50 years, or 200 years, time - not in what the media today decide will help sell copies.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're arguing it's simply not notable enough, despite him being universally described that way in the media? Theknightwho (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - "the media" are short term, largely profit-oriented, and essentially ephemeral. We try not to be.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, but on what basis is his status as a sex offender ephemeral in a way that his status as a former glam rock star is not? I could understand if it were just the 1999 child pornography convictions, but it is a sustained and repeated facet of who he is that occurred over a long period in multiple places, that - after the 2015 convictions - are known to have occurred during his musical career. Theknightwho (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He's "universally described in the media" as just a sex offender, yes? That's quite a strong claim. What's your time frame here: the last week? the past year? or, somewhat arbitrarily, "since around 2006"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say that, as I previously stated that "It is therefore incorrect to say that his fame for sexual offences is secondary to his fame as a musician, as knowledge of both is necessary to get a full picture of why he is famous today." I have no idea why that is being construed as me saying his convictions are more notable. Could you also please state what recentism issues you think are likely to arise here? Theknightwho (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So, is he is "universally described in the media" as a) a sex offender, b) a sex offender and former musician, c) something else? Am also still keen to get clarification on your use of the present tense. I guess we could move onto actual evidence for your claim after that. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He is universally described in media today as either a sex offender or a former musician and sex offender, and not a single article that I can find omits to mention it. To be honest, you've yet to actually state what your objection to my proposed amendment is here. Theknightwho (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said here yesterday, "I think it's fair that his musical achievements come first, as that is the correct chronological sequence. ... We ought assume that most readers are capable of reading an entire single paragraph, rather than trying to snatch at a headline in the first sentence." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And, as I said here yesterday, "you are simply ignoring the plain language used in MOS:FIRSTBIO about the opening sentence", and specifically where it says "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." Chronology is irrelevant to notability, given that both aspects of Glitter's life explain his current notoriety. Plus you clearly do think that readers need to know that he is a "former glam rock singer" from the outset, despite their ability to read as much in the rest of the paragraph, so you're going to need to explain why that is the only thing which should have such prominence, or I assume you agree that that should be removed? Theknightwho (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the opening sentence needs to mention he's a "former glam rock singer". I don't think that's unreasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So why, then, not the other equally notable aspect of his life? Theknightwho (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, starting to feel a little weary now. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there any chance of getting some fresh eyes here, rather than the usual suspects repeating the same arguments?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah. It's simple. He's known as a glam rocker and a paedo. Put both things in the first sentence and you're golden. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the proposed revision by Ghmyrtle is reasonable. Glitter is notable for two reasons and we shouldn't bury the lead. I think we can trust people to read two sentences in sequence. Compare Kevin Spacey, which is a more complicated example because although his career has (effectively) ended, he hasn't been convicted of any crimes. Mackensen (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This is exemplary of the problem nowadays that en masse, we as editors want to call out anything negative about a person or topic in the lede and as early as possible, without recognizing the impact on NPOV's requirement on tone in our writing. Pushing the convictions into the lede sentence and giving it seemingly equal weight creates a clear tone problem. There is no requirement that the lede sentence must include everything why a person is notable, though the lede overall should include all such facets. We don't assume people stop after one sentence of the lede, but instead read the whole thing, so there's no need to push as much as possible into that first sentence. Instead, as has been suggested, the lede probably should have a final paragraph devoted to the convictions, so that the first paragraphs cover why he was far more notable (his musicial career). --M asem (t) 13:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think if anything he's more notable as a high-profile paedophile. As a reasonable rule of thumb for a first sentence, ask yourself the question: using just fifteen words, how would I describe Garry Glitter to somebody who knew nothing about him. The subsequent sentences and paragraphs can unpack that. This sort of progressive "zooming out" is a feature of good lede writing (see Topic sentence), and avoids the potential POV problems of trying to emphasize (or de-emphasize) stuff by its placement. Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this is fundamentally what is at the heart of the dispute. I find the view that he is “far more notable” for being a musician completely alien. How much of this is down to generational differences in perception, I wonder? Theknightwho (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On a side note,, I’ve just spotted your edit summary and snorted into my tea. Theknightwho (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Ghmyrtle’s suggested rewording is excellent. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd go with Ghmyrtle's suggestion, slightly trimmed as follows : "Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944), known professionally as Gary Glitter, is an English former glam rock singer who achieved chart success in the 1970s and 1980s. His career ended after he was imprisoned for downloading child pornography in 1999, and was subsequently convicted of child sexual abuse and attempted rape in 2006 and 2015." At the time of his first arrest, his musical career was basically over and he was already parodying himself (eg: a bunch of Young Person's Railcard adverts c. 1991 showed Glitter with a caption "nice try") so it's easy to make a clear link between the musical career, which had a finite duration, and the criminal convictions, which are ongoing and creating more enduring coverage. So putting them on equal balance in chronological order, as separate sentences, seems about the right balance to me. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m happy with this, for the reasons you’ve given. Theknightwho (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've now modified the lead, per what appears to be a consensus here, and 's suggested wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

María Consuelo Porras
I came across the article because it had a cite error. I've corrected that now, but some of the claims that have been added (in particular by this edit) seem over the top. e.g. "Porras' tenure has been criticized by the left for what they consider a backsliding in the fight against corruption." and "Charges are based on ideological motivation and lack legal basis." (additions in italics). I've added some citation needed tags, but could someone with some idea of Guatemalan politics have a look? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for comments on criticism and controversies section
Transluded from SpaceX Starship's talk page:
 * Should the criticism and controversies section be integrated to the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not just write it as prose in the body?Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are times when a reader might want to - for whatever reason - know specifically about the criticisms and controversies about a subject, and might not wish to read the entire article to find that info buried throughout the text. I find it useful to have stuff like that separate; some think it violates neutrality, but readers should not be forced to read either accolades or criticism if they don't want to. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6033:FF4F:6CE5:7BA8 (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unsure this is a valid reason, we are not many things and one of those is a gutter press scandal rag.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said anything admit gutter press scandal rag? We shouldn't be including gutter press scandal content in articles at all. Having criticism separated into a section, that would otherwise be in the article but within the rest of the article text, doesn't turn us into a tabloid - it's all the exact same content, just organised differently. Also, to clarify, I was only talking about scholarly criticism on academic subjects...I would agree that for most BLPs having a section tempting drive by muckrakers to fill up with trashy scandalous gossip would not be wise. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6033:FF4F:6CE5:7BA8 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This essay might be useful: Criticism <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 16:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Cinadon36, how do we get a feeling of how well vetted a particular essay is? Anyone can create an essay and it's not a guideline, although I know some policies and guidelines make references to essays. Graywalls (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Le Pen
is reverting my additons to the lead of the Jean-Marie Le Pen article. Which include describing him as "far right", which is commonly used by sources eg, , as well adding mention of his conviction for holocaust denial, which is mentioned in the body. FMSky contends that these additions are undue. Unlike the French language version, the lead currently lacks mention of his convictions for racial hatred, which I think should be mentioned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree and I've started a discussion on the article's talk page asking FMSky to explain themselves. VR talk 19:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC about rapid-onset gender dysphoria
Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage. Crossroads -talk- 07:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Promotional editing problems at McGarry, Ontario
It seems like the article's been turned into a massively promotional article. The article also has numerous other problems on top of that. <b style="font-family:monospace,mono"> Invalid <sup style="color:#A60;margin-left:.25ex">OS <sub style="color:#06A;margin-left:-2.25ex">talk </b> 13:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Vacuous truth - Where and why did my edits to a talkpage disappear
Where are my edits on. They are not even in the history What is going on. I've been on wikipedia with good faith for some 20 years, and this never happened. I wrote what I thought should be an intuitive and clearer description of Vacuous truth, and it has been erased, with no trace. No mention on my talk page. No mention here? What is going on?

I also answered a false-truth page request on the talkpage (which had an answer that it was not needed), and pointed out that the Israeli court allowed a fallacy to be broadcast on TV even though the court agreed it was a fallacy, as long as the show was saying what was known to them as the truth, without the intention of lying. So, in some settings, truth can also be somewhere along a continuum and not as implied in the Greek philosophy's term of Logical Truth only true or false. I suppose someone read that wrong and thought I was bringing up something controversial or political. I was not. There is no one as far as I know who contested that decision about the SECOND court case against the TV station for slandering the officer, in which he lost. (The first court case about the shooting and killing itself has been heavily criticised.) My post was discussing the question and answer given on the talk page and only secondarily referring to the topic of Vacuous truth, so I would leave that revert be (and perhaps would even erase it myself after second thoughts of how it may be percieved.)

But why was my suggested edit to the article completely deleted? And why was there no-one informing me in any way that the edits in the talk page have been reverted. I do not see it in my alerts.

Reading user:MagneticInk about hostility on that talk page, I hope I didn't put myself in the line of fire. I had no idea about the previous arguments on that talk page and was just trying to use Wikipedia to understand what started off for me as an extremely convoluted philosophical paper by Eugene Mills. Once I spelled out what I understood by reading all the technical terms of logic and translated Vacuous truth into plain English, Eugene's sentence became clear to me, and I thought it would be of use to bring down my explanation and discuss it, before putting it up on the page itself. That (discussion) of course cannot happen if what I wrote has been deleted without a trace! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:David Eppstein explained it at the talk page saying "Please do not interject Israel-Palestine politics into a non-political page. It is completely inappropriate. See the following notice. As for your edits: they are in the history, [1]. Perhaps you were looking at the article history rather than the talk page history." Doug Weller  talk 17:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC) —

OK Thank you! Sorry for the trouble I caused. I don't know why the edits didn't show up in the app or web. Perhaps it was while it was being updated... פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

China COVID-19 cover-up allegations
Hi, I just moved China COVID-19 cover-up allegations from its previous title China COVID-19 cover-up. Can someone more experienced assess the neutrality dispute on the article? My specific problem is with the second section that seemingly use original research to conclude cover-up, based on reports that the Chinese government isn't cooperative on certain international investigations into COVID-19's originals.--GeneralBay (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we really need this as well as COVID-19 misinformation by China? Wikipedia gets more embarrassing every day. Alexbrn (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, we have a COVID-19 misinformation by XXX for dozens of countries. But that China COVID-19 cover-up was the title is a bit shocking. Thank you for moving that GeneralBay.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Anything verifiable at China COVID-19 cover-up allegations should be reproduced at COVID-19 misinformation by China and then the former can be AfD. Sennalen (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Something maybe worth noting is that the closer of the previous merge discussion may lack the necessary experience and did not notice that various oppose !votes were from mostly-leak-promotion accounts... — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably one to blank and redirect (I'd do it if I could face another round of lab-leak drama from the crazies, which I can't). Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The page has now been moved back to the non-neutral title by User:RenatUK. I suppose an WP:RM is the next step, but honestly I agree that merging or redirecting may be better than trying to turn this mess into a policy-compliant article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd almost say that moving it back to "allegations" is a proper adminstrative step to abide by NPOV. Nothing on that page has a confirmed (equating to a guilty conviction) of China's cover-up, though the allegations are clearly there, and so as it stands the title is a clear NPOV violation that needs to be dealt with. But I have a feeling an RM is the right step to make sure there's no further questions. --M asem (t) 05:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur with Masem. There's no good reason for Wikipedia to be taking a stance as to whether any given country is engaged in a COVID cover-up absent any sort of actual evidence. Especially when so much of the claims surrounding China have emerged as part of the hyperbolic American propaganda offensive against China that recently (yesterday) included calling China, and I quote, "A threat to the solar system". Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , please don't do that. Last time you tried those WP:DENY tactics, it caused a very serious altercation between and  . It is fine for you do that with 9/11 truthers who take up time and space arguing about the melting point of steel, but it's not okay for you to cause altercations between senior editors and administrators. I wonder if Barkeep49 even knew what ProcrastinatingReader was saving us junior editors from that time. How many junior editors got banned for violating the misapplication of the MEDRS that nearly forced a change to this perfectly fine policy? Francesco espo (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How many junior editors got banned ...? &larr; not enough, by the look of it. WP:CGTW applies. Alexbrn (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReaders "procedural" AfD was an attempt to stitch up any attempt to get the article deleted by deliberately giving a poor deletion rationale that people would obviously vote keep against. Barkeeps complaint was spot on. As for you, you are solely here to push fringe theories, and it would be better for everyone if you stopped editing entirely and stopped wasting peoples time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , what would have been the "right rationale" to convince those 80 editors to vote to delete it and why didn't you try that in the five months that the page was blanked? Kindly strike your uncivil comments above as you did with those other comments of yours. Thank you and good night. Francesco espo (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've opened a move request, see Talk:China_COVID-19_cover-up. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Harry Sassounian
Harry Sassounian was an American citizen of Armenian descent who was part of Armenian militants who killed Turkish diplomats for their denial of the Armenian genocide in the 1980s. A user called Grandmaster is accusing me of murder apologism because I:

1. called Sassounian an "American citizen" rather than labeling him as specifically Armenian,

2. mention Arikan's genocide denial (with a source) as the motivation for the killing which it clearly was.

Though the event was inherently political (genocide vs. its denial), Grandmaster reverts my edits and not only leaves out said information but also includes factual errors like double names, grammatical mistakes and a differentiation between the Armenian and Western Armenian languages, which does not technically exist. I would appreciate some third source looking into this instead of Grandmaster intimidating me by threatening to "report me" 217.149.166.11 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with calling Sassounian an American citizen, but this anonymous user made a bunch of strongly POV edits to this article. First, the article in LA Times does not call Arikan a denier. Second, political views of a person cannot be a justification for murder, and should not be stated in the lede as a matter of fact, considering that the court found that Sassounian "singled out the victim because of the victim's nationality". The facts in the article must be presented in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:VER, which I tried to explain to this user. In addition, this is also an arbitration covered area, of which I alerted the user. Grand  master  20:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now, Grandmaster is doing a smear campaign against me and further intimidating me with a so called sockpuppet investigation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ClassicYoghurt). I think this in itself is NPOV and unprofessional. Plus, the LA times article and the jury's statements must both be included. Grandmaster, who apparently heavily fights with other editors oftentimes, is not allowing new sources to be featured alongside others and keeps bad formatting and errors in the article. Please someone weigh in. --217.149.166.11 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A motive for a crime is a very pertinent thing to include in an encyclopedia, if it can be sourced reliably. Saying what that motive was does not entail endorsing the motive or the crime. Sennalen (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1
It has come to my attention that User:Joshua Jonathan may be acting against NPOV and have a conflict of interest in articles regarding Hinduism, specifically Advaita Vedanta. I have examples of this user being uncomprimising regarding these matters. It worth pointing out this users main interest is Buddhism per his user page.

This user seems to think because this user has a understanding of both Buddhism and Hinduism he can make comparative edits, that only seem for example to affect "Hindu" topics. For example, I have had drawn out discussions with this user on the Talk page about Hindu icon Adi Shankara, after this user blocked this user permanently. After blocking this user, Joshua Jonathan must of thought he could act unimpeded but I was there to address it, which only then it was subsequently changed. This user, for someone that is supposed to be acting in neutrality and in sensitive matters per wiki rules, changed Adi Shankaras religon to "Shaivism" which shows the unawareness and lack of sensivity when dealing with anothers religon. (for the record Adi Shankara is most definitley not a Shaivite.) Almost whenever this user works on a article within the scope of Advaita, the user makes comparions to Buddhism. Its worth noting this user has no interest in promoting articles to GA status, so why is this is so invested in topics like these, if not to improve it to wikipedia standard? The reason why I am finally reporting this user is because of the article Advaita Vedanta where this user is acting in a WP:OWN way, against Make technical articles understandable and against Good lede trying to making the lead confusing. This user does good work on other topics, but his lack of senstivity and unawareness makes me think this user is acting in a more meticulous, cunning way. I personally believe this user is a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim by insuating that Advaita and Hinduism by proxy is "influenced" or takes "influence" from Buddhism. Both religons strongly dispute this. What this user will do in rebuttal is confuse with excess amount of information that the user with a problem will be discouraged and dissuaded. This user abuses wikipedia warning templates in almost dogmatic way, making sure this user can act unimpeded. I received my first block (albeit a ban from the Adi Shankara page for a day) and my only goal is to improve wikipedia by elevating article to GA status. This user may be great dealing with ips on other Indian topics like hindu/buddhist empires, but when it comes to religon and philosophy, its hard NOT to see Neutral point of view being breached. Like I said from the start, this users main interest is Buddhism. JJNito197 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Forum shopping and you won't get a topic ban against anyone at WP:NPOV/N see this thread at WP:AN/I for discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are being aggressive. I was advised to come here. JJNito197 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but to bring up matters about content dispute with you and Joshua Jonathan having different opinions, not baseless personal attacks like I personally believe this user is a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim. –Austronesier (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * x2 ETA Forum shopping may have been somewhat unkind as the user was directed here and I should avoid WP:BITE but you should understand you won't get your interlocutor banned here for what he has done - even if you think the edits he made to the article were non-neutral. At this forum you can find people who might have subject expertise to attempt to discuss how to make the article more neutral. I am, myself, far more versed in Buddhism than Hinduism but from what I see the edits made by the are righteous and well sourced. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * thats my opinion, is that not allowed? If you look at the full paragraph, you can see it clearly. JJNito197 (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is not allowed. See WP:NPA. - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * U|MrOllie If it consititues an attack, please remove. It was my opinion. JJNito197 (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I did, in fact, review the diff containing the majority of JJ's edits on the article you linked to. They were a combination of minor edits, changes to wording that improved flow, and explicitly cited changes. In aggregate they represented a mechanical improvement to the article. If there's issues with neutrality I would suggest you'd be well advised to address either specific sources JJ used or specific sources you feel would better represent a neutral article here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the article is in breach of Make technical articles understandable and good lede. The citations do not have text where we can analyse the content, and seems to be excessive. Does or does it not at least LOOK like WP:OWN if the I had a problem with it and others did, but were reverted. Its not about specific edits on that page, I thought that was clear by the fact I wanted administrator attention, not dispute resolution. The way the article stands now is not the problem per se. JJNito197 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it does not look like WP:OWN it just looks like a routine attempt to improve an article. And it does not seem less legible to me examining the difference between them. The problem here is this: you have, as of today, asked on multiple locations to have this editor topic-banned on the basis of, frankly, nothing. In the process you violated WP:NPA. That's a more serious problem than claims of non-neutral editing that you refuse to back up with evidence as it isn't very collegial. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How does it look like an attempt to improve the article if the user has stated that the user has no intentions of elevating the article to GA status. I actually think your help regarding the matter has been cursory, seeing as you have not attempted to address the other points I made. There is a reason I made this, to bring attention to the matter. The fact that this user was banned when he was clearly acting in GOOD Faith is quite sad. He was proactive in many articles. JJNito197 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain why you keep bringing up some other editor who pulled a block. WP:OSE is usually used to refer to article content but in this case it applies. The onus on you is to demonstrate that JJ has been disruptive in some way, not to argue that he has been no less disruptive than some other editor who was blocked. And, regardless, you won't succeed in getting anybody blocked at WP:NPOV/N because that's not something this message board is used for. So, again, I'll ask: Do you have any evidence that these edits were non-neutral, that they misrepresented sources or that reliable sources contradicting these edits were removed? Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That user should not have been blocked permenantly thats why, and was reported by Joshua Jonathan. Joshua Jonathan has stated that Joshua doesn't care to bring the article to GA status so 1, why is Joshua reverting edits on that page, making it more confusing. 2. Why is that user oversourcing the article with no added textual reference so we can source the content and confirm the authenticity. 3. Why is Joshua adding dubious Buddhist terminology to explain Hindu oriented topics and 4. Why is WP:OWN'ing the article so others and myself cannot edit the article. JJNito197 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

this is beginning to look like a retaliatory action and lest you pull a WP:BOOMERANG I'd strongly suggest you should drop this line of approach. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are reading into something thats not there. I'm not particually wiki-comfortable so can you stop wiki-shaming me and address the points I am making. Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So here's my concern - I'll be very explicit as I don't want to "wiki-shame" you. You've put up, in multiple places, a request that an editor be topic-banned because of a dispute on this page. Your justification for said editor is a vague gesture toward a technical guideline whose interpretation is very open: Make technical articles understandable. When you've been asked for evidence of non-neutral editing you've declined to actually provide it. Meanwhile the edit log shows no indication of edit-warring or disruptive editing. However you've brought up, regularly, that an editor the editor you are in conflict with disagreed with previously ended up blocked and that you feel this was unjust. In aggregate this is not a good look. Now me? I care a lot about academically sourced content - it's something of a pet interest of mine - in addition I'm someone with a lot of background specifically in Buddhism and, from the Buddhism side of this equation, the edits I can see from the editor you are in disagreement with are good edits. Now as I've also mentioned I'm less expert in Hinduism than Buddhism. However that's why I keep asking you for supporting sources. You have yet to provide any. At the very least your requests to have this editor topic-banned are grossly premature and represent a fundamental failure of WP:AGF - a principle of Wikipedia far more important than Make technical articles understandable. My advice to you has been to drop the interpersonal conflict angle here which is very likely to backfire on you and to concentrate on constructively improving the article at the heart of this dispute. I'm not going to go around in circles with you any further. I've said my bit. Come back with some evidence that this article has been edited to be non-neutral or drop it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate what you wrote and have taken it into consideration. I am only highlighting that user because I was also blocked from that page albeit for a day, also by Joshua Jonathan's report. It is not a "boomerang" issue because I do not particually care about that user as a back and forth issue, but there are edits that for me (and others) that one cannot reconcile just as academic intrigue. Adi Shankara is one of the most esteemed Hindu figures and on the third paragraph there is paragraph that talks about Buddhism. I can't stress how offensive it was to Hindus before we resolved it on talk. There is another example, if we look at Ātman (Jainism), Ātman (Hinduism) and Ātman (Buddhism) they summarise each religon succinctly. However the Ātman (Hinduism) article is the only one that makes comparisons to Buddhism, which was added by Joshua Jonathon. This is not particually a problem, but if I dared TRY and remove that comparison I will no doubt recieve warnings and be shut down. This can understandably leads people to the conclusion that Buddhism topics is not under the same academic scrutinzation as Hindu topics, and thus make people powerless when dealing with certain topics. Like I said I do appreciate this response, but alas I feel that nothing can be done without making a screech and holler like I have done above. This may be an issue site wide, not just Joshua Jonathan. JJNito197 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to have to point out that by the definition you seem to be trying to employ, you have a COI in the topic area too. I think you need to read wp:rightgreatwrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * With the greatest respect, I am neither a Hindu nor Buddhist. I am interested in Hindu topics as a wikipedian, thats where it stops. Some userpages obscurate, others don't. JJNito197 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And there you have what others are saying to you, there is no evidence a COI with the user, as you have suggested, exists. You need more evidence than you have provided (as in some beyond "well I find their edits offensive"). If you do not drop this you might well get a ban, as this is all a bit wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This has changed since Simonm223's advice. It is no longer about Joshua Johnson specifically. Joshua also works on Buddhist topics, so I am not taking everything from the User page. I dont expect him to be banned or anything in particular. Something needs to be brought to the light somewhere or nothing changes. I need to be informed or advised on how we go from here. If one looks at the Adi Shankara talk pages, looks at the Advaita Vedanta talk pages and other things I had mentioned, they can get the gist of the complaint and where it stems from. I assure you I only came here after a period of time, and I didn't come here if I knew something wasn't problematic. JJNito197 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've already responded twice; twice my respons was not published due to the fast Forum-shifting. Quite annoying. But here's the response I intended to give:


 * Serious? You just mass-reverted my edits throughout the article on Advaita Vedanta diff, including three notes and five or six sources, because you object to this sentence in the lead:
 * This info is well-sourced and correct - core Advaita tenets - and a summary of sourced info in the article.
 * Regarding my neutrality, let's ask some other editors: . Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding my neutrality, let's ask some other editors: . Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's quite disruptive that an editor mass-reverts a large amount of edits because they oppose the inclusion of relevant info in the lead, info which describes two core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. Not of Buddhism, But of Advaita Vedanta. To quote Shankara, as quoted repeatedly in Advaita Vedanta: "I am other than name, form and action. My nature is ever free! I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman. I am pure Awareness, always non-dual."

- Adi Shankara, Upadesasahasri 11.7

For "self-luminous," c.q. "self-aware [awareness]", see Advaita Vedanta.

In response to JJNito's accusations:

Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1, why is Joshua reverting edits on that page, making it more confusing. - confusing to you? See the core tenets above.
 * 2. Why is that user oversourcing the article with no added textual reference so we can source the content and confirm the authenticity. - because someone keeps reverting well-sourced edits pwhich present core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. See also WP:VERIFIABILITY: if you're unwilling to check the sources, then indeed mass-revert is the easy way to push ypur point - but not the accepted way.
 * 3. Why is Joshua adding dubious Buddhist terminology to explain Hindu oriented topics - where exactly? Regarding the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta, that's an established fact in the academics; excluding this info would be a groos breah of NPOV. If you don't like that, see Talk:Muhammad/images.
 * and 4. Why is WP:OWN'ing the article so others and myself cannot edit the article. - because you're unwilling to accept WP:RS.

PS: my username is Joshua Jonathan, not "Joshua Johnson." Not reading anything? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  17:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Break for readability.

 * 1, confusing to you? See the core tenets above. - Its confusing (was further confusing) per the ambigious terms "pure Awareness" or "Consciousness" which does not adequetly summarize what Brahman is per Hinduism. Satchitananda is widley regarded as the most adequate summary. A
 * 2. because someone keeps reverting well-sourced edits pwhich present core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. See also WP:VERIFIABILITY: if you're unwilling to check the sources, then indeed mass-revert is the easy way to push ypur point - but not the accepted way. - How does one check the sources without having access to a compendium of books - having a note to explain it in the sentence like you have done, albeit not consistently, is what you should do. Especially about that cite you added to the Buddhist "two truths doctrine" that I cant read. Have you not heard of Parabrahman or Nirgna and Saguna Brahman?
 * 3. here exactly? Regarding the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta, that's an established fact in the academics; excluding this info would be a groos breah of NPOV. If you don't like that, see Talk:Muhammad/images. - Disengenious, the Advaita talk page is literally a back and forth with a self proclaimed Buddhist about a Buddhist word 'Svasaṃvedana' that you inserted in the lede.
 * and 4. because you're unwilling to accept WP:RS - I am interested in bringing articles to GA status, you are not. I fully value RS but your RS seem to be sporadic at best.

Regarding that 'PS: my username is Joshua Jonathan, not "Joshua Johnson." Not reading anything?' I could possibly be going blind for all you know. Best JJNito197 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You keep bringing up this 'GA status' thing like it is some kind of badge of shame. No one is required to participate in the article ranking process. MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, but don't act like you are trying to improve the article earnestly. If you were trying to improve the article earnestly you would attempt to bring the article to GA status. I think you forget that Joshua is the most active user on that page. JJNito197 (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this is simply wrong. I earnestly try to improve articles and don't care one whit about GA status.  Your priorities are not everyone's priorities.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No it is not, there is no requirement to do more than making an article better. Some do this by looking at grammar and spelling, others by adding snippets of information.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay I take that back. I am quite proud of bringing articles to GA and the GA award is there to show that great effort has been made on the article to improve the readability etc. JJNito197 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect many of us have worked on articles that have achieved GA status. So I am unsure what point you are trying to make.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan said I don't take RS seriously. JJNito197 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So? The fact you have worked on GA articles does not mean you are free from bias or cannot make mistakes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have to take RS seriously to bring articles to GA :-) JJNito197 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this needs to be closed, as it is going nowhere,faxt.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and JJNito197, the fact that you describe this as potential bias against Hinduism is troubling to me. Without substantively weighing in on the disputed edits, I see nothing that comes close to fitting that description. Dumuzid (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say Advaita Vedanta but Hinduism is more knowlegable. If you change that more specifically it would help. But it's not just me, it's mulitple people. This user on Advaita talk says it the placement of Buddhism in origins section is misleading because it makes it feel that Advaita originated from Buddhism, and this does not reflect mainstream scholarly consensus this user says Joshua Johnson needs to stop inserting his biased views and opinions in the introduction of article. Joshua Johnson has constantly shown an biased against Advaita tradition and has filled the article with opinionated controversial information and this user says the edits are unusual descriptions. Of course, this is only and handful and it looks as though nothing can be done, but I fear I will have to come back here in the future if nothing changes. JJNito197 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You fail to note that the reported user seems to agree with the first edit. I am done here, but you have convinced me you are not operating in good faith. Dumuzid (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not a Hindu. That simply shows what I am thinking. Kind regards, JJNito197 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * ad1: my description is sourced; yours is an opinion, as long as you don't provide sources.
 * ad2: I provided notes with quotes; you removed them. All the sources are accessible via Google Books; some I own myself, like Deutsch.
 * ad3: "back and forth" is agross exaggeration, and not an excuse to mass-revert well-sourced info.
 * ad4: your RS seem to be sporadic at best - get real; what sources do you know of? Some of my sources:
 * Comans, Michael (2000), The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
 * Dasgupta, Surendranath (1975), A history of Indian philosophy. Volume 2, Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
 * Davis, Leesa S. (2010), Advaita Vedānta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual Inquiry, Continuum International Publishing Group
 * Deutsch, Eliot (1973), Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0-8248-0271-4
 * Mayeda, Sengaku (2006), "An Introduction to the Life and Thought of Sankara", in Mayeda, Sengaku (ed.), A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120827714

NB: Koller and Meno were alredy used in the lead, but misrepresented. See also User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources for the kind of sources that I use. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC) PS: diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Today is Pearl Harbor Day, the 80th anniversary to be sure.  May suggest, J. J. Nito, that you order your warplanes back before they reach metaphoric Hawaii and commemorate the day with peace and goodwill?  I have known Joshua Jonathon for a long time on Wikipedia.  I have found them to be sincere, upright and honest.  I have found JJ to be a part of a consensus that we are all human, and like humans everywhere, indelibly African in our blood and bones.  That fact predates both Buddhism and Hinduism. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a flippant remark that JJNito197 accuses Joshua Jonathan (JJ) of being a pro-Buddhist and anti-Hindu POV pusher, with Advaita being its proxy. Taking a glimpse at the Talk:Adi Shankara and Talk:Advaita Vedanta, I could see the dispute is mostly frivolous, from linking to self-published sources (with its author not being a scholar), to mass reverts. I could also find "sources" that state philosophies of Hinduism, Buddhism, Yoga, Vedas and the Gita came from Saint Thomas (this for example, from a pastor). So one should really be careful on what sources are scholarly and what isn't. Making a significant contribution to Advaita Vedanta requires one to have an understanding of the nuances in the subject, and I believe JJ is well-read in that regard; that's the reason why I sought the assistance of JJ in that GA nomination request, which you were referring to multiple times throughout the discussion. It is my interest to make the Advaita article a GA, and other editors don't necessarily need to possess such an interest, and that apathy doesn't make him a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim. I also found JJ to be approachable when it comes to consensus if your arguments and sources that you cite in support of that are of eminence. Thanks, WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 20:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I have to agree with JJNito that Joshua Jonathan's edits are overly scholarly & obfuscatory. The lede has become much more confusing from one year ago. 45.78.192.243 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * overly scholarly & obfuscatory: Please have a look at WP:OVERSIMPLIFY - [articles should not give] readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't. And, this is precisely suitable for Advaita Vedanta article given the subject it deals with. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 01:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Overly scholarly, that's a new objection on me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Wikipedia does not suffer from being too scholarly in general. I think greater academic rigor would be a good thing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Update I no longer have an issue with Joshua Jonathan's edits. I understand now it is in good faith and Joshua Jonathan is not at fault for expanding and giving definitions that the user is familiar with, understandably, translating terminology that would otherwise be unknown to the wider public. I agree with that user that translating words from Sanskrit (and translating concepts regardless) is problematic in itself, given the multiple defintions for multiple things. I also know that we do disagree on certain things but we can resolve them in the talk page in a forthright, non-hostile, academic manner. I advise if anybody has a problem with any edits to go to the talk page and bring up the topic for discussion. JJNito197 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with User:WikiLinuz in that that great attention should be made to verify the academic rigor of a source presented. The more scholarly a source is, the more reliable it tends to be, and I think that User:Joshua Johnathan is doing well in that regard. I think a good job at WP:CONSENSUS was made at Talk:Adi_Shankara in regards to contested terminology, and we as editors should work together in that regard to make such articles represent the consensus of academic scholars. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You advise that, do you? That advice only seems to be news for you. DeCausa (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not speaking for myself mind. JJNito197 (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation
There is a discussion about whether the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation article is neutral in the way it presents what it does. A COI editor and one other editor have a longstanding back and forth.

The question is, should a hisotrical preservation group be presented as an org that preserves an area, or as an org that obstructs development, or both? And if both, is the "History" section non-neutral in its presentation of the "obstructing" angle? The RS used to make the case aren't particularly clear, from what I can see.

Right now, the lead is written as a compromise, but the COI editor still believes it is too heavy on the criticism.

It would be great if other editors could take a look. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be both or neither.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you clarify which side the "COI editor" is on (no need to say who they are, but it would help with proving a clearer understanding of the situation..My suspicion on a topic like this one is that any editor pushing one of those two positions in particular is almost certain to be likely to have a COI, whether they've stated so or not..yet I think the other side might be more likely to disclose such potential conflict. So I'm curious..:) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:907D:4451:8F72:3CE1 (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the COI editor is DVillageP11, and they are arguing for framing the org as "preserving" historical sites rather than "obstructing" or "blocking", development and they are opposed to the term NIMBY being applied. Hope that helps. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Professor Michael Yeadon's Wikipedia page
I'm a regular user of Wikipedia and have also made donations over the years in order to support this "source of information".

Today, I decided for the first time to take a look at the Wikipedia page for Professor Michael Yeadon and I was appalled by the totally biased and inflammatory tone of the content of that page. And it now makes me doubt the "facts" which I have read on other Wikipedia pages.

I am beyond confused why Wikipedia has chosen to completely discredit and print false information about Prof Yeadon, just because his views on Covid currently differ from some other scientist's views regarding this virus.

Firstly, Prof Yeadon is NOT an anti-vaxxer. If you actually took the time to listen to his reports, read his papers, etc., he very clearly states that he is NOT anti-vaccinations and never has been. And having worked for Pfizer in the past (a creator of a range of vaccinations) Prof Yeadon was very much in favour of the creation and roll out of vaccinations. So, you have printed a complete falsehood quoting him to be an anti-vaxxer and I would be very careful about continuing to state that piece of information on Prof Yeadon's page.

Prof Yeadon is however, critical of the current Covid vaccination roll out, and again he has very clearly explained and reported why he feels critical of it - he makes sure his views and opinions and reports are all backed with scientific data (which you clearly have chosen not to research, read, listen to, or publish).

Whether you like his views or fact based opinions or not, that does not allow Wikipedia to publish blatantly biased information about a person which completely discredits their wealth of knowledge, experience in the relevant field, expertise and decades of relevant research into viruses and respiratory diseases. It astounds me that Wikipedia believes that to be acceptable.

If you're not aware of the fact, uptake of any vaccinations (including the Covid vax) is entirely voluntary in the UK. It is a personal health/medical choice - whether Wikipedia or anyone else likes that fact or not. It does NOT automatically make someone an anti-vaxxer if they choose not to receive a Covid vaccination. It is exercising a personal right regarding their health, a choice which we all currently have in this country. If the Govt feels that situation should change, then no doubt it will make the change. Until that happens, we all have a right to make choices about personal medical intervention.....or not and NOT to be judged or criticised on exercising those rights.

There are many other incorrect "facts" in your Wikipedia page regarding Prof Yeadon, which I simply don't have the time to bring to your attention. It's YOUR job (as it is for any journalist worth his/her salt) to ensure the information you print in your pages are factual and unbiased, not mine!

Safe to say, I will never be donating to Wikipedia again if this genuinely is that standard of "real" facts that you aspire to.

Very disappointed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.151.230.178 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be the same Michael Yeadon who is "The ex-Pfizer scientist who became an anti-vax hero" (Reuters)? or the Michael Yeadon who is an "Antivaxer with eye on Lib Dems plans resort for unjabbed" (The Times)? All anti-vaxxers say they aren't anti-vaxxers. I think your problem is likely to be with reality not Wikipedia, and that being the case then yes you will be disappointed. Maybe try Conservapedia? Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * And if your donations are dependent on specific content, then they are not donations, they are attempted bribes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It truly is amazing how many IP addresses seem to be used by long-term donors. Theknightwho (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations and Jeffrey Epstein relations
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, regarding edits made at this article. Thank you.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Lost Spirits
Following a request at WP:RFPP, I semi-protected the above on seeing long-term edit warring and promotional content. Some checking of what would be appropriate content would be appreciated. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

HM Prison Edinburgh: Craig Murray
I am referring the entry on Craig Murray as per the discussion on the talk page: User:NSH001 refuses to accept that his version of the text about Murray is biased, goes beyond the facts and indulges in obvious speculation. Mark Hamid (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No other inmate's circumstances are treated in the way being insisted upon here. Mark Hamid (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Everything I wrote is fact-based, with one possible proviso. I referred to the fact that the case was heard without a jury (and that's still a fact), the implication being that no jury would convict on the evidence presented; thus in effect the case was rigged to get the desired verdict. It remains my view that the case was rigged – and not just the absence of a jury. However, I am willing to consider taking that part out for now, as it could be regarded as OR. I also note that the ECHR, when it eventually gets round to hearing the appeal, is quite likely to comment on the absence of a jury, and the numerous other judicial anomalies involved. --NSH001 (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's best to keep discussions all in one place, so I have moved the folowing from Talk:HM Prison Edinburgh. --NSH001 (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Why not just stick to simple facts? "Found guilty of contempt of court for publishing information about the Alex Salmond trial." Schazjmd  (talk)  18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Publishing reports on a court case is not a crime. It's what journalists do as a routine part of their work. As it happens, Murray's court reports are complete (except when he was barred from entry to the court), scrupulously accurate and written in clear, elegant English. If you overlook the claim of "jigsaw identification", then you're not sticking to the facts. --NSH001 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It remains my view that the case was rigged. Nobody cares what your opinion is on this case. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On the ‘lack of a jury’ point, plenty of inmates in Scottish prisons are in there following conviction by a judge sitting without a jury, but - as per established practice - Wikipedia entries don’t note this. There is no right to jury trial in Scotland, so it’s not appropriate go into the judicial process, even if you personally feel it was prejudicial. Mark Hamid (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is bizarre. I offer to make a concession, and you are both responding as if I had said the opposite. Mark, could you please show me the evidence for your claim that "there is no right to jury trial in Scotland"?
 * NSH001, if you are under the misapprehension that blatant editorialising like this is remotely compliant with WP:NPOV policy, you are very much mistaken. As Schazmid says above, all we need to report in this article is that Murray was imprisoned there. We say nothing about the merits or otherwise of the conviction, since that is entirely off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there is no editorialising there, other than possibly the point I've already mentioned (and that can be dealt with, if necessary). We do say what the inmate was incarcerated for. Unfortunately, in this case, because the charge of "jigsaw identification" is so rare, some explanation is necessary of what it is, and that makes the entry longer than would normally be expected. --NSH001 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Murray's article doesn't even mention "jigsaw identification". Why does it need to be explained in a list of notable inmates? Schazjmd   (talk)  22:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Murray's article doesn't even mention "jigsaw identification".". That's bizarre. It's what he's imprisoned for, FFS. I've said this before, but can I just remind you all that without "jigsaw identification", there is and was no contempt of court. Someone should correct it ASAP. Admittedly I haven't looked at it for a long time – it's not the sort of article I enjoy working on. I hope someone else will do it, but if necessary, I'll do it myself. --NSH001 (talk)
 * He's imprisoned for contempt of court. It's contempt of court because a judge made that ruling. Rightly or wrongly, it is what it is. The list of notable inmates is not the place to argue the case or even to explain it. "Found guilty of contempt of court for publishing information about in connection with the Alex Salmond trial." suffices. (I tweaked my suggestion.) Schazjmd   (talk)  23:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is clear editorialising per MOS:EDITORIAL. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The crime was "contempt of court"; "jigsaw identification" is not a crime known to the law of Scotland (and don't ask me to prove a negative). As for proof that there is no right to trial by jury in Scotland, that "the procurator fiscal is the master of the instance" is a long-established precedent for which, again, you will find no recent contradictory case law.  The PF chooses between summary (judge, sheriff or justice sitting alone) or solemn procedure (judge or sheriff with a jury) - the exceptions are those limited cases where statute law requires a particular approach (eg. solemn for murder trails) and anyone with professional experience of the Scots legal system will tell you the same. Mark Hamid (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your comment that "Found guilty of contempt of court for publishing information about in connection with the Alex Salmond trial" suffices, I wonder if it is proper to link to the BLP of Salmond when he is know for far more than this trial, and whether a better / more appropriate wikilink might be HM Advocate v Salmond? Perhaps as
 * Found guilty of contempt of court in connection with HM Advocate v Salmond

Thoughts? 172.195.96.244 (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, 172.195.96.244, that is better. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have edited to introduce this NPOV brief summary version. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The wording as just amended reads: "A former ambassador to Uzbekistan found guilty of contempt of court in connection with HM Advocate v Salmond." This is inadequate in a number of ways: <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  15:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All of the entries apart from Craig Murray's give some kind of indication of why the incarceration was remarkable.
 * Although factually correct, the charge of contempt of court is very generic and could encompass a very wide range of acts. Therefore, the current wording is very uninformative. The specific here is that Murray was alleged to have published information which could have been used, along with information available elsewhere, to identify the complainants in the Salmond case, so-called "jigsaw identification", a phrase used conspicuously about Murray's case. A fuller treatment elsewhere would mention that the judge applied a very broad interpretation of "information available elsewhere", so that it included knoweledge held by those related to or work colleagues of the complainants, and that part of Murray's defence was that there was no evidence that anyone who hadn't known who the complainants were anyway or had identified them using the greater detail provided by the mainstream media had identified them using the information provided by him.
 * Identifying the Salmond trial using the label "HM Advocate v Salmond" is entirely unhelpful. Even anybody suspecting that the Salmond in question is former First Minister of Scotland would have to follow the wikilink to check that the trial is the one they suspect it is.
 * I disagree. The descriptions for the other "notable inmates" are just basic facts, same as Murray. It appears that having a Wikipedia article is the criterion for being listed as a "notable inmate" in HM Prison Edinburgh, not that there was anything unique or notable about their incarceration. The "fuller treatment" of the charges and identification of Salmond is at the linked Craig Murray article (where it belongs). The prison article is not the place to argue Murray's conviction, as and  appear to want to do.  Schazjmd   (talk)  16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The descriptions in the other cases, may be "basic facts", but they are basic facts from which some kind of sense of why the person is being mentioned may be gained. At the moment, the way the entry on Murray reads is that he is being mentioned because the fact of a former ambassador being imprisoned is notable. In fact, until events surrounding the case, including possible tie-ins with attempts to prosecute Julian Assange, are clarified, I think it would be better, for the moment at least, to omit any mention of Craig Murray's incarceration in the current article. At what point do facts stop being "basic"? Wouldn't that be very subjective in the present case? I'm sure that the other cases mentioned could be stripped down to even more basic facts too.
 * Please keep your opinions about what other editors "appear to want to do" and other products of your imagination off the talkpage noticeboard. Note that I did write "a fuller treatment ELSEWHERE."
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  17:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an almost-article of faith amongst some sections of the crank left that Nicola Sturgeon is a power-mad dictator wanting to censor any criticism of her and the Salmond rape trial (and Murray's contempt conviction) were part of that (and, as an aside, there's a weird overlap between the people who think the average trans woman is a sex pest and those who think all of Salmond's accusers were lying harridans, but I digress) . In reality, however, Murray was warned that his publishing could jeopardise the trial, but still went ahead; it's the exact same thing Tommy Robinson got done for, but the article for HMP Hull doesn't try to paint him in a good light. Sceptre (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. However, bear in mind WP:Talk Page Guidelines: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects)." I shouldn't think that noticeboards, including the current one, should be treated much differently. In addition, I think that there are errors of fact or misrepresentations in what you wrote which would be WP:BLP issues. Either provide (accurate) sources justifying writing that "Murray was warned that his publishing could jeopardise the trial, but still went ahead", delete it or amend it so that it is not a misrepresentation or, at very best, misleading. Contrary to what your statement implies, Murray's contempt of court conviction had nothing to do with potentially prejudicing Salmond's trial.
 * As I wrote before, I'm not in favour of currently including Craig Murray in the list of notable inmates. If he is listed, though, the entry should be reasonably informative.
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  21:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding Sceptre's comments, it may be useful to refer to the court's sentencing statement and one of Murray's blog articles. The blog article contains a facsimile of the 20 January 2020 letter sent by the Crown Office which requests the removal of the 18 January 2020 article "Yes Minister Fan Fiction", which the Crown Counsel viewed as containing a potential contempt of court, and that Murray refrain from publishing anything further which may be prejudicial to the Salmond trial. Something the letter did not request was that Murray refrain from publishing anything about the case altogether. Although other articles relating to the Salmond affair were removed from the blog, the "Yes Minister Fan Fiction" one remains. At the contempt trial, Murray faced two charges, that he had impeded or prejudiced the Salmond trial by his reporting and analysis of events leading up to it and that he published material which could have led to the identification of one of the complainants. The first charge seems to have related to two articles, one published on 23 August 2019 and the 18 January 2020 one mentioned in the Crown Office letter. The sentencing statement outlines the reasons that the judges rejected the arguments supporting that charge. Perhaps of note given comments made above is that the sentencing statement uses the phrase "jigsaw identification", a use being to differentiate Murray's offence from that of Yaxley-Lennon (Rommy Robinson).
 * Sceptre might like to note that, for me at least, if a Google search is done on the terms "Sturgeon" and "dictator", the first result returned sounds decidedly un-leftwing, crank or otherwise.
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  17:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

GitHub - Controversies section
See Talk:GitHub/Archive 1 and please weigh in. Also the user who reverted my removal advised me to post here, so I guess no need to spam them with NPOVN-notice. 🙏 -- Champs65 (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Long quotes and insignificant details in HK politician biographies
Long quotes, beliefs, and random details have been recently inserted into Hong Kong government biographies. It is not due weight to include selective quotes of what politicians say in press conferences, right? Or to add random details mentioned in half a sentence in a news article?

The later parts of the Carrie Lam biography are basically only quotes. For example: "Lam also stated that "So if you asked me today about what I said in 2017, 2018, 2019 as chief executive, I can tell you it's meaningless."" Or, "Lam retorted that "There's no definition of what a lavish dinner is. There's no definition of what is being unreasonable. At the end of the day, it's a matter of judgement."" Is this really notable?

Entire paragraphs of Chris Tang are quotes. Especially under "Controversies and views" (isn't that a weird grouping, so views to automatically be controversies?).

Tan Yueheng and Dong Sun has random stuff like "In January 2022, Tan was one of three people, out of 90 legislative council members, who took his oath using Mandarin rather than the local dialect of Cantonese", even though this random detail isn't the focus of any major newspaper articles or other media attention.

Take Gary Chan, which has stuff like "In January 2022, Chan did not raise his right hand when taking the oath while being sworn in as a legislative councillor."

Maybe someone trying to paint a picture that is not even given by the media for people who already have a (deserved) negative light, I don't know. But this trivia distracts from the substance of what these people have done. Shouldn't these be cut down to what newspapers and books actually summarize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.110.8 (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, some those quotes sound inappropriate per WP:QUOTEFARM, particularly the Carrie Lam ones. I suggest going ahead and removing the ones you believe are unnecessary. If you meet opposition, the best thing to do is to start a thread on the article talk page asking other editors to discuss it with you. The details about swearing oaths in a certain way may deserve inclusion if they've been treated as noteworthy by reliable sources. So the main question is whether those details are adequately sourced in a way that demonstrates weight for inclusion. Jr8825  •  Talk  01:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Chevy Equinox
Hello! So while taking a look at the article Chevy Equinox to see if there's been any information added regarding an electric version of the vehicle (since Chevy recently announced an electric version of it and 2 other of it's vehicles) and I saw that there has been some discussion of the articles state as being neutral. The discussion is years old, however the issue may not have been addressed still as there are still tags on the article, one regarding the neutrality, and the other regarding it possibly being read like an ad. I would like some assistance in determining if these tags are still valid or if they've been addressed but not removed. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 20:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , the dispute appears to be one over published EPA MPG figures versus ones obtained by various reviewers. I would remove that whole section and the tags. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Kurds
Kurds

A flag is used as an ethnic flag of the Kurds. However, there are no sources proving it's ethnic flag of the Kurds. Additionally, the flag belong to the Iraqi Kurdistan. Requesting someone with NPOV to inspect the case which I believe is clearly against the Wikipedia rules. If the source doesn't say it's ethnic flag of the Kurds, adopted by all Kurds, then it's not. SkyEditor85 (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, I am extremely neutral as I am mostly ignorant towards the controversy on this topic. It's an interesting question. Can we compare it to British people, which is displaying the Flag of the United Kingdom? I have doubts that sources say that the flag of the UK is accepted by the British people as their cultural flag. I've viewed a few other ethnic group articles and most don't seem to have flags on them. A glance over the sources at Flag of Kurdistan seem to *hint* that the flag represents Kurdish people but I did not find any explicit statements saying so. MarshallKe (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * — That is to say, the article's opening statement,, appears to be unsupported by its citations? (I am ignorant in this matter as well.) —2d37 (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Flag of Kurdistan article shows it is not just the flag of "Iraqi Kurdistan" (i.e. Kurdistan Region), but could definitely benefit from some improvement in its sourcing. I don't think this is an NPOV issue so much as an issue of better sourcing required in the flag's article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Women's Refugee Commission
Hi all. I came across this article while watching recent changes and it seems to have some serious NPOV and COI problems. It has a lot of promotional sounding wording, and one recent edit added content copied directly from the WRC website. I almost exclusively do simple vandalism cleanup here, and I'm not really comfortable tackling an article that looks to me like it probably needs a substantial rewrite. Anyone feel like taking a look? Squeakachu (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, this one needs some work. I will go through it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamils
Multiple parts of the lead of the Sri Lankan Tamils specially the final paragraph contain opinion pieces (Eg-1 2 and other less-reliable/biased sources which appears to have been added as to promote the specific viewpoint of an editor. I Think the entire final para is big statement of an editor and the poor sourcing mean it should be removed. -175.157.116.205 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship NPOV request
It is a very unusual request, but I want to know if the article has derailed way out of course or not. I am a main editor at the article, and I just want to make sure that I haven't done anything too biased, and there isn't any content dispute on the article right now. Another reason is the divisiveness of the article: Starship is considered from scams to game-changing by multiple reliable sources, and you know how it goes with things related to Elon Musk. Thanks User:Giraffer for pointing this out. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The tone is more optimistic than I would have written, but we'll know in a year or two if that was warranted. Sennalen (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Related: Talk:SpaceX_Starship CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is now going on a GAR about neutrality now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"White demographic decline"
I'm not sure what I'm looking at, but an article beginning with the following words doesn't read neutral to me:

"White demographic decline, also known as White decline, is the persistent and pervasive fall and displacement of White people [...]"

Yes, the sentence continues with "as a percentage" et cetera, but this can surely be written differently, so that it doesn't look as weirdly biased as quoted above. The article is from 2021-12-12, just a month old now, and probably needs attention if even the first sentence is written so badly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The entire article is a pile of crap. It takes as read that 'whiteness' is some sort of biological attribute for a start, ignoring almost everything we know about 'race' and ethnicity, and goes on from there. It is riddled with WP:OR, and clearly written with an agenda - not a pleasant one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've checked again, it's from 2020-12-12, so 1 year and 1 month. Misread that. The strange wording appears to come from Special:Diff/1036396656, introduced by who I've now notified of this discussion and whom I'll sternly warn to adhere to WP:NPOV. They're inactive, though, for 4 months now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the article to the state before 's edits, which may very well still have issues but is at least not as blatantly biased. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I should note that you've deleted approximately 85% of the article's page size in doing that. I agree that there are numerous WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues, but that seems like a very drastic change to revert some comparatively minor additions. I would expect that the editor who seems to have been making gradual additions to the page from May last year will revert your edits, as a hunch. Theknightwho (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to have a very large amout of overlap with White flight, maybe redirect there? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They're different concepts, really, and while they obviously overlap in some contexts they don't always. The size of the page was several miles over the line of WP:TOOMUCH, though, due to detailed statistics, graphs and graphics being provided for loads of different countries. Completely unnecessary and an obvious breach of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, when that information can be discerned from the relevant demographics pages. There was also a lot of exposition of what you could just read in the tables, too. If it's particularly notable in a particular locale, then it should be noted on that place's page. Otherwise, hammering home the point in this level of detail veers strongly into WP:OR due to WP:SYNTHESIS. Theknightwho (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As an example of that, loads of sections prior to the cut-back drew heavily implied causal links between anti-discrimination legislation and white demographic decline (e.g. Australia, the UK), or attempts to obscure white demographic decline (e.g. France). This is self-evidently WP:SYNTH. Theknightwho (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking through the diff, the drastically shorter restored version looks a much more stable base to work with than the article as it was. Jr8825  •  Talk  05:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Does splitting off of the "controversies" part of the main pages on the NSA, CIA, and FBI raise neutrality concerns?
The discussion between me and about this at Talk:National Security Agency is not going anywhere, so I'd welcome input from others, especially from experienced editors. Until a few days ago the main page for the NSA included extensive information about controversies, and the TOC listed 13 of them, so that any interested reader would quickly find what they wanted. Now there's nothing more than a link to a newly created "List" article that contains that information. I later noticed that a while ago the same editor had done the same on the main pages for the CIA and the FBI. In all cases, coverage of these controversies in the news media and other sources has been extensive, and there's been a lot of public interest. My concern is that a reader could easily get the impression that the main page has been sanitized by relegating criticism to a subsidiary page. I assume good faith, am not claiming that there was any intent of bias, and take Thewolfchild at their word that their only reason for doing this was to shorten the rather long main page. But it seems odd that, if it's really necessary to shorten these articles, sections weren't removed that are much less likely to be of interest to readers, such as NSA for example. NealKoblitz (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It does raise NPOV concerns. Especially so given that despite removing ~50,000 bytes of content, no discussion about the split has been sought, and no attempt has been made to follow CORRECTSPLIT – instead the section has simply been deleted and pasted into a separate article with no summary. Splits on highly visible pages such as this should certainly have discussion first. I should restore the status quo prior to this bold edit, until there is consensus, or not, for removing this whole section of content. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 21:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I normally say that "controversy" sections should not exist; they just lower the bar for putting heckling and POV crap into the article. But in this case, these contain a huge amount of central and important content; IMO they should not be removed. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * this isn't about the existence of "controversy" sections, just that the size of one became quite large, in an already very large article, and the section was split off to it's own page. No content was lost or changed in the move. -  wolf  23:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody is claiming any content was removed, but that the removal of that content from the main article creates NPOV concerns. This seems fair, given that readers will naturally land on the main page first. Theknightwho (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As per Wp:STRUCTURE, to maintain NPOV we should avoid because this can . Rather than separating off into a separate article (which would intensify the NPOV problem here), restoring NPOV would entail  Most of this content should be incorporated into the “History” section. If there is a size issue it can then be dealt with in the normal way by trimming of excessive detail from all sections. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 08:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I answered (and received responses) in two places. Briefly, I am more more focused on the informativeness of the article (which POV can affect) than the higher goal of NPOV. Either way, to avoid duplication, I'll move to just the talk page of the article. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The key is proper summarization. As long as the main article covers the fact that these controversies exist, and gives a synopsis of what they consist of… I don’t have a problem with placing the details of the various controversies in a sub-article (or series of articles). Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Blueboar. While controversies are noted in the lead, the section itself still needs a summary. If the split remains and no one else does it, then I'll write one. -  wolf  14:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There actually appears to be a summary, that was initially and inadvertently moved in the split. If that's not sufficient, it can always be improved, but just wanted to note that a summary need not continue to be an issue. -  wolf  14:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong no. Contrariwise, NOT having such sections woulc be aeggregious violations of somethubg of a far more fundamental nature than applies to NPOVl concerns, though I lamely confess I  cannot think of the word forv it at this time. It would br dangerously close to censorship and/or suppression of knowledge to have all of the controversies scattered and buried throughout the rest of the  article. Furthermore, except for the agencies themselves, there IS NO "POV" controversy that even exists here. It is universally in ALL of our best interests to have this information as easily accessed as possible while adhering to all the rest of the P&Gs. These are exceedingly powerful government agencies, and the perpetuation of knowlege over wrt to controversial things they've done is how government is kept honest in free societies, and is one of the critical factors in in ensuring free societies REMAIN free. For, if the CIA or FBI & knew that  they could do anything in the world that they want and that its reporting would be minimal to non existent, they would be playing hard and fast with the rules whenever they wanted. Including said sections on said types of articles is how these groupsare kept honest and within the rule of law we've placed them under. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6CB7:62BD:5DB:4891 (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * As a comment (ignoring the split), I'd question if each of those sections in the current controversies section are really notable controversies or just things editors believe should be classified as controversies. Some of them are, no question, but there are a few that seem like "I dislike the NSA so I think this needs to be called out". This is the general problem with "controversy" sections in general, as they tend to attract any negative commentary that editors can find about an entity. This doesn't mean the section should be dismantled, but it needs trimming to key ones (eg I would definitely agree the warrentless wiretaps should stay, while the AT&T one seems iffy). Also, in this particular case with a wholly separate notable topic "Mass Surveillance in the United States", some of those can be discussed there. --M asem (t) 18:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, splitting them out to a separate article without leaving a summary in the main article creates a problem with NPOV. On the other hand, many things in List of NSA controversies should not be in a controversy section or article. They are just operations (see National Security Agency) or important passages of its history (see National Security Agency), and they belong in the main body of the NSA article, possibly with pointers to other articles which go more in-depth for specific operations or topics. MarioGom (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Moving controversies to a separate article without summaries is obvious WP:POVFORK. Relegating them to a controversies section is less egregious but still not good NPOV WP:STRUCTURE. The ideal would be to anchor them all with summaries in the History and Operations sections, in chronological order alongside the uncontroversial aspects. Sennalen (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I see this conversation is ongoing on the article talk page, so I hope those editors are still watching here. This is the same issue that is occurring on media company articles; I made a comment on Wikipedia Talk:Criticism regarding this.  I see this argument has occurred on the CIA talk archive as well.  Perhaps a unified strategy can be generated for information-related organizations or something, so that this argument doesn't have to continue recurring.  SmolBrane (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Not Necessarily, splitting it into a separate article is fine if the section for NSA, CIA, and FBI controversies makes it so their respective articles are WP:TOOLONG, but a link to a separate article should be provided along with a synopsis of the controversies in the new article. KlammyKlam (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Aafia Siddiqui
This article has been overtaken by two very zealous pro-Siddiqui viewpoint editors since the Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis happened a couple days ago, and I don't personally have the energy to try to stem the tide anymore. But if some neutral editors would like to look at and attempt to repair the article a bit (particularly the lede) until it satisfactorily covers a neutral viewpoint, that'd be great. She's a heroine in Pakistan but also a convicted felon with (alleged, both by U.S. intelligence and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad) terrorist ties. For reference, this was the version before the hostage crisis was undertaken in her name which seemed to ignite (at least two of) her Wikipedia-editing supporters. Well-cited quotes such as she being estimated as "one of the few alleged Al Qaeda associates with the ability to move about the United States undetected, and the scientific expertise to carry out a sophisticated attack" have mostly been removed in the past 24 to 48 hours, under the guise of "copyright violations." Thank you for taking a look if anyone has the time. Omnibus (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I was just coming here to make a report on this too. This article is in dire need of a complete overhaul, and the sooner the better given it's relating to a current event. FDW777 (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In agreement with both the OP and FDW757. Even for someone not sympathetic to US imperial interests, the article reads like a pro-Siddiqui soapbox. Not everything is decent with the longstanding version either but my restoration was summarily reverted. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was directed here from WP:AN/3. It appears the pro-Siddiqui slant is happening on the Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis article as well. I've had to remove an entire undue series of edits that sought to include numerous irrelevant biographical details and allegations on the article, and that's not the end of that. It's still ongoing. Not sure if I need to start a new entry for this, but I thought I'd chime in. Love of Corey (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: not sure to whom you're referring to when you say "two very zealous pro-Siddiqui viewpoint editors", but one has now been partially blocked from the Siddiqui and Colleyville articles, while the other seems to have made their appearance in the latter article. Also, some suspicious-looking IP users have also started jumping into the Colleyville article. Love of Corey (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that I've been off of wikipedia for at least 18 hours, and those IP addresses can't have anything to do with me. I was also left logged on this whole time except for during a span of 2 minutes a couple minutes earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mentioning both sides is important for an unbiased view, not just the official American Government Narrative but also the alternate narratives about her. We need to remember that she is also considered by many as an innocent political prisoner, causing many protests on her behalf, as reported here and here. This position is "held from Pakistan to North Texas". She has the support of an "international network of activists who say she is innocent and are demanding her release". This isn't just a Pakistani view, but a view held internationally. Malik Faisal Akram thought she was framed, as reported by Paragraph 3 of the section added on 6:50 p.m. ET, January 15, 2022, As well as according to a recording Reproduced here, and in the article, as well as in the 8th paragraph of the second section here. The word "Framed" is literally used. Analysts mention that "Siddiqui's conviction in 2010 embodied the injustices of the post-9/11 US judicial system" Therefore, we should include that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs)


 * Mentioning both sides is important for an unbiased view, not just the official American Government Narrative but also the alternate narratives about her. We need to remember that she is also considered by many as an innocent political prisoner, causing many protests on her behalf, as reported here and here. This position is "held from Pakistan to North Texas". She has the support of an "international network of activists who say she is innocent and are demanding her release". This isn't just a Pakistani view, but a view held internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs)


 * Another update: I noticed this entire discussion regarding the quality of TRT World as WP:RS, which is...concerning in its one-sidedness, to say the least. Love of Corey (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC that would benefit from NPOV.
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section 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. --Spekkios (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Proud Prophet and Paul Bracken
Starting with Paul Bracken, his page has one citation for about 20 paragraphs. Everything about the page is puff piece, singing Bracken's praises. Looking at the history, an unregistered user in February 2018 wrote most of the article, and then the next day the user "Bracken7" registered and edited the page (mostly minor stuff) before never editing again. I think we can guess what happened.

Given only a single line is cited properly and does not read like an advert, I'm tempted to suggest the whole page be deleted.

Which leads to the next part: Proud Prophet.

About half of the citations are for Paul Bracken's book "The Second Nuclear Age: Strategy, Danger, and the New Power Politics". Examining the other citations, a lot are for "War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink", a book by a different author with a smattering of others. However, looking closely, those citations are not for the main topic of the article, but for the background events to Proud Prophet. So, the the central point of the article is based on Paul Bracken's book.

Looking at the history of the page, the bulk of the edits (by word count) have been done by a string of users who are newly registered, do loads of work on the Proud Prophet article, and then vanish.

To be blunt, I am alleging that like his BLP page, the article is a puff piece, mostly to sell his books. I am uncertain what needs to be done. I have already tagged his biography with "is written like a résumé". Before proposing it be deleted, I'm happy to hear some other suggestions about what to do. I'm not sure what to do with Proud Prophet however.Kylesenior (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Paul Bracken is a pretty awful WP:BLP. Also seems to be a copyvio: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, well I went ahead and removed all that. It's a pretty sparse article now. To add to the list of issues, his list of published works were amazon links to where to buy them.Kylesenior (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiIslam
There is considerable discpute on the article's talk page about whether the site is anti-Muslim or neutral on religion. See the major changes made by a new editor here. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a misrepresentation of the current debate. The current debate is whether to continue to use outdated sources to report that material such as ex-Muslims testimonies are still on the website after a massive overhaul, when they verifiably are not as per WP:V, and whether or not the website and its parent organization can be used to verify this fact as per Wikipedia's WP:RS policy which states "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." A number of editors have repeatedly claimed that there is no verifiable evidence that the overhaul took place and that the material in question was removed, despite 3rd party attestations and links to the website which show the material clearly was removed.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * IF the website itself has officially stated that it has changed its policy, that statement can be quoted or closely paraphrased with in text attribution (under ABOUTSELF). That statement, however, would not outweigh independent reliable sources that say otherwise (see WP:DUE).
 * The one thing we can not do is analyze the site ourselves, and reach the conclusion that it has changed its policy. That would be original research (see WP:NOR). Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Blueboar may I add the above edits that you suggested?--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , a third party cannot be a more reliable source on what a website's official policy is than that website's own official statement of its owm policy on its own site. Period. That's looney talk. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:10BA:9558:7F4:32F (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Blueboar has already said that we can say that it has officially stated that it changed its policy. But "official policy" does not always equate to "policy" or purpose. As suggested by at least one source, it could easily be a site that hosts false claims that are not inflammatory, etc in themselves but are intended to be used by haters. Doug Weller  talk 09:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's wrong. Generally speaking a high-quality secondary source would be vastly superior to a non-WP:RS primary source, especially for statements that might be unduly self-serving (at which point we can't cite them at all per WP:ABOUTSELF.) There are lots of reasons a website might not be the best source for discussing its policies - for example, they might say things that differ from what they actually do; or the practical enforcement of their policies might have nuances that require interpretation from a secondary source in order to discuss; or they might have policies on their website that are of no significance and are never actually enforced as written. --Aquillion (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV issue in RFC proposal at Devolution in the United Kingdom
Neutrality issues have been raised in an RFC proposing to frame the content of peer-reviewed journal articles using the phrase "". <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 18:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Is proposed addition an opinion or a fact
I was proposing to put the following statement into United States diplomatic cables leak
 * Cryptome has never been asked by US law enforcement to remove the unredacted cables and they remain online.

The addition was objected to by with comments
 * Undid revision 1067339805 by NadVolum (talk) need independent RS to state this as fact. UNDUE PRIMARY SYNTH
 * Undid revision 1067726768 by NadVolum
 * Undid revision 1068540116 by NadVolum (talk) The source is invalid, and no consensus means it stays out.

Before I finally got a response at the talk page discussion I had set up afer the first revert at Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak
 * The "have been told" is why you cannot state this as fact in wiki-voice. You need to stop edit-warring and remove it while you seek consensus by engaging in all due channels here on talk

'Has been told' does not sound like 'so and so said' to me and I believe The Guardian are careful about that. Never mind the US government in the case did not dispute the sworn statement to that effect by John Young the owner and administrator of Cryptome. Should this be attribute to John Young or stated as fact? The policy says Avoid stating facts as opinions. NadVolum (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That is a statement in a court of law submitted by a party involved in the case, and should therefore be treated as an opinion and not a fact in my opinion. I remember there being some PAG regarding statements in law cases but can't find it right now. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 00:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by involved, he's not being accused of anything, he was just giving evidence about one of the charges being brought. NadVolum (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In a short statement submitted by Assange’s team at the Old Bailey, John Young said he had published unredacted diplomatic cables on 1 September 2011 after obtaining an encrypted file, and that they remained online. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 01:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is his actual sworn statement . It's a primary source which is why it isn't included. How does what you wrote square with 'Avoid stating facts as opinions'? NadVolum (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tip about PAG. I don't think I'd find what you meant myself at ll easily but I'll put an invite on their project talk page about this discussion, they might easily know if there is a standard. NadVolum (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The PAG you are looking for is probably . I don't really follow 's argument, though: The Guardian is careful precisely about labeling the claim as an allegation of a party to an ongoing case, so I would say that it must at the very least be attributed, provided that inclusion of the claim is WP:DUE. JBchrch   talk  02:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the find, . I've created the shortcut WP:LAWBRIEF for future reference. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 02:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

In the statement:
 * " "

...the part highlighted in yellow is the that is being reported by an RS (the Guardian). The fact is that his extradition hearing has been told something. The part highlighted in blue is describing, but the Guardian is not saying that the blue part is true. The Guardian is saying the yellow part is true. We can say, in Wikivoice, the fact--the yellow part--that his extradition hearing was told something. We cannot state, in Wikivoice, the blue part, because no RS is saying the blue part is true. The yellow meets WP:V; the blue does not. Levivich 02:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was looking at WP:LAW and found a talk discussion there which seems very relevant Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_19. It says 'When facts in a case are undisputed, then I think it is appropriate to state the facts in Wikipedia's voice', but it says a lot of other things as well. So up to interpreting this particular case I guess. The Guardian reported that court was told a fact. They didn't say it was alleged or claimed. NadVolum (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a finding of fact by a court. The Guardian does not report that the court was told "a fact". Levivich 02:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * you are linking to a 6-year old thread. One should not assume threads that old remain consensus, nor do I believe that summarizing a thread with only a small handful of participants means it is "up to interpreting this particular case I guess". And even if one was to take that thread as consensus that applies here, comments like 's I think it is well established at WP that court testimony is not RS for facts does not support your position on that discussion. I'll let or someone else clarify further on the source's language. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 02:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But the facts of the case and not undisputed here? Assange and his legal team told the court something, so at this stage it's just a unilateral claim. The discussion you linked seems to be about cases that are finished, i.e. those for which we have a court opinion that has established what the facts were. JBchrch   talk  02:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay it seems you are agreed on that. By the way that court case did end January last year and it was not disputed. I'll go and stick in an attribution then. Thanks. NadVolum (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Evident POV-pusher at Elevations RTC
WP:SPA insists upon adding WP:UNDUE topics to the subsection Elevations RTC even after it has been repeatedly pointed out that these would be better off elsewhere, assuming this info belongs on Wikipedia at all. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

keeps adding nonsensical and unsourced and unverifiable information to the ElevationsRTC page. It appears they have a conflict of interest. Perhaps are a student. Please block this person. They are not being civil and refuse to discuss the issue on the talk page. --Farr4h2004 (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ringette
Hi all. I believe this page has very serious problems with POV and OR. Large portions of the article are completely unsourced, others are cited to sources that do not appear to me to support the material. Some examples:

"Gender feminists were playing the role of psychoanalysts yet did not have the professional qualifications, and opted to abandon academic rigour in favour of presenting pseudo assertions as fact. While Canadian feminist authorities and academics were never able to provide objective evidence that Canadian girls who played ringette instead of ice hockey were mentally inferior or deficient in any way, or that their participation in ringette served as evidence of a hidden group of Canadian victims of patriarchy who were suffering from a psycho-social handicap, their methodology, which included the use of leading questions, nevertheless remained unchallenged. As a result, these claims were never seriously investigated, became unquestioningly accepted within a number of academic institutions, and eventually became an accepted part of wider Canadian public discourse and cultural narratives around the subject of female participation in the sport of ringette, which has remained unquestioned in Canada."

The above is unsourced.

"The manner in which they are written or presented often includes ideological spin doctoring using statements that frame the ringette community as exhibiting a sexist form discrimination against males (reverse sexism) and by effect avoid highlighting the reality that all team sports are dominated by male players except in a handful of rare, exceptional cases, of which the sport of ringette is one. These stories often repeat common misconceptions about the origin and history of ringette and are usually contextualized in a manner amplifying ideological oppression narratives while portraying boys as a disadvantaged class rather than girls. At times the word "stigma" is used when making claims of reverse sexism against males by the sport of ringette in order to avoid using the politically charged term, "reverse sexism"."

Again, unsourced.

"As a result, all elite ringette players in the sport are female athletes rather than male, both nationally and internationally. This approach towards the sport's development has the added benefit of avoiding male-female comparisons and allows it to give female athletes the spotlight by preventing male athletes from dominating the sport due to their biological advantages"

Sourced to this article, which appears to be an opinion piece and does not mention ringette.

"Despite popular belief, though ice hockey had some influence in the early development of ringette, the sport was neither created to be, nor qualifies as an ice hockey variant as is popularly reported by media.[54] "

Sourced to this article. The source explicitly describes ringette as a "variation of ice hockey"

The article is riddled with stuff like this. Please help. Squeakachu (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed one piece of editorializing in the article outright. Anything that's similar, especially without a source, should be be removed. Opinion pieces as sources are relevant of they are very influential, but not otherwise.
 * However, I think the section "Common misconception" needs to be toned down or possibly removed altogether and some of the content integrated under other headings. I sense that it's been written as a sort of defense against condescending opinion about a female-dominated sport. It's understandable, but it's not very encyclopedic and is just as likely to attract those who insist on including a "counter section".
 * Peter Isotalo 17:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk
Pretty self-explainatory, as the news about him are becoming way more polarized. What do you think about the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I encourage anyone who takes this on to examine the Talk page archives closely. There are a lot of cases on there of neophyte, red-link accounts raising issues with matters that were agreed upon before the article's Good Article Nomination (and approval) and then quickly ceasing all activity. What that implies I will not venture to guess. QRep2020 (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

RepresentUs
RepresentUs was recently brought to COIN, which put it on my radar.

Looking at the article, it is extremely well-sourced, but as you dig through the sources, it seems to be mostly WP:ABOUTSELF laundered through reliable sources.

I don't think diffs are particularly useful because the entire article looks to have this problem.

The organization has obvious celebrity power behind it, so getting press coverage for anything they want to say is easy, I just question whether WP:DUE or WP:NPOV requires a significant restructuring of the article or at least, heavy use of attribution.Slywriter (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Village Pump proposals regarding the sourcing required for athlete biographies and presumption of notability
Several subproposals have been added to the NSPORT RfC that would welcome input from the community. Subproposal 1: "All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD". Potential exceptions/clarifications/amendments are also offered. Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria given (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left." Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in "one" game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to "three" games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in." Subproposal 5: "All sports biographies and team/season articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article." Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 5 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice?" Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG. Replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist"." Subproposal 9: "Rewrite the lead of WP:NSPORTS to ... cut the confusing sentence in the middle which is at odds with the rest of the guideline and which leaves itself open to lots of wiki-lawyering." JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Schrödinger and sexual abuse
Lately some controversy has developed over. In particular, a story in The Irish Times was published that revisited a number of instances where Schrödinger was implicated in what that paper has described as sexual abuse of children. There has been some work by a number of editors to try to contextualize, attribute allegations, and so forth and there has been some controversy at the German Wikipedia over how or whether to include this in their biography. We have on editor, who objects to including the stories as they claim it is not well documented that the instances really are "abuse" or that there were "victims" or that the word "paedophile" should be used (n.b. in the removed section, the word "padeophile" was attributed to The Irish Times rather than said in Wikipedia's voice). In any case, this is complex enough, I thought I would post here to see if others can help resolve the dispute. There are at least five sources now which have been identified as being relevant to this topic including three well-reviewed biographies and a piece in Der Standard which, while criticizing some of the biographies and The Irish Times piece for certain interpretations, still identifies a number of uncontested facts which have now been removed from our article.

Input here or at the talkpage greatly appreciated. Especially help in workshopping the removed section for reincluding in the biography.

Talk:Erwin_Schrödinger

jps (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Using terms such as paedophile are problematic because it refers to a specific psychological condition and is not synonymous with Child Sexual Abuser. Avoid using the term unless there is a reliable psychiatric evaluation during something like a criminal investigation that show the person is in fact a pedophile. - UtoD 08:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that doing this in WP voice would not be ideal. On the other hand, the source which is directly quoted is referred to by other sources as well. I think the reader deserves to know that the source identified Schrödinger as such. I do not think a reader will be misled into thinking that Wikipedia is making this determination or that there was any psychiatric evaluation (which is not possible to do in the circumstance where the person in question has not been alive for some decades). jps (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with jps here; I don't see any way that someone could read the current text and get the idea that Schrödinger had a psych eval. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 hijab row in Karnataka
This has been discussed on the talk page at Talk:2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka

Disputed content: The row intensified before the state legislative assembly elections in 5 states.Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election are expected to be held a year later in 2023. In late 2021, several prominent Muslim women were victimized in the Bulli Bai case.
 * Background

First an NPOV maintenance template was added to the article section at 2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka and then Another guy removed all the content from the background section. These references from reputed newspapers clearly mention the ongoing elections show the relevance and link between the ongoing elections and this sectarian dispute. Please review the refs and help us resolve if this is NPOV violation and how to balance it. Venkat TL (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the topic of the article has little or nothing to do with the elections, or the online harrassment campaign, unless the editor is claiming these were a part of some sort of conspiracy? Short of that, it should include actual background such as previous bans if any, previous orders by the government, or previous uniform rules. I fail to see this as relevant to "Background".
 * Further, regarding the statement, "several prominent Muslim women were victimized in the Bulli Bai case", there is no source about the current event which includes this.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Restoring my comments removed by Venkat TL :


 * I'll copy my comment from the article's talk page:
 * CNN doesn't verify (see quote at the top of the section)
 * BBC quotes Karnataka Education Minister B. C. Nagesh about elections
 * Deccan Herald is opinion article WP:RSEDITORIAL
 * Firstpost is opinion article
 * India Today is opinion article
 * Times of India (WP:TOI, this is a joke- quotes "an academician", former BJP MLA, "those familiar with...", "some frustrated students")
 * ABP Live says "Ahead of the assembly elections in five states ... the war of words has erupted among the politicians"
 * None of the citations provide any background into the elections.
 * — DaxServer (t · c) 20:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I probably want to add to my comment above is that this is not an NPOV issue, rather a failure of citations to verify. My understanding is that this just doesn't belong on this noticeboard. — DaxServer (t · c) 20:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have already made this comment at 2022 hijab row in Karnataka and now duplicated it here as well. I disagree with your comments on these refs, which is why I brought it here. The maintenance tag placed on the article is an NPOV tag. and this is NPOV noticeboard. Venkat TL (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Background sections are always magnets for OR, SYNTHESIS, CRYSTAL and wild theories that Wikipedians think they have proof of. No thanks. The Background sections should state what background the readers need in order to understand the main topic. Reserve all other theories and opinions to a later Commentary section if need be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment So far we have received ZERO comments from neutral uninvolved users on this thread. Venkat TL (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles on Afghanistan should be demilitarized
I've seen a general problem with images of articles about Afghanistan topics being illustrated with images of the military, mostly US soldiers. In a lot of cases, it's done even when there are images without military personnel in them to choose form at Commons.

It doesn't seem too bad in articles about the larger cities, but when it comes to provinicial or rural areas, the lead or infobox image is often a photo of soldiers or military equipment with the place itself serving only as a backdrop. If not the top image, the military images are also used to illustrated civilian topics, like transporation or education. Captions also consistently focus on the military aspects and there's often a completely gratuitous image gallery that looks like it could've been put there by the US Army's PR department.

A good set of example articles are the provinces of Afghanistan where something like half the articles are heavy on military images. In some cases, all of the photos (maps and infobox images excluded). Here are some of the worst examples:

Having this much military presence in illustrating non-military articles is not neutral. It makes sense to include military images to illustrate the recent history of an Afghanistan topic, but not otherwise. And there's been a lot of history of Afghanistan that occured before the US forces arrived in 2001.
 * Baghlan Province
 * Daykundi Province
 * Helmand Province
 * Paktika Province
 * Jowzjan Province
 * Zabul Province
 * Uruzgan Province

Peter Isotalo 13:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think one aspect here, like the very dramatic Daykundi WP:LEADIMAGE, is that many (all) of these are by the American government, and so very handy for WP/Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Do we have non-military images that we can use instead? This may be a case of “not perfect, but use what we have available” rather than any deliberate POV. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There are alternatives in most cases, it's just that they might not always be as exciting or pretty. But anything involving a foreign military should not be the go-to illustration of a country. I switched out the Daykundi image to provide an example. If this was isolated cases, it might be okay, but when you constantly run into foreign military imagery as illustrations of Afghanistan, we really need to do something about it. It might even be preferable to have no images at all in a lot of cases.
 * I'm currently working on maybe getting good images released, but the problem will persist if people keep adding military images just because they're handy. It's not helped by the fact that US military photos have completely swamped a lot of Afghanistan categories at Commons.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's an example of how Zabul Province can be demilitarized. Note that the non-military images were both available on Commons before the airplane photo. Both were properly categorized as well. They were both available when the airplane image was added. So the issue isn't really a complete lack of civilian alternatives.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * what you're objecting to isn't a POV problem, it's a socio-economic problem. That is, the issue you perceive is an artifact of availability. The US and allied militaries was accompanied by legions of both attached service photographers and news reporters, creating a pictorial history that has never been previously available for that nation. Neither native Afghanis nor the previous Soviet invaders produced such a density of images. Add to that the fact that Commons favors highly copyright-free images, which US miltary images are, and you get such a predominance. It's not that people are picking military images intentionally, it's that the most readily-available library of copyright-free images were produced as propaganda for one particular military. If you want to alter this, accusing the community of editors that work on Afghani topics of POV is not likely to be productive.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The availability of certain types of images on Commons is not an excuse to use them uncritically. Just look at the Zabul example above. Someone chose military imagery over perfectly good civilian alternatives. It might have taken a tad longer to find the alternatives, but they clearly there for inclusion. Part of the problem is also that people are putting military images in the regular categories at Commons instead of the "X province in the Afghanistan War" categories that are available for them. Could probably be thousands of images altogether.
 * I'm not interested in trying to find people "guilty" of anything. I've tried to point out a problem and I've presented solutions. Do you see any problems with the solutions I've proposed?
 * Peter Isotalo 17:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , no I don't see a problem with the solution you're proposing. What you are proposing is, in fact, normal editing. It is not an NPOV issue. There is no reason to post here. From the header at the top of this page: This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion. I see no such link or attempted prior discussion. Also: Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context. I have provided the context that availability of high-quality copyright-free images favors those you object to. I f you can find high-quality copyright-free images, there's nothing stopping you from putting those in.  You have yet to articulate, however, how those images or the ones you are replacing are an actual POV issue.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm posting here because I believe this issue may not be resolved just by going around and toning down the gratuitous military presence. It's a problem that's been around in a wide range of articles for a long time. The categories over at Commons are swamped with US government photos, most of them depicting the life of US soldiers, not Afghans. So rather than preparing to discuss each and every individual article, I thought it would be better to preemptively raise it here. One thing that definitely worries me is that people will focus on the "high-quality" part and favor military imagery because they look more professional.
 * This issue here is in my view a very good example of systemic bias rather than deliberate skewing. You pointed to that yourself by mentioning the socio-economic problem. But then again, POV doesn't have to be intentional.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then just go do it. There's nothing stopping you. Again, what you want to do is the normal editing process. If some-one objects, you'll know. The systemic bias isn't on Wikipedia or on Commons, it's in the sources that are available. If you really want to address that systemic bias, go to Afghanistan and take lots of pictures and release them to the public domain. There is no POV issue in what you've said and you keep repeating the same argument without identifying a WP:NPOV issue. NPOV doesn't just mean "I don't like this and I think it's biased".  It has a specific meaning ...Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (emphasis added) To the extent that pictorial record of Afghanistan is skewed in a direction to which you object, it is because that is the record that has been published in reliable sources . That does not violate NPOV. There are no policy-based reasons that NPOV is implicated by your objections.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Overall, I think you need to take a more critical approach to images as illustrations of articles. They can skew perceptions quite a lot if used carelessly, as has been done in this case. All countries deserve to be illustrated with primary focus on their own inhabitants. Once pointed out, it should be blatantly obvious that portraying a country with photos focusing on foreign occupying armies is morally indefensible. That the military has pumped out huge amount of images of their own activities does not make those images reliable, neutral sources to be treated uncriticially.


 * No military force in the world should ever be a go-to source for information about civilian matters, especially countries where that force is waging war.


 * Peter Isotalo 10:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing how Afghanistan has been embroiled in a virtually constant warfare since the 1970s, depicting the provinces with idyllic, generic landscapes would seem to be a bit WP:UNDUE, IMO. The military-oriented images reflect the reality of the terrain. Zaathras (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Afghanistan is an ancient country. Events of the past few decades are just a minor part of its history. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * From my experience all articles about geographical locations favor images that put topics in a reasonably good light and avoid images that focus on negative aspects (except for when it's specifically described in an article). Detroit isn't depicted by its infamous worn-down slums for example. In fact, you'll probably have a hard time finding any North American city article dominated by imagery of their negative aspects.


 * In the case of Zabul Province, the "idyllic, generic landscapes" is simply what Afghanistan looks like; it's a country dominated by agriculture and has a very large rural population. I think it would be good to have more images of town and city life, but it's hard to find (especially without soldiers in them). Even in times of active conflict, you generally don't see military personnel in every orchard or at the foot of every mountain. Its the same way you don't see police in front of every building of every US city.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Just remove or replace them and explain in the edit summary why you have done so. I full agree with your point, although this is not an issue of WP:NPOV, but WP:DUE. If somebody really believes that every piece of land in war-torn Afghanistan is best-illustrated by a display of erstwhile US military presence and actively re-adds these pictures, you should probably start a centralized discussion in one of the affected articles and – if necessary – an RfC. –Austronesier (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the advice. If I need to centralize a discussion on a range of articles, are there any standard templates for announcing the discussion in other, related articles? Peter Isotalo 10:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump's presidency page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Donald_Trump

As an independent with neither political party I find this page has become severally biased and would like to see if it could be a bit better all around.

Things like 'Trump made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency'. Which is straight out calling him a liar.

and 'and took measures to hinder the ACA's functioning.'. As the ACA had become bankrupt and any President that took over would have to have made changes. To say he hindered is a bias statement and opinion.

I am not as editor. and I do not wish to get into a war. And the page is'blocked From editing. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert A Bauer (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The statements are reliably sourced. This isn't a POV issue. Theknightwho (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Trump did in fact make more false and misleading statements than any other president. Of course other presidents have also made false and misleading statements, just not as many. TFD (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please state your unbiased source?
 * This is ridiculous. Even if yoy have a source the statement makes the post bias. no one can sit and count who made the most lies and what one side considers lies the other does Not. Not just that statement is biased, but the whole page is.
 * just like hindering ACA. The program went bankrupt. whoever took over the presidency had to change it.
 * Who am I kidding. It's not about facts. Wikipedia has become a platform for bad information. You won't see it, because yoy don't want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert A Bauer (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. let's try this again. You may want to update your page because. Trump wasn't slow with covid. Because if operation warp speed the U.S. came out with the vaccine first
 * Because the accusations of his connection with Russia was found a hoax and he was aquitted of it due to planted fake evidence.
 * It just came out, again, That the Clintons planted falsified evidence in the Trump, Alfa bank connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert A Bauer (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh and the unedited version of the Mueller report came out. Turns out Trump saying the evidence was fake and he was innocent wasn't a lie.
 * Do any of those work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert A Bauer (talk • contribs) 00:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean this in all good faith and with the utmost sincerity, but there is a website called Conservapedia at which you may feel more heard. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm independent 3rd party. I Your site claims to be unbiased. I shouldn't have to go to a biased site to be heard. But you proved my point. These are facts that you refuse to hear. So much for an unbiased site.... perhaps you should not claim you are unbiased in your profile. You make issue that Trump lied, but have no problem doing it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Robert A Bauer (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Even your own page says you are unreliable,biased and make up facts. I guess I just expect better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Robert A Bauer (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Best not read over Veracity of statements by Donald Trump then. Good luck here Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 04:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * actually I'm ok with difference of opinion. You're letting the power you have over an information website go to your head. I'm silly to think a facts site would actually want facts. ... It's easy enough unfo to verify. But the truth isn't what you want. Give my Thanks to the ministry of Proaganda. Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Robert A Bauer (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fare thee well! Dumuzid (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

POV issues at Christ myth theory
There are significant POV issues at the article Christ myth theory. Though it is obvious that the poorly named 'theory' that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure at all is indeed a fringe view (though there are mainstream scholarly views that he was not 'Christ'), the article inappropriately conflates various views as 'mythicism'—including views about Jesus not being 'Christ'—that actually agree with mainstream scholarship or that otherwise do not claim that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure.

In particular, an early (modern) proponent of the 'theory' was George Albert Wells, but he changed his position in the mid-1990s, explicitly stating that from then onwards he did consider Jesus to be an actual historical figure: "[F]rom the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century … This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these—The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth—may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus. These titles were chosen because I regarded (and still do regard) the virgin birth, much in the Galilean ministry, the crucifixion around A.D. 30 under Pilate, and the resurrection as legendary."

- Wells, George Albert (2009). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9656-1.

Mainstream scholar Van Voorst also confirms Wells' changed position, stating: "A final argument against the nonexistence hypothesis comes from Wells himself. In his most recent book, The Jesus Myth (1999), Wells has moved away from the hypothesis. He now accepts that there is some historical basis for the existence of Jesus, derived from the lost early "gospel" "Q" (the hypothetical sourced used by Matthew and Luke). Wells believes that it is early and reliable enough to show that Jesus probably did exist, although this Jesus was not the Christ that the later canonical Gospels portray. It remains to be seen what impact Well's about-face will have on debate over the nonexistence hypothesis in popular circles."

- Van Voorst, Robert E. (2003). "Nonexistence Hypothesis". In James Leslie Houlden (ed.). Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 2: K–Z. ABC-CLIO. pp. 658–660. ISBN 978-1-57607-856-3.

I initially provided a quite broad (admittedly, too broad) examination of issues with the article at Talk (see Talk:Christ myth theory), but soon found that the main problem with the article is the misrepresentation of Wells' later views. The article presents many points as the views of 'mythicists' for which it cites Wells' later works (from 1996 onwards). As such, Wells' later views are being misrepresented as 'mythicism'. Editors at Talk and in the article also characterise Wells' later view of Jesus as "minimally historical" in Wikipedia's voice (also using the related term "minimal historicist" at Talk), though no source has been provided for that label, despite numerous requests,, and the so-far unsourced insertion of 'minimal' (and related word forms) misrepresents the fact that Wells' later view of Jesus as a Galilean preacher who was executed by the Romans is actually consistent with the broad consensus of what is actually known about Jesus' life. (The use of Wells' pre-1996 works as sources for mythicist views is not contested.)

It has been difficult to engage with the limited number of active editors on the subject, who seem to dismiss as 'mythicists' other editors who do not agree with them.

has claimed at Talk that 'we must go with what sources say', but supports the misuse of Wells' later works throughout the article. The same editor also asserts that even putting views that mythicists and some mainstream scholars share in common (such as details about supernatural beliefs about Jesus) in the same paragraph would be 'original research and synthesis'.

Engaging with has also been generally unproductive, as the editor's responses are often entirely tangential. For example, see Talk section Talk:Christ myth theory. Another editor suggested that such has been long term behaviour of 2db. After repeated requests for relevant discussion, 2db suggested a POV fork (see Talk:Christ myth theory).

Trying to work with has been similarly unproductive. A number of times, he has dismissively misrepresented what I have suggested, and seems ambivalent to the explicit misuse of Wells' later views, suggesting that broad edits should be restricted only to vandalism. He notes that the article does say Wells changed his views, but seems to see no contradiction with that fact and the presentation of those same later views as those of mythicists. (He also suggested "imcremental improvements" [sic], but the nature of the misuse of Wells' later works throughout the article is non-trivial and an explicit misrepresentation of Wells' position.) His comments in the section Talk:Christ myth theory were also particularly confusing.

After I provided an initial very broad examination of POV issues, Jeppiz (mentioned earlier) suggested that perceived issues might include my own interpretations, but agreed that statements that go against what sources actually say should be modified, but has not commented on the misuse of Wells since.

has also expressed that there are POV issues present in the article, including the misrepresentation of views that are actually shared with mainstream views.

I advised a few days ago that when I have time I would go through the article to remove misuse of Wells, which was essentially ignored with no direct response. However, the two editors who had been most involved at Talk (Ramos1990 and 2db) had both explicitly acknowledged that Wells stated unambiguously that he was not a mythicist from 1996 onwards. Based on that, I made a bold edit today to remove statements that misrepresent Wells' later works as the views of mythicists. However, this was immediately reverted by Joshua Jonathan.

Please see Talk:Christ myth theory for much of the discussion, but all of the sections from Talk:Christ myth theory onwards are relevant to the POV issues.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors at Talk have also misrepresented sources that refer to Wells' earlier works, mischaracterising them as Wells' later views. See here, and my response indicating the misuse of sources. In response, rather than acknowledge that the citations in Ehrman's book clearly refer to Wells' previous views from the 1980s, has hidden the comments about the misrepresentation of Ehrman's citation of Wells' earlier works, claiming it is "off topic", whereas the misrepresentation of Wells' view is very much the main issue with the article.-- Jeffro 77  (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Talk:Christ_myth_theory §. 'Theory', Jeffro77 is certainly correct but has been meet with silence. --2db (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wells later view is certainly not in line with mainstream scholarship, as he argues for two different Jesus-figures underlying two different Jesus-portraits (Jesus Myth p.103):
 * Paul did not invent his Christ; he elaborated on the earliest accounts of Jesus' life and death. Jeffro77 should read James Dunn and Larry Hurtado. Nor does the CMT-article restrict itself solely to the treatment of a 'hardcore mythiscism'. If Jeffro77 sees room for improvement, he should so, in an incremental way; but he should not confuse Wells' later point of view with mainstream scholarship, not should he expect that the scope of the article is changed simply because he demands so. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Paul did not invent his Christ; he elaborated on the earliest accounts of Jesus' life and death. Jeffro77 should read James Dunn and Larry Hurtado. Nor does the CMT-article restrict itself solely to the treatment of a 'hardcore mythiscism'. If Jeffro77 sees room for improvement, he should so, in an incremental way; but he should not confuse Wells' later point of view with mainstream scholarship, not should he expect that the scope of the article is changed simply because he demands so. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * To whatever extent Wells’ later views do not exactly coincide with mainstream scholarship (and in view of the fact that there is actually very little agreement about Jesus in mainstream scholarship), those later views still were not ‘mythicism’. Claiming that a view is either ‘in agreement with mainstream scholarship’ or is otherwise ‘mythicism’ is a false dichotomy. Additionally, Wells’ later views are not consistent with any of the views that the article lead identifies as forms of mythicism.— Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, my edited version of the article retained (in the section about Wells) his later view that ‘Paul’s mythological Jesus’ was “fused” with details about the historical Jesus. Joshua Jonathan’s contention that Wells’ later works are ‘relevant’ is a misrepresentation (bait and switch) of my position that Wells’ later views should not be characterised as mythicism, and it is not the case that I removed all references to Wells’ later works.— Jeffro 77 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to point out that numerous editors have addressed these issues in the talk page already for years such as me,, and many others. The complainers of POV are usually the same editors too - usually mythicists or mythicism sympathizers who wish to alter the article to look more mainstream, than what all the reliable sources actually state - that mythicism is fringe - see the talk page template "Quotes on the historicity of Jesus" . They often try to latch on to points of agreement to try to make fringe views and fringe positions look like they are actually siding with the mainstream or that they are close to the mainstream already. But the issue is always the same, they never provide actual sources supporting such claims. The POV complainers usually interpret sources, dislike what they say and try to push their interpretation of sources into the article, violating wikipedia policy. Part of the issue is that reliable sources from both general scholars and mythicists themselves converge on Wells as an iconic proponent of the mythicist position, no mater his views later on. The matter is being dealt with (again...sigh) in the talk page at the moment.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Another attempt at misrepresenting my position. I am not a mythicist, and your attempted ad hominem is in any case inappropriate. Instead of making hasty assumptions about my position based on your past experiences with people other than me, how about you actually review the changes I made to the article (reverted by Joshua Jonathan)?— Jeffro 77 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There really is a difference between a "Christ myth" and a "Jesus myth". However opponents of the CMT have gone to enormous lengths to twist the debate. There is no single "mainstream" view – just as there is no single "mythicists" view. Mainstream writers like Ehrman openly admit that much of what is in the gospel stories is not historical, and that the historical Jesus of his research does not resemble the Christ of the gospels. Of course there are a wide range of views by scholars who consider themselves to be mainstream, but the acceptance of the historicity of the gospel supernatural events is not "the mainstream scholarship view". Why is there such a massive drive to obscure this obvious fact? Wdford (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm a religion-friendly atheist. We could into dissecting everything that is religious, faith-based and all spiritual beliefs as having no scientific basis as being myths. Doubly so by exploiting the tactic that there is a rare secondary more-inclusive meaning of "myth" which conflicts the massively-common meaning of "myth" which means "false". There is no reason to go down that road. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This article is not about a religion or a religious practice, this article is about the Myth itself. How can we have an article about a particular Myth that avoids discussing that particular Myth? Wdford (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple of notes. Firse, this topic is inherently about religious beliefs. Your post contains an implied premise that it is a myth, with the common meaning of "myth" being an assertion that it is false./ <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don’t get distracted by irrelevant arguments about the word ‘myth’. The problems at the article are to do with improper use of sources, as explained in my opening comments. For other issues with the name of the article, see the section Talk:Christ_myth_theory. However, the main issues for the attention of this page are not because of use of the word ‘myth’. The fact that scholars regard Jesus as a historical figure is uncontested (by me, the person who raised this thread). If other editors want to argue that Jesus was entirely mythical, they should do so elsewhere, as it is an irrelevant distraction here.— Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan is continuing to insist on misusing sources, and has restored an attempt to remove the misuse of sources. For example, I removed an assertion that Wells "believed Jesus lived far earlier [than the first century]", which dishonestly cites Wells (Can We Trust the New Testament?, 2003). The claim that "Jesus lived far earlier" is not supported by the cited source, which instead says My view is that Paul knew next to nothing of the earthly life of Jesus, and did not have in mind any definite historical moment for his crucifixion. As we saw, holy Jews had been crucified alive in the first and second centuries B.C., but traditions about these events, and about the persecuted Teacher of Righteousness, could well have reached Paul without reference to times and places, and he need not have regarded their occurrences as anything like as remote in time as they in fact were. Wells says Paul based his stories about Jesus on old "traditions about these events", with no specific time period or individual in mind, and Wells stated that view at a time that he had explicitly accepted that Jesus lived during the first century. Wells (Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and where it Leaves Christianity, 2009) stated, But from the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century. So there is no basis in the source for ascribing the view to Wells that Paul's "Jesus lived far earlier", nor for similar misrepresentations of Wells's views from 1996 onwards. He also falsely claimed in his edit summary for that revert that my edit 'broke up the structure of the article', which is clearly false because the edit in question only modified one paragraph.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

(There has since been considerable improvement. If the article remains stable regarding these concerns, this section can be archived.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)