Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
UrielAcosta seems to be on a mission, systematically searching through Wikipedia to find "[p]rophet Muhammad" and remove the word "prophet" (even if it's in lowercase), with the edit summary: Removed religious bias per
MOS:PBUH because
he's not Wikipedia's prophet.
The latter link points to NPOV policy.
I and other editors have queried these edits on UrielAcosta's talk page, but UrielAcosta disagreed and soon after, s/he deleted the talk page entries, and continued to make these mass edits.
My mild objection, as a non-Muslim, is that "prophet" (lowercase 'p') is descriptive and informative, and is in accordance with MOS, so when the word "prophet" has been removed, I've instead re-added it as " Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity). To me, this is no different than referring to "the novelist Doris Lessing", or "the British politician Rishi Sunak".
MOS:MUHAMMAD actually says this: recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary.
I'd appreciate the input of other editors here, please. Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Pablo Escobar is not Wikipedia's drug lord, but it wouldn't be wrong to write of somebody, "It was on his trip to Panama that he became acquainted with drug lord Pablo Escobar.". Their bizarre response:
... you are 100% incorrect: Pablo Escobar IS Wikipedia's drug lord, because "drug lord" has a specific definition in English and Escobar qualifies under that definition.I mean, huh? (Have you ever heard Escobar described as "Wikipedia's drug lord"?) Then I pointed out that WP:PBUH explicitly provides for the usage that they've been obliterating, distinguishing honoring someone from merely identifying them in context on first mention, and it fell on deaf ears. When I saw that UrielAcosta had taken this campaign up again with vigor after having been reproved by at least three people, I was ready to report them to WP:ANI or somewhere, so I thank User:Esowteric for raising it here. Largoplazo ( talk) 11:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I've instead re-added it as "Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity).Did UrielAcosta revert these edits (by removing "Islamic prophet")? If they did, then that would be against what MOS:PBUH recommends (i.e. adding "the Islamic prophet" if necessary for clarity purposes). If they didn't revert, then they're just following what MOS:PBUH recommends. Some1 ( talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Regards, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)(The) Holy Prophet in place of, or preceding, " Muhammad" — recommended action is to use just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary. In cases where ambiguity or confusion exists, the "prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" may be used as a variation on "Muhammad".
except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessaryeven when it's pointed out to them point-blank. The reason Muhammad gets his own provision in the first place is because of a matter very specific to him: the practice of some people of writing "PBUH" after every use of his name, and referring to him as "the Prophet Muhammad" or even just "the Prophet" on every occasion. There's nothing about the provision that suggests that Muhammad is less deserving than anyone else in history of being introduced in a text in the way that people are very commonly introduced, by the use of context. If anyone's being non-neutral, it's UrielAcosta, for deeming Muhammad not to deserve to be identified in such a manner. Largoplazo ( talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
he's not Wikipedia's prophetbreaks the very policy that they are citing as an excuse to expunge the word from every article. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The sharifs were a religious nobility who claimed descent from the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and often members of the Naqib al-ashraf institution of the Ottoman Empire.[405]I spent a LOT of time on this section and made zero claims about Mohammed in wikivoice. I am not real upset about this either way but I consider myself an interested party and I oppose a mandatory naked Mohammed. Please ping me if this escalates. Going on a rampage about the word prophet is bigotry to my mind, just like it would be to insist on a disclaimer in an article about the visions of Joan of Arc or the incarnations of Vishnu.
Removing "The Prophet" in this way appears to be agenda driven. I am not a Muslim and I see no issue with the phrase being "The Prophet Muhammed" being used when it is referencing the founder of Islam Elmmapleoakpine ( talk) 15:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary.If this were equivalent to "The Pope" it would be phrased just as "The Prophet" when obviously Mohammed doesn't occupy the proper noun of "The Prophet" in English. —DIYeditor ( talk) 00:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a long-standing dispute over pages [3] and [4].
The dispute concerns the following statement: ‘There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of rental housing units’.
The statement was added by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:54, without prior discussion on the talk page. [5]
Several editors have shown opposition and/or raised concerns about the veracity and/or neutrality of such statement and/or the sources provided, as can be seen in the talk pages [6] and [7], evidencing that there is no consensus among editors on the content of the page.
Several users act as custodians of this page, systematically deleting references to indexed scientific articles, or reverting edits by users contrary to their views (e.g. this scientific reference [8], was deleted here [9]).
Several users have been targeted and banned by editors who oversee the site, accused of vandalism by those who uphold an statement that was unexpectedly added to the article without previous discussion in the talk page.
It appears that the sentence lacks the required consensus and does not seem to adhere to a neutral point of view.
139.47.66.252 ( talk) 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Could someone review this article and this discussion ( Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Adding POV and POV LEDE tags) for whether or not NPOV violations exist or if the POV tag belongs on the article. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the "Alleged extremist ties" section of the article Human Appeal - an organisation in regard to which I have a declared CoI (see the article's talk page archives).
The section begins:
Human Appeal was included as a Hamas front in a 1996 CIA report on charitable organizations that finance terror. In 2003, the FBI said Human Appeal had a "close relationship" with Hamas.
That report is available on Wikisource, at wikisource:CIA Report on NGOs With Terror Links. The organisation referred to in that report is, I'm told, not the same one as the subject of our article. The CIA uses Arabic names for what it refers to as "Human Appeal", which are not names ever used by the UK charity. The report states:
Offices: Zagreb and Tuzla. Headquartered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Other offices in Sidon, Khartoum, Nouakchott, Mauritania, and also in Denmark, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
which, I'm told, the UK charity has never had.
The source for the claim, Levitt, refers only to an organisation called "Human Appeal International-Jordan".
The Associated Press debunked the FBI dossier, as is apparently referenced in two publications:
The FBI and related claims are sourced to a single article in The Telegraph, but no other sources support them and its veracity is disputed by the organisation.
The organisation is clearly in good standing in the UK, as evidenced by its ongoing charity registration and links with those listed in the "Supporters" section (not least [10], which took place inside Parliament). This would surely not be the case were the allegations correct.
I would be grateful if someone neutral, and non-partisan in the current middle-east situation, could look into the matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Alleged links to the funding of terrorism made by the Jewish Chronicle in 2012 were withdrawn and an apology was issued in May 2013 after the allegations were deemed untrue and damages paid.I'd guess the question would be one of WP:DUE - obviously the narrative as presented vindicates the organization. However do we have too much detail on the lead-up? Simonm223 ( talk) 16:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
“ | The UK branch’s own website states that they are divisions of the same organisation. The UK and UAE branches’ logos are the same, apart from the translation of the charity's name into Arabic. | ” |
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Marc Gafni § Undue Weight and NPOV. Netanya9 ( talk) 10:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Could you please help review WP:NPOV?
Controversial article with many years of discussion on talk page. Now editors are actively adding controversial pov to the lead without consensus.
Specifically referring to:
Edit: [11] which is not conform WP:NEUTRAL and WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:IMBALANCE
And edit [12] where controversial text is copy/pasted from article in the lead. Unnecessary and not WP:BALANCE Netanya9 ( talk) 10:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Appreciating your expertise on the talk page.
Thank you! Netanya9 ( talk) 10:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I have just spent a couple of hours I will never get back at this page explaining:
The following remain to be addressed:
Peterson's work has generated billions of views from all over the world. Meanwhile, Rachel Notley is some minor politician in Canada. How many people outside of Canada knows about her or cares about her? Remove her from the article if you want. Obscure people shouldn't be allowed to parasite on the success of famous people. Trakking (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2024
Some people are trying hard to make this encyclopedic article be much more sensational and provocative than it ought to be. Trakking (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
and much more. I am sure I am forgetting stuff. Did I mention that a lot of the sources seem to fail verification? I have not yet run Wikiblame though. Please send whisky and psychiatrists. The editor mentioned a above is swedish and rather new. The other is @ Springee:. Elinruby ( talk) 12:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
"psychologist, author, and media commentator". I daresay maybe you ought not edit articles you have such strong opinions on if you feel compelled to use the slurs when discussing the person. This is no reflection on my personal opinion of Jordan Peterson. I don't like misogyny or misogynists, and I don't know much about Peterson other than that it is definitely not someone I would take advice from. I just think you are pushing the limits of WP:BLP and might be edging into having your comments refactored:
Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: 2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources
from what his article says. You do understand that I posted here because I was questioning the article's neutrality? It does indeed say, based on the subject's YouTube posts and some hagiography in student newspapers, that he is essentially the second coming of Carl Jung, to the point of including the Carl Jung navbar in the article. I thought the above was a decent start on the article's problems, but we can discuss misogyny if people want. I would have thought that this was obvious from the use of the word on RS, the description of women in his own voice as "witches" and forces of chaos, and his contention that they are responsible for murders by incels, a situation to be remedied by what he calls "mandatory monogamy." I will be happy to provide sources for these statements, and yes, I agree, actually, that they are not in the article. Or weren't the last time I looked. Elinruby ( talk) 01:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him," Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. "The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That's actually why monogamy emerges. Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn't make either gender happy in the end.
His willingness to say misogynistic and transphobic things, and support patriarchal institutions is damning
Peterson felt compelled to blog about it, explaining in his usual "Look, you may not like it, but I'm just stating the scientific truth, guys" tone, that he wasn't advocating the "arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels", just that scientific facts show that "socially enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence". How any of this explains his theory that feminine is chaos and masculine is order was left unexplored
Take Peterson's conceptualisation of order and chaos as reflecting masculinity and femininity...to raise these issues as an argument against more freedom for women is to feed the false idea that men and women are battling for power
No matter what she would have asked, a woman daring to question his expertise was bound to have ramifications. Especially in 2018.
When he does battle as a culture warrior, especially on television, Peterson sometimes assumes the role of a strident anti-feminist, intent on ending the oppression of males by destroying the myth of male oppression. (He once referred to his critics as "rabid harpies.")
women of colour calling out racism are routinely 'shut down' for 'incivility'. A guide to free speech politics in the age of Peterson, this chapter shows how inescapably raced, classed and gendered the exclusionary practice of 'free speech' really is, and what this tells us about liberalism's inadequacy in responding to neo-fascism.
What he's telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself. He's telling you that when someone tells you racism is still a problem and that something should be done about it, they are, at best, a dupe and, at worst, part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy your way of life. Peterson says he only thinks of it as a "non-violent war." But when you insist the stakes are that high, the opposition that pernicious, who's to say where the chips will fall?
The known stands for order, form, and culture, symbolically linked to the masculine. The unknown is chaos, substance, and nature, symbolically associated with the feminine. Chaos is origin, source, mother, matter, and order must restrain and shape that chaos.
they can be watched for hours espousing conservative doctrine to their predominantly male, adolescent audience in hopes of maintaining the status quo, and eschewing activism (Weiss & Winter, 2018). There are quite a number of figures in this group; however, this paper will be focusing primarily on the two most notable members: Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro.Elinruby ( talk) 01:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the issue here is that you have posted a legal threat and a personal attackcame from but what you've listed looks like good groundwork for inclusion in the article. —DIYeditor ( talk) 05:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
unless widely used by reliable sources. If the source evidence is insufficient to state it in wikivoice in a BLP, then it should be avoided on Talk too, per WP:BLPTALK. A personal attack against the subject of the article, even if you think it is justified, is WP:BATTLEGROUND noise that doesn’t help make content decisions. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 08:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
A debate about the Misandry article is ongoing at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. I welcome as many people as possible to chime in about how the article should be phrased as possible. Thank you. ImmersiveOne ( talk) 20:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
This may count as vandalism, but this IP user has been adding things like this onto this article. BOZ ( talk) 22:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
See [13]. I reverted a similar edit a few days ago. The issue I see is do we describe the Irgun in articles the way their article does or does Wikipedia call then terrorists. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I tried removing the "death date" and "death place" parameters from the infoboxes on BLPs (e.g. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), but the removals have been reverted. The vast majority of BLPs do not include such parameters. The infobox for the Joe Biden article, to cite a high-profile example, does not include parameters for death. Neither does the Taylor Swift article, to cite another high-profile example. Why should some BLPs include death parameters and others not? Seems morbid and downright prejudicial. Ieonine ( talk) 23:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The title of Hokkaidō Development Commission should be renamed to Hokkaido Colonization Commission. The National Archives of Japan [24] officially refers to it as the "Colonization Commission," so that should be the title instead of "Hokkaidō Development Commission." While some sources may use the latter, giving more weight to the National Archives' designation aligns better with Wikipedia's rules, avoiding WP:UNDUE emphasis on other sources. the lede sentence "The Hokkaidō Development Commission (開拓使, Kaitakushi), sometimes referred to as Hokkaidō Colonization Office or simply Kaitakushi, was a government agency in early Meiji Japan." would also need to be rewritten because it is incorrect to say that the commission is sometimes referred to as Hokkaido Colonization Office when it was the official name. talk page: [25]
I recently came across these two newly created articles and they are both deeply problematic and subject to what look like intense back and forth editing. Do non-involved editors think NPOV versions could be made from either of them? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
At times, denigrators can allow that they are human: Yonathan Netanyahu considered them cavemen while the Likud MP Oren Hazan allows that Palestinians are human, but only in so far as they are morons.appears to fail WP:NPOV, as the cited quotes (as provided in the footnotes) don't appear to say anything about allowing to be considered humans. NicolausPrime ( talk) 18:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This may be the wrong place to ask, but can someone please look at Biophilia hypothesis and more specifically Indigenous Perspectives on the Human-Nature Connection? It is some weird noble savage-type (could-be-perceived-as) racism.
People did not live in balance with nature, balance was imposed upon them by nature. "Indigenous" people were and are human, with all the same flaws. They overhunted certain species into near-extinction and were just as familiar with the concept of greed as we are. Romanticizing them as noble savages is not just incorrect; it (could-be-perceived-as) racist.
The noble savage (Do we not have an air quotes template?) lives in peace only with those species that have never been vulnerable to mankind's population growth. Polygnotus ( talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Article: Mermaids (charity) Putting this here possibly too early but I'd rather that then let this descend into squabbling. There's been some back-and-forth on this section and I'd like it to see a more broad audience, especially because I have little experience with wiki policy in general. I don't see how phrases like 'dealings with' and 'lobbying' are neutral especially when sourced from an opinion piece and book. The source I found also disputed what was written in the paragraph, so I'm unsure that stating these sentences as fact is even the right way to go about it. Sock-the-guy ( talk) 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
But demands for change grew more vociferous from the mid 2000s. Along with Mermaids, the Gender Identity Research and Education Society - GIRES - lobbied hard for GIDS to lower the age at which they'd consider treating children with puberty blockers.
A journalist at the BBC’s Newsnight, Barnes has based her account on more than 100 hours of interviews with Gids’ clinicians, former patients, and other experts, many of whom are quoted by name. It comes with 59 pages of notes, plentiful well-scrutinised statistics, and it is scrupulous and fair-minded. Several of her interviewees say they are happy either with the treatment they received at Gids, or with its practices – and she, in turn, is content to let them speak. Such a book cannot easily be dismissed. To do so, a person would not only have to be wilfully ignorant, they would also – to use the popular language of the day – need to be appallingly unkind.
Hannah Barnes’s scrupulous research is a painful, important reminder
A book about the Tavistock could easily have been a howl of outrage. But Hannah Barnes has written a meticulously researched, sensitive and cautionary chronicle.
Void if removed ( talk) 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Her account is sober, rhetoric-free and meticulously researched
Several editors have engaged in tactics to modify the page of Michael Shellenberger in a biased direction with intent to diminish his accomplishments. My own work has not been to cheerlead. I have simply asked for the Times Environmentalist of the Year Award to be recognized as such. I have notified several editors because they have coordinated together on the talk page. M.boli has given too little weight to the award, stating that what the times articles writers liked about Michael Shellenberger and Nordhaus is more important than acknowledging it as an award. NewsAndEventsGuy, M.boli, and Dumuzid have repeatedly taken down my edits. Dumuzid further gives the award too little weight, insisting it was not an award, justifying such with a citation from the Times article trying to claim it was a special report and not an award. LuckyLouie cited a paragraph from Shellenbergers' wikipedia article to prove the article these editors are working on is not biased. The quote is irrelevent as it ignores all the slanted portions throughout the article. NewsAndEventsGuy and Valjean have accused me of edit warring for pointing out these biases. Shellenberger won an award and however editors on wikipedia may feel about him, giving this matter due weight, staying neutral, and not missing the point are the correct things to do. Michael Shellenberger (Talk) Brahman12 ( talk) 17:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Times Environmentalist of the Year Award. There is no such award. There is something called "Heroes of the Environment 2008, A special report on the eco-pioneers fighting for a cleaner, greener future". It is not an award, it is a list of people Time Magazine has chosen to highlight for their role in environmental activism in a special report for that year. Here's the full list for 2008.
In 2007, Shellenberger and Nordhaus published Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. The book is an argument for what its authors describe as a positive, "post-environmental" politics that abandons the environmentalist focus on nature protection for a new focus on technological innovation to create a new economy. They were among 32 of Time magazine's Heroes of the Environment (2008) after writing the book and received the 2008 Green Book Award from science journalist John Horgan. [1]
Times Environmentalist of the Year Award. There is no such award." seems to be a direct refutation of part of the claim. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
you haven't addressed the points made by MysticMagpie nor has any of the other editors addressed the points made. They are addressed directly on the Talk page by another editor, Zenomonoz: "We don't use dictionary definitions to label things "award". That is WP:SYNTH. Time does not call it an award, so WP:STICKTOSOURCE". And I have to agree with him, your refusal to get the point is getting WP:TENDENTIOUS. See WP:DROPTHESTICK. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I have not been notified of this discussion, as required. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
References
An editor keeps adding the maintenance tag to European Court of Human Rights despite no consensus that he is right about the perceived issue or any attempt to fix it. Last time I checked the tag is supposed to be for ongoing improvement not a badge of shame. What is the appropriate response to incorrect use of the tag? (I tried reverting but don't want to get into an edit war) ( t · c) buidhe 17:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The pre-RfC stage was and is almost supposed to proceed for RfC formatting step, but an additional content issue came up about DUE/UNDUE relevance and fringe-ness at Talk:Jinn#Comparative mythology, Due, Fringe or Undue?. for discussion and initial inputs have been received.
Two side issues have cropped up is one user removed section Jinn#Comparative mythology and also tagged article for POV another user reverted the same.
also Pre-RfC stage info:
|
---|
As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section. |
Well I am myself playing a just discussion facilitator role up til now. Bookku ( talk) 17:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
There is some NPOV controversy in Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war, particularly the Reliability of Israeli officials as sources section. A discussion was (improperly?) started by non EC users, suggesting the extreme option of nuking the section. It would be good to get more input from non-involved and EC editors.
My (involved) opinion is that the section does have a serious WP:WEIGHT issue. Editors have continually been expanding the section without enough consideration of significance, relevance, proportionality, or redundancy. For example, the section currently includes four separate quotes (three in the intro + the Qatari PM) that express a general skepticism about Israel's truthfulness, without getting into specifics.
There's also a lack of coverage about misinformation from the other side of the war, such as Hamas' statement that Oct 7 fighters "only targeted the occupation soldiers". So there may be WP:PROPORTION and WP:STRUCTURE issue, but this would be easy enough to address if the Israeli section wasn't so lengthy.
I've trimmed some content from the Israeli section, and I'd be inclined to trim a lot more still, but it might not be appropriate without more input. What's the right balance here? — xDanielx T/ C\ R 18:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
analysis by the BBC found that video released by the Israeli military following the Al-Shifa Hospital siege had been edited[27] - no mention of misinformation
In March 2024, the Israeli army said it had "fired precisely" at individuals who posed a threat to soldiers during the Flour massacre; however, a United Nations team investigating the massacre's aftermath stated there was evidence of heavy shooting of civilians by the IDF.[28] - no mention of misinformation, "heavy shooting" and "precise fire" are not mutually exclusive
There has been NPOV controversy on-going about the Reiki article on its Talk Page, which is nothing new (I have read through all archives of the talk page to get a better picture, and it has been an on-going debate for nearly 20 years).
I specifically find the use of the word quackery in the lead objectionable, which seems unduly loaded and wilfully placed in such a prominent position, as well as further uses of WP:WTW throughout the article. Taken into consideration in its entirety, the article reads as though it had been written by someone with a personal vendetta against the topic.
Input from other editors would be appreciated. Thank you! – Konanen ( talk) 17:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
labeled quackery by whomin the Talk page, where I pointed out that one of the two references attached to quackery did not even use that term, and that the other reference was of questionable reliability:
The other reference tagged to the word quackery, however, does attribute said word to Reiki. Yet that source amounts to nothing more than a WP:QUESTIONABLE
rantopinion piece whose inclusion in the lead definitely skews the balance of the article unduly.
Nearly every definition of "quackery" includes things like deliberate misleading, deliberate pretending and fraud. IMO this should not be in the article much less in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and there is nothing about such aspects in the article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Article: Great Barrington Declaration
I'd like to bring the forementioned article to the attention of the noticeboard.
Issues:
Examples:
A few examples (pasted from the article verbatim, problematic sections bolded):
~~~~
Saltsjöbaden ( talk) 19:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Dadude sandstorm keeps changing Ursula Andress' longstanding infobox photo to an unrecognizable photo taken in her teens [29] [30] (around a decade before she even became famous, by the way).
Everyone knows that BLP infoboxes should use modern photos. I can already tell from the vocabulary in the second edit summary that the odds of this user being reasonable are slim. Any of you willing to take the reigns? Ieonine ( talk) 19:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
UrielAcosta seems to be on a mission, systematically searching through Wikipedia to find "[p]rophet Muhammad" and remove the word "prophet" (even if it's in lowercase), with the edit summary: Removed religious bias per
MOS:PBUH because
he's not Wikipedia's prophet.
The latter link points to NPOV policy.
I and other editors have queried these edits on UrielAcosta's talk page, but UrielAcosta disagreed and soon after, s/he deleted the talk page entries, and continued to make these mass edits.
My mild objection, as a non-Muslim, is that "prophet" (lowercase 'p') is descriptive and informative, and is in accordance with MOS, so when the word "prophet" has been removed, I've instead re-added it as " Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity). To me, this is no different than referring to "the novelist Doris Lessing", or "the British politician Rishi Sunak".
MOS:MUHAMMAD actually says this: recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary.
I'd appreciate the input of other editors here, please. Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Pablo Escobar is not Wikipedia's drug lord, but it wouldn't be wrong to write of somebody, "It was on his trip to Panama that he became acquainted with drug lord Pablo Escobar.". Their bizarre response:
... you are 100% incorrect: Pablo Escobar IS Wikipedia's drug lord, because "drug lord" has a specific definition in English and Escobar qualifies under that definition.I mean, huh? (Have you ever heard Escobar described as "Wikipedia's drug lord"?) Then I pointed out that WP:PBUH explicitly provides for the usage that they've been obliterating, distinguishing honoring someone from merely identifying them in context on first mention, and it fell on deaf ears. When I saw that UrielAcosta had taken this campaign up again with vigor after having been reproved by at least three people, I was ready to report them to WP:ANI or somewhere, so I thank User:Esowteric for raising it here. Largoplazo ( talk) 11:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I've instead re-added it as "Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity).Did UrielAcosta revert these edits (by removing "Islamic prophet")? If they did, then that would be against what MOS:PBUH recommends (i.e. adding "the Islamic prophet" if necessary for clarity purposes). If they didn't revert, then they're just following what MOS:PBUH recommends. Some1 ( talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Regards, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)(The) Holy Prophet in place of, or preceding, " Muhammad" — recommended action is to use just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary. In cases where ambiguity or confusion exists, the "prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" may be used as a variation on "Muhammad".
except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessaryeven when it's pointed out to them point-blank. The reason Muhammad gets his own provision in the first place is because of a matter very specific to him: the practice of some people of writing "PBUH" after every use of his name, and referring to him as "the Prophet Muhammad" or even just "the Prophet" on every occasion. There's nothing about the provision that suggests that Muhammad is less deserving than anyone else in history of being introduced in a text in the way that people are very commonly introduced, by the use of context. If anyone's being non-neutral, it's UrielAcosta, for deeming Muhammad not to deserve to be identified in such a manner. Largoplazo ( talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
he's not Wikipedia's prophetbreaks the very policy that they are citing as an excuse to expunge the word from every article. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The sharifs were a religious nobility who claimed descent from the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and often members of the Naqib al-ashraf institution of the Ottoman Empire.[405]I spent a LOT of time on this section and made zero claims about Mohammed in wikivoice. I am not real upset about this either way but I consider myself an interested party and I oppose a mandatory naked Mohammed. Please ping me if this escalates. Going on a rampage about the word prophet is bigotry to my mind, just like it would be to insist on a disclaimer in an article about the visions of Joan of Arc or the incarnations of Vishnu.
Removing "The Prophet" in this way appears to be agenda driven. I am not a Muslim and I see no issue with the phrase being "The Prophet Muhammed" being used when it is referencing the founder of Islam Elmmapleoakpine ( talk) 15:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary.If this were equivalent to "The Pope" it would be phrased just as "The Prophet" when obviously Mohammed doesn't occupy the proper noun of "The Prophet" in English. —DIYeditor ( talk) 00:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a long-standing dispute over pages [3] and [4].
The dispute concerns the following statement: ‘There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of rental housing units’.
The statement was added by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:54, without prior discussion on the talk page. [5]
Several editors have shown opposition and/or raised concerns about the veracity and/or neutrality of such statement and/or the sources provided, as can be seen in the talk pages [6] and [7], evidencing that there is no consensus among editors on the content of the page.
Several users act as custodians of this page, systematically deleting references to indexed scientific articles, or reverting edits by users contrary to their views (e.g. this scientific reference [8], was deleted here [9]).
Several users have been targeted and banned by editors who oversee the site, accused of vandalism by those who uphold an statement that was unexpectedly added to the article without previous discussion in the talk page.
It appears that the sentence lacks the required consensus and does not seem to adhere to a neutral point of view.
139.47.66.252 ( talk) 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Could someone review this article and this discussion ( Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Adding POV and POV LEDE tags) for whether or not NPOV violations exist or if the POV tag belongs on the article. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the "Alleged extremist ties" section of the article Human Appeal - an organisation in regard to which I have a declared CoI (see the article's talk page archives).
The section begins:
Human Appeal was included as a Hamas front in a 1996 CIA report on charitable organizations that finance terror. In 2003, the FBI said Human Appeal had a "close relationship" with Hamas.
That report is available on Wikisource, at wikisource:CIA Report on NGOs With Terror Links. The organisation referred to in that report is, I'm told, not the same one as the subject of our article. The CIA uses Arabic names for what it refers to as "Human Appeal", which are not names ever used by the UK charity. The report states:
Offices: Zagreb and Tuzla. Headquartered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Other offices in Sidon, Khartoum, Nouakchott, Mauritania, and also in Denmark, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
which, I'm told, the UK charity has never had.
The source for the claim, Levitt, refers only to an organisation called "Human Appeal International-Jordan".
The Associated Press debunked the FBI dossier, as is apparently referenced in two publications:
The FBI and related claims are sourced to a single article in The Telegraph, but no other sources support them and its veracity is disputed by the organisation.
The organisation is clearly in good standing in the UK, as evidenced by its ongoing charity registration and links with those listed in the "Supporters" section (not least [10], which took place inside Parliament). This would surely not be the case were the allegations correct.
I would be grateful if someone neutral, and non-partisan in the current middle-east situation, could look into the matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Alleged links to the funding of terrorism made by the Jewish Chronicle in 2012 were withdrawn and an apology was issued in May 2013 after the allegations were deemed untrue and damages paid.I'd guess the question would be one of WP:DUE - obviously the narrative as presented vindicates the organization. However do we have too much detail on the lead-up? Simonm223 ( talk) 16:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
“ | The UK branch’s own website states that they are divisions of the same organisation. The UK and UAE branches’ logos are the same, apart from the translation of the charity's name into Arabic. | ” |
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Marc Gafni § Undue Weight and NPOV. Netanya9 ( talk) 10:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Could you please help review WP:NPOV?
Controversial article with many years of discussion on talk page. Now editors are actively adding controversial pov to the lead without consensus.
Specifically referring to:
Edit: [11] which is not conform WP:NEUTRAL and WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:IMBALANCE
And edit [12] where controversial text is copy/pasted from article in the lead. Unnecessary and not WP:BALANCE Netanya9 ( talk) 10:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Appreciating your expertise on the talk page.
Thank you! Netanya9 ( talk) 10:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I have just spent a couple of hours I will never get back at this page explaining:
The following remain to be addressed:
Peterson's work has generated billions of views from all over the world. Meanwhile, Rachel Notley is some minor politician in Canada. How many people outside of Canada knows about her or cares about her? Remove her from the article if you want. Obscure people shouldn't be allowed to parasite on the success of famous people. Trakking (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2024
Some people are trying hard to make this encyclopedic article be much more sensational and provocative than it ought to be. Trakking (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
and much more. I am sure I am forgetting stuff. Did I mention that a lot of the sources seem to fail verification? I have not yet run Wikiblame though. Please send whisky and psychiatrists. The editor mentioned a above is swedish and rather new. The other is @ Springee:. Elinruby ( talk) 12:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
"psychologist, author, and media commentator". I daresay maybe you ought not edit articles you have such strong opinions on if you feel compelled to use the slurs when discussing the person. This is no reflection on my personal opinion of Jordan Peterson. I don't like misogyny or misogynists, and I don't know much about Peterson other than that it is definitely not someone I would take advice from. I just think you are pushing the limits of WP:BLP and might be edging into having your comments refactored:
Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: 2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources
from what his article says. You do understand that I posted here because I was questioning the article's neutrality? It does indeed say, based on the subject's YouTube posts and some hagiography in student newspapers, that he is essentially the second coming of Carl Jung, to the point of including the Carl Jung navbar in the article. I thought the above was a decent start on the article's problems, but we can discuss misogyny if people want. I would have thought that this was obvious from the use of the word on RS, the description of women in his own voice as "witches" and forces of chaos, and his contention that they are responsible for murders by incels, a situation to be remedied by what he calls "mandatory monogamy." I will be happy to provide sources for these statements, and yes, I agree, actually, that they are not in the article. Or weren't the last time I looked. Elinruby ( talk) 01:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him," Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. "The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That's actually why monogamy emerges. Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn't make either gender happy in the end.
His willingness to say misogynistic and transphobic things, and support patriarchal institutions is damning
Peterson felt compelled to blog about it, explaining in his usual "Look, you may not like it, but I'm just stating the scientific truth, guys" tone, that he wasn't advocating the "arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels", just that scientific facts show that "socially enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence". How any of this explains his theory that feminine is chaos and masculine is order was left unexplored
Take Peterson's conceptualisation of order and chaos as reflecting masculinity and femininity...to raise these issues as an argument against more freedom for women is to feed the false idea that men and women are battling for power
No matter what she would have asked, a woman daring to question his expertise was bound to have ramifications. Especially in 2018.
When he does battle as a culture warrior, especially on television, Peterson sometimes assumes the role of a strident anti-feminist, intent on ending the oppression of males by destroying the myth of male oppression. (He once referred to his critics as "rabid harpies.")
women of colour calling out racism are routinely 'shut down' for 'incivility'. A guide to free speech politics in the age of Peterson, this chapter shows how inescapably raced, classed and gendered the exclusionary practice of 'free speech' really is, and what this tells us about liberalism's inadequacy in responding to neo-fascism.
What he's telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself. He's telling you that when someone tells you racism is still a problem and that something should be done about it, they are, at best, a dupe and, at worst, part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy your way of life. Peterson says he only thinks of it as a "non-violent war." But when you insist the stakes are that high, the opposition that pernicious, who's to say where the chips will fall?
The known stands for order, form, and culture, symbolically linked to the masculine. The unknown is chaos, substance, and nature, symbolically associated with the feminine. Chaos is origin, source, mother, matter, and order must restrain and shape that chaos.
they can be watched for hours espousing conservative doctrine to their predominantly male, adolescent audience in hopes of maintaining the status quo, and eschewing activism (Weiss & Winter, 2018). There are quite a number of figures in this group; however, this paper will be focusing primarily on the two most notable members: Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro.Elinruby ( talk) 01:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the issue here is that you have posted a legal threat and a personal attackcame from but what you've listed looks like good groundwork for inclusion in the article. —DIYeditor ( talk) 05:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
unless widely used by reliable sources. If the source evidence is insufficient to state it in wikivoice in a BLP, then it should be avoided on Talk too, per WP:BLPTALK. A personal attack against the subject of the article, even if you think it is justified, is WP:BATTLEGROUND noise that doesn’t help make content decisions. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 08:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
A debate about the Misandry article is ongoing at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. I welcome as many people as possible to chime in about how the article should be phrased as possible. Thank you. ImmersiveOne ( talk) 20:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
This may count as vandalism, but this IP user has been adding things like this onto this article. BOZ ( talk) 22:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
See [13]. I reverted a similar edit a few days ago. The issue I see is do we describe the Irgun in articles the way their article does or does Wikipedia call then terrorists. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I tried removing the "death date" and "death place" parameters from the infoboxes on BLPs (e.g. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), but the removals have been reverted. The vast majority of BLPs do not include such parameters. The infobox for the Joe Biden article, to cite a high-profile example, does not include parameters for death. Neither does the Taylor Swift article, to cite another high-profile example. Why should some BLPs include death parameters and others not? Seems morbid and downright prejudicial. Ieonine ( talk) 23:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The title of Hokkaidō Development Commission should be renamed to Hokkaido Colonization Commission. The National Archives of Japan [24] officially refers to it as the "Colonization Commission," so that should be the title instead of "Hokkaidō Development Commission." While some sources may use the latter, giving more weight to the National Archives' designation aligns better with Wikipedia's rules, avoiding WP:UNDUE emphasis on other sources. the lede sentence "The Hokkaidō Development Commission (開拓使, Kaitakushi), sometimes referred to as Hokkaidō Colonization Office or simply Kaitakushi, was a government agency in early Meiji Japan." would also need to be rewritten because it is incorrect to say that the commission is sometimes referred to as Hokkaido Colonization Office when it was the official name. talk page: [25]
I recently came across these two newly created articles and they are both deeply problematic and subject to what look like intense back and forth editing. Do non-involved editors think NPOV versions could be made from either of them? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
At times, denigrators can allow that they are human: Yonathan Netanyahu considered them cavemen while the Likud MP Oren Hazan allows that Palestinians are human, but only in so far as they are morons.appears to fail WP:NPOV, as the cited quotes (as provided in the footnotes) don't appear to say anything about allowing to be considered humans. NicolausPrime ( talk) 18:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This may be the wrong place to ask, but can someone please look at Biophilia hypothesis and more specifically Indigenous Perspectives on the Human-Nature Connection? It is some weird noble savage-type (could-be-perceived-as) racism.
People did not live in balance with nature, balance was imposed upon them by nature. "Indigenous" people were and are human, with all the same flaws. They overhunted certain species into near-extinction and were just as familiar with the concept of greed as we are. Romanticizing them as noble savages is not just incorrect; it (could-be-perceived-as) racist.
The noble savage (Do we not have an air quotes template?) lives in peace only with those species that have never been vulnerable to mankind's population growth. Polygnotus ( talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Article: Mermaids (charity) Putting this here possibly too early but I'd rather that then let this descend into squabbling. There's been some back-and-forth on this section and I'd like it to see a more broad audience, especially because I have little experience with wiki policy in general. I don't see how phrases like 'dealings with' and 'lobbying' are neutral especially when sourced from an opinion piece and book. The source I found also disputed what was written in the paragraph, so I'm unsure that stating these sentences as fact is even the right way to go about it. Sock-the-guy ( talk) 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
But demands for change grew more vociferous from the mid 2000s. Along with Mermaids, the Gender Identity Research and Education Society - GIRES - lobbied hard for GIDS to lower the age at which they'd consider treating children with puberty blockers.
A journalist at the BBC’s Newsnight, Barnes has based her account on more than 100 hours of interviews with Gids’ clinicians, former patients, and other experts, many of whom are quoted by name. It comes with 59 pages of notes, plentiful well-scrutinised statistics, and it is scrupulous and fair-minded. Several of her interviewees say they are happy either with the treatment they received at Gids, or with its practices – and she, in turn, is content to let them speak. Such a book cannot easily be dismissed. To do so, a person would not only have to be wilfully ignorant, they would also – to use the popular language of the day – need to be appallingly unkind.
Hannah Barnes’s scrupulous research is a painful, important reminder
A book about the Tavistock could easily have been a howl of outrage. But Hannah Barnes has written a meticulously researched, sensitive and cautionary chronicle.
Void if removed ( talk) 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Her account is sober, rhetoric-free and meticulously researched
Several editors have engaged in tactics to modify the page of Michael Shellenberger in a biased direction with intent to diminish his accomplishments. My own work has not been to cheerlead. I have simply asked for the Times Environmentalist of the Year Award to be recognized as such. I have notified several editors because they have coordinated together on the talk page. M.boli has given too little weight to the award, stating that what the times articles writers liked about Michael Shellenberger and Nordhaus is more important than acknowledging it as an award. NewsAndEventsGuy, M.boli, and Dumuzid have repeatedly taken down my edits. Dumuzid further gives the award too little weight, insisting it was not an award, justifying such with a citation from the Times article trying to claim it was a special report and not an award. LuckyLouie cited a paragraph from Shellenbergers' wikipedia article to prove the article these editors are working on is not biased. The quote is irrelevent as it ignores all the slanted portions throughout the article. NewsAndEventsGuy and Valjean have accused me of edit warring for pointing out these biases. Shellenberger won an award and however editors on wikipedia may feel about him, giving this matter due weight, staying neutral, and not missing the point are the correct things to do. Michael Shellenberger (Talk) Brahman12 ( talk) 17:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Times Environmentalist of the Year Award. There is no such award. There is something called "Heroes of the Environment 2008, A special report on the eco-pioneers fighting for a cleaner, greener future". It is not an award, it is a list of people Time Magazine has chosen to highlight for their role in environmental activism in a special report for that year. Here's the full list for 2008.
In 2007, Shellenberger and Nordhaus published Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. The book is an argument for what its authors describe as a positive, "post-environmental" politics that abandons the environmentalist focus on nature protection for a new focus on technological innovation to create a new economy. They were among 32 of Time magazine's Heroes of the Environment (2008) after writing the book and received the 2008 Green Book Award from science journalist John Horgan. [1]
Times Environmentalist of the Year Award. There is no such award." seems to be a direct refutation of part of the claim. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
you haven't addressed the points made by MysticMagpie nor has any of the other editors addressed the points made. They are addressed directly on the Talk page by another editor, Zenomonoz: "We don't use dictionary definitions to label things "award". That is WP:SYNTH. Time does not call it an award, so WP:STICKTOSOURCE". And I have to agree with him, your refusal to get the point is getting WP:TENDENTIOUS. See WP:DROPTHESTICK. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I have not been notified of this discussion, as required. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
References
An editor keeps adding the maintenance tag to European Court of Human Rights despite no consensus that he is right about the perceived issue or any attempt to fix it. Last time I checked the tag is supposed to be for ongoing improvement not a badge of shame. What is the appropriate response to incorrect use of the tag? (I tried reverting but don't want to get into an edit war) ( t · c) buidhe 17:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The pre-RfC stage was and is almost supposed to proceed for RfC formatting step, but an additional content issue came up about DUE/UNDUE relevance and fringe-ness at Talk:Jinn#Comparative mythology, Due, Fringe or Undue?. for discussion and initial inputs have been received.
Two side issues have cropped up is one user removed section Jinn#Comparative mythology and also tagged article for POV another user reverted the same.
also Pre-RfC stage info:
|
---|
As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section. |
Well I am myself playing a just discussion facilitator role up til now. Bookku ( talk) 17:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
There is some NPOV controversy in Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war, particularly the Reliability of Israeli officials as sources section. A discussion was (improperly?) started by non EC users, suggesting the extreme option of nuking the section. It would be good to get more input from non-involved and EC editors.
My (involved) opinion is that the section does have a serious WP:WEIGHT issue. Editors have continually been expanding the section without enough consideration of significance, relevance, proportionality, or redundancy. For example, the section currently includes four separate quotes (three in the intro + the Qatari PM) that express a general skepticism about Israel's truthfulness, without getting into specifics.
There's also a lack of coverage about misinformation from the other side of the war, such as Hamas' statement that Oct 7 fighters "only targeted the occupation soldiers". So there may be WP:PROPORTION and WP:STRUCTURE issue, but this would be easy enough to address if the Israeli section wasn't so lengthy.
I've trimmed some content from the Israeli section, and I'd be inclined to trim a lot more still, but it might not be appropriate without more input. What's the right balance here? — xDanielx T/ C\ R 18:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
analysis by the BBC found that video released by the Israeli military following the Al-Shifa Hospital siege had been edited[27] - no mention of misinformation
In March 2024, the Israeli army said it had "fired precisely" at individuals who posed a threat to soldiers during the Flour massacre; however, a United Nations team investigating the massacre's aftermath stated there was evidence of heavy shooting of civilians by the IDF.[28] - no mention of misinformation, "heavy shooting" and "precise fire" are not mutually exclusive
There has been NPOV controversy on-going about the Reiki article on its Talk Page, which is nothing new (I have read through all archives of the talk page to get a better picture, and it has been an on-going debate for nearly 20 years).
I specifically find the use of the word quackery in the lead objectionable, which seems unduly loaded and wilfully placed in such a prominent position, as well as further uses of WP:WTW throughout the article. Taken into consideration in its entirety, the article reads as though it had been written by someone with a personal vendetta against the topic.
Input from other editors would be appreciated. Thank you! – Konanen ( talk) 17:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
labeled quackery by whomin the Talk page, where I pointed out that one of the two references attached to quackery did not even use that term, and that the other reference was of questionable reliability:
The other reference tagged to the word quackery, however, does attribute said word to Reiki. Yet that source amounts to nothing more than a WP:QUESTIONABLE
rantopinion piece whose inclusion in the lead definitely skews the balance of the article unduly.
Nearly every definition of "quackery" includes things like deliberate misleading, deliberate pretending and fraud. IMO this should not be in the article much less in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and there is nothing about such aspects in the article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Article: Great Barrington Declaration
I'd like to bring the forementioned article to the attention of the noticeboard.
Issues:
Examples:
A few examples (pasted from the article verbatim, problematic sections bolded):
~~~~
Saltsjöbaden ( talk) 19:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Dadude sandstorm keeps changing Ursula Andress' longstanding infobox photo to an unrecognizable photo taken in her teens [29] [30] (around a decade before she even became famous, by the way).
Everyone knows that BLP infoboxes should use modern photos. I can already tell from the vocabulary in the second edit summary that the odds of this user being reasonable are slim. Any of you willing to take the reigns? Ieonine ( talk) 19:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)