This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | → | Archive 105 |
There is an ongoing dispute in Talk:Andrew Jackson, and @ Oncamera suggested that I post here about @ Display name 99's ownership behavior as the "self-appointed guardian" of the article. There are actually a few issues, but they're all related to systemic bias; the article as it is written now is focused on Jackson's impact and legacy as seen by white men, and I have been trying to adapt the content to adequately cover Jackson's (very notable) role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States, but I have been met with significant resistance.
For example, after a bit of back-and-forth, I proposed the following change to the introductory paragraph:
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. While he was championed in his time for his efforts to preserve the Union and advance the rights of working-class white men, his legacy is complicated by his role overseeing the ethnic cleansing of Indigenous populations through the Indian Removal Act.
All of the information here is prominently supported by reliable sources, and none of it is contested. The current text (written by Display name 99) looks like this:
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union.
This misleading (using "common" to mean white, for one) and focuses on what Jackson used to be notable for among white men rather than what he is notable for today from a global perspective.
I've gone to great lengths to try to understand Display name 99's reason for excluding ethnic cleansing, but they have not offered much explanation, describing it as a "red line," "biased," and "loaded language," with no explanation other than a book from the '80s that describes an "ongoing debate" about whether ethnic cleansing was the "correct" decision. I believe my introduction is more notable, descriptive, reliable, and neutral than anything they have proposed, but they have been persistently rejecting any change to their text without an explanation that I've been able to understand, so it seems relevant to bring the issue here and get outside opinions. FinnV3 ( talk) 14:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I will begin with a response to the allegation of ownership behavior before diving into specifics. I don't consider it ownership but WP:Stewardship. I wrote much of the article, brought it to featured article status, and care about insuring that it remains a high-quality work. But I don't revert edits that other people make just because I'm not the one making them. I alter or remove changes which violate Wikipedia policy and detract from the quality of the article, but I don't stop others from making improvements.
Now onto the specific issues. The sentence in the opening paragraph describing Jackson's presidency reads, as FinnV3 quoted it: "An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union." FinnV3 objected very strongly to a number of aspects of this paragraph. He was adamant that it needed specific mention of Indian removal. I disagreed. The opening paragraph of any article is supposed to be very brief. The opening paragraph of the Jackson article, therefore, should focus in broad terms on Jackson's philosophy, not delving into the details of specific policy. Therefore, in my mind, that sentence is completely fine. It covers the essence of the principles of Jacksonian democracy, which were expanding America's borders, fighting on behalf of ordinary citizens against what was alleged to be a corrupt system in the federal government, and seeking to overcome sectional differences and keep the Union together through opposition to both nullification and abolitionism. By describing Jackson supporting the rights of the "common man" against a "corrupt aristocracy," we implicitly cover his purges of corruption, opposition to expensive federal programs, and the Bank War. By mentioning his work for the preservation of the Union, nullification and opposition to abolitionism are also covered. In the same way, describing him as an "expansionist president" covers his Indian removal policies. I have never seen a need to specifically mention Indian removal when crucial episodes like the Nullification Crisis and the Bank War are also not individually addressed. Indian removal, like these issues, is discussed in detail further down in the lead and in the body of the article. However, FinnV3 had the support of another editor, and in the interest of compromise, I proposed this version:
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. An expansionist president who oversaw the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against what he saw as a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union.
This already went further than I thought proper by specifically mentioning Indian removal while not specifically mentioning other issues of great relevance in Jackson's life. FinnV3 rejected it, insisting that "forced removal" be replaced with his preferred term, "ethnic cleansing." Both myself and another editor, Antiok 1pie, are opposed to this language. I readily concede one of Finnv3's key points: several reliable sources on Indian removal describe it as ethnic cleansing, and although many other sources do not use that language, I have not been able to find any which argue that it was not ethnic cleansing. However, I still do not believe that it is best to use that language in the manner in which it has been proposed, and I will repeat some of the arguments that I have made on the talk page to explain why.
Although there isn't a single scholar on the Jackson era from the late 20th century until now that I'm aware of who does not recognize the removal of Indians as orchestrated by Jackson as a humanitarian catastrophe, there is still considerable debate as to Jackson's personal responsibility in the matter. There's evidence that he wanted the Indians to be treated well, and it's not proven that he was aware of mistreatment carried out by soldiers during the relocation process. Additionally, it has been seriously argued in recent studies that as terrible as removal was, Jackson's decision to carry it out really was the best option available, and that had Jackson not undertaken it, encroaching white settlements would have led to a protracted and bloody war between whites and Native Americans which the whites eventually would have won, leading to more Native American deaths than took place during the removal. Therefore, removal, as terrible as it was, was simply the best option that Jackson had. Robert V. Remini is a major historian who published numerous works on Jackson in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, argues that. His studies of Jackson have formed a foundation for all scholarship of him that has taken place since. He largely defends Jackson's removal policies as tragic but necessary. Several other historians have adopted that view, one of whom, Francis Paul Prucha, is mentioned in the "Historical reputation" section of the article. Personally, I agree that Jackson's Indian removal policies most likely did conform to the literal definition of ethnic cleansing. However, the term has an extremely negative connotation. In my mind, it implies that Jackson hated the Indians, wanted them gone, and perhaps even wished to exterminate them. Because of its implication, I do not think that is appropriate to use that language without further context when the necessity and justification of Jackson's actions is not a settled matter and is still debated. My preferred language, "forced removal," is neutral and accurate, and has no implications beyond what is simple fact that everyone can agree on. FinnV3 disputed my claim that "ethnic cleansing" implies hatred, but when I asked him why whether, if both terms are neutral and accurate and don't imply any particular motivations, he wouldn't simply accept my preferred version when I so strongly opposed the other, he did not give an answer that I could understand.
To summarize, I don't think that Indian removal needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph. But if it is going to be mentioned, it should at least be in a way that does not imply something which some reliable sources oppose.
I also don't think that it's appropriate or necessary to say in the opening paragraph that his legacy was complicated by Indian removal. Jackson was extremely controversial during and after his lifetime. But the most intense political issues of his day, and the positions for which Jackson was most heavily criticized in sources written in the 120* years after his death, was not Indian removal. This did not became the thing that he was most criticized for until the 1970s.
FinnV3 has objected to the use of the term "common man" in both the opening and concluding paragraphs of the lead, the former of which summarizes his philosophy and the latter his legacy. Language like "common man" is a critical part of the idea of Jacksonian democracy. Jackson's supporters, both in his time and through scholarly works long after his death, have not described him as an advocate of the "white working class" but for the "common man" or "ordinary Americans." However flawed, inaccurate, or incomplete this may be, that's what they have said, and it's essential to note when assessing his legacy. When describing things for which Jackson has been praised, it is most accurate to use the language in which he has been praised. It is not biased to do so when the article also notes his racial policies and mentions the criticism that he has received for them. Additionally, "common man" is in quotes in the first paragraph. The quotes demonstrate that this was the language of Jackson's supporters, and that their definition of "common man," which was generally limited to white men, should not be taken as the absolute and final meaning of the term. A secondary point is that Native Americans who chose to adopt white habits and live like whites, as well as freed blacks in the North, were also effected in many ways by Jackson's economic policies that he engaged in on behalf of the "common man," and so to replace "common man" with "white working class," or something similar, makes it seem like these people don't exist.
FinnV3 also removed a sentence saying that Jackson was ranked favorably compared to other U.S. presidents. Antiok 1pie reverted him. When shown indisputable evidence that most presidential ranking surveys did place Jackson near the top, and he allowed a proposed compromise version of the sentence to go into the article without complaining, but is now trying to end altogether the practice of including presidential rankings in the leads of articles.
The reference that I removed was a Vox article written by a non-historian. Internet articles are cited in the article, but they aren't in the Bibliography, especially when they are nothing more than popular opinion pieces written by non-historians, as was the case with that article.
I know that was a lot of writing, but the opposition to so many points in the article necessitated it. I am not trying to own the article and erase the history of Native Americans. There's plenty about them in the article. When two editors voiced concerns on the talk page that the "Historical reputation" section lacked sufficient critical assessments of Jackson, I welcomed them to add some. [1] [2] When one of them wanted a pro-Jackson assessment removed because it came from a source that they found unreliable, I consented. However, what FinnV3's revisions would do to the article would result it inflated coverage of racial issues while diminishing everything else, while discussing these racial issues in a biased way that would imply conclusions contrary to many important sources. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Jackson has been widely revered in the United States as an advocate for democracy and the common man. Many of his actions proved divisive, garnering both fervent support and strong opposition from many in the country. His reputation has suffered since the 1970s, largely due to his anti-abolitionist views and policy of the forcible removal of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands. However, surveys of historians and scholars have usually ranked Jackson favorably among U.S. presidents.[3][4]FinnV3 was displeased that Indian removal was not explicitly mentioned in the opening paragraph. Despite not thinking it necessary, I offered him a version that did explicitly mention it (I quoted it in green in my original post), but he rejected it because he insisted on including the language "ethnic cleansing," which I did not think was appropriate for the opening paragraph. The dispute isn't about whether modern critical evaluations should be mentioned in the lead. They already are and I agree that they ought to be. It's about whether "ethnic cleansing" is appropriate for the opening paragraph, how to describe Jackson's legacy as an advocate for democracy in light of his racial policies, and the issue of presidential rankings. Display name 99 ( talk) 03:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The pivot in editorial strategy has drawn praise on social media, with some writers commenting that Teen Vogue is doing a better job of covering important stories in 2016 than legacy news publications.[3],
Teen Vogue received national acclaim for its political journalism, yet profit did not immediately follow.[4], [5]. It is clearly WP:BIASED on many topics, especially politics and fashion - something all those sources emphasize is that it carries a very specific sort of politics, and potential conflicts exist when discussing fashion - but largely it's treated as something closer to eg. Jacobin, ie. a credible high-quality source for that politics, so I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss it simply because it's Teen Vogue. (It's also important to note that this is a relatively recent development.) That doesn't mean it's the ideal source to use here - better ones can clearly be found - but that's more because it's a magazine and is WP:BIASED in a way that would require attribution, rather than because it is an at-a-glance obviously ridiculous source or something of that nature simply because it has "teen" in its name. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Deathlibrarian, ARoseWolf, Andrevan and Pyrrho the Skipper I will try to restate my arguments for the opening paragraph in brief, bullet point format.
Hopefully that makes things easier for everyone. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
To call it forced removal when sources call it ethnic cleansing is not maintaining a NPOV., not all reliable sources say that. Please don't just take the sources that you want and imply that they speak for all of them.
Most importantly, the article should describe what actually happened that he had a role in and his role in it. Not in trying to fight in (and at best push the envelope on the meaning of the term) an un-informative value-laden term. Second, that is something that the overall US government had been doing since the beginning of it's existence, and also did long after Jackson was gone. Trying to word it like this was a particular initiative of Jackson is misleading at best. North8000 ( talk) 19:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Let me see if I can more effectively explain part of my position this way. The opening paragraph of the lead describes in brief, very broad terms the main things for which a person or thing is most notable. A study of a specific issue such as Indian removal, no matter how high the quality is, does not serve to provide a general assessment of the main reasons for why Jackson is important. It cannot compare Jackson's achievements in preserving the Union through the Nullification Crisis to his expulsion policies because it doesn't exist to do that. It exists to describe a specific issue, and that only. A biography of Jackson, however, will. Specialized studies of individual issues should absolutely be used in Wikipedia. But when looking for help in reliable sources to answer the question of how to summarize a person's achievements and legacy in just a few sentences, we should look first to biographies, because a biography seeks to answer those questions. This means that if no biographies call Jackson's Indian removal policies "ethnic cleansing," it would be best not to use that term in the opening paragraph. No, I don't have a policy that supports this. It just seems like good sense. Making that argument, ARoseWolf, doesn't mean that I'm trying to push my own personal POV. Look at the latest comment by Deathlibrarian: "Jackson seems to have been given a free pass by historians for positive things he has done, while what he did to the native Americans seems to have swept under the carpet." This editor clearly has their own personal agenda and is making no attempt to hide it. Are you going to call them out on it? Display name 99 ( talk) 04:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War and succeeded in preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and modernizing the U.S. economy.So why not the same for Jackson? Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 15:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man"[1] against what he saw as a "corrupt aristocracy"[2] and to preserve the union of states. Although often praised as an advocate for the working classes and for his work in keeping the states together, Jackson has also been criticized for alleged demagoguery and for his racial policies, particularly his role in the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands.
I undid this [8] edit by FinnV3. It replaces citations to historians already in the article with new works without explanation. Some of the citations are without page numbers. The language is EXTREMELY partisan. Is "satisfying Jackson's 'hunger for vegeance'" really necessary? Even if the source uses it (I couldn't find it; the citation lacks a page number), is that how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written? Display name 99 ( talk) 21:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
We have seen the ravens & the vultures preying upon the carcases of the unburied slain. Our vengeance has been gluted.
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man"[1] against what he saw as a "corrupt aristocracy"[2] and to preserve the union of states. Although often praised as an advocate for the working classes and for his work in keeping the states together, Jackson has also been criticized for alleged demagoguery and for his racial policies, particularly his role in the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands.
References
OK, changed. As for RfCs, these can be painful and tedious. We're already gotten quite a few opinions already, on the article talk page and in this forum. I'm not sure that adding a few more would really change the direction of things. If most people are okay with the new version of the opening paragraph, I think that it would make sense to leave it and simply move on to discussing the other issues. I don't want more controversy if we don't need it. If we can't come to agreements about the other stuff, we can do RfCs for those. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
"Let the white race perish!" he raged. They seized your lands, corrupted your women, and trampled on the bones of your dead...Burn their dwellings — destroy their stock — slay their wives and children, that the very breed may perish."(Remini, 2001, p. 3) Labelling a battle a massacre in which the side that was supposedly massacred refused an offer to surrender, even killing a member of the party sent to offer surrender, personally strikes me as a little ridiculous. But trying to put my own feelings aside, saying that some historians label the battle as a massacre is unnecessary when there are so many others who don't and, again, given the length of the article. Display name 99 ( talk) 12:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC) I also think that we should remove the mention of some Indians being killed while trying to flee. Killing soldiers who are attempting to retreat instead of surrendering is common behavior. It happens all of the time. Additionally, I feel like if we're going to include that, we should also include the Red Sticks refusing the offer of surrender. Display name 99 ( talk) 12:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The description in academic literature of U.S. policies toward Native Americans as ethnic cleansing originated with Gary Clayton Anderson's Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America (University of Oklahoma Press 2014) Anderson believed that these policies bore greater similarity to the "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia than actual genocide, a term that was developed to describe the Holocaust. Anderson has been criticized for minimizing the extent of the deliberate killing of Native Americans and for having a narrow definition of genocide. [14] While a lot of popular literature uses the term ethnic cleansing, I don't think it has gained sufficient support in academic writing to be considered a consensus view or even a major one. Meanwhile, the term genocide was used by the Canadian government to describe its policies toward aboriginal Canadians, which incidentally were milder than those of the U.S., at least during the period of white settlement of Indian lands.
Also, the term "working classes" is misleading. The "workingmen" (which was the actual term used) were skilled journeymen working their way up to master craftsmen who felt threatened by the competition from factory owners and the unskilled laborers they employed.
TFD ( talk) 14:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
ARoseWolf, I made an argument against the use of ethnic cleansing based on the sources. I didn't frame it in terms of my own personal opinion but what the sources say. Deathlibrarian made an argument for its use and criticized historians for supposedly minimizing Jackson's allegedly immoral deeds. I'm trying to conform to the sources by using the most basic language that all of them would use. They put themself above the sources. I think that you are applying a double standard here about who is being biased or not based on your own preferences. No, calling it "ethnic cleansing" is not being cautious. Calling it genocide anywhere in the article in Wikivoice would be wholly unacceptable, because whereas with "ethnic cleansing" it's mostly a matter of examining which reliable sources use the term and which ones are silent, there are numerous reliable sources which explicitly refute the argument that Jackson's removal policies constitute genocide. Two of these historians are listed in the "Changed perspective" section in the article on Indian removal. There are others. Even FinnV3 acknowledged somewhere on the talk page that the use of genocide was more contentious. Calling it genocide in Wikivoice would be wholly reckless. So no, "ethnic cleansing" is not "middle of the road."
Also, I want to belatedly address your point that "twenty reliable sources" call it ethnic cleaning. The list above includes 19 sources. Citations 1, 5, and 17 are to popular opinion pieces by non-historians. Citation number 17 is an article about climate change written by a physics professor. Smart guy, I'm sure, but not someone on whom to base our assessment of Andrew Jackson. While sources like this are useful for understanding the public perception of Indian removal, they are not high quality sources for looking at how we should interpret events in the past. That brings the list down to 16 sources. The remaining sources do seem more reliable than the four three I just pointed out, but the lackluster quality of those and the attempt to pass them off as reliable doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about the rest, even though at least some of them do look more serious.
Display name 99 (
talk) 18:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
"for his racial policies, particularly his role in the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands, a removal many modern scholars describe as ethnic cleansing."This would address what Masem stated about modern scholars. We can provide a few of the best sources from the list. I will note that the reason more google scholar searches connect "Andrew Jackson" with "Indian Removal" is because the act itself is called Indian Removal Act so one would think that would be discussed more in academia. That does not dismiss the importance of the more modern definition of the enforcement and its affects on the Native cultures involved. Most scholars agree that Native Nations were seen as a obstacle and they had to be removed to open the land up for white settlers. While Jackson was not the first to hold this opinion the fact remains that it was under his administration that the act was passed and it was under his administration that enforcement began. Another former president had a slogan written on a sign and placed on his desk in the Oval Office and it rings true even for Jackson, "The buck stops here". It happened under Jackson's watch. The fact it had been happening in local communities, states and colonies prior to this act is irrelevant to this particular case. Likewise, the fact it continued and even expanded into other forms or fashions like forced assimilation and eugenics programs later in US history does not excuse Jackson's role in this policy or action nor does it justify the thousands of lives lost and ethnic cultures decimated by his enforcement of it. Jackson's opinions, intents or otherwise don't honestly matter when compared with the results. The results were at minimum ethnic cleansing, at worse genocide. That's what many modern historians and scholars are realizing and it has become more prevalent in academia in the last 25 to 30 years because of it. -- ARose Wolf 12:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
What makes you say "overwhelming majority?" I'm not seeing any evidence of that here. Andrew Jackson and his Indian Wars by Robert V. Remini (2001), The Rise of Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln by Sean Wilentz (2006), Separate Peoples, One Land: The Minds of Cherokees, Blacks, and Whites on the Tennessee Frontier by Cynthia Cumter (2007), and The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism by Edward Baptist (2014) are all recent, significant history books about the period that deal substantially with Indian removal. None of them are Jackson biographies. All three books mention "forced removal," or something similar, but none of them use the term "ethnic cleansing." What is so special about ethnic cleansing that it must be given greater prominence than forced removal? It still seems like the latter, not the former, is the one most widely used by sources. Thus, I see no compelling reason to give preference to ethnic cleansing. Display name 99 ( talk) 18:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The relocation process dispossessed these nations of their land and resulted in widespread death and disease.
Should Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policies be described as "ethnic cleansing" or "forced removal" in the lead?Display name 99 ( talk) 22:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
RfC started here. Display name 99 ( talk) 05:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Some of other related policies for current requested RfC discussion: WP:BLP, WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Also WP:Wikivoice, WP: POV/NPOV, Due/ Undue, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:onus
Requesting inputs about WP policies regarding, WP:BLP protocols and naming of the accused in relation to mentions of allegations and counter allegations in the given article, against a female victim of sexual assault, her associates and also other accused.
Requesting well studied, carefully thought inputs @ RfC: A TikToker, associates, other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 10:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
In 2019 he made an address at the Beijing Catholic Forum for Sinicization of Theology. On the occasion he said:
- The Sinicization of Catholicism, requires the upholding of a political self-consciousness and to always improve the political stance of its thinking. Catholicism tells us that love for one's country is the fourth commandment of the decalogue, "Be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake." Supporting the leadership of the Communist Party and fervently loving our socialist motherland is the basic premise for upholding our country's direction to Sinicize religion. More than half a century ago, the Catholic Church of China took upon itself to choose its own holy bishops and advanced the Sinicization of the Catholic Church's organizational structure. Employing a system of a meeting of democratic representatives has advanced the Sinicization of the Catholic Church's institutional construction. In the running of theological seminaries, the Sinicization of personnel training has quickened. In the reform of the Chinese language Mass, the Sinicization of the form of the rite has been achieved. Among the construction of the clergy team, the strengthening of the Sinicization of the missionary team is never ending. Sinicization's advancement has obtained plentiful fruits. [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
I have argued this long speech excerpt is WP:UNDUE and gratuitous, as many parts of it could be restated, summarized, or condensed. The quotation could be included in a much shorter fashion, and part-summarized. The user who added the quotation (@ Reesorville:) has asserted that it is not exhausting to the reader, and should be included in this length because we do not have any other quotes from this person. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
New Era (WWE) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The New Era (WWE) was a period that covered everything that happened in WWE between May 2016 ( [16], [17], [18] and many more sources) to July 2022, but a user @ User:HHH Pedrigree keeps deleting WP:RS contents from that article based on personal view. He claims that these are not linked to the New era when WWE and multiple WP:PW/RS consideres the entire May 2016 to July 2022 period the New Era. Please see revision history [19]. Dilbaggg ( talk) 16:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Also the period 1997 to 2002 was called the Attitude Era, not every sources say that ooh look these events , such as "Chyna would be featured in a more prominent role; in addition to regularly wrestling against male wrestlers and becoming a two-time Intercontinental champion, she would also be featured twice on the cover of Playboy" [20] happened at the attitude era because the source mentions it, the sources of most of the contents do not mention attitude era but these are known as attitdue era stuff because they happened at this time frame. Same for the New Era, but HHH pedigree doesn't seem to like modern WWE and keeps deleting contents from New Era even thought they are all WP:RS and happened within the established time frame May 2016 to July 2022. Dilbaggg ( talk) 16:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Czello@ HHH Pedrigree @ AndyTheGrump by that logic Attitude Era , ruthless Agression Era all were marketing terms. There are many sources that acknowledges the existence of the New Era post 201, such as [21], as for Reality Era which begun in 2014 there are pleanty of post 2014 sources: [22], [23], [24]. Also Stone cold wrestled his first match since 19, Austin is regarded as the greatest of all times aside from hogan, it is definately notable. Also Attitde Era has information about tag teams like Hardy boyz and Dudley boyz, why is it a problem to include it on New Era? the existence of Reality Era is well established all over the internet. I am open to merging Reality Era with New Era, Reality Era was when John cena lost his spot as face of WWE, Dniel Bryan and Roman reigns took over, WWE Network launched, and women's evolution happened. And Austin's first match and New Day being record 11 times champion during this time frame is highly Wp:Notable, but do not dismiss the Reality Era supported by multiple post 2014 WP:PW/RS till date, I gave a few, there are more I am adding and there are really even more than these: [25], [26], [27], [28] and more. So even if we merge 2014-2022 as Reality Era, we must include highly significant events such as Austin's one match return and New Day's record 11 times tag team championship wins which are historically ntable in the pro wrestling world and happened within the time frame of these eras, be it Reality Era or New Era. As with GaryColemanFan's statment he has provided strong grounds for existence of both Reality Era and New Era both on the AfD pages as well as on the project talk page. Like with Attitde Era events that happeed then are considred part of then, with Reality and New Era events that happened then are part of then, and Attitude Era article includes notable events like fully Loaded 1999 but there is no sourvce saying it happened in Attitude Era, but sources agree Attitude Era was 1997-2001/2 same here Austn's historic return and New Day's historic 11 times tag team championship happened in the New Era which per Wp:RS was the period from 2016 to 2022. Dilbaggg ( talk) 18:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] Either property explain how this is BLP violation or get a consensus pkease, your edit summary is also uncivil but either ways WP:RS agrees retirement of Vince after 40 era kick started the next era, while ending this era Dilbaggg ( talk) 03:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
A discussion on the talk page of Libs of TikTok seems to be going nowhere, so I invite other editors to participate so we can hopefully overcome the current deadlock in discussion: Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 4#OR and Boston Hospital X-Editor ( talk) 17:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
NPOV-dispute on this [30] content, more views appreciated at article-talk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
A rather basic question I'm afraid…. If we have two competing/contradictory statements by reliable Secondary sources A and B on a rather technical subject (existence or not of some artistic precedent for example), but do not have a Tertiary source specifically mentioning this technical dispute/contradiction between the two authors, can we still report the two statements neutrally, without drawing any conclusion, in the format "According to source A: ... According to source B: ..."? Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
"There is, then, the evidence here," he concludes, "for detailing influenced by Greek art, often through Persian models, in the architecture of the third to second centuries BCE. Sir John Marshall, after drawing attention to such foreign motifs at Sanchi as the ‘Assyrian tree of life, the West Asiatic winged beasts, and grapes, went on to remark that ‘nothing in these carvings is really mimetic, nothing certainly which degrades their art to the rank of a servile school’."- not only is that a quote, but it's a nested quote! One scholar is quoting another scholar and we're quoting them both, that's absurd! Are the names and the exact words of all these scholars really the important parts? Surely we can summarize, maybe point out one or two of the main names that support each of the main views, but then detail the actual views?
There is currently an RfC on on the legal status of the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples' Republics at Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#RfC_on_the_legal_status_of_the_Donetsk_and_Luhansk_Peoples’_Republics. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 16:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The page/statement I am requesting a NPOV is on the MicroG page. Specifically, a statement in the Reception section The statement in question is, "installing /e/ is a monster of a job."
The /e/ mentioned here is /e/OS which has a dedicated page on the Wikipedia.
This page which needs the change is dedicated to MicroG. The statement mentions the problem a user faced in installing the /e/OS and has nothing to do with MicroG. This statement is only intended to show /e/OS in a negative light. There is an argument in progress between 2 editors on the talk page of MicroG in this section
Full disclosure, I am an employee of ECORP, which has created /e/OS, and cannot make the changes on my own. Would be good to have a neutral view point to balance the argument and remove this WP:biased statement.
Please respond below the request and do not interpolate your comments WP:INTERPOLATE, Mnair69 ( talk) 02:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Participation is welcome at Talk:Kiwi Farms#RfC on linking to Kiwi Farms. Endwise ( talk) 04:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Anti-tech Revolution by the Unabomber doesn't have any critical acclaim or criticism of any sort in the article. Seems to me at least a few reliable sources would criticize it. MarshallKe ( talk) 18:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Grenada winter 1973-1974 became “Independent” from Great Britain. Yes? No? Hmm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:1E01:2500:0:0:0:192B ( talk) 14:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I have started a discussion on this page’s talk page [32]. However, I wanted to open the discussion and get others’ opinions. I believe this page violates NPOV and reads as though the author may have a vendetta against the company. The article is predominantly negative information split up into three sections; there is only one other section with two lines that states the company’ sponsorships. Comparing this to other pages within the same industry, it really stands out. As you can see these pages are very different, with controversies not being dominant and company information/development information and history featured prominently. Although I can see this page has had issues with sock puppet accounts, I still do not feel that this meets the definition of a NPOV page. Melancholyhelper ( talk) 15:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding two films featuring Harry Styles, Don't Worry Darling and My Policeman (film), I would like feedback about each article's "Reception" section and how much they write about Styles compared to other aspects of the films. Two editors involved with these articles, Sunshine773 ( talk · contribs) and Felinefixesthings ( talk · contribs), have only edited these articles and have primarily made edits in regard to Styles. I started a discussion at Talk:Don't Worry Darling#Reception and Styles, but these two editors tried to remove my comments in which I pinged them about my concerns (though not my original message). Asking editors here to review these articles and determine how WP:NPOV should be applied. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Why are you singling me out? Those sections have contributions from several users. I removed your inclusion of my username because you would not stop messaging me in talk and the article page. I left all your concerns and the explanation of your edits. I removed only my username because you would not stop messaging and pinging me. Those sections both have several contributors who added reviews and information, and have all the cited backing sources along with relevance to other actors in the films and the overall reception to the films. I didn't even touch your reversion edits, but can see you made threats to report people trying to. There is no conspiracy. Lots of contributors added review quotes and info. I even see in your edits that you removed language about other actors that weren't Styles. Have a good day and stop harassing me is all I can say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine773 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Again, that section is made up of the contributions of several users, not just me. The section would naturally be longer as Styles' performance was met with mixed reviews so users included both positive and critical reviews of his performance and his role in relation to Pugh especially. Reception to Pugh was uniformly and consistently positive. The inclusion of multiple reviews for Styles reflects how most top critics focused on his performance particularly, and it also supports the statement in the reception section that the response to his performance was mixed. Many of those reviews were also a comparison to Pugh and how well she performed in relation to Styles. Also, I did not touch your revisions. I removed my username because I was bombarded with several messages from you in just minutes. I understand the Talk feature better now. I did leave your comments and concerns as I mentioned. I removed my username because it was borderline harassment as I hadn't touched your reversions. Again, have a good day and please leave me alone. Sunshine773 ( talk) 14:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
slinging unfounded accusationsand file the SPI myself. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
slinging unfounded accusationscomment and your refusal to reply despite multiple pings and the fact that you were active at the time. M.Bitton ( talk) 17:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
'Reviewer X said "lengthy quote". Reviewer Y said "lengthy quote."'is unhelpful to readers and unencyclopedic. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
No dispute here, but I was wondering if a certain fact should be included in the lead of article or not. As came out when his biography was published in the early 2000s, in the early 1950s, as a 46 year old man Post impregnated a 14 year old girl who was supposed to be under his care. This fact is prominently mentioned in the coverage of the biography. The lead is kinda short and really needs to reworked anyway. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Josip Broz Tito ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I insert sources which affirm crimes made by dictator Broz Tito and always some accounts remove valid sources: the problem is that among disruptive accounts there is also Australian user who is an administrator. Administrator is Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs) who always removes reliable sources and his article's disruption is blatant. In recent edits, I insert three sources but all three were removed by Vipz ( talk · contribs) and Australian account and were restored by Zipezap ( talk · contribs): in past I contact Peacemaker with several messages in his personal discussion and I send e-mail but without positive result. The article regarding Slav dictator Broz Tito was disputed with various tags in head of text and we already discussed about three sources inserted by me but Peacemaker always removes reliable sources which affirm crimes made by dictator Broz Tito. I request stop of blatant disruption by Peacemaker probably for his personal political opinions for dictator. Forza bruta ( talk) 12:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I have opened an RfC concerning the description of the UK as a "sovereign country" in its lead paragraph. Neutral editors are encouraged to carefully consider the question, to read some of the existing positions in the survey, and to leave their own comment either opposing any change or supporting an alternative. Thanks! Angry Candy ( talk) 11:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm advertising the Talk:Genspect#RFC here. The question reads, "Should we describe Genspect as anti-trans in the lead?" Crossroads -talk- 16:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure enough, OP blocked as a sock of Mikemikev. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Rather blatant violation of policy. On the talk page a clique of editors continuously refer to a consensus to justify source selection, where the consensus is among a group of Wikipedia editors, rather than found in the academic literature. They appear to have policy backwards. I would also note page ownership issues such as non-admins striking and collapsing comments they don't like, although this isn't the place to address this. Emotional Ballerina ( talk) 16:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Why not take this to an administrators' noticeboard if you are genuinely concerned about editor behavior? For the rest of us, I would strongly suggest that WP:DENY is the appropriate course of action when dealing with an obvious LTA who is very likely Mikemikev. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
|
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 article includes a reference to an letter written by "126 economists" supporting the law. On the talk page there has been a debate about the inclusion of a second letter signed by "over 230" economists who oppose the bill. [34] The argument against inclusion is based on sourcing, primarily that Fox News is not reliable for this claim [35]. Additional sources have mentioned the letter include Reason [36], Detroit News (oped) [37], NJ local news outlets [38], ABC local [39] and a number of right leaning political sources. Additionally, several members of the house committee discussing the bill mentioned the letter [40]. I think this is a NPOV issue because the article mentions the letter of support without mentioning the letter in opposition. This is not a case where we would use one or the other, only mention that economists are on both sides of the issue. Looking for input, thanks. Springee ( talk) 14:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. You say that the citation you have offered is not an opinion piece, but it consists largely of opinion rather than factual statements, e.g.,
inflation... isn't actually reduced just because the government artificially lowers the consumer cost of a few items,
more government spending will only make inflation worse in the long run, and
The behemoth bill is full of questionable spending. None of these represent factual reporting; they are all unattributed statements of editorial opinion. So this piece is no more usable when it does cite third-party sources than any other editorial from a biased source would be, e.g., not at all. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
we can trust it for the factual existence of the letter- that isn't the way WP:RSOPINION currently works; it distinguishes out editorial content at the article level and says that it is inadmissible for facts. At the article level, this source is clearly opinion. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The article is mostly about historical Fascism (1922-1945), the period when they came to control most of Europe. That reflects the emphasis of textbooks on Fascism.
Since the collapse of Fascism in 1945, it continued in a number of successor parties throughout the world. The term has also been applied to various Asian, African and South American dictatorships and used by some to describe West powers, such as the U.S. Most recently, a number of political figures and commentators have used the term to describe Trump and Putin.
I think the article should concentrate on historical Fascism and leave successor parties and things compared to Fascism to other articles. Fascism is a such a significant topic in itself that post-Fascism should be discussed in other articles.
Since post-Fascism itself is a huge topic, I don't see why one specific claim (Putin's Russia) requires an entire section, while more plausible examples don't.
TFD ( talk) 10:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Fascism is often associated with radical nationalism and racism which does not apply to Russia that consists of more than 100 ethnic groups and cultures. Putin did not promote a "master race", "racial purity", hatred towards the "other", nor did the Kremlin's propaganda, which are essential part of fascism definition. Below are two different definitions to fascism from two different sources, the first one being from Wikipedia's article itself, which the aforementioned section is from:
"Fascism's extreme authoritarianism and nationalism often manifests as belief in racial purity or a master race, usually blended with some variant of racism or bigotry against a demonized "Other", such as Jews. These ideas have motivated fascist regimes to commit genocides, massacres, forced sterilizations, mass killings, and forced deportations."
"To unify a country, fascist movements propagated extreme nationalism that often went hand in hand with militarism and racial purity."
[1]
Tendentious WP:cherry picking is aimed to pass certain POV is prominent in this section.
The last thing that I don't understand is why Russia is the one that has to be mentioned in this article? We have a lot of other models around the world that can represent fascism in a better way. If there is no good, clear, and logical reason behind choosing Russia in particular, then this section should be removed. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 ( talk) 09:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
References
I generally stay away from the Arab-Israeli conflict on Wikipedia (and in life more broadly). However, I recently came across a new article on an Israeli publication and briefly considered marking it for speedy as a attack page. However, the statements I perceive as attack statements are sourced to the generally-reliable-but-biased Haaretz. So I ended up tagging it for NPOV problems and needing more (and a greater variety of) sources. But it's still bugging me, and I'd like someone else to take a look at it to see if my NPOV-o-meter needs recalibrating. Abu Ali Express is the article in question. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 20:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The Trumpism in Canada article reads more like an argumentative POV essay than a neutral encyclopedia article and could use some eyes. X-Editor ( talk) 06:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Is this even a real topic or is it just a collection of ideas first assembled for Wikipedia. That is, the individual parts may be RS'ed but the topic itself is OR.
The History of Ireland (1801–1923) article is characterised in the lede as "a period of British rule". What, pray tell, is "British rule" supposed to mean other than a colonial arrangement? Ireland was an equal member of the UK from 1801 -1922, with the same political and legal rights as England, Scotland and Wales.
As is often the case in Irish history spaces, this article is basically a little fiefdom where a handful of editors get to control what sources are used and how the discussion is framed and presented to readers. And they've done so in one of the most unobjective, non-neutral ways I've ever encountered on here.
Some examples, in the first section they write:
"the passage of the act in the Irish parliament was finally achieved, albeit, as with the 1707 Acts of Union that united Scotland and England, with the mass bribery of members of both houses, who were awarded British peerages and other "encouragements"."
This whole argument about "mass bribery" and fraud, while popular in Sinn Fein/nationalist circles, has been described by other scholars as one of the core myths of modern Irish history. Emmet Larkin, for example, has argued that the political negotiations in the runup to 1801 were typical for that day and age (not anything sneaky or underhanded), while the terms of Union were relatively generous to Ireland [42]. Of course scholars like Larkin don't get a voice in this article.
Another example at the end of the first section:
"The British Administration in Ireland – known by metonymy as "Dublin Castle" – remained largely dominated by the Anglo-Irish establishment until its removal from Dublin in 1922."
This is so misleading as to be almost entirely fictional. Dublin Castle played only a ceremonial role during the Union, while Ireland was governed directly from Westminster. Even ignoring the fact that "Anglo-Irish" is nothing but a clever way to deny that certain people were Irish 200 years ago (often in contradiction to their own writings), from 1829 on there was no religious bar to standing for Parliament. There were actually far more (Catholic) Irishmen politically enfranchised in the 19th than in the 18th Century, when Ireland's parliament was controlled by an Anglican aristocracy (the same one that was "bribed").
There's a lot more but I'm trying to make this as brief as possible. Just looking at the titles of the sections in this article, most of the space is dedicated to the Famine and "republican rebellions", despite the fact that Ireland was not in rebellion in the 19th Century, and the Famine was only 5 out of 120 years of history. Almost all the major aspects of Irish political, economic and social history for this period have been left out of the article, in favour of a slanted and highly distorted version of events. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 19:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Accountability software 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. Keithgreenfan ( talk) 22:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | → | Archive 105 |
There is an ongoing dispute in Talk:Andrew Jackson, and @ Oncamera suggested that I post here about @ Display name 99's ownership behavior as the "self-appointed guardian" of the article. There are actually a few issues, but they're all related to systemic bias; the article as it is written now is focused on Jackson's impact and legacy as seen by white men, and I have been trying to adapt the content to adequately cover Jackson's (very notable) role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States, but I have been met with significant resistance.
For example, after a bit of back-and-forth, I proposed the following change to the introductory paragraph:
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. While he was championed in his time for his efforts to preserve the Union and advance the rights of working-class white men, his legacy is complicated by his role overseeing the ethnic cleansing of Indigenous populations through the Indian Removal Act.
All of the information here is prominently supported by reliable sources, and none of it is contested. The current text (written by Display name 99) looks like this:
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union.
This misleading (using "common" to mean white, for one) and focuses on what Jackson used to be notable for among white men rather than what he is notable for today from a global perspective.
I've gone to great lengths to try to understand Display name 99's reason for excluding ethnic cleansing, but they have not offered much explanation, describing it as a "red line," "biased," and "loaded language," with no explanation other than a book from the '80s that describes an "ongoing debate" about whether ethnic cleansing was the "correct" decision. I believe my introduction is more notable, descriptive, reliable, and neutral than anything they have proposed, but they have been persistently rejecting any change to their text without an explanation that I've been able to understand, so it seems relevant to bring the issue here and get outside opinions. FinnV3 ( talk) 14:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I will begin with a response to the allegation of ownership behavior before diving into specifics. I don't consider it ownership but WP:Stewardship. I wrote much of the article, brought it to featured article status, and care about insuring that it remains a high-quality work. But I don't revert edits that other people make just because I'm not the one making them. I alter or remove changes which violate Wikipedia policy and detract from the quality of the article, but I don't stop others from making improvements.
Now onto the specific issues. The sentence in the opening paragraph describing Jackson's presidency reads, as FinnV3 quoted it: "An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union." FinnV3 objected very strongly to a number of aspects of this paragraph. He was adamant that it needed specific mention of Indian removal. I disagreed. The opening paragraph of any article is supposed to be very brief. The opening paragraph of the Jackson article, therefore, should focus in broad terms on Jackson's philosophy, not delving into the details of specific policy. Therefore, in my mind, that sentence is completely fine. It covers the essence of the principles of Jacksonian democracy, which were expanding America's borders, fighting on behalf of ordinary citizens against what was alleged to be a corrupt system in the federal government, and seeking to overcome sectional differences and keep the Union together through opposition to both nullification and abolitionism. By describing Jackson supporting the rights of the "common man" against a "corrupt aristocracy," we implicitly cover his purges of corruption, opposition to expensive federal programs, and the Bank War. By mentioning his work for the preservation of the Union, nullification and opposition to abolitionism are also covered. In the same way, describing him as an "expansionist president" covers his Indian removal policies. I have never seen a need to specifically mention Indian removal when crucial episodes like the Nullification Crisis and the Bank War are also not individually addressed. Indian removal, like these issues, is discussed in detail further down in the lead and in the body of the article. However, FinnV3 had the support of another editor, and in the interest of compromise, I proposed this version:
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. An expansionist president who oversaw the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against what he saw as a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union.
This already went further than I thought proper by specifically mentioning Indian removal while not specifically mentioning other issues of great relevance in Jackson's life. FinnV3 rejected it, insisting that "forced removal" be replaced with his preferred term, "ethnic cleansing." Both myself and another editor, Antiok 1pie, are opposed to this language. I readily concede one of Finnv3's key points: several reliable sources on Indian removal describe it as ethnic cleansing, and although many other sources do not use that language, I have not been able to find any which argue that it was not ethnic cleansing. However, I still do not believe that it is best to use that language in the manner in which it has been proposed, and I will repeat some of the arguments that I have made on the talk page to explain why.
Although there isn't a single scholar on the Jackson era from the late 20th century until now that I'm aware of who does not recognize the removal of Indians as orchestrated by Jackson as a humanitarian catastrophe, there is still considerable debate as to Jackson's personal responsibility in the matter. There's evidence that he wanted the Indians to be treated well, and it's not proven that he was aware of mistreatment carried out by soldiers during the relocation process. Additionally, it has been seriously argued in recent studies that as terrible as removal was, Jackson's decision to carry it out really was the best option available, and that had Jackson not undertaken it, encroaching white settlements would have led to a protracted and bloody war between whites and Native Americans which the whites eventually would have won, leading to more Native American deaths than took place during the removal. Therefore, removal, as terrible as it was, was simply the best option that Jackson had. Robert V. Remini is a major historian who published numerous works on Jackson in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, argues that. His studies of Jackson have formed a foundation for all scholarship of him that has taken place since. He largely defends Jackson's removal policies as tragic but necessary. Several other historians have adopted that view, one of whom, Francis Paul Prucha, is mentioned in the "Historical reputation" section of the article. Personally, I agree that Jackson's Indian removal policies most likely did conform to the literal definition of ethnic cleansing. However, the term has an extremely negative connotation. In my mind, it implies that Jackson hated the Indians, wanted them gone, and perhaps even wished to exterminate them. Because of its implication, I do not think that is appropriate to use that language without further context when the necessity and justification of Jackson's actions is not a settled matter and is still debated. My preferred language, "forced removal," is neutral and accurate, and has no implications beyond what is simple fact that everyone can agree on. FinnV3 disputed my claim that "ethnic cleansing" implies hatred, but when I asked him why whether, if both terms are neutral and accurate and don't imply any particular motivations, he wouldn't simply accept my preferred version when I so strongly opposed the other, he did not give an answer that I could understand.
To summarize, I don't think that Indian removal needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph. But if it is going to be mentioned, it should at least be in a way that does not imply something which some reliable sources oppose.
I also don't think that it's appropriate or necessary to say in the opening paragraph that his legacy was complicated by Indian removal. Jackson was extremely controversial during and after his lifetime. But the most intense political issues of his day, and the positions for which Jackson was most heavily criticized in sources written in the 120* years after his death, was not Indian removal. This did not became the thing that he was most criticized for until the 1970s.
FinnV3 has objected to the use of the term "common man" in both the opening and concluding paragraphs of the lead, the former of which summarizes his philosophy and the latter his legacy. Language like "common man" is a critical part of the idea of Jacksonian democracy. Jackson's supporters, both in his time and through scholarly works long after his death, have not described him as an advocate of the "white working class" but for the "common man" or "ordinary Americans." However flawed, inaccurate, or incomplete this may be, that's what they have said, and it's essential to note when assessing his legacy. When describing things for which Jackson has been praised, it is most accurate to use the language in which he has been praised. It is not biased to do so when the article also notes his racial policies and mentions the criticism that he has received for them. Additionally, "common man" is in quotes in the first paragraph. The quotes demonstrate that this was the language of Jackson's supporters, and that their definition of "common man," which was generally limited to white men, should not be taken as the absolute and final meaning of the term. A secondary point is that Native Americans who chose to adopt white habits and live like whites, as well as freed blacks in the North, were also effected in many ways by Jackson's economic policies that he engaged in on behalf of the "common man," and so to replace "common man" with "white working class," or something similar, makes it seem like these people don't exist.
FinnV3 also removed a sentence saying that Jackson was ranked favorably compared to other U.S. presidents. Antiok 1pie reverted him. When shown indisputable evidence that most presidential ranking surveys did place Jackson near the top, and he allowed a proposed compromise version of the sentence to go into the article without complaining, but is now trying to end altogether the practice of including presidential rankings in the leads of articles.
The reference that I removed was a Vox article written by a non-historian. Internet articles are cited in the article, but they aren't in the Bibliography, especially when they are nothing more than popular opinion pieces written by non-historians, as was the case with that article.
I know that was a lot of writing, but the opposition to so many points in the article necessitated it. I am not trying to own the article and erase the history of Native Americans. There's plenty about them in the article. When two editors voiced concerns on the talk page that the "Historical reputation" section lacked sufficient critical assessments of Jackson, I welcomed them to add some. [1] [2] When one of them wanted a pro-Jackson assessment removed because it came from a source that they found unreliable, I consented. However, what FinnV3's revisions would do to the article would result it inflated coverage of racial issues while diminishing everything else, while discussing these racial issues in a biased way that would imply conclusions contrary to many important sources. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Jackson has been widely revered in the United States as an advocate for democracy and the common man. Many of his actions proved divisive, garnering both fervent support and strong opposition from many in the country. His reputation has suffered since the 1970s, largely due to his anti-abolitionist views and policy of the forcible removal of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands. However, surveys of historians and scholars have usually ranked Jackson favorably among U.S. presidents.[3][4]FinnV3 was displeased that Indian removal was not explicitly mentioned in the opening paragraph. Despite not thinking it necessary, I offered him a version that did explicitly mention it (I quoted it in green in my original post), but he rejected it because he insisted on including the language "ethnic cleansing," which I did not think was appropriate for the opening paragraph. The dispute isn't about whether modern critical evaluations should be mentioned in the lead. They already are and I agree that they ought to be. It's about whether "ethnic cleansing" is appropriate for the opening paragraph, how to describe Jackson's legacy as an advocate for democracy in light of his racial policies, and the issue of presidential rankings. Display name 99 ( talk) 03:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The pivot in editorial strategy has drawn praise on social media, with some writers commenting that Teen Vogue is doing a better job of covering important stories in 2016 than legacy news publications.[3],
Teen Vogue received national acclaim for its political journalism, yet profit did not immediately follow.[4], [5]. It is clearly WP:BIASED on many topics, especially politics and fashion - something all those sources emphasize is that it carries a very specific sort of politics, and potential conflicts exist when discussing fashion - but largely it's treated as something closer to eg. Jacobin, ie. a credible high-quality source for that politics, so I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss it simply because it's Teen Vogue. (It's also important to note that this is a relatively recent development.) That doesn't mean it's the ideal source to use here - better ones can clearly be found - but that's more because it's a magazine and is WP:BIASED in a way that would require attribution, rather than because it is an at-a-glance obviously ridiculous source or something of that nature simply because it has "teen" in its name. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Deathlibrarian, ARoseWolf, Andrevan and Pyrrho the Skipper I will try to restate my arguments for the opening paragraph in brief, bullet point format.
Hopefully that makes things easier for everyone. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
To call it forced removal when sources call it ethnic cleansing is not maintaining a NPOV., not all reliable sources say that. Please don't just take the sources that you want and imply that they speak for all of them.
Most importantly, the article should describe what actually happened that he had a role in and his role in it. Not in trying to fight in (and at best push the envelope on the meaning of the term) an un-informative value-laden term. Second, that is something that the overall US government had been doing since the beginning of it's existence, and also did long after Jackson was gone. Trying to word it like this was a particular initiative of Jackson is misleading at best. North8000 ( talk) 19:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Let me see if I can more effectively explain part of my position this way. The opening paragraph of the lead describes in brief, very broad terms the main things for which a person or thing is most notable. A study of a specific issue such as Indian removal, no matter how high the quality is, does not serve to provide a general assessment of the main reasons for why Jackson is important. It cannot compare Jackson's achievements in preserving the Union through the Nullification Crisis to his expulsion policies because it doesn't exist to do that. It exists to describe a specific issue, and that only. A biography of Jackson, however, will. Specialized studies of individual issues should absolutely be used in Wikipedia. But when looking for help in reliable sources to answer the question of how to summarize a person's achievements and legacy in just a few sentences, we should look first to biographies, because a biography seeks to answer those questions. This means that if no biographies call Jackson's Indian removal policies "ethnic cleansing," it would be best not to use that term in the opening paragraph. No, I don't have a policy that supports this. It just seems like good sense. Making that argument, ARoseWolf, doesn't mean that I'm trying to push my own personal POV. Look at the latest comment by Deathlibrarian: "Jackson seems to have been given a free pass by historians for positive things he has done, while what he did to the native Americans seems to have swept under the carpet." This editor clearly has their own personal agenda and is making no attempt to hide it. Are you going to call them out on it? Display name 99 ( talk) 04:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War and succeeded in preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and modernizing the U.S. economy.So why not the same for Jackson? Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 15:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man"[1] against what he saw as a "corrupt aristocracy"[2] and to preserve the union of states. Although often praised as an advocate for the working classes and for his work in keeping the states together, Jackson has also been criticized for alleged demagoguery and for his racial policies, particularly his role in the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands.
I undid this [8] edit by FinnV3. It replaces citations to historians already in the article with new works without explanation. Some of the citations are without page numbers. The language is EXTREMELY partisan. Is "satisfying Jackson's 'hunger for vegeance'" really necessary? Even if the source uses it (I couldn't find it; the citation lacks a page number), is that how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written? Display name 99 ( talk) 21:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
We have seen the ravens & the vultures preying upon the carcases of the unburied slain. Our vengeance has been gluted.
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man"[1] against what he saw as a "corrupt aristocracy"[2] and to preserve the union of states. Although often praised as an advocate for the working classes and for his work in keeping the states together, Jackson has also been criticized for alleged demagoguery and for his racial policies, particularly his role in the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands.
References
OK, changed. As for RfCs, these can be painful and tedious. We're already gotten quite a few opinions already, on the article talk page and in this forum. I'm not sure that adding a few more would really change the direction of things. If most people are okay with the new version of the opening paragraph, I think that it would make sense to leave it and simply move on to discussing the other issues. I don't want more controversy if we don't need it. If we can't come to agreements about the other stuff, we can do RfCs for those. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
"Let the white race perish!" he raged. They seized your lands, corrupted your women, and trampled on the bones of your dead...Burn their dwellings — destroy their stock — slay their wives and children, that the very breed may perish."(Remini, 2001, p. 3) Labelling a battle a massacre in which the side that was supposedly massacred refused an offer to surrender, even killing a member of the party sent to offer surrender, personally strikes me as a little ridiculous. But trying to put my own feelings aside, saying that some historians label the battle as a massacre is unnecessary when there are so many others who don't and, again, given the length of the article. Display name 99 ( talk) 12:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC) I also think that we should remove the mention of some Indians being killed while trying to flee. Killing soldiers who are attempting to retreat instead of surrendering is common behavior. It happens all of the time. Additionally, I feel like if we're going to include that, we should also include the Red Sticks refusing the offer of surrender. Display name 99 ( talk) 12:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The description in academic literature of U.S. policies toward Native Americans as ethnic cleansing originated with Gary Clayton Anderson's Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America (University of Oklahoma Press 2014) Anderson believed that these policies bore greater similarity to the "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia than actual genocide, a term that was developed to describe the Holocaust. Anderson has been criticized for minimizing the extent of the deliberate killing of Native Americans and for having a narrow definition of genocide. [14] While a lot of popular literature uses the term ethnic cleansing, I don't think it has gained sufficient support in academic writing to be considered a consensus view or even a major one. Meanwhile, the term genocide was used by the Canadian government to describe its policies toward aboriginal Canadians, which incidentally were milder than those of the U.S., at least during the period of white settlement of Indian lands.
Also, the term "working classes" is misleading. The "workingmen" (which was the actual term used) were skilled journeymen working their way up to master craftsmen who felt threatened by the competition from factory owners and the unskilled laborers they employed.
TFD ( talk) 14:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
ARoseWolf, I made an argument against the use of ethnic cleansing based on the sources. I didn't frame it in terms of my own personal opinion but what the sources say. Deathlibrarian made an argument for its use and criticized historians for supposedly minimizing Jackson's allegedly immoral deeds. I'm trying to conform to the sources by using the most basic language that all of them would use. They put themself above the sources. I think that you are applying a double standard here about who is being biased or not based on your own preferences. No, calling it "ethnic cleansing" is not being cautious. Calling it genocide anywhere in the article in Wikivoice would be wholly unacceptable, because whereas with "ethnic cleansing" it's mostly a matter of examining which reliable sources use the term and which ones are silent, there are numerous reliable sources which explicitly refute the argument that Jackson's removal policies constitute genocide. Two of these historians are listed in the "Changed perspective" section in the article on Indian removal. There are others. Even FinnV3 acknowledged somewhere on the talk page that the use of genocide was more contentious. Calling it genocide in Wikivoice would be wholly reckless. So no, "ethnic cleansing" is not "middle of the road."
Also, I want to belatedly address your point that "twenty reliable sources" call it ethnic cleaning. The list above includes 19 sources. Citations 1, 5, and 17 are to popular opinion pieces by non-historians. Citation number 17 is an article about climate change written by a physics professor. Smart guy, I'm sure, but not someone on whom to base our assessment of Andrew Jackson. While sources like this are useful for understanding the public perception of Indian removal, they are not high quality sources for looking at how we should interpret events in the past. That brings the list down to 16 sources. The remaining sources do seem more reliable than the four three I just pointed out, but the lackluster quality of those and the attempt to pass them off as reliable doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about the rest, even though at least some of them do look more serious.
Display name 99 (
talk) 18:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
"for his racial policies, particularly his role in the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands, a removal many modern scholars describe as ethnic cleansing."This would address what Masem stated about modern scholars. We can provide a few of the best sources from the list. I will note that the reason more google scholar searches connect "Andrew Jackson" with "Indian Removal" is because the act itself is called Indian Removal Act so one would think that would be discussed more in academia. That does not dismiss the importance of the more modern definition of the enforcement and its affects on the Native cultures involved. Most scholars agree that Native Nations were seen as a obstacle and they had to be removed to open the land up for white settlers. While Jackson was not the first to hold this opinion the fact remains that it was under his administration that the act was passed and it was under his administration that enforcement began. Another former president had a slogan written on a sign and placed on his desk in the Oval Office and it rings true even for Jackson, "The buck stops here". It happened under Jackson's watch. The fact it had been happening in local communities, states and colonies prior to this act is irrelevant to this particular case. Likewise, the fact it continued and even expanded into other forms or fashions like forced assimilation and eugenics programs later in US history does not excuse Jackson's role in this policy or action nor does it justify the thousands of lives lost and ethnic cultures decimated by his enforcement of it. Jackson's opinions, intents or otherwise don't honestly matter when compared with the results. The results were at minimum ethnic cleansing, at worse genocide. That's what many modern historians and scholars are realizing and it has become more prevalent in academia in the last 25 to 30 years because of it. -- ARose Wolf 12:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
What makes you say "overwhelming majority?" I'm not seeing any evidence of that here. Andrew Jackson and his Indian Wars by Robert V. Remini (2001), The Rise of Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln by Sean Wilentz (2006), Separate Peoples, One Land: The Minds of Cherokees, Blacks, and Whites on the Tennessee Frontier by Cynthia Cumter (2007), and The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism by Edward Baptist (2014) are all recent, significant history books about the period that deal substantially with Indian removal. None of them are Jackson biographies. All three books mention "forced removal," or something similar, but none of them use the term "ethnic cleansing." What is so special about ethnic cleansing that it must be given greater prominence than forced removal? It still seems like the latter, not the former, is the one most widely used by sources. Thus, I see no compelling reason to give preference to ethnic cleansing. Display name 99 ( talk) 18:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The relocation process dispossessed these nations of their land and resulted in widespread death and disease.
Should Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policies be described as "ethnic cleansing" or "forced removal" in the lead?Display name 99 ( talk) 22:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
RfC started here. Display name 99 ( talk) 05:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Some of other related policies for current requested RfC discussion: WP:BLP, WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Also WP:Wikivoice, WP: POV/NPOV, Due/ Undue, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:onus
Requesting inputs about WP policies regarding, WP:BLP protocols and naming of the accused in relation to mentions of allegations and counter allegations in the given article, against a female victim of sexual assault, her associates and also other accused.
Requesting well studied, carefully thought inputs @ RfC: A TikToker, associates, other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 10:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
In 2019 he made an address at the Beijing Catholic Forum for Sinicization of Theology. On the occasion he said:
- The Sinicization of Catholicism, requires the upholding of a political self-consciousness and to always improve the political stance of its thinking. Catholicism tells us that love for one's country is the fourth commandment of the decalogue, "Be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake." Supporting the leadership of the Communist Party and fervently loving our socialist motherland is the basic premise for upholding our country's direction to Sinicize religion. More than half a century ago, the Catholic Church of China took upon itself to choose its own holy bishops and advanced the Sinicization of the Catholic Church's organizational structure. Employing a system of a meeting of democratic representatives has advanced the Sinicization of the Catholic Church's institutional construction. In the running of theological seminaries, the Sinicization of personnel training has quickened. In the reform of the Chinese language Mass, the Sinicization of the form of the rite has been achieved. Among the construction of the clergy team, the strengthening of the Sinicization of the missionary team is never ending. Sinicization's advancement has obtained plentiful fruits. [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
I have argued this long speech excerpt is WP:UNDUE and gratuitous, as many parts of it could be restated, summarized, or condensed. The quotation could be included in a much shorter fashion, and part-summarized. The user who added the quotation (@ Reesorville:) has asserted that it is not exhausting to the reader, and should be included in this length because we do not have any other quotes from this person. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
New Era (WWE) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The New Era (WWE) was a period that covered everything that happened in WWE between May 2016 ( [16], [17], [18] and many more sources) to July 2022, but a user @ User:HHH Pedrigree keeps deleting WP:RS contents from that article based on personal view. He claims that these are not linked to the New era when WWE and multiple WP:PW/RS consideres the entire May 2016 to July 2022 period the New Era. Please see revision history [19]. Dilbaggg ( talk) 16:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Also the period 1997 to 2002 was called the Attitude Era, not every sources say that ooh look these events , such as "Chyna would be featured in a more prominent role; in addition to regularly wrestling against male wrestlers and becoming a two-time Intercontinental champion, she would also be featured twice on the cover of Playboy" [20] happened at the attitude era because the source mentions it, the sources of most of the contents do not mention attitude era but these are known as attitdue era stuff because they happened at this time frame. Same for the New Era, but HHH pedigree doesn't seem to like modern WWE and keeps deleting contents from New Era even thought they are all WP:RS and happened within the established time frame May 2016 to July 2022. Dilbaggg ( talk) 16:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Czello@ HHH Pedrigree @ AndyTheGrump by that logic Attitude Era , ruthless Agression Era all were marketing terms. There are many sources that acknowledges the existence of the New Era post 201, such as [21], as for Reality Era which begun in 2014 there are pleanty of post 2014 sources: [22], [23], [24]. Also Stone cold wrestled his first match since 19, Austin is regarded as the greatest of all times aside from hogan, it is definately notable. Also Attitde Era has information about tag teams like Hardy boyz and Dudley boyz, why is it a problem to include it on New Era? the existence of Reality Era is well established all over the internet. I am open to merging Reality Era with New Era, Reality Era was when John cena lost his spot as face of WWE, Dniel Bryan and Roman reigns took over, WWE Network launched, and women's evolution happened. And Austin's first match and New Day being record 11 times champion during this time frame is highly Wp:Notable, but do not dismiss the Reality Era supported by multiple post 2014 WP:PW/RS till date, I gave a few, there are more I am adding and there are really even more than these: [25], [26], [27], [28] and more. So even if we merge 2014-2022 as Reality Era, we must include highly significant events such as Austin's one match return and New Day's record 11 times tag team championship wins which are historically ntable in the pro wrestling world and happened within the time frame of these eras, be it Reality Era or New Era. As with GaryColemanFan's statment he has provided strong grounds for existence of both Reality Era and New Era both on the AfD pages as well as on the project talk page. Like with Attitde Era events that happeed then are considred part of then, with Reality and New Era events that happened then are part of then, and Attitude Era article includes notable events like fully Loaded 1999 but there is no sourvce saying it happened in Attitude Era, but sources agree Attitude Era was 1997-2001/2 same here Austn's historic return and New Day's historic 11 times tag team championship happened in the New Era which per Wp:RS was the period from 2016 to 2022. Dilbaggg ( talk) 18:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] Either property explain how this is BLP violation or get a consensus pkease, your edit summary is also uncivil but either ways WP:RS agrees retirement of Vince after 40 era kick started the next era, while ending this era Dilbaggg ( talk) 03:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
A discussion on the talk page of Libs of TikTok seems to be going nowhere, so I invite other editors to participate so we can hopefully overcome the current deadlock in discussion: Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 4#OR and Boston Hospital X-Editor ( talk) 17:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
NPOV-dispute on this [30] content, more views appreciated at article-talk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
A rather basic question I'm afraid…. If we have two competing/contradictory statements by reliable Secondary sources A and B on a rather technical subject (existence or not of some artistic precedent for example), but do not have a Tertiary source specifically mentioning this technical dispute/contradiction between the two authors, can we still report the two statements neutrally, without drawing any conclusion, in the format "According to source A: ... According to source B: ..."? Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
"There is, then, the evidence here," he concludes, "for detailing influenced by Greek art, often through Persian models, in the architecture of the third to second centuries BCE. Sir John Marshall, after drawing attention to such foreign motifs at Sanchi as the ‘Assyrian tree of life, the West Asiatic winged beasts, and grapes, went on to remark that ‘nothing in these carvings is really mimetic, nothing certainly which degrades their art to the rank of a servile school’."- not only is that a quote, but it's a nested quote! One scholar is quoting another scholar and we're quoting them both, that's absurd! Are the names and the exact words of all these scholars really the important parts? Surely we can summarize, maybe point out one or two of the main names that support each of the main views, but then detail the actual views?
There is currently an RfC on on the legal status of the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples' Republics at Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#RfC_on_the_legal_status_of_the_Donetsk_and_Luhansk_Peoples’_Republics. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 16:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The page/statement I am requesting a NPOV is on the MicroG page. Specifically, a statement in the Reception section The statement in question is, "installing /e/ is a monster of a job."
The /e/ mentioned here is /e/OS which has a dedicated page on the Wikipedia.
This page which needs the change is dedicated to MicroG. The statement mentions the problem a user faced in installing the /e/OS and has nothing to do with MicroG. This statement is only intended to show /e/OS in a negative light. There is an argument in progress between 2 editors on the talk page of MicroG in this section
Full disclosure, I am an employee of ECORP, which has created /e/OS, and cannot make the changes on my own. Would be good to have a neutral view point to balance the argument and remove this WP:biased statement.
Please respond below the request and do not interpolate your comments WP:INTERPOLATE, Mnair69 ( talk) 02:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Participation is welcome at Talk:Kiwi Farms#RfC on linking to Kiwi Farms. Endwise ( talk) 04:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Anti-tech Revolution by the Unabomber doesn't have any critical acclaim or criticism of any sort in the article. Seems to me at least a few reliable sources would criticize it. MarshallKe ( talk) 18:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Grenada winter 1973-1974 became “Independent” from Great Britain. Yes? No? Hmm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:1E01:2500:0:0:0:192B ( talk) 14:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I have started a discussion on this page’s talk page [32]. However, I wanted to open the discussion and get others’ opinions. I believe this page violates NPOV and reads as though the author may have a vendetta against the company. The article is predominantly negative information split up into three sections; there is only one other section with two lines that states the company’ sponsorships. Comparing this to other pages within the same industry, it really stands out. As you can see these pages are very different, with controversies not being dominant and company information/development information and history featured prominently. Although I can see this page has had issues with sock puppet accounts, I still do not feel that this meets the definition of a NPOV page. Melancholyhelper ( talk) 15:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding two films featuring Harry Styles, Don't Worry Darling and My Policeman (film), I would like feedback about each article's "Reception" section and how much they write about Styles compared to other aspects of the films. Two editors involved with these articles, Sunshine773 ( talk · contribs) and Felinefixesthings ( talk · contribs), have only edited these articles and have primarily made edits in regard to Styles. I started a discussion at Talk:Don't Worry Darling#Reception and Styles, but these two editors tried to remove my comments in which I pinged them about my concerns (though not my original message). Asking editors here to review these articles and determine how WP:NPOV should be applied. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Why are you singling me out? Those sections have contributions from several users. I removed your inclusion of my username because you would not stop messaging me in talk and the article page. I left all your concerns and the explanation of your edits. I removed only my username because you would not stop messaging and pinging me. Those sections both have several contributors who added reviews and information, and have all the cited backing sources along with relevance to other actors in the films and the overall reception to the films. I didn't even touch your reversion edits, but can see you made threats to report people trying to. There is no conspiracy. Lots of contributors added review quotes and info. I even see in your edits that you removed language about other actors that weren't Styles. Have a good day and stop harassing me is all I can say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine773 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Again, that section is made up of the contributions of several users, not just me. The section would naturally be longer as Styles' performance was met with mixed reviews so users included both positive and critical reviews of his performance and his role in relation to Pugh especially. Reception to Pugh was uniformly and consistently positive. The inclusion of multiple reviews for Styles reflects how most top critics focused on his performance particularly, and it also supports the statement in the reception section that the response to his performance was mixed. Many of those reviews were also a comparison to Pugh and how well she performed in relation to Styles. Also, I did not touch your revisions. I removed my username because I was bombarded with several messages from you in just minutes. I understand the Talk feature better now. I did leave your comments and concerns as I mentioned. I removed my username because it was borderline harassment as I hadn't touched your reversions. Again, have a good day and please leave me alone. Sunshine773 ( talk) 14:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
slinging unfounded accusationsand file the SPI myself. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
slinging unfounded accusationscomment and your refusal to reply despite multiple pings and the fact that you were active at the time. M.Bitton ( talk) 17:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
'Reviewer X said "lengthy quote". Reviewer Y said "lengthy quote."'is unhelpful to readers and unencyclopedic. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
No dispute here, but I was wondering if a certain fact should be included in the lead of article or not. As came out when his biography was published in the early 2000s, in the early 1950s, as a 46 year old man Post impregnated a 14 year old girl who was supposed to be under his care. This fact is prominently mentioned in the coverage of the biography. The lead is kinda short and really needs to reworked anyway. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Josip Broz Tito ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I insert sources which affirm crimes made by dictator Broz Tito and always some accounts remove valid sources: the problem is that among disruptive accounts there is also Australian user who is an administrator. Administrator is Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs) who always removes reliable sources and his article's disruption is blatant. In recent edits, I insert three sources but all three were removed by Vipz ( talk · contribs) and Australian account and were restored by Zipezap ( talk · contribs): in past I contact Peacemaker with several messages in his personal discussion and I send e-mail but without positive result. The article regarding Slav dictator Broz Tito was disputed with various tags in head of text and we already discussed about three sources inserted by me but Peacemaker always removes reliable sources which affirm crimes made by dictator Broz Tito. I request stop of blatant disruption by Peacemaker probably for his personal political opinions for dictator. Forza bruta ( talk) 12:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I have opened an RfC concerning the description of the UK as a "sovereign country" in its lead paragraph. Neutral editors are encouraged to carefully consider the question, to read some of the existing positions in the survey, and to leave their own comment either opposing any change or supporting an alternative. Thanks! Angry Candy ( talk) 11:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm advertising the Talk:Genspect#RFC here. The question reads, "Should we describe Genspect as anti-trans in the lead?" Crossroads -talk- 16:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure enough, OP blocked as a sock of Mikemikev. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Rather blatant violation of policy. On the talk page a clique of editors continuously refer to a consensus to justify source selection, where the consensus is among a group of Wikipedia editors, rather than found in the academic literature. They appear to have policy backwards. I would also note page ownership issues such as non-admins striking and collapsing comments they don't like, although this isn't the place to address this. Emotional Ballerina ( talk) 16:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Why not take this to an administrators' noticeboard if you are genuinely concerned about editor behavior? For the rest of us, I would strongly suggest that WP:DENY is the appropriate course of action when dealing with an obvious LTA who is very likely Mikemikev. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
|
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 article includes a reference to an letter written by "126 economists" supporting the law. On the talk page there has been a debate about the inclusion of a second letter signed by "over 230" economists who oppose the bill. [34] The argument against inclusion is based on sourcing, primarily that Fox News is not reliable for this claim [35]. Additional sources have mentioned the letter include Reason [36], Detroit News (oped) [37], NJ local news outlets [38], ABC local [39] and a number of right leaning political sources. Additionally, several members of the house committee discussing the bill mentioned the letter [40]. I think this is a NPOV issue because the article mentions the letter of support without mentioning the letter in opposition. This is not a case where we would use one or the other, only mention that economists are on both sides of the issue. Looking for input, thanks. Springee ( talk) 14:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. You say that the citation you have offered is not an opinion piece, but it consists largely of opinion rather than factual statements, e.g.,
inflation... isn't actually reduced just because the government artificially lowers the consumer cost of a few items,
more government spending will only make inflation worse in the long run, and
The behemoth bill is full of questionable spending. None of these represent factual reporting; they are all unattributed statements of editorial opinion. So this piece is no more usable when it does cite third-party sources than any other editorial from a biased source would be, e.g., not at all. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
we can trust it for the factual existence of the letter- that isn't the way WP:RSOPINION currently works; it distinguishes out editorial content at the article level and says that it is inadmissible for facts. At the article level, this source is clearly opinion. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The article is mostly about historical Fascism (1922-1945), the period when they came to control most of Europe. That reflects the emphasis of textbooks on Fascism.
Since the collapse of Fascism in 1945, it continued in a number of successor parties throughout the world. The term has also been applied to various Asian, African and South American dictatorships and used by some to describe West powers, such as the U.S. Most recently, a number of political figures and commentators have used the term to describe Trump and Putin.
I think the article should concentrate on historical Fascism and leave successor parties and things compared to Fascism to other articles. Fascism is a such a significant topic in itself that post-Fascism should be discussed in other articles.
Since post-Fascism itself is a huge topic, I don't see why one specific claim (Putin's Russia) requires an entire section, while more plausible examples don't.
TFD ( talk) 10:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Fascism is often associated with radical nationalism and racism which does not apply to Russia that consists of more than 100 ethnic groups and cultures. Putin did not promote a "master race", "racial purity", hatred towards the "other", nor did the Kremlin's propaganda, which are essential part of fascism definition. Below are two different definitions to fascism from two different sources, the first one being from Wikipedia's article itself, which the aforementioned section is from:
"Fascism's extreme authoritarianism and nationalism often manifests as belief in racial purity or a master race, usually blended with some variant of racism or bigotry against a demonized "Other", such as Jews. These ideas have motivated fascist regimes to commit genocides, massacres, forced sterilizations, mass killings, and forced deportations."
"To unify a country, fascist movements propagated extreme nationalism that often went hand in hand with militarism and racial purity."
[1]
Tendentious WP:cherry picking is aimed to pass certain POV is prominent in this section.
The last thing that I don't understand is why Russia is the one that has to be mentioned in this article? We have a lot of other models around the world that can represent fascism in a better way. If there is no good, clear, and logical reason behind choosing Russia in particular, then this section should be removed. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 ( talk) 09:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
References
I generally stay away from the Arab-Israeli conflict on Wikipedia (and in life more broadly). However, I recently came across a new article on an Israeli publication and briefly considered marking it for speedy as a attack page. However, the statements I perceive as attack statements are sourced to the generally-reliable-but-biased Haaretz. So I ended up tagging it for NPOV problems and needing more (and a greater variety of) sources. But it's still bugging me, and I'd like someone else to take a look at it to see if my NPOV-o-meter needs recalibrating. Abu Ali Express is the article in question. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 20:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The Trumpism in Canada article reads more like an argumentative POV essay than a neutral encyclopedia article and could use some eyes. X-Editor ( talk) 06:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Is this even a real topic or is it just a collection of ideas first assembled for Wikipedia. That is, the individual parts may be RS'ed but the topic itself is OR.
The History of Ireland (1801–1923) article is characterised in the lede as "a period of British rule". What, pray tell, is "British rule" supposed to mean other than a colonial arrangement? Ireland was an equal member of the UK from 1801 -1922, with the same political and legal rights as England, Scotland and Wales.
As is often the case in Irish history spaces, this article is basically a little fiefdom where a handful of editors get to control what sources are used and how the discussion is framed and presented to readers. And they've done so in one of the most unobjective, non-neutral ways I've ever encountered on here.
Some examples, in the first section they write:
"the passage of the act in the Irish parliament was finally achieved, albeit, as with the 1707 Acts of Union that united Scotland and England, with the mass bribery of members of both houses, who were awarded British peerages and other "encouragements"."
This whole argument about "mass bribery" and fraud, while popular in Sinn Fein/nationalist circles, has been described by other scholars as one of the core myths of modern Irish history. Emmet Larkin, for example, has argued that the political negotiations in the runup to 1801 were typical for that day and age (not anything sneaky or underhanded), while the terms of Union were relatively generous to Ireland [42]. Of course scholars like Larkin don't get a voice in this article.
Another example at the end of the first section:
"The British Administration in Ireland – known by metonymy as "Dublin Castle" – remained largely dominated by the Anglo-Irish establishment until its removal from Dublin in 1922."
This is so misleading as to be almost entirely fictional. Dublin Castle played only a ceremonial role during the Union, while Ireland was governed directly from Westminster. Even ignoring the fact that "Anglo-Irish" is nothing but a clever way to deny that certain people were Irish 200 years ago (often in contradiction to their own writings), from 1829 on there was no religious bar to standing for Parliament. There were actually far more (Catholic) Irishmen politically enfranchised in the 19th than in the 18th Century, when Ireland's parliament was controlled by an Anglican aristocracy (the same one that was "bribed").
There's a lot more but I'm trying to make this as brief as possible. Just looking at the titles of the sections in this article, most of the space is dedicated to the Famine and "republican rebellions", despite the fact that Ireland was not in rebellion in the 19th Century, and the Famine was only 5 out of 120 years of history. Almost all the major aspects of Irish political, economic and social history for this period have been left out of the article, in favour of a slanted and highly distorted version of events. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 19:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Accountability software 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. Keithgreenfan ( talk) 22:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)