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 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | → | Archive 105 |
There is a big problem with establishing a neutral point of view in a Socionics article. 1. In the first line of the article, socionics as a part of psychology and sociology is called pseudoscience with reference to 10 sources from Russia: "Socionics, in psychology and sociology, is a pseudoscientific[11] theory of information processing and personality types." A common feature of these sources is that these sources only mention once and without detailed consideration or definition of socionics throughout their text. Their authors are several philosophers (for example, in the article Zhilina V. A.; Nevelev A. B.; Kamaletdinova A. Ya. (2017) there is a record of the dialogue of three philosophers, and in the remark of one philosopher - Zhilina V. A. socionics is mentioned once without explanation or analysis), philologist ( T. Abashkina (2015), a physicist (L. Podymov (2018), a student and teacher of management without a degree (E. Ivashechkina; G. Chedzhemov (2019), who do not claim that socionics is a pseudoscience at all), and even a journalist- geographer (A. Sergeev), who once mentioned socionics in a publicist article about homeopathy (This article is erroneously or intentionally presented as the opinion of the commission on pseudoscience, but this commission made a decision only once - on homeopathy and never - on psychological sciences, including socionics). But none of these authors is a specialist in psychology or sociology. Moreover, 5 out of 10 authors of the cited articles do not have a degree in any field at all. 2. However, in On the second line, referring to 20 sources from various countries of Eastern and Western Europe, it is written that socionics is defined as a science: "A number of reference books and textbooks on psychology, sociology and other social sciences, as well as a number of researchers, define socionics as a science that studies and models the information structure of the psyche, the information interaction of a person with the world and offers an information theory of relations between people". [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28 ][29][30][31]. A common feature of these tertiary and secondary sources is that 18 out of 20 sources are written by professors, doctors of psychology, sociology and other social sciences. Almost all of them give a complete definition of socionics, as can be seen from the quotations given in the article. In fact, there are many more such sources. A search in various languages (English, Ukrainian, Russian) shows that out of 7400 sources in Google Scholar, 10 dubious sources listed in the first line are all known sources that mention socionics among pseudosciences. There are simply no others, which means their extremely low weight of these sources. If you have questions about these 10 weird dubious sources, we can take a look at them in detail. Some of them are detailed on the talk page of the article. Thus, the neutral point of view in the definition of socionics is completely violated in the article Socionics. The analysis shows that out of these 10 sources, only a small number of them, once mentioning socionics critically, can be used in the "Criticism" section. Jim MacKenna ( talk) 16:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I've just blocked Jim MacKenna as the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit (blether) 19:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
The phrasing of Male expendability gives me pause. Discussion here The article is full of generalizations about vertebrate biology and assumptions about how that translates into human society. Most of the differences in question can be found in this change.
The main dispute is whether the article should read more like...
Or more like...
The article does have sources, but the main ones were written by a political scientist, some cultural anthropologists, and a biologist who wrote his source in the 1970s. I'm not confident that we can consider the biology in the article sufficiently mainstream to repeat it in Wikipedia's own voice. Other articles, for example Consequentialism and Coverture do not give the core ideas in Wikipedia's voice the way Male expendability currently does. I just skimmed Male as norm and I see it has language such as "Subsequent research has maintained" and "the principle claims" that I think would improve Male expendability.
The article also had the unsourced claim "Perpetrators of genocide almost exclusively target men and boys" (which I removed and the other participant did not revert). This makes me feel that other highly questionable claims may also have gotten into the text. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 03:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
"Perpetrators of genocide almost exclusively target men and boys" - worded so strongly, the claim is obviously not true. For a true genocide like the holocaust, obviously women and children are killed alongside the men (although even in that case, the regime has to deal with more scruples in the actual executors, as was witnessed frequently for German soldiers). However, there is a strong true core, with many massacres clearly focusing on males in an age fit to fight - with the Srebrenica massacre probably the most famous example. -- KnightMove ( talk) 05:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there a statement by a body lets say anthropologists, sociologists that acknowledge this position? Or can someone name 10 authors discussing and accepting this specific hypothesis as factual truth? (Can someone do the opposite?) Cinadon 36 10:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
A thoughtful discussion by David Brooks of a decline of wellbeing among US men and boys appeared yesterday in The New York Times. [1] It does not support pseudoscientific evolutionary theories about this or male grievance theories. NightHeron ( talk) 11:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
References
This article to me reads more as a shrine to Shermer than than a summary of Shermer. Large amounts of content are sourced to Shermer's own writings or interviews (e.g. primary sources) suggesting cherry-picking or showcasing in a disproportionate manner ( WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BALASP). The article was previously discussed at BLPN, touching on some similar issues, but most of the current content is more of a NPOV issue than BLP. I have tried to remove material I found overly promotional or excessively detailed (e.g. diff 1, diff 2) but was reverted by Nightscream. The sections I feel most unbalanced or indiscriminate are Personal life and Media work and appearances. Are Shermer's thoughts on gun control or capital punishment truly noteworthy and needing their own subsections, or are they just arbitrary opinions plucked from a vast sea of interviews and writings? Is a list of every television, radio, and podcast appearance appropriate for a person of this sort? While this post is about Michael Shermer's article, I feel it exemplifies issues in several articles on notable skeptical figures (e.g. Steven Novella, Kylie Sturgess) that are written in an overly sympathetic or promotional tone, which serves to trumpet rather than summarize, scraping together every podcast, blog, or radio interview to implicitly or explicitly promote the subject's own views. Let me be clear I am not accusing anyone of COI editing in this or any other article. Additional opinions are welcome. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The ongoing situations in Iran are highly foggy and complex. Besides, some related pages are biased, injudicious, and irrational. The page {{ https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%86%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%A7_%D8%B4%D8%A7%DA%A9%D8%B1%D9%85%DB%8C}} is an outstanding which, editing is blocked either! Most locals intuit the alone teenage girl may have committed a suicide fall at 3 AM, but the page induces as if the guard gang (police) jabbed and buried her hiddenly. One of her aunts wrote something on her Instagram and then erased it, but those are cited on the page! None of the page data is juridically approved anywhere across the world. ٍTotally opposing the Islamic republic, and all black, hurting, and prejudiced, far from Wikipedia attitude. I propose a revision on the page. R.pardis ( talk) 23:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Very striking deviation from NPOV in this article. In the Personal Life section, second paragraph, the editors have chosen to mimic a hit piece article by a single author that undermines the subject with conjecture and speculation by taking alleged quotes and crafting a narrative not stated by the subject. Unsure why the subject's past possible literature selections even warrants mention in the Personal Life section, might as well discuss what kind of car she drives, but that wouldn't provide as much opportunity for the authors to slander the subject. The fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences of the second paragraph have absolutely nothing to do with the subject, and were introduced for their maligning effect as intended by the biased authors. "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." Clearly this paragraph is not intended as a neutral expansion of an explanation of the subject's personal life. It is a myopic focus on alleged literature preferences intended to allow the authors to use the Wikipedia article to persecute the subject based on politics. The politics can be discussed outside of the Personal Life section, and a literature preference is not worth mentioning, and even if it were it could be reduced to five words. Side note, per the WP guidance on using sources, "take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." This is interesting because the few sources cited in the section in question (which were published within days of each other) violate this very policy. For example, based on rather innocuous alleged disparate quotes, one article alleges that Meloni is 'on a quest for Italy's ring of power', whatever that means. So by inheritance, this section is a fiction generated by motivated authors and doesn't belong in a BLP. Dyno99 ( talk) 13:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Frankly I can't make heads or tails of the article Slow violence. It's apparently coined by a highly cited paper by Rob Nixon ( [3]), but the way the article is written is too much of an endorsement, and seems to synthesize very different instances of "slow violence". Alas, I'm not sure what to do with it. Ovinus ( talk) 01:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to ask this, but I see the consensus is that people magazine is considered reliable , however when it comes to things such as an actor's DOB or age, should that be used as a source? I'm asking because I've noticed in past articles from them, they had an actor's age listed because that was the age that a bunch of other sites had down. Laverne Cox, Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastian for instance. Here's a few examples.
https://people.com/tv/laverne-cox-orange-is-the-new-black-star-on-violent-past-visionary-present/ https://people.com/tv/emmys-2014-laverne-cox-makes-history/ https://people.com/movies/octavia-spencer-ma-trailer-creepy-horror/ https://people.com/awards/golden-globes-2012-jessica-chastain-on-her-success/
None of the ages listed for the actresses in these articles were the correct ones at the time they were published. Which gives the impression that the writers were web scraping them from sites like IMDB or Google and weren't doing any fact checking. Kcj5062 ( talk) 05:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Some background here. During the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin, there was some very suspicious looking single-purpose account editing that was consistently adding negative information to the pages of candidates Sarah Godlewski and Alex Lasry. For example, this Milwaukee area IP and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geeky1127/Archive this whole sock puppet situation. This type of SPA editing did not occur on Mandela Barnes. Now the Barnes article is being stuffed full of content like this and this, that really belongs at 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin, and assiduously scrubbed of any content that can be interpreted to be remotely controversial or critical of Barnes. See this, this, and this. Election season is dumb. More uninvolved eyes on this article would be good. See Talk:Mandela Barnes#Personal life section for existing talk page discussion. Basically, a lot of arguments about WP:UNDUE are being made, and the question at hand is, is content like this DUE if content like this is not? Marquardtika ( talk) 18:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to make a note here that I believe the rules of this noticeboard: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion has not been met." Neither myself, Andrevan, @ Tchouppy, or @ Glinden were notified of this conversation going on within this thread.Andrevan and myself were linked to in edits within this thread. The other two are linked in more recent conversations on the talk page. Some edits also seem to be calling out users within the edit summary, rather than focusing on the content. Wozal ( talk) 15:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC).
Lanfranco Cirillo, the architect of Putin’s Palace and homes for various oligarchs now has an article. The article was put into article space by an editor that isn’t observing neutrality as none of Cirillo’s various scandals and legal issues are mentioned. I would appreciate some eyes on the article. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 00:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Qnet’s page has seen a years-long war between various editors that has left it in a paralyzed and far-from-neutral state. Reading the page as a whole, it skews incredibly negative and suffers from many of the issues mentioned in WP:NPOV (states opinions as facts, using judgmental language, lack of balance, among others). Many of these issues stem from edits made by a now-banned editor, Jitumoni1995, who published more than 50% of this article from 2016-2019. They made a total of 222 total edits to the page. Since that single purpose account ( WP:SPA) engaged in WP:DISRUPTIVE, no effort appears to have been made on the page to properly review it for neutrality issues.
While this is a COI-declared account, I am following COI guidelines by refraining from making direct edits and utilizing the Talk page as my primary means of engagement. That said, I sincerely believe that the state of the page runs afoul of Wikipedia’s “non-negotiable” principles of WP:NPOV. I acknowledge that looking at the edit history, this page appears to have been bombarded by many people with anti- QNET biases and a small number of people with pro-QNET biases. I certainly do not seek for the page to become WP:PROMO whatsoever. I merely seek to have fresh eyes address the overall status of a page that was not appropriately assessed for neutrality in the wake of the disruptive editing.
I have posted to the Talk Page to request feedback on the situation and edits to the page (specifically to the Controversy section) that align with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines, but I have not received any concrete responses. I was hoping to garner more feedback on this noticeboard.
I’d like the entirety of the page, but more specifically, the controversy section to be reviewed, given the context through which a lot of the content was published. As for a few specific examples of where this lack of neutrality exists throughout the page:
The opening paragraphs set the tone that this is not an NPOV page. The second paragraph states opinion as fact when it says that QNET “has been charged as a ponzi scheme in countries like India”. The sources cited do not make mention of the term “ponzi scheme” and its use in the introduction of the article is pejorative and states seriously contested assertions as fact.
“Qnet changed its name repeatedly and launched at least 76 companies (as per the Bombay High court order of May 2016), often to sell lesser-known products manufactured by smaller companies using a multi-level marketing/direct sales model.[31](subscription required) Common people (IR in Qnet parlance) were taught to sell these products (often through workshops).[citation needed] Sellers earned commissions for each new seller / buyer brought into the fold.[citation needed].” (The information on this page is not found in the cited document, and the document is uploaded by an organization that multiple Wikipedia contributors agree is unreliable.)(See talk page request here.)
“It was sued by Egypt, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka for allegedly operating a product-based pyramid scheme. The company and its franchise Vihaan are under investigation in India.” (This is false, unsupported, and misleading. QuestNet was the entity in question. Egypt didn’t sue anyone, a private religious group issued a decree stating the activities were haram. QNet was able to obtain a decree from a different religious group called ‘Dar illfta’, that stated that QNet activities were in compliance with sharia law, and hence not haram. Source is here.)(See my edit request from June, here.)
The second paragraph of this section states opinion as fact. Nowhere in the citation associated with this paragraph do any government entities describe the business as a “pyramid scheme.” It’s merely the opinion of an author (writing in an opinion piece whose neutrality and reputability we have previously raised here).
This section suffers from the most blatant violations of the NPOV policy on Wikipedia. This section was built by the above-mentioned Jitumoni1995 account and is full of edits which use judgmental language, state opinion as fact, and do nothing to further the balance of neutrality of the page. We indicate a few specific instances below, but as mentioned above, this whole section really warrants a full review that it never received after the disruptive editor built it from scratch. The edits made to this section after Jitumoni1995’s ban not only haven’t shown that a review has been done, but have only stacked on additional biased edits that have tilted this page out of a neutral balance.
“It has faced litigation in many countries and hundreds of IRs working for it and/or its many subsidiaries have been arrested.” (Written judgementally and doesn’t have a citation associated with it)
“India declared both Goldquest and Questnet to be Ponzi scheme companies.” (None of the associated sources ‘declare’ these entities to be Ponzi schemes)
“ The same year, Syria shut down QuestNet for violating its commercial registration, stating that the company had operated a pyramid scheme and withdrawn billions of Syrian pounds from the country, while paying few taxes.” (The way this is written doesn’t reflect the text in the associated citation).
“Over 100 people from Togo became victim to a big scam called QNET” (Judgmental language that isn’t even supported with the associated citation)
There are also multiple instances of Jitumoni1995 using a very controversial source to cite a handful of their edits:
Example 1 (Use of discredited Source to Negatively Impact QNet)
Example 2 (Large Reversion of Sourced Content)
Example 3 (Unreliable Blogs as References)
With all of this context in mind, I ask that editors participate in conversations around this content and this editor, and make neutralizing edits to the page that are aligned with reliable sources and Wikipedia’s guidelines. QNetLars ( talk) 20:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I was invited to participate in a RfC about the Heat article (because I enlisted myself to help in RfCs.) I only have a general interest in the subject, but I always take seriously the RfCs in which I help : I follow carefully the talk page and participate in the discussions. I believe this article requires the attention of more people. Here is the first paragraph of the lead:
In thermodynamics, heat is defined as the form of energy crossing the boundary of a thermodynamic system by virtue of a temperature difference across the boundary. A thermodynamic system does not contain heat. Nevertheless, the term is also often used to refer to the thermal energy contained in a system as a component of its internal energy, and that is reflected in the temperature of the system. For both uses of the term, heat is a form of energy.
There is an undue weight on a terminological issue. It's true to a large degree that, in thermodynamics, the definition of heat is energy in transfer, but it's a technical point that is not so important for the lead. It's just that when the description of a thermodynamic process involves both the internal energy of the system and the thermal energy in and out of the system, we do not want to use the same term for the internal energy of the system and the energy, the heat, that is transferred in and out of the system. But this convenient terminological convention does not deserve so much emphasis in the lead. At the least one editor over there sees it as a fundamental aspect of thermodynamics, but it's only a convenient convention, which only makes sense in a technical context. There is even another complete paragraph on this in the lead. When Feynman wants to explain heat, he would say that it is the jiggling of the atoms within the system. Even when heat transfer in or out of a system is explained, even though the internal energy of the system is not called heat, it's very common to consider that the heat goes out of the system into a heat reservoir or out of a heat reservoir into the system. I am not saying this to contradict the definition. The technical definition of heat as energy in transfer is fine, because we already have the term internal energy for the energy stored in the system. But insisting on that definition in the lead seems undue weight to me. I think I made a mistake in arguing with some editors over there, because I might have reinforced their need to protect this definition. One of them clearly see himself as the protector of what he considers the universally rigorous definition
. So, I decided to stop following the Heat article, because the discussion is not working at all over there, but that I should at the least mention the issue here.
Dominic Mayers (
talk) 07:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I recently nominated Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China for deletion [4] as a WP:POVFORK of Taiwan, China and Political status of Taiwan and One-China policy and tagged the lead sentence with Citation Needed label [5]. The lead statement is a claim of objective truth, stating (in WP:WIKIVOICE) that Taiwan is a Province of the People's Republic of China, citing a WP:PRIMARY source (the constitution of the People's Republic of China). I would appreciate more participation from editors in the deletion discussion about alternative page names [6], and in the talk page discussions to determine how the claim should be covered in the lead sentence [7]. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 10:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
More eyes needed at Republics of Russia. Editor has been repeatedly adding Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine into the infobox. The new editor has explicitly claimed that the only viewpoint to be represented in the article is that of "Russian law". Cambial — foliar❧ 20:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I have posted previously about the 1xbet page’s NPOV/COI issue on its talk page and also the neutral point of view noticeboard. This resulted in some changes, but I believe the violation still stands.
The page comes across as being written with an exclusively negative bias. This is highlighted when making a comparison with other pages within the same industry, as it omits sections that are commonly found and features mostly only negative ones. I believe that the controversies should remain to a more reasonable extent but should be placed into one controversy section like the other pages in the same industry.
Since the page’s inception, there is evidence that points to the page creator having a conflict of interest in the form of a vendetta against the company. The first red flag is that the user appears to edit this page exclusively. In addition to this, the continued sentiment of these contributions appears to be negative and biased against the company. They have also left a comment on the talk page stating ‘1xbet bankrupt? My work is done here.’ which implies that the user had a planned agenda.
After a quick search online, I was able to find a few sources that reference information about the company - e.g. length of operation, countries/languages they service, etc. - that is not on the current version of the page. Surely this type of information should be included on the page too?
Some examples of sources I found:
https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/news/1263451/fc-barcelona-adds-1xbet-as-a-new-global-partner
https://focusgn.com/1xbet-becomes-official-betting-partner-of-13-football-tournaments
Please let me know what you think! Melancholyhelper ( talk) 15:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
As of January 2022, 1xBet no longer appears to be located in Curaçao after filing for bankruptcyin the lead doesn't appear to have a reference or obvious source in the article text. The statement sounds very odd as it'd be unusual for a Curacao-licensed gaming company to actually be located there not on paper in the first place.
world's most controversial betting firmsdoesn't seem to be sourced.
This one's been problematic for almost a decade, but remains promotional, with way too much reliance on SPS. I have tried to tag it for the NPOV problems, and twice been reverted. Orange Mike | Talk 13:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Waki Wiki says "Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology. Using Right or Left has nothing to do with fascism. The use of government power by either side to politically attack the other is fascism. Wikipedia is practicing fascism. You have disgraced yourselves. 174.73.179.101 ( talk) 04:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted back to a 2013 version of this article to restore sourced content that was inappropriately removed. However, this restores a WP:CRITICISMSECTION with several inline maintenance tags in it, so I would appreciate a second set of eyes or several as to whether changes are needed to comply with NPOV. Psychology articles do have a history of SYNTH regarding the topic of memory repression, so I'm wary of that. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 01:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Based on the sequence of the !voting by new contributors, the POV balance among contributors to a discussion of the mention of Transgender pregnancy in the lead is somewhat questionable. Unjaded viewpoints would be welcome. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Anthony Summers was brought to FTN for promotion of fringe, and when I reviewed it, I ended up converting the book section into a simple bibliography in this edit, which seemed more appropriate for the article, and less promotional. It was reverted, and there is now a discussion on the Talk Page that could use more eyes. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 18:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
converting" consisted of deleting two-thirds of the article, mostly content from The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Wall Street Journal and other mainstream news organisations, as well as content sourced from Vanity Fair about a documentary based in large part on the author's work, and similar content. Views on the author's work published in mainstream reliable sources are quite standard and appropriate to a BLP. There are no marginal or generally unreliable sources used. Thus the reversion of your mass deletion was an appropriate response. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
four users have now recognizedthe real or imagined promotion of fringe theories that you think is in the article is false.
cannot unilaterally decide that no action needs to be taken. Indeed not: I have neither sought to do so nor advocated for
no action. The opposite is true: I stated multiple times ( here, here, here) that we ought to add those more negative views of Summers work. I have started adding material that takes a critical view of Summers' research. If you are looking to address the issue for which you templated the article, rather than wasting time misrepresenting other editor's views to try to rebut a position no-one has argued, I suggest you do likewise. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.– The article is predominantly about a conspiracy theorist, even if it is underdeveloped.
Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.– This had not been done, putting the article in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.
Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.– This is why I brought the subject to the FTN in the first place. While the article is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, I consider its effect on other articles to be a much more pressing concern.
This request is about the lead section. The lead has to be expanded to better summarize the main information contained in the article. However, all attempts to expand and improve the lead section have been reverted by User:Mr. bobby over "catholic point of view". We would need an experienced user to tell whether the proposed changes are really written from catholic point of view or from a neutral point of view. Here are the changes needing a review Padre Pio: Difference between revisions: and here are the discussions already held: Talk:Padre Pio#Changed introduction of the article and Talk:Padre Pio#Lead section. SanctumRosarium ( talk) 19:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I expand the list of jumps humans do [10]. Some people (@ User:Figureskatingfan) and a fiew conservative require jumps have proof of the ISU organisation. I deny ISU as the expert. We have an obvious conflict. See part of the discussion here. The common scenario: they say something and revert, I do the same. Is it the correct way? The question is the method to find consensus. PavelSI ( talk) 01:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Some people declare ISU choice as the only valid orbiter as the consensus. See no proof of this. But they can repeat it. PavelSI ( talk) 01:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Already tried opening a discussion, but only the original writer responded. As explained there and within edit summaries in the article's history, I find it absurd that peacock language is used in just the second paragraph. I certainly never saw this on any other article... 'formidable' is the word currently used that is just not neutral it seems to me... before it was 'outstanding' which is just ludicrous for an encyclopedia, surely. 80.42.143.142 ( talk) 03:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, this content has stood for about 5 years without anybody objecting, and at least one other person in the edit summary has already told the IP that he has got the wrong end of the stick (there is also an anonymous contributor to the talk page discussion, who may or may not be the same person). It is unusual and noteworthy for politicians to have been professional card-players in their early years (having failed to hold down their one and only paid job), or to be appointed to a near-Cabinet-level post within a year of being elected, as a direct result of worsting in debate the opposition politician associated with that post. His 1960s conference speeches - of which little footage appears to have survived - were celebrated long after his death. And for the record, I have no particular opinion about Iain Macleod one way or the other, except to observe that he seems to have been rather prickly and unpleasant in his later years (exacerbated no doubt by pain from his bone condition and the knowledge that he was unlikely ever to become Prime Minister). I am far too old for hero worship - I just happen to find biography, a chunk of history viewed through the lifespan of a single person, an interesting art form. I can't even remember why I picked him to write up (I "did" Hugh Gaitskell and Selwyn Lloyd round about the same time - I was going to "do" Aneurin Bevan but for one reason or another didn't). "Glowing hagiography by an obsessive fan", honestly. Paulturtle ( talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Relevant talk page discussion: /info/en/?search=Talk:Ger_toshav#NO_WP:CONSENSUS_to_remove_sourced_content
At issue is this sentence: "However, these religious Zionist and Orthodox rabbis that guide the modern Noahide movement, who are often affiliated with the Third Temple movement, expound a racist and supremacist ideology which consists in the belief that the Jewish people are God's chosen nation and racially superior to non-Jews,> and mentor Noahides because they believe that the Messianic era will begin with the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to re-institute the Jewish priesthood along with the practice of ritual sacrifices, and the establishment of a Jewish theocracy in Israel, supported by communities of Noahides."
I believe that this should at most be phrased as, for example, "opponents criticize the ideology as racist, supremacist, etc." In addition, describing "the belief that the Jewish people are God's chosen nation" as racist or supremacist is a belief some people hold, but it is generally not a mainstream belief (see Jews as the chosen people). Therefore, stating it as fact in this article is an NPOV violation as well.
Note that there is a paragraph with similar wording on the page Noahidism and potentially a few other articles related to this movement.
I also have issues with the content itself, but that may be out of the scope of this board. I would appreciate a third opinion and/or advice on where to find editors willing and able to judge the content dispute. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:CDE4:D44:195E:7E22 ( talk) 23:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This is because
we only report what is verifiable using secondary reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.So, if you want to:
- Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or
- Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent, or
Explain (what you perceive to be) the truth or reality of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or- Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community...
on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses.
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements.Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do.
GenoV84 ( talk) 17:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
References
In the biography for the economist Adam Posen, an editor added a "controversy" section which reads,
"Speaking at the Cato Institute, Posen said “ The fetish for manufacturing is part of the general fetish for keeping white males of low education outside the cities in the powerful positions they're in in the US”, which was disputed by the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Others deplored the discussion of industrial policy in such a manner."
There are a multitude of problems here.
First, Posen's views on manufacturing are not 'controversial' within the economics discipline. Take, for example, this survey of economists published by the Chicago Booth School of Business [15]. In response to the proposition "The federal government would make the average U.S. citizen better off by using policies that directly focus more on increasing manufacturing employment than employment in other sectors," only 5% of economists agreed with this statement. One of the comments BTL reads, "Memo to Romney and Obama: there is nothing per se special about manufacturing (except maybe nostalgia)" -which is essentially Posen's argument [16].
That the manufacturing sector makes up a small share of the economy and receives outsized attention from politicians is just a fact. It is also a fact that traditional manufacturing industries (which compete with foreign imports, and make up an even smaller share of the economy) are predominately white and male in contrast to the much larger and more diverse service sector (which receives almost no attention from politicians, and gets hurt by restrictive trade policies). Posen was not unreasonable to speculate about this, and in any event that wasn't the central point of his argument (see link 10).
So right off the bat, warning bells should be ringing as to the nature and extent of this editor's economic knowledge.
Secondly, the "Alliance for American Manufacturing" is not an authoritative source for economics and could raise promotional issues. This is a special interest group.
Thirdly, "industrial policy" is not a term used by professional economists, but a political slogan and euphemism for trade protectionism. So there is also a possibility that this editor is injecting his politics into Posen's biography.
And finally, these statements are, unsurprisingly, sourced to Twitter. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 22:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
There is an RfC on self-published rebuttals/denials taking place at WT:BLP, and it may have implications for NPOV. Additional input would be helpful. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The other day I opened a section on the economist Adam Posen (no feedback), and now there's a related issue on the article for Posen's think tank, the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
I'll make this one short: an editor or group of editors added a criticism section to the PIIE page which is little more than a soapbox for anti-globalisation politics. They are attacking free trade, in contradiction to the views of about 9 in 10 mainstream economists [17]. That 9 in 10 academics, especially economists, agree on anything is remarkable.
As a mainstream encyclopedia, it simply can't be the case that an editor can source criticism to fringe or populist writers in newspapers, or special interest groups that are at odds with the opinions of most experts. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 21:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to have Breast binding renamed "Chest binding". Discussion @ Talk:Breast binding#Requested move 2 November 2022. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The lede of Kevin Alfred Strom does not mention his time spent in prison for possession of child pornography. This is a significant lede-worthy fact because, for one, it is one of the things that led to his downfall in the neo-nazi community. User:Veverve removed this text after User:Zezen claimed this was undue weight. Zezen was later indef banned by the community for making violently antisemitic/anti-LGBTQ edits. Please comment here: Talk:Kevin Alfred Strom#Undue. Schierbecker ( talk) 05:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Qnet’s page has seen a years-long war between various editors that has left it in a paralyzed and far-from-neutral state. Reading the page as a whole, it skews incredibly negative and suffers from many of the issues mentioned in WP:NPOV (states opinions as facts, using judgmental language, lack of balance, among others). Many of these issues stem from edits made by a now-banned editor, Jitumoni1995, who published more than 50% of this article from 2016-2019. They made a total of 222 total edits to the page. Since that single purpose account ( WP:SPA) engaged in WP:DISRUPTIVE, no effort appears to have been made on the page to properly review it for neutrality issues.
While this is a COI-declared account, I am following COI guidelines by refraining from making direct edits and utilizing the Talk page as my primary means of engagement. That said, I sincerely believe that the state of the page runs afoul of Wikipedia’s “non-negotiable” principles of WP:NPOV. I acknowledge that looking at the edit history, this page appears to have been bombarded by many people with anti- QNET biases and a small number of people with pro-QNET biases. I certainly do not seek for the page to become WP:PROMO whatsoever. I merely seek to have fresh eyes address the overall status of a page that was not appropriately assessed for neutrality in the wake of the disruptive editing.
I have posted to the Talk Page to request feedback on the situation and edits to the page (specifically to the Controversy section) that align with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines, but I have not received any concrete responses. I was hoping to garner more feedback on this noticeboard.
I’d like the entirety of the page, but more specifically, the controversy section to be reviewed, given the context through which a lot of the content was published. As for a few specific examples of where this lack of neutrality exists throughout the page:
The opening paragraphs set the tone that this is not an NPOV page. The second paragraph states opinion as fact when it says that QNET “has been charged as a ponzi scheme in countries like India”. The sources cited do not make mention of the term “ponzi scheme” and its use in the introduction of the article is pejorative and states seriously contested assertions as fact.
“Qnet changed its name repeatedly and launched at least 76 companies (as per the Bombay High court order of May 2016), often to sell lesser-known products manufactured by smaller companies using a multi-level marketing/direct sales model.[31](subscription required) Common people (IR in Qnet parlance) were taught to sell these products (often through workshops).[citation needed] Sellers earned commissions for each new seller / buyer brought into the fold.[citation needed].” (The information on this page is not found in the cited document, and the document is uploaded by an organization that multiple Wikipedia contributors agree is unreliable.)(See talk page request here.)
“It was sued by Egypt, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka for allegedly operating a product-based pyramid scheme. The company and its franchise Vihaan are under investigation in India.” (This is false, unsupported, and misleading. QuestNet was the entity in question. Egypt didn’t sue anyone, a private religious group issued a decree stating the activities were haram. QNet was able to obtain a decree from a different religious group called ‘Dar illfta’, that stated that QNet activities were in compliance with sharia law, and hence not haram. Source is here.)(See my edit request from June, here.)
The second paragraph of this section states opinion as fact. Nowhere in the citation associated with this paragraph do any government entities describe the business as a “pyramid scheme.” It’s merely the opinion of an author (writing in an opinion piece whose neutrality and reputability we have previously raised here).
This section suffers from the most blatant violations of the NPOV policy on Wikipedia. This section was built by the above-mentioned Jitumoni1995 account and is full of edits which use judgmental language, state opinion as fact, and do nothing to further the balance of neutrality of the page. We indicate a few specific instances below, but as mentioned above, this whole section really warrants a full review that it never received after the disruptive editor built it from scratch. The edits made to this section after Jitumoni1995’s ban not only haven’t shown that a review has been done, but have only stacked on additional biased edits that have tilted this page out of a neutral balance.
“It has faced litigation in many countries and hundreds of IRs working for it and/or its many subsidiaries have been arrested.” (Written judgementally and doesn’t have a citation associated with it)
“India declared both Goldquest and Questnet to be Ponzi scheme companies.” (None of the associated sources ‘declare’ these entities to be Ponzi schemes)
“ The same year, Syria shut down QuestNet for violating its commercial registration, stating that the company had operated a pyramid scheme and withdrawn billions of Syrian pounds from the country, while paying few taxes.” (The way this is written doesn’t reflect the text in the associated citation).
“Over 100 people from Togo became victim to a big scam called QNET” (Judgmental language that isn’t even supported with the associated citation)
There are also multiple instances of Jitumoni1995 using a very controversial source to cite a handful of their edits:
Example 1 (Use of discredited Source to Negatively Impact QNet)
Example 2 (Large Reversion of Sourced Content)
Example 3 (Unreliable Blogs as References)
With all of this context in mind, I ask that editors participate in conversations around this content and this editor, and make neutralizing edits to the page that are aligned with reliable sources and Wikipedia’s guidelines. QNetLars ( talk) 17:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I recently made an WP:RFC regarding the Conflict with Rosicrucians section of the Illuminati Wikipedia article. XDev and I have been discussing for several months now whether this section presents a "conflict" between the two groups in an NPOV way and whether it relies too heavily on the writings of René le Forestier himself, mostly his Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande from 1781. That discussion can be found at Sourcing and POV in Conflict with Rosicrucians Section on the talk page.
The section talks about a rivalry between the Illuminati and Rosicrucians that appears nowhere else on Wikipedia. It portrays the Illuminati as rationalists who were under a one-sided attack from superstitious and fraudulent Rosicrucians. The Rosicruciansim article does not speak of this conflict, nor does the page for the Order of the Golden and Rosy Cross. Rosicrucianism does not appear again in the Illuminati article, making this section somewhat of an orphan on its own page.
My most recent edit here adds a request for the POV to be toned down, such as
"A conflict became inevitable as the existence of the Illuminati became more evident, and as prominent Rosicrucians and mystics with Rosicrucian sympathies, were actively recruited by Knigge and other over-enthusiastic helpers."
and
"The Bavarian Illuminati, whose existence was already known to the Rosicrucians from an informant, were further betrayed by the reckless actions of Ferdinand Maria Baader, an Areopagite who now joined the Rosicrucians."
While I have argued that these wrings seem like primary sources and the section additionally uses NPOV wording, such as "reckless action," XDev has said that contemporary historian rely on the writings of Adam Weishaupt, René le Forestier and Adolph Freiherr Knigge more or less directly and thus them being primary sources is acceptable to Wikipedia. The reason I have not put this in the Secondary Source noticeboard is that, while that is an aspect of our discussion, it is (excuse the pun) secondary to the main question of the POV of this section.
Any input from those with a background in History, Secret Societies, the German Enlightenment, etc. would be most helpful. Thank you! AnandaBliss ( talk) 12:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Readers of this board may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#RfC_on_first_paragraph. Adoring nanny ( talk) 14:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
More comments are welcome at Talk:Breast binding#Requested move 2 November 2022, where it has been proposed to move the article to "Chest binding". Crossroads -talk- 04:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
On 16 November 2022, a user Spottz created an account, and made a couple of edits on the article Liniment adding a claim (to the Notable Liniments subsection) that a company offers a certain type of liniment. This user provided a source citation. The link leads to a webpage where one may purchase the liniment, but the webpage doesn't have any words about the liniment's notability. DIFF I addressed to them (on their talk page), but I believe, they are beneficial to stick to not-responding tactics. Thus I wrote here. Tosha Langue ( talk) 06:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Nowhere2Go, a single-purpose account, keeps removing sourced and cited content from the lede of the SBC article, arguing that the SBC doesn't do that anymore (so ugly stuff that happened within my lifetime as a Southern Baptist should be buried in the past history); and something about "heresy" I didn't understand; and besides, accusations did not all lead to convictions, so they don't count. Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The last sentence of Republican Party (United States)#Voting rights currently states:
Opponents argue that the efforts amount to voter suppression, [1] are intended to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people who vote, [2] and would disproportionately affect minority voters. [3]
Sources
|
---|
|
However, none of the three sources used here describe these impacts to be the argument of opponents, they all state them as simple facts. See
talk page for further discussion.
Is this sentence a verifiability/NPOV violation as it stands? ––
FormalDude
(talk) 22:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
We're talking about three separate claims as though they're all the same.the efforts amount to voter suppression
and are intended to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people who vote
probably shouldn't be framed as simply "Republicans are engaged in voter suppression, intending to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people to vote" but it's also not just "opponents" who say this. There are many instances of Republicans saying as much (without calling it "voter supression"). The "voter suppression" characterization should remain attributed to either specific or generalized parties (e.g. "characterized as voter suppression by a range of journalists and academics"), but there are plenty of sources to cite establishing that (a) Republicans believe that certain kinds of voting restrictions benefit them, and that (b) they have undertaken to implement some of those restrictions. would disproportionately affect minority voters
doesn't have to be attributed because there's research to back this up -- just cite that. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 17:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification.Adoring nanny ( talk) 12:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
MYTH V. FACT: GEORGIA'S ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT. This source is WP:RS for the purpose of what supporters of the laws actually say. In a WP:WIKIVOICE discussion of what each side says, that's all you need for the "supporters" portion. Adoring nanny ( talk) 13:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Judging by the talk page, this piece of promotional fluff about an incredibly expensive and exclusive school near Hollywood where the children of the rich and famous attend has been problematic at least since 2009. I tried to do a bit, partially by rescuing nearly-hidden "Notes" about disputes relating to the school and putting them into appropriate places in the body; but most of this still reads like something between a recruiting brochure and a breathless article in a Hollywood gossip magazine. Orange Mike | Talk 19:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus on the talk page that the article is not neutral. I have removed some emotional language but the article would benefit from a review by editors who are well-versed in this history. The references also seem to need a lot of work, so I encourage anyone interested to take a look. Elinruby ( talk) 21:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I am a new editor who's been lurking for a while and I'm kind of winging it, so I apologise in advance if this isn't the correct procedure. To stay neutral I'll just say there have been disagreements regarding the Firehose of falsehood article: Neutrality, bias, the right to edit, etc. It's all detailed in the talk page and recent edit history and isn't a huge read. I'd really appreciate it if some other experienced users could come and offer their take on the issue. Thanks :) ShabbyHoose ( talk) 04:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Requesting inputs / guidance about WP:Due whether sourced content in following two subsections:
Above questions itself are brief summary of following context
Context: Non-vegetarian is an article about India food containing meat and the people/ communities consume the same, has long history. Article retains at least some cultural/ social aspects and issues. I do have considerable list of credible resources which I wanted to updated the article, that includes communities and regions wise cuisine and Non-vegetarian food culture . Some users seems to have reservations about mention of any thing vegetarian in the article and that is perfectly okay for me. But following community wise cultural aspects are also objected too and deleted. The user says ".. The non-vegetarian dishes of muslims discussion about halal and haram, party, dowry, .. are I think out of topic. .." . I understand this point of view too. But wish to have WP community inputs as asked in above questions for better understanding.
Following 2 subsections about content under consideration are made for ease of reading. Bookku ( talk) 07:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Bookku ( talk) 07:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I see no need to delete the page or change it. The word was first used by the newly sprouted vegetarian societies in the West in the late 19th century. The first attested use mentioned in the Oxford English Dictionary is in Racine, Wisconsin in 1883. It came to be used in India much later, but that is where it has found both enduring and widespread use.
The reason is that a very large majority of the Hindu Indian population is effectively vegetarian. The cuisine section of the India pages speaks to this issue, "Although meat is eaten widely in India, the proportional consumption of meat in the overall diet is low.[467] Unlike China, which has increased its per capita meat consumption substantially in its years of increased economic growth, in India the strong dietary traditions have contributed to dairy, rather than meat, becoming the preferred form of animal protein consumption.[468]"
In North India, for example, Hindu families which describe themselves as being meat-eating, do not cook meat more than maybe once a week; men who describe themselves as meat-eating might not eat meat at home because their wives don't eat meat; landlords in urban areas might prohibit the cooking of meat on the premises. Moreover, a "vegetarian" in India is not just someone who does not consume meat, but someone who has an emotional aversion to meat. Thus Indians in America protested the use of a small amount of lard in the oil used in American fast food for deep frying French fries. Indian political leaders on foreign trips have insisted that no meat be served at their table.
Among some in the Indian Hindu elite, there has also been a love-hate relationship with meat, in part because India's conquerors, the Turkic Muslims and the British were real meat eaters. Gandhi mentions a doggerel popular in his childhood: "Behold the mighty Englishman. He rules the Indian small. Because he is a meat eater. He is five cubits tall." So in a modern version of that aspiration, the Indian English-language press will every so often report the high incidence of meat eating in India. What they fail to mention is that the proportion of meat in the diet is lower in India than in any country in the world, by a big margin at that.
Summing up, the page should begin with the vegetarian societies of the West. (Gandhi, a lifelong vegetarian, joined one or two during his student days in London.) It should then move to India, but be not so much about recipes as the socio-cultural aspects I have mentioned. Non-vegetarian in the early vegetarian society literature was a term for the "other," the meat eater of the West. Around where we live in the US, for example, that traditionally meant meat and potatoes for most dinners, except fish on Fridays and maybe baked beans on Saturdays. On the other hand, "non-vegetarian" in India means only that don't invariantly eat grains and vegetables, occasionally they do eat meat.
A final note: Stray domestic cats, which like all cats are obligate carnivores, are a good indicator of meat-eating among their host human populations. In many urban areas in India, you will not find cats openly walking around in Hindu neighbourhoods, only dogs. If you go to Muslim neighbourhoods, it is the opposite. It reflects in part the Islamic aversion to dogs and in part the hallowed place cats had in the life of the Prophet, but mostly that there is much more meat found in the dumpsters. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Please express your vote at this WP:RFC about the deprecation of what have been questioned as WP:POV sources. Æo ( talk) 16:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello editors, I'm Arturo and I work for bp. Several months ago, some changes were made to the Bernard Looney article by Thenightaway following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, discussing the role of bp and Looney in a rather non-neutral way. This diff shows the major contributions by Thenightaway. I have worked with several editors to reduce undue content and have made edit requests for updates, and it was suggested at BLP/N that I seek some additional opinions here about this content.
My primary concerns now lie with the subheading "Russia controversy" in the article. I made an edit request on 1 September to remove that subheading as I believe it conflicts with NPOV guideline, in particular the one which notes: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure." Calling it a controversy, particularly in the article about Looney when the purchase of Rosneft shares happened before Looney became CEO, doesn't seem accurate to me, as there is not evidence of a "widespread public debate" about Looney's role with Rosneft, in particular since he stepped down from the Rosneft board days after the invasion.
On that note, I'd also like to bring up the lead, which declares that Looney's tenure as CEO has been controversial due to the relationship with Rosneft. This is not supported by the sourcing, which noted how quickly bp pulled out of Rosneft/Russia following the invasion of Ukraine (for example, this article from The New York Times). That telling of Looney's tenure was added on 27 February, two days after the invasion. Coincidentally, that was the same day bp announced that it would sell its stake in Rosneft (see NYT, Reuters, for more information on that). I think changing the lead in this way is certainly WP:UNDUE and isn't really impartial in tone.
I will rest my case there. Are editors willing to take a look at the article and the edit request to make an adjustment? Thank you in advance for your consideration on this matter. Arturo at BP ( talk) 20:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Could someone look over the page for Edward Gierek? I don't know enough about Polish history to confidently say that the article has POV issues, but some of the language seems questionable, and I get a vague impression of thread mode. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 16:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in the ongoing discussions at Torture in Ukraine, especially these two on whether the article should be moved to draft, deleted or merged ( Talk:Torture in Ukraine#Move to draft, merge, or delete and Talk:Torture in Ukraine#Source broken link, overreliance on single source) and this one on the subject of the article: torture perpetrated by Ukrainian state agents or torture taking place on the territory of Ukraine? ( Talk:Torture in Ukraine#The subject of this article) Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 22:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The subject of this article IS NOT torture perpetrated by anybody within the confines of Ukrainian territory...No, the subject of this article is torture committed by agents of the Ukrainian state.[22] Given that context, editors concerned with maintaining NPOV may well be interested in the discussion at article talk. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
What should be the title of
this section? Videos purportedly showing Russian soldiers shot after surrendering in the Makiyivka area
, as originally proposed, or False surrender of Russian soldiers in the Makiyivka area
, as it is now? IMHO the topic doesn't deserve an RfC and some input from other editors should be sufficient. The discussion is here:
Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#And again with the POV.
Gitz (
talk) (
contribs) 01:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
This article reads as though this is an established fact or natural law, when in fact it is a theory, but fails to note it. 146.113.232.10 ( talk) 00:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I am going to join the chorus of voices calling for help at Talk:Torture in Ukraine. Elinruby ( talk) 13:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
@ MrsSnoozyTurtle has now twice added the {{fanpov}} tag to Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone with no explanation as to the issue in the edit summary or on the talkpage. I for the life of me cannot understand the POV issues here considering the information is well sourced and doesn't seem especially fawning. Without an explanation given for the issue, I am removing the tag. Am I missing something here? Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Except when they occur in the clips themselves, there is no music.
IP editor User:71.57.35.130 keeps trying to insert poorly-sourced assertions that efforts to ameliorate gun violence in the U.S., and efforts to control COVID-19 by masking, qualify as moral panics. Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Please see subject RfC about amendment of the lead per this edit to the lead. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
please dispatch trained therapists and a mop. I can't even and it"s definitely not just me. Help help help. Elinruby ( talk) 02:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, because I do not have the bandwidth to mediate this. I want to emphasize that the problem as I see it is not that one editor after another has had a meltdown on the page; it's that they are being gaslighted into these meltdowns, over issues as basic as WP:ONUS, then reported for discourtesy. I'm definitely involved but am trying to maintain. I appreciate the report, as I do not think I could write one. It's just mind-boggling. I will comment later on the ANI thread.
There is now an active RfC on the Male expendability talk page about whether specific ideas should be listed in Wikipedia's voice or attributed. You are welcome to lend your voices to the discussion. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 17:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on the question of whether Elon Musk's proposed peace plan for the Russo-Ukrainian war is due in his biography, either as a subsection of the Views section, or tucked into the Politics subsection of that section. Despite being covered by many reliable sources, some editors seem to believe it doesn't merit any inclusion, even in a summarised form. I don't agree with this and I would like to avoid an RFC. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 13:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
During AfC review, I have explained to Fastfoodfanatic why their draft which appears to me to be a point-of-view fork of Chick-fil-A to focus on race-related incidents involving the company is not appropriate. My reasoning is given at my talk page. I would appreciate input from other editors who are experienced in this area of policy. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 19:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg (book) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Geysirhead ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Came across this new article today. Sourcing seems terrible; not sure if there's notability on the book in general but taking it to NPOVN over the tone. These Wikivoiced gems jumped out at me: F. William Engdahl deliveres a scrupulous and well-documented analysis of “grass roots” decarbonization movement published in New Eastern Outlook, and cites Morningstar's book, which tries to expose the "bluff" of climate correctness.
and The book also stresses the possible global consequences of Greta. An example quote from the book is....
.
Bad enough that the editor's other contributions should be reviewed IMHO, but I'd like to hear their explanation and other editors' thoughts. Notification diff. VQuakr ( talk) 00:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Edit to add: The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg (book). VQuakr ( talk) 01:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Green Imperialism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've just found this, and see serious issues with it regarding compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:OR policy. What do others think? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
A 1990s worldwide survey "Bicycles, Yes — Cheap Shoes, No" by WorldPaper showed that 66% of the participants did not agree to perceive debt-for-nature swaps as eco-colonialism.Whatever it is trying to say, it entirely fails... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll find someone better qualifiedThank you for the derogatory but still more constructive comment! Concrete comment is much more pleasant than the previous boiler-plate prosa so often used in wikipedia discussions. I did correct it. Believe me or not, you will find mostly global North residents here on wikipedia, the rest is silenced by poverty. People living in slams don't use wikipedia so often. Geysirhead ( talk) 18:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Christine Lagarde is a convicted criminal. This is an important fact that is highly visible in the bios of other criminals. After making the relevant update, the page has been locked and reverted to the biased POV language that omits her criminal conviction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonQalg ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The above page definitely needs more watchers. Adoring nanny ( talk) 20:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
More participants would be welcome at Talk:Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill#Bias in this article. The discussion is not currently productive. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
That number of rebels would cost the SNP-Green administration its majority, if they were to join a united opposition - an unnerving prospect for any governmentis it neutral to exclude this event from mention in the article?
Reem Alaslem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, expressed fears the proposals could be abused by predatory men.to
Reem Alaslem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, gave an opinion against the proposals., but to give the comment by Victor Madrigal-Borloz in full?
Died Suddenly (2022 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have just semi-protected this article for a year; there may be neutrality issues remaining. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Diagolon is a Canadian alt-right extremist militia that has been making news in 2022 and the article about it has also been a bit of a magnet for WP:SPA type edits, consequently the page is protected.
There is a bit of a content dispute happening and some more eyes on the article and helping us reach consensus would be welcomed. There is more background on the talk page. CT55555( talk) 20:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
This article N. Chandrababu Naidu was suffering from point of neutrality from long back but there came another user who tried to do the opposite (I meant in the negative way) and retitled all the categories that by looking at the first instance gives a bad impression about the subject. The user has caused such kind of huge disruptive edits lacking neutrality on 2 to 3 pages recently. As an amature I don't know how to restore things on N. Chandrababu Naidu when there are such huge disruptions. Looking for any experienced editors to look in to this and also to ensure that neutrality is present according to Wikipedia guidelines. 456legend( talk) 11:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
retitled all the categories
means retitled all the
WP:SECTIONs. The sections do have some negativity but if the scandals are so severe then that is appropriate. I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject.A well cited quoted describing ABA as viewed as abusive by many I had was removed, with just the citation moved to a more obscure location, with the person making the change trying to leave the article claiming ABA is merely controversial. The instruction for notifying the other editor of the dispute when editing this page aren't clear enough for me to understand how I'm actually supposed to do that. talk — Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC) https://twitter.com/TaraBannow/status/1559266193936195585 has some info on why big money may want abuse to continue, and https://twitter.com/kelseyetcetera/status/1584690345610444802 has more evidence that autistic people are unhappy with the current article
There is an issue on the Jared Bernstein biography, certain editors insisting on labeling this guy an economist. As I have explained on the talk page, JB has no doctorate in economics, does not publish economics research in mainline journals, does not teach economics at any college or university and essentially has no claim to this title other than the fact that he's hired by left-wing politicians and think tanks to act in this capacity. He is essentially a labor activist employed in the interests of big labor unions and certain industry groups affiliated with the Economic Policy Institute.
What is the criteria for professional titles like 'economist'? The defense I received in talk was that "he is an economist, but not an academic economist". This raises several questions.. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 14:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
This is all off the wall. Bernstein is a policy-oriented mainstream economist, one of hundreds of thousands. There's nothing left-wing or heterodox about his work. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Bernstein is termed "chief economist" in the lede. The sources for that title are certainly RS. I don't understand the controversy. If there are contrary sources which call him heterodox then that would also be appropriate. Invasive Spices ( talk) 26 December 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 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | → | Archive 105 |
There is a big problem with establishing a neutral point of view in a Socionics article. 1. In the first line of the article, socionics as a part of psychology and sociology is called pseudoscience with reference to 10 sources from Russia: "Socionics, in psychology and sociology, is a pseudoscientific[11] theory of information processing and personality types." A common feature of these sources is that these sources only mention once and without detailed consideration or definition of socionics throughout their text. Their authors are several philosophers (for example, in the article Zhilina V. A.; Nevelev A. B.; Kamaletdinova A. Ya. (2017) there is a record of the dialogue of three philosophers, and in the remark of one philosopher - Zhilina V. A. socionics is mentioned once without explanation or analysis), philologist ( T. Abashkina (2015), a physicist (L. Podymov (2018), a student and teacher of management without a degree (E. Ivashechkina; G. Chedzhemov (2019), who do not claim that socionics is a pseudoscience at all), and even a journalist- geographer (A. Sergeev), who once mentioned socionics in a publicist article about homeopathy (This article is erroneously or intentionally presented as the opinion of the commission on pseudoscience, but this commission made a decision only once - on homeopathy and never - on psychological sciences, including socionics). But none of these authors is a specialist in psychology or sociology. Moreover, 5 out of 10 authors of the cited articles do not have a degree in any field at all. 2. However, in On the second line, referring to 20 sources from various countries of Eastern and Western Europe, it is written that socionics is defined as a science: "A number of reference books and textbooks on psychology, sociology and other social sciences, as well as a number of researchers, define socionics as a science that studies and models the information structure of the psyche, the information interaction of a person with the world and offers an information theory of relations between people". [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28 ][29][30][31]. A common feature of these tertiary and secondary sources is that 18 out of 20 sources are written by professors, doctors of psychology, sociology and other social sciences. Almost all of them give a complete definition of socionics, as can be seen from the quotations given in the article. In fact, there are many more such sources. A search in various languages (English, Ukrainian, Russian) shows that out of 7400 sources in Google Scholar, 10 dubious sources listed in the first line are all known sources that mention socionics among pseudosciences. There are simply no others, which means their extremely low weight of these sources. If you have questions about these 10 weird dubious sources, we can take a look at them in detail. Some of them are detailed on the talk page of the article. Thus, the neutral point of view in the definition of socionics is completely violated in the article Socionics. The analysis shows that out of these 10 sources, only a small number of them, once mentioning socionics critically, can be used in the "Criticism" section. Jim MacKenna ( talk) 16:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I've just blocked Jim MacKenna as the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit (blether) 19:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
The phrasing of Male expendability gives me pause. Discussion here The article is full of generalizations about vertebrate biology and assumptions about how that translates into human society. Most of the differences in question can be found in this change.
The main dispute is whether the article should read more like...
Or more like...
The article does have sources, but the main ones were written by a political scientist, some cultural anthropologists, and a biologist who wrote his source in the 1970s. I'm not confident that we can consider the biology in the article sufficiently mainstream to repeat it in Wikipedia's own voice. Other articles, for example Consequentialism and Coverture do not give the core ideas in Wikipedia's voice the way Male expendability currently does. I just skimmed Male as norm and I see it has language such as "Subsequent research has maintained" and "the principle claims" that I think would improve Male expendability.
The article also had the unsourced claim "Perpetrators of genocide almost exclusively target men and boys" (which I removed and the other participant did not revert). This makes me feel that other highly questionable claims may also have gotten into the text. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 03:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
"Perpetrators of genocide almost exclusively target men and boys" - worded so strongly, the claim is obviously not true. For a true genocide like the holocaust, obviously women and children are killed alongside the men (although even in that case, the regime has to deal with more scruples in the actual executors, as was witnessed frequently for German soldiers). However, there is a strong true core, with many massacres clearly focusing on males in an age fit to fight - with the Srebrenica massacre probably the most famous example. -- KnightMove ( talk) 05:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there a statement by a body lets say anthropologists, sociologists that acknowledge this position? Or can someone name 10 authors discussing and accepting this specific hypothesis as factual truth? (Can someone do the opposite?) Cinadon 36 10:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
A thoughtful discussion by David Brooks of a decline of wellbeing among US men and boys appeared yesterday in The New York Times. [1] It does not support pseudoscientific evolutionary theories about this or male grievance theories. NightHeron ( talk) 11:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
References
This article to me reads more as a shrine to Shermer than than a summary of Shermer. Large amounts of content are sourced to Shermer's own writings or interviews (e.g. primary sources) suggesting cherry-picking or showcasing in a disproportionate manner ( WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BALASP). The article was previously discussed at BLPN, touching on some similar issues, but most of the current content is more of a NPOV issue than BLP. I have tried to remove material I found overly promotional or excessively detailed (e.g. diff 1, diff 2) but was reverted by Nightscream. The sections I feel most unbalanced or indiscriminate are Personal life and Media work and appearances. Are Shermer's thoughts on gun control or capital punishment truly noteworthy and needing their own subsections, or are they just arbitrary opinions plucked from a vast sea of interviews and writings? Is a list of every television, radio, and podcast appearance appropriate for a person of this sort? While this post is about Michael Shermer's article, I feel it exemplifies issues in several articles on notable skeptical figures (e.g. Steven Novella, Kylie Sturgess) that are written in an overly sympathetic or promotional tone, which serves to trumpet rather than summarize, scraping together every podcast, blog, or radio interview to implicitly or explicitly promote the subject's own views. Let me be clear I am not accusing anyone of COI editing in this or any other article. Additional opinions are welcome. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The ongoing situations in Iran are highly foggy and complex. Besides, some related pages are biased, injudicious, and irrational. The page {{ https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%86%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%A7_%D8%B4%D8%A7%DA%A9%D8%B1%D9%85%DB%8C}} is an outstanding which, editing is blocked either! Most locals intuit the alone teenage girl may have committed a suicide fall at 3 AM, but the page induces as if the guard gang (police) jabbed and buried her hiddenly. One of her aunts wrote something on her Instagram and then erased it, but those are cited on the page! None of the page data is juridically approved anywhere across the world. ٍTotally opposing the Islamic republic, and all black, hurting, and prejudiced, far from Wikipedia attitude. I propose a revision on the page. R.pardis ( talk) 23:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Very striking deviation from NPOV in this article. In the Personal Life section, second paragraph, the editors have chosen to mimic a hit piece article by a single author that undermines the subject with conjecture and speculation by taking alleged quotes and crafting a narrative not stated by the subject. Unsure why the subject's past possible literature selections even warrants mention in the Personal Life section, might as well discuss what kind of car she drives, but that wouldn't provide as much opportunity for the authors to slander the subject. The fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences of the second paragraph have absolutely nothing to do with the subject, and were introduced for their maligning effect as intended by the biased authors. "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." Clearly this paragraph is not intended as a neutral expansion of an explanation of the subject's personal life. It is a myopic focus on alleged literature preferences intended to allow the authors to use the Wikipedia article to persecute the subject based on politics. The politics can be discussed outside of the Personal Life section, and a literature preference is not worth mentioning, and even if it were it could be reduced to five words. Side note, per the WP guidance on using sources, "take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." This is interesting because the few sources cited in the section in question (which were published within days of each other) violate this very policy. For example, based on rather innocuous alleged disparate quotes, one article alleges that Meloni is 'on a quest for Italy's ring of power', whatever that means. So by inheritance, this section is a fiction generated by motivated authors and doesn't belong in a BLP. Dyno99 ( talk) 13:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Frankly I can't make heads or tails of the article Slow violence. It's apparently coined by a highly cited paper by Rob Nixon ( [3]), but the way the article is written is too much of an endorsement, and seems to synthesize very different instances of "slow violence". Alas, I'm not sure what to do with it. Ovinus ( talk) 01:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to ask this, but I see the consensus is that people magazine is considered reliable , however when it comes to things such as an actor's DOB or age, should that be used as a source? I'm asking because I've noticed in past articles from them, they had an actor's age listed because that was the age that a bunch of other sites had down. Laverne Cox, Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastian for instance. Here's a few examples.
https://people.com/tv/laverne-cox-orange-is-the-new-black-star-on-violent-past-visionary-present/ https://people.com/tv/emmys-2014-laverne-cox-makes-history/ https://people.com/movies/octavia-spencer-ma-trailer-creepy-horror/ https://people.com/awards/golden-globes-2012-jessica-chastain-on-her-success/
None of the ages listed for the actresses in these articles were the correct ones at the time they were published. Which gives the impression that the writers were web scraping them from sites like IMDB or Google and weren't doing any fact checking. Kcj5062 ( talk) 05:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Some background here. During the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin, there was some very suspicious looking single-purpose account editing that was consistently adding negative information to the pages of candidates Sarah Godlewski and Alex Lasry. For example, this Milwaukee area IP and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geeky1127/Archive this whole sock puppet situation. This type of SPA editing did not occur on Mandela Barnes. Now the Barnes article is being stuffed full of content like this and this, that really belongs at 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin, and assiduously scrubbed of any content that can be interpreted to be remotely controversial or critical of Barnes. See this, this, and this. Election season is dumb. More uninvolved eyes on this article would be good. See Talk:Mandela Barnes#Personal life section for existing talk page discussion. Basically, a lot of arguments about WP:UNDUE are being made, and the question at hand is, is content like this DUE if content like this is not? Marquardtika ( talk) 18:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to make a note here that I believe the rules of this noticeboard: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion has not been met." Neither myself, Andrevan, @ Tchouppy, or @ Glinden were notified of this conversation going on within this thread.Andrevan and myself were linked to in edits within this thread. The other two are linked in more recent conversations on the talk page. Some edits also seem to be calling out users within the edit summary, rather than focusing on the content. Wozal ( talk) 15:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC).
Lanfranco Cirillo, the architect of Putin’s Palace and homes for various oligarchs now has an article. The article was put into article space by an editor that isn’t observing neutrality as none of Cirillo’s various scandals and legal issues are mentioned. I would appreciate some eyes on the article. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 00:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Qnet’s page has seen a years-long war between various editors that has left it in a paralyzed and far-from-neutral state. Reading the page as a whole, it skews incredibly negative and suffers from many of the issues mentioned in WP:NPOV (states opinions as facts, using judgmental language, lack of balance, among others). Many of these issues stem from edits made by a now-banned editor, Jitumoni1995, who published more than 50% of this article from 2016-2019. They made a total of 222 total edits to the page. Since that single purpose account ( WP:SPA) engaged in WP:DISRUPTIVE, no effort appears to have been made on the page to properly review it for neutrality issues.
While this is a COI-declared account, I am following COI guidelines by refraining from making direct edits and utilizing the Talk page as my primary means of engagement. That said, I sincerely believe that the state of the page runs afoul of Wikipedia’s “non-negotiable” principles of WP:NPOV. I acknowledge that looking at the edit history, this page appears to have been bombarded by many people with anti- QNET biases and a small number of people with pro-QNET biases. I certainly do not seek for the page to become WP:PROMO whatsoever. I merely seek to have fresh eyes address the overall status of a page that was not appropriately assessed for neutrality in the wake of the disruptive editing.
I have posted to the Talk Page to request feedback on the situation and edits to the page (specifically to the Controversy section) that align with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines, but I have not received any concrete responses. I was hoping to garner more feedback on this noticeboard.
I’d like the entirety of the page, but more specifically, the controversy section to be reviewed, given the context through which a lot of the content was published. As for a few specific examples of where this lack of neutrality exists throughout the page:
The opening paragraphs set the tone that this is not an NPOV page. The second paragraph states opinion as fact when it says that QNET “has been charged as a ponzi scheme in countries like India”. The sources cited do not make mention of the term “ponzi scheme” and its use in the introduction of the article is pejorative and states seriously contested assertions as fact.
“Qnet changed its name repeatedly and launched at least 76 companies (as per the Bombay High court order of May 2016), often to sell lesser-known products manufactured by smaller companies using a multi-level marketing/direct sales model.[31](subscription required) Common people (IR in Qnet parlance) were taught to sell these products (often through workshops).[citation needed] Sellers earned commissions for each new seller / buyer brought into the fold.[citation needed].” (The information on this page is not found in the cited document, and the document is uploaded by an organization that multiple Wikipedia contributors agree is unreliable.)(See talk page request here.)
“It was sued by Egypt, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka for allegedly operating a product-based pyramid scheme. The company and its franchise Vihaan are under investigation in India.” (This is false, unsupported, and misleading. QuestNet was the entity in question. Egypt didn’t sue anyone, a private religious group issued a decree stating the activities were haram. QNet was able to obtain a decree from a different religious group called ‘Dar illfta’, that stated that QNet activities were in compliance with sharia law, and hence not haram. Source is here.)(See my edit request from June, here.)
The second paragraph of this section states opinion as fact. Nowhere in the citation associated with this paragraph do any government entities describe the business as a “pyramid scheme.” It’s merely the opinion of an author (writing in an opinion piece whose neutrality and reputability we have previously raised here).
This section suffers from the most blatant violations of the NPOV policy on Wikipedia. This section was built by the above-mentioned Jitumoni1995 account and is full of edits which use judgmental language, state opinion as fact, and do nothing to further the balance of neutrality of the page. We indicate a few specific instances below, but as mentioned above, this whole section really warrants a full review that it never received after the disruptive editor built it from scratch. The edits made to this section after Jitumoni1995’s ban not only haven’t shown that a review has been done, but have only stacked on additional biased edits that have tilted this page out of a neutral balance.
“It has faced litigation in many countries and hundreds of IRs working for it and/or its many subsidiaries have been arrested.” (Written judgementally and doesn’t have a citation associated with it)
“India declared both Goldquest and Questnet to be Ponzi scheme companies.” (None of the associated sources ‘declare’ these entities to be Ponzi schemes)
“ The same year, Syria shut down QuestNet for violating its commercial registration, stating that the company had operated a pyramid scheme and withdrawn billions of Syrian pounds from the country, while paying few taxes.” (The way this is written doesn’t reflect the text in the associated citation).
“Over 100 people from Togo became victim to a big scam called QNET” (Judgmental language that isn’t even supported with the associated citation)
There are also multiple instances of Jitumoni1995 using a very controversial source to cite a handful of their edits:
Example 1 (Use of discredited Source to Negatively Impact QNet)
Example 2 (Large Reversion of Sourced Content)
Example 3 (Unreliable Blogs as References)
With all of this context in mind, I ask that editors participate in conversations around this content and this editor, and make neutralizing edits to the page that are aligned with reliable sources and Wikipedia’s guidelines. QNetLars ( talk) 20:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I was invited to participate in a RfC about the Heat article (because I enlisted myself to help in RfCs.) I only have a general interest in the subject, but I always take seriously the RfCs in which I help : I follow carefully the talk page and participate in the discussions. I believe this article requires the attention of more people. Here is the first paragraph of the lead:
In thermodynamics, heat is defined as the form of energy crossing the boundary of a thermodynamic system by virtue of a temperature difference across the boundary. A thermodynamic system does not contain heat. Nevertheless, the term is also often used to refer to the thermal energy contained in a system as a component of its internal energy, and that is reflected in the temperature of the system. For both uses of the term, heat is a form of energy.
There is an undue weight on a terminological issue. It's true to a large degree that, in thermodynamics, the definition of heat is energy in transfer, but it's a technical point that is not so important for the lead. It's just that when the description of a thermodynamic process involves both the internal energy of the system and the thermal energy in and out of the system, we do not want to use the same term for the internal energy of the system and the energy, the heat, that is transferred in and out of the system. But this convenient terminological convention does not deserve so much emphasis in the lead. At the least one editor over there sees it as a fundamental aspect of thermodynamics, but it's only a convenient convention, which only makes sense in a technical context. There is even another complete paragraph on this in the lead. When Feynman wants to explain heat, he would say that it is the jiggling of the atoms within the system. Even when heat transfer in or out of a system is explained, even though the internal energy of the system is not called heat, it's very common to consider that the heat goes out of the system into a heat reservoir or out of a heat reservoir into the system. I am not saying this to contradict the definition. The technical definition of heat as energy in transfer is fine, because we already have the term internal energy for the energy stored in the system. But insisting on that definition in the lead seems undue weight to me. I think I made a mistake in arguing with some editors over there, because I might have reinforced their need to protect this definition. One of them clearly see himself as the protector of what he considers the universally rigorous definition
. So, I decided to stop following the Heat article, because the discussion is not working at all over there, but that I should at the least mention the issue here.
Dominic Mayers (
talk) 07:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I recently nominated Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China for deletion [4] as a WP:POVFORK of Taiwan, China and Political status of Taiwan and One-China policy and tagged the lead sentence with Citation Needed label [5]. The lead statement is a claim of objective truth, stating (in WP:WIKIVOICE) that Taiwan is a Province of the People's Republic of China, citing a WP:PRIMARY source (the constitution of the People's Republic of China). I would appreciate more participation from editors in the deletion discussion about alternative page names [6], and in the talk page discussions to determine how the claim should be covered in the lead sentence [7]. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 10:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
More eyes needed at Republics of Russia. Editor has been repeatedly adding Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine into the infobox. The new editor has explicitly claimed that the only viewpoint to be represented in the article is that of "Russian law". Cambial — foliar❧ 20:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I have posted previously about the 1xbet page’s NPOV/COI issue on its talk page and also the neutral point of view noticeboard. This resulted in some changes, but I believe the violation still stands.
The page comes across as being written with an exclusively negative bias. This is highlighted when making a comparison with other pages within the same industry, as it omits sections that are commonly found and features mostly only negative ones. I believe that the controversies should remain to a more reasonable extent but should be placed into one controversy section like the other pages in the same industry.
Since the page’s inception, there is evidence that points to the page creator having a conflict of interest in the form of a vendetta against the company. The first red flag is that the user appears to edit this page exclusively. In addition to this, the continued sentiment of these contributions appears to be negative and biased against the company. They have also left a comment on the talk page stating ‘1xbet bankrupt? My work is done here.’ which implies that the user had a planned agenda.
After a quick search online, I was able to find a few sources that reference information about the company - e.g. length of operation, countries/languages they service, etc. - that is not on the current version of the page. Surely this type of information should be included on the page too?
Some examples of sources I found:
https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/news/1263451/fc-barcelona-adds-1xbet-as-a-new-global-partner
https://focusgn.com/1xbet-becomes-official-betting-partner-of-13-football-tournaments
Please let me know what you think! Melancholyhelper ( talk) 15:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
As of January 2022, 1xBet no longer appears to be located in Curaçao after filing for bankruptcyin the lead doesn't appear to have a reference or obvious source in the article text. The statement sounds very odd as it'd be unusual for a Curacao-licensed gaming company to actually be located there not on paper in the first place.
world's most controversial betting firmsdoesn't seem to be sourced.
This one's been problematic for almost a decade, but remains promotional, with way too much reliance on SPS. I have tried to tag it for the NPOV problems, and twice been reverted. Orange Mike | Talk 13:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Waki Wiki says "Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology. Using Right or Left has nothing to do with fascism. The use of government power by either side to politically attack the other is fascism. Wikipedia is practicing fascism. You have disgraced yourselves. 174.73.179.101 ( talk) 04:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted back to a 2013 version of this article to restore sourced content that was inappropriately removed. However, this restores a WP:CRITICISMSECTION with several inline maintenance tags in it, so I would appreciate a second set of eyes or several as to whether changes are needed to comply with NPOV. Psychology articles do have a history of SYNTH regarding the topic of memory repression, so I'm wary of that. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 01:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Based on the sequence of the !voting by new contributors, the POV balance among contributors to a discussion of the mention of Transgender pregnancy in the lead is somewhat questionable. Unjaded viewpoints would be welcome. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Anthony Summers was brought to FTN for promotion of fringe, and when I reviewed it, I ended up converting the book section into a simple bibliography in this edit, which seemed more appropriate for the article, and less promotional. It was reverted, and there is now a discussion on the Talk Page that could use more eyes. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 18:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
converting" consisted of deleting two-thirds of the article, mostly content from The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Wall Street Journal and other mainstream news organisations, as well as content sourced from Vanity Fair about a documentary based in large part on the author's work, and similar content. Views on the author's work published in mainstream reliable sources are quite standard and appropriate to a BLP. There are no marginal or generally unreliable sources used. Thus the reversion of your mass deletion was an appropriate response. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
four users have now recognizedthe real or imagined promotion of fringe theories that you think is in the article is false.
cannot unilaterally decide that no action needs to be taken. Indeed not: I have neither sought to do so nor advocated for
no action. The opposite is true: I stated multiple times ( here, here, here) that we ought to add those more negative views of Summers work. I have started adding material that takes a critical view of Summers' research. If you are looking to address the issue for which you templated the article, rather than wasting time misrepresenting other editor's views to try to rebut a position no-one has argued, I suggest you do likewise. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.– The article is predominantly about a conspiracy theorist, even if it is underdeveloped.
Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.– This had not been done, putting the article in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.
Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.– This is why I brought the subject to the FTN in the first place. While the article is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, I consider its effect on other articles to be a much more pressing concern.
This request is about the lead section. The lead has to be expanded to better summarize the main information contained in the article. However, all attempts to expand and improve the lead section have been reverted by User:Mr. bobby over "catholic point of view". We would need an experienced user to tell whether the proposed changes are really written from catholic point of view or from a neutral point of view. Here are the changes needing a review Padre Pio: Difference between revisions: and here are the discussions already held: Talk:Padre Pio#Changed introduction of the article and Talk:Padre Pio#Lead section. SanctumRosarium ( talk) 19:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I expand the list of jumps humans do [10]. Some people (@ User:Figureskatingfan) and a fiew conservative require jumps have proof of the ISU organisation. I deny ISU as the expert. We have an obvious conflict. See part of the discussion here. The common scenario: they say something and revert, I do the same. Is it the correct way? The question is the method to find consensus. PavelSI ( talk) 01:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Some people declare ISU choice as the only valid orbiter as the consensus. See no proof of this. But they can repeat it. PavelSI ( talk) 01:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Already tried opening a discussion, but only the original writer responded. As explained there and within edit summaries in the article's history, I find it absurd that peacock language is used in just the second paragraph. I certainly never saw this on any other article... 'formidable' is the word currently used that is just not neutral it seems to me... before it was 'outstanding' which is just ludicrous for an encyclopedia, surely. 80.42.143.142 ( talk) 03:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, this content has stood for about 5 years without anybody objecting, and at least one other person in the edit summary has already told the IP that he has got the wrong end of the stick (there is also an anonymous contributor to the talk page discussion, who may or may not be the same person). It is unusual and noteworthy for politicians to have been professional card-players in their early years (having failed to hold down their one and only paid job), or to be appointed to a near-Cabinet-level post within a year of being elected, as a direct result of worsting in debate the opposition politician associated with that post. His 1960s conference speeches - of which little footage appears to have survived - were celebrated long after his death. And for the record, I have no particular opinion about Iain Macleod one way or the other, except to observe that he seems to have been rather prickly and unpleasant in his later years (exacerbated no doubt by pain from his bone condition and the knowledge that he was unlikely ever to become Prime Minister). I am far too old for hero worship - I just happen to find biography, a chunk of history viewed through the lifespan of a single person, an interesting art form. I can't even remember why I picked him to write up (I "did" Hugh Gaitskell and Selwyn Lloyd round about the same time - I was going to "do" Aneurin Bevan but for one reason or another didn't). "Glowing hagiography by an obsessive fan", honestly. Paulturtle ( talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Relevant talk page discussion: /info/en/?search=Talk:Ger_toshav#NO_WP:CONSENSUS_to_remove_sourced_content
At issue is this sentence: "However, these religious Zionist and Orthodox rabbis that guide the modern Noahide movement, who are often affiliated with the Third Temple movement, expound a racist and supremacist ideology which consists in the belief that the Jewish people are God's chosen nation and racially superior to non-Jews,> and mentor Noahides because they believe that the Messianic era will begin with the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to re-institute the Jewish priesthood along with the practice of ritual sacrifices, and the establishment of a Jewish theocracy in Israel, supported by communities of Noahides."
I believe that this should at most be phrased as, for example, "opponents criticize the ideology as racist, supremacist, etc." In addition, describing "the belief that the Jewish people are God's chosen nation" as racist or supremacist is a belief some people hold, but it is generally not a mainstream belief (see Jews as the chosen people). Therefore, stating it as fact in this article is an NPOV violation as well.
Note that there is a paragraph with similar wording on the page Noahidism and potentially a few other articles related to this movement.
I also have issues with the content itself, but that may be out of the scope of this board. I would appreciate a third opinion and/or advice on where to find editors willing and able to judge the content dispute. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:CDE4:D44:195E:7E22 ( talk) 23:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This is because
we only report what is verifiable using secondary reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.So, if you want to:
- Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or
- Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent, or
Explain (what you perceive to be) the truth or reality of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or- Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community...
on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses.
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements.Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do.
GenoV84 ( talk) 17:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
References
In the biography for the economist Adam Posen, an editor added a "controversy" section which reads,
"Speaking at the Cato Institute, Posen said “ The fetish for manufacturing is part of the general fetish for keeping white males of low education outside the cities in the powerful positions they're in in the US”, which was disputed by the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Others deplored the discussion of industrial policy in such a manner."
There are a multitude of problems here.
First, Posen's views on manufacturing are not 'controversial' within the economics discipline. Take, for example, this survey of economists published by the Chicago Booth School of Business [15]. In response to the proposition "The federal government would make the average U.S. citizen better off by using policies that directly focus more on increasing manufacturing employment than employment in other sectors," only 5% of economists agreed with this statement. One of the comments BTL reads, "Memo to Romney and Obama: there is nothing per se special about manufacturing (except maybe nostalgia)" -which is essentially Posen's argument [16].
That the manufacturing sector makes up a small share of the economy and receives outsized attention from politicians is just a fact. It is also a fact that traditional manufacturing industries (which compete with foreign imports, and make up an even smaller share of the economy) are predominately white and male in contrast to the much larger and more diverse service sector (which receives almost no attention from politicians, and gets hurt by restrictive trade policies). Posen was not unreasonable to speculate about this, and in any event that wasn't the central point of his argument (see link 10).
So right off the bat, warning bells should be ringing as to the nature and extent of this editor's economic knowledge.
Secondly, the "Alliance for American Manufacturing" is not an authoritative source for economics and could raise promotional issues. This is a special interest group.
Thirdly, "industrial policy" is not a term used by professional economists, but a political slogan and euphemism for trade protectionism. So there is also a possibility that this editor is injecting his politics into Posen's biography.
And finally, these statements are, unsurprisingly, sourced to Twitter. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 22:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
There is an RfC on self-published rebuttals/denials taking place at WT:BLP, and it may have implications for NPOV. Additional input would be helpful. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The other day I opened a section on the economist Adam Posen (no feedback), and now there's a related issue on the article for Posen's think tank, the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
I'll make this one short: an editor or group of editors added a criticism section to the PIIE page which is little more than a soapbox for anti-globalisation politics. They are attacking free trade, in contradiction to the views of about 9 in 10 mainstream economists [17]. That 9 in 10 academics, especially economists, agree on anything is remarkable.
As a mainstream encyclopedia, it simply can't be the case that an editor can source criticism to fringe or populist writers in newspapers, or special interest groups that are at odds with the opinions of most experts. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 21:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to have Breast binding renamed "Chest binding". Discussion @ Talk:Breast binding#Requested move 2 November 2022. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The lede of Kevin Alfred Strom does not mention his time spent in prison for possession of child pornography. This is a significant lede-worthy fact because, for one, it is one of the things that led to his downfall in the neo-nazi community. User:Veverve removed this text after User:Zezen claimed this was undue weight. Zezen was later indef banned by the community for making violently antisemitic/anti-LGBTQ edits. Please comment here: Talk:Kevin Alfred Strom#Undue. Schierbecker ( talk) 05:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Qnet’s page has seen a years-long war between various editors that has left it in a paralyzed and far-from-neutral state. Reading the page as a whole, it skews incredibly negative and suffers from many of the issues mentioned in WP:NPOV (states opinions as facts, using judgmental language, lack of balance, among others). Many of these issues stem from edits made by a now-banned editor, Jitumoni1995, who published more than 50% of this article from 2016-2019. They made a total of 222 total edits to the page. Since that single purpose account ( WP:SPA) engaged in WP:DISRUPTIVE, no effort appears to have been made on the page to properly review it for neutrality issues.
While this is a COI-declared account, I am following COI guidelines by refraining from making direct edits and utilizing the Talk page as my primary means of engagement. That said, I sincerely believe that the state of the page runs afoul of Wikipedia’s “non-negotiable” principles of WP:NPOV. I acknowledge that looking at the edit history, this page appears to have been bombarded by many people with anti- QNET biases and a small number of people with pro-QNET biases. I certainly do not seek for the page to become WP:PROMO whatsoever. I merely seek to have fresh eyes address the overall status of a page that was not appropriately assessed for neutrality in the wake of the disruptive editing.
I have posted to the Talk Page to request feedback on the situation and edits to the page (specifically to the Controversy section) that align with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines, but I have not received any concrete responses. I was hoping to garner more feedback on this noticeboard.
I’d like the entirety of the page, but more specifically, the controversy section to be reviewed, given the context through which a lot of the content was published. As for a few specific examples of where this lack of neutrality exists throughout the page:
The opening paragraphs set the tone that this is not an NPOV page. The second paragraph states opinion as fact when it says that QNET “has been charged as a ponzi scheme in countries like India”. The sources cited do not make mention of the term “ponzi scheme” and its use in the introduction of the article is pejorative and states seriously contested assertions as fact.
“Qnet changed its name repeatedly and launched at least 76 companies (as per the Bombay High court order of May 2016), often to sell lesser-known products manufactured by smaller companies using a multi-level marketing/direct sales model.[31](subscription required) Common people (IR in Qnet parlance) were taught to sell these products (often through workshops).[citation needed] Sellers earned commissions for each new seller / buyer brought into the fold.[citation needed].” (The information on this page is not found in the cited document, and the document is uploaded by an organization that multiple Wikipedia contributors agree is unreliable.)(See talk page request here.)
“It was sued by Egypt, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka for allegedly operating a product-based pyramid scheme. The company and its franchise Vihaan are under investigation in India.” (This is false, unsupported, and misleading. QuestNet was the entity in question. Egypt didn’t sue anyone, a private religious group issued a decree stating the activities were haram. QNet was able to obtain a decree from a different religious group called ‘Dar illfta’, that stated that QNet activities were in compliance with sharia law, and hence not haram. Source is here.)(See my edit request from June, here.)
The second paragraph of this section states opinion as fact. Nowhere in the citation associated with this paragraph do any government entities describe the business as a “pyramid scheme.” It’s merely the opinion of an author (writing in an opinion piece whose neutrality and reputability we have previously raised here).
This section suffers from the most blatant violations of the NPOV policy on Wikipedia. This section was built by the above-mentioned Jitumoni1995 account and is full of edits which use judgmental language, state opinion as fact, and do nothing to further the balance of neutrality of the page. We indicate a few specific instances below, but as mentioned above, this whole section really warrants a full review that it never received after the disruptive editor built it from scratch. The edits made to this section after Jitumoni1995’s ban not only haven’t shown that a review has been done, but have only stacked on additional biased edits that have tilted this page out of a neutral balance.
“It has faced litigation in many countries and hundreds of IRs working for it and/or its many subsidiaries have been arrested.” (Written judgementally and doesn’t have a citation associated with it)
“India declared both Goldquest and Questnet to be Ponzi scheme companies.” (None of the associated sources ‘declare’ these entities to be Ponzi schemes)
“ The same year, Syria shut down QuestNet for violating its commercial registration, stating that the company had operated a pyramid scheme and withdrawn billions of Syrian pounds from the country, while paying few taxes.” (The way this is written doesn’t reflect the text in the associated citation).
“Over 100 people from Togo became victim to a big scam called QNET” (Judgmental language that isn’t even supported with the associated citation)
There are also multiple instances of Jitumoni1995 using a very controversial source to cite a handful of their edits:
Example 1 (Use of discredited Source to Negatively Impact QNet)
Example 2 (Large Reversion of Sourced Content)
Example 3 (Unreliable Blogs as References)
With all of this context in mind, I ask that editors participate in conversations around this content and this editor, and make neutralizing edits to the page that are aligned with reliable sources and Wikipedia’s guidelines. QNetLars ( talk) 17:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I recently made an WP:RFC regarding the Conflict with Rosicrucians section of the Illuminati Wikipedia article. XDev and I have been discussing for several months now whether this section presents a "conflict" between the two groups in an NPOV way and whether it relies too heavily on the writings of René le Forestier himself, mostly his Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande from 1781. That discussion can be found at Sourcing and POV in Conflict with Rosicrucians Section on the talk page.
The section talks about a rivalry between the Illuminati and Rosicrucians that appears nowhere else on Wikipedia. It portrays the Illuminati as rationalists who were under a one-sided attack from superstitious and fraudulent Rosicrucians. The Rosicruciansim article does not speak of this conflict, nor does the page for the Order of the Golden and Rosy Cross. Rosicrucianism does not appear again in the Illuminati article, making this section somewhat of an orphan on its own page.
My most recent edit here adds a request for the POV to be toned down, such as
"A conflict became inevitable as the existence of the Illuminati became more evident, and as prominent Rosicrucians and mystics with Rosicrucian sympathies, were actively recruited by Knigge and other over-enthusiastic helpers."
and
"The Bavarian Illuminati, whose existence was already known to the Rosicrucians from an informant, were further betrayed by the reckless actions of Ferdinand Maria Baader, an Areopagite who now joined the Rosicrucians."
While I have argued that these wrings seem like primary sources and the section additionally uses NPOV wording, such as "reckless action," XDev has said that contemporary historian rely on the writings of Adam Weishaupt, René le Forestier and Adolph Freiherr Knigge more or less directly and thus them being primary sources is acceptable to Wikipedia. The reason I have not put this in the Secondary Source noticeboard is that, while that is an aspect of our discussion, it is (excuse the pun) secondary to the main question of the POV of this section.
Any input from those with a background in History, Secret Societies, the German Enlightenment, etc. would be most helpful. Thank you! AnandaBliss ( talk) 12:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Readers of this board may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#RfC_on_first_paragraph. Adoring nanny ( talk) 14:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
More comments are welcome at Talk:Breast binding#Requested move 2 November 2022, where it has been proposed to move the article to "Chest binding". Crossroads -talk- 04:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
On 16 November 2022, a user Spottz created an account, and made a couple of edits on the article Liniment adding a claim (to the Notable Liniments subsection) that a company offers a certain type of liniment. This user provided a source citation. The link leads to a webpage where one may purchase the liniment, but the webpage doesn't have any words about the liniment's notability. DIFF I addressed to them (on their talk page), but I believe, they are beneficial to stick to not-responding tactics. Thus I wrote here. Tosha Langue ( talk) 06:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Nowhere2Go, a single-purpose account, keeps removing sourced and cited content from the lede of the SBC article, arguing that the SBC doesn't do that anymore (so ugly stuff that happened within my lifetime as a Southern Baptist should be buried in the past history); and something about "heresy" I didn't understand; and besides, accusations did not all lead to convictions, so they don't count. Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The last sentence of Republican Party (United States)#Voting rights currently states:
Opponents argue that the efforts amount to voter suppression, [1] are intended to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people who vote, [2] and would disproportionately affect minority voters. [3]
Sources
|
---|
|
However, none of the three sources used here describe these impacts to be the argument of opponents, they all state them as simple facts. See
talk page for further discussion.
Is this sentence a verifiability/NPOV violation as it stands? ––
FormalDude
(talk) 22:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
We're talking about three separate claims as though they're all the same.the efforts amount to voter suppression
and are intended to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people who vote
probably shouldn't be framed as simply "Republicans are engaged in voter suppression, intending to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people to vote" but it's also not just "opponents" who say this. There are many instances of Republicans saying as much (without calling it "voter supression"). The "voter suppression" characterization should remain attributed to either specific or generalized parties (e.g. "characterized as voter suppression by a range of journalists and academics"), but there are plenty of sources to cite establishing that (a) Republicans believe that certain kinds of voting restrictions benefit them, and that (b) they have undertaken to implement some of those restrictions. would disproportionately affect minority voters
doesn't have to be attributed because there's research to back this up -- just cite that. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 17:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification.Adoring nanny ( talk) 12:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
MYTH V. FACT: GEORGIA'S ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT. This source is WP:RS for the purpose of what supporters of the laws actually say. In a WP:WIKIVOICE discussion of what each side says, that's all you need for the "supporters" portion. Adoring nanny ( talk) 13:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Judging by the talk page, this piece of promotional fluff about an incredibly expensive and exclusive school near Hollywood where the children of the rich and famous attend has been problematic at least since 2009. I tried to do a bit, partially by rescuing nearly-hidden "Notes" about disputes relating to the school and putting them into appropriate places in the body; but most of this still reads like something between a recruiting brochure and a breathless article in a Hollywood gossip magazine. Orange Mike | Talk 19:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus on the talk page that the article is not neutral. I have removed some emotional language but the article would benefit from a review by editors who are well-versed in this history. The references also seem to need a lot of work, so I encourage anyone interested to take a look. Elinruby ( talk) 21:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I am a new editor who's been lurking for a while and I'm kind of winging it, so I apologise in advance if this isn't the correct procedure. To stay neutral I'll just say there have been disagreements regarding the Firehose of falsehood article: Neutrality, bias, the right to edit, etc. It's all detailed in the talk page and recent edit history and isn't a huge read. I'd really appreciate it if some other experienced users could come and offer their take on the issue. Thanks :) ShabbyHoose ( talk) 04:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Requesting inputs / guidance about WP:Due whether sourced content in following two subsections:
Above questions itself are brief summary of following context
Context: Non-vegetarian is an article about India food containing meat and the people/ communities consume the same, has long history. Article retains at least some cultural/ social aspects and issues. I do have considerable list of credible resources which I wanted to updated the article, that includes communities and regions wise cuisine and Non-vegetarian food culture . Some users seems to have reservations about mention of any thing vegetarian in the article and that is perfectly okay for me. But following community wise cultural aspects are also objected too and deleted. The user says ".. The non-vegetarian dishes of muslims discussion about halal and haram, party, dowry, .. are I think out of topic. .." . I understand this point of view too. But wish to have WP community inputs as asked in above questions for better understanding.
Following 2 subsections about content under consideration are made for ease of reading. Bookku ( talk) 07:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Bookku ( talk) 07:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I see no need to delete the page or change it. The word was first used by the newly sprouted vegetarian societies in the West in the late 19th century. The first attested use mentioned in the Oxford English Dictionary is in Racine, Wisconsin in 1883. It came to be used in India much later, but that is where it has found both enduring and widespread use.
The reason is that a very large majority of the Hindu Indian population is effectively vegetarian. The cuisine section of the India pages speaks to this issue, "Although meat is eaten widely in India, the proportional consumption of meat in the overall diet is low.[467] Unlike China, which has increased its per capita meat consumption substantially in its years of increased economic growth, in India the strong dietary traditions have contributed to dairy, rather than meat, becoming the preferred form of animal protein consumption.[468]"
In North India, for example, Hindu families which describe themselves as being meat-eating, do not cook meat more than maybe once a week; men who describe themselves as meat-eating might not eat meat at home because their wives don't eat meat; landlords in urban areas might prohibit the cooking of meat on the premises. Moreover, a "vegetarian" in India is not just someone who does not consume meat, but someone who has an emotional aversion to meat. Thus Indians in America protested the use of a small amount of lard in the oil used in American fast food for deep frying French fries. Indian political leaders on foreign trips have insisted that no meat be served at their table.
Among some in the Indian Hindu elite, there has also been a love-hate relationship with meat, in part because India's conquerors, the Turkic Muslims and the British were real meat eaters. Gandhi mentions a doggerel popular in his childhood: "Behold the mighty Englishman. He rules the Indian small. Because he is a meat eater. He is five cubits tall." So in a modern version of that aspiration, the Indian English-language press will every so often report the high incidence of meat eating in India. What they fail to mention is that the proportion of meat in the diet is lower in India than in any country in the world, by a big margin at that.
Summing up, the page should begin with the vegetarian societies of the West. (Gandhi, a lifelong vegetarian, joined one or two during his student days in London.) It should then move to India, but be not so much about recipes as the socio-cultural aspects I have mentioned. Non-vegetarian in the early vegetarian society literature was a term for the "other," the meat eater of the West. Around where we live in the US, for example, that traditionally meant meat and potatoes for most dinners, except fish on Fridays and maybe baked beans on Saturdays. On the other hand, "non-vegetarian" in India means only that don't invariantly eat grains and vegetables, occasionally they do eat meat.
A final note: Stray domestic cats, which like all cats are obligate carnivores, are a good indicator of meat-eating among their host human populations. In many urban areas in India, you will not find cats openly walking around in Hindu neighbourhoods, only dogs. If you go to Muslim neighbourhoods, it is the opposite. It reflects in part the Islamic aversion to dogs and in part the hallowed place cats had in the life of the Prophet, but mostly that there is much more meat found in the dumpsters. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Please express your vote at this WP:RFC about the deprecation of what have been questioned as WP:POV sources. Æo ( talk) 16:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello editors, I'm Arturo and I work for bp. Several months ago, some changes were made to the Bernard Looney article by Thenightaway following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, discussing the role of bp and Looney in a rather non-neutral way. This diff shows the major contributions by Thenightaway. I have worked with several editors to reduce undue content and have made edit requests for updates, and it was suggested at BLP/N that I seek some additional opinions here about this content.
My primary concerns now lie with the subheading "Russia controversy" in the article. I made an edit request on 1 September to remove that subheading as I believe it conflicts with NPOV guideline, in particular the one which notes: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure." Calling it a controversy, particularly in the article about Looney when the purchase of Rosneft shares happened before Looney became CEO, doesn't seem accurate to me, as there is not evidence of a "widespread public debate" about Looney's role with Rosneft, in particular since he stepped down from the Rosneft board days after the invasion.
On that note, I'd also like to bring up the lead, which declares that Looney's tenure as CEO has been controversial due to the relationship with Rosneft. This is not supported by the sourcing, which noted how quickly bp pulled out of Rosneft/Russia following the invasion of Ukraine (for example, this article from The New York Times). That telling of Looney's tenure was added on 27 February, two days after the invasion. Coincidentally, that was the same day bp announced that it would sell its stake in Rosneft (see NYT, Reuters, for more information on that). I think changing the lead in this way is certainly WP:UNDUE and isn't really impartial in tone.
I will rest my case there. Are editors willing to take a look at the article and the edit request to make an adjustment? Thank you in advance for your consideration on this matter. Arturo at BP ( talk) 20:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Could someone look over the page for Edward Gierek? I don't know enough about Polish history to confidently say that the article has POV issues, but some of the language seems questionable, and I get a vague impression of thread mode. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 16:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in the ongoing discussions at Torture in Ukraine, especially these two on whether the article should be moved to draft, deleted or merged ( Talk:Torture in Ukraine#Move to draft, merge, or delete and Talk:Torture in Ukraine#Source broken link, overreliance on single source) and this one on the subject of the article: torture perpetrated by Ukrainian state agents or torture taking place on the territory of Ukraine? ( Talk:Torture in Ukraine#The subject of this article) Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 22:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The subject of this article IS NOT torture perpetrated by anybody within the confines of Ukrainian territory...No, the subject of this article is torture committed by agents of the Ukrainian state.[22] Given that context, editors concerned with maintaining NPOV may well be interested in the discussion at article talk. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
What should be the title of
this section? Videos purportedly showing Russian soldiers shot after surrendering in the Makiyivka area
, as originally proposed, or False surrender of Russian soldiers in the Makiyivka area
, as it is now? IMHO the topic doesn't deserve an RfC and some input from other editors should be sufficient. The discussion is here:
Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#And again with the POV.
Gitz (
talk) (
contribs) 01:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
This article reads as though this is an established fact or natural law, when in fact it is a theory, but fails to note it. 146.113.232.10 ( talk) 00:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I am going to join the chorus of voices calling for help at Talk:Torture in Ukraine. Elinruby ( talk) 13:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
@ MrsSnoozyTurtle has now twice added the {{fanpov}} tag to Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone with no explanation as to the issue in the edit summary or on the talkpage. I for the life of me cannot understand the POV issues here considering the information is well sourced and doesn't seem especially fawning. Without an explanation given for the issue, I am removing the tag. Am I missing something here? Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Except when they occur in the clips themselves, there is no music.
IP editor User:71.57.35.130 keeps trying to insert poorly-sourced assertions that efforts to ameliorate gun violence in the U.S., and efforts to control COVID-19 by masking, qualify as moral panics. Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Please see subject RfC about amendment of the lead per this edit to the lead. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
please dispatch trained therapists and a mop. I can't even and it"s definitely not just me. Help help help. Elinruby ( talk) 02:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, because I do not have the bandwidth to mediate this. I want to emphasize that the problem as I see it is not that one editor after another has had a meltdown on the page; it's that they are being gaslighted into these meltdowns, over issues as basic as WP:ONUS, then reported for discourtesy. I'm definitely involved but am trying to maintain. I appreciate the report, as I do not think I could write one. It's just mind-boggling. I will comment later on the ANI thread.
There is now an active RfC on the Male expendability talk page about whether specific ideas should be listed in Wikipedia's voice or attributed. You are welcome to lend your voices to the discussion. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 17:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on the question of whether Elon Musk's proposed peace plan for the Russo-Ukrainian war is due in his biography, either as a subsection of the Views section, or tucked into the Politics subsection of that section. Despite being covered by many reliable sources, some editors seem to believe it doesn't merit any inclusion, even in a summarised form. I don't agree with this and I would like to avoid an RFC. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 13:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
During AfC review, I have explained to Fastfoodfanatic why their draft which appears to me to be a point-of-view fork of Chick-fil-A to focus on race-related incidents involving the company is not appropriate. My reasoning is given at my talk page. I would appreciate input from other editors who are experienced in this area of policy. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 19:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg (book) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Geysirhead ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Came across this new article today. Sourcing seems terrible; not sure if there's notability on the book in general but taking it to NPOVN over the tone. These Wikivoiced gems jumped out at me: F. William Engdahl deliveres a scrupulous and well-documented analysis of “grass roots” decarbonization movement published in New Eastern Outlook, and cites Morningstar's book, which tries to expose the "bluff" of climate correctness.
and The book also stresses the possible global consequences of Greta. An example quote from the book is....
.
Bad enough that the editor's other contributions should be reviewed IMHO, but I'd like to hear their explanation and other editors' thoughts. Notification diff. VQuakr ( talk) 00:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Edit to add: The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg (book). VQuakr ( talk) 01:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Green Imperialism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've just found this, and see serious issues with it regarding compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:OR policy. What do others think? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
A 1990s worldwide survey "Bicycles, Yes — Cheap Shoes, No" by WorldPaper showed that 66% of the participants did not agree to perceive debt-for-nature swaps as eco-colonialism.Whatever it is trying to say, it entirely fails... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll find someone better qualifiedThank you for the derogatory but still more constructive comment! Concrete comment is much more pleasant than the previous boiler-plate prosa so often used in wikipedia discussions. I did correct it. Believe me or not, you will find mostly global North residents here on wikipedia, the rest is silenced by poverty. People living in slams don't use wikipedia so often. Geysirhead ( talk) 18:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Christine Lagarde is a convicted criminal. This is an important fact that is highly visible in the bios of other criminals. After making the relevant update, the page has been locked and reverted to the biased POV language that omits her criminal conviction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonQalg ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The above page definitely needs more watchers. Adoring nanny ( talk) 20:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
More participants would be welcome at Talk:Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill#Bias in this article. The discussion is not currently productive. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
That number of rebels would cost the SNP-Green administration its majority, if they were to join a united opposition - an unnerving prospect for any governmentis it neutral to exclude this event from mention in the article?
Reem Alaslem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, expressed fears the proposals could be abused by predatory men.to
Reem Alaslem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, gave an opinion against the proposals., but to give the comment by Victor Madrigal-Borloz in full?
Died Suddenly (2022 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have just semi-protected this article for a year; there may be neutrality issues remaining. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Diagolon is a Canadian alt-right extremist militia that has been making news in 2022 and the article about it has also been a bit of a magnet for WP:SPA type edits, consequently the page is protected.
There is a bit of a content dispute happening and some more eyes on the article and helping us reach consensus would be welcomed. There is more background on the talk page. CT55555( talk) 20:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
This article N. Chandrababu Naidu was suffering from point of neutrality from long back but there came another user who tried to do the opposite (I meant in the negative way) and retitled all the categories that by looking at the first instance gives a bad impression about the subject. The user has caused such kind of huge disruptive edits lacking neutrality on 2 to 3 pages recently. As an amature I don't know how to restore things on N. Chandrababu Naidu when there are such huge disruptions. Looking for any experienced editors to look in to this and also to ensure that neutrality is present according to Wikipedia guidelines. 456legend( talk) 11:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
retitled all the categories
means retitled all the
WP:SECTIONs. The sections do have some negativity but if the scandals are so severe then that is appropriate. I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject.A well cited quoted describing ABA as viewed as abusive by many I had was removed, with just the citation moved to a more obscure location, with the person making the change trying to leave the article claiming ABA is merely controversial. The instruction for notifying the other editor of the dispute when editing this page aren't clear enough for me to understand how I'm actually supposed to do that. talk — Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC) https://twitter.com/TaraBannow/status/1559266193936195585 has some info on why big money may want abuse to continue, and https://twitter.com/kelseyetcetera/status/1584690345610444802 has more evidence that autistic people are unhappy with the current article
There is an issue on the Jared Bernstein biography, certain editors insisting on labeling this guy an economist. As I have explained on the talk page, JB has no doctorate in economics, does not publish economics research in mainline journals, does not teach economics at any college or university and essentially has no claim to this title other than the fact that he's hired by left-wing politicians and think tanks to act in this capacity. He is essentially a labor activist employed in the interests of big labor unions and certain industry groups affiliated with the Economic Policy Institute.
What is the criteria for professional titles like 'economist'? The defense I received in talk was that "he is an economist, but not an academic economist". This raises several questions.. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 14:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
This is all off the wall. Bernstein is a policy-oriented mainstream economist, one of hundreds of thousands. There's nothing left-wing or heterodox about his work. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Bernstein is termed "chief economist" in the lede. The sources for that title are certainly RS. I don't understand the controversy. If there are contrary sources which call him heterodox then that would also be appropriate. Invasive Spices ( talk) 26 December 2022 (UTC)