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 100 | ← | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | → | Archive 110 |
The article on Muhajirs (Pakistan) has been subject to massive edit wars going back years, mostly to do with POV pushing and inserting of promotional edits. This article has been semi-protected at least twice from IPs in the past year because of this. Now, registered users are resuming these promotional edits in violation of NPOV and sourcing them to mostly personal commentaries as well as to sources that contradict the claims of Muhajirs being an "ethnicity." Additionally there is vandalism of reliably sourced edits in order to give Urdu-speaking muhajirs priority over non-urdu ones. To give the main example, here is a promotional paragraph on the intro cited to unreliable sources, at least one which contradicts the claims of Muhajirs being an "ethnicity." Have a look please:
"The Muhajirs are the most educated, and affluent ethnic group in Pakistan. [1] [2] Because of this, they constituted a influential community in the earlier years of post-partition Pakistan. [3]"
As you can see the above text is highly promotional. The current editor repeatedly inserting promotional edits while removing reliably sourced edits such as the infobox seems to have a opinionated connection to the subject as seen on their profile page. Sylvester Millner ( talk) 03:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
The article Collaboration with the Axis powers has a section on Jewish collaboration that deals exclusively with individual Polish Jews. I am not an expert in this history but this seems undue. The article is oversize and we're removing entire regions and countries. Eyes welcome. Elinruby ( talk) 07:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I could use some backup please. Somebody please review the work I've done in the dedicated section at Collaboration with the Axis powers. I've checked the sourcing since I tried to delete the section and no, I still don't think the scolding I got was well-founded (see lengthy archived talk page threads), and I narrowly avoided a three-month block the last time I touched Poland in the Holocaust, for allegedly white-washing Nazis or some such. (see Azov Battalion) Elinruby ( talk) 04:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
For most countries of the world, Wikipedia accepts articles for villages of these countries. There are categories for these villages in Bangladesh or North Macedonia., However there is an exception which covers the two Romanian talking countries Romania the Republic of Moldova. I would expect Wikipedia to apply the same rules to Kall countries. There should not be second hand countries having villages unworthy to have a separate article. All information regarding these villages are included in the articles if the communes in which they are included. This is incorrect as communes are administrative units, whereas villages are settlements. I suggest that there should be a consistent approach with the same rules applicable all countries of the world/ At present the same rule is applied to big countries, such as Russia, and small countries such a Liechtenstein. What is wrong with Romania and the Republic of Moldova? Afil ( talk) 18:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The mentioned article cites the historian Hasanli, who possesses a clear conflict of interest as he openly disavows the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide, [1] which has been widely acknowledged by the scholarly community. Furthermore, considering the ongoing hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is pertinent to note that Hasanli served the Azerbaijani government for a decade. Given his evident partiality towards one side, it is advisable to exclude him from the page's sources as his inclusion would compromise the objectivity and credibility of the encyclopedia. Therefore, I strongly advise against using such sources that lack neutrality and undermine the scholarly standards expected in an encyclopedia. Nocturnal781 ( talk) 18:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I tried raising this at the talk page but got no response.
The lead is primarily trivia about Donald Trump's run that seems inappropriate for a general article on the 2024 Primary. As I noted on the talk pages, the content about him is almost two-thirds to equal length of previous Republican primary leads.
Looking further today, the Vice President speculation section isnt much better as it is focused again on Donald Trump.
Think as it stands, this page does not comply with NPOV, so coming here for additional eyes, rather than slapping a tag on the page. Slywriter ( talk) 01:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I guess it's not surprising that Wikipedia has fandom-level intricate detail in an article like this ("politics is sports for nerds" as they say). It was created before there were any candidates in the running, and there's still only two (one of which is a massive media magnet and a former president, so it's not surprising more of the coverage is about him). Thoughts: cut out the "declined" section entirely (anyone can be asked if they want to be president; that doesn't mean it should be included here when they say no). Cut the "potential" section or transform it into a single sentence of prose elsewhere. Don't know why we need vice presidential speculation before there are even candidates for the primary. Cut endorsements of people who aren't even running yet. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Chloe Cole#LA Times lawsuit opinion on whether the LA Times, which provides both Cole and this specific lawsuit WP:SIGCOV is WP:DUE source for the following paragraph:
Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik described the lawsuit as "part of a concerted right-wing attack on LGBTQ rights, in which the health of transgender youth is exploited as a pretext for bans on gender-affirming care" and stated it "incorporates what seem to be misleading or inaccurate descriptions of developments in the gender dysphoria treatment field."
[1]
This was originally listed at WP:RSN#LA Times in Chloe Cole article in regards to the Kaiser lawsuit which concluded it was a question for here. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 17:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory
The starting paragraph states without any proof that "Most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis". I am not aware of any such survey to make such a conclusion. Given that this article is such an important one, I don't think such strong assertions should be made without any evidence to back it up.
The source points to Gorski's article but there is nothing to back this claim in the article itself.
I hope given the importance of this article, this sentence will be edited as it is clearly not neutral. 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE ( talk) 08:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Russ Baker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Family of Secrets ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Russ Baker has argued in an article on his website (and presumably as User:69.203.117.207 and User:172.56.160.210 on Talk:Russ Baker [2]) that Wikipedia editors have cherry-picked sources to negatively describe his journalistic approach and his book Family of Secrets. The second story in today's issue of The Signpost written by Andreas also discusses this matter. I will send pointers to this discussion at the relevant talk pages, as well as WP:FTN as the book describes a possible fringe theory. - Location ( talk) 16:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC) [edited to include additional IP - 20:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)]
See this discussion on the talk page.
Summary of the discussion: In December 2022, I
added (underlined): his first stage appearance was in a sketch called The Unfailing Instinct at the
Brighton Hippodrome in August 1925. He tripped and fell on his face during the performance.
Today, a user
removed these 10 words with the edit summary: trimming unencyclopaedic trivia.
Here are all the
high quality sources which describe this event and how it impacted Olivier's career:
|
---|
Donald Spoto's 1941 biography (page 44):
Anthony Holden's 1947 biography (page 326):
John Cottrell's 1975 biography (page 34):
Francis Beckett's 2005 biography (page 16):
Terry Coleman's 2006 biography (Pages 25, 485):
It's also mentioned prominently in this New York Times review of Olivier's 1985 Autobiography Confessions of an Actor:
|
The user who removed ( User:SchroCat) has further said: We are not writing a book-length biography, we are writing a summary of his career.
So I ask you, NPOVN, is this information DUE inclusion? Thanks. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
at any time". — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
A fairly new article, I'm concerned that this isn't written from a NPOV and relies on disproportionate weight in order to make certain statements, particularly against Japanese people. Indeed, I removed one statement that I found to be particularly egregious. While I am reluctant to comment on editors themselves, the creator of this article has expressed strong nationalist views around South Korea and has admitted they have a negative view of Japanese people, so I'd like to request more eyes on this article, please. — Czello 13:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:White_privilege#the_section_on_%22Japanese_ethnic_privilege%22_smells_like_WP:SYNTH I believe Binksternet is more aware of Japanese ethnic privileges. I want more professional users than me to add content related to the 'sensual feeling of racial superiority' that modern Japanese feel toward other Asians (especially Koreans and Chinese) in the article. However, if such content is not added, I hope that the contents I wrote will be maintained. Mureungdowon ( talk) 13:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's the same user arguing an academic featured in the Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea article's race is worth mentioning because " There is really no racial discrimination against the Japanese in South Korea" Tdmurlock ( talk) 05:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
This category is not used only for Korean racism against Japanese people. It is even used in articles unrelated to Korean racism, such as Yasukuni shrine, ...Why?! Rotary Engine talk 01:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
non-Korean race Japanese-born naturalized South Koreanas a descriptor for Yuji Hosaka at the article Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea; if it's an attempt to add or remove validity, then it's a Genetic fallacy; if not, it's an irrelevance. Rotary Engine talk 03:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
This article is cluttered with sources and quotes from 2 nations claiming a historical tribe that belonged to both of the peoples (Chechens & Ingush), there were a lot of edit wars on this article, some sources are way too biased, i proposed to make the article more neutral in the talk page by deleting most of the text in the "Ethnicity" section and only adding them as references in a text that could be written like this:
"some authors refer to Orstkhoy as Chechen (references), while some authors refer to them as Ingush (references) but most agree that the tribe belongs to both nations as Orstkhoy are one of the 9 historical Chechen Tukkhums and one of the 7 historical Ingush Shahars"
This was met with disapproval and claims of Orstkhoy being "more Ingush" than Chechen and accusations against me trying to put Chechens in first place (even though i just proposed we write the names of the nations alphabetically). What is worse is that one side cherrypick sources that promote their case while trying to downplay the other side. This kind of attitude only invites edit wars (which has been fought on that article many times). This tribe the article is about is an integral part of both nations, therefore in my opinion it should be neutral and not be cluttered with dozens of sources from both sides.
If this is the wrong noticeboard or if i didn't do this correctly then please correct me because it's the first time i'm using this noticeboard. Goddard2000 ( talk) 13:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Here is the before and after version of a vandalization where someone from Ingushetia deleted a neutral headline and removed Chechens while only adding Ingush. here
After the article was vandalized another account added back Chechens but put them above the new Ingush section. here
After some time @ WikiEditor1234567123 decided that this should be in chronological order [3]
If this isn't edit warring and trying to push for their nation to be above then i don't know what it is. Wikieditor and Tovbulatov might've not done it for that reason, and i don't want to make this discussion more toxic but whoever the IP belonged to clearly did it out of malice and to put his nation first. I'm only writing this now so i could add the diffs, so people could get the full picture. My only proposition is that we return to the version that was before the IP account vandalized the page (with more info ofc like i proposed above).
Goddard2000 (
talk) 21:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
An editor is saying that WP:NPOV requires us to include a particular sentence from a source. The disputed sentence is Members of DRASTIC have engaged in personal attacks against virologists and epidemiologists on Twitter, falsely accusing some of working for the Chinese Communist Party. See proposed deletion here [4] and talk page discussion [5]. Adoring nanny ( talk) 03:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
There is an RFC at Talk:Moldova#RFC: Should Moldovan be removed as a language in Moldova that may be of interest to those here. Posted here per guidance at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC. // Timothy :: talk 15:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move at /info/en/?search=Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity that may be of interest to this noticeboard. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 21:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The articles of all countries that lack international recognition such as Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus and others all of them have their status as being “unrecognized by international community” or “partially recognized” with mentioning the number of countries that recognizes them. With Taiwan being the only exception. Which is weird and reflect Eurocentric bias because countries like Kosovo and sahrawi arab republic have even more international recognition than Taiwan and recognized by 101 and 45 UN member states respectively, while Taiwan which is recognized by only 13 UN member states have this significant information forcefully omitted from the lead. Something which I believe should be mentioned in the lead to make Taiwan like all other countries that lack international recognition and not making it a special status, a status that is even more special than countries that enjoy much more international recognition as if there are double standards.
Before making any edit. First i started a talk in Taiwan’s talks page and initially reached consensus with the one i was arguing with here to add the fact of Taiwan’s lack of international recognition, which I did here [1] and here [2], later on, a user started a disruptive edit warring [3] [5] [4] using an RFC that says that we should refer to Taiwan as a “country” instead of a “state” as an argument, then after that another user made disruptive editing [6] saying in his edit summary “no it’s recognized as a country” (as if i denied Taiwan’s statehood). This all happened before anyone of these disruptive editors go to the talks page. But later on one of them started joining the talks. And i would like you to check their arguments and how many times each one of them changed his argument to a non-related another argument each time i reply to a one and how many time they make irrelevant arguments (i.e “Taiwan is a country !”). i hope this noticeboard solve the problem and help achieving the neutrality of wikipedia and the article. Stephan rostie ( talk) 12:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The OP wants more input. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I think that either was is fine. But the current status of Taiwan is a gorilla in the living room regarding Taiwan. The lead covers the details regarding that but never really states it in summary form. IMO a statement in summary form somewhere in the lead would be a good addition. North8000 ( talk) 12:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Not sure those are comparable, Taiwan is a top 25 economy... Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus combined have less than 10% of Taiwan's GDP. I'd also point out that you appear to be confusing a lack of recognition with a lack of diplomatic recognition, those are not the same thing... For example if we look at Great Britain's relationship with Taiwan we find that the UK recognizes them on a cultural, political, economic, financial, social, educational, intelligence, and military level but not a diplomatic level (example of the political, military, and economic ties from yesterday's paper [6])... Now note that of all of those forms of recognition diplomatic is actually the least important but from your proposed version the reader would be left with the impression that diplomatic recognition *is* recognition and not *part* of recognition. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Taiwan is a top 25 economy. We are not talking about taiwan’s economy, this have nothing to do with the debate. We are talking about the fact of Taiwan’s lack of international recognition that can be even said that Taiwan is not recognized by roughly all the international community.
the UK recognizes them on a cultural, political, economic, financial, social, educational, intelligence, and military level. Prove the existence of such things like “economic recognition”, “education recognition”, “financial recognition” and provide sources that such terms even exist first. Then come and continue the debate. Stephan rostie ( talk) 16:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
How about something roughly like this early in the lead but not in the first sentence?: "China emphatically claims that Taiwan is a part of China; many countries deal with Taiwan as a separate entity in many respects without officially recognizing it as being a separate country." North8000 ( talk) 19:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
China emphatically claims that Taiwan is a part of China;. There is just a small problem with this, which is that it’s not only china that claims that Taiwan is part of china, the overwhelming majority of world countries and international organizations (i.e UN) recognize Taiwan as part of china. That’s why calling it “china claims” is inaccurate as it gives an impression that china is the odd one and that it’s only china that holds this view, whereas the reality is the opposite. Stephan rostie ( talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
My attempt as a solution was only that. But it covered the two big realities, the country status and that many countries deal with Taiwan as a separate entity in many respects. IMO highlighting only the former in any summary would be POV. And focusing on it being in the very first sentence of the article IMHO would also be POV. Finally, the lead is an editor-created summary of the article.Sources don't say what should be in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article and so it's not correct to imply that any choice there represents a failure to follow sources. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 21:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
References
The discussion is here: Talk:Conservatism#Reactionism.
Some folks have argued that reactionsim has nothing to do with conservatism, and therefore doesn't belong in the article at all. Others have argued for retaining a section that includes discussion of the debate over the relationship between the two concepts. There has been some edit warring and open canvassing. More uninvolved / clueful editors would be helpful here. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Issue is which word to use in the lead, referring to the idea of a lab leak. Talk page discussion is here. Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#"Say" or "Speculate". Adoring nanny ( talk) 15:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Please review those edits. 95.12.127.137 ( talk) 17:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
The introductory section on this page was recently expanded to introduce a vague description of some alleged controversies that list nothing specific whatsoever, rely on a single source in Japanese and point to general controversies from Japan's imperial era. I find this to be an egregious pushing of a point of view that's given undue weight. In my original removal of the content I compared this to a hypothetical listing of controversies related to Islam and Catholicism on pages of religious sites in Mecca or Rome. This page is about an ancient shrine in Japan, and unlike the more obviously controversial Yasukuni Shrine, nothing suggests this shrine has any notable controversy surrounding it. A vague protest about Japan's past policies could be attached to pretty much any historical object in the country but that would be a frivolous thing to do in an encyclopedia. The opposing editor is not budging and his reversal of my removal is not properly explained, mentions Italian salutes in a non-sequitur manner. This is leading to an edit war and I request a discussion to resolve it. I'll notify the other editor. Killuminator ( talk) 23:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I am currently involved in a dispute on the talk page of Shamil Basayev. In my, as well as User:Ola Tønningsberg, understanding of the manual of style(MOS:TERRORIST), this is correct implentation, as is seen in the lead of the Shamil Basayev article:
He ordered the Budyonnovsk hospital raid, Beslan school siege[4] and was responsible for numerous attacks on security forces in and around Chechnya[5][6][7] and also masterminded the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis and the 2004 Russian aircraft bombings. ABC News described him as "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world."[8]
This is because MOS:TERRORIST states:
Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.
The quote from ABC news is in my estimation the correct implementation In-text attribution. I am therefore proposing to remove the word 'terrorist' in the first paragraph of the article, as the in-text attribution/quote from ABC news is more encyclopedic, and in line with the guidelines on Wikipedia. User:Chaheel Riens seems to have a more unconventional interpretation of MOS:TERRORIST. Admin @ El C: also questioned if User:Chaheel Riens is familiar with MOS:TERRORIST, in another noticeboard thread that pertains to this same dispute(altough another, now resolved issue.)
( Sextus Caedicius ( talk) 00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC))
The quote from ABC news is in my estimation the correct implementation In-text attribution- which is, as you know - "ABC News described him as "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world". I'm with you on this. It's a quote in the lede which is corroborated by the article itself. Quotes in the lede do not need sources, as the lede is to be a summary of the (sourced) material in the article, but in this case it's sourced there as well.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (Arabic: أبو بكر البغدادي, romanized: ʾAbū Bakr al-Baḡdādī; born Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Ali Muhammad al-Badri al-Samarrai (Arabic: إبراهيم عواد إبراهيم علي محمد البدري السامرائي, romanized: ʾIbrāhīm ʿAwwād ʾIbrāhīm ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Badrī as-Sāmarrāʾī); 28 July 1971[2] – 27 October 2019), was an Iraqi militant and the first caliph[a] of the Islamic State, who ruled as the dictator of its territories from 2014 until his death in 2019.
Nathan Yellin-Mor (Hebrew: נתן ילין-מור, Nathan Friedman-Yellin; 28 June 1913 – 18 February 1980) was a Revisionist Zionist activist, Lehi leader and Israeli politician. In later years, he became a leader of the Israeli peace camp, a pacifist who supported negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization and concessions in the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (Arabic: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن, romanized: Usāmah ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAwaḍ ibn Lādin; 10 March 1957[6] – 2 May 2011[7]) was a Saudi Arabian-born[8] militant[9] and founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda. The group is designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, and various countries. Under bin Laden, al-Qaeda was responsible for the September 11 attacks in the United States and many other mass-casualty attacks worldwide.[10][11][12]
Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
in-text attribution- ergo criteria has been met. Whether it conforms to other articles is irrelevant, and an argument that should be avoided as it dilutes your case. If your argument rests primarily on how other articles are portrayed, then by definition your argument for how this article is portrayed is weak. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 06:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging me. I'll give Chaheel the benefit of the doubt and believe that he thinks that MOS:TERRORIST is saying that if there is sufficient sourcing, then you can ignore using the in-text attribution, as is seen by his messages here and here, and the one above this message aswell. Otherwise it's just vandalism at this point. What MOS:TERRORIST is actually saying is that IF there is enough sources, then you use the in-text attribution, which is already done as Sextus showed, although Chaheel insists that having simply "terrorist" in the opening sentence is in accordance with this rule. Even his participation and blame in many of the attacks he claimed responsibility for is questioned like user Sennalen mentioned above. If an editor came along and added several places that he's a freedom fighter, would that suddenly become acceptable to have in the opening line? I don't think so, nor do I believe it's acceptable the way it is now either. On another note, since Chaheel mentioned WP:OTHER, I must assert that this is not a case of WP:OTHER. I've explained to him before that WP:OTHER is generally about deleting and creation of articles, not about mimicking the style of it. It is very common courtesy and even encouraged on Wikipedia to look at good articles to mimic their style and tone. Ola Tønningsberg ( talk) 21:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove Article y doesn't mention this, so article x shouldn't either. Nobody has yet explained why the current sourcing is insufficient. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 16:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This page is revoltingly out of line with so many of Wikipedia's rules, and I have fruitlessly tried for weeks to fix it on the talk page: Talk:Gays Against Groomers
Most glaringly, the article uses biased sources to present contentious claims in Wikivoice. Even setting aside the heightened requirements for claims about living persons and groups of living persons, WP:BIASED makes it clear that claims made by biased sources should be attributed to them in the text.
The article boldly labels the group as far-right and anti-LGBT, and although it does not make it clear which citations support these claims (violating WP:V), checking the small handful of references to arguably neutral sources reveals no such substantiation for them.
The majority of the article's references are by The Advocate, LGBTQ Nation, Media Matters for America, and The Daily Dot; the latter two are explicitly recognized to require contentious claims on WP:RSP. Oktayey ( talk) 15:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The majority of the article's references..might be an exaggeration, but it doesn't appear to be.
"An entire generation of children are being used as lab rats and destroyed by the radical Alphabet Mafia"
"What we are witnessing is mass scale child abuse being perpetrated on an entire generation, and we will no longer sit by and watch it happen. It is going to take those of us from within the community to finally put an end to this insanity, and that's exactly what we're going to do"...
This page is revoltingly out of line with so many of Wikipedia's rules, as this claim has been soundly rejected, I believe we're done here. All that's going on now are back-and-forth that aren't moving the needle. Zaathras ( talk) 16:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This article should be locked and reviewed by administrators. Mass of inflammatory and weasel-worded text removed but will probably be restored. Unclear why it is even an article in its own right as it is hardly a book of either national or international renown. Should be cut down to essentials and made part of Peter Strzok's article.
Sincerely yours. 65.88.88.54 ( talk) 22:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 Las Anod conflict ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have just semi-protected this page and partially blocked the two main editors from it for two weeks. There is probably a need for experienced additional eyes to ensure a neutral point of view. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This page is about a current conflict involving war crimes. The article now misinforms readers that the Somaliland Army is fighting Al-Shabaab group which is false per talk. Can people kindly review the RfC?
Will be crossposting to Somaliland and current events projects, but avoiding Somalia project because that won't make NPOV problem worse. MathAfrique ( talk) 06:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The last sentence in the lead is a summary of two sources directly copied from the body. The summary of the two sources leave out the "left" wing claims which appears to be WP:UNBALANCED and WP:NPOV. I've added a POV template and have asked for additional feedback in the talk page on the dispute. The diff in dispute is here. The talk page dispute may be found on the talk page. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 15:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Suppose Wikipedia has a neutral article on a particular subject, and Wikipedia also has a separate article about a book about that subject which takes a one-sided point of view. Is it consistent with NPOV and with WP:Content forking for the article about the book to go into one-sided detail about the subject of the neutral Wikipedia article on that subject?
I ask because the article about a book —- Compromised (book) —- has substantial overlap with the article Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation). The book "recaps the full arc of Crossfire Hurricane", according to Politico. [13]
P.S. Note that there is a separate section at this noticeboard that mentions this same book (but does not raise the content-forking issue). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Two rhoughts:
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
This biography of a politician who was running for mayor of Green Bay is smarmy, poorly-organized and mediocre at best. It seems to have been written or shaped by his campaign staff. (He lost, a few days ago.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I would like some outside eyes on the page for EMDR. I'm currently involved in a content dispute because I believe the local consensus of the page has significant NPOV issues.
EMDR is a therapy originally/mainly intended for PTSD. For its core treatment modality of "treating PTSD in adults", it's recommended with various degrees of confidence by several large professional organizations. So for instance: the WHO recommends it with moderate evidence for adults with PTSD as of 2013, the APA conditionally recommends it but lists it among a "core set of evidence-based psychotherapies for adults with PTSD" as of 2022, a 2017 joint report by the US VA/ DoD calls it one of "the trauma-focused psychotherapies with the strongest evidence from clinical trials", and it's recommended by the UK's NICE in this 2017 report and Australia's NHMRC in this 2013 report.
However, there are also a bunch of expert criticisms of EMDR and particularly of its proposed theoretical mechanisms. So for instance, the WHO in the same report also says "relative to CBT, the underlying theoretical treatment mechanisms of EMDR are still largely speculative and this has been a source of controversy", and it's certainly not only the WHO that says this: we have several other sources for this general criticism, along with the related criticism that the eye movement part of EMDR has much less evidence than the treatment as a whole. There are also other expert critics who will go even further and call EMDR " pseudoscience" ( see also) or a " purple hat therapy" (i.e. that it's irrelevant junk added to a known effective treatment).
These stronger criticisms haven't been echoed by large organizations, but nonetheless they're very prominently featured in the article, and the apparent consensus of the field that EMDR is overall an effective evidence-based treatment is heavily downplayed.
I believe this to be a big violation of WP:WEIGHT and therefore of WP:NPOV, but every time so far I try to raise these concerns on the talk page, the local consensus doesn't budge on their insistence on featuring the opinions of individual critics over the opinions of big professional organizations. (Heck, they keep on reverting me adding the NHMRC source at all.) So I'm appealing to this noticeboard: what is the most neutral way to describe all this info, and is it reflected in the current article? Loki ( talk) 23:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
you are damaging wiki credibility and value with this article in its current form. it would be better to delete itis WP:NOTFORUM or not. Loki ( talk) 04:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Evidence-based is not an antonym for 'pseudoscience'. Scientific evidence of effectiveness doesn't rule out pseudoscienceover at the talk page. Loki ( talk) 03:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
No one is arguing that EMDR isn't effectivebut the article currently doesn't say that clearly, and attempts to say that clearly get reverted as "whitewashing". The article currently claims at several points that EMDR as a whole is pseudoscientific, not just the contentious aspects of it.
The ongoing debate on Talk:Constitution of the United States could use some more input to bring these extremely drawn out discussions to a close. The question seems to currently center around who "the people" were and whether the constitution represented them, and what the due weight is for varying points of view on that among experts. These discussions have already attracted admin attention and they are getting a little stale. —DIYeditor ( talk) 08:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Two discussions could use some input. Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Lanzhou_brucellosis_lab_leak and Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Another revert that describes material from the Washington Post as "fringe". Adoring nanny ( talk) 15:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Could I please get a neutral observer to take a look at what is developing into an edit war on these two pages: Operation Reindeer and 44 Parachute Brigade (South Africa)? Please look at Talk:Operation Reindeer#Changes to avoid "Glorifying War Crimes" to see my attempt to start a conversation and then at Talk:44 Parachute Brigade (South Africa)#Low quality of the article for the response. The edit history should show everything else that is neeeded. Much appreciated. BoonDock ( talk) 18:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Some users, mostly @ R Prazeres and @ M.Bitton, have been WP:STONEWALLING the Aghlabids page for quite a few months by trying to hide as much as possible in the infobox the fact that Sardinia is not generally recognized as having been part of the Aghlabid-controlled territories. This goes from blocking every edit on the image's caption ( even writing that adding "possible" to it it's OR) and editing it after a consensus was reached and then claiming that that was the consensus and, most importantly, using a map that's an intentional misrepresentation of the source it was allegedly taken from. I will paste here a comment I've already made on the talk page where I explained why:
The authors, at page 24, actually wrote: "The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab occupation of Sicily that was to last more than 250 years and raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy." They clearly only talk about "raiding" Sardinia, while the occupation is only limited to Sicily. Their map there (which is the one that was supposedly used as a source for the one in the infobox) represents Sardinia not with the same colours as northern Africa and Sicily, but with the combination that (in the map legend in page 12) is reserved to non-Muslim "contested/shared over time" lands. In this case, like the text in that same page clarifies, the "contested" means just raids and failed conquering attempts.
I have the book so, if necessary and ok with Wikipedia's policies, I can upload the two pages on imgur or somewhere else and link them here, or give you any other kind of confirmation about that. On that same talk page, the two users (one of which, @ M.Bitton, has been already blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and nationalist POV-related edit warring) deny that, even thought it's an objective fact, and @ R Prazeres is using the argument that the OR map it's allegedly partially supported by other ones (near-identical ones), which is WP:SYNTH. The situation clearly needs an outside intervention. L2212 ( talk) 19:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
It came to my attention that @ BoonDock is involved in various articles covering apartheid-era South African military units and operations. Some of these articles are badly sourced. Either overrelying on a very limited number of sources and / or relying on sources that are biased due to their personal involvement within the apartheid era military.
In one such article, the attempt is being made to present a war crime, that has been condemned by the UN Security Council for it's atrocious nature, as a regular military operation against "combatants", when in reality the majority of victims in the destroyed camp were found to be defenseless women and children.
My attempts to improve this article and rid it of hate speech, defamation of the dead and inaccurate information, that seeks to glorify this war crime, were met with hostility by @ BoonDock, who keeps reverting the article to the previous problematic state, while failing to acknowledge WP:NPOV and not providing any reasonable way forward.
I have reason to believe that the author is bent on promoting his views irregardless of the facts established by independent researchers and historians, which characterize the event as an atrocity against civilian refugees, with only a small number of armed cadres of the SWAPO liberation movement being present at the Cassinga transit camp, that served to process refugees fleeing apartheid occupation in then South-West Africa on their way to safer regions in the Luanda region of Angola. CraigoGiarco ( talk) 20:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
As to how many people died in the raid and whether there were women and children killed during the raid depends on whose side one wants to listen too [ sic. This feels all kinds of off to me and strikes me as highly likely to be a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE.
.. Steenkamp is recognised in South Africa as the definitive reliable source by combatants from both sides of the fight. ..
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory§ RfC: How should we describe DRASTIC?. Thanks! — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Well there is this Romanian Politician, Mircea Diaconu. On his page there is a claim that doesn't seem to be supported by given source and another editor keeps refusing to change it, reverts my change constantly and doesn't motivate his point. I will really apreciate a third opinion on this.
Here is the Talk page: Talk:Mircea_Diaconu DiGrande ( talk) 20:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The source in question reads, in translation:
agriculture is on Mircea Diaconu's list of electoral promises, most likely because he is counting on the rural vote. His proposal is "aggregation into large agricultural areas", a phrase that was intensively used by Ion Iliescu, at the time when he opposed the restitution of lands confiscated by the communist regime. Like Ion Iliescu, but also like the vast majority of Social Democratic leaders, Mircea Diaconu pleads for the unification of the small properties that were revived after the year 2000.
I render this as:
“His policies were seemingly targeted at a rural electorate and recalled those of the 1990s and early 2000s, when Ion Iliescu was president.”
I don’t think this is especially controversial. — Biruitorul Talk 22:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
In this edit @ 1Trevorr replaced the use of "lynching victim" in the Frank article's short-description with "convicted murderer."
Our reliable sources say that Frank was both a convicted murderer, and a lynching victim. It was reverted by @ Beyond My Ken. Seeing that it is objectively true that Frank was both a lynching victim, and a convicted murderer, I made a compromise between the two: I edited it so that Frank is both a convicted murderer, and a lynching victim. @ 1Trevorr did not seem to have a problem with this, but @ Beyond My Ken and @ DeCausa did, and the latter reverted it in this edit.
I brought it up with them on the talk page. They both conceded that Leo Frank was a convicted murderer, but claimed that it was biased to mention it in the short-description, as well as evidence of one's antisemitism. @ Beyond My Ken, without consensus, then changed the short-description again, omitting convicted-murderer, and adding that Frank was wrongfully convicted. This goes against Wikipedia guidelines for short-descriptions: they are supposed to use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional. That Frank was wrongfully convicted is both controversial and judgemental--that he was convicted of murder and lynched is not.
Furthermore, @ Beyond My Ken and @ DeCausa claimed that the onus was not on them to make consensus, because they already had it; but they have so far been the only editors to support their additions, and @ 1Trevorr and I have both opposed it. If I am doing math correctly, that seems to be a draw. When I tried to change it back to what it had previously been before any of us had touched it, BMK changed it back to his new verison.
It is one thing to disagree with the addition of "convicted murderer", though I think it is ridiculous to do so, as this is an objective fact backed up by reliable sources already used within the article; that he was wrongfully convicted is not an objective fact, and Wikipedia's guidelines suggest against making judgements like these in short-descriptions.
But the two of them have also made new additions to the article, without consensus.
I'd like to ask, which is evidence of controversial, judgmental, POV bias: the claim that Frank was a "lynching victim and a convicted murderer", or that he was a "wrongfully convicted lynching victim"? @ DeCausa and @ Beyond My Ken are alleging that it is the former. Harry Sibelius ( talk) 03:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Beyond My Ken et al; the short description should not describe someone as a "convicted murderer" when the consensus is that the conviction was unjust. Mackensen (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Please see the talk page here, where I dissect the current article and propose a nonbiased restructuring that can more easily be expanded upon. PhenomenonDawn ( talk) 14:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The article in my opinion has severe NPOV issues. The majority of content added in recent years seems to have been added by student editors doing a Wiki Education assigment. I have outlined my concerns in a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks, 86.50.118.50 ( talk) 17:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I refer to the Chinese imperialism article which redirected to Chinese expansionism until early this year. My main concerns is that it contains original research trying to concoct a notion of "Chinese imperialism" but several of the claims are either unsourced or does not match what the source says. Others seem to be taken from articles such as Debt-trap diplomacy and Belt and Road Initiative with all the opposing views taken out.
While I do think some sections can be salvaged and/or potentially merged with Chinese expansionism, such as the views section, the article as it currently stands is more like a coatrack of that one with many unverifiable claims of "Chinese imperialism" GeneralBay ( talk) 11:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory#RfC about the article title. - Location ( talk) 19:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The lead on
Philippines and the Spratly Islands currently reads Philippines and the Spratly Islands – this article discusses the policies, activities and history of the Republic of the Philippines in the Spratly Islands from the Philippine perspective. Non-Philippine viewpoints regarding Philippine occupation of several islands are currently not included in this article.
, which set off my NPOV alarm, but I don't know enough about the subject to evaluate what's going on, so would appreciate further input. Is this a fork of
Spratly Islands dispute or just an inappropriately worded lead?
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 14:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I've tried a few edits in the last week on The 1619 Project. If you are unaware of it, the article as is does a pretty good job showing why it is surrounded in controversy. I recommend reading through the article first to see all the things going on there.
Being that it is controversial, wanting to give drive-by readers the service of knowing that quickly, and in keeping with a very common convention on WP, I endeavored to add that to the first sentence. At the moment, the first sentence reads: The 1619 Project is a long-form journalism endeavor developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones,...
I first tried The 1619 Project is a widely criticized ...
with an accompanying
talk explainer
diff where I discuss reasons and suggest other versions would be reasonable to me. This was was reverted
[18]. The discussion spun off somewhere else pretty quick, but the feedback I did get was That tilts the article in a nonneutral way. The second paragraph explains the context, and that is plenty early in the article.
After a few days I decided to try the softer version The 1619 Project is a controversial...
[19]. Also reverted with the previous criticism repeated verbatim (and also used to justify a revert of two other unrelated edits).
I want to put the word "controversial" in the first sentence. I also think "widely criticized" or similar applies. Based on "historical revisionism" likened to pseudoscience in WP:Fringesubjects it would be due weight to say so prominently. There's other edits I've made that were also reverted and I've made talk messages about it. If that is interesting please discuss on the talk page instead. 142.115.142.4 ( talk) 02:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. So it's not a hard-no rule, but does define well when it should be used. 1. Widely used by RS, and 2. Use in-text attribution. Does that mean it would still work if several sources calling it controversial were cited? Even in the lede? (aside, it's a bit of an unfortunate policy, since left leaning media has a habit of calling lots of things controversial, when really they mean its just not a left leaning thing, not that there's any real controversy over it. Maybe that's why it's considered a value-laden label.) 142.115.142.4 ( talk) 04:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Upcoming film The Kerala Story has neutrality issues. Recently, it was cleanup by User:The Doom Patrol, mostly for WP:VOICE. For now, MOS:FILM structure is not followed and has undue weight on controversy. The film's story is based an actual incident where four women from Kerala joined ISIS. There have been 60-70 cases from Kerala. But as per a character from the teaser, about 32,000 have been recruited within the film's universe. That stirred political controversy. Numerical accuracy should be discussed, "specifically" about the figure "32,000" with reliable sources and correct attributions, without generalizing the whole film. But certain editors took advantage on the discrepancy to make blanket statements and to label the film and filmmakers with political allegations without attribution and with undue weight, and has tone issues. Please review the article sources for NPOV issue in presentation. 137.97.114.182 ( talk) 07:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The page was initially created using an excessive number of primary sources, and I have already requested a cleanup on the BLP Noticeboard. However, the NPOV issue persists, as the editor Morbidthoughts focused on removing primary sources but also requested a neutrality check. Upon revisiting the page, I found that:
The article predominantly relies on primary sources for presenting information in Wikivoice. The issues related to living persons, and WP:NPOV remain unresolved. Many claims appear overstated or biased.
In more detail:
The lead section omits the subject's occupation as a politician, yet includes the phrase "tax consultant who has unsuccessfully run for several political offices," which can be confusing. Is the subject a non-notable tax consultant, a politician, or both? What is their notability? Is it for filing a lawsuit against Trump? It is evident that simply running a few obscure political campaigns with no media coverage other than primary sources does not warrant a dedicated page. The early life and education section relies on primary sources, with other contentious information selectively retrieved. The subject's career mostly comprises controversial information that demands further verification, seemingly violating BLP guidelines. The inclusion of an electoral history that does not enhance Wikipedia's value is questionable. It is clear that this was not a significant political campaign, and it is unclear why any Wikipedia editor would create these tables.
Other issues: 1) Ref-bombing with a lot of primary sources. 2) Extensive use of "claims" and "not fully verified information" in biography that led to a very poorly written article. 3) Most of the sources I examined, many sources are self-published, redundant, promotional, or repeating the same news (redundant). Also, extreme overuse of the primary sources that lead to specific opinions and original research (at best). 4) The page appeared shortly after the person became known in the media for filing the lawsuit against the former U.S. President Donald Trump 5) The article represents "original research" at best. MartinPict ( talk) 15:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) article describes it incorrectly at the top of the article as a "forestry trade association" and "de facto lobbying organization.” The Oregon Forest Resources Institute is neither. It’s a state agency that supports Oregon’s forest products industry through forest education programs for the public, K-12 teachers and students, and forest landowners. This article appears to be written as an attack on OFRI from detractors of the Institute. I represent OFRI and therefore have a conflict of interest, but I believe the most recent editors of the page have a conflict of interest as well and have been citing selective details from several-years-old media coverage of the agency to paint it in a negative light. The article is not written from a neutral point of view at all. Take a look at the talk for more details about our concerns with the way this article about our organization is written. == Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. @Jonesey95 @Silikonz @Tedder @Cyrius @WikiDan61 Jane at OFRI ( talk) 23:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Coronation of Charles III and Camilla has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal ( talk) 15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current article looks like being completely biased, someone with the neutral point of view should come and fix the article. More retails on Talk:Numbeo this is one of the generated ChatGPT articles:
ChatGPT output |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Numbeo is a crowd-sourced database and online platform that provides information about the cost of living, quality of life, crime rates, health care, traffic, and other indicators for cities and countries around the world. The website was launched in 2009 by Mladen Adamovic, a Serbian-born computer engineer and economist, and is based in Belgrade, Serbia. Numbeo allows users to compare various aspects of life in different cities and countries by providing data on a wide range of topics. These include the cost of housing, transportation, food, and entertainment; pollution levels; crime rates; traffic congestion; health care quality; and more. Users can also contribute to the website by submitting their own data on these topics, which is then used to update and improve the database. One of the unique features of Numbeo is its crowd-sourcing model. Rather than relying on government statistics or other official sources, Numbeo gathers data from individual users who live or have lived in the places they are reporting on. This approach allows for more detailed and up-to-date information than would be possible through traditional sources. In addition to its data-gathering features, Numbeo also provides tools for users to analyze and visualize the data. Users can create custom charts and graphs to compare different cities or countries, and can also use the site's cost-of-living calculator to estimate the cost of living in different locations. Numbeo has become a popular resource for people who are considering relocating or traveling to different parts of the world. The site's data has been cited by news organizations, academic researchers, and government agencies, and it has been featured in publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Economist. While Numbeo's data is based on user contributions and is therefore subject to some degree of variability and potential bias, the site's methodology and transparency have been praised by many. The site's founder has stated that the goal of Numbeo is to provide accurate and useful information to help people make informed decisions about where to live, work, and travel. |
Mladen.adamovic ( talk) 08:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
User @ Crows Yang has recently added the following statement to the Sino-Soviet border conflict: "On the other hand, China did succeed to show its ability of deterring Soviet Union with the conventional military capabilities.".
As I have stated on the talk page,
This statement obviously doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.". Deterring somebody from something implies that one wanted to do something in first place which is not really a proven fact.
In my opinion this statement belongs to the article's Aftermath section and should be rewritten to display that is is an opinion of particular author. Instead of participating in discussion user @ Crows Yang tried to remove the template. I tried to do the change myself but it was reverted by the same user. I would like to hear the opinion of community on whether this statement constitutes a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy or not and whether my edit should be implemented or not.
Thanks! DestructibleTimes ( talk) 21:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, User @ DestructibleTimes has recently accused of my edition of leaving the following statement to the Sino-Soviet border conflict :"On the other hand, China did succeed to show its ability of deterring Soviet Union with the conventional military capabilities". He said this statement does not satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias beacuse it was someone's personal opinion, which could not be taken as fact. Please allow me to explain,first of all, this statement is cited from a very reliable source published by University Press. According to Wiki's policy here, editors are not disallowed to cite someone's opinion as long as the source is reliable. Second, all the sources displayed on the article and even entire Wiki at large actually consist of opinions. User @ DestructibleTimes used two sources to prove that the victory of the conflict should belong to Soviet Union. There are big flaws with these sources. One flaw is that the sources he listed there do not specify the victor of the entire conflict. On other flaw is that the statement of these sources claiming Soviet Victory is also someone's own opinion. There are a lot of other sources that contrarily claim Chinese victory, indicating at least one fact, the result of this conflict is highly contraversial, and thus should not be concluded as either side's victory. In this sense, I don't see any difference between the source I cite and the sources used by user DestructibleTimes. Third, about "deterring" itself, user @ DestructibleTimes insisted on saying that "deterring sb from doing sth" was not a proven fact, thus should not appear at where it is located now. First of all, if "deterring sb from doing sth" can't be viewed as proven fact, nor is "Soviet Victory". Second, "deterring sb" could have been fact, like the US successfully deterred Soviet Union in the Cuban missile crisis, Soviet Union successfully deterred Japan from invading Far East with the battle of Khalkhin Gol. Why could these two been taken as facts? Because the enemies did not end up doing anything further to achieve its original goal. In this case, China's deterring Soviet Union could be a fact because Soviet Union did not attack China's nuclear facilities in Xinjiang, did not launch a nuclear strike on China. We all know there's a fact that Soviet Union was known to be a extremely agressive empire with its invasion of Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia (1968), Somalia (1977), Afghanistan (1980s). There was no reason for Soviet Union to tolerate China's aggressiveness in Sino-Soviet Conflict, but eventually it did. Why? Can Soviet's tolerance of China's altitude be explained by China's huge military capability? I won't be certain, but there's a strong posibility, China was unlike the nations such as Poland, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan. So in this sense, I don't see any problems to list it as one of the results of the Sino Soviet conflict. They can stay where they are now, but user DestructibleTimes insisted on removing it (including the template) to aftermatch, which does not make any sense. Dear Community, I do need your help to uphold the justice. Thank you very much! Crows Yang ( talk) 02:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
No disputes in progress afaik. I came across the following in the above article, which seems pretty non-neutral, but I don't know enough about the topic to assess the neutrality of the text, or know how to fix it. Input appreciated.
Due to very high birth rates, the proportion of Albanians increased from 75% to over 90%. In contrast, the number of Serbs barely increased, and in fact dropped from 15% to 8% of the total population, since many Serbs departed from Kosovo as a response to the tight economic climate and increased incidents with their Albanian neighbours. While there was tension, charges of "genocide" and planned harassment have been debunked as an excuse to revoke Kosovo's autonomy. For example, in 1986 the Serbian Orthodox Church published an official claim that Kosovo Serbs were being subjected to an Albanian program of 'genocide'.[93] Even though they were disproved by police statistics,[93][page needed] they received wide attention in the Serbian press and that led to further ethnic problems and eventual removal of Kosovo's status.
Elinruby ( talk) 23:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
2601:18F:107F:E2A0:384A:8E5C:1142:F274 ( talk) 00:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I have added a NPOV-template to Ulta-processed food. This is a very controversial topic in some food/nutrition discussions, and being neutral is therefore quite difficult. The article however is written in a way to largely ignore criticism and indeed dismiss it in a way that might not be helpful ("Most published criticisms of NOVA has come from authors associated in some way with the manufacturers of ultra-processed food, their representative organisations, or organisations they support") as it is more complex. Even authors who fall into this category might have sensible arguments and should be represented. Ggck2 ( talk) 21:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Requesting users to have a look @ the article Arvind Kejriwal ( recent article history). Edit difs by @ Kridha checkout edit history of user kridha . Seems stripping the article of all the well sourced critical parts failing WP:NPOVHOW* , the response from other side looks like WP:STONEWALL effectively leading to obscurantism. Requesting inputs and help in sorting out the issues so as to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV
.. Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ..
@ Kridha isn't replying in consensus.he didn't participate in DRN consensus also.checkout discussion on talk page and DRN request.
@ Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians.
He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like
Public image of Narendra Modi#Criticism and controversies, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Criticism, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar#Controversies, Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Controversies, T. Rajaiah#Controversies, Mulayam Singh Yadav#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies.
And @ Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Nyovuu ( talk) 11:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Patrick Moore (consultant)#The adverb "falsely" is biased language.
Is the following text consistent with Wikipedia:TONE: "[Moore] has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change."
TONE says, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published."
In my opinion, reasonably informed readers know that there is scientific evidence for climate change and don't need continual reminders. Not only is it patronizing and unneccessary, but the polemical tone could make readers question the neutrality and accuracy of the article.
Also, there is a long sentence at the end of the lead of Patrick Moore (consultant), explaining why his opinions are wrong. None of the sources used mention Moore. Is this an example of synthesis? TFD ( talk) 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Ayacucho massacre ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are diverging views regarding what NPOV might look like in this article about recent political violence in Peru. Issues are currently being discussed on the talk page here and here. More eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
After reviewing the Spanish article, the English article is much better. The Spanish article has no information about the investigations, the introduction does not mention anything about the use of force or any deaths, if anything, there are more neutrality issues with the Spanish article. The Spanish article oddly mentions a method of transporting protesters by vans, though this is only mentioned in a source in a quote that is mentioning a rumor. Also, no mention in the Spanish article that the protesters did not have firearms. Anyways, whatever was useful in the Spanish article has been placed.-- WMrapids ( talk) 05:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not surprising that some of the Spanish sources, if they're politically aligned with those who took power in Peru, would report on the official version of events and not seriously question its veracity. Such sources are not RS for this article, although they might be for other purposes. In contrast, The New York Times, as far as I'm aware, has no political alignment with either side in the dispute and is an independent reliable source.
There's a long history of horrendous human rights abuses by the Peruvian military, especially during the long counter-insurgency of the 1980s and 1990s and especially in Quechua-speaking regions like Ayacucho. The Ayacucho massacre is consistent with this history. NightHeron ( talk) 09:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
"they try to link everything to Fujimorismo, which in the Peruvian context is exactly the same as linking anyone to Sendero Luminoso or MOVADEF; it is a political accusation". If you were to look at the sources (or even the Constitution of Peru), you could see that the current economic and political systems of Peru were developed during the Fujimori government. Another statement you make:
"Since Fujimori fell, this political sector has always been marginal and they have never had a majority in Congress at any time (that is another insinuation in which the current articles lie)"; the Associated Press states " Fuerza Popular (Fujimorists) captured a majority in congress. ... its legislators have earned a reputation as hardline obstructionists for blocking initiatives popular with Peruvians aimed at curbing the nation’s rampant corruption". So, should we believe you or the Associated Press?-- WMrapids ( talk) 16:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Generalrelative: Wanted to let you know that the user(s) pushing this have been banned due to using socks and pushing POV WP:Fringe info.-- WMrapids ( talk) 17:38, 28 April 2023 (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 100 | ← | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | → | Archive 110 |
The article on Muhajirs (Pakistan) has been subject to massive edit wars going back years, mostly to do with POV pushing and inserting of promotional edits. This article has been semi-protected at least twice from IPs in the past year because of this. Now, registered users are resuming these promotional edits in violation of NPOV and sourcing them to mostly personal commentaries as well as to sources that contradict the claims of Muhajirs being an "ethnicity." Additionally there is vandalism of reliably sourced edits in order to give Urdu-speaking muhajirs priority over non-urdu ones. To give the main example, here is a promotional paragraph on the intro cited to unreliable sources, at least one which contradicts the claims of Muhajirs being an "ethnicity." Have a look please:
"The Muhajirs are the most educated, and affluent ethnic group in Pakistan. [1] [2] Because of this, they constituted a influential community in the earlier years of post-partition Pakistan. [3]"
As you can see the above text is highly promotional. The current editor repeatedly inserting promotional edits while removing reliably sourced edits such as the infobox seems to have a opinionated connection to the subject as seen on their profile page. Sylvester Millner ( talk) 03:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
The article Collaboration with the Axis powers has a section on Jewish collaboration that deals exclusively with individual Polish Jews. I am not an expert in this history but this seems undue. The article is oversize and we're removing entire regions and countries. Eyes welcome. Elinruby ( talk) 07:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I could use some backup please. Somebody please review the work I've done in the dedicated section at Collaboration with the Axis powers. I've checked the sourcing since I tried to delete the section and no, I still don't think the scolding I got was well-founded (see lengthy archived talk page threads), and I narrowly avoided a three-month block the last time I touched Poland in the Holocaust, for allegedly white-washing Nazis or some such. (see Azov Battalion) Elinruby ( talk) 04:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
For most countries of the world, Wikipedia accepts articles for villages of these countries. There are categories for these villages in Bangladesh or North Macedonia., However there is an exception which covers the two Romanian talking countries Romania the Republic of Moldova. I would expect Wikipedia to apply the same rules to Kall countries. There should not be second hand countries having villages unworthy to have a separate article. All information regarding these villages are included in the articles if the communes in which they are included. This is incorrect as communes are administrative units, whereas villages are settlements. I suggest that there should be a consistent approach with the same rules applicable all countries of the world/ At present the same rule is applied to big countries, such as Russia, and small countries such a Liechtenstein. What is wrong with Romania and the Republic of Moldova? Afil ( talk) 18:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The mentioned article cites the historian Hasanli, who possesses a clear conflict of interest as he openly disavows the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide, [1] which has been widely acknowledged by the scholarly community. Furthermore, considering the ongoing hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is pertinent to note that Hasanli served the Azerbaijani government for a decade. Given his evident partiality towards one side, it is advisable to exclude him from the page's sources as his inclusion would compromise the objectivity and credibility of the encyclopedia. Therefore, I strongly advise against using such sources that lack neutrality and undermine the scholarly standards expected in an encyclopedia. Nocturnal781 ( talk) 18:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I tried raising this at the talk page but got no response.
The lead is primarily trivia about Donald Trump's run that seems inappropriate for a general article on the 2024 Primary. As I noted on the talk pages, the content about him is almost two-thirds to equal length of previous Republican primary leads.
Looking further today, the Vice President speculation section isnt much better as it is focused again on Donald Trump.
Think as it stands, this page does not comply with NPOV, so coming here for additional eyes, rather than slapping a tag on the page. Slywriter ( talk) 01:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I guess it's not surprising that Wikipedia has fandom-level intricate detail in an article like this ("politics is sports for nerds" as they say). It was created before there were any candidates in the running, and there's still only two (one of which is a massive media magnet and a former president, so it's not surprising more of the coverage is about him). Thoughts: cut out the "declined" section entirely (anyone can be asked if they want to be president; that doesn't mean it should be included here when they say no). Cut the "potential" section or transform it into a single sentence of prose elsewhere. Don't know why we need vice presidential speculation before there are even candidates for the primary. Cut endorsements of people who aren't even running yet. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Chloe Cole#LA Times lawsuit opinion on whether the LA Times, which provides both Cole and this specific lawsuit WP:SIGCOV is WP:DUE source for the following paragraph:
Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik described the lawsuit as "part of a concerted right-wing attack on LGBTQ rights, in which the health of transgender youth is exploited as a pretext for bans on gender-affirming care" and stated it "incorporates what seem to be misleading or inaccurate descriptions of developments in the gender dysphoria treatment field."
[1]
This was originally listed at WP:RSN#LA Times in Chloe Cole article in regards to the Kaiser lawsuit which concluded it was a question for here. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 17:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory
The starting paragraph states without any proof that "Most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis". I am not aware of any such survey to make such a conclusion. Given that this article is such an important one, I don't think such strong assertions should be made without any evidence to back it up.
The source points to Gorski's article but there is nothing to back this claim in the article itself.
I hope given the importance of this article, this sentence will be edited as it is clearly not neutral. 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE ( talk) 08:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Russ Baker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Family of Secrets ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Russ Baker has argued in an article on his website (and presumably as User:69.203.117.207 and User:172.56.160.210 on Talk:Russ Baker [2]) that Wikipedia editors have cherry-picked sources to negatively describe his journalistic approach and his book Family of Secrets. The second story in today's issue of The Signpost written by Andreas also discusses this matter. I will send pointers to this discussion at the relevant talk pages, as well as WP:FTN as the book describes a possible fringe theory. - Location ( talk) 16:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC) [edited to include additional IP - 20:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)]
See this discussion on the talk page.
Summary of the discussion: In December 2022, I
added (underlined): his first stage appearance was in a sketch called The Unfailing Instinct at the
Brighton Hippodrome in August 1925. He tripped and fell on his face during the performance.
Today, a user
removed these 10 words with the edit summary: trimming unencyclopaedic trivia.
Here are all the
high quality sources which describe this event and how it impacted Olivier's career:
|
---|
Donald Spoto's 1941 biography (page 44):
Anthony Holden's 1947 biography (page 326):
John Cottrell's 1975 biography (page 34):
Francis Beckett's 2005 biography (page 16):
Terry Coleman's 2006 biography (Pages 25, 485):
It's also mentioned prominently in this New York Times review of Olivier's 1985 Autobiography Confessions of an Actor:
|
The user who removed ( User:SchroCat) has further said: We are not writing a book-length biography, we are writing a summary of his career.
So I ask you, NPOVN, is this information DUE inclusion? Thanks. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
at any time". — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
A fairly new article, I'm concerned that this isn't written from a NPOV and relies on disproportionate weight in order to make certain statements, particularly against Japanese people. Indeed, I removed one statement that I found to be particularly egregious. While I am reluctant to comment on editors themselves, the creator of this article has expressed strong nationalist views around South Korea and has admitted they have a negative view of Japanese people, so I'd like to request more eyes on this article, please. — Czello 13:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:White_privilege#the_section_on_%22Japanese_ethnic_privilege%22_smells_like_WP:SYNTH I believe Binksternet is more aware of Japanese ethnic privileges. I want more professional users than me to add content related to the 'sensual feeling of racial superiority' that modern Japanese feel toward other Asians (especially Koreans and Chinese) in the article. However, if such content is not added, I hope that the contents I wrote will be maintained. Mureungdowon ( talk) 13:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's the same user arguing an academic featured in the Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea article's race is worth mentioning because " There is really no racial discrimination against the Japanese in South Korea" Tdmurlock ( talk) 05:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
This category is not used only for Korean racism against Japanese people. It is even used in articles unrelated to Korean racism, such as Yasukuni shrine, ...Why?! Rotary Engine talk 01:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
non-Korean race Japanese-born naturalized South Koreanas a descriptor for Yuji Hosaka at the article Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea; if it's an attempt to add or remove validity, then it's a Genetic fallacy; if not, it's an irrelevance. Rotary Engine talk 03:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
This article is cluttered with sources and quotes from 2 nations claiming a historical tribe that belonged to both of the peoples (Chechens & Ingush), there were a lot of edit wars on this article, some sources are way too biased, i proposed to make the article more neutral in the talk page by deleting most of the text in the "Ethnicity" section and only adding them as references in a text that could be written like this:
"some authors refer to Orstkhoy as Chechen (references), while some authors refer to them as Ingush (references) but most agree that the tribe belongs to both nations as Orstkhoy are one of the 9 historical Chechen Tukkhums and one of the 7 historical Ingush Shahars"
This was met with disapproval and claims of Orstkhoy being "more Ingush" than Chechen and accusations against me trying to put Chechens in first place (even though i just proposed we write the names of the nations alphabetically). What is worse is that one side cherrypick sources that promote their case while trying to downplay the other side. This kind of attitude only invites edit wars (which has been fought on that article many times). This tribe the article is about is an integral part of both nations, therefore in my opinion it should be neutral and not be cluttered with dozens of sources from both sides.
If this is the wrong noticeboard or if i didn't do this correctly then please correct me because it's the first time i'm using this noticeboard. Goddard2000 ( talk) 13:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Here is the before and after version of a vandalization where someone from Ingushetia deleted a neutral headline and removed Chechens while only adding Ingush. here
After the article was vandalized another account added back Chechens but put them above the new Ingush section. here
After some time @ WikiEditor1234567123 decided that this should be in chronological order [3]
If this isn't edit warring and trying to push for their nation to be above then i don't know what it is. Wikieditor and Tovbulatov might've not done it for that reason, and i don't want to make this discussion more toxic but whoever the IP belonged to clearly did it out of malice and to put his nation first. I'm only writing this now so i could add the diffs, so people could get the full picture. My only proposition is that we return to the version that was before the IP account vandalized the page (with more info ofc like i proposed above).
Goddard2000 (
talk) 21:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
An editor is saying that WP:NPOV requires us to include a particular sentence from a source. The disputed sentence is Members of DRASTIC have engaged in personal attacks against virologists and epidemiologists on Twitter, falsely accusing some of working for the Chinese Communist Party. See proposed deletion here [4] and talk page discussion [5]. Adoring nanny ( talk) 03:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
There is an RFC at Talk:Moldova#RFC: Should Moldovan be removed as a language in Moldova that may be of interest to those here. Posted here per guidance at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC. // Timothy :: talk 15:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move at /info/en/?search=Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity that may be of interest to this noticeboard. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 21:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The articles of all countries that lack international recognition such as Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus and others all of them have their status as being “unrecognized by international community” or “partially recognized” with mentioning the number of countries that recognizes them. With Taiwan being the only exception. Which is weird and reflect Eurocentric bias because countries like Kosovo and sahrawi arab republic have even more international recognition than Taiwan and recognized by 101 and 45 UN member states respectively, while Taiwan which is recognized by only 13 UN member states have this significant information forcefully omitted from the lead. Something which I believe should be mentioned in the lead to make Taiwan like all other countries that lack international recognition and not making it a special status, a status that is even more special than countries that enjoy much more international recognition as if there are double standards.
Before making any edit. First i started a talk in Taiwan’s talks page and initially reached consensus with the one i was arguing with here to add the fact of Taiwan’s lack of international recognition, which I did here [1] and here [2], later on, a user started a disruptive edit warring [3] [5] [4] using an RFC that says that we should refer to Taiwan as a “country” instead of a “state” as an argument, then after that another user made disruptive editing [6] saying in his edit summary “no it’s recognized as a country” (as if i denied Taiwan’s statehood). This all happened before anyone of these disruptive editors go to the talks page. But later on one of them started joining the talks. And i would like you to check their arguments and how many times each one of them changed his argument to a non-related another argument each time i reply to a one and how many time they make irrelevant arguments (i.e “Taiwan is a country !”). i hope this noticeboard solve the problem and help achieving the neutrality of wikipedia and the article. Stephan rostie ( talk) 12:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The OP wants more input. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I think that either was is fine. But the current status of Taiwan is a gorilla in the living room regarding Taiwan. The lead covers the details regarding that but never really states it in summary form. IMO a statement in summary form somewhere in the lead would be a good addition. North8000 ( talk) 12:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Not sure those are comparable, Taiwan is a top 25 economy... Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus combined have less than 10% of Taiwan's GDP. I'd also point out that you appear to be confusing a lack of recognition with a lack of diplomatic recognition, those are not the same thing... For example if we look at Great Britain's relationship with Taiwan we find that the UK recognizes them on a cultural, political, economic, financial, social, educational, intelligence, and military level but not a diplomatic level (example of the political, military, and economic ties from yesterday's paper [6])... Now note that of all of those forms of recognition diplomatic is actually the least important but from your proposed version the reader would be left with the impression that diplomatic recognition *is* recognition and not *part* of recognition. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Taiwan is a top 25 economy. We are not talking about taiwan’s economy, this have nothing to do with the debate. We are talking about the fact of Taiwan’s lack of international recognition that can be even said that Taiwan is not recognized by roughly all the international community.
the UK recognizes them on a cultural, political, economic, financial, social, educational, intelligence, and military level. Prove the existence of such things like “economic recognition”, “education recognition”, “financial recognition” and provide sources that such terms even exist first. Then come and continue the debate. Stephan rostie ( talk) 16:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
How about something roughly like this early in the lead but not in the first sentence?: "China emphatically claims that Taiwan is a part of China; many countries deal with Taiwan as a separate entity in many respects without officially recognizing it as being a separate country." North8000 ( talk) 19:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
China emphatically claims that Taiwan is a part of China;. There is just a small problem with this, which is that it’s not only china that claims that Taiwan is part of china, the overwhelming majority of world countries and international organizations (i.e UN) recognize Taiwan as part of china. That’s why calling it “china claims” is inaccurate as it gives an impression that china is the odd one and that it’s only china that holds this view, whereas the reality is the opposite. Stephan rostie ( talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
My attempt as a solution was only that. But it covered the two big realities, the country status and that many countries deal with Taiwan as a separate entity in many respects. IMO highlighting only the former in any summary would be POV. And focusing on it being in the very first sentence of the article IMHO would also be POV. Finally, the lead is an editor-created summary of the article.Sources don't say what should be in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article and so it's not correct to imply that any choice there represents a failure to follow sources. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 21:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
References
The discussion is here: Talk:Conservatism#Reactionism.
Some folks have argued that reactionsim has nothing to do with conservatism, and therefore doesn't belong in the article at all. Others have argued for retaining a section that includes discussion of the debate over the relationship between the two concepts. There has been some edit warring and open canvassing. More uninvolved / clueful editors would be helpful here. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Issue is which word to use in the lead, referring to the idea of a lab leak. Talk page discussion is here. Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#"Say" or "Speculate". Adoring nanny ( talk) 15:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Please review those edits. 95.12.127.137 ( talk) 17:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
The introductory section on this page was recently expanded to introduce a vague description of some alleged controversies that list nothing specific whatsoever, rely on a single source in Japanese and point to general controversies from Japan's imperial era. I find this to be an egregious pushing of a point of view that's given undue weight. In my original removal of the content I compared this to a hypothetical listing of controversies related to Islam and Catholicism on pages of religious sites in Mecca or Rome. This page is about an ancient shrine in Japan, and unlike the more obviously controversial Yasukuni Shrine, nothing suggests this shrine has any notable controversy surrounding it. A vague protest about Japan's past policies could be attached to pretty much any historical object in the country but that would be a frivolous thing to do in an encyclopedia. The opposing editor is not budging and his reversal of my removal is not properly explained, mentions Italian salutes in a non-sequitur manner. This is leading to an edit war and I request a discussion to resolve it. I'll notify the other editor. Killuminator ( talk) 23:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I am currently involved in a dispute on the talk page of Shamil Basayev. In my, as well as User:Ola Tønningsberg, understanding of the manual of style(MOS:TERRORIST), this is correct implentation, as is seen in the lead of the Shamil Basayev article:
He ordered the Budyonnovsk hospital raid, Beslan school siege[4] and was responsible for numerous attacks on security forces in and around Chechnya[5][6][7] and also masterminded the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis and the 2004 Russian aircraft bombings. ABC News described him as "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world."[8]
This is because MOS:TERRORIST states:
Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.
The quote from ABC news is in my estimation the correct implementation In-text attribution. I am therefore proposing to remove the word 'terrorist' in the first paragraph of the article, as the in-text attribution/quote from ABC news is more encyclopedic, and in line with the guidelines on Wikipedia. User:Chaheel Riens seems to have a more unconventional interpretation of MOS:TERRORIST. Admin @ El C: also questioned if User:Chaheel Riens is familiar with MOS:TERRORIST, in another noticeboard thread that pertains to this same dispute(altough another, now resolved issue.)
( Sextus Caedicius ( talk) 00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC))
The quote from ABC news is in my estimation the correct implementation In-text attribution- which is, as you know - "ABC News described him as "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world". I'm with you on this. It's a quote in the lede which is corroborated by the article itself. Quotes in the lede do not need sources, as the lede is to be a summary of the (sourced) material in the article, but in this case it's sourced there as well.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (Arabic: أبو بكر البغدادي, romanized: ʾAbū Bakr al-Baḡdādī; born Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Ali Muhammad al-Badri al-Samarrai (Arabic: إبراهيم عواد إبراهيم علي محمد البدري السامرائي, romanized: ʾIbrāhīm ʿAwwād ʾIbrāhīm ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Badrī as-Sāmarrāʾī); 28 July 1971[2] – 27 October 2019), was an Iraqi militant and the first caliph[a] of the Islamic State, who ruled as the dictator of its territories from 2014 until his death in 2019.
Nathan Yellin-Mor (Hebrew: נתן ילין-מור, Nathan Friedman-Yellin; 28 June 1913 – 18 February 1980) was a Revisionist Zionist activist, Lehi leader and Israeli politician. In later years, he became a leader of the Israeli peace camp, a pacifist who supported negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization and concessions in the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (Arabic: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن, romanized: Usāmah ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAwaḍ ibn Lādin; 10 March 1957[6] – 2 May 2011[7]) was a Saudi Arabian-born[8] militant[9] and founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda. The group is designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, and various countries. Under bin Laden, al-Qaeda was responsible for the September 11 attacks in the United States and many other mass-casualty attacks worldwide.[10][11][12]
Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
in-text attribution- ergo criteria has been met. Whether it conforms to other articles is irrelevant, and an argument that should be avoided as it dilutes your case. If your argument rests primarily on how other articles are portrayed, then by definition your argument for how this article is portrayed is weak. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 06:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging me. I'll give Chaheel the benefit of the doubt and believe that he thinks that MOS:TERRORIST is saying that if there is sufficient sourcing, then you can ignore using the in-text attribution, as is seen by his messages here and here, and the one above this message aswell. Otherwise it's just vandalism at this point. What MOS:TERRORIST is actually saying is that IF there is enough sources, then you use the in-text attribution, which is already done as Sextus showed, although Chaheel insists that having simply "terrorist" in the opening sentence is in accordance with this rule. Even his participation and blame in many of the attacks he claimed responsibility for is questioned like user Sennalen mentioned above. If an editor came along and added several places that he's a freedom fighter, would that suddenly become acceptable to have in the opening line? I don't think so, nor do I believe it's acceptable the way it is now either. On another note, since Chaheel mentioned WP:OTHER, I must assert that this is not a case of WP:OTHER. I've explained to him before that WP:OTHER is generally about deleting and creation of articles, not about mimicking the style of it. It is very common courtesy and even encouraged on Wikipedia to look at good articles to mimic their style and tone. Ola Tønningsberg ( talk) 21:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove Article y doesn't mention this, so article x shouldn't either. Nobody has yet explained why the current sourcing is insufficient. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 16:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This page is revoltingly out of line with so many of Wikipedia's rules, and I have fruitlessly tried for weeks to fix it on the talk page: Talk:Gays Against Groomers
Most glaringly, the article uses biased sources to present contentious claims in Wikivoice. Even setting aside the heightened requirements for claims about living persons and groups of living persons, WP:BIASED makes it clear that claims made by biased sources should be attributed to them in the text.
The article boldly labels the group as far-right and anti-LGBT, and although it does not make it clear which citations support these claims (violating WP:V), checking the small handful of references to arguably neutral sources reveals no such substantiation for them.
The majority of the article's references are by The Advocate, LGBTQ Nation, Media Matters for America, and The Daily Dot; the latter two are explicitly recognized to require contentious claims on WP:RSP. Oktayey ( talk) 15:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The majority of the article's references..might be an exaggeration, but it doesn't appear to be.
"An entire generation of children are being used as lab rats and destroyed by the radical Alphabet Mafia"
"What we are witnessing is mass scale child abuse being perpetrated on an entire generation, and we will no longer sit by and watch it happen. It is going to take those of us from within the community to finally put an end to this insanity, and that's exactly what we're going to do"...
This page is revoltingly out of line with so many of Wikipedia's rules, as this claim has been soundly rejected, I believe we're done here. All that's going on now are back-and-forth that aren't moving the needle. Zaathras ( talk) 16:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This article should be locked and reviewed by administrators. Mass of inflammatory and weasel-worded text removed but will probably be restored. Unclear why it is even an article in its own right as it is hardly a book of either national or international renown. Should be cut down to essentials and made part of Peter Strzok's article.
Sincerely yours. 65.88.88.54 ( talk) 22:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 Las Anod conflict ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have just semi-protected this page and partially blocked the two main editors from it for two weeks. There is probably a need for experienced additional eyes to ensure a neutral point of view. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This page is about a current conflict involving war crimes. The article now misinforms readers that the Somaliland Army is fighting Al-Shabaab group which is false per talk. Can people kindly review the RfC?
Will be crossposting to Somaliland and current events projects, but avoiding Somalia project because that won't make NPOV problem worse. MathAfrique ( talk) 06:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The last sentence in the lead is a summary of two sources directly copied from the body. The summary of the two sources leave out the "left" wing claims which appears to be WP:UNBALANCED and WP:NPOV. I've added a POV template and have asked for additional feedback in the talk page on the dispute. The diff in dispute is here. The talk page dispute may be found on the talk page. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 15:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Suppose Wikipedia has a neutral article on a particular subject, and Wikipedia also has a separate article about a book about that subject which takes a one-sided point of view. Is it consistent with NPOV and with WP:Content forking for the article about the book to go into one-sided detail about the subject of the neutral Wikipedia article on that subject?
I ask because the article about a book —- Compromised (book) —- has substantial overlap with the article Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation). The book "recaps the full arc of Crossfire Hurricane", according to Politico. [13]
P.S. Note that there is a separate section at this noticeboard that mentions this same book (but does not raise the content-forking issue). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Two rhoughts:
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
This biography of a politician who was running for mayor of Green Bay is smarmy, poorly-organized and mediocre at best. It seems to have been written or shaped by his campaign staff. (He lost, a few days ago.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I would like some outside eyes on the page for EMDR. I'm currently involved in a content dispute because I believe the local consensus of the page has significant NPOV issues.
EMDR is a therapy originally/mainly intended for PTSD. For its core treatment modality of "treating PTSD in adults", it's recommended with various degrees of confidence by several large professional organizations. So for instance: the WHO recommends it with moderate evidence for adults with PTSD as of 2013, the APA conditionally recommends it but lists it among a "core set of evidence-based psychotherapies for adults with PTSD" as of 2022, a 2017 joint report by the US VA/ DoD calls it one of "the trauma-focused psychotherapies with the strongest evidence from clinical trials", and it's recommended by the UK's NICE in this 2017 report and Australia's NHMRC in this 2013 report.
However, there are also a bunch of expert criticisms of EMDR and particularly of its proposed theoretical mechanisms. So for instance, the WHO in the same report also says "relative to CBT, the underlying theoretical treatment mechanisms of EMDR are still largely speculative and this has been a source of controversy", and it's certainly not only the WHO that says this: we have several other sources for this general criticism, along with the related criticism that the eye movement part of EMDR has much less evidence than the treatment as a whole. There are also other expert critics who will go even further and call EMDR " pseudoscience" ( see also) or a " purple hat therapy" (i.e. that it's irrelevant junk added to a known effective treatment).
These stronger criticisms haven't been echoed by large organizations, but nonetheless they're very prominently featured in the article, and the apparent consensus of the field that EMDR is overall an effective evidence-based treatment is heavily downplayed.
I believe this to be a big violation of WP:WEIGHT and therefore of WP:NPOV, but every time so far I try to raise these concerns on the talk page, the local consensus doesn't budge on their insistence on featuring the opinions of individual critics over the opinions of big professional organizations. (Heck, they keep on reverting me adding the NHMRC source at all.) So I'm appealing to this noticeboard: what is the most neutral way to describe all this info, and is it reflected in the current article? Loki ( talk) 23:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
you are damaging wiki credibility and value with this article in its current form. it would be better to delete itis WP:NOTFORUM or not. Loki ( talk) 04:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Evidence-based is not an antonym for 'pseudoscience'. Scientific evidence of effectiveness doesn't rule out pseudoscienceover at the talk page. Loki ( talk) 03:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
No one is arguing that EMDR isn't effectivebut the article currently doesn't say that clearly, and attempts to say that clearly get reverted as "whitewashing". The article currently claims at several points that EMDR as a whole is pseudoscientific, not just the contentious aspects of it.
The ongoing debate on Talk:Constitution of the United States could use some more input to bring these extremely drawn out discussions to a close. The question seems to currently center around who "the people" were and whether the constitution represented them, and what the due weight is for varying points of view on that among experts. These discussions have already attracted admin attention and they are getting a little stale. —DIYeditor ( talk) 08:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Two discussions could use some input. Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Lanzhou_brucellosis_lab_leak and Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Another revert that describes material from the Washington Post as "fringe". Adoring nanny ( talk) 15:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Could I please get a neutral observer to take a look at what is developing into an edit war on these two pages: Operation Reindeer and 44 Parachute Brigade (South Africa)? Please look at Talk:Operation Reindeer#Changes to avoid "Glorifying War Crimes" to see my attempt to start a conversation and then at Talk:44 Parachute Brigade (South Africa)#Low quality of the article for the response. The edit history should show everything else that is neeeded. Much appreciated. BoonDock ( talk) 18:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Some users, mostly @ R Prazeres and @ M.Bitton, have been WP:STONEWALLING the Aghlabids page for quite a few months by trying to hide as much as possible in the infobox the fact that Sardinia is not generally recognized as having been part of the Aghlabid-controlled territories. This goes from blocking every edit on the image's caption ( even writing that adding "possible" to it it's OR) and editing it after a consensus was reached and then claiming that that was the consensus and, most importantly, using a map that's an intentional misrepresentation of the source it was allegedly taken from. I will paste here a comment I've already made on the talk page where I explained why:
The authors, at page 24, actually wrote: "The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab occupation of Sicily that was to last more than 250 years and raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy." They clearly only talk about "raiding" Sardinia, while the occupation is only limited to Sicily. Their map there (which is the one that was supposedly used as a source for the one in the infobox) represents Sardinia not with the same colours as northern Africa and Sicily, but with the combination that (in the map legend in page 12) is reserved to non-Muslim "contested/shared over time" lands. In this case, like the text in that same page clarifies, the "contested" means just raids and failed conquering attempts.
I have the book so, if necessary and ok with Wikipedia's policies, I can upload the two pages on imgur or somewhere else and link them here, or give you any other kind of confirmation about that. On that same talk page, the two users (one of which, @ M.Bitton, has been already blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and nationalist POV-related edit warring) deny that, even thought it's an objective fact, and @ R Prazeres is using the argument that the OR map it's allegedly partially supported by other ones (near-identical ones), which is WP:SYNTH. The situation clearly needs an outside intervention. L2212 ( talk) 19:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
It came to my attention that @ BoonDock is involved in various articles covering apartheid-era South African military units and operations. Some of these articles are badly sourced. Either overrelying on a very limited number of sources and / or relying on sources that are biased due to their personal involvement within the apartheid era military.
In one such article, the attempt is being made to present a war crime, that has been condemned by the UN Security Council for it's atrocious nature, as a regular military operation against "combatants", when in reality the majority of victims in the destroyed camp were found to be defenseless women and children.
My attempts to improve this article and rid it of hate speech, defamation of the dead and inaccurate information, that seeks to glorify this war crime, were met with hostility by @ BoonDock, who keeps reverting the article to the previous problematic state, while failing to acknowledge WP:NPOV and not providing any reasonable way forward.
I have reason to believe that the author is bent on promoting his views irregardless of the facts established by independent researchers and historians, which characterize the event as an atrocity against civilian refugees, with only a small number of armed cadres of the SWAPO liberation movement being present at the Cassinga transit camp, that served to process refugees fleeing apartheid occupation in then South-West Africa on their way to safer regions in the Luanda region of Angola. CraigoGiarco ( talk) 20:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
As to how many people died in the raid and whether there were women and children killed during the raid depends on whose side one wants to listen too [ sic. This feels all kinds of off to me and strikes me as highly likely to be a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE.
.. Steenkamp is recognised in South Africa as the definitive reliable source by combatants from both sides of the fight. ..
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory§ RfC: How should we describe DRASTIC?. Thanks! — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Well there is this Romanian Politician, Mircea Diaconu. On his page there is a claim that doesn't seem to be supported by given source and another editor keeps refusing to change it, reverts my change constantly and doesn't motivate his point. I will really apreciate a third opinion on this.
Here is the Talk page: Talk:Mircea_Diaconu DiGrande ( talk) 20:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The source in question reads, in translation:
agriculture is on Mircea Diaconu's list of electoral promises, most likely because he is counting on the rural vote. His proposal is "aggregation into large agricultural areas", a phrase that was intensively used by Ion Iliescu, at the time when he opposed the restitution of lands confiscated by the communist regime. Like Ion Iliescu, but also like the vast majority of Social Democratic leaders, Mircea Diaconu pleads for the unification of the small properties that were revived after the year 2000.
I render this as:
“His policies were seemingly targeted at a rural electorate and recalled those of the 1990s and early 2000s, when Ion Iliescu was president.”
I don’t think this is especially controversial. — Biruitorul Talk 22:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
In this edit @ 1Trevorr replaced the use of "lynching victim" in the Frank article's short-description with "convicted murderer."
Our reliable sources say that Frank was both a convicted murderer, and a lynching victim. It was reverted by @ Beyond My Ken. Seeing that it is objectively true that Frank was both a lynching victim, and a convicted murderer, I made a compromise between the two: I edited it so that Frank is both a convicted murderer, and a lynching victim. @ 1Trevorr did not seem to have a problem with this, but @ Beyond My Ken and @ DeCausa did, and the latter reverted it in this edit.
I brought it up with them on the talk page. They both conceded that Leo Frank was a convicted murderer, but claimed that it was biased to mention it in the short-description, as well as evidence of one's antisemitism. @ Beyond My Ken, without consensus, then changed the short-description again, omitting convicted-murderer, and adding that Frank was wrongfully convicted. This goes against Wikipedia guidelines for short-descriptions: they are supposed to use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional. That Frank was wrongfully convicted is both controversial and judgemental--that he was convicted of murder and lynched is not.
Furthermore, @ Beyond My Ken and @ DeCausa claimed that the onus was not on them to make consensus, because they already had it; but they have so far been the only editors to support their additions, and @ 1Trevorr and I have both opposed it. If I am doing math correctly, that seems to be a draw. When I tried to change it back to what it had previously been before any of us had touched it, BMK changed it back to his new verison.
It is one thing to disagree with the addition of "convicted murderer", though I think it is ridiculous to do so, as this is an objective fact backed up by reliable sources already used within the article; that he was wrongfully convicted is not an objective fact, and Wikipedia's guidelines suggest against making judgements like these in short-descriptions.
But the two of them have also made new additions to the article, without consensus.
I'd like to ask, which is evidence of controversial, judgmental, POV bias: the claim that Frank was a "lynching victim and a convicted murderer", or that he was a "wrongfully convicted lynching victim"? @ DeCausa and @ Beyond My Ken are alleging that it is the former. Harry Sibelius ( talk) 03:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Beyond My Ken et al; the short description should not describe someone as a "convicted murderer" when the consensus is that the conviction was unjust. Mackensen (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Please see the talk page here, where I dissect the current article and propose a nonbiased restructuring that can more easily be expanded upon. PhenomenonDawn ( talk) 14:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The article in my opinion has severe NPOV issues. The majority of content added in recent years seems to have been added by student editors doing a Wiki Education assigment. I have outlined my concerns in a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks, 86.50.118.50 ( talk) 17:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I refer to the Chinese imperialism article which redirected to Chinese expansionism until early this year. My main concerns is that it contains original research trying to concoct a notion of "Chinese imperialism" but several of the claims are either unsourced or does not match what the source says. Others seem to be taken from articles such as Debt-trap diplomacy and Belt and Road Initiative with all the opposing views taken out.
While I do think some sections can be salvaged and/or potentially merged with Chinese expansionism, such as the views section, the article as it currently stands is more like a coatrack of that one with many unverifiable claims of "Chinese imperialism" GeneralBay ( talk) 11:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory#RfC about the article title. - Location ( talk) 19:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The lead on
Philippines and the Spratly Islands currently reads Philippines and the Spratly Islands – this article discusses the policies, activities and history of the Republic of the Philippines in the Spratly Islands from the Philippine perspective. Non-Philippine viewpoints regarding Philippine occupation of several islands are currently not included in this article.
, which set off my NPOV alarm, but I don't know enough about the subject to evaluate what's going on, so would appreciate further input. Is this a fork of
Spratly Islands dispute or just an inappropriately worded lead?
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 14:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I've tried a few edits in the last week on The 1619 Project. If you are unaware of it, the article as is does a pretty good job showing why it is surrounded in controversy. I recommend reading through the article first to see all the things going on there.
Being that it is controversial, wanting to give drive-by readers the service of knowing that quickly, and in keeping with a very common convention on WP, I endeavored to add that to the first sentence. At the moment, the first sentence reads: The 1619 Project is a long-form journalism endeavor developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones,...
I first tried The 1619 Project is a widely criticized ...
with an accompanying
talk explainer
diff where I discuss reasons and suggest other versions would be reasonable to me. This was was reverted
[18]. The discussion spun off somewhere else pretty quick, but the feedback I did get was That tilts the article in a nonneutral way. The second paragraph explains the context, and that is plenty early in the article.
After a few days I decided to try the softer version The 1619 Project is a controversial...
[19]. Also reverted with the previous criticism repeated verbatim (and also used to justify a revert of two other unrelated edits).
I want to put the word "controversial" in the first sentence. I also think "widely criticized" or similar applies. Based on "historical revisionism" likened to pseudoscience in WP:Fringesubjects it would be due weight to say so prominently. There's other edits I've made that were also reverted and I've made talk messages about it. If that is interesting please discuss on the talk page instead. 142.115.142.4 ( talk) 02:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. So it's not a hard-no rule, but does define well when it should be used. 1. Widely used by RS, and 2. Use in-text attribution. Does that mean it would still work if several sources calling it controversial were cited? Even in the lede? (aside, it's a bit of an unfortunate policy, since left leaning media has a habit of calling lots of things controversial, when really they mean its just not a left leaning thing, not that there's any real controversy over it. Maybe that's why it's considered a value-laden label.) 142.115.142.4 ( talk) 04:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Upcoming film The Kerala Story has neutrality issues. Recently, it was cleanup by User:The Doom Patrol, mostly for WP:VOICE. For now, MOS:FILM structure is not followed and has undue weight on controversy. The film's story is based an actual incident where four women from Kerala joined ISIS. There have been 60-70 cases from Kerala. But as per a character from the teaser, about 32,000 have been recruited within the film's universe. That stirred political controversy. Numerical accuracy should be discussed, "specifically" about the figure "32,000" with reliable sources and correct attributions, without generalizing the whole film. But certain editors took advantage on the discrepancy to make blanket statements and to label the film and filmmakers with political allegations without attribution and with undue weight, and has tone issues. Please review the article sources for NPOV issue in presentation. 137.97.114.182 ( talk) 07:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The page was initially created using an excessive number of primary sources, and I have already requested a cleanup on the BLP Noticeboard. However, the NPOV issue persists, as the editor Morbidthoughts focused on removing primary sources but also requested a neutrality check. Upon revisiting the page, I found that:
The article predominantly relies on primary sources for presenting information in Wikivoice. The issues related to living persons, and WP:NPOV remain unresolved. Many claims appear overstated or biased.
In more detail:
The lead section omits the subject's occupation as a politician, yet includes the phrase "tax consultant who has unsuccessfully run for several political offices," which can be confusing. Is the subject a non-notable tax consultant, a politician, or both? What is their notability? Is it for filing a lawsuit against Trump? It is evident that simply running a few obscure political campaigns with no media coverage other than primary sources does not warrant a dedicated page. The early life and education section relies on primary sources, with other contentious information selectively retrieved. The subject's career mostly comprises controversial information that demands further verification, seemingly violating BLP guidelines. The inclusion of an electoral history that does not enhance Wikipedia's value is questionable. It is clear that this was not a significant political campaign, and it is unclear why any Wikipedia editor would create these tables.
Other issues: 1) Ref-bombing with a lot of primary sources. 2) Extensive use of "claims" and "not fully verified information" in biography that led to a very poorly written article. 3) Most of the sources I examined, many sources are self-published, redundant, promotional, or repeating the same news (redundant). Also, extreme overuse of the primary sources that lead to specific opinions and original research (at best). 4) The page appeared shortly after the person became known in the media for filing the lawsuit against the former U.S. President Donald Trump 5) The article represents "original research" at best. MartinPict ( talk) 15:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) article describes it incorrectly at the top of the article as a "forestry trade association" and "de facto lobbying organization.” The Oregon Forest Resources Institute is neither. It’s a state agency that supports Oregon’s forest products industry through forest education programs for the public, K-12 teachers and students, and forest landowners. This article appears to be written as an attack on OFRI from detractors of the Institute. I represent OFRI and therefore have a conflict of interest, but I believe the most recent editors of the page have a conflict of interest as well and have been citing selective details from several-years-old media coverage of the agency to paint it in a negative light. The article is not written from a neutral point of view at all. Take a look at the talk for more details about our concerns with the way this article about our organization is written. == Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. @Jonesey95 @Silikonz @Tedder @Cyrius @WikiDan61 Jane at OFRI ( talk) 23:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Coronation of Charles III and Camilla has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal ( talk) 15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current article looks like being completely biased, someone with the neutral point of view should come and fix the article. More retails on Talk:Numbeo this is one of the generated ChatGPT articles:
ChatGPT output |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Numbeo is a crowd-sourced database and online platform that provides information about the cost of living, quality of life, crime rates, health care, traffic, and other indicators for cities and countries around the world. The website was launched in 2009 by Mladen Adamovic, a Serbian-born computer engineer and economist, and is based in Belgrade, Serbia. Numbeo allows users to compare various aspects of life in different cities and countries by providing data on a wide range of topics. These include the cost of housing, transportation, food, and entertainment; pollution levels; crime rates; traffic congestion; health care quality; and more. Users can also contribute to the website by submitting their own data on these topics, which is then used to update and improve the database. One of the unique features of Numbeo is its crowd-sourcing model. Rather than relying on government statistics or other official sources, Numbeo gathers data from individual users who live or have lived in the places they are reporting on. This approach allows for more detailed and up-to-date information than would be possible through traditional sources. In addition to its data-gathering features, Numbeo also provides tools for users to analyze and visualize the data. Users can create custom charts and graphs to compare different cities or countries, and can also use the site's cost-of-living calculator to estimate the cost of living in different locations. Numbeo has become a popular resource for people who are considering relocating or traveling to different parts of the world. The site's data has been cited by news organizations, academic researchers, and government agencies, and it has been featured in publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Economist. While Numbeo's data is based on user contributions and is therefore subject to some degree of variability and potential bias, the site's methodology and transparency have been praised by many. The site's founder has stated that the goal of Numbeo is to provide accurate and useful information to help people make informed decisions about where to live, work, and travel. |
Mladen.adamovic ( talk) 08:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
User @ Crows Yang has recently added the following statement to the Sino-Soviet border conflict: "On the other hand, China did succeed to show its ability of deterring Soviet Union with the conventional military capabilities.".
As I have stated on the talk page,
This statement obviously doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.". Deterring somebody from something implies that one wanted to do something in first place which is not really a proven fact.
In my opinion this statement belongs to the article's Aftermath section and should be rewritten to display that is is an opinion of particular author. Instead of participating in discussion user @ Crows Yang tried to remove the template. I tried to do the change myself but it was reverted by the same user. I would like to hear the opinion of community on whether this statement constitutes a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy or not and whether my edit should be implemented or not.
Thanks! DestructibleTimes ( talk) 21:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, User @ DestructibleTimes has recently accused of my edition of leaving the following statement to the Sino-Soviet border conflict :"On the other hand, China did succeed to show its ability of deterring Soviet Union with the conventional military capabilities". He said this statement does not satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias beacuse it was someone's personal opinion, which could not be taken as fact. Please allow me to explain,first of all, this statement is cited from a very reliable source published by University Press. According to Wiki's policy here, editors are not disallowed to cite someone's opinion as long as the source is reliable. Second, all the sources displayed on the article and even entire Wiki at large actually consist of opinions. User @ DestructibleTimes used two sources to prove that the victory of the conflict should belong to Soviet Union. There are big flaws with these sources. One flaw is that the sources he listed there do not specify the victor of the entire conflict. On other flaw is that the statement of these sources claiming Soviet Victory is also someone's own opinion. There are a lot of other sources that contrarily claim Chinese victory, indicating at least one fact, the result of this conflict is highly contraversial, and thus should not be concluded as either side's victory. In this sense, I don't see any difference between the source I cite and the sources used by user DestructibleTimes. Third, about "deterring" itself, user @ DestructibleTimes insisted on saying that "deterring sb from doing sth" was not a proven fact, thus should not appear at where it is located now. First of all, if "deterring sb from doing sth" can't be viewed as proven fact, nor is "Soviet Victory". Second, "deterring sb" could have been fact, like the US successfully deterred Soviet Union in the Cuban missile crisis, Soviet Union successfully deterred Japan from invading Far East with the battle of Khalkhin Gol. Why could these two been taken as facts? Because the enemies did not end up doing anything further to achieve its original goal. In this case, China's deterring Soviet Union could be a fact because Soviet Union did not attack China's nuclear facilities in Xinjiang, did not launch a nuclear strike on China. We all know there's a fact that Soviet Union was known to be a extremely agressive empire with its invasion of Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia (1968), Somalia (1977), Afghanistan (1980s). There was no reason for Soviet Union to tolerate China's aggressiveness in Sino-Soviet Conflict, but eventually it did. Why? Can Soviet's tolerance of China's altitude be explained by China's huge military capability? I won't be certain, but there's a strong posibility, China was unlike the nations such as Poland, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan. So in this sense, I don't see any problems to list it as one of the results of the Sino Soviet conflict. They can stay where they are now, but user DestructibleTimes insisted on removing it (including the template) to aftermatch, which does not make any sense. Dear Community, I do need your help to uphold the justice. Thank you very much! Crows Yang ( talk) 02:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
No disputes in progress afaik. I came across the following in the above article, which seems pretty non-neutral, but I don't know enough about the topic to assess the neutrality of the text, or know how to fix it. Input appreciated.
Due to very high birth rates, the proportion of Albanians increased from 75% to over 90%. In contrast, the number of Serbs barely increased, and in fact dropped from 15% to 8% of the total population, since many Serbs departed from Kosovo as a response to the tight economic climate and increased incidents with their Albanian neighbours. While there was tension, charges of "genocide" and planned harassment have been debunked as an excuse to revoke Kosovo's autonomy. For example, in 1986 the Serbian Orthodox Church published an official claim that Kosovo Serbs were being subjected to an Albanian program of 'genocide'.[93] Even though they were disproved by police statistics,[93][page needed] they received wide attention in the Serbian press and that led to further ethnic problems and eventual removal of Kosovo's status.
Elinruby ( talk) 23:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
2601:18F:107F:E2A0:384A:8E5C:1142:F274 ( talk) 00:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I have added a NPOV-template to Ulta-processed food. This is a very controversial topic in some food/nutrition discussions, and being neutral is therefore quite difficult. The article however is written in a way to largely ignore criticism and indeed dismiss it in a way that might not be helpful ("Most published criticisms of NOVA has come from authors associated in some way with the manufacturers of ultra-processed food, their representative organisations, or organisations they support") as it is more complex. Even authors who fall into this category might have sensible arguments and should be represented. Ggck2 ( talk) 21:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Requesting users to have a look @ the article Arvind Kejriwal ( recent article history). Edit difs by @ Kridha checkout edit history of user kridha . Seems stripping the article of all the well sourced critical parts failing WP:NPOVHOW* , the response from other side looks like WP:STONEWALL effectively leading to obscurantism. Requesting inputs and help in sorting out the issues so as to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV
.. Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ..
@ Kridha isn't replying in consensus.he didn't participate in DRN consensus also.checkout discussion on talk page and DRN request.
@ Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians.
He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like
Public image of Narendra Modi#Criticism and controversies, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Criticism, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar#Controversies, Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Controversies, T. Rajaiah#Controversies, Mulayam Singh Yadav#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies.
And @ Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Nyovuu ( talk) 11:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Patrick Moore (consultant)#The adverb "falsely" is biased language.
Is the following text consistent with Wikipedia:TONE: "[Moore] has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change."
TONE says, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published."
In my opinion, reasonably informed readers know that there is scientific evidence for climate change and don't need continual reminders. Not only is it patronizing and unneccessary, but the polemical tone could make readers question the neutrality and accuracy of the article.
Also, there is a long sentence at the end of the lead of Patrick Moore (consultant), explaining why his opinions are wrong. None of the sources used mention Moore. Is this an example of synthesis? TFD ( talk) 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Ayacucho massacre ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are diverging views regarding what NPOV might look like in this article about recent political violence in Peru. Issues are currently being discussed on the talk page here and here. More eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
After reviewing the Spanish article, the English article is much better. The Spanish article has no information about the investigations, the introduction does not mention anything about the use of force or any deaths, if anything, there are more neutrality issues with the Spanish article. The Spanish article oddly mentions a method of transporting protesters by vans, though this is only mentioned in a source in a quote that is mentioning a rumor. Also, no mention in the Spanish article that the protesters did not have firearms. Anyways, whatever was useful in the Spanish article has been placed.-- WMrapids ( talk) 05:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not surprising that some of the Spanish sources, if they're politically aligned with those who took power in Peru, would report on the official version of events and not seriously question its veracity. Such sources are not RS for this article, although they might be for other purposes. In contrast, The New York Times, as far as I'm aware, has no political alignment with either side in the dispute and is an independent reliable source.
There's a long history of horrendous human rights abuses by the Peruvian military, especially during the long counter-insurgency of the 1980s and 1990s and especially in Quechua-speaking regions like Ayacucho. The Ayacucho massacre is consistent with this history. NightHeron ( talk) 09:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
"they try to link everything to Fujimorismo, which in the Peruvian context is exactly the same as linking anyone to Sendero Luminoso or MOVADEF; it is a political accusation". If you were to look at the sources (or even the Constitution of Peru), you could see that the current economic and political systems of Peru were developed during the Fujimori government. Another statement you make:
"Since Fujimori fell, this political sector has always been marginal and they have never had a majority in Congress at any time (that is another insinuation in which the current articles lie)"; the Associated Press states " Fuerza Popular (Fujimorists) captured a majority in congress. ... its legislators have earned a reputation as hardline obstructionists for blocking initiatives popular with Peruvians aimed at curbing the nation’s rampant corruption". So, should we believe you or the Associated Press?-- WMrapids ( talk) 16:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Generalrelative: Wanted to let you know that the user(s) pushing this have been banned due to using socks and pushing POV WP:Fringe info.-- WMrapids ( talk) 17:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)