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 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Should this article have an image of a protestor's placard calling Bannon a racist? NPalgan2 ( talk) 19:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Emir of Wikipedia TheValeyard belatedly pinging other editors, sorry /info/en/?search=Talk:Steve_Bannon#protests_image

The article is under discretionary sanctions and requires consensus for re-adding anything that has been challenged. Consensus required: All editors must obtain  consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. Since it appears to have been challenged, it should not have been reinstated within the article without consensus. Terrorist96 ( talk) 20:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Accusations that Bannon is a racist or white nationalist accurately reflect the sentiments of many anti-Bannon protestors (notwithstanding the merit of the accusations) so I don't see an NPOV problem there.

But if the talk page comment is accurate ("the status quo on wikipedia is that political figures' biographies do not feature images of hostile protest placards"), treating Bannon differently would be an NPOV problem. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

But how has the status quote emerged? Was it ever formally decided on or has it just emerged as those figures had less hostile protest? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@ TheValeyard: You might have not gotten pinged as I didn't. Luckily I saw this on my watchlist. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Tea Party protests led to the historic Republican wave election of 2010 after the passage of Obamacare. So should we add this to Obama's article (an accurate reflection of the sentiment of many anti-Obama protestors): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Protest_sign_-_Tea_Party.jpg The burden is on the editors who added this highly unusual photo to the article to justify inclusion. It seems to me that anti-Bannon signs were just one theme amongst many at the women's march, for example. NPalgan2 ( talk) 23:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The connections of Steve Bannon to white nationalist causes is a widely-held point of view, supported by countless reliable sources, as Mr. Lambden admirably notes above. The connections of Hillary and/or Bill Clinton to various conspiracies, schemes, and criminal elements has long been a product of fringe media. Just now I even found we have an article on it...though I thought the title would be "Clinton derangement syndrome", that search instead brought me to Clinton crazies. The two are not comparable. TheValeyard ( talk) 23:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, note the Obamacare sign I posted above; Obama's "like your healthcare plan, you can keep it" statement was politifact's lie of the year. Similarly, the criticism of the Clintons' that their lucrative speaking fees were problematic was very widespread criticism. But we don't have a protestor waving a "Hillary=Corrupt" sign on her page. Finally,@ TheValeyard: has been very frank - many people say Bannon us a white nationalist, so we should have a picture of a protestor with a sign saying he is a white nationalist on his wikipedia page. Note that the Steve Bannon article does not call him a white nationalist in wikipedia's voice, instead saying ' He rejects allegations that he is a white nationalist,[139] calling white nationalists "losers", a "fringe element", and a "collection of clowns".' NPalgan2 ( talk) 23:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Using a free image of a protester criticizing Bannon, in conjunction with text that identifies Bannon's views as controversial and seen as racist/etc. even if Bannon disagrees, seems reasonable, as long as it otherwise does not affect the tone of the article. That is, I would expect that in the body (past the lede), we would cover Bannon's career without mentioning or going into depth about his controversial views, and then go into criticism towards him, at which point that image would be fine. It would not be fine as the free image near the top of the body of the article (after the lede), since it does affect how one would read the rest of the article. -- MASEM ( t) 00:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Masem here; including the photo in context of critical views is fine, but it certainly shouldn't be the lead photo or used in conjunction with general biographical sections. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Also agree... looking at the current sate of the article, I would suggest moving the image to the section on "Political views" (which is really more a summary of the criticism of his views). Blueboar ( talk) 01:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The image is fine if properly placed and if it accurately reflects a widely-held POV as TheValeyard suggests it does. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 03:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone who has supported inclusion of the protestor's placard like to take a stab at a general rule for the inclusion of these sort of images in biographies of political figures (not to mention editorial cartoons, hostile attack ads, etc)? Generally these are not included in encyclopedia articles in usual circumstances. NPalgan2 ( talk) 02:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

One reason things like attack ads and political cartoons aren't included is that they aren't free media. However, it would be difficult to write any other type of guideline, the only key factor is if the individual has been the center of attention of such public outcries to demand that much attention to the individual. Bannon clearly passes that line due to how much controversy his career has generated. -- MASEM ( t) 02:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support inclusion of the image next to a paragraph about that protest. This does not appear to be the situation here. -- Nanite ( talk) 03:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the image is fine. Bannon has perhaps more than any other person in U.S. politics made divisive statements and attracted controversy and condemnation in mainstream sources. It's not the same as Obama and Clinton who since not everything they did during their public careers was controversial. Every news item that mentions Bannon mentions his controversial nature. TFD ( talk) 04:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Well, one wonders what the point of such an image is--what does it enlighten? That someone thinks he's a racist? The text of the article should make those things clear, in more balanced terms than one single photo. The only good reason (besides "it's nice to have a photo in that large chunk of text") I can come up with is that it sort of balances the more positive images below, of him all famous and stuff. Drmies ( talk) 04:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I really still think that, although Bannon is a controversial figure, to have 1 out of 6 photos being a BANNON RACIST sign is undue. None of the many dozens of photos on the Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama articles are of protests against them. One single one on the George W. Bush article is of a protest, out of dozens. If the new standard is "if there's controversy mentioned in the article body, we can have a photo of a protest sign accusing the article subject", then what's to prevent one single editor from going on lots of demos against political figures they don't like and uploading the photos they take, thus significantly skewing the content? Photos are most eyecatching part of an article. Skimreaders remember the photos even when they forget the text. NPalgan2 ( talk) 22:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

How many large scale protests were there specifically those three? And arguably for either Bill Clinton or Obama, if there were protests over their Presidency, I would probably expect to see that on something like Political positions of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Since Bannon's never run for office, there's not going to be those separate articles. Additionally, given how much public dislike of him (and documentation to that effect), in contrast with the three above, it seems completely reasonable. (And further in contrast, how many rallies have their been in support of Bannon compared to these three?) Key is that such a photo, since it is going to draw the eye, needs to be in the criticism section which needs to be one of the last parts of the article per tone as described above. -- MASEM ( t) 22:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

How many protests have there been *specifically* targeting Bannon? There was a protest targeting him in LA, covered by CBS, the Indpenedent and the Hollywood Reporter www.cbsnews.com/news/protesters-set-sights-on-donald-trump-top-aide-steve-bannon/ There was a "Protest Trump Advisers and White Supremacy at Harvard” covered by the Boston Globe, and that seems to be pretty much it. NPalgan2 ( talk) 22:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Just a quick note asking for some participation in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tahirih Justice Center/archive1. This article was raised at this noticeboard in 2014, and I am now seeking a formal review, but FAR is pretty dead at the moment. TheDragonFire ( talk) 14:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The editors of the article appear to be trying to make the article fit a particular category. The issue is further complicated by my COI and therefore my inability to directly edit the article - although I have attempted to guide and make suggestions. As yet, any input I have given has fallen on deaf ears. As I have stated several times, I am a newcomer so respect and appreciate any third-party input on the subject.

I will let you judge for yourselves the issues at play by reading the article and any related discussion.

The relevant page is located at World_News_Media

The relevant talk page where I have attempted to resolve issues is here Talk:World_News_Media

The AFD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_News_Media

Many thanks, Scottrouse ( talk) 06:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I have a view on Christianne Klein? I have twice tagged it as reading like an advert, and have explained why at Talk:Christianne Klein#Advert tag, but I'm being reverted by Changes129016. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I fixed most of the problems, I removed a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced stuff, this may need to be put back with sources. I deleted the part about how hot she was because it seemed undue, and I took the awards out of the lead and put them in their own section. Diff of my changes [1]. Tornado chaser ( talk) 22:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Some more eyes on this would be welcome, as we now have a second (new) editor reverting Tornado chaser's removal of promotional article content. Cordless Larry ( talk) 04:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Added cited material that was removed. Biographical and incorrect information reverted. Cleanup without opinions. Found bio on television website. Good guide for bio information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthtellers19 ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Truthtellers19: I removed material that either: had no source cited, made the article sound promotional, or was irrelevant and unencyclopedic. Saying "award winning" in the lead sounds promotional, but awards should be mentioned in the article, so I created an "awards" section, as this is a more typical way to describe awards in wikipedia. The part about how she was called one of the hottest seemed WP:UNDUE. If you think someone is making opinion-based edits, don't accuse them of vandalism, per WP:VD content disputes are not vandalism, but opinionated editing does violate WP:NPOV. Tornado chaser ( talk) 13:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a disagreement at Talk:Linda Sarsour § CUNY speech controversy over whether it's within the neutrality policy to state that: [2] members of the "alt-right" objected to the speech; [3] her defenders included "some Jewish groups"; and that [4] [5] Sarsour has been criticized generally by "conservatives". Relevant sources include Time, Newsweek, and The New York Times. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

See also this Jewish Telegraph Agency profile. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 13:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am looking for some diverse opinions on this page. Based on my reading of the page, it seems very defensive. Here's what I said in the talk page: "I think this article needs some of its content from the section on controversy moved to a new section called criticism, with additional details. This person has been criticized by many notable public figures, including Sam Harris and Courtney Love. Additionally, the tone of the whole article seems very defensive, and it needs a review by a senior editor. On the talk page, too, at least two editors seem to have personal connections with this person who are refusing to consider or are outright twisting criticism by others."

My comment on the two editors was based purely on my reading of the talk page, where multiple people have raised similar issues. The article appears to be guarded to make sure no negative perception of its subject is formed (for instance, every time potentially damaging fact is mentioned, it instantly follows with an explanation, as if this was a newspaper).

When I raised my objection, one of the two editors I mention attacked me and threatened me with sanctions and sent me a notice. This seems like a misuse of their privilege, because I am clearly not interested in vandalism. I have made many substantial contributions to various wiki pages. So an input from another disinterested editor on the whole situation is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 July 2017) (UTC)

We do not generally have criticisms sections. Also I have to ask why Courtney Loves opinion of her is even worthy of inclusion. I dislike just random criticism by celebrities. Also we do have to put both sides of any dispute. Slatersteven ( talk) 07:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The above editor has now repeatedly and falsely accused me of having a conflict of interest ("personal connections") without a single shred of evidence — this is clearly prohibited behavior, as they are casting aspersions on other editors without evidence. I'll be opening an Arbitration Enforcement request now. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, Courtney Love is a very notable feminist, which is a theme that is relevant in this context. Sam Harris is a highly followed public intellectual who is known for his criticism of Islamic ideology, which is another theme relevant here. There is also Jake Tapper, who has also criticized her for her "ugly sentiments" : http://www.thedailybeast.com/linda-sarsour-echoes-donald-trump-smears-cnns-jake-tapper if all this seems irrelevant, then I wonder what would be consider relevant. I originally began to contribute to wikipedia because I thought it was a neutral place. This incident has really shaken my faith in this system and if no effective response appears from senior members, I will stop contributing altogether.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn ( talk • contribs) 09:59, 25 July 2017) (UTC)

Is Ms love a notable feminist, or a celebrity who expresses feminist view points? Also what is it you want to add? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It would make it easier if we concentrated on one thing at a time. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sharia law

No we cannot call her a sharia law advocate, we might be able to say "she has been called a sharia law advocate". Slatersteven ( talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Although I would like to note what does she have to do to be called sharia law advocate. Icantevennnnn ( talk) 12:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

She has been called a Sharia Law advocate, so it should be mentioned in general, not just something on Ayaan has accused her of. The following references call her Sharia defender or pro-Sharia law-- ^{[1] [2] [3]}The article currently mentions Ayaan Harsi Ali calling her a "sharia defender" based on an NY times article but doesn't mention that very same reference which adds "As to the accusations that Sarsour is a defender of Sharia law, the fact-checking website Snopes looked into the claims last week and found that Sarsour has indeed posted messages on Twitter that seem to take a defensive stance about Sharia law. Snopes’ calls to Sarsour seeking clarification have not been returned." Icantevennnnn ( talk) 12:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Note that Sarsour's page was created in 2016 and was pretty thin [6], before the Women's March. Not much more than local coverage (the NYTmes article is the local section) and the sole claim is that she chaired a non-bluelinked, local group. Article at that point might easily have been deleted. Sarsour sprang to notability as an "organizer" of the 2017 Women's March. Leaving aside the fact that the question of who merits being called an "organizer" of that march if a controversial question in its own right, this was her first moment of fame, and, as with all of her subsequent news cycle appearances, the coverage centered she was or was not in favor of shaaria and terrorism, and on whether she was or was not anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-LGBT, and anti-feminism. there was a lot of coverage [7], and do note (I was involved in editing the Women's march article last winter) that other members of the "organizing committee" that she was part of are not blue-linked. Controversy over her stand on thse issues pretty much constitutes her notability, generating articles that defend or accuse her on each of these issue (I may have missed an issue or two, there is, for example, some controversy within the Muslim community regarding her authenticity as a spokesperson for Islam or Muslim Americans.) Given this reality, I suggest not only that it is reasonable for the article to have sections on Views, where her articulate positions have garnered significant coverage, (much as we do with politicians,) but also that despite my general disparagement of "controversies" sections, when an individual is, in fact, notable primarily for repeatedly saying stuff on twitter and elsewhere that generates nationwide coverage it seems to be reasonable to cover them in a "controversy" section. ping me if you have a better proposal. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@ E.M.Gregory: The article does actually have a "controversies" section, because you're right, in this case it's a relatively neutral way of covering the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 16:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who advocates for Palestinians will attract a lot of Islamophobic opposition. I think what is wrong with the article is that is does not explain where the criticism is coming from and where it is not. Note the ACLU says it stands with her. TFD ( talk) 03:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There has actually been a good deal of opposition from some editors to mentioning that most of the criticism has come from conservative sources. See § Linda Sarsour CUNY speech below. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 13:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Clearly there is conservative criticism of her. However it would seem that some liberal circles, e.g. Feminist Zionists who identify as liberal, have also voiced criticism as well as a number of other liberal examples.13:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, what about Sharia law? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Israeli

We need ore then one source, we have to establish this is a noteworthy controversy,and I do not think that just saying "throw rocks at cars" is important enough to include. I would rather then was rather more then name calling. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Israel National News calls her anti-Israel ^[4] She has also been accused, by a Democratic New York State Assemblyman, of saying that throwing rocks at cars in Israel is a good thing ^[5] This has also been said by a third party: "Sarsour once praised Arab stone-throwers in Judea and Samaria, calling their attacks 'The definition of courage'. She also expressed her disgust for Zionism, calling it 'creepy', and dismissed anti-Semitism, saying it doesn’t 'exactly compare' with Islamophobia." ^[6] More on this: "This April, Sarsour drew further criticism after she shared the stage with Rasmea Odeh, the terrorist bomber responsible for the murder of two Jews in a 1970 supermarket bombing. During the April 2nd event in Chicago with Odeh, Sarsour praised the terrorist, saying she was 'honored and privileged to be here in this space, and honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.'" ^[7] Courtney Love, in addition to an internationally known celebrity, has been called "a third wave feminist icon" in this book ^[8] and this book ^[9] So does it count when Ms Love says Ms Sarsour is "a vile disgrace to women" and "anti-American' and 'anti-Semite' and a 'fraud'. I leave it up to others to decide.

She has also expressed opinion that Zionism and feminism are incompatible. Sarsour said to The Nation, “It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, ‘Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?’ ^{[10] [11]} This issue drew so much criticism that noted female actress Mayim Bialik of The Big Bang Theory show, who is Jewish, wrote a whole post about it. ^[12] Icantevennnnn ( talk) 12:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it is best to discus individual issues on the articles talk page. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am moving different themes on their own separate headings. Icantevennnnn ( talk) 12:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

On the general issue, we cannot have one sides articles. So just as we cannot put her views without criticism of them wee cannot have criticism without putting her version of the controversy. Thus if we just have people saying nasty things about her, to which she has not responded, it is not a controversy and so we cannot have it in the article as it violates a number of polices (such as BLP, undue and NPOV).12:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Slatersteven ( talk)

I think I have said everything I wanted to say. I have also provided sources. So if this isn't satisfactory, I don't think what is. A few people have been very enthusiastic on this page when it comes to defending her against controversy, I will see if they do the same in this case. I have nothing more to add. Icantevennnnn ( talk) 12:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Courtney Love's opinion should be excluded entirely, there's a big difference between "feminist icon" and being an expert, for an expert opinion. This simply isnt the way our WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies work, (see also WP:COATRACK - I think I saw that the above editor has made about 154 edits? I would suggest reading these policies in more detail, especially WP:RS Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 13:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we have a view on this article? Mannatech
The article was recently updated and the current article appears not to adhere to NPOV, but may be wrong?
The relevant page: Mannatech
The relevant talk page is here /info/en/?search=Talk:Mannatech
Be good to have another pair of eyes on this? ( Pro Amateur ( talk) 19:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC))

Per your request, I believe the article isn't too bad, representing reliable sources reasonably. - Roxy the dog. bark 19:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Pro Amateur, please reply to the question asked at User talk:Pro Amateur#Comments and requests. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Controversies about Labeling Terrorism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should this be merged in Terrorism (at least, the well sourced parts in due weight)? I have the impression that this may be a POV fork which will attract constant POV pushing. It is understandable that definitions for the labeling varied and that people may erroneously, or voluntarily (as part of hate speech, etc) be labeled as such. It reminds me of a recent example, Murder of Sarah Halimi which some want to questionably categorize as terrorism and antisemitism ( diff). Such cases are common and articles which are likely to attract endless lists are discouraged. I think that this aspect would be best covered at the main article in due weight. The current article is not in list style, but it starts well with examples at #Political_Implications. Also, if this article is intended as an essay for editors, it may best belong in Wikipedia: space. Input welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 10:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

To my mind no. as many poeple have been falsely accused of terrorists, which is not the same as terrorism. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Just doing a search on the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" gives more than enough hits to show that the difficulties in distinguishing terrorism from other acts is definitely notable. It may not be the best current title or approach, but there's definitely a notable topic in regards to how terrorism may or may not be labeled. -- MASEM ( t) 16:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. — Paleo Neonate – 00:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is a legitimate topic on its own and would like to see that level of detail about the issue in the main terrorism article. A lot of it is about the misuse of the term by governments. TFD ( talk) 01:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Whaterss is a long-term political agenda editor, contrary to our policy on what Wikipedia is not, interested in such controversial China-related subjects as Falun Gong, Taiwan, Hong Kong democracy, etc. He is perpetually attempting to censor content that may reflect poorly on China or the Chinese government.

For the past month or so, this user has been attempting to censor coverage of criticism of Wolf Warriors 2, a Chinese film. Please see Talk:Wolf Warriors 2 for more details. The dispute has escalated to a violation of the WP:3RR today.

Rather than focusing on the content dispute and how it relates to Wikipedia policy, this user tends to distract the conversation by pushing it toward irrelevant pedantry (in this case, arguing over dictionary definitions of "critic" or "censorship"). The root issue here is long-term, low-level political agenda editing. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but censor content on his/her personal whim regardless of whether it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources. Additionally I object to the trend toward attacking other editors personally, i.e. ridiculing the English of another involved editor or insinuating that I am only interested in this dispute due to discriminatory feelings toward mainland Chinese people. Citobun ( talk) 06:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Great to see you again here! One thing you got wrong, here we discuss NPOV-related issues, rather than reporting other users'private problems. Whaterss ( talk) 06:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Attempting to censor criticism from the article does not contribute to a more neutral point of view. Citobun ( talk) 06:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I would appreciate some outside input on the tone of the Simonetta Lein article, as discussed at Talk:Simonetta Lein#COI and promotionalism tags. The article was speedy deleted (possibly outside of process), restored to draft space and then revised and submitted by Putela, who has requested that the promotionalism tag be removed. Although the text is better than it was, I am not convinced that the issue is yet resolved. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Nicole Ehrlich lists several claimed awards that seem not quite right to me: Emmy, Grammy and MTV VMA award. The person the article is about, is a music video producer or co-producer in some cases. Yet the article claims several awards for e.g. Lady Gaga's " Bad Romance" – Best Collaboration, Best Choreography, and Video of the Year. Do any of these awards go to the producer? ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Charles Buell Anderson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Endeavor Academy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I post this here because I think two things should be considered:

1. Do we need two articles? I'm especially wary of a stubby biography that basically accuses a person of being a cult leader.
2. Can we reframe the wording in accordance with NPOV? I mean, accusations that a particular group or institution is a 'cult' should be made clear in the article, but there is no objective delineation of what makes one person's church another person's cult. Let's attribute that opinion per WP:ASF, if we could?

jps ( talk) 18:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Check the talk page. The bio used to be much longer, but was eventually whittled down to the current uncontroversial length.-- Auric talk 22:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This is to notify editors of an RfC on the Mansplaining talk page at Talk:Mansplaining#RfC about criticism in the lead regarding adding back into the lead a mention of the fact that the term has been criticised and is controversial. This was removed back in Jun-17 and an edit war appears to have been the perusing result. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 11:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

1000maex ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has added the same block of text across four articles: [8] [9] [10] [11]. 1000maex has also edit-warred to peserve the content: [12]. Reading the passage over, I think that it violates the neutral point of view policy with statements like, "Illegal immigration is by far the biggest issue in the Assam" and its awkward placement in articles (how is illegal immigration more than tangentially related to Islam in Assam?). I recommend that these passages be removed from all the articles 1000maex has added it to until there is an explicit consensus on a talk page to restore them. Mz7 ( talk) 18:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Should be  resolved. Other editors have removed the content in question. Mz7 ( talk) 23:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The user has been blocked now for edit warring. -- 45.123.13.164 ( talk) 19:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Santiago Maldonado is a missing person in Argentina since a month ago, when the police dispersed a picketing protest in the Patagonia. There is a great political controversy in Argentina about it, the Santiago Maldonado case. There is a judicial case, and several open lines of investigation: that he was seized and forcibly dissapeared by the Gendarmerie, that he escaped to Chile, that a farm worker killed him during a robbery some days before that, etc. None of the options really have very strong evidences, but the first one raises a lot of controversy, because of the political connotations. Things are murked even further because midterm elections in Argentina will take place next month (Cristina Kirchner, leader of the opposition, tries to blame president Macri for all this, and focus her political rallies on that point), and the protest was organized by the Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche (RAM), a separatist group that engages in many radical actions.

I started the article using some international sources (The Guardian, BBC) and the mainstream newspaper of Argentina, Clarín, for the more specific details. See here for an older version of the article. Then, two new users, EvaristoDLR and EMans, started to change the article using several questionable sources. I ceased trying to fix the article and tried to solve it in the talk, but so far it has been pointless.

The main point in conflict: in my version, the article does not fully accept nor refute any of the theories, and lists what does each one says and which evidence is there for and against it. In their version, the current one, the forced disapearance is the only theory still standing, and the others are listed as "disproven". Problem is, the judiciary is still investigation those theories, so they are not disproven yet. And the evidence against the forced disapearance theory is just as strong as the evidence against the other theories. See The New York Times, that describes the political controversy, but when it goes to the case itself, it points that "Santiago Maldonado’s case is being investigated as a forced disappearance, but the prosecutor in charge of the investigation has said no evidence has emerged to date that security forces took him into custody".

There were some reported sights that were eventually disproven, but this leads to another problem in the article: in the "reactions" section, it is outright stated that there is a conspiracy between the government and the mainstream media, who would have had fabricated those sights in order to derail the investigation (of course, except for speculations there is absolutely zero evidence of that, as with all conspiracy theories). All referenced just in tiny pro-Kirchnerite newspapers and glorified blogs, of course. Here things are taken even further: there is no RAM, it's all just a set up organized by the government and the media to frame the mapuches and make them look bad. You know, all those mapuches that appear here and there from time to time and make violent acts of vandalism while asking for the independence of the mapuche nation, are just costumed guys from the intelligence agencies. It's them who say that, not me...

Note, by the way, that my time for wikipedia editing is a bit limited. I had not expanded the article as much as I should because those users intervened almost immediatey, and all the time I spent trying to fix or remove their edits and discussing with them is time that I could not use to edit the article.

What should we do here? Should we use just major mainstream sources, as I proposed? Should we limit things to international sources from English-speaking countries? Or should we include those minor sources and their conspiracy theories as well? Should we treat all theories as similarily valid until the judiciary officialy rejects them, or is a criticism from a given source enough to treat a theory as "disproven"? Cambalachero ( talk) 19:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This subject is simple. The user really isn't telling the truth.

Isn't a missing person, it is a forced disappearance. You can see herethe dictamination of the procecutor.

Therefor, because the country's criminal code states that this crime inevitably involves the state (you can see it here), the supposed other hypotheses clearly do not agree with the charges of the case.

The rest of the user's statements - such as calling a organization of DDHH which has been recognized to make the claim for this case by the UN ( source) as a "glorified blogs" - It does not go beyond mere opinions and disqualifications without sources that justify in some way, except for its own bias.

-- EMans ( talk) 19:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the only other teory that the user maintained in the version that he provided ( [13]) was debunked today by the justice. It was proved that not the person who was forcibly disappeared was not murdered before his kidnapping ( source).-- EMans ( talk) 01:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It is currect, the murder theory has been debunked, just a couple of hours after I started this thread. However, as EMans should probably know, those where not the only theories being investigated (as I mentioned, my time for wikipedia editing is a bit limited). This news report, written after those results, clarifies the current status of the investigation: the main open lines of investigation are the forced disapearance, and that Maldonado would be hiding himself. So, my concerns with the article remain the same: when can't simply call it a forced disapearance as if it was a confirmed fact when it isn't, and the conspiracy theories are still conspiracy theories.

As for the rest, this is a textbook case. I say that there is very little evidence to consider it a forced disapearance. Source: the new york times. He says that it is a confirmed forced disapearance. Source: the judicial case itself. Meaning, a primary source. There's a reason we do not use those: because it's easy to misunderstand them. Which is the case here. The case is still an open investigation and has not reached that veredict. In fact, this info was removed from the article: that the case started as a search and rescue investigation, and then it was rebranded as a forced disappearance investigation without any new evidence to justify such a change. So, the mere folder title is a bit meaningless. Specially when, unlike EMans remarks above, the investigation itself is unaffected by it, and all the open lines of investigation kept being equally investigated before and after such change.

In any case, I already know EMans opinion. I would like to hear the opinion and advises of some other uninvolved and regular editor, to help to solve this. Cambalachero ( talk) 12:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Several clarifications

• This source ( [14]) it's not a "primary source". It's the news agency of the Supreme Court, as you can see here. Therefore, like any other news agency, it's a secondary source.
• The only line of investigation it's the "forced disapearance". As anyone can see in the prosecutor own words. (This source it's the news agency of the prosecutors).
• If some media maintains that Santiago Maldonado is hiding, it can be added to the article, at the moment it's not. Clarifying that they are not data on the part of the justice but of media close to the national government.

I know you know my opinion, the problem is that if you ask for advice while providing false information. Advice will not serve much.

Having said that, no objection has been raised (for what I am seeing) for the neutrality of the article. In this there is a hypothesis and two that have been debunked. There are more hypotheses, some more weirds than others, like the one that links the artisan to the Colombian's FARC. Maybe not all have to go to the article, but if the user did not include them it I don't understood why instead of doing it comes here.-- EMans ( talk) 17:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion here. The black supremacy page carefully avoids labelling it as a racist ideology while the white supremacy page is not shy about mentioning it. Here is where I added the racism template: diff. The subsequent edit shows it being removed, then re-added by me because I noted that the article was included in that template, and then removed again because the article had subsequently been removed from the template. Here are some basic facts:

• The definition of white supremacy is "The ideology which holds that the white race is superior to all others."
• The definition of black supremacy is "The ideology which holds that the black race is superior to all others."
• The page itself is already "Part of a series on Discrimination'".
• The definition of racism, according to Oxford Dictionary, is "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Here's some additional sources: The SPLC article linked on the black supremacy page has "racist" as the first word in the headline, WaPo which links to this study, Viceland, and Washington Examiner that links to a Gallup poll. I would like a third party to assess whether or not excluding "racist" and/or the "racism" template constitutes a violation of NPOV. And does consulting a dictionary really constitute WP:OR or does it count as an WP:RS? Thank you. Terrorist96 ( talk) 23:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This is just stupid. More than two years ago I broke the false equivalency that held—without a single reliable source—that the opening sentences of Black supremacy and White supremacy had to be mirror images of one another. In truth, there are no reliable sources that anybody has found in two years that assert that black supremacy is racist. But like clockwork, every few months somebody gets his nose out of joint because Wikipedia doesn't say that black supremacy is racist. When I (or other editors) ask them to produce reliable sources, we always get the same song and dance routine: look at the dictionary, it's a textbook example, etc. I'm sorry, but it's not POV to correctly reflect what reliable sources say about a subject and refuse to engage in original research because it suits the whims of the Fox News crowd. Relevant discussion started more than two years ago and can be found at Talk:Black supremacy/Archive 4, Archive 5, and the current talk page. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 23:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't cast aspersions (see WP:PA and WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL). Terrorist96 ( talk) 00:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

And you shouldn't waste other editors' time, but you are, so here we are. Since it's so obvious that black supremacy is racist, where are the reliable sources? I would have thought you'd have found some by now. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 00:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

"Black Supremacy is a racist world view that considers black or colored people to be better than white people. (E.g. Black Hebrew Israelites, Nation of Islam, Yahweh Ben Yahweh)." and "black separatist groups have used a more racist and militant approach...Many black separatist "hate groups" are rooted in racism and anti-Semitism, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center's Heidi Beirich." Terrorist96 ( talk) 00:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Apologetics Index", which may or may not be a reliable source, but with respect to your second source, I suggest you learn the difference between black supremacy and black separatism. Does the SPLC source even use the word supremacy or supremacist? —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 00:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is their about page. And the separatists page also conveniently omits any mention of racist ideology. Terrorist96 ( talk) 00:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, not this again - the issue has been discussed to death, just look at the talk page archives. What some editors think is "obvious" notwithstanding, there is a lack of RS which describe black supremacy as a racist concept/ideology. That's really all there is to say. The opposing argument is textbook OR. Fyddlestix ( talk) 00:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am looking for neutral third parties and you admit to have been part of this dispute in the past. Thanks. Terrorist96 ( talk) 00:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding another source: "In fact African American racism is a coherent ideology of black supremacy, promoted in Afrocentric courses and institutionally embodied in the Nation of Islam." (page 23) Terrorist96 ( talk) 01:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

First, a book by Dinesh D'Souza is probably only a reliable source for his own views, not for facts. See WP:RSOPINION. Second, the subject of the sentence is "African American racism", not "black supremacy". In this instance, two strikes and you're out. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 02:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC article linked above clearly labels it as racism, and if we are to write Black supremacy or black supremacism is a racial supremacist belief that black people are superior to people of other races, then we are basically calling it racism and should call a spade a spade. If the SPLC is used as a source on Wikipedia for other groups, should be fine to use it here also. It's blatant POV push to wash it away. BBC also discusses SPLC's views [15], Saturnalia0 ( talk) 05:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I wish people would read the archives. Every X months somebody insists we have to say the same as the white supremacy article, it's a false equivalence. Some of these orgs are very odd and sometimes pretty nasty in their beliefs. Most are extremely fringe, sometimes it isn't even clear that they are more than rhetorically supremacist. Visiting editors don't seem to care about any of that, as long as we use the same language for both white and black. Simply find the sources, not ones that say something 'a bit like that', because nobody has yet. Pincrete ( talk) 08:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven’t seen any RS which claim that black supremacy is, in and of itself, a racist ideology. The white supremacy article is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Wikidictionary is not an RS. As an aside, I would avoid using the expression “a spade is a spade” in a discussion involving blacks. Although the expression’s origin is not racial, the word spade has been used as an ethnic slur for 90 years. Just a suggestion. Objective3000 ( talk) 13:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Black supremacy is obviously racist. If there is a lack of reliable sources, that just proves how racist the world is. However, we are not here to right great wrongs. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The picture I'm getting of this topic is that, while we have one source that identifies an obviously racist ideology (the SPLC), we don't have independent secondary sources. Thus we cannot "Call a spade a spade", because no one has really bothered to do that. But this is precisely the domain of the general notability guideline that, in tandem with other policies like WP:PSTS, allows us to enforce this aspect of the neutral point of view: if there aren't independent sources about something, we shouldn't have an article about it. I would point out that WP:FRINGE is also clearly relevant here (far more than it would be for a more well-studied concept like white supremacy). I think that, if anyone wants to keep this article, it should be rewritten to include studies independent of those commissioned by the SPLC, preferably in reliable secondary sources. And no, not the writings of Dinesh D'Souza. Otherwise, I would not oppose deletion. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It actually was sent to AFD about a year ago. Result was "no consensus." Fyddlestix ( talk) 14:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm an inclusionist, but I find racism repugnant. If Wikipedia rules prevents us from calling an obviously racist ideology racist, we are not obligated to have an article about it. If anyone wants to nominate the article for deletion, I'd support it. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

There appeared to be general agreement in the previous AfD that the article at least required a major revamp. But, the article has seen little change in the year since. It appears to be mostly based on work by the SPLC. I have nothing against the SPLC; but don’t like seeing an article mostly based on one primary source. It may be that there simply aren’t other usable sources and that the article isn’t salvageable. I’d support an AfD. Objective3000 ( talk) 18:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I would support redirecting it to black separatism as many people suggested in the previous AfD, since that topic has more coverage. Also note that the closure of the AfD said that if the article isn't revamped within a reasonable amount of time (it's been over a year), then another AfD would be appropriate. Since I initiated this NPOV discussion, I would like someone else to initiate the AfD in the interest of fairness or a perceived WP:POINTY agenda. Terrorist96 ( talk) 18:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be against a redirect. As there is no mention of supremacy in the separatism article; a redirect would suggest equivalence. Objective3000 ( talk) 18:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Black separatists are black supremacists by definition. It's just been white-washed (lol) from the article. NBPP are black separatists, NBPP members also hold black-supremacist religious beliefs, Louis Farrakhan has become infamous for bringing a racist, black supremacist element to the black separatist ideology, etc. Terrorist96 ( talk) 19:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You cannot be as stupid as you sound. You just can't. By definition? What definition is that? —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 19:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That is skirting the line of a racist statement, you're taking the extremist views of the the notoriously antisemitic NBPP and attempting to tar other black groups with them, guilt-by-association style. TheValeyard ( talk) 20:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC article does not say black supremacism is racist. Although it is about black nationalists they call racist it does not say that they are all racist. TFD ( talk) 23:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I suspect gaining consensus on a topic like this will be near impossible in a medium such as WP but still, we must try. In that vein, let's flip the question: (1) If black supremacy is NOT racist, then define it for us; (2) Aside from the obvious, what differentiates black supremacy from white supremacy? Also, we cannot just summarily state that "black supremacy" denotes de facto racism because it shares the word supremacy with "white supremacy". I understand the impulse to do this but regardless, we need to follow the policies re: good and solid sourcing from several respected entities. It may very well be that the term does not enjoy widespread use in current society and if not, then finding source material will be challenging to say the least. airuditious ( talk) 23:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, Kwame Appiah (a widely cited philosopher on racism, although as is often the case with analytic philosophers, someone whose definitions are not widely used) offers this explanation:

'Part of our resistance, therefore, to calling the racial ideas of those, such as the Black Nationalists of the 1960s, who advocate racial solidarity, by the same term that we use to describe the attitudes of Nazis or of members of the South African Nationalist party, surely resides in the fact that they largely did not contemplate using race as a basis for inflicting harm." ("Racisms" in David T. Goldberg, ed., The Anatomy of Racism)

Both legal and social scientific definitions of racism show a concern with effects in defining racism. The UN requires that to be racism, something must have "the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing … human rights and fundamental freedoms." Likewise, social scientific definitions of racism that differentiate between racial prejudice and racism as an institutional system of advantage. (The simplest of these is Prejudice plus power, but there are plenty others.) That is, many analysts have refused to see the person subordinated by race, who hates the race of his/her oppressor and believes in his/her race's superior moral worth, in spite of its present conditions as belonging to the same category as the person who imposes that vision of racial inferiority upon him/her. On "Black Supremacy" in particular, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva writes:

[Racism is] about a social system partially organized around the logic of racial superiority. Thus, if the United States was partially organized around the logic of black supremacy, then I would work hard to understand its coordinates and deconstruct its mythologies. Yet, as I think most whites would admit if they talk honestly about racial matters, this country is not even remotely organized around the logic of black supremacy. What we have in the country at worst is a few black leaders who exhibit defensive prejudice (“You called me ugly. You are the really ugly one!”). But none of these leaders has either the capacity or the desire to develop a social movement to impose such logic on the country." (Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States)

You have this, you have Appiah saying its morally different than racism, you can find James Baldwin calling it a mythology (perhaps "a dangerous myth") to morally encourage people surviving oppression. Now if you want to source all these perspectives and include X says its a racist ideology, that would be great. But NPOV requires attribution and consideration of this diversity of views.-- Carwil ( talk) 15:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Without comment on anything else, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva? A Group of 88 member who refers to the United States as "Amerikkka" and "Gringoland" is hardly the sort of source Wikipedia should be using. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 05:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

While you may disagree with some of Bonilla-Silva's viewpoints and political opinions, he is nonetheless a widely-published academic sociological expert on the topic of race. Your personal disagreement with him does not render his published and peer-reviewed works unreliable. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing the points I've highlighted are mainstream positions in discourse on race in America? Being widely published does not equate to being a reliable source on a matter, and there are indeed reliable sources that take a rather less credulous view of his rantings writings than the above quote, unqualified, would suggest. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 05:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. If there are significant opposing viewpoints, they of course should be cited as well. But your argument for ignoring a full professor at Duke University amounts to "he was one of 88 professors who signed a letter" (in which case I'm sure you're busily arguing that the other 87 are entirely unsuitable sources for Wikipedia as well?) and "he has said two words I've taken out of context." You have clearly stated that you personally disagree with Bonilla-Silva's opinions; you have not stated any grounds for considering his viewpoints and opinions unusable in an encyclopedic context. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict)And I've done your work for you. [16] I really don't care about the broader issue in this discussion, but letting his ramblings on the subject stand unchallenged is a bit much for a place purporting to be neutral. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 05:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, so you've demonstrated that someone has disagreed with Bonilla-Silva, and that would be useful if we're citing Bonilla-Silva anywhere. That still doesn't mean we ignore him or treat his opinions as "ramblings." NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice try at sleight of hand. Yes, other scholarly criticisms of his definition of "race" and "racism" are relevant if, in this discussion, someone is citing his work to prove a certain point about whether black supremacy is racism. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 05:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And as a student of history, I would. Not to automatically disqualify their work, but definitely to take a much closer examination of what they put out. Do read what William Chafe did in that context, it's hard not to be concerned about cavalier use of sources given what happened there. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 05:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't find anywhere in the identifying reliable sources guidelines where policy supports using an anonymous editor's personal opinions about someone signing a letter to determine whether or not that person's opinions are encyclopedically relevant. It seems to me to be an incredibly-thin attempt at guilt by association — "some people criticized the letter/advertisement, therefore everyone who signed it is unreliable." That's not my understanding of how Wikipedia sourcing guidelines work. That Bonilla-Silva signed an open letter related to the Duke lacrosse case which became the subject of some controversy more than a decade ago does not render his academic work questionable or unreliable. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone who signs onto such an obviously factually inaccurate piece of trash as that does, by definition, call their own credibility into question, yes. I didn't say they're "evil and bad" people, I said (and unrepentantly maintain) it calls their scholarship into serious question; a concern which other people in the same field share. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 05:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Academics generally separate editorial and opinion stuff from scholarly stuff. His works on "racism without racists" and similar works still stands as peer-reviewed work. You can't discredit him because of his signing that statement. Within social science, it's a mainstream viewpoint that racism requires power to act upon prejudice. Many would reject the notion that white supremacy and black supremacy are parallel or symmetric as white supremacy was developed to justify chattel slavery whereas black supremacy was developed in response to it, to resist it. Carwil's summary accurately reflects a mainstream social scientific position (e.g. of scholars in this camp are Massey, Denton, Sampson, WJ Wilson, Beth Ritchie, ...) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I can and will, but that doesn't discount anyone else who wrote on the subject. If there are less... polemic sources explaining the concept, that's fine (and I set aside my anedotal experience to say this, lest you think I'm wrapped up in my personal worldview). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 06:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to personally view him as discredited, but your personal opinion of him cannot have any impact on how we treat his works in the encyclopedia. We do not make decisions about sources based upon our personal feelings about them. We make decisions based upon how those sources are treated in the mainstream of other reliable sources and whether those sources meet requirements of peer review, publication by reputable organizations, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 06:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and then after analyzing that we make decisions as to whether they're suitable for inclusion. We don't blindly cite them, we use editorial judgment. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 12:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Currently Steve Bannon reads:"Bannon is supportive of foreign far-right movements, such as the French National Front, the Dutch Party for Freedom, Alternative for Germany, the Freedom Party of Austria, and the UK Independence Party, ^[1]" However, none of these parties are described as 'far-right' in their lead sentences, although *some* have political position "Political position: Right-wing to Far-right". Talk page discussion and edits have focussed on UK Independence Party, which is not described as far-right in wikipedia's voice anywhere in the article (its infobox political position is just'right-wing'. Furthermore, the issue of describing UKIP as 'far-right' has been extensively debated on the talk page, most recently in this RfC /info/en/?search=Talk:UK_Independence_Party/Archive_10#.28Old.29_Request_for_comment where the closing admin noted consensus was clearly against calling it far-right. PeterTheFourth and TheValeyard feel that this longstanding consensus does not matter as the RfC is 3 years old, and this is a different article. Also pinging Emir of Wikipedia NPalgan2 ( talk) 12:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no problem finding reliable sources that clearly refer to these political organizations as "right-wing", they are all mainstream parties with reasonable popular support from moderate right voters. I suspect the disagreement is purely based on the meaning of "far-right". Which in the UK for instance is basically a synonym for "extreme neo-nazi". Clearly the mainstream nature of these organizations means they make every effort to avoid being extreme (or more importantly, seen as extreme) to avoid losing votes. I would recommend "right wing", as an article about Steve Bannon with (possible?) links to white supremacy / KKK groups, risks implying these other organizations are likewise white supremacy / extreme groups by using related wording. However if the sentence was qualified to make it clear they were not comparable to the KKK, and are legitimate mainstream political parties, then I suppose it would be acceptable to refer to them as far-right. The only issue is then to avoid over-complicating the paragraph in explaining this, which leads back to using the more moderate wording. A Guy into Books ( talk) 13:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't think it is WP:SYNTH to use the term far-right to describe the support of Bannon without a reliable source stating so? Bannon supporting those movements could be right-wing or something else such as populist or nationalist. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 13:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This was my initial concern, but the Daily Beast article linked above clearly includes this claim. That part's fine. Without that, this would have been a coatrack and synthesis. -- MASEM ( t) 13:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Masem:, The Daily Beast article linked above clearly includes this claim. Does it? I'm struggling to find it in there. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

"Bannon’s support for European far-right parties runs far deeper than his interest in Marion Maréchal-Le Pen or the National Front. He brags about his international Breitbart operation as “the platform” for the American alt-right, and has for years been thinking globally, with an affinity for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), Alternative for Germany (AfD), and the Party for Freedom Party (PVV) in the Netherlands, all of which have earned glowing coverage on the pages of Breitbart." I might add attribution to the sentence, thinking about it, eg. "According to the Daily Beast, Bannon is supportive...". -- MASEM ( t) 14:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Appreciated. I'm still not seeing a explicit statement that UKIP is factually "far right". I will allow that there is an implication of such, but that it not sufficient (per WP:V and WP:SYNTH) for us to make a direct statement. I do concur that the Daily Beast requires attribution; it is an analysis piece, and these are not a simple statements of undisputed fact. I will go further and suggest that any such attribution needs to be for both the "Bannon is supportive of ..." and for any implication that UKIP is "far right". I also note that this is a passing mention of UKIP, which is not the main subject of the article (which intersects with WP:RSCONTEXT, further impacting potential reliability for statements of fact); and that (per WP:DUE), with alternative viewpoints available (particularly the description of "right wing" only), we need to examine the prominence of the "far right" viewpoint in reliable sources. With the sourcing provided thus far, it seems to be solidly a minority viewpoint at best. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree they aren't making a clear factual statement, but the tone and approach makes you want to take their words that "far-right" applies to UKIP + others. Hence why I think attribution is needed. I definitely wouldn't use that source alone to factually claim the UKIP was far-right. As to what other sources exist, I don't know but would agree more would be helpful. A spot check ("bannon europe ukip far-right") shows some possible RSes to support this but haven't gone into detail. -- MASEM ( t) 14:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe that to define all those parties as far-right would need more than one RS, in general usage, UKIP is right-wing, a Gsearch for "UKIP far-right" (with or without quotes), shows that UKIP and the Far-Right are considered separate in most reliable sources. Also i see no proposals which deal with my initial concerns. A Guy into Books ( talk) 14:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Repinging PeterTheFourth and TheValeyard, please engage. NPalgan2 ( talk) 01:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you want that I haven't stated on the article talk page? You've nothing new to say that I haven't responded to there. Go yell 'debate me' on your local street corner if you feel the urge for attention. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 03:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

This issue affects >2000 articles mostly in Category:Cornwall and sub-categories.

I need assistance from an uninvolved person (someone who does not live in England, or Cornwall, preferably a non-British person) in a seemingly endless war over how Cornwall should be described in article lede sections. basically there are two options each prefered by a different group.

• Option 1. Cornwall, England, United Kingdom.
• Option 2. Cornwall, United Kingdom.

A brief history is as follows: In 2006 a consensus, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, was reached to use Option 1. at the time there was no external official guidance either way on the subject. A group of Wikipedians have religiously reverted all attempts to write any variations since. However in 2014 [ [17]] the UK government offically recognised Cornwall as a distinct region, in line with Option 2, which was previously dissmissed due to systematic bias against what have been generally reffered to as 'Cornish Nationalists'. I have actually explained this elsewhere, Exhibit C1, Exhibit D2.
Aguyintobooks ( talk 19:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "Bretagne sur Camel, France"? Blueboar ( talk) 21:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 According to Countries of the United Kingdom, Cornwall is not a country of the UK. England is a country of the UK. Scotland is a country of the UK. Wales is a country of the UK. What country would Cornwall be in if not England? County, Country, Nation is the normal way of describing a place in the UK, correct? It does come off as a pro-nationalist agenda. Wikipedia is not for activism. —DIYeditor ( talk) 05:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@ DIYeditor: The general issue is that 'County, Country, Nation' is not the normal usage in other countries. the normal way used to describe a place, in Devon for instance, is just <place>, <county>, England, for almost everywhere else in the world, <place>, <sovereign state>. The problem is not that Cornwall is a Country (which it definitely is not, the nationalist agenda is irrelevant), the issue is whether it should be described as being in England or the United Kingdom, or both, in every place lede. This is not covered by WP:UKPLACE which only covers the title. A Guy into Books ( talk) 07:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Aguyintobooks: It seems more like the options are "Cornwall, England", plain "Cornwall", and making a special case for Cornwall out of all the counties of the UK to be "Cornwall, United Kingdom". It's inappropriate for an article to just give Cornwall as its location as, for example, Bespoke Music does, as that is not a widely recognizable locale, unlike England, Wales or Scotland. How exactly (in what terms) did the UK government recognize Cornwall as distinct from England? —DIYeditor ( talk) 18:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

They (or to be precise the EU, then the government) simply recognised the Cornish people as "having a national identity equal to that of the Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish peoples". The government doesn't recognise England as a nation anyway, so the issue didn't extend beyond a Cornwall --> United Kingdom issue. All that actually then happened was some devolution to Cornwall Council (beyond that of most countries) and the EU granted some funding (Cornwall gets around 40% more EU funding that most counties. (yes they voted brexit anyway). Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  18:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Aguyintobooks: Sounds pretty vague. Are you saying that Unitary authorities of England is wrong? Is there anything binding on UK law that invalidates the table in Local Government Commission for England (1992)? Does the Local Government Boundary Commission for England not recognize Cornwall as part of England? —DIYeditor ( talk) 19:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Point of clarification needed here. The UK government does not, and never has, "recognised Cornwall as a distinct region". It certainly recognises the Cornish people as a distinct minority group ( [18]), but that is by no means the same thing as recognising the geographical area of Cornwall as a distinct region. Administratively within the UK, Cornwall is treated as part of South West England, one of the nine official regions of England. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 19:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Officially those 9 regions are the largest subdivision below UK level. The point is that England and Cornwall as regions have exactly the same amount of Government recognition - none. Hence the difficulty. Various calls for English devolution and an English parliament are constantly rejected. Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  19:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That's something of a red herring in this context. England is fully recognised in official government documents as one of the four nations within the UK, with its own distinctive legislative and administrative arrangements ( one example, another). Specifically, it now has a Legislative Grand Committee within the UK Parliament to discuss matters pertaining to the whole of England, including Cornwall. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 19:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: As the existing consensus was reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, the place to re-examine that consensus should surely have been there, not here. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Options #1 & #2: Both options are acceptable. Cornwall is within the constituent country England, which is within the country United Kingdom. GoodDay ( talk) 19:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Either is acceptable. The key point is that there is no excuse for any editor to change one to the other, and certainly no excuse for edit-warring to maintain a preferred style. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Agreeing with the above that a) this noticeboard might not be the best place for such a discussion (it will attract neutral opinion but as the interested parties haven't been reached any outcome isn't going to have much weight) and b) this is not something worth changing in existing articles. Still, I'm venturing to throw in my 2p (bearing in mind that there's usually no need to link commonly known words):
  • Cornwall, United Kingdom. This is is a bit confusing: I'm used to seeing something along the lines of Devon, England. Omitting England and including UK could confuse readers, or wrongly imply that Cornwall is a country on par with England or Wales.
  • Cornwall, England, United Kingdom. This is redundant: unlike say Wales, the entity of England is more widely known and easily recognised than the entity of the UK, so there's no need to list the UK.
  • Cornwall, England. This seems like the most sensible solution, but this does seem to get into an area that's sensible for some people. Are they a minority? Probably, but they're also disproportionately more likely to be the ones who care enough to write about Cornwall topics, but that's a systemic bias that it's really difficult to work around. – Uanfala 20:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a dispute between User:Kautilya3 and myself. Kautilya3 has done lots of commendable work on the article Doklam, which was the site of the 2017 China–India border standoff. I've not edited either article, but I feel that both have been edited in a way that heavily relies on scholars and media of India, a country directly involved in the dispute. I was also alarmed when Kautilya3 claimed that the renowned scholars Neville Maxwell and Alastair Lamb were biased, while the Indian scholar Parshotam Mehra was "disinterested" (see Talk:Doklam#Neville Maxwell fact check and Talk:Sino-Indian War#W. H. Johnson). Kautilya3 then brought the discussion to my talk page (see User talk:Zanhe#Nationality-based arguments), but we could not reach an agreement.

In summary, my position is that

• A. Sources from a country directly involved in a conflict should be presumed to be non-neutral unless proven otherwise; they should be avoided if there are reliables alternatives from neutral countries (Western scholarship in this case). Or if truly unavoidable, they should be attributed per WP:Biased.

Kautilya3's position is that

• B. A source's nationality/country of origin is irrelevant, even if the country is directly involved in a dispute. WP:BIASED says "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs". Nationality is not mentioned.

Which position do you agree with, A or B? - Zanhe ( talk) 22:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it will help to actually specify the sources:

• Maxwell, Neville (1970), India's China War, Pantheon Books, ISBN  978-0-394-47051-1
• Mehra, Parshotam (1992), An "agreed" frontier: Ladakh and India's northernmost borders, 1846-1947, Oxford University Press

-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with B. Provided that the reporting by the source has not been questioned by other reliable sources or that the source has been described by RS as untrustworthy on a particular issue. 23:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans ( talk • contribs)
• A - Because I cannot imagine Kashmir conflict relying overwhelmingly on Pakistani (or Indian) scholarship, Tibet on Chinese academics, State of Palestine on Israeli (or Arab) scholarship, or Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on Russian publications, and remaining neutral. It's not possible to individually prove each source's inherent bias. - Zanhe ( talk) 23:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• We don't ascribe biases to scholars based on their nationality unless reliable sources do so. -- regentspark ( comment) 00:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality is a requirement of Wikipedia articles, not sources. What matters is reliability. You have to determine the relative weight given to different views expressed in reliable sources and ensure that weight is reflected in the article. And don't assume that academics always back their country's official policies. TFD ( talk) 00:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• The nationality of the author or publication does not determine reliability. Obviously, if the source is a mouthpiece (i.e., state-controlled media), or otherwise has a poor reputation, it is not reliable. But that's different from saying "All sources from country X are unreliable for conflicts involving X." I don't accept that at all.

I agree with regentspark that "We don't ascribe biases to scholars based on their nationality unless reliable sources do so." If there is a difference of opinion along national lines, and that's in the sources (e.g., a scholarly work says "On topic X, Chinese writers have tended to say Y, but Japanese sources have tended to say Z") we can say so. But that's altogether different from a crude method of determining reliability based simply on nationality. Neutrality ^talk 02:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• C, as long as we attribute it fine, but it should not be used for facts. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• C - while a non-independent, biased source may not be neutral, it can often be used (with attribution) to explain the views of one of the participants in the dispute. Our sources don't necessarily need to maintain neutrality - we (Wikipedia' editors) need to maintain neutrality in discussing what the biased sources have to say. Blueboar ( talk) 19:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

* C is essentially A. Choice C made by Slatersteven and Blueboar essentially has same meaning as A except that it allows opinion of one of the participants in the dispute be presented with source clearly attributed. For the purpose of Wikipedia, it is essential for its article to describe clearly the position of each opposing participant in the dispute (though biased), and not to take sides, because it says at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view that Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias, Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them, Avoid stating opinions as facts, Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts etc. If an Wikipedia article is not able to do this equitably, then it loses its reason of existence. 198.137.20.22 ( talk) 20:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Did I say only one side should be treated in this way? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• C per Slatersteven and Blueboar. If this passes WP:WEIGHT, then it could be used with attribution. - Location ( talk) 22:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Both A and B are somewhat wrong. TFD, Neutrality and slatersteven all made good points. Wrong with A: Unless we are talking about government or plainly political sources I don't see how the nationality of a source directly determines its reliability in this circumstance. Wrong with B: "Nationalist" should probably be added to the list of beliefs that are common sources of bias. Wrong with both: If a source has a bias (don't all sources have some bias?) it just needs to be weighted and balanced, and perhaps attributed in text. —DIYeditor ( talk) 17:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• It depends. Sometimes 3rd country sources are clueless and shallow. Othertimes you have bias and taking sides also in 3rd country sources (either per author's bias, or a systemic bias - e.g. Western sources are anti-Russian in regards to Ukraine (which essentially flipped out of the Russian sphere)). It is best to represent the views of all involved in the conflict, and sometimes it is better to rely on in country sources from both sides. The author being in a 3rd country does not mean no bias. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion moved to WP:RSNB. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The 1970 shooting deaths of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark in Chicago were originally ruled "justifiable homicide" by a coroner's jury; however, a lengthy lawsuit by their relatives was settled for a sizeable amount of money by the federal, state, and city governments. AFAIK, there was no admission of wrong-doing. I have added cited material indicating that the circumstances surrounding their deaths is controversial and that some people believe (with some justification, IMHO) that they were deliberately/intentionally killed (i.e. murdered or assassinated) by law enforcement. Given that the terms "murder" and "assassination" are used frequently in those articles without attribution, I have {{POV}} tagged both articles. Given that there have been similar shootings and similar public responses in more recent history, I am hoping someone with experiencing editing those types of articles might want to take a look at these two. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 05:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience editing this kind of article, but I would definitely say "killed" if there is any uncertainty about wether this was justifiable homicide or not, as "assassinated" implies a premeditated action or "hit job" and "murder" is a legal term for a non-justifiable homicide. Tornado chaser ( talk) 13:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You'd need iron-clad sourcing for "assassinated" (which is murder + then some). You could say BPP activists claim this (while stating a coroner, mainstream, etc. refuted this). Icewhiz ( talk) 14:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the words "murder(ed)" and "assassinat(ion/ed)" in all cases except for direct quotes, book titles, and references to legal charges of murder. I also removed the POV tag from 1 of the articles. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed the categories in that article that state the same thing. - Location ( talk) 19:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Assassination isn't murder if it's justified. But killing isn't assassination if it just happens to happen. The latter contentious point is why Wikipedia's voice should say "killed". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The articles, esp. Fred Hampton, could use more eyes. The claim that Hampton was assassinated is reiterated in the echo chamber of many books that are sympathetic to the Black Panthers and/or others that address the abuses by the FBI in COINTELPRO. - Location ( talk) 16:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I am watching these articles, could you specify what the issue is? Tornado chaser ( talk) 17:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Tornado chaser: Just the same ongoing issues involving a slow moving edit war. Thanks for monitoring it. - Location ( talk) 01:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking for the opinions of uninvolved editors in this dispute. In short, I have proposed this addition, which was reverted on the basis of undue weight. I have thus questioned the due weight of other similarly sourced content in the article, as discussed in the aforementioned talk page. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 03:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not finding good sources for "subhuman" and only one for her description of Trudeau as a white supremacist terrorist [19] but I find several for "Plz Allah..." including CBC [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Was removal of that controversy specifically addressed in the discussion? James J. Lambden ( talk) 04:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition to repeated discussions at Talk:Black Lives Matter (some of which have been archived), which the complainant chooses not to hear, there was a discussion six months ago about this subject at RSN: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 222#Black Lives Matter. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 04:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The RSN posting was malformed and closed with "Not answerable as posted." I see one talk page discussion re "Allah" but little in the way of policy-based arguments. The coverage is reasonable and not limited to right-leaning sites (e.g. the CBC.) What is your argument for excluding it? James J. Lambden ( talk) 04:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

( Personal attack removed) but I think you're right for once, James. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 11:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, James J. Lambden, but you're just wrong. This is the most recent discussion on the talk page, started last month. This is a previous discussion, conducted between June and August. This is a preceding discussion, conducted in April. This is a preceding discussion, conducted during February and March. Despite being a math major in college, I count four discussions at Talk:Black Lives Matter, plus one at RS/N. The fact is, this has been discussed practically non-stop since the beginning of the year. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 02:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz: I asked specifically about the "Allah" comment sourced to the CBC among others. Of the 4 links you provided 3 don't address it at all and the 4th, the current talk page discussion, only addresses it indirectly with objections to "weight." As the "Allah" comment has more coverage than many statements currently included (or example Bars4Justice, the condemnation of Christie's criticism, the assault of a BLM activist in Birmingham, Goldberg's criticism of "All Lives Matter", the Essence magazine cover, etc.) the objection to "weight" is not persuasive. James J. Lambden ( talk) 05:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care if you asked about the queen of England. This matter has been discussed to death. The fact that the right-wing blogosphere is in a lather about a person doesn't make her or her ancient tweets sufficiently important to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 22:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if your argument is that it's been discussed to death it should be trivial to link to those discussions. Thus far you've provided as evidence multiple conversations where it was not discussed. Left-leaning CBC is not part of the "right-wing blogosphere" and this discussion is not furthered by misrepresentation. James J. Lambden ( talk) 04:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment The article doesn't mention the views of any other chapter co-founder, nor does it quote several far more notable BLM organizers. It's misleading to give more emphasis to the views of this person (a co-founder of a chapter) than we give to someone like Opal Tometi (a movement founder). I think Saturnalia has more or less acknowledged that some of these statements could be seen as contradictory to the stated goals of BLM, but that's precisely why it's misleading to place outsize focus on this person. If the goal is to include a criticism of BLM, I'm all for it, but the best way to do that is by citing a notable critique from a notable critic. Not by cherry-picking statements to imply that BLM is racist without stating it directly. Aside from the due weight issues, the proposed revision uses weasel words and there are sourcing and relevance issues for the "sub-human" stuff. Nblund ^talk 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit I must have missed this, but the "allah" and "sub-human" quotes both come from Khogali's personal social media accounts, they weren't made in relation to a BLM event, or in any sort of "official" capacity as a BLM organizer. It's really a major stretch to insist that months old statements from the Twitter account of one organizer are helpful for understanding BLM Toronto. FWIW, the "White supremacist terrorist" quote was a comment made at a BLM protest, so it is more plausibly relevant. Nblund ^talk 17:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If other co-chapter founders' comments aren't covered it's because RS haven't found them worthy. Picking one founder or one comment is not cherry-picking when RS do the picking.

The relevance of personal vs professional twitter, the notability of critics (which is relevant when the publication is non-notable, not the case here), etc. are irrelevant to discussions of weight. Weight is determined by coverage, which appears sufficient. James J. Lambden ( talk) 18:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

As you wrote, Saturnalia0 has asserted that the comments are at odds with the stated goals of BLM, but that only indicates he hasn't the foggiest notion what those goals are. They do not include holding hands and singing Kumbaya and pretending that racism is a thing of the past—they are concerned with ending police violence against black people, empowering black people, and ending police violence against black people. And no, that wasn't a mistake. For gods sake, the name of the group is Black Lives Matter, not the Coalition for Equal Rights. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 22:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If this comment was in response to mine I did not address what Saturnalia0 wrote and I'm not interested in his or anyone's notions about BLM. My point is straightforward: something happened which relates to BLM according to multiple RS. It was covered in multiple RS. It should be included in our article because it was covered in multiple RS. James J. Lambden ( talk) 04:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@ James J. Lambden:: I think you misread me. I said the movement founders aren't covered in the entry. You can find lots of discussion of Opal Tometi's views on the goals of BLM in reliable sources ( ex), the same is true of Alicia Garza and DeRay McKesson.

Also: it sounds like you're suggesting that relevance doesn't matter for due weight. That would be a tortured interpretation, at best. A widely covered fact can still be undue if you try to place it where it is only tangentially relevant to the topic. Tom Brady's views on Trump would be fine on his entry, but probably WP:UNDUE for the entry on the New England Patriots. Nblund ^talk 02:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No, as I said in my reply to Malik: relevance matters and relevance is determined by RS. If Tometi's views are widely covered in the context of BLM we should include them. If he has his own article they're most appropriate there, if not, here.

The arguments and requirements for inclusion for this particular piece of information seem arbitrary. I suspect if the head of an NRA chapter said something along the lines of "Please Jesus give me the strength not to kill black people" and it were well covered in RS the debate would be how prominently to include it in the lede rather than whether we include it at all. Incidentally I've found another source for the Trudeau/White Supremacist comment [25] James J. Lambden ( talk) 04:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Tometi's views are widely covered in the context of BLM, she is considered to be one of the founders of the movement. Khogali isn't mentioned as an important founder or leader or BLM, she isn't really discussed at all outside of the context of these two comments. None of these sources suggest that her views are representative of BLM or even of BLM Toronto. She's indisputably less important for BLM than Tometi.

The NRA page is a great example: Ted Nugent is a member of the NRA national board. He once called Obama a "subhuman mongrel" and came close enough to threatening to kill him that he earned a visit from the secret service. ( source). The latter statements were made at an NRA rally. None of it is mentioned on the NRA page, are you saying that they should be there? Nblund ^talk 13:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I was going to make a point on this, but Nblund's captured what I think is important. It would be one thing if the comments came from the top-most leadership of the organization, the ones that are driving its goals for the entire body, but that's not the case here. It is putting undue weight on one member who does not speak for the entire organization. -- MASEM ( t) 14:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The non-stop whining by right-winger editors about how the big bad left-wingers won't let them write what they want about Yusra Khogali's irrelevant comments has blinded them to a suggestion I made more than six months ago: write about the Toronto BLM group, which has created conflict (unnecessary conflict, I dare say) with Black Torontonians, Canadian Pride, and the Toronto police. That conflict has had much wider coverage than anything Khogali ever said. But it's easier to cry incessantly about being a victim than actually, you know, writing encyclopedic content about something relatively important. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 03:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The text was poorly written. When you say someone was criticized you need to say who criticized them per WP:WEASEL. Furthermore you need to explain why the person said that and what the criticism was. And do they represent BLM?

Rather than flooding the article with isolated incidents, it would be better to use serious analytic sources that explain the movement.

TFD ( talk) 03:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Appears to be cherry-picking one local organizer's controversial opinions and using them to tar all of BLM, so, yes, Undue weight. It'd be like taking Jemele Hill's tweets and claiming ESPN proposes a president-is-a-white-supremacist-agenda. TheValeyard ( talk) 01:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

In my view the article Plimpton 322 is not neutral. Editors refuse to mention a recent article in Historia Mathematica by Mansfield and Wilderberger which claims that the tablet is a trigonometrical table. This is an extremely prestigiuous journal on the History of Mathematics and the interpretation of the tablet which dominates the article, put forward by Eleanor Robson, first appeared in this journal. The only people interested in editing this article until recently were those who accepted Robson's interpretation and do not welcome this different interpretation, which is a revival of earlier interpretations. Since Mansfield and Wildberger's the article appeared in Historia Mathematica a month ago there has been a huge increase in traffic to the page and some people have expressed their surprise on the talk page that it is not mentioned and their view that it should be mentioned but they have not stuck around long enough to be involved in discussion. That may explain why I am in a minority of one. I think any neutral person would agree that Mansfield and Wildberger's article should be mentioned, but ensuring that it is is difficult. I do not fully agree with wikipedia's fringe policy but there is nothing fringe about this, it appears in a prestigious academic journal. It's a matter of concern that there is a backlog of editors to deal with this, it undermines the reputation of wikipedia. If you need more information please contact me on my talk page. 9and50swans ( talk) 21:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• For context, the article is Plimpton 322. This is the fourth place for Swans to WP:FORUMSHOP this dispute, after getting nowhere on the article talk page, an RFC on the article talk page, and WP:ANI. The core of the dispute is that Swans thinks we should add the reference merely because it was published in a "prestigious journal" and got some media hype, but without identifying any actual article content (either present now or to be added) that would be validly sourced by the reference. (Also note that one of the other contributors at the article talk is an author of the journal paper, and I suspect that an earlier IP contributor might be that same author. However, I have no reason to suspect any connection between these COI contributors and Swans.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I got nowhere on the talk age for reasons mentioned above, but at least one established wiki editor Jimmaths, who can hardly be suspected of being a sock, agreed with me. Nobody responded to the RTC. fter being accused of bludgeoning by Eppstein I followed advice and sught to consult an adminsitrator, the only substantive response was that of EEng, whose 'humorous' approach seems quite out of place here. Eppstein has now conceded, (Plimpton 322 talk 22:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC) 9and50swans ( talk) 04:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)), that Historia Mathematica is the leading journal for the history of maths, I cannot think of a better criterion for mentioning Mansfield and Wildberger's artiocle than the fact that it appeared here. Clearly the editor and referees thought it had something worthwhile to say. I have a plane to catch and may not be able to contribute further until the end of the week. 9and50swans ( talk) 04:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• What David Eppstein said. Someday 9and50swans will actually say what he wants added to the article that will be cited to this paper. E Eng 23:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I have answered EEng's question on Plimpton 322 talk at 03.57 19 September 9and50swans ( talk) 04:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Your answer there consists of inferences drawn from the existence of the paper, none of which can be sourced to the paper itself (see WP:SYN). But I suppose it's a step closer to sanity than "we should cite it because it's famous". — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There's an RFC about whether Wikipedia should mention anywhere that the potential firing of FBI Director Comey was publicly discussed by both Democratic and Republican politicians before Trump fired him. Exclusion or inclusion of this content may affect the BLP's neutrality. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A controversy has erupted at Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Hitler clearly stated he was a "Positive Christian". Most scholars disagree, but a few argue that he certainly was indeed a Christian, albeit a very bad one. The longstanding lede at the article states that Hitler's religious views have been a matter of debate. Some editors are trying to remove any mention of the minority viewpoint. More eyes needed, please? JerryRussell ( talk) 22:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've edited the title of this thread to conform to WP:CANVASS and so as not to provoke a seething mindless rage in editors like myself who agree with the scholarly consensus that Hitler was irreligious. <goes home to change out of his ripped-up purple pants> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The article List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America has a series of TALK posts, R FC, and tries to tag for POV attention around the use of an editor-created image based on data in a of Southern Poverty Law Center publication. Suggestions to address concerns or otherwise move towards consensus are requested at Talk:List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Neutrality_tag_on_Image. Markbassett ( talk) 04:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There's been an ongoing problem in Seattle mayoral election, 2017 of editors deleting short summaries of the major political positions or goals of the candidates in the primary. This is a relatively small part of the article's text, due to be even smaller once the general election coverage is written. I don't think any strong arguments have been presented that an article that doesn't have any information about the Republican candidates can be considered neutral.

Details

There were 6 well known candidates in the primary, 5 Democrats and 1 somewhat further left People's Party candidate. There were 15 lesser known names in the primary, given little chance of winning. This comprised all the Republicans. Most of the article gives details about the intra-party battles between the Democrats prior to the election, such as whether or not they would endorse the embattled incumbent, or whether various favorites would run. Other sections give details of every single endorsement of the 6 leading candidates. The only thing the article has to say about the 15 Republicans (or right-leaning non-Republicans in one or two cases) is a few words about their agendas. Several different editors have deleted this entirely. Some examples: [26] [27] [28]

The justification given is mainly that lots of other election articles don't follow this format, which is not an argument. The article is either neutral or it isn't. Sacrificing neutrality just to look alike with other articles is not justifiable. This is particularly true when none of these "models" being held up as examples are Featured Articles or even Good Articles.

It makes sense to devote most of the article's space to the candidates who are likely to win, and whose interactions have the most influence on the outcome. The minor candidates were not nothing however. The only reason we know what their positions are is that mainstream reliable sources covered them. If our best sources cover it, then we should take the hint. It's not merely fringe. They also received about 10% of the primary vote, which is small but it's not a rounding error. In the general elections in 2012, 40% of Seattle voted Republican, and in 2016, 20%.

This is a large enough minority that we cannot simply write them off; they are one the two major US parties. Erasing them in this way has a blatantly biased appearance, particularly for those who aren't familiar with the local politics. There are many options for reformatting this article and presenting the material in different ways, but none of those have been proposed, other than nuking any mention of the political positions at all. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Dennis Bratland is continuing to invent motivations for moving or removing text from a spot in which it does not belong. I can't speak for other editors, but my motivation for cleaning up the aforementioned text has nothing to do with partisan affiliation. Political positions do not belong in a candidate summary. Summaries are for brief descriptions of who a candidate is, not what they believe. Every time I have tried to edit this I have tried to compromise with Dennis Bratland but he is apparently committed to a maximalist agenda where if something is not exactly as he has ordained, it's not neutral. This is insane. I will attempt one last compromise position that preserves everything Bratland wants, but in a spot where it belongs, and not where it doesn't. If this is unacceptable to Bratland then you know he is only committed to preserving his fiefdom. Nevermore27 ( talk) 00:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• I would argue that given that it was an open primary (anyone meeting the base requirements could throw their hat into the ring), it is not necessary to list out any political position of the primary candidates; the endorsements at primary are reasonable (and those outside the 6 that didn't get any endorsements, well - they didn't get any endorsements). Otherwise listing all the candidates is fine. I would expect now that it's down to a two-person race, that their respective positions be given in short summary (it's only city mayoral-ship, not the president of the US).
• Also to add that given that Seattle is well-established to be broadly Democratic, with no realistic chance of a Republican winning, that the issues between the Democratic candidates are going to get much much more coverage in local sources, thus it is appropriate per WP:WEIGHT to have that party in-fighting as a focus, and simply otherwise list out the other non-Democratic ones. -- MASEM ( t) 00:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting this information entirely gives far less weight to these candidates then our sources do. The point of the undue weight policy is not to expunge all minority views. It is to put them in proportion. What proportion? How about approximately as much coverage as our sources? The vast majority of the article is about the Democrats, as it should be. All I'm asking for is a small sliver of the article to shine a little light on the minor candidates. WP:FRINGE is a policy that says we exclude wacko ideas -- flat earthers -- but this is no such thing. WP:WEIGHT says we give proportionate coverage. That's all I'm asking for. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• So if having too much information about the 15 minor candidates is a problem somehow, how does this fix anything? Instead of having a list of 21 names once, with some information to the right of the name, now we have a list with a big empty white space next to them. Then the entire list of 21 names again, but with their agenda. Same information. Twice as much article space. What does that do for us? It appears to actually emphasize the importance of the minor candidates positions, by devoting a whole subsection to it. It makes no sense.

  Having this spread across two sections is bizarre, but if it means we agree that neutrality requires giving some brief space describing what the minor candidates' agendas and positions are, then we're good here. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• If you're going to be an absolutist about including the information, and I'm going to be an absolutist about propriety of placement of information, this is the only compromise that's going to work. Nevermore27 ( talk) 05:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• One Belt One Road Initiative (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Liuchen1971 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article needs both copyvio cleanup (see talkpage) and POV cleanup. There are too many citations to primary Chinese Government sources including gov.cn and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (note that many media are also government controlled, especially including China Daily, cited several times). The editor named above has repeatedly reverted and re-added contested material. More eyes are needed here. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I have closed the stagnant discussion about the use of the term "illegal alien" in articles thus:

"There is a rough consensus to oppose a blanket ban on using the term "illegal alien" outside direct quotations. Supporters of this ban commented on the derogatory nature of this term, some prominent publications that banned this term in their house style, and compared to other historical terms that are deemed socially unacceptable in today's English-speaking world. However, opponents of this ban commented that "illegal alien" is accurate legal terminology, it is not inherently more derogatory than the available alternatives, and the difficulty of enforcing such a blanket ban. Overall there is a rough consensus not to enact such a ban. Editors are reminded to refer to reliable sources when they describe a person as an "illegal alien". Deryck C. 12:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

See permalink to archived discussion. Deryck C. 12:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is in need of some extra eyes, we have one editor who says this version is neutral, and myself who believes it is not and rewrote it to this, which I believe is neutral, I would appreciate some uninvolved editors taking a look and giving an opinion. Darkness Shines ( talk) 14:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Just looking at the lead your version is more neutral, I think it could be worded better, but is good NPOV-wise. Tornado chaser ( talk) 01:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Darkness Shines:. Tornado chaser ( talk) 01:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Tornado chaser: thanks, could you take a moment to mention that on the RFC here please. Darkness Shines ( talk) 01:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Darkness Shines: I had already commented on the RfC, opposing the statment that they are "anti-government" in wiki's voice, but that is only a small part of the neutrality issues in the previous version. Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries, hopefully a few others will chime in here, thanks for your input Darkness Shines ( talk) 02:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to the current version, which I call to your attention. The Proud Boys should not be called a "white supremacist" group. They are very clear on this and have at least 1 prominent black member. Their stance is unappolagetic chauvinism with respect to Western Culture as opposed to cultural relativism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 ( talk) 17:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead section is biased. The article is about the group itself. The the counter prostesting, while notable, doesnt belong in the lead. It should be under its own section titled : Reception or Criticism. I think that in its current version there is conflicting information and seems to be written to suit a narrative. It reads : "Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right,[25] a charge Gibson denies.[26]" This is written as a statement of fact. WP:NPOV In source #25 the source article states that "Patriot Prayer is considered to be connected with the alt-right and other far-right groups, but the group insists its message is unity and freedom of speech." The source article is not quoting anyone saying that they are connected nor does it offer any evidence supporting it. This seems like editorial speculation/oppinion on the part of the source. This same statement is the used as a qualifier in the overview section denoting that "According to the BBC, the group is "considered to be connected with the alt-right". wp:npov If the group is affiliated with the alt-right. We should be able to find another source for this. The overview section of the group should list the goals and notable achievements of the group and outline history. It is not a section for news reports or criticism. I think the lead in this version is less biased and more informative about the group rather than the new coverage of the group. It would still need some changes made to it as well. Fusion2186 ( talk) 18:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the BBC, it is a reliable source per our policies, it is also attributed to them, not stated as fact, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If sources describe this group as "right-wing" and we have other sources describing them as 'conservative' is it NPOV to state in Wikipedia's vouce that they are a 'right-wing' group in the opening line of the lede? I had changed right-wing to conservative as the group founder Joe Gibson, self identifies as conservative-libretarian, this has been challenged and the discussion is going in circles. Darkness Shines ( talk) 14:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Conservative & Right wing are not completely synonymous. 'Conservative' is right-wing only in so far as its right of center. Likewise 'Socialist' is left of center but not necessarily left-wing. Joe Gibson is so conservative he is definitely in the right-wing area of the spectrum, rather than just being 'conservative'. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If Gibson denies it, then it should probably be attributed, but calling himself conservative isn't really a denial of being right wing, as right wing really means "very conservative". Tornado chaser ( talk) 23:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

We need more eyes on Dana Rohrabacher. There appears to be an organized effort to influence the upcoming election, in which the Democrats believe they have a good change of unseating him. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a strange claim to make. You sure you not exaggerating?  Volunteer Marek  06:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure. I could be wrong, of course. I am not in his district but I am close. In previous years he has had a safe seat with no plausible challengers, but this time it appears that he will be looking at a tough race. And in an amazing coincidence, Harley Rouda, a Democrat running against him,has asked the FBI to probe the Republican congressman’s "political and financial ties to Russia", Seth Myers has started skewering him on late-night TV, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched a website accusing him of being "Putin’s favorite congressman". I am no Rohrabacher fan, but the sudden influx of negative material in his BLP seems quite suspicious. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I meant the "organized effort" part.  Volunteer Marek  07:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It was sort of looking like that yesterday, but I see that you just reverted an edit (good call, BTW) by an IP that looks like it was designed to but Rohrabacher in a good light. Now it is starting to look like maybe the publicity from being mentioned by Seth Myers is attracting POV pushers from both sides. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Remember that our job is to remain neutral. Yes, we should watch out for biased editing... but that applies to attempts to skew the article Negatively as well as Positively. Not saying you guys are being non-neutral... just making a general comment. Blueboar ( talk) 19:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2 editors are making repeated major changes, it apperes that they are basically rewriting the article, some of these edits have had a promotional tone. I have changed the POV parts, but so much is being changed that I can't thoroughly analyze every edit, I would rather not discuss the article on this noticeboard (that's what the talk page is for) but it would be good to have a few more neutral eyes on this page. Tornado chaser ( talk) 13:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

HI Tornado Chaser: I am one of the people making an effort to update this page. This is the second page that I have worked on, so I think there are a few things that I don't yet understand. I thought that I sent you a message on your talk page (maybe I didn't do it correctly) as I could see that you were working on the page too and I was in hopes that you could help me better understand the NPOV "rule". I have read the section several times, but am still not clear on how to deal with a situation where the person one is writing about has made certain statements in articles they have written and those statements are also made on the page. How do you cite them if you don't cite the article that they wrote - is it necessary to find another citation where someone else heard them say it and cite that article. Or, is it better to list the articles in the "selected articles" section of the page. Or is it better to just leave it out entirely. Would appreciate your guidance if you have the time. I do apologize if this shouldn't be on this page, but I was not successful reaching you through your talk page. Thank you Giraffe46 ( talk) 02:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the article, Vellalar lacks in neutrality and is to some extend biased. I think this version ^[1], is of more neutrality with better citations. A third opinion would be appreciated. Also see Talk: Vellalar, many dissagreements from various users on same thing still not resolved i.e. Velir part of the article. Xenani ( talk) 23:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The Dismissal_of_James_Comey#Scholars section on Dismissal of James Comey contains a quote from Jack Goldsmith, a former legal adviser to the Bush Administration and a Harvard Law Professor. A couple of editors have raised concerns that the quote from Goldsmith is WP:UNDUE arguing that, because this is a primary source for Goldsmith's opinion, we should only cite it if it is mentioned in a secondary source that demonstrates its notability. Should it be removed? Replaced with a different quote? Or left as is? Note: this question was also posted at OR noticeboard, but the conversation hasn't gained much traction. So I'm posting it here hoping to get additional feedback. The original talk page discussion here. Nblund ^talk 17:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Given that there are a probably hundreds if not thousands of opinions published (both by RSes and through SPS) over the matter, the best metric for inclusion would be if reliable secondary sources noted the opinion for its inclusion. If that is not the case, the next best metric would be if that person was normally routinely used to discuss equivalent political matters as to establish their expertise in the area, and secondary sources just happened to not mention the academic this time around. This would be equivalent, for example, of using opinions stated by the Southern Poverty Law Center regarding an incident involving hate crimes, as they are routinely quoted and referred to in this area, even if they are one of hundreds of opinions. (Or a less controversal area, it is why in films we take Roger Ebert's reviews, regardless if they are noted further or not, as a key inclusion for film reviews, he's a noted expert in the area).

If neither of those exist, then its very much leaning in the direction of both UNDUE and OR to include, because then what is to stop any other hundreds of opinions, even just those limited to what RS publish, from being included? -- MASEM ( t) 17:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles must "represent[] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." No views can be considered significant unless they are reported by third parties. That applies to the SPLC and Ebert as well. Ebert's opinions for example were always reported in entertainment news and subsequently mentioned in film studies writing. Note that when a film was released, reports would say things such as, "Ebert and other major critics panned the movie" or "it opened to mixed reviews earning high praise from Ebert while Travers walked out on it" or "Ebert was one of the few critics who found anything good to say." Ebert's opinion while usually representative of how critics in general will assess a film is not infallible and it violates NPOV to present it without establishing how representative it was.

With hundreds or thousands of opinions expressed on Comey's dismissal, you need to establish their degree of acceptance which can only be done by referring to secondary sources. If secondary sources ignore and opinion then we should too. Remember that encyclopedias are tertiary sources, summarizing what one expects to find in secondary sources.

TFD ( talk) 00:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Jack Goldsmith is a notable expert in the topic on which he was asked by the publisher to write this analysis. This is not like any of the thousands of ordinary folks' blog ruminations on the topic. Analysis published in a generally top-drawer site with high editorial standards. This is OK for his opinion. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Goldsmith might be okay if secondary sources did not cover a matter he is opining about, or covered the matter while mentioning his opinion about it, but not otherwise. It would be even more of an NPOV violation if we include Goldsmith though the secondary sources describe a spectrum of opinions that excludes Goldsmith, because we would be overriding the choices and coverage of the secondary sources. All of this applies equally to SPLC on the left, Judicial Watch on the right, Roger Ebert, et cetera. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This page is not a good place for straw man arguments. If you think Goldsmith's analysis is a marginal minority POV, please state and demonstrate that directly. Then your view can be proven incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 01:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, “describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.” Drawing only upon primary sources in such a situation is inherently disfavored and/or suspect. Straw men have nothing to do with it. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You did not rebut my criticism. Do you believe that Goldsmith's view does not represent a significant mainstream view worth inclusion. Start w. Yes or No, then we can move on to test your view against the evidence. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter because drawing solely upon a Goldsmith primary source or drawing solely upon any other primary source to describe that other person’s opinion is not “drawing on secondary or tertiary sources” as this policy requires. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says, and your attempt to impeach Goldsmith has failed. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Masem: regarding the latter criteria: Goldsmith does appear to be one of the most widely cited sources available. He's a widely cited source for commentary on issues related to the Comey dismissal ( example). He's written several editorials on the Trump-Comey story in major sources ( Time, The New York Times, and the Atlantic) The New York Times also profiled Lawfareblog earlier this year, and specifically mentioned that Goldsmith's criticisms of the Trump administration were significant because of his role in the Bush Administration ( profiled here). I'm of the mindset that it might be reasonable to trade out one Goldsmith quote for another one, but it seems like he's one of the more notable commenters available by a long shot. Nblund ^talk 01:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Given these seem to be invited op-eds (not letters to the editor) that would at least satisfy the aspect of being a noted expert. But I do have to wonder how many of similar experts there are like this. Again, without a secondary source that summarizes what opinions to pull, we have to carefully use WEIGHT to pull equivalently noted experts. -- MASEM ( t) 02:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Being a noted expert means that what someone writes may be reliable for facts but does nothing to provide weight to their opinions. It is up to reliable sources, such as mainstream media, to determine which opinions are significant and for us to reflect their judgment. Also, there is often a discrepancy between what noted experts write in support of partisan opinions and what they write for academic publications. Why should a tertiary source provide any coverage of primary sources when they have not been mentioned in secondary sources? If the media has been able to cover this story for months without referring to the column then it is unimportant. TFD ( talk) 04:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

If those secondary sources exist that summary primary opinion pieces, then yes, we definitely should favor the weight those opinions are given in those. But most of the time they don't exist, and this leaves WP editors trying to figure this out, which requires a lot more care. I would point to the example of film review, there are rarely sources that discriminate which reviews should be used for the film, but we do know that people like Ebert were consider experts so we put more weight on those. Same logic should be applied here , but again, there is a lot more concern, for me, about avoiding OR in trying to justify the right UNDUE weight of sources without the summarizing secondary sources. -- MASEM ( t) 05:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

In the lead of Guillermo Rigondeaux, it is mentioned that he has great punching power—this is widely acknowledged in professional boxing. However, User:Handofknowledge believes it imperative to state that his power is known for "breaking the jaws of multiple opponents", or for being "jaw-breaking", even though he has only broken the jaw of two of his 18 opponents— [31], [32]. To me this smacks of sensationalism and puffery, and is downright morbid to include in a lead section. I've never seen any other boxing article which mentions "jaw-breaking" power in the lead, or the need emphasise the minutae of a boxer's knockout power. Is this is a valid NPOV issue? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 13:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do not include in the lead -- sensationalism and puffery, especially given the fact that "only" two jaws are known to have been broken. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Swastika The entire article seems to have been written by a white supremacist or, at the very least, a holocaust denier. It frequently uses casual, inappropriate language and minimizes the way the symbol has been - and continues to be - used as a tool for hate and intimidation. It is not "stigmatized" in the Western world, because a symbol has no function outside of being symbolic, especially such a commonly known one. The whole thing needs editing to fix the tone and more accurately reflect the weight of the symbol in human history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.88.17 ( talk) 01:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any problems in either the wording or the point of view. The article seems like a pretty solid and objective presentation of what the swastika means to different cultures, including a good discussion of its use by the Nazis and how it subsequently came to be associated with anti-Semetism, genocide, and far right politics in the West. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 14:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a basic symbol used all over the world for millennia, and the article not only covers that properly, but also has a big section devoted to Nazi use that, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, is summary material of the main article, Nazi symbolism. Where tone problems creep in it's because of random "drive-by" editors, and these are easily and quickly resoelved. The idea that the article, which is basically an anthropology piece, is some kind of neo-Nazi propaganda is absurd; a quick look at its history shows almost innumerable editors at that page, which has a long and detailed history, and its coverage is balanced. I have no doubt that it will always be a vandalism and PoV-pushing target, especially from anonymous IP editors, but there are a lot of watchlisters.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Swami_Nithyananda needs more watchlisters. There are two WP:EDITWARring and PoV-pushing camps mucking up this page, and they've been at it a long time, almost always from anonymous IP addreses:

• His followers, who are doing things like this.
• His enemies, who are doing things like that.

Any aggrandizing or attacking edits like these should be reverted on sight per WP:BLP and other policies. A complication is that many newspapers of India are not actually reliable sources but both print incredible claims as long as they're consistent with Hindu belief, and run scandal material they're paid to print (and won't print retractions or positive coverage unless paid – it's a defamation protection racket on top of a WP:FRINGE mill).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@ SMcCandlish:, is there a reason it's not under protection? It looks like it's been in and out of protection since 2010 but is unprotected now, although I may be misreading the protection log. If the problems are from IPs and new users, that should solve it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess that could be done, but protection against IPs usually isn't instituted for very long, so the problem will continue indefinitely. Sometimes these bad edits (from both sides) come quite some time apart.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue in Political economy is a mix of sourcing, neutrality and undue weight (some neutrality-related concerns have been fixed by now), but it's probably best fitting here. The diff in question is [33], see also the current discussion at Talk:Political economy. The discussion currently focusses on 2 aspects: is a student-written analysis based on Google Ngram results a reliable source for this kind of information? And secondly more in-scope for this board, is Piketty's publication ( Capital in the Twenty-First Century) noteworthy enough for a mention in the article's lead, especially when no other modern academic publication is mentioned in the summary? Some uninvolved input would be appreciated. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned in the discussion page, the reliability of sources is determined by the medium of publication, not the qualifications of the writer. In this case it was an article published in Policy Options. And it Piketty's book has popularized the term, that is significant. TFD ( talk) 17:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding something (or I am misreading WP:RS, specifically WP:RS#Definition of a source). Of course the publisher's reputation is an important part of the equation - no doubt. But it is not the only part, the author's expertise can also affect such an assessment. Regarding the point about Piketty: the claim about him popularizing the term or about "renewed attention" due to his publication is unsourced. GermanJoe ( talk) 20:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Definition of a source says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." So a source is reliable if it is published by an academic publisher or if the author is a noted expert. Also, note that many reliable sources, such as some articles in reputable newspapers, do not name their authors. As for your other objection, you asked about neutrality. Obviously the claim should be sourced. TFD ( talk) 01:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not fully agree with that interpretation of the text (it explicitly notes "Any of the three can affect reliability"), but I see what you mean now. I'll re-add that part of the disputed content then (not completely happy with the source, but it's likely not a controversial claim). Thank you for your helpful feedback. If the Piketty claim could be sourced to an expert, this aspect could probably be resolved too. GermanJoe ( talk) 12:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I recently wrote a new article titled “ Masking and unmasking by intelligence agencies”, and placed wikilinks to it at other relevant articles. User:MastCell is now going around deleting those wikilinks, with the allegation that the article is a “POV fork”. I disagree, and would like some outside views about it. Masking and unmasking are informal words for activities that intelligence agencies conduct all the time, known technically as “incidental collection” and “minimization”. There was previously almost nothing at Wikipedia about it. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The article is a POV fork, and barely even bothers to pretend otherwise (leaving aside the timing of its creation, which is interesting in its own right). The article is a platform for a few specific partisan talking points about the 2016 US Presidential election, dressed up with a handful of explanatory paragraphs about US surveillance law. It certainly doesn't contain enough generalizable information to warrant inclusion on widely used templates about espionage. Realistically, the material about the Trump campaign should be included in either Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 or Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, while the US-specific legal issues can easily be covered at Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—in fact, they already are. AfD is probably the correct venue for further discussion, and I'm considering starting a discussion there about this article. MastCell  ^Talk 00:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

B.S. This would be undue weight at the FISA article which merely says, regarding situations where there is a court order: “In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain ‘minimization requirements’ for information pertaining to U.S. persons.” “Incidental collection” is not mentioned, along with lots of other stuff. I am really hoping for an interaction ban someday, by the way. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

How could it be "undue weight" to add two or three sentences about masking to the FISA article? That doesn't make any sense, especially since the topic appears to be notable only in relation to FISA. MastCell  ^Talk 00:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The Article you’re criticizing is way way bigger than two or three sentences, even excluding the subsection about the current administration. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but the substance of your article could be summarized in 2 or 3 sentences and added to the FISA article. There’s more than a bit of filler. MastCell  ^Talk 01:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Hmmmmmm. Does the Trump case really need to be roughly 1/4 of the article? It tends to raise eyebrows when an article defines a broad practice and then devotes inordinate detail to one particular example. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The press about that particular case has been massive. If it’s presented in a neutral fashion, then it cannot be a POV fork. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a rather well-informed person and this is the first I heard of it. So I'm very skeptical that coverage has been so "massive" as to outweigh all other instances of the practice. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m glad to look around some more for other specific instances to add. Or you can. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I would briefly mention that the term can into general use as a result of the Trump case, but there is no need to provide details about that case, which would be undue. TFD ( talk) 00:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What other case is being given insufficient weight? The key thing is to provide all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources about the Trump stuff. If that’s done, it’s not undue weight. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If you believe The key thing is to provide all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources about the Trump stuff then you should retitle the article accordingly; i.e., Masking and unmasking by intelligence agencies in the context of the Donald Trump administration. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What I meant is that the key thing to justify inclusion of the Trump stuff is to provide all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources about the Trump stuff. Obviously, the article should also provide all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources about the non-Trump stuff. That said, it might make sense to change the title to “Unmasking by intelligence agencies” since that’s the main focus. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC) N.B. I went ahead and changed the title. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If you think that the topic only significance is that it is used in the Trump case, then it lacks notability and should be deleted. TFD ( talk) 03:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all, that's not what I think. Most of the article has nothing to do with Trump. But if the entire article did all involve Trump (which it doesn't), then I don't see why that would require deletion. The Donald Trump article is entirely about Trump and yet we don't delete that. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added a further section titled “Other instances of unmasking”. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The POV fork section is written very narrowly, perhaps so narrowly that it excludes some articles written primarily or solely for POV purposes. Rather than whether or not to apply that terminology is probably secondary.....the actual real question is whether or not the article should exist. My first guess is not. A quick glance at references regarding the term seem to be overwhelmingly about 2017 politics. North8000 ( talk) 19:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If the article gets deleted for having a lot of footnotes dated 2017, I hope we'll be consistent and delete all of these articles too. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Unmasking by intelligence agencies.- Mr X 19:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that dozens of biographical articles aren't listed in subcategories of the above-mentioned category. What is the criteria for inclusion? I wonder if adding the category to some of the articles potentially violates NPOV. Pahlevun ( talk) 20:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

perhaps. Is the category being used for all martyrs of any religion, I am wondering. A Catholic martyr gets the title from the Church. Is there some similar authority in other religions?

Is this not a citable source or have I been mislead by editors not keeping a NPOV? Bojackh ( talk) 03:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you can trust me. It's just an aggregator, so it has nothing better sources don't, just mixed in with stuff from worse sources. Not technically uncitable, but amateur hodgepodge articles, and their appeal is quickness. Five fast facts you need to know are often the least reliable in major crime stories. They lose nothing by "reporting" early rumor or supposition, they can pass the buck to whomever they copied. We should stick to citing established sources with a vested interest in maintaining their own credibility (if we can find them).

And no, I didn't follow you here. Saw you on my watchlist. Maybe that's creepier. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of the emotive term "homophobic" by user Contaldo80 in article "John Chrysostom"

The supporting sources use the term homophobic so I think its usage is justified. Can you be more specific as to why the terms is firstly "inappropriate" and secondly "emotive" - emotive is an odd word to use. Contaldo80 ( talk) 17:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Potentially problematic editing by Special:Contributions/73.72.166.23 and Special:Contributions/NationalSocialist88 at the article of a German marching song from the Nazi era, where the two accounts have restored the lyrics. Reproduced verbatim and in multiple languages, the lyrics strike me as excessive. The username is of concern as well: "National Socialist" is self-explanatory, while "88" stands for HH ("Heil Hitler") in neo-Nazi community. I would appreciate some feedback or a look at the article in question. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I restored the lyrics due to the fact that they are relevant to the article at hand. It makes sense for an article about a song to contain the lyrics to said song, just as it makes sense for an article about a painting to have a photograph of said painting.-- 73.72.166.23 ( talk) 07:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTLYRICS: "Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article." That article right now is almost entirely lyrics. It's obviously excessive by any reasonable metric. They absolutely have to go - just link to wikisource. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 09:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The disruption appears to continue: diff. I requested page protection; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I had added relevant links to Acts (Laws / Amendments) to certain Wiki's related to Indian law. These were from reliable websites such as Commonlii.org, IndianKanoon.org, NearLaw.com, all of which are both available for free and provide reliable legal documents from the Courts, Judicial forums and the Executive (Parliament, etc.).

The legal articles on Wikipedia are lacking the reference to the original documents that are made freely available on Commonlii.org, IndianKanoon.org and NearLaw.com and a variety of other websites, therefore the links were added. These original documents are the laws, amendments or primary legal resources, to which everyone should have access. Some of the Article pages themselves have a note asking for citations and external sources to substantiate the content provided.

My contributions: ^[1]

My Talk page: ^[2]

List of diffs (for sake of brevity, I'm highlighting diff via summary in 3 changes)

^[3] Short description of change: I included reference to Commonlii.org, IndianKanoon.org and Nearlaw.com, as free, unofficial sources of Indian law decisions.

^[4] Short description of change: I added the recent pronouncement of "Triple Talaq" case which brings a semblance of equality into Muslim women's lives in India.

^[5] Added a link to Official Circular (landmark order) of SEBI at their official website, sebi.gov.in

However all of my edits were undone indiscriminately by User:GermanJoe|GermanJoe

If there was any issue with any of the edits, it could have been discussed and debated and then remedial action could have been initiated. However, all edits were summarily and indiscriminately rejected and reversed, without any talk / discussion. This is unfair and undemocratic, and I hope the conscientiousness of the other editors shall stop such dictatorial practices.

As per ^[6] "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." The content I have added is detailed and documented in multitude of sections, so it is detailed and can't be reproduced as verbatim within the article. The content is not indiscriminate, I would argue it is relevant, meaningful and suitable. Conversely, the practice of removing all referenced content without paying heed to the individual contributions is an indiscriminate practice on your part. I have specific knowledge regarding the content being posted. As a proponent of the Free Access to Law movement, I don't think publishing free content on Wikipedia should be a shunned or ostracized practice.

As a political activist and journalist, by contributing to Wikipedia's Indian law-related pages, I'm fighting to open up access to the law. Our voices should be heard, especially when we as Indians are trying to bring clarity and correct the information asymmetry in the Indian legal system VickAmaze ( talk) 14:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC) VickAmaze

• Just noting that I am aware of this thread, but at the moment it's pointless to merely repeat the same arguments (see User talk:VickAmaze for the differing views). Of course I'll be glad to explain my reasoning in more detail when needed. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this article /info/en/?search=World_Academy_of_Science,_Engineering_and_Technology doesn't appear neutral at all. The sources are blogs, and there does seem to be more than a hint of attack in the way the article has developed to this point in terms of the text style and content. I'm placing a notice here to ask more experienced editors for their view on how to move forward and improve this page. Thanks. Tonyinman ( talk) 19:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Quite a few of the sources are blogs, but there's also a number of sources from newspapers, Science Magazine, and multiple universities. All of them support the fact that WASET is a predatory publisher that accepts any paper if the submitter pays enough, and organizes conferences with names intended to be confused with actual scientific conferences. There's absolutely enough written in reliable sources to back up the accusations against this organization. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 22:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources cited in the article which back up the specific claims in the article. Please could you point me to any you feel do support the claims in the article?

The article was also brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination) by the editor after a speedy delete failed. There are nine keeps and no deletion !votes. It's also been raised by the editor at WP:RSN. And he's started an RfC. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the RfC at Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: Should the article say that Drudge Report has been described as far-right?. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming problematic [34], in essence Jackobson is commenting on one report, but it is being included in a section about another report. In addition only one parties issues with Antisemitism is being criticized outside of the parliamentary report withing this section [ [35]. Despite the fact the reports does not single out one party and in fact says they are all equally guilty. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

83% of Jews think said party has an antisemtism tolerance issue [36] [37]. And several media sources have been covering antisemitism issues, in depth, in regards to this party - whereas coverage of other parties is much less pronounced. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

What has this to do with the parliamentary inquiry? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Didn't this subsequent report originate from that? There might be merit to rearrange the sections headings and expand coverage of the inner-party issues in said party. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets allow others to chime in, we can have this discussion on the talk page. Feel free to suggest it there. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Note to casual skimmers: this is UK politics Elinruby ( talk) 10:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have created an RfC on an article talk page, largely translated from Spanish language wikipedia which has created a lot of aggro, in context of current political tensions in Catalonia because it is about the history of racial supremacist thought in early and late Catalan nationalism. I am doing my best to resolve issue of article which I created and is very extensively sourced. The debate currently pertains to the title and lead. I would request editors to comment after reading body of article extensively and judging on whether the sourcing supports the name and content of lead of the article (also whether it is POV, evidently). This is a complex matter so would suggest thorough review of body of article and discussions on talk page before providing comment. It is a new article and I'm a relatively new wikipedian and the more editors involved the better, to guide us on policy. Sonrisas1 ( talk) 03:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The very name of the article is unreferenced, there is no primary sources anywhere, and the references added are all secondary sources, most non-scholar, many unsigned, and don't use the very words "catalan supremacism", so there is a clear bias and lack of reliability. The author is been asked to name in the introduction the people who labeled and the papers on which they developed this theory, and to clarify many secondary sources that aren't about "catalan supremacism". -- Panotxa ( talk) 05:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If it is a translation it is material whether it is based on the Spanish article and whether it is labeled as such on the talk page. Special rules may apply if so. If it's a faithful representation of a foreign language article it still needs, eventually, to meet the standards of the English wiki, but please let him get the translation done, then fix the references; this often needs to be done in two steps as the reference syntax also requires translation. This assumes he is still working on the article. If not, yes, it should have references; feel free to use the cn tag at will. Elinruby ( talk) 11:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Draft:Epistocracy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May be a POV fork of Noocracy to which mainspace Epistocracy redirects (please see my concerns at Draft talk:Epistocracy). It's unclear to me if this should be used to improve the mainspace article or if it should become a redirect, or nominated at MfD. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 21:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no dispute on this topic, at least not yet. But I would like some guidance from any editor with an opinion, please, on the following question. In editing the Annees Folles article, I found many references to a group of painters from Eastern Europe who were all refugees in Paris from pogroms in their home countries, variously called School of Paris or Jewish School of Paris. Their Jewish origins are noteworthy because this is how they came to meet. But should it be the first thing that comes to mind about them? Even if it was what they were called at the time? (1920s-30s) This is really more of a policy than a weight question, I think. The page is currently called School of Paris, but I am wondering whether it should actually be Jewish School of Paris. Elinruby ( talk) 05:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If RS note it so should we. If however it was not their official name (for example) but one applied by a few RS we should attribute it. Also were all members Jewish? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. That is the right question, of course... exactly who uses it and how. My current impression is that this is what they were called at the time, but the appellation came to seem inappropriate. The article as it is currently written blurs this by using the term emigres but I'm here to tell you that that's me not being sure how to handle this. The article has seen work from other people since, I see now, so I should post on the talk page about the discussion here. But yes, at least at first they were all Jewish and fleeing pogroms in Eastern Europe. The point needs more research as well, but since similar questions occurred to me (history vs perpetuating stereotypes) concerning a Nazi art installation in occupied France I'd like to discuss the general principle in addition to to this particular article. I'll come back to this post with more detail. Right now I'm trying to figure out why the Annees Folles link above is redirecting to Roaring Twenties. We thought we fixed that. Elinruby ( talk) 14:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In researching this I discovered that the history of this broadly follows the pattern for other art movements of Paris at the time. Before the turn of the century it was mostly French and mostly in Montmartre. After World War I there was a School of Paris that was mostly foreign, heavily Litvak, Lithuanian, and Hungarian. Many if not all of them were Jewish, although not all of their Wikipedia articles mention fleeing pogroms so I guess I should avoid that as a generalization, at least pending research. It seems the appellation Jewish School of Paris was derogatory, or at least was intended to be. After World War II, which scattered everyone, there was also a School of Paris, which was more cosmopolitan, with both French and foreign members who were not necessarily Jewish. There is plenty of need here to flesh out School of Paris, which was also a group of medieval manuscript illustrators, so I would like to leave the question open for comment, as I am still unsure how to proceed, but I have discovered that French Wikipedia has lengthy article on both School of Paris and Jewish School of Paris, so I will start with some translation. Elinruby ( talk) 06:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Article has various sections of disputable neutrality and questionable of Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbq430 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a book published in China. There is a discussion at Talk:The Historical Status of China's Tibet#Neutrality concerning the neutrality of a sentence in the lead section:

Problematic text:

• The book revises the history of Tibet to claim that it always belonged to China.

Proposed replacement:

• The book presents the official Chinese position on the legal status of Tibet.

In my view the phrase "revises the history" makes a judgement on the content of the book and is clearly not neutral. The sentence could also be interpreted as taking sides in the Tibetan independence movement issue. user:Farang Rak Tham supports the existing text, and cites WP:FRINGE. Verbcatcher ( talk) 01:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for addressing this here. The word revises is in itself neutral. The question that should be asked is whether the sources cited in the article support it. I believe that the sources in the article support it, since the sources in the article point out that the book which is the subject of the article does not agree with mainstream scholarship. Apart from WP:FRINGE, there is also WP:DUE which must be taken in consideration.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 08:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Please allow me to ping all the editors that have once commented on the article's talk page, not excluding anyone: O1lI0, Elnon, My very best wishes, Tiger Chair, Anmccaff, Popolon.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 09:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• In the meantime, a check on Wikiblame shows that the sentence about revising was introduced by My very best wishes. I am now asking him to explain his edit.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 09:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Please see talk page of the article. Based on description in sources and the book itself, this is a propaganda publication by Chinese government, and it qualifies as a historical revisionism. I do not see any neutrality problems with current lead. Saying that, I also think the book is not really notable. The content should be merged elsewhere, and the page made a redirect. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, have any secondary sources described this book as revising the history of Tibet? If you can't point to any I'm not sure this is a neutral, factual description of what the book does. Silly as the book may be, what is the harm in the proposed replacement text? How is it less accurate? Seems like the "problematic text" tries too hard to make a point. —DIYeditor ( talk) 16:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure the source tells "revising". Rephrased. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I should clarify why I react strongly to the words revises the history. They can be read as meaning Historical revisionism, whose article says The term "revisionism" is used pejoratively by people who charge that revisionists are deliberately distorting the true historical record. This meaning may not have been intended, but it is a reasonable interpretation of the words. Verbcatcher ( talk) 19:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

According to description on the page [38], it does revise previous work in the field. However, this needs to be stated explicitly in RS. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing about this book in RS because the book is not notable. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Rape myth#Improper tone and approach; some additional editorial input (especially from NPOVN regulars) would be of value, since the discussion has turned circular and only involves two editors, but is rather important for this article. The threads immediately below it may also be of interest, though they also involved WP:NOR concerns as well as neutrality ones. This is an old and kind of languishing article that recently got a lot of focused attention, but from too few parties.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This still needs help from uninvolved editors. Elinruby ( talk) 22:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Editor Katolophyromai edited the 2nd sentence in /info/en/?search=Pythagoras#Life that said "His father is said to have been a gem-engraver or a wealthy merchant originally from Tyre" and changed it into "His father is said to have been a gem-engraver or a wealthy merchant,[25][26] but his ancestry is disputed and unclear.[27][Notes 3]". In his Notes 3 addition he says that ancient authors Herodotus et al said he was from Tyre and that some later authors said he was a "Tyrrhenian"

Please look into the diff page of the Pythagoras Talk page since his fellow friend meatpuppet editor took away my last response https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=811537461 and if you think that Katolophyromai's edit and provided sources are neutral after reading my analysis on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalinicoFire ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is In response to the Bundy Standoff article.The discussion is about the topic Bundy_Standoff. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:ED40:86EE:8769:A539 ( talk) 02:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I've deliberated with a user named NorthbySouthBaranof, and we have failed to come to a consensus on the Neutral Point of View subject. There are numerous points in this article which did not receive reference, even when asked for. I am not happy with this, but I am willing to allow it if we can maintain the disputed NPOV disclaimer at the top of the page. I will not accept anything less.

Me and Baranof discussed property ownership legalities, and came to a temporary conclusion, although I do not see how powers exercised by the Federal Government, when met in dispute by state authorities (The state militia, primarily), are relevant when the dispute has not been resolved yet. I feel this is worth a mention, but as I understand, Baranof is the only user on the entire Wikipedia website allowed to edit this page with lasting success. This is a bit childish to say, but a fact nonetheless. I am willing to let his revision pass because I am still inquiring into the legal wording. As we all know, if it ain't constitutional, it don't matter what laws people pass (Save for the Supreme court), it doesn't fly. I do, however, request access to edit the article in order to correct the misinformation regarding the militia. As many of you know, Article I Section 8 raises the militia, and 10 U.S.C. §311 (Formerly 311, seemingly this has changed in recent years to 10 U.S.C. §246) ties this standing power into the National Guard, which is therein primarily under the command of the Governor of the state, unless raised elsewhere by the President or Congress as per the Constitution. This standing power was there without command by the Governor of Nevada, and so therefore it should be noted and embellished upon, instead of diminished.

Unless, of course, bias is welcome. In that case, I could say a great number of absurd and offensive things off the cuff, too. At any rate, please review the case, and the last 20 revisions. I will maintain the NPOV dispute link.

EDIT: I will edit by saying that I have made changes in the past with every sentence ending in a reference, and yet still all were denied at the hand of Baranof.

EDIT2: Hopefully I got the inform editor code right... - Percy— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:ED40:86EE:8769:A539 ( talk) 02:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV disclaimers are expressly not permanent "scarlet letters" which can remain on an article indefinitely; once the dispute is concluded, the template must be removed.

Given that you've admitted that your arguments relating to federal ownership and management of public land were incorrect, it's not clear right now what changes you desire to make to the article; could you be more specific and provide reliable sources to support the changes that you're proposing? You have not posted any such sources on the talk page, which makes it difficult to have a good-faith discussion. All content in Wikipedia must be verifiable in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: This was the document I wanted initially but couldn't find it, just use it as a corroborating article - http://cloudfront-assets.reason.com/media/pdf/Sovereign_Citizen_Extremist_Ideology_2-5-15.pdf

This is going to take a long time to gather paperwork and other such reference materials, but we can start by removing the term "Sovereign Citizens Movement" entirely and adding a section regarding the concept. I've already explained to you that there is no "Sovereign Citizens Movement", in that people who are categorized as such by the authorities do NOT call themselves that. I have yet to see someone in this group of people call themselves part of it, and in fact only see them call themselves part of their own group's name (American Militia Freedom Forces, among others mentioned in the article). It is clearly offensive to them, like the term "Deplorable". Not like they don't call themselves part of a movement, per se, but we ARE being pragmatic here, and it's only right on their behalf to be 100% factual. Anyway, here's this document to prove it, go to page 2 under the "Emerging Threat" header - https://www.chds.us/c/resources/uploads/2015/07/NPS.CHDS_.Welch_.PlanningBudgeting-memo.pdf

The whole document is worth a read. You can find a hundred more by plugging in "DHS sovereign citizen movement pdf" into Google's search engine. If I may quote my document, "The Sovereign Citizen Movement is categorized as right-wing extremism, a broader category, defined as 'individuals and/or groups suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, free of taxes, believe in conspiracy theories that involve great threat to personal liberty and a belief one’s life is under attack.'”. Shall I continue to try and prove a point? Anyway, I'll get back to you on the Militia thing, as I want to treat it as you treated mine, so we'll technically have to wait until the Bundy trial is over to be the most accurate. - Percy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:5C6E:3D0B:99DA:B98D ( talk) 14:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That people in the movement don't call themselves "sovereign citizens" is of no consequence. If reliable sources call them that is sufficient for our purposes. See, for example, articles on white supremacist figures such as Richard Spencer - we call him a white supremacist, but note that he objects to that label. His objection does not override the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. Our articles are based on what is published in reliable sources. That you personally disagree with the term is of no consequence here. Once again, we cannot solve your problem with the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 15:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I would add that if there is a source or sources for a specific statement by any of the people involved in the standoff that they reject the categorization of "sovereign citizen" we should include a mention of that rejection. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 15:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Baranof, it's defense against foreign or domestic tyranny FIRST, wrong or right. Rules governing BLM and other land management policies LAST. Yes, I'm remembering the Property Clause. Yes, the Property Clause and the Militia Clause(s) come into effect at the same time. No, that doesn't include independent direction by the director of the BLM. Shall we debate the Chicken or the Egg riddle?

EDIT: Also, there is this:

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. - Percy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:906A:6B10:111:850D ( talk) 22:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Sovereign citizens do not call themselves sovereign citizens for the same reason nutjobs don't call themselves crazy. They are defined by their ideology and methods not by what they call themselves. The average sovereign citizen has latched onto an ideology in order to (usually) get out of civic responsibility, avoid punishment for a crime, avoid taxes etc etc. Its self-interest. Its not a concerted movement in the way say, a charity or advocacy group works, but when individuals or small groups of people latch onto the same method and ideological stance in order to effect the same outcome (usually, I shouldn't be in court), it is a movement nevertheless, even if only in political thought. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not expect you to use the term "crazy" that literally, Baranof. I'm not impressed, honestly, I thought the idea was to be pragmatic. I'm going to use the term SCE frequently to help people understand from here on in. An SCE can be a part of the Militia, but the Militia has it's own mandate to follow. The procedural norm of the SCE in question is not equivalent by default to the Militia body to which he/she belongs. The Militia, by default, cannot possibly be in true conflict with law enforcement because they are both doing their job at the same time. Any act by a member of the Militia body which initiates true conflict with law enforcement is the only one guilty of doing so, and, if reason is manifest to suspect it, the leadership of the Militia is held accountable for enabling the behaviour. It's simply a logical impossibility for true Militia members to initiate that conflict. Keep in mind that the reality of THIS situation is that the Bundy's contacted the Militia themselves for help, through a series of social media distribution bursts. This continued up to May 16, 2014. Through those bursts, potential SCE's were given the opportunity to potentially target law enforcement officers on scene (More is searchable via #OperationTorchLight). That is the truest form of the issue you can fathom, and to say you aren't lumping Militia members doing their duty with all the SCE's and the SCE wannabe's is absolute foolishness.

And if you hate them acting on their own so much, and doing their duty to the country as National Guardsmen, Baranof, where the f*** were you shouting at them to stay the f*** away from helping in Hurricane Harvey relief? - Percy

Why are you attacking me for comments made by someone else? The above post is by User:Only in death, not me. As a new Wikipedian, you should probably learn how to read a talk page (along with learning our sourcing and editorial policies) before engaging in extensive, contentious issues. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 10:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I did. I apologize for firing through that read. The rest of my point remains. As far as the rest of what User:Only in death said, that is in fact how certain SCE's operate. Again, not all of them are the same, much like you and me and everyone else. My heart bleeds for the victims who receive the information as YOU intend it. Other than the article itself, you're the only one in BOTH talk pages trying to say that being an SCE is a prerequisite to being in the Militia (Though death alluded to it). I'll go back into the history and see who added it, so if you're just feeling upset because you're stuck between mine and that next guy's writing, I apologize for that.

To be frank, I don't think it's justified to ask me for something contradicting the existing statements when there is nothing referenced in the current version of the article to contradict mine. That being said, can I at least have some substance with your next rebuttal? I really don't want to have to dig through Facebook and other media archives for evidence of contrast between instances of human existence in terms of the SCE/Militia relationship before you do. You need only look on this page for the general understanding. - Percy

I have never argued that you have to be a sovereign citizen to be in a "militia," so I'm not sure what the point of that is. There is a source cited which says certain specific named militia groups were rallied by Bundy's use of sovereign citizen rhetoric, but that's a properly cited factual statement and if you disagree with it, there's nothing we can do unless you have a reliable source which rebuts it. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

And of course, I told you that myself without seeing it in the article. Anyway, this needs to be changed RE our discussion:

"and in interviews he used the language of the sovereign citizen movement, thereby gaining the support of members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain Militia and the Praetorian Guard militias"

Just to be clear, the article cited reads as follows:

"In interviews, Bundy had used the language of the 'sovereign citizen' movement as a rallying call, beckoning passionate support from members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain Militia and the Praetorian Guard."

On the Cliven Bundy page, using the SAME source, it says the following:

"Bundy had asked for the support of members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain Militia, and the Praetorian Guard."

I get it. They say it, you're obligated to listen, because it's The Guardian. But after all I've told you, you're still going to allow that source to be credible? Granted, The Guardian got alot right, but they messed that one up big time. At any rate, I cannot win this argument. I don't have millions of dollars at my disposal. Be thankful for that, so you can have your time in the spotlight as moral decay erodes the fabric of that which you love, because these people who want the ratings from explosive language and cutting edge graphics don't care enough about you, the reader, to be objective. It just hurts to see such baloney propagated by good people. You should tell the FBI, maybe they'll put an investigation on me, because I swear to god I must be one of the worst SCE's for talking all this nonsense, right? Not bloody likely.

F*** everything and everyone. I can't save this nation anymore. I'm the reason there was a standoff this big in the first place, something you won't have the priviledge to understand, and this nation is better for it for having the right to be Militia and defend their brethren. I just won't waste my breath, but I'll tell you something, Baranof, this is so stressful to see so many people making the worst mistake they've probably ever made. You're a victim, because nobody who seriously believes in your level of objectivity would be so crass as to deny the reality of publications like this one. I will say, however, that I do appreciate the wall you provided to bash my own head on, it corrected a few errors in my judgment which needed to be corrected. As for the rest of what you say, I won't comment any more. You're just not as educated on the implications of what is being said as I am.</destructivebehaviour>

- Percy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:C1:932F:BCA:7280 ( talk) 19:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The talk page comments by the IP are interesting. Evidently they are here because of "Operation Torch Light" (presumably not the East German secret service operation concerning the Protestant Church) and see "a need to battle in the cyber environment, to defeat all enemies in the virtual battlespace, because of the victimization created by others and effected heavily by users such as yourself, though perhaps through no fault of your own." This may be more of an original research issue than NPOV. And of course this isn't the appropriate place to discuss a move. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"Operation dim bulb" is probably more accurate... but otherwise I agree. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. - Percy

• If anything, after taking a closer look at the article, its currently violating NPOV by (for example) including supportive views from people like disgraced politician Steve Stockman - published in a low-quality source known for misinformation. This is giving a false balance. I can see this was brought up on the talkpage as a problem but didn't go anywhere. I think this article in general needs more eyes on it. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

'wait wait wait' - state militia?? Elinruby ( talk) 06:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Letts is muslim convert from the UK, who traveled to Syria, who is now in the custody of a quasi-independent Kurdistan.

How did Letts come to be in Kurdish custody? Last May some accounts said he surrendered. Other accounts say he was captured. All accounts concurred that the Kurds considered him a combatant.

His family claims he had regretted ever traveling to Syria, and had been trying to escape for some time.

One of the contributors to this article amended the article to say Letts was "arrested", and that he had been "charged".

So, there is some confusion as to his exact status now, and his status when he was apprehended.

I think there are lots of ways that we can write about Letts, without taking sides, by using non-neutral terms like "arrested".

I said so, on the talk page.

There were a flurry of RS on October 28th, that reported Letts had been "charged". The contributor who wants our article to simply state he has been charged, without explicitly attributing this description to an RS also insists that ALL the RS report this. But they aren't reading the reporting thoroughly. One RS, the BBC, reported Letts had been charged, based on a statement they said they had been given by (unnamed) Kurdish officials. All the other RS merely reported that the BBC was reporting he had been charged, based on the statement they had been given. The BBC hasn't shared that statement, and the Kurds did not make it public.

I think this means the assertion is not official, and should only appear in our article with explicit attribution.

What the Kurdish spokesmen have said is that they consider Letts a POW, and are holding him consistent with the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and other human rights agreements.

I pointed out, on the talk page, that if we took the actual public Kurdish spokesmen at face value, that the Kurds were holding Letts as a POW, he could not be charged. The Geneva Conventions do not allow POWs to face charges. When a combatant is captured, or surrenders, he or she is supposed to be treated as a POW, which allows the captor to hold them, for the duration of hostilities, but prohibits them from charging them, or punishing them, for participating in hostilities. At least charges and punishment are prohibitied so long as the combatant was a lawful combatant. Fighting while wearing civilian clothes, or committing atrocities, like killing civilians, or killing prisoners, allow someone to be stripped of POW status, and they can then face charges. Every individual who was once treated as a POW, who then faced charges, was first stripped of POW status.

That other guy has claimed, several times, that I am lapsing from original research. I vigorously dispute this. The policy against original research controls what we put into article space, and what I put into article space was completely compliant. Some issues are complicated, and require discussion, on the talk page, or other fora, like this noticeboard. No, no RS has made the point that if the Kurdish spokesmen continue to describe Letts as a POW, they couldn't have charged him., at least not while respecting the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. But I am not arguing that this point be inserted into article space. Rather I offer it as one further factor to consider when considering whether to say he was arrested, as opposed to some of the more neutral alternatives, like saying he was "held", or "apprehended", which could apply to both a civilian arrest or a military capture. Geo Swan ( talk) 11:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor who knows nothing about the circumstances Letts is in and in fact never heard of him until now. But it seems to me on a reductionist level that saying that someone has been arrested could be construed as a BLP issue and so at a minimum requires attribution in a footnote, and spelled out in the text if anyone with any credibility at all is questioning this narrative. This may be a question of how much weight to give given sources, not sure. It also strikes me that it's not a nation state holding him so "charges"is an odd terminology. Which news sources are saying something else, that the other editor isn't reading? And where is he or she? You did notify them, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) -- 05:25, 2017 November 11

Based on a quick Google, I do see both "POV" and "charges"; There would seem to be some confusion as to his status, and plenty of controversy. Since we aren't able to magically determine what happened and which version of events is (most) accurate, and aren't supposed to do this anyway, this article should imho address his status as an open question, with careful attribution as to who said what. His parents say he was a bystander and the UK government called him a terrorist, in addition to what the Kurds are saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) -- 08:39, 2017 November 11

• Thanks for the reply Elinruby. The individual who first asserted Letts had been arrested has walked that back (thanks!). But they continue to maintain that he has been "charged".
• On October 28th the BBC acquired an unpublished document they called a "statement". Based on this unpublished document the BBC reported that Letts has been "charged". Specifically they reported he "had been charged with being a member of the so-called Islamic State."
• As above I have argued that it was essential to attribute the assertion that Letts had been charged to the RS that made the claim.
• My respondent keeps claiming it is not necessary to specifically attribute the assertion to the BBC, and they have trimmed my attempts to provide proper attribution.
• They have argued it is irrelevant who first reported this, as other RS repeated the assertion, in the days that followed. But, the trouble with this argument is that most of the other RS who repeated the assertion either explicitly informed readers that their reporting was of the BBC claim. They did not name any other source for this assertion. In particular a Kurdish spokesman did issue a statement about Letts, around this time, but she said nothing about Letts being charged, insisting rather he was being treated humanely, and consistently with the Geneva Conventions.

  The RS which did not explicitly attribute the assertion to the BBC rather shamefully plagiarized the BBC article, printing practically word for word cut and pastes of the BBC reporting, which did not mention the BBC.

• It has been almost four weeks since the BBC first made the assertion Letts has been charged. They last repeated this claim on November 2nd.
• Like the rest of us wikipedia volunteers, I am not an RS, so my interpretation does not belong in article space. I think I can state here, however, that I think the BBC's assertion is dubious, for several reasons. The more time passes since the BBC first published the claim, the more dubious their reporting becomes, since no Kurdish official has gone on record to confirm it.
• In my opinion, that other RS repeated the BBC assertion is irrelevant. If the BBC had published the statement they acquired, then other RS could ask their own translators to translate it, could call on their own experts to explain what it meant. But, so long as the BBC sits on the document, no other RS can have an informed opinion on what it means. That means the assertion Letts had been charged comes from just a single RS.
• As I have noted, elsewhere, if we take the on-the-record assertions of Kurdish officials, that Letts was being treated according to the Geneva Conventions, they would have had to convene a " competent tribunal" to official determine he had lapsed from the criteria for the protection against prosecution that POWs have, before he could face any charges. If they were really complying with the Geneva Conventions they would have published the results of the competent tribunal.
• I am not an RS, so the explanations I provided here, as to why the claim is dubious, don't belong in the article. But I don't think any experienced contributor would try to defend the assertion he had been charged as a solid fact, not a dubious claim. The claim certainly doesn't belong in the lead sentence. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Im sorry Geo Swan, every source, including the BBC says he has been charged. Not detained etc, but charged. So that is what the article should say. I literally have no idea why you keep saying that every other report is a copy of the 1st report of the incident by the BBC. Firstly, they are not, secondly, every story or news article has to have one agency that reports it first, thats easy to understand. Anyway, the report says "charged" in every source I can find, so really cant see what you complaint is? Simply-the-truth ( talk) 18:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Quoting you" I think I can state here, however, that I think the BBC's assertion is dubious". That is your npov opinion, it may be correct, it probably isnt. But the fact remains that this is what "you" think of the situation. That is why on wiki we simply quote what the source says, as in this case. We dont push our own pov as you seem to be doing here? I really am trying to work with you on this Geo Swan, but it really does seem that you want to make the article say what you think it should say, all I am doing is using relevant sources. And now as well I see you complain that the word "arrested" was removed from the lead. This was because YOU ASKED FOR IT TO BE REMOVED, others disagreed but you kepy quoting the GC (which arent relevant whatever you say for many obvious reasons) so the word arrested was changed. Now you say this was better!! Simply-the-truth ( talk) 19:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sigh. I am already working on too much so I am not going to count sources for his status, but you may need to do this to resolve the matter. I think I am correct in saying meanwhile that while the BBC is generally considered RS -- assuming this was a news story and not an editorial or op-ed -- it still just boils down to one reporter, if everyone else is quoting them as an attributed news source, ie, has not verified with independent reporting. I hope this suggests a way forward. You both sound very frustrated. Elinruby ( talk) 06:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• There are uncited statements that could be considered defamatory. Elinruby ( talk) 06:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know a great deal about the topic, but on the article talk page, Simply the Truth user posted 7 UK newspaper articles all claiming that Jack Letts was charged with being a member of ISIS by the de facto government of Northern Syria. It's generally sourced to a statement made by that governing authority, and additionally he himself was interviewed back in June, confirming at least that they did hold him in prison at some point. I can see why the statement about charges might be more delicate, but at we could be a bit more clear about where his is and who claims to hold him. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 10:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Well, I see the issue; I removed some unsourced material and the removal was reverted with an edit summary saying there are five sources for the material. Fine then, let us provide them. I personally don't care --at all-- whether the man was or was not a fighter or is a prisoner of war or a duly arrested terrorist. I don't have any stake in this at all. But the article as it sits is inadequately sourced and says he was radicalized but ran away in battle. How is this not a BLP issue? Not to mention RS and NPOV? He denies all this. The current article is very close to libel, in WP's voice. If RS support the statements then we should attribute them, and to something more specific than "October 2017 reports", which could be the Daily Mail and the National Enquirer for all we know. Elinruby ( talk) 22:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

At issue is the following passage at Monkey selfie copyright dispute#background.

As of 17:34, 17 November 2017 the passage read: [39]

Since 2008, British nature photographer David Slater had travelled to Indonesia to take photographs of the critically endangered Celebes crested macaques. His first description[citation needed] of the monkey selfie incident was published on 4 July 2011 in The Telegraph, after the "crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away". Slater said that "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back".[7] Slater later stated in an article in Amateur Photographer published 5 July 2011, that his camera had been mounted on a tripod when the primates began playing around with a remote cable release as he was trying to fend off other monkeys.

Slater gave further description in his website and other media accounts saying he and a guide followed the monkeys for three days, gaining their trust on the second day.[9] It his attempts to get photographs of the monkeys, he found the they were fascinated with the camera and the camera gear and kept playing with it, but they also kept trying to run off with the camera. Slater further stated in a August 7, 2014 Amateur Photographer follow up article that "I wanted a close-up image but I couldn’t do it. They were too nervous so I had to get them [the monkeys] to come to the camera without me being there and get them to play with the release, which they did"... "They were looking at the reflection in the lens which they found amusing..."

but the passage now reads: [40]

Since 2008, British nature photographer David Slater had traveled to Indonesia to take photographs of the critically endangered Celebes crested macaques. Descriptions of the monkey selfie incident was included a 4 July 2011 in The Telegraph article titled "Monkey steals camera to snap himself" where Slater described a 3 day period of interacting with the monkeys, how they became fascinated with his photographic equipment, and how one male accidentally triggered a stolen camera. Slater gave a further clerification[sic] in an article in Amateur Photographer published the next day, stating that reports that a monkey stole his camera shot the self-portrait were incorrect, the portrait was shot when his camera had been mounted on a tripod with the primates playing around with a remote cable release as he he fended off other monkeys.[8] He also noted in a 28 July 2017 Vice Magazine interview Slater said that he noticed news outlets were miss-reporting how he obtained the selfie but he went along with it because it was "a bit of fun and some good publicity for the conservation cause".

Slater gave further description in his website and other media accounts saying he and a guide followed the monkeys for three days, gaining their trust on the second day.[10] In his attempts to get photographs of the monkeys, he found the they were fascinated with the camera and the camera gear and kept playing with it, but they also kept trying to run off with the camera. Slater further stated in a August 7, 2014 Amateur Photographer follow up article that "I wanted a close-up image but I couldn’t do it. They were too nervous so I had to get them [the monkeys] to come to the camera without me being there and get them to play with the release, which they did"... "They were looking at the reflection in the lens which they found amusing..."

In my opinion, the second passage fails NPOV. It removes what the source (The Telegraph} actually says ("the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away") and removes the direct quote from Slater ("He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back"). Clearly this is an attempt to make the page say that Slater's later, changed story (which he started telling after the copyright was challenged) is true and that he never told his original story (which he told before the copyright was challenged). He does, of course, have a strong motive to change his story -- to support his claims that he took the picture and that the monkey didn't.

I would also note that we have a source that says "{Slater] has since changed his story to make it appear that he had more of a role in the photo, but that was not his original story at all" [41]

I would like to see some uninvolved eyes looking at this issue. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Slater did not change his story, this is simply a case of sloppy reporting. Compare the 4 July 2011 Telegraph's "Monkey steals camera to snap himself" story [42] to a Daily Mail story that predates the Telegraph's [43] re: "It soon attracted the attention of an inquisitive female from a local group of crested black macaque monkeys.... Fascinated by her reflection in the lens, she then somehow managed to start the camera. The upshot: A splendid self-portrait." The Telegraph seems to be a sloppy copy/paste plagiarized version of the Daily Mail story. In the Daily Mail we can see the selfi incident and the "male stealing the camera" incident are two different events.

A claim that Slater changed his story after the controversy arose over his claim of copyright is also wrong. A 5 July 2011 Amateur Photographer story [44], a day after the news stories and (a week?) before there was any controversy has the headline "A photographer who says he witnessed monkeys taking pictures of themselves, tells Amateur Photographer (AP) that much of the media coverage has been exaggerated." and states "David (Slater) explained that his camera had been mounted on a tripod when the primates began playing around with a remote ‘cable release’ as he was trying to fend off other monkeys......The photographer is keen to stress that the monkeys ‘didn’t run off with the camera or anything like that’..... Commenting on today’s media coverage(article links the Telegraph article) of the pictures David said: ‘There has been a slight exaggeration."

So:

• The claim in As of 17:34, 17 November 2017 "His first description[citation needed] of the monkey selfie incident was published on 4 July 2011 in The Telegraph, after the "crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away"" is wrong: its not Slater's description, its a sloppy reporter's incorrect description and its contradicted by another source (Daily Mail, not Slater).

I also note an editor's history here of comparing and contrasting historical contemporaneous media reports and deriving meaning from photographs( diff) to WP:SYNTH a story about Slater's veracity instead of citing secondary sources that make that claim, that is specifically WP:OR. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 17:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Just thought I would note that the story was covered on This American Life today (or at least that segment was broadcast on KQED today). Slater is quite clear that the monkey was female, which has ramifications for the lawsuit against him by PETA. Elinruby ( talk) 22:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Fountains of Bryn Mawr and myself are not the "uninvolved eyes looking at this" that I requested. and that the above arguments have already been posted on the article talk page. What is the point of duplication the arguments here? Again. may I have someone who is not already involved look at this please?

Fountains, is it your contention that The Telegraph fabricated the "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back" direct quote from Slater? And that we should believe The Daily Mail instead? See WP:DAILYMAIL. Or are you claiming that someone can "get his camera back" even though the camera was never taken from him? Why are you supporting the deletion of the "by the time I got my camera back" direct quote? The deletion looks like a NPOV violation to me. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the source for the quote "by the time I got my camera back" being linked to the camera being taken away form him? the Telegraph sources does not say it was taken form him, just taken over. This all looks a bit Synthy to me. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

" Monkey steals camera to snap himself "

" A macaque monkey in Indonesia took a camera from a wildlife photographer before snapping himself in a variety of poses. "

" The primate went to investigate the equipment before becoming fascinated with his own reflection in the lens.

And it wasn't long before the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away sending award-winning photographer David Slater bananas.

David, 46, said: 'One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy.

'At first there was a lot of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time they had ever seen a reflection.

'They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button.

'The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it. At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch.

'He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet.

'I wish I could have stayed longer as he probably would have taken a full family album'. "

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8615859/Monkey-steals-camera-to-snap-himself.html

It is Synthy because your first quote is not from Slater. Thus whilst it is true the media changed the story there is no evidence he did. Thus this must be attributed not the him, but to the source "IE the Telegraph claimed". Slatersteven ( talk) 18:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

So you are now claiming that a statement ("He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet") surrounded by quotation marks and preceded by the words "David, 46, said:" is not a direct quote from Slater? Care to explain your reasoning? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• To be honest we should just delete the article. After Jimbo's antics at wikimania he has tainted the appearance of neutrality irrevocably. Whatever we put in it, there will be accusations of bias. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You can shout it is you like, it does not alter the fact he never said the Monkey sole his camera, also you altered the quotes you posted as well. So produce a quote by Slater saying the monkey stole the camera. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no requirement that all material in Wikipedia articles be supported by direct quotes. The standard is "reported in reliable sources." I do want the direct quote about him getting his camera back to be put back into the article, preceded by "Slater said" and where and when he said it. The reader should decide what "by the time I got my camera back" implies. I also want some variation of the claims claims "Monkey steals camera to snap himself" "A macaque monkey in Indonesia took a camera from a wildlife photographer before snapping himself in a variety of poses" and/or "the crested black macaque hijacked the camera" put back in, preceded by "The Telegraph reported..." and when they reported it. You have given no valid reason to deleting this properly sourced material, and your instance that it stay out of the article is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

As I understand the dispute it is over whether he changed his story, based upon a source quoting another source (in effect) as if the Daily myths statement was his. I have no issue with giving the Telegraphs version (attributed, of course), I have issue with claiming (at all in fact given the doggedness of the sources) claiming he changed his story. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure who is being shouted at here, Slatersteven didn't edit and I have been lurking elsewhere. Actually been expanding the article using sources already cited. Looking through all the publications that initially published stories (paraphrasing an initial press release?) - they all vary in what they reported, and contradict each other as to how the selfie was made. That puts us at WP:YESPOV #2 "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" - we can't state (or imply) one version in Wikipedia's voice. At no point in any of the sources is it stated the "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet" was the time the selfie was shot. The Newsweek source says the theft of a camera resulted in "A few frames of green-and-brown forest blur". Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 23:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry it was not a reply to you. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

When someone makes the false claim that that what is in a source is not in that source, quoting the source with the sections in bold is perfectly appropriate behavior. Nor is it true that all uses of bold are "shouting". Using bold for emphasis is a part of standard English usage. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, please go to [ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8615859/Monkey-steals-camera-to-snap-himself.html ].

See that direct quote ("He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back")?

See those sourced claims ("Monkey steals camera to snap himself", "A macaque monkey in Indonesia took a camera from a wildlife photographer before snapping himself in a variety of poses", "the crested black macaque hijacked the camera")?

See the two images at the top of the article? (including the Monkey selfie we are discussing?)

Do you imagine that that particular image engaged up at the top of that particular article by random chance? Your reasoning is becoming more and more tortured.

Also, nobody here is trying to state seriously contested assertions as facts. I simply want to state that The Telegraph' said X and that David Slater said Y to The Telegraph retaining the rest of the section where we document what other sources said and what Slater told those other sources.

You want to delete properly sourced material because it does not support your POV that the monkey didn't take the camera. I just want to report what is in the the sources, with no interpretation by Wikipedia editors added. That's what WP:NPOV requires us to do.

On a related note: if, as you claim, Slater took the photos, then they would be about as valuable to him as the hundreds of photos of moneys that everyone agrees that he took personally, all of which together according to his own words did not bring in enough revenue to support him as a wildlife photographer. The sole reason this particular picture is valuable is because a monkey stole his camera and snapped a selfie. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

When someone makes the false claim by using just one source, ignoring all others, and putting it in Wikipedia's voice, well, that is a problem. When The Telegraph says X, The Guardian says Y, and the Daily Mail says Z then we don't cherry pick to make a claim. Its pretty simple. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 19:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

When The Telegraph says X and The Guardian says Y we report without commentary or interpretation that The Telegraph says X and The Guardian says Y. We don't delete what the Telegraph says because we don't like it. And we don't report what The Daily Mail says under any circumstances. This was decided at WP:DAILYMAIL. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

To add, given that Slater was alone for all this, then what the Telegraph or DM claims to have happened (that is not paraphrasing Slater's own words) is useless - they weren't there. And to be more specific, as I mentioned above, we'd be engaging in OR to try to compare and contrast what Slater claimed during the different stages of the copyright dispute, without a secondary source that notes the story changed. -- MASEM ( t) 19:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Does avoiding comparing and contrasting require deletion of what The Telegraph reported? I agree that any additional interpretation, whether it be "changed his story" or "later clarified" should be left out, but can't we simply report what The Telegraph said and the Slater quote from The Telegraph, along with the existing claims and quotes from Amateur Photographer, Vice, etc?

The reference and quote in question are now back in the article with no action on my part, so it looks like raising the NPOV issue here had a beneficial effect. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please look at [ [45]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)