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 65 | ← | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | → | Archive 75 |
I am trying to improve the controversial article of Immigration to Sweden and specifically the section crime. What is not disputed is that certain crimes are increasing [1], that immigrants are overrepresented or the reliability of Brå, but instead how to interpret the statistics. The section as several issues (eg it's too long 1500 words), but since this is NPOV lets focus on that part here. Currently the controversial Jerzy Sarnecki is given a monopoly with his hypothesis that immigration has not affected the level or type of crime [2], while others such as the Iran-Kurdish economist Tino Sanandaji (PhD University of Chicago and researcher at Stockholm School of Economics) has a different view. Politico Europe gave a summary of him in their "The 28 people who are shaping, shaking and stirring Europe List of 2018" [3]. The edit we are disputing for this discussion is this [4].
Sanandaji dedicate 5 pages in his book Massutmaning to counter Sarnecki and this misconception. For the purpose of this discussion and according to Fair Use and "Citaträtten", transcribed quotes of this so that you can temporary read the full argument using Translate. User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning#Excerpts. The argument can be summarized as:
I don't argue that we should delete the mentioning of Sarnecki on the page, but rather that we complement the page according to NPOV with this view. First this was blocked on the premise that Massutmaning was not a reliable enough source for this statement. But this argument was dismissed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard [5]. The consensus was that the source it self was reliable for this statement, but including it was a question of NPOV. After this discussion, they have now moved the goalposts to be about NPOV and this is where we are today. They have argued that Sanandaji is a fringe view and that the journal where they let Sarnecki's mistakes through is a better source than Massutmaning. First I would like to state that according to WP:IAR, we can dismiss these reason if we know that it will improve the article. However there is no such rule and the view Sanandaji present is neither Wikipedia:False balance nor WP:SPS. They also never raised these complains when I did the edits about Walloons and Germans in the history section [6]
Sanandaji has been cited/used as an expert of Swedish immigration in at least 8 different countries in 5 different languages (a lot for Swedish domestic policy) based on major news papers User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning#Sanandaji_as_an_expert. The book has also strictly received positive reviews by Swedish media User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning#Reviews and broke the financing record within Swedish publications [7]. The only critics are Sarnecki and debunked statements from Hans Lööf. The summary from Politico Europe should be enough to state his expertise/relevance on the subject. To avoid people criticizing his sources he has strictly relied on independent studies and government reports and deliberately never researched the area himself. Researches such as Assar Lindbeck and Jan Ekberg has approved of his argumentation.
From the previous RS Noticeboard discussion [8]
Can the crime section include views from other than Sarnecki? Given that 1. Sanandaji is referred to as an expert in various major news papers 2. that Massutmaning is famous in Sweden and 3. that Sarnecki is proven wrong, make his argument relevant to bring up in the crime section? -- Immunmotbluescreen ( talk) 09:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC regarding Star Wars: The Last Jedi and how to write about the audience response in line with WP:NPOV. Editors are invited to review the proposed approaches. The RfC can be found here: Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#RfC: Which version of the Audience response section should we go with?. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
An editor claim that there is POV pushing ans WP:Synthesis in the article Liberalism in Iran, A disccution took place but we can't reach consensus. I think that we need of other editors to resolve the problem, a third opinion is need. Rupert Loup ( talk) 03:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This is about [15] wherein the prophetess Ellen G. White confessed of having plagiarized various authors. There is a discussion of this topic at Talk:Ellen G. White#Ramik. Or my edit has to stay, or, if it counts as WP:OR, the Ramik self-serving story has to go as factually untrue. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
How should we define the word Tranny (slang) in the article?
At the moment of writing, the term is described as a derogatory and offensive slang term in the Wikipedia-article, and uses the last two dictionary-definitions as a source. However, given the descriptions in the other five dictionaries, I believe this doesn’t give the complete consensus among the term. Thus, I wonder: can any expert in the POV-field shine a light on this? See also the Laci Green-article and the discussion over there, where I came aware of the Tranny (slang)-article. Best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 11:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
RE: Laci Green: Green agreed with those who criticized her for using the word in 2012, and apologized for it. There was no dispute between Green and her critics over whether or not tranny is offensive. It was more to do with how women on YouTube can't cross anybody without being targeted with death threats, another issue entirely. This Wikipedia dispute is an effort to describe a controversy in a bio of Party A, on a point which Party B agrees with Party A. Apropos of nothing, a Wikipedia editor wants to insert the opinions of Party C, who wasn't involved with either A or B, to say that C thinks A and B are both wrong. We don't write BLPs in a way that sets them up for ambush and sniping by phantom critics: people who never criticized the the subject of the article, who may have never heard of the subject of the article, but whom Wikipedia editors have unearthed and brought into it for reasons of their own. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Tranny (or trannie) is a slang term for a transgender, transfeminine, transsexual, transvestite, or cross-dressing person. During the early 2010s, there was confusion and debate over whether the term was a pejorative, or was still considered acceptable, or even a reappropriated term of unity and pride. By 2017, the word was banned by several major media stylebooks and considered hate speech by Facebook.
And concerning Laci Green: I already said there WP:NPOV tells us that a neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone. Thus, calling the disputed term "pejorative" and "offensive" is not impartial and should be removed. Moreover, as WP:PUBLICFIGURE says: BLPs should simply document what these sources say. In the Daily Dot-articles, which are the sources for this affair, the terms "pejorative" and "offensive" cannot be found. Thus, the only choice we have is to avoid use of those words and stick to the facts. And since WP:BLPSOURCE dictates that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion (emphasis not mine) we should remove the terms asap.Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 09:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment It seems like we should follow the structure of other entries for pejorative terms: say it is pejorative/offensive/derogatory or (generally considered pejorative, if that's acceptable), and then discuss the nuances of the issue further if necessary in later sentences. To the extent that there is a debate about this, it appears to involve whether its acceptable for use by people within the LGBTQ community, which isn't the same as debating whether it is generally offensive for everyday speech. That's a debate that exists for lots of pejorative terms ( ex), but it doesn't stop us from calling those words pejorative in Wikipedia entries. The whole notion of reappropriating a term implies that the term is already considered offensive and derogatory. Nblund talk 00:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment Just from looking at the lead, it seems like the "derogatory and offensive" bit in the first line might be unnecessary, since the next two sentences make it very clear that this is a controversial term that many people think of as a pejorative. Also, dictionaries can be useful, but they absolutely cannot be a definitive source on whether a term is derogatory - there's rarely any kind of definitive answer to these questions that fits under a single dictionary definition. Same thing with newspaper style guidelines - all those do is reflect the opinion of those newspapers' editorial boards, they aren't authorities on wider societal usage. More specialized sources would probably be better for that determination. I assume that "tranny" has a quite a few papers or even books dedicated to its use, those should probably be the go-to sources on whether the term is considered derogatory, who considers it derogatory, and in what contexts. The definition in the lead is supposed to reflect the entirety of the article, but since the article is just a stub, that isn't really helpful here. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 02:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is this article in mainspace? It could be the poster article for WP:NOT#Dictionary - Usage, slang, or idiom guides - and should be redirecting to Transgender sexuality. Atsme 📞 📧 13:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
WP's sister project, Wiktionary, defines the term as (slang, chiefly derogatory, offensive) A transsexual, transgender or transvestite person, usually a trans woman; the latter being what WP:NOT#Dictionary policy suggests. Perhaps a paragraph could be added to the main article, Transgender sexuality, which needs a bit of expansion. Perhaps a merge into the main article would be the best option. I reviewed the cited sources in the stub, and except for one, maybe two RS, we're looking at 2 dictionary sources, passing mention in opinion pieces/blogs, a FB policy article in Wired, a journal MOS ref, an apology in Huff, an article in the Life and Style section of The Guardian, etc. Atsme 📞 📧 04:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment I just went ahead and changed it to "is a slang term, often used in a derogatory manner," Maybe I'll catch hell for doing that; if so, sorry. I'm trying to make a decent compromise. To be honest, I'm on the side of those who think "derogatory and offensive" could just be deleted to maintain neutrality, since the next two sentences mention the debate, but I feel my version is still somewhat neutral? Maybe "often used" is not neutral enough, but what does "sometimes used" imply? or perhaps my wording accidentally implies that the word is used often (obviously not what i intended) As to whether it IS an offensive term, I would say that there seems to still be some debate over that, as this very conversation seems to show. And arguments over it in 2010 does not seem that long ago for the argument to have been entirely settled. I don't think it would violate neutrality to say that "some consider it offensive" nor that "some people use it in a derogatory manner." Ah well, I suppose I probably should have discussed it here first before editing. OwlParty ( talk) 15:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I want to put a note here on my effort to keep the article neutral being hindered by user:Jeffro77. He is wearing down my edits even when reliably sourced by hanging on subtle wording issues and pushy arguments to exclude any source positive of JWs. As a result I often have to reason unnecessarily over subtle matters which in most cases I've prevailed or gave up. As editors may be aware this article can be likened to Homeopathy article, there is rarely a neutral editor to find. I am specifically bringing attention now to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Kedar. The criticism section on Jehovah's Witnesses#New World Translation only states one side of the story on alleged bias in "Old Testament" by a Baptist scholar. So I added a reference from a well respected Jewish Scholar who gave a highly positive opinion on "Old Testament" to the publisher of translation. The editor is so adamant in his stand that Jehovah's Witnesses publisher (Watchtower) misquotes the scholar Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, without giving a single evidence from any source to back his claim. I provided two independent sources (one from a critical work on JWs) that verifies professor's positive views, and a published research paper from professor himself that gives a positive evaluation. His logic is that positive precise wording by Kedar must have been misquoted by Watchtower, and if another letter from Kedar is published by a respected JW Hebrew scholar he must have had "vested interests". He can't seem to digest any positive opinions. Roller958 ( talk) 15:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Freedom Party of Austria
A group of articles including the one mentioned here in the title seem to use a form of synthesis in order to describe the political position of the subject of the article. In the case of this one, a bunch of sources describe it as "Right-wing", while another bunch refer to them as "Far-right".
The sources have then been compiled and the two terms put together to create the phrase "Political position: Right-wing to Far right". To me this seems to create an un-sourced claim that this party is somewhere "between" the two positions right-wing and far-right. At best this is more vague than an uncontroversial description using one of the two, at worst it inaccurately portrays the idea that the party is more moderate/centrist than what reliable sources would have us believe.
With people so invested in the public perceptions of these party's, (AFG notwithstanding) it would be naive not to consider that this verbiage might have been employed to detract from the idea that these party's hold extreme (and in some cases unpalatable) view points.
This is not an isolated case. Alternative for Germany also had the same issue. I attempted to change it when I saw it here per SYNTH and (not surprisingly) came up against a sizable reaction. If this issue requires addressing on a case by case basis; during the course of the discussion a list was helpfully made by an involved editor, of other articles which have employed this practice of generating verbiage. The list contains:
Is this a problem? to me it seems like it is, however if I keep raising it in the form of talk page discussion I am going to start sounding a bit WP:STICK. Advice appreciated. Edaham ( talk) 03:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Could use some fresh eyes at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Proposal. This proposal is not about renaming the Sega Genesis article to Mega Drive, but about stressing the misconception that Genesis is not the WP:COMMONAME and having both names share equal weight. Editors are not accepting a compromise to a heated issue despite evidence provided. JAG UAR 15:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
please comment here Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhawk777 ( talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Our article on the Burlington_mayoral_election,_2009 discusses the use of Instant Runoff Voting.
In particular there is a paragraph that compares IRV voting to other methods. This paragraph relies on poorly represented primary sources without inline attribution. The apparent aim is to characterize the highly controversial subject of comparative voting methods as seen in this redirect: [[Condorcet winner|most-preferred]] . Use of the redir in wikivoice is troubling, especially since one of the RS is the self pub statement of one of the main advocacy groups on one side of the controversy. I've tried to edit for faithful verification and NPOV according to the sources but have been edit warred. Ccould some others peek in please?
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Michael Oren has made a number of statements regarding the Tamimi family in general and
Ahed Tamimi in particular. The
proposed edit in question is this one. He initially made some comments in December 2017 immediately when this broke a tweet,
[1] which was then covered sparodically for the next month by various outlets both in news and in opinion pieces,
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] He was also interviewed on BBC radio (pain to locate transcript - there is reporting on the interview).
[13] Not that this is scant coverage, however what really got the ball rolling are comments on a parliamentary inquiry he made initially (on 23 January) to an Israeli newspaper, in Hebrew, Maariv
[14]. They were repeated in a number of other outlets in Hebrew -
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]. Haaretz the next day, 25 Jan, ran a full feature rebuttal of the Tamimi family asserting that they are real.
[19] Haaretz (which vies with JPost for being the Israeli newspaper of record in English) then translated both pieces to English.
[20]
[21] This was also translated by other Israeli outlets,
[22]
[23] This was also picked up by AP,
[24] and oddly picked up by the Israeli YNET and Israel Hayom (someone was asleep the day before?) from the English AP wire.
[25]
[26] The English translations and the AP write was then repeated by a whole raft of other outlets, including first-line international ones, often attributed back to Haaretz.
[27]
[28]
[29] This was then discussed in in-depth pieces about Oren himself,
[30]
[31] Opinion pieces against Oren by highly liberal and/or pro-Palestinian writers (some in non-RS, however the opinion is attributable, others in significant outlets),
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36] including a
J Street release against him (I'd guess he's more of an
American Israel Public Affairs Committee kinda fella).
[37]
[38] coverage around Tamim's trial on 13 Feburary,
[39]
[40] other coverage of Tamimi related events,
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44] Independent re-interviews with Oren in Tamimi profiles.
[45] In which NPR says in its own voice: "ESTRIN: In 2015, Oren led a classified parliamentary inquiry to investigate whether the Tamimis were a real family and not actors dressed in Western clothing, provoking soldiers on camera. He acknowledges the inquiry found no proof. The Tamimis are a prominent family in the area. Now Israel faces another dilemma. Her arrest has given her even more international attention.
"
[46] And there is quite a bit more of this - Particularly in spurts (e.g. around 24-26 Jan, 29 Jan, 13 Feb due to this being in related / copied coverage) - I did not type in all of what is available. At present, citing lack of consensus, an editor (backed by other editors reverting but not discussing) is objecting to inclusion of this in
Michael Oren. The relevant talk-page discussion is at:
Talk:Michael Oren#Recent edit.
Icewhiz (
talk) 07:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment. I'd like to mention that I find the systematic deletion of all Oren->Tamimi content on both the Tamimi page and the Oren page by a small group of editors quite disturbing. Furthermore, it is distressing that one of the excuses to expunge the content from the Tamimi page was "this belongs on the Oren page, not here", and then for these same editors to go to the Oren page and memory hole it repeatedly is quite remarkable. Of course the deleters would be right if there was no WP:RS for the Oren->Tamimi content, but the coverage by WP:RS on this subject is massive and sustained and the sources include bastions such as the Washington Post, [1] NPR, [2] and the BBC itself [3] (here's the Oren tweet to which the BBC refers) [4] XavierItzm ( talk) 07:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Could use more eyes. There are several issues on the page and content disputes between a Polish government line and the views taken by others (mainly outside of Poland). In addition, there is questionable use of sources, such as using Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Poland) to state facts that are very much in controversy about what Polish bill would or would not do - in preference to secondary sources such as the Washington Post and Reuters. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I've written an essay, after repeating many of the points contained therein to new and disruptive editors in controversial articles many, many times. I would like to invite watchers here to comment on it and help improve it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Others see her video as an example of Palestinian propaganda. A prominent critic is Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Michael Oren, who served as Israel's ambassador to the U.S. MICHAEL OREN: You've heard of Hollywood. You've heard of Bollywood. This is Pallywood. Pallywood is an industry - mostly video clips - against Israel that can cause a strategic damage around the world by influencing world opinion against us. ESTRIN: In 2015, Oren led a classified parliamentary inquiry to investigate whether the Tamimis were a real family and not actors dressed in Western clothing, provoking soldiers on camera.
Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and currently a deputy minister for diplomacy, tweeted accusing the Ahed family of dressing her in American-style clothing and paying them to provoke troops (Israel) in front of the camera.
Several dicussions are currently on-going within the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms and related pages. I've implemented a bold move for one of the articles. The discussion is listed here:
Additional community input would be appreciated. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I discussion is on-going at the above article regarding the inclusion of material relating to the use of AR-15 / Colt AR-15 semi-automatic firearms in mass shootings. The general discussion is here:
The two specific proposals are listed here:
Additional community input would be appreciated. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Shurat HaDin is an Israeli group which poses as a "civil rights" organization and whose purpose is to punish anyone and everyone in any way linked to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign (see Shurat HaDin#Criticism). It works closely with the Israeli government. In 2007, the group's director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner confided to US embassy staff in a leak published by WikiLeaks that her group "took direction … on which cases to pursue" and "receives evidence" from the Mossad and from Israel's National Security Council. [1] [2] [3]
References
Question is, would it be appropriate to mention the group's links to the Mossad and Israeli government in the lede section of the article? Al-Andalusi ( talk) 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Kku ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has wikilinked 55 occurrences of the phrase "thoughts and prayers" to our article Thoughts and prayers, which is about the politically-loaded meaning of the phrase. In my view that's 55 WP:NPOV violations, but I don't want to do 55 reverts without support for them as I would be committing myself to up to 55 parallel talk page discussions. Am I off base here, or no? ― Mandruss ☎ 12:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If the target article is too heavily weighted toward the political interpretation of the phrase, that can be addressed by editing.makes no sense at all since there is no place for anything but the political interpretation in that article. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to add some background to kku ( talk · contribs), who almost diligently seems to employ a careless practice of wikilinking, I copy my recent remark on his TP here:
Would you, please, mind to take care yourself of the numerous links you introduced to the article
Academic games? Please, disambiguate them in your own sphere of action instead of leaving a bot claiming about them. That is, please check links you introduce in your edits for their appropriate target. Thanks.
Purgy (
talk) 14:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest#Disputed template and Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest#Disputes regarding (1) Fort Pillow massacre and (2) KKK membership. deisenbe ( talk) 13:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't mean to be political here, but the article section "Post-privatisation" presents (mostly) improvements that have occurred since water privatisation in the UK.
My issue is that these improvements are not necessarily because of privatisation - the direct link is not presented.
The OECD and World Bank did not explicitly thank privatisation for all of these improvements, yet the article appears to suggest they did.
My point is backed up by evidence from other countries where similar efficiency/quality improvements have been observed, despite water industries remaining publicly owned.
The improvements are often the result of technological advances that are equally available to public and well as private operators. The article seems to neglect this.
On the other hand, I'd say too much prominence is given to the Camelford disaster.
Overall I think the article is badly laid out and may have a slight underlying bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.harrison83 ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Calling Neutral Parties: An unnamed IP address changed the heading of a large wiki article on Sathya Sai Baba and added what is (to me) clearly an non-neutral POV description of "'cult' leader". A number of users have tried to edit it or remove it and their revisions have been undone - possibly fairly as they did not give sources for the change. However, despite objections (by me) with considerable source referencing on the talk page, no consensus has yet been reached. Need some neutral parties to it who can weigh in. To me it is obviously a violation of wikipedia neutrality as I clearly explain on the talk page and referencing from the wikipedia neutrality policy:
Being not a neutral statement and an opinion held only by some sources it should be removed or placed in the allegations section, shouldn't it? Should we be using wikipedia's voice to call this a cult when as best I can tell from references the vast majority of references do not label it as such? See the suject's talk page for more.
My argument is that "spiritual leader" is a more neutral description as sourced by references in the diff page. Whether that is added or not - "cult" is disputed (the word is loaded - an inflammatory and dismissive one, partially supported by a tabloid), and as per wikipedia's neutrality rules, should be moved from the main description. Kindly let us know if you agree based on sources referenced?
Here's the diff page for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&type=revision&diff=825673266&oldid=825651116
Any help is appreciated. Thanks for reading. Objectiveap ( talk) 18:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@
Objectiveap: That's not what I'm seeing at all at
Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Use_of_Cult_Leader. C.Fred suggested Sathya Sai Baba (born 'Sathya Narayana Raju; 23 November 1926 – 24 April 2011) was an Indian guru,
You then immediately replied that cult spiritual leader, and philanthropist. He claimed to be the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi; however, he was frequently characterized as a cult leader.this group is clearly not usually viewed as a cult
. Chhandama presented sources demonstrating that this is incorrect, and you even acknowledged There are elements of the Sathya Sai Baba Movement that are cult-like
but refused to back down on total removal of the word "cult" from the article. Be wedded to truth, not to consistency.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 19:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
As with Mr X most sources I have found call him either A Guru or spiritual leader (but then neitehr preclude him also being a cult leader) maybe just say "is a Guru who has been characterized as either a spiritual leader or cult leader". Slatersteven ( talk) 08:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I've looked at these articles before, but surely the nub of the question (is this guy the leader of a cult), whether the
Sathya Sai Organization (or
Sathya Sai Baba movement - why do we have two articles?) is itself a cult. Certainly this noticeboard might want to look at that article first since at the moment it seems rather stuffed with uncritical puffery. Once this is sorted then it can be stated that Sathya is leader of "the Sathya Sai Organization, a $thingy" where $thingy is "cult", "philanthropic organization", "religious movement" or whatever. This also avoids BLP issues by characterizing the organization, not the person.
Alexbrn (
talk) 07:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC); Amended 17:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC) he's actually dead I see.
Anger about the recent mass shooting seems to be translating into problems with the lede over at Vista Outdoor. I think this needs some uninvolved eyes. 60.234.42.253 ( talk) 13:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see my discussion with Eggishorn on my request to edit the line
Gaza Strip, an Arab-inhabited region on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea
to
Gaza Strip, a small Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea
I fail to see how the latter violates WP:NPOV, while the former does not. I think it should be obvious that the latter is a more accurate description of the linked article. Tissn ( talk) 19:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I certainly hope Wikipedia hasn't adopted a policy of ignoring international law and opinion to appease an illegal occupant.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven ( talk) 20:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Gaza Strip, a small Hamas territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea?
I find your arrogant disregard for these nationalities offensive.You have a group of Arabs who have come to identify with the term, much as the concept of Syrian or Lebanese has emerged
Just not "Palestinian", is that it?I'm happy to acknowledge Gaza as an independent, de facto self-governing entity
Like the gold standard set by Israel, I assume?It's a shame they're not held to the same standards as others...
And the International Court of Justice, and Israel's own Supreme Court, and most of the rest of the world. Frankly, I find your whole attitude appalling, and I have no appetite to continue this toxic discussion. I'm happy the page has been corrected, and I consider the issue resolved. Tissn ( talk) 20:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)But Tissn, just because the UN says something
We must remember that this is not article text but just a dab page. The existing text, which is "a Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea" is brief, informative, and doesn't contain a single letter that is disputed by any of the parties mentioned (Israel, Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Egypt, United Nations). Hints at disputes over the political and legal status of the territory are not necessary in order to define the topic and lead readers to the full article, which is all we require of a dab page. Zero talk 03:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Jeffrey St. Clair ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In this stub article, an editor has created a section, " Controversies." The sole text is a single sentence, "Jeffrey St Clair has been called sexist in the way he has handled running CounterPunch." It is sourced to an opinion piece by Sharon Smith, called " Bluff, bluster and bullshit at Counterpunch" on the Socialist Worker website. In it, she complains that an article in Counterpunch by Ruth Fowler, " Angelina Jolie Under the Knife: Of Privilege, Health Care and Tits," used the word "tits," which Smith says has been used to objectify and degrade women's bodies. Although St. Clair defended Fowler, the offending word no longer appears in the article or its title. I don't think that Smith was criticizing how St. Clair runs Counterpunch, but about a specific editorial decision. And to be neutral, it would have to explain the criticism and St. Clair's reply. Furthermore, the commentary has no weight - a column on a Trotskyist website should not be the only source for the only information in the body of the article. In my opinion, the section should be removed. I set up a discussion thread at Talk:Jeffrey St. Clair#Controversies section, but the other editor has not replied. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have concerns about this RM discussion. The gist:
This RM, if no WP:SNOWBALL results, should be closed by one of our occasional three-admin panels, with an explicit focus on policy and sourcing strengths in the arguments, and a discounting of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and extraneous political posturing. This is precisely the kind of RM that a lone closer is most likely to close in favour of a pure vote-count just to avoid ranty criticism.
PS: I am not a gun owner; this is about us doing our encyclopedic "job", not about " WP:WINNING". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
This complaint I am referring to you is in relation to the English version of Wikipedia, which contains information about Delyan Peevski. The article is available at [1] The article contains many untrue circumstances and manipulative statements, which are not supported by reliable sources (or they refer to sources – Bulgarian media, which constantly generate “fake news”). I will briefly address some of the false statements in the article 1. At the very beginning of the article he is defined as an “oligarch” – as per the definition of the word in Wikipedia this is „a person, who is part of a small group of people holding power in a state“. The reference to the source that is being archived presently neither justifies such a statement nor the statement is credible. 2. False statements are made for his possession of media and property. According to the Bulgarian Commercial registry [2] and the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria [3] where the Bulgarian government publish the list of newspapers and their owners in Bulgaria he doesn’t own 20 newspapers or magazines. This information is published twice with the same source which is false according to the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria [4] Furthermore his mother doesn't own the company cited in this article. This information is old and needs to be updated. 3. The statements in the entire paragraph "Privatization controversies" are also absurd and not supported by any facts. Formally there is no source of information to which this paragraph to refer to and it is marked as “citation needed”, however the contents still stays, not redacted.
4. The next paragraph, "Media and business empire", is again full of false facts and allegations for criminal activity. There are suggestions for large properties associated with him, described as a huge number of media, expressed as figures, without mentioning media names, without reference to an official company register, without citing reliable sources. The citation used is again by contributor, identified only with initials: “Sep 20th 2013 by V.v.B. | SOFIA”.
He is currently a Bulgarian MP in the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria and a living person. The whole article makes suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damages his good name. It creates a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggests that he is a part of criminal activities. The content described is defamatory and untruthful and as such is contrary to the law, to the Internet ethics, to the rules of morality and good faith, as well as to three of the Wikipedia content principles: - Opportunity to verify (against relibale sources); - Neutral point of view; - Encyclopedic style.— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee-ann-25 ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
I kindly ask you to consider the removal of a page in the English version of Wikipedia, pretending to portrait the Bulgarian MP Delyan Peevski. The article is available at
[5] and contains many untrue and manipulative statements, which are not supported by reliable sources or are supported by articles in media outlets proliferating fake news. Any attempt to remove the manipulative facts and update the information with reliable sources are being blocked and the data - erased. Thus violating the Information about living persons policy of WP.
I will briefly outline some of the manipulative statements in the article:
1. False statements about the media he possesses. According to the article he is in possession of "more than 20" newspapers - a statement which is absolutely untrue. This can be checked up in the Bulgarian Commercial registry
[6] and the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria
[7] where the Bulgarian government publish the list of newspapers and their owners.
2. The entire paragraph "Privatization controversies" is manipulative and not supported by any facts. The same applies to the next paragraph "Media and business empire". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lee-ann-25 (
talk •
contribs) 20:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
References
This article is prone to POV pushing, vandalism and subtle BLP violations by IPs. ( exhibit A) Apparently he was on TV last night and an argument ensued. This is how an IP added it to the article. (the first time it was added the IP didn't cite a source so I removed it due to BLP) If you read the source being used, it clearly states both guests were arguing back and forth, trading insults, etc. The show is hosted by a highly partisan commentator and both guests are highly partisan political consultants. The fact the host agrees with the person that is pro-Trump is not a surprise. If this content belongs, which I really don't think is notable enough for inclusion in his bio, what are other views on how it should be worded? APK whisper in my ear 03:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Please consider participating in the RfC at Talk:Faith healing#RfC about inserting content and category about pseudoscience. VQuakr ( talk) 06:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | → | Archive 75 |
I am trying to improve the controversial article of Immigration to Sweden and specifically the section crime. What is not disputed is that certain crimes are increasing [1], that immigrants are overrepresented or the reliability of Brå, but instead how to interpret the statistics. The section as several issues (eg it's too long 1500 words), but since this is NPOV lets focus on that part here. Currently the controversial Jerzy Sarnecki is given a monopoly with his hypothesis that immigration has not affected the level or type of crime [2], while others such as the Iran-Kurdish economist Tino Sanandaji (PhD University of Chicago and researcher at Stockholm School of Economics) has a different view. Politico Europe gave a summary of him in their "The 28 people who are shaping, shaking and stirring Europe List of 2018" [3]. The edit we are disputing for this discussion is this [4].
Sanandaji dedicate 5 pages in his book Massutmaning to counter Sarnecki and this misconception. For the purpose of this discussion and according to Fair Use and "Citaträtten", transcribed quotes of this so that you can temporary read the full argument using Translate. User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning#Excerpts. The argument can be summarized as:
I don't argue that we should delete the mentioning of Sarnecki on the page, but rather that we complement the page according to NPOV with this view. First this was blocked on the premise that Massutmaning was not a reliable enough source for this statement. But this argument was dismissed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard [5]. The consensus was that the source it self was reliable for this statement, but including it was a question of NPOV. After this discussion, they have now moved the goalposts to be about NPOV and this is where we are today. They have argued that Sanandaji is a fringe view and that the journal where they let Sarnecki's mistakes through is a better source than Massutmaning. First I would like to state that according to WP:IAR, we can dismiss these reason if we know that it will improve the article. However there is no such rule and the view Sanandaji present is neither Wikipedia:False balance nor WP:SPS. They also never raised these complains when I did the edits about Walloons and Germans in the history section [6]
Sanandaji has been cited/used as an expert of Swedish immigration in at least 8 different countries in 5 different languages (a lot for Swedish domestic policy) based on major news papers User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning#Sanandaji_as_an_expert. The book has also strictly received positive reviews by Swedish media User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning#Reviews and broke the financing record within Swedish publications [7]. The only critics are Sarnecki and debunked statements from Hans Lööf. The summary from Politico Europe should be enough to state his expertise/relevance on the subject. To avoid people criticizing his sources he has strictly relied on independent studies and government reports and deliberately never researched the area himself. Researches such as Assar Lindbeck and Jan Ekberg has approved of his argumentation.
From the previous RS Noticeboard discussion [8]
Can the crime section include views from other than Sarnecki? Given that 1. Sanandaji is referred to as an expert in various major news papers 2. that Massutmaning is famous in Sweden and 3. that Sarnecki is proven wrong, make his argument relevant to bring up in the crime section? -- Immunmotbluescreen ( talk) 09:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC regarding Star Wars: The Last Jedi and how to write about the audience response in line with WP:NPOV. Editors are invited to review the proposed approaches. The RfC can be found here: Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#RfC: Which version of the Audience response section should we go with?. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
An editor claim that there is POV pushing ans WP:Synthesis in the article Liberalism in Iran, A disccution took place but we can't reach consensus. I think that we need of other editors to resolve the problem, a third opinion is need. Rupert Loup ( talk) 03:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This is about [15] wherein the prophetess Ellen G. White confessed of having plagiarized various authors. There is a discussion of this topic at Talk:Ellen G. White#Ramik. Or my edit has to stay, or, if it counts as WP:OR, the Ramik self-serving story has to go as factually untrue. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
How should we define the word Tranny (slang) in the article?
At the moment of writing, the term is described as a derogatory and offensive slang term in the Wikipedia-article, and uses the last two dictionary-definitions as a source. However, given the descriptions in the other five dictionaries, I believe this doesn’t give the complete consensus among the term. Thus, I wonder: can any expert in the POV-field shine a light on this? See also the Laci Green-article and the discussion over there, where I came aware of the Tranny (slang)-article. Best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 11:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
RE: Laci Green: Green agreed with those who criticized her for using the word in 2012, and apologized for it. There was no dispute between Green and her critics over whether or not tranny is offensive. It was more to do with how women on YouTube can't cross anybody without being targeted with death threats, another issue entirely. This Wikipedia dispute is an effort to describe a controversy in a bio of Party A, on a point which Party B agrees with Party A. Apropos of nothing, a Wikipedia editor wants to insert the opinions of Party C, who wasn't involved with either A or B, to say that C thinks A and B are both wrong. We don't write BLPs in a way that sets them up for ambush and sniping by phantom critics: people who never criticized the the subject of the article, who may have never heard of the subject of the article, but whom Wikipedia editors have unearthed and brought into it for reasons of their own. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Tranny (or trannie) is a slang term for a transgender, transfeminine, transsexual, transvestite, or cross-dressing person. During the early 2010s, there was confusion and debate over whether the term was a pejorative, or was still considered acceptable, or even a reappropriated term of unity and pride. By 2017, the word was banned by several major media stylebooks and considered hate speech by Facebook.
And concerning Laci Green: I already said there WP:NPOV tells us that a neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone. Thus, calling the disputed term "pejorative" and "offensive" is not impartial and should be removed. Moreover, as WP:PUBLICFIGURE says: BLPs should simply document what these sources say. In the Daily Dot-articles, which are the sources for this affair, the terms "pejorative" and "offensive" cannot be found. Thus, the only choice we have is to avoid use of those words and stick to the facts. And since WP:BLPSOURCE dictates that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion (emphasis not mine) we should remove the terms asap.Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 09:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment It seems like we should follow the structure of other entries for pejorative terms: say it is pejorative/offensive/derogatory or (generally considered pejorative, if that's acceptable), and then discuss the nuances of the issue further if necessary in later sentences. To the extent that there is a debate about this, it appears to involve whether its acceptable for use by people within the LGBTQ community, which isn't the same as debating whether it is generally offensive for everyday speech. That's a debate that exists for lots of pejorative terms ( ex), but it doesn't stop us from calling those words pejorative in Wikipedia entries. The whole notion of reappropriating a term implies that the term is already considered offensive and derogatory. Nblund talk 00:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment Just from looking at the lead, it seems like the "derogatory and offensive" bit in the first line might be unnecessary, since the next two sentences make it very clear that this is a controversial term that many people think of as a pejorative. Also, dictionaries can be useful, but they absolutely cannot be a definitive source on whether a term is derogatory - there's rarely any kind of definitive answer to these questions that fits under a single dictionary definition. Same thing with newspaper style guidelines - all those do is reflect the opinion of those newspapers' editorial boards, they aren't authorities on wider societal usage. More specialized sources would probably be better for that determination. I assume that "tranny" has a quite a few papers or even books dedicated to its use, those should probably be the go-to sources on whether the term is considered derogatory, who considers it derogatory, and in what contexts. The definition in the lead is supposed to reflect the entirety of the article, but since the article is just a stub, that isn't really helpful here. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 02:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is this article in mainspace? It could be the poster article for WP:NOT#Dictionary - Usage, slang, or idiom guides - and should be redirecting to Transgender sexuality. Atsme 📞 📧 13:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
WP's sister project, Wiktionary, defines the term as (slang, chiefly derogatory, offensive) A transsexual, transgender or transvestite person, usually a trans woman; the latter being what WP:NOT#Dictionary policy suggests. Perhaps a paragraph could be added to the main article, Transgender sexuality, which needs a bit of expansion. Perhaps a merge into the main article would be the best option. I reviewed the cited sources in the stub, and except for one, maybe two RS, we're looking at 2 dictionary sources, passing mention in opinion pieces/blogs, a FB policy article in Wired, a journal MOS ref, an apology in Huff, an article in the Life and Style section of The Guardian, etc. Atsme 📞 📧 04:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment I just went ahead and changed it to "is a slang term, often used in a derogatory manner," Maybe I'll catch hell for doing that; if so, sorry. I'm trying to make a decent compromise. To be honest, I'm on the side of those who think "derogatory and offensive" could just be deleted to maintain neutrality, since the next two sentences mention the debate, but I feel my version is still somewhat neutral? Maybe "often used" is not neutral enough, but what does "sometimes used" imply? or perhaps my wording accidentally implies that the word is used often (obviously not what i intended) As to whether it IS an offensive term, I would say that there seems to still be some debate over that, as this very conversation seems to show. And arguments over it in 2010 does not seem that long ago for the argument to have been entirely settled. I don't think it would violate neutrality to say that "some consider it offensive" nor that "some people use it in a derogatory manner." Ah well, I suppose I probably should have discussed it here first before editing. OwlParty ( talk) 15:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I want to put a note here on my effort to keep the article neutral being hindered by user:Jeffro77. He is wearing down my edits even when reliably sourced by hanging on subtle wording issues and pushy arguments to exclude any source positive of JWs. As a result I often have to reason unnecessarily over subtle matters which in most cases I've prevailed or gave up. As editors may be aware this article can be likened to Homeopathy article, there is rarely a neutral editor to find. I am specifically bringing attention now to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Kedar. The criticism section on Jehovah's Witnesses#New World Translation only states one side of the story on alleged bias in "Old Testament" by a Baptist scholar. So I added a reference from a well respected Jewish Scholar who gave a highly positive opinion on "Old Testament" to the publisher of translation. The editor is so adamant in his stand that Jehovah's Witnesses publisher (Watchtower) misquotes the scholar Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, without giving a single evidence from any source to back his claim. I provided two independent sources (one from a critical work on JWs) that verifies professor's positive views, and a published research paper from professor himself that gives a positive evaluation. His logic is that positive precise wording by Kedar must have been misquoted by Watchtower, and if another letter from Kedar is published by a respected JW Hebrew scholar he must have had "vested interests". He can't seem to digest any positive opinions. Roller958 ( talk) 15:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Freedom Party of Austria
A group of articles including the one mentioned here in the title seem to use a form of synthesis in order to describe the political position of the subject of the article. In the case of this one, a bunch of sources describe it as "Right-wing", while another bunch refer to them as "Far-right".
The sources have then been compiled and the two terms put together to create the phrase "Political position: Right-wing to Far right". To me this seems to create an un-sourced claim that this party is somewhere "between" the two positions right-wing and far-right. At best this is more vague than an uncontroversial description using one of the two, at worst it inaccurately portrays the idea that the party is more moderate/centrist than what reliable sources would have us believe.
With people so invested in the public perceptions of these party's, (AFG notwithstanding) it would be naive not to consider that this verbiage might have been employed to detract from the idea that these party's hold extreme (and in some cases unpalatable) view points.
This is not an isolated case. Alternative for Germany also had the same issue. I attempted to change it when I saw it here per SYNTH and (not surprisingly) came up against a sizable reaction. If this issue requires addressing on a case by case basis; during the course of the discussion a list was helpfully made by an involved editor, of other articles which have employed this practice of generating verbiage. The list contains:
Is this a problem? to me it seems like it is, however if I keep raising it in the form of talk page discussion I am going to start sounding a bit WP:STICK. Advice appreciated. Edaham ( talk) 03:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Could use some fresh eyes at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Proposal. This proposal is not about renaming the Sega Genesis article to Mega Drive, but about stressing the misconception that Genesis is not the WP:COMMONAME and having both names share equal weight. Editors are not accepting a compromise to a heated issue despite evidence provided. JAG UAR 15:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
please comment here Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhawk777 ( talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Our article on the Burlington_mayoral_election,_2009 discusses the use of Instant Runoff Voting.
In particular there is a paragraph that compares IRV voting to other methods. This paragraph relies on poorly represented primary sources without inline attribution. The apparent aim is to characterize the highly controversial subject of comparative voting methods as seen in this redirect: [[Condorcet winner|most-preferred]] . Use of the redir in wikivoice is troubling, especially since one of the RS is the self pub statement of one of the main advocacy groups on one side of the controversy. I've tried to edit for faithful verification and NPOV according to the sources but have been edit warred. Ccould some others peek in please?
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Michael Oren has made a number of statements regarding the Tamimi family in general and
Ahed Tamimi in particular. The
proposed edit in question is this one. He initially made some comments in December 2017 immediately when this broke a tweet,
[1] which was then covered sparodically for the next month by various outlets both in news and in opinion pieces,
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] He was also interviewed on BBC radio (pain to locate transcript - there is reporting on the interview).
[13] Not that this is scant coverage, however what really got the ball rolling are comments on a parliamentary inquiry he made initially (on 23 January) to an Israeli newspaper, in Hebrew, Maariv
[14]. They were repeated in a number of other outlets in Hebrew -
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]. Haaretz the next day, 25 Jan, ran a full feature rebuttal of the Tamimi family asserting that they are real.
[19] Haaretz (which vies with JPost for being the Israeli newspaper of record in English) then translated both pieces to English.
[20]
[21] This was also translated by other Israeli outlets,
[22]
[23] This was also picked up by AP,
[24] and oddly picked up by the Israeli YNET and Israel Hayom (someone was asleep the day before?) from the English AP wire.
[25]
[26] The English translations and the AP write was then repeated by a whole raft of other outlets, including first-line international ones, often attributed back to Haaretz.
[27]
[28]
[29] This was then discussed in in-depth pieces about Oren himself,
[30]
[31] Opinion pieces against Oren by highly liberal and/or pro-Palestinian writers (some in non-RS, however the opinion is attributable, others in significant outlets),
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36] including a
J Street release against him (I'd guess he's more of an
American Israel Public Affairs Committee kinda fella).
[37]
[38] coverage around Tamim's trial on 13 Feburary,
[39]
[40] other coverage of Tamimi related events,
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44] Independent re-interviews with Oren in Tamimi profiles.
[45] In which NPR says in its own voice: "ESTRIN: In 2015, Oren led a classified parliamentary inquiry to investigate whether the Tamimis were a real family and not actors dressed in Western clothing, provoking soldiers on camera. He acknowledges the inquiry found no proof. The Tamimis are a prominent family in the area. Now Israel faces another dilemma. Her arrest has given her even more international attention.
"
[46] And there is quite a bit more of this - Particularly in spurts (e.g. around 24-26 Jan, 29 Jan, 13 Feb due to this being in related / copied coverage) - I did not type in all of what is available. At present, citing lack of consensus, an editor (backed by other editors reverting but not discussing) is objecting to inclusion of this in
Michael Oren. The relevant talk-page discussion is at:
Talk:Michael Oren#Recent edit.
Icewhiz (
talk) 07:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment. I'd like to mention that I find the systematic deletion of all Oren->Tamimi content on both the Tamimi page and the Oren page by a small group of editors quite disturbing. Furthermore, it is distressing that one of the excuses to expunge the content from the Tamimi page was "this belongs on the Oren page, not here", and then for these same editors to go to the Oren page and memory hole it repeatedly is quite remarkable. Of course the deleters would be right if there was no WP:RS for the Oren->Tamimi content, but the coverage by WP:RS on this subject is massive and sustained and the sources include bastions such as the Washington Post, [1] NPR, [2] and the BBC itself [3] (here's the Oren tweet to which the BBC refers) [4] XavierItzm ( talk) 07:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Could use more eyes. There are several issues on the page and content disputes between a Polish government line and the views taken by others (mainly outside of Poland). In addition, there is questionable use of sources, such as using Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Poland) to state facts that are very much in controversy about what Polish bill would or would not do - in preference to secondary sources such as the Washington Post and Reuters. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I've written an essay, after repeating many of the points contained therein to new and disruptive editors in controversial articles many, many times. I would like to invite watchers here to comment on it and help improve it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Others see her video as an example of Palestinian propaganda. A prominent critic is Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Michael Oren, who served as Israel's ambassador to the U.S. MICHAEL OREN: You've heard of Hollywood. You've heard of Bollywood. This is Pallywood. Pallywood is an industry - mostly video clips - against Israel that can cause a strategic damage around the world by influencing world opinion against us. ESTRIN: In 2015, Oren led a classified parliamentary inquiry to investigate whether the Tamimis were a real family and not actors dressed in Western clothing, provoking soldiers on camera.
Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and currently a deputy minister for diplomacy, tweeted accusing the Ahed family of dressing her in American-style clothing and paying them to provoke troops (Israel) in front of the camera.
Several dicussions are currently on-going within the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms and related pages. I've implemented a bold move for one of the articles. The discussion is listed here:
Additional community input would be appreciated. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I discussion is on-going at the above article regarding the inclusion of material relating to the use of AR-15 / Colt AR-15 semi-automatic firearms in mass shootings. The general discussion is here:
The two specific proposals are listed here:
Additional community input would be appreciated. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Shurat HaDin is an Israeli group which poses as a "civil rights" organization and whose purpose is to punish anyone and everyone in any way linked to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign (see Shurat HaDin#Criticism). It works closely with the Israeli government. In 2007, the group's director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner confided to US embassy staff in a leak published by WikiLeaks that her group "took direction … on which cases to pursue" and "receives evidence" from the Mossad and from Israel's National Security Council. [1] [2] [3]
References
Question is, would it be appropriate to mention the group's links to the Mossad and Israeli government in the lede section of the article? Al-Andalusi ( talk) 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Kku ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has wikilinked 55 occurrences of the phrase "thoughts and prayers" to our article Thoughts and prayers, which is about the politically-loaded meaning of the phrase. In my view that's 55 WP:NPOV violations, but I don't want to do 55 reverts without support for them as I would be committing myself to up to 55 parallel talk page discussions. Am I off base here, or no? ― Mandruss ☎ 12:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If the target article is too heavily weighted toward the political interpretation of the phrase, that can be addressed by editing.makes no sense at all since there is no place for anything but the political interpretation in that article. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to add some background to kku ( talk · contribs), who almost diligently seems to employ a careless practice of wikilinking, I copy my recent remark on his TP here:
Would you, please, mind to take care yourself of the numerous links you introduced to the article
Academic games? Please, disambiguate them in your own sphere of action instead of leaving a bot claiming about them. That is, please check links you introduce in your edits for their appropriate target. Thanks.
Purgy (
talk) 14:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest#Disputed template and Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest#Disputes regarding (1) Fort Pillow massacre and (2) KKK membership. deisenbe ( talk) 13:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't mean to be political here, but the article section "Post-privatisation" presents (mostly) improvements that have occurred since water privatisation in the UK.
My issue is that these improvements are not necessarily because of privatisation - the direct link is not presented.
The OECD and World Bank did not explicitly thank privatisation for all of these improvements, yet the article appears to suggest they did.
My point is backed up by evidence from other countries where similar efficiency/quality improvements have been observed, despite water industries remaining publicly owned.
The improvements are often the result of technological advances that are equally available to public and well as private operators. The article seems to neglect this.
On the other hand, I'd say too much prominence is given to the Camelford disaster.
Overall I think the article is badly laid out and may have a slight underlying bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.harrison83 ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Calling Neutral Parties: An unnamed IP address changed the heading of a large wiki article on Sathya Sai Baba and added what is (to me) clearly an non-neutral POV description of "'cult' leader". A number of users have tried to edit it or remove it and their revisions have been undone - possibly fairly as they did not give sources for the change. However, despite objections (by me) with considerable source referencing on the talk page, no consensus has yet been reached. Need some neutral parties to it who can weigh in. To me it is obviously a violation of wikipedia neutrality as I clearly explain on the talk page and referencing from the wikipedia neutrality policy:
Being not a neutral statement and an opinion held only by some sources it should be removed or placed in the allegations section, shouldn't it? Should we be using wikipedia's voice to call this a cult when as best I can tell from references the vast majority of references do not label it as such? See the suject's talk page for more.
My argument is that "spiritual leader" is a more neutral description as sourced by references in the diff page. Whether that is added or not - "cult" is disputed (the word is loaded - an inflammatory and dismissive one, partially supported by a tabloid), and as per wikipedia's neutrality rules, should be moved from the main description. Kindly let us know if you agree based on sources referenced?
Here's the diff page for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&type=revision&diff=825673266&oldid=825651116
Any help is appreciated. Thanks for reading. Objectiveap ( talk) 18:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@
Objectiveap: That's not what I'm seeing at all at
Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Use_of_Cult_Leader. C.Fred suggested Sathya Sai Baba (born 'Sathya Narayana Raju; 23 November 1926 – 24 April 2011) was an Indian guru,
You then immediately replied that cult spiritual leader, and philanthropist. He claimed to be the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi; however, he was frequently characterized as a cult leader.this group is clearly not usually viewed as a cult
. Chhandama presented sources demonstrating that this is incorrect, and you even acknowledged There are elements of the Sathya Sai Baba Movement that are cult-like
but refused to back down on total removal of the word "cult" from the article. Be wedded to truth, not to consistency.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 19:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
As with Mr X most sources I have found call him either A Guru or spiritual leader (but then neitehr preclude him also being a cult leader) maybe just say "is a Guru who has been characterized as either a spiritual leader or cult leader". Slatersteven ( talk) 08:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I've looked at these articles before, but surely the nub of the question (is this guy the leader of a cult), whether the
Sathya Sai Organization (or
Sathya Sai Baba movement - why do we have two articles?) is itself a cult. Certainly this noticeboard might want to look at that article first since at the moment it seems rather stuffed with uncritical puffery. Once this is sorted then it can be stated that Sathya is leader of "the Sathya Sai Organization, a $thingy" where $thingy is "cult", "philanthropic organization", "religious movement" or whatever. This also avoids BLP issues by characterizing the organization, not the person.
Alexbrn (
talk) 07:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC); Amended 17:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC) he's actually dead I see.
Anger about the recent mass shooting seems to be translating into problems with the lede over at Vista Outdoor. I think this needs some uninvolved eyes. 60.234.42.253 ( talk) 13:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see my discussion with Eggishorn on my request to edit the line
Gaza Strip, an Arab-inhabited region on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea
to
Gaza Strip, a small Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea
I fail to see how the latter violates WP:NPOV, while the former does not. I think it should be obvious that the latter is a more accurate description of the linked article. Tissn ( talk) 19:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I certainly hope Wikipedia hasn't adopted a policy of ignoring international law and opinion to appease an illegal occupant.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven ( talk) 20:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Gaza Strip, a small Hamas territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea?
I find your arrogant disregard for these nationalities offensive.You have a group of Arabs who have come to identify with the term, much as the concept of Syrian or Lebanese has emerged
Just not "Palestinian", is that it?I'm happy to acknowledge Gaza as an independent, de facto self-governing entity
Like the gold standard set by Israel, I assume?It's a shame they're not held to the same standards as others...
And the International Court of Justice, and Israel's own Supreme Court, and most of the rest of the world. Frankly, I find your whole attitude appalling, and I have no appetite to continue this toxic discussion. I'm happy the page has been corrected, and I consider the issue resolved. Tissn ( talk) 20:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)But Tissn, just because the UN says something
We must remember that this is not article text but just a dab page. The existing text, which is "a Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea" is brief, informative, and doesn't contain a single letter that is disputed by any of the parties mentioned (Israel, Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Egypt, United Nations). Hints at disputes over the political and legal status of the territory are not necessary in order to define the topic and lead readers to the full article, which is all we require of a dab page. Zero talk 03:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Jeffrey St. Clair ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In this stub article, an editor has created a section, " Controversies." The sole text is a single sentence, "Jeffrey St Clair has been called sexist in the way he has handled running CounterPunch." It is sourced to an opinion piece by Sharon Smith, called " Bluff, bluster and bullshit at Counterpunch" on the Socialist Worker website. In it, she complains that an article in Counterpunch by Ruth Fowler, " Angelina Jolie Under the Knife: Of Privilege, Health Care and Tits," used the word "tits," which Smith says has been used to objectify and degrade women's bodies. Although St. Clair defended Fowler, the offending word no longer appears in the article or its title. I don't think that Smith was criticizing how St. Clair runs Counterpunch, but about a specific editorial decision. And to be neutral, it would have to explain the criticism and St. Clair's reply. Furthermore, the commentary has no weight - a column on a Trotskyist website should not be the only source for the only information in the body of the article. In my opinion, the section should be removed. I set up a discussion thread at Talk:Jeffrey St. Clair#Controversies section, but the other editor has not replied. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have concerns about this RM discussion. The gist:
This RM, if no WP:SNOWBALL results, should be closed by one of our occasional three-admin panels, with an explicit focus on policy and sourcing strengths in the arguments, and a discounting of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and extraneous political posturing. This is precisely the kind of RM that a lone closer is most likely to close in favour of a pure vote-count just to avoid ranty criticism.
PS: I am not a gun owner; this is about us doing our encyclopedic "job", not about " WP:WINNING". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
This complaint I am referring to you is in relation to the English version of Wikipedia, which contains information about Delyan Peevski. The article is available at [1] The article contains many untrue circumstances and manipulative statements, which are not supported by reliable sources (or they refer to sources – Bulgarian media, which constantly generate “fake news”). I will briefly address some of the false statements in the article 1. At the very beginning of the article he is defined as an “oligarch” – as per the definition of the word in Wikipedia this is „a person, who is part of a small group of people holding power in a state“. The reference to the source that is being archived presently neither justifies such a statement nor the statement is credible. 2. False statements are made for his possession of media and property. According to the Bulgarian Commercial registry [2] and the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria [3] where the Bulgarian government publish the list of newspapers and their owners in Bulgaria he doesn’t own 20 newspapers or magazines. This information is published twice with the same source which is false according to the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria [4] Furthermore his mother doesn't own the company cited in this article. This information is old and needs to be updated. 3. The statements in the entire paragraph "Privatization controversies" are also absurd and not supported by any facts. Formally there is no source of information to which this paragraph to refer to and it is marked as “citation needed”, however the contents still stays, not redacted.
4. The next paragraph, "Media and business empire", is again full of false facts and allegations for criminal activity. There are suggestions for large properties associated with him, described as a huge number of media, expressed as figures, without mentioning media names, without reference to an official company register, without citing reliable sources. The citation used is again by contributor, identified only with initials: “Sep 20th 2013 by V.v.B. | SOFIA”.
He is currently a Bulgarian MP in the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria and a living person. The whole article makes suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damages his good name. It creates a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggests that he is a part of criminal activities. The content described is defamatory and untruthful and as such is contrary to the law, to the Internet ethics, to the rules of morality and good faith, as well as to three of the Wikipedia content principles: - Opportunity to verify (against relibale sources); - Neutral point of view; - Encyclopedic style.— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee-ann-25 ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
I kindly ask you to consider the removal of a page in the English version of Wikipedia, pretending to portrait the Bulgarian MP Delyan Peevski. The article is available at
[5] and contains many untrue and manipulative statements, which are not supported by reliable sources or are supported by articles in media outlets proliferating fake news. Any attempt to remove the manipulative facts and update the information with reliable sources are being blocked and the data - erased. Thus violating the Information about living persons policy of WP.
I will briefly outline some of the manipulative statements in the article:
1. False statements about the media he possesses. According to the article he is in possession of "more than 20" newspapers - a statement which is absolutely untrue. This can be checked up in the Bulgarian Commercial registry
[6] and the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria
[7] where the Bulgarian government publish the list of newspapers and their owners.
2. The entire paragraph "Privatization controversies" is manipulative and not supported by any facts. The same applies to the next paragraph "Media and business empire". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lee-ann-25 (
talk •
contribs) 20:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
References
This article is prone to POV pushing, vandalism and subtle BLP violations by IPs. ( exhibit A) Apparently he was on TV last night and an argument ensued. This is how an IP added it to the article. (the first time it was added the IP didn't cite a source so I removed it due to BLP) If you read the source being used, it clearly states both guests were arguing back and forth, trading insults, etc. The show is hosted by a highly partisan commentator and both guests are highly partisan political consultants. The fact the host agrees with the person that is pro-Trump is not a surprise. If this content belongs, which I really don't think is notable enough for inclusion in his bio, what are other views on how it should be worded? APK whisper in my ear 03:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Please consider participating in the RfC at Talk:Faith healing#RfC about inserting content and category about pseudoscience. VQuakr ( talk) 06:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)