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 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

→

Archive 80

The editor of "The Gateway Pundit" entry is not neutral and has interpreted the sources sited from an extreme viewpoint, not neutral at all. This entry should be re-written with much less bias and accurate sources.

Wikipedia Policy Has Not Been Followed for "The Gateway Pundit" entry. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing 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.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:40C1:1E00:F8E3:E051:6DEF:1AA9 ( talk) 05:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you believe to be "not neutral" about it? The entry appears to discuss the site as mainstream reliable sources do. Wikipedia articles are based upon mainstream reliable sources. That you or anyone else disagrees with the conclusions of mainstream reliable sources in this case is not relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

See [1]. User:Genghis khan2846 first removed the maps because " there is no map in the articles "Shamanism" and "History of Christianity"". I thought them useful and the rationale wrong so reverted. He's reverted me because "We cannot accept this. This is very much insulting to our religions." This doesn't seem to be an RS or NOR problem, so bringing it here. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF would seem to apply here. What happens at articles about other religions is irrelevant. However, the pictures of historical mosques should not have been outright replaced by maps, and I would suggest to include both. — JFG ^talk 19:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@ JFG: that would be the best thing, and in fact the article already had pictures of historic mosques as well as the maps. They weren't all replaced with maps. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Specially for us the Mongols (Shamanism was the religion of the Mongols). There is no map in the article Shamanism. In fact there is no article called "History of Shamanism" !!! This is unbelievable !!! Same is the case with the History of Christianity. Our religions have been undermined in this encyclopedia to such an extent that can not be imaginable. This is unacceptable. Tell me - why there will be map only in the History of Islam, but there will be no map in the History of Shamanism and Christianity. This is unacceptable. This is very much insulting for the Shamanist and Christian races. On behalf of the Shamanist and Christian races I am presenting my strong protest here. Please try to be neutral. Show respect to all the religions of the encyclopedia. Please solve this problem.-- Genghis khan2846 ( talk) 08:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Maps are provided as an aid to the reader to help understand the geographic reach of the various influences. There is no bar against other religions' articles including maps as well. I think the maps in History of Islam are important and useful, and should be kept. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, if Ghengis wants to include maps he ccan. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh and race and religion are not the same. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

A map is certainly important for understanding history of Islam, he early history of which was very much geopolitical. There might be scope for maps in other religion articles - but that is not grounds for removal from Islam, but rather perhaps an OSE argument on other pages. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I have discussed this matter in the Administrators' noticeboard. Please come to this page.-- Genghis khan2846 ( talk) 12:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• The issue appears to be completely moot: an objection against the maps at History of Islam was raised solely because on some other article there didn't exist comparable maps. @ Genghis khan2846: yes, wikipedia's coverage of different topics is very uneven, but the way to help with that is to make improvements to the topics that you feel need more attention, and not to wreak damage on the articles that are better developed. – Uanfala (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• There are in fact several maps in History of Christianity: File:Spread of Christianity to AD 600 (1).png, File:Countries by percentage of Protestants 1938.svg, File:Countries by percentage of Protestants (2010).svg. If you think that article would benefit from more maps then feel free to add them. I don't see how including a map showing the geographical extent of, say, the Abbasid Caliphate in a section about the Abbasid Caliphate is in any way offensive to Islam, or now not showing maps is offensive to other religions. History of Islam does spend a lot of time discussing major Islamic geopolitical entities so I'm not surprised that it has more maps in it. Hut 8.5 14:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of POV-pushing ( WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH) going on there, claiming it's responsable for a famine (which is equivocated to genocide). Can I please get a few eyes on this? Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 11:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@ Kleuske: I thought I'd check this out, the article says this: 'A rigid belief in laissez-faire guided the government response in 1846–1849 to the Great Famine in Ireland, during which an estimated 1.5 million people died. The minister responsible for economic and financial affairs, Charles Wood, expected that private enterprise and free trade, rather than government intervention, would alleviate the famine.'

Well, I don't think it's too bad, even if a free market type might have emphasized that 'it was becoming obvious by the end of 1845, that the potato crisis in Ireland was being aggravated by the restrictions imposed by the Corn Laws.'

A few more remarks: There was a decision in 1847 to cut Treasury spending on public relief efforts during the Irish famine. And there are Robert Peel and Charles Wood's macroeconomic policies of the 1840s, including the gold standard (classical liberal institution), the Bank Charter Act, and corn law repeal. Prime Minister Robert Peel was forced to resign in 1846 over the Repeal of the Corn Laws -- that is, the triumph of free trade (classical liberal institution) in Britain with the repeal of the Corn Laws by parliment in 1846. Without trying here, to reveal the whole story behind the repeal of the Corn Laws, the dominant economic theory in mid-nineteenth century Britain was Laissez-faire. As long as this theory held sway, Coercion Acts and extra British troops enforced laissez-faire exports from Ireland at the point of a bayonet. The economic theories of Thomas Malthus were very popular in England at the time of the Famine. Anyways, it so happens, that the Irish potato famine coincided with the repeal of the Corn Laws by the existing Prime Minister Robert Peel. The protectionist laws had been enacted in 1815 to artificially keep up the price of British-grown grain by imposing heavy tariffs on all imported grain. Under the Corn Laws, the large amounts of cheap foreign grain now needed for Ireland would be prohibitively expensive. English gentry and politicians reacted with outrage at the mere prospect of losing their long-cherished price protections.

In sum, I think the article could delve into greater detail, but of course that would make it longer. It is my understanding that British government officials and administrators rigidly adhered to the popular theory of the day. Throughout the entire Famine period, the British government would never provide massive food aid to Ireland. The British government also did not interfere with the English-controlled export business in Irish-grown grains. Large quantities of native-grown wheat, barley, oats and oatmeal sailed out of places such as Limerick and Waterford for England, even though local Irish were dying of starvation, thoughout the Famine years. Shaky Irish relief effort!

Of course, one might say that the potato crop in Ireland had never failed for two consecutive years. British officials believed the 1845 food shortage would likely end with next year's harvest. Also interesting, that most of the Irish countryside was owned by an English and Anglo-Irish hereditary ruling class. They held titles to enormous tracts of land long ago confiscated from native Irish Catholics by British conquerors such as Oliver Cromwell. The average tenant farmer, these Catholic farmers were usually considered tenants-at-will. Irish peasants were actually healthier than peasants in England or Europe. DanLanglois ( talk) 07:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be a very pov title, given the lack of evidence that this is actually a political movement. See for instance this article [2] which discusses bots, as does this one and Snopes [3]. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you suggest a better title? The “Walkaway” movement does exist... the question is whether it is as extensive as social media makes it appear. Blueboar ( talk) 11:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the best title would be nothing as the page should be deleted - Twitter ephemera isn't encyclopedic. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on this at Talk:Poodle#Request for comment on how to describe the dispute over the origin of the poodle. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This IP keeps claiming Middle Easterners were considered white in South Africa. This is fine if he can provide a source, but he can't. (The only source provided indicates that some people from the northern Levant, e.g. Lebanese and Syrians, were considered white; it does not follow from this that Egyptians, Yemeni, Sudanese, Kuwaitis, Saudis, and all people from the Middle East were considered white.)

Of course if he adds a source that's great, and he can re-add this content. But I am skeptical of his claims because anecdotally, I have read accounts of North Africans in South Africa who were classified as "coloured" (a broad category that included not only mixed-race black people, but various nonwhite groups). It's also true that the "test" for determining whiteness in south Africa were quite ad hoc and turned on skin color and hair texture. In practice there were even cases of southern European people who were classified as coloured because they had darker skin and frizzy hair. /info/en/?search=Pencil_test_(South_Africa) /info/en/?search=Sandra_Laing. Given the diversity in appearance of Middle Eastern and North African people, it would be strange to assume all of them were regarded as white in South Africa without a source.

A good compromise might be to add "Syrian and Lebanese" rather than "middle eastern" to the description of white south africans, since this is actually supported by a source. Steeletrap ( talk) 14:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You provided a source that explains how the government defined whites in 1951. [4] Europeans, Jews and Syrians are specifically mentioned as being white, but the test for anyone else is whether they are in "appearance obviously a white person unless and until contrary is proven." According to Colour & Culture in South AFrica, p. 200, ft. 14, the Ministry of the Interior determined in 1928 that Japanese and Syrians were white, while Chinese, Siamese and Egyptians were not. [5] It is original research to guess how other groups would be treated and it is possible that how they were categorized changed over time or was applied arbitrarily. TFD ( talk) 23:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to disclose that I was banned a few years ago for significantly disruptive joke edits involving sockpuppetry on topics that are somewhat linked to the issue. I was later unbanned after two standard offer unban requests. The community did not choose to impose any form of topic ban. I do not have significant strong feelings or political biases regarding the topic. I would also like to note that there are relevant arbitration cases relating to this issue, including Falun Gong 2.

There is an ongoing NPOV dispute on Talk:Falun Gong. A version not substantially different from the last consensus revision in terms of POV is currently being maintained. User:Unicornblood2018, User:TheBlueCanoe, and I are involved.

The locus of the dispute is the inclusion of certain beliefs attributed to Falun Gong (that may or may not actually be held by that group) that might, to many people, appear absurd, such as beliefs regarding aliens and the divine status of its founder.

On 28 August 2018, Unicornblood2018 added information to the lede that had the effect of making the POV more negative. The information appeared to be based on reliable sources, but making information that dramatically shifts the consensus POV part of the lede seemed an incorrect editorial judgement to me. Furthermore, the text added was substantively similar to one of the sources used by Unicornblood2018. I reverted the edit, took the issue to the talk page, and re-added some of the information to a body paragraph in order to avoid dramatically shifting the POV from previous consensus. TheBlueCanoe later reverted my edit and re-added some of the information included within the edit. Information relating to the primary locus of the dispute was not re-added.

Unicornblood2018 has provided sources and information appearing to demonstrate his view that Falun Gong "could be described as a cult". The user appears to question Wikipedia's neutrality on this issue, indicating "And why are their teaching being unconditionally immune to any criticism on Wikipedia today by using Orwellian tactics by subtly stating neutral bias must equate to always seeing falun gong positively and nothing less than that , despite there are known truths that ring alarm bells?"

I have noted that "it doesn't matter how convincingly you argue that Falun Gong is a cult here, since Wikipedia is not an avenue for original research and its content must instead be based on what reliable sources say" and that "While Chinese Government-linked sources do include a lot of information that places Falun Gong in a bad light, and some of that information may be verifiably correct, such sources might not be appropriate for judging due weight due to their bias. Most uninvolved mainstream sources characterize Falun Gong as a respectable religious movement." I have also noted that the current article is a product of compromise and consensus; if a user wishes to change it significantly in a way that would alter its POV dramatically, they had better have a very strong argument.

TheBlueCanoe has concurred with some of my ideas. The user's talk page posts might not represent the entirety of their thoughts on this issue, given that they have stated "I hope to give you a more fulsome reply when I have I have a bit more time." The user has stated that not all beliefs of Falun Gong merit inclusion and emphasis, and that Wikipedia must use sound editorial judgment based on the weighting suggested by reliable sources. -- Leugen9001 ( talk) 16:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This not my area at all, but this article -- from its very title on down -- seems problematic. -- Calton | Talk 06:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated this for deletion. Jytdog ( talk) 17:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please join the discussion and give your needed opinion on whether to include China's stance in the article Hamas to give it NPOV. We need consensus one way or the other. Thanks for your input. Veritycheck✔️ ( talk) 19:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a BUMP to get more input. Stop by and add your point of view. Veritycheck✔️ ( talk) 03:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Should the article; Desperate Measures (musical) include a template box for the separate casts or is prose enough? Please help form a consensus for the neutral point of view at Talk:Desperate Measures (musical)#RFC on inclusion of cast template box. Thank you.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What the hell does this have to do with NPOV? Or WP:OR or WP:BLP or WP:RS, which are the other noticeboards you've posted this at? -- Calton | Talk 05:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Normally criminal cases, such as murders, where the murderer is not notorious the Wikipedia page is titled The Murder of XXXX and not titled after the name of the murderer. With that in mind, Maria Butina is the person named in the lawsuit United States of America vs Butina. Previous to being named in the lawsuit she was likely not notorious enough to deserve a Wikipedia page, although that might have been an omission given she seems to have created, a possibly defunct, gun rights organization in Russia. The prosecution, the DOJ, alleges that Maria Butina was an important agent of the Russian Government and therefore should have registered as a foreign agent under 18 USC 951. Her defense claims she was not an important agent of the Russian government and therefore had no need to register with the DOJ. If the defense is to be believed Maria Butina is not noteworthy enough to deserve a Wikipedia page in her name so the WP should be named USA vs Butina and Maria Butina should redirect to USA vs Butina. If the prosecution is to be believed Maria Butina is an important 'secret' agent of the Russian government and is noteworthy on her own merit of a Wikipedia page. An issue is at this point Maria Butina should be considered not guilty and therefore not noteworthy on her own merits. Her status as an important agent of the Russian government has not been determined by the court so her Wikipedia page should be renamed USA vs Butina.

My question: Should the Maria Butina wikipedia page be renamed USA v Butina, and perhaps rewritten to be about the issues surrounding the lawsuit and not Maria Butina (as she is not determined to be noteworthy)? Geo8rge ( talk) 17:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• No This article is structured as a BLP article, so it isn't harming neutral point of view to have it named as per BLP naming structures. If you have concerns about this article as a BLP article, I'd suggest WP:BLP/N would be a more appropriate place to raise your concerns. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I will repost there. Geo8rge ( talk) 19:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that the article does not need to be renamed. The subject's locus of notability probably stretches beyond the matters that will be covered in the criminal action alone. bd2412 T 17:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • My problem with the article name is she is involved in a legal dispute in which she is assumed to be not guilty of having complicating matters that would require her to register as an agent of Russia until there is an official ruling on the matter. It may turn out that there is more to her story than she is admitting to, but the court has not declared her guilty. By naming the article 'maria butina' Wikipedia is assuming her guilt. Geo8rge ( talk) 19:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I am confused... How does using a person’s name as the title of a bio article about that person assume guilt? Blueboar ( talk) 22:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• No - her notability comes from a long period of activity, not a single (for example) mass murder. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• No (keep at Maria Butina) as WP:COMMONNAME for the topic. Appriate to keep the page as a BLP at this time. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• No Unless the case itself becomes famous over an extensive period, like Roe v Wade, in which case there will be multiple articles. O3000 ( talk) 22:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Which case the subject is the case, not the person. ♦  J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• No. As it seems she is independently (e.g. as a Russian guns rights activist) notable and covered. As opposed to a "murder of X" crime, the foreign agent claim is related to most of her career - and is inseparable from the bio. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• No - Article as is gives a broader account about the subject. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 13:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• No, distinguishing a case involving a person from the person herself. ♦  J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Close per request. Excellent comment by The Four Deuces: " Neutrality does not mean neutrality between racism and anti-racism, but representing views based on their degree of support in reliable sources." — Paleo Neonate – 05:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The slogan has been spread by neo-Nazis, and racist groups including white supremacists." is what is in the lead section on It's OK to be white. It fails MOS:LEAD, which states "[The lead] should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." This is not a neutral point of view and should not belong in the lead. This should not be in the lead. Computer40 «» (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC) It's a plain statement of fact: how, exactly, is it "not a neutral point of view"? -- Calton | Talk 06:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC) I'll also note that although you edit-warred over this on the article itself, you haven't posted to Talk:It's OK to be white at all, despite being explicitly pointed to it. Why is that? That should be your first stop instead of attempting to recruit co-combatants. -- Calton | Talk 06:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC) According to you, editors should keep their suggestions to themselves. The people that edit that article are biased against the movement, so it wouldn't be a neutral conversation anyways. Computer40 «» (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Please assume good faith and take this discussion to the article talk page as per the guidelines at the top of this page. Claims that it wouldn't be a neutral conversation when you have made no efforts at such are meaningless. O3000 ( talk) 18:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC) I'm getting confused. This editor has told me to keep my suggestions to myself, so does that mean I shouldn't follow other editor's suggestions as well? This user has been on Wikipedia for 14 years, so their advice carries some weight. Computer40 «» (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Can you provide a diff where you were told to keep your suggestions to yourself? ~ GB fan 18:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Right here. I was suggesting that the user remove something that seemed like he was a manager at Wikipedia (like Jimbo). He showed no civility for a user that's been on Wikipedia for 14 years. Computer40 «» (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC) The NPOV noticeboard is not the place to air this grievance. Nblund talk 00:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I literally answered a question that someone was asking. How about contributing to this NPOV discussion? Computer40 «» (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I'm also seeing a plain statement of fact. Nothing violating NPOV. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC) I do not see anything not neutral about the statement. It just states that they have spread the slogan and it is sourced to a reliable source. ~ GB fan 18:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Yeah, this is a factual statement. It's a slogan that was spread by neo-Nazis and racist groups including white supremacists. Every instance of one of those posters going up in Toronto that could be traced back to somebody went back to somebody involved with one of the dozens of little white supremacist groups that have sprung up lately. NPOV may seem non-neutral when reality doesn't conform to your expectations. But in this case there's no problem with the lede. Adding this to my watchlist just to be safe. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC) The people that edit that article are biased against the movement @ Computer40: Are you suggesting that it is improper that WP editors be biased against racists and hate groups? If so, you are wrong. Hate groups are inherently divisive, and their ideologies are based on urban legends and pseudoscience of a wide variety of stripes. They are antithetical in every way to an encyclopedia with an fundamentally inclusive editor base, such as Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC) If I'm being 100% honest, keeping racist viewpoints off wikipedia is one of my main objectives for participating. So if there's an accusation that editors are against the mainstreaming of racist views then yes, I'll wear that label. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Right there with ya. Hell, I'll even adopt a pejorative title like "Nazi hater". Whatever you call it, you can count me in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC) So your opinion on why this phrase should remain in the lead is because you want to keep racist viewpoints off wikipedia? Wikipedia is not censored. There are somethings that people say are "racist", which are entirely opinionated and not factual. You might say that Google only hiring minority women is for "diversity", but some people may view it as being discriminatory. Computer40 «» (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Who said anything about google? If you came here to vent your spleen about non-white people and liberals, you're on the wrong website. Oh, and you're right, WP is not censored. That means we don't care if we offend nazis and racists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Neutrality does not mean neutrality between racism and anti-racism, but representing views based on their degree of support in reliable sources. TFD ( talk) 19:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Probably one of the more strict editors for how labels should be carefully applied, but 100% agree with all above: it is a neutral statement in this case to say, after identifying the original source, that the slogan clearly has been adopted by neo-Nazi and far right groups, given the strength of the RSes that back it. The statement speaks nothing to the intentions of the original source, just how it was taken up by these other groups. -- Masem ( t) 01:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Someone uninvolved close this until the OP fully engages on the article talk. O3000 ( talk) 00:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The style of the article suicide implies by what "facts" are stated in the lede and infobox a moral imperative to prevent.

By implying rather than explicitly stating, the article offer no opinion about exceptions to that moral imperative.

Moreover, the opinion is expressed in wikipedia's editorial voice, as if it were the opinion of Wikipedia en masse.

Make no mistake, fellow wikipedians, all morals are opinions.

Talk:Suicide#RfC: Neutrality Challenged

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6D5B:7F89:FF9:190 ( talk) 08:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed." (emphasis in original) -- WP:SIGNHERE

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm not logged in so discussion won't get dragged to my talk page, now that I think about it. Though the blockquote formatting below was meant to separate ping messages from the bulk of the discussion. Rather than post to anyone's talk page, I'd rather issue an easily ignore-able ping. Also, if someone ever stumbles upon this discussion while researching case discussions, I'd like to share my research methods as a pseudo writing-on-the-wall for any wayward researchers.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6D5B:7F89:FF9:190 ( talk) 08:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ofc, anyone can check the log and trace back to my actual account since the article is semi-protected and I edited it. More, I really just wanted to impose the point in a strong way that I don't want dragged too deep into this discussion. I figured signing only with the date and explaining why, would make the point shocking enough.

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6D5B:7F89:FF9:190 ( talk) 08:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

OP pinging potentially interested parties 03:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@
SMcCandlish: Having found you by your noticeboard post and discussion for 
Talk:Rape_myth#Improper_tone_and_approach this being a similar natured issue, also noticing you mention having schooling in Anthropology and Communication, I figured you might have at one point studied ethics regarding suicide in ancient civilizations.
@
Arnoutf: Reading through 
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_15#If_a_majority_(or_all)_of_the_sources_for_factual_claims_about_Jesus_are_Christian,_is_it_proper_to_mention_that?, your perspective was neutral on the over all topic while solely interested in the article covering bias necessary for research and, from my perspective, how it affects 
alternative views. Also, noticing mentions about experience as a behavioral researcher, that I imagine you could give expert input about the article in question here.
@
RGloucester: You're a senior editor who according to your contributions and user_page doesn't find editing extremely politically charged topics on Wikipedia stressful. I officially challenge you with my non-existent personal authority to find a more stressful topic to dispute on all wikipedia.

Considerable activity from disclosed and previous activity from undisclosed paid editors (article creation) are influencing this article in a manner that is WP:UNDUE

It is important to remember that even disclosed contributions from paid editors risk violating WP:DUEWEIGHT. This holds also when acceptable sources are suggested, or when suggestions seem reasonable. The corollary is that these edits would not occur without suggestion by the editor, and when compared to the rest of Wikipedia the article is made to read as a puff piece. We lack the time to find and evaluate the sources that are intentionally excluded from suggestion by paid editors. Each second spent evaluating suggestions from paid editors hinders research into non-biased coverage. It is not enough to find your own sources if the suggested edit is from a paid source (see [6]). The relevant policy by which we can entirely ignore paid requests is WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST.

Additional eyes needed to assess this.

Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• See Talk:Heat-not-burn_tobacco_product#Undue_weight_when_assessing_suggestions,_especially_regarding_controversy

A question was brought to the fore on the Village Pump (see: QUESTION) where we had asked about the propriety of having two different distinctions for Israel and Jordan when it comes to their conquest of the West Bank, the one (Jordan) in 1948, and the other (Israel) in 1967, and where the one (Jordan) is universally referred to in Wikipedia articles as "rule over the West Bank," whereas the other (Israel) is referred to as "occupation of the West Bank." The reply given to us is that Wikipedia does not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... it merely chronicles what reliable sources say about a topic," and that 'occupation' is the term that is "used in the real world... by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources."

So, if we cannot expunge the fact that in the real world they do, indeed, use the term "occupation" with respect to Israel's hold of these territories, can we at least add as a supplement the lesser known view (as held by the majority here, in Israel, and even by the current government) that the Israeli government objects to its being labeled as "occupier" in the traditional sense, due to the absence of prior sovereignty? I call your attention to the following articles published by JSTOR, see: Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?, and The Need for Fundamental Change in the Law of Belligerent Occupation. In order to give a more neutral point of view - without expunging the word "occupation," is it permitted for editors in articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict to write in the sub-section "Post-1967" in pages such as Jab'a, Khirbet Beit Zakariyyah, Husan, Battir, Nahalin, Beit Fajjar, Beit Ummar, Tuqu', Nablus, Beitin, As-Sawiya, Beit Iba, al-Khader, Burin, Nablus, Jenin, al-Eizariya, etc., etc., etc., that "such-and-such a town is under Israeli occupation in the absence of prior sovereignty"? (emphasis mine, according to page 46, of article Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?). We have already seen its precedence in the past, where arbitrators have agreed on a neutral wording with respect to Israeli settlements in the West Bank (See text here). Perhaps another way of preserving WP:NPOV would be to add after the word "occupation" the following: "While Israel's Supreme Court has labeled Israel's presence in the West Bank as 'belligerent occupation,' many in Israel dispute the notion of occupation, on grounds of its presence in the country before 1948." Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 13:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes... stating that Israel objects to the term "Occupation" (supported by reliable sources where they express their opposition, obviously) is a legitimate balancing of opinions and within the scope of NPOV. Blueboar ( talk) 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• 2 cents - 100 years from now (however this turns out - e.g. also if Israel were to retreat tomorrow) sources will probably use "rule" for the 50 odd (and still counting) Israeli rule/occupation period (and the same goes for Morocco and South Sahara, etc.). However, sources (and Wikipedia as well) tend to suffer from recentism and apply the present tense POV label. Wikipedia, follows the sources. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely no...and Davidbena is forum shopping here, he raised the same issue over at here, having gotten no support there, he comes here. I will not repeat the arguments agains it, pleople can read there. Read also this BBC overview, Huldra ( talk) 20:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Huldra, with no offense, the question posed on the Village Pump (which I've already pointed out in my opening statement here) had more to do with policy, in which they replied that the preponderance of reliable sources must be mentioned as a first. The question here is different, and has more to do with also mentioning the lesser known disputed view (namely, that held by many Israelis), as a legitimate balancing of opinions and within the scope of NPOV. In this regard, it does not differ from what we've seen with regard to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and where two diametrically opposed opinions are mentioned. Davidbena ( talk) 21:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, even the JSTOR articles you bring up to allegedly support, don't actually do that. Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"? ...yes, you might question it, but it does not change the fact that is is still called an occupation. Huldra ( talk) 21:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I think that you missed the point. The world does, indeed, call it an "occupation", but, according to many Israeli scholars, the premise behind the term "occupation" with respect to Israel is wrongly based. That is the second opinion that we wish to point out in these articles, to give them more balance. Davidbena ( talk) 22:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said, even the sources you mention place a question mark. To include it would be widely WP:UNDUE, Huldra ( talk) 22:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Huldra, the author of the article, Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"? (pp. 40–41), clearly points out the following distinction (from Israel's perspective), which does not make it undue, but rather a view that should also be brought-up under the aegis of WP:NPOV: "...The term 'occupation' is also employed in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to advance the argument that Israel bears ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the Palestinians, while limiting or denying Israel's right to defend itself against Palestinian terror, and relieving the Palestinian side of responsibility for its own actions and their consequences. The term is also employed as part of a general assault upon Israel's legitimacy, in the context of a geopolitical narrative that has little to do with Israel's status as an occupier under international law." Davidbena ( talk) 22:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A reminder that in WP:UNDUE, we read: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Davidbena ( talk) 22:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Some evidence would be required that the article cited represents a significant viewpoint of some prominence, rather than simple and gratuitous apologetics. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the way that we can do that is to cite other Israeli academic sources as references and which uphold and maintain the same viewpoint, such as Dore Gold. ^[1] These sources can be placed as references after the general claim that many Israelis dispute the view that it illegally occupies territories in the West Bank. -- Davidbena ( talk) 23:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Wikilink "occupation" or "occupied" to Israeli-occupied territories and add opposing points of view there if they are not adequately represented. A tiny minority POV is not very relevant and doesn't need to be repeated everywhere a commonly used term appears. It'd be like adding "But some people dispute that the earth is round" every time the word "globe" appears. —DIYeditor ( talk) 22:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• No We need to follow what sources say rather than present our own opinions. The circumstances of Jordan's annexation of the West Bank differ from Israel's occupation and both differ from the previous British administration of the territory. But it is not up to us to analyze those differences and determine what they should be called. Incidentally, occupation is a neutral term. There's an article about Allied-occupied Germany for example. It merely means that the territory is held by military force before formal annexation or relinquishment. TFD ( talk) 23:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree that the word "occupation" has dual meanings, and can be used in a neutral connotation, as in "the Allied occupation of Germany." With Israel, however, it is used entirely negatively. Our appeal to this Noticeboard is that we be permitted to use the word "occupation," just as the international community has applied the term to Israel's hold of the West Bank, but that we also cite a reference to the fact that many in Israel disagree with that determination. This, mind you, we seek to do only for bringing a more neutral tone to our articles. Davidbena ( talk) 23:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • And you want to insert this right after every mention of "Israeli occupation" on Wikipedia? You're kidding. Minority POVs are not given so much weight that they appear everywhere a term they disagree with does. Discussion of the Israeli POV belongs in Israeli-occupied territories and any other general articles on the topic, and only with due weight to reflect that most of the world disagrees on how to phrase it. —DIYeditor ( talk) 02:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. Despite the claims, the official position of Israel is that the West Bank is held under Belligerent Occupation. That is what the High Court of Israel has ruled on many occasions, and that is what the Israeli government uses as the legal basis for its rule there, including when it is arguing before the High Court. It is true that politicians of the Israeli right wing like to make public statements to the contrary, and it is also true that professional propagandists like Dore Gold make a career out of preparing the world for annexation by Israel. But we should never present that point of view as if it is the official Israeli position, because it isn't. It is not even the uniform Israeli public position unless you ignore the large factions in Israeli politics and public life that call it "occupation" every day. One of the great victories of the Israeli right wing is that the phrase "pro-Israel" has come to mean "pro-Israeli-right-wing", including here on Wikipedia. It is a con and we shouldn't be taken in by it. Zero ^talk 02:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

First, in answer to DIYeditor's question, I am only asking to say both: "While Israel's Supreme Court has labeled Israel's presence in the West Bank as 'belligerent occupation,' many in Israel dispute the notion of occupation, on grounds of its presence in the country before 1948." Specifically, I'm asking permission to say this in the sub-section entitled "Post-1967" in articles treating on those Arab-villages named by me above, and those with similar sub-sections, where the village is always listed there as being under "Israeli occupation," and where in the sub-section entitled "Jordanian era" the same village is described as being under "Jordanian rule" (a clear POV distinction). I do believe that editors on Wikipedia should be passionate about what they do here, and since this falls under the scope of WP:NPOV the suggestion should not be seen as frivolous, strange or unusual. In fact, it is similar to what we've seen with respect to Israeli settlements in the West Bank here. In my humble opinion, this would bring a semblance of balance to our otherwise good articles. Davidbena ( talk) 03:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the village articles. This is termed "occupation" by almost everyone. Put the POV of some (or "many") Israelis in Israeli-occupied territories and link that article if you want. Don't cram minority POV into articles that aren't directly related to that POV. Like I said, flat earth theory belongs in its relevant article, not everywhere there is a mention of "globe". How does it help someone reading an article about an Arab village to know that, contrary to what almost everyone in the world says, some Israelis don't like the term "occupation"? —DIYeditor ( talk) 03:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the "flat earth theory," this is a real issue that will be around for a long time, a contentious issue though it is, but worthy of our mentioning in brief that, in Israel, the view is contested. Again, we will say that the village is under "Israeli occupation," but an alternative edit after establishing the international community's view on this subject is to add - if there's consensus to do so - that "such-and-such a town is under Israeli occupation in the absence of prior sovereignty." This statement is very terse and incorporates complete balance in a most subtle way. The words "in the absence of prior sovereignty" will include several references, and which fact, by the way, is not disputed by anybody. It is not a minority POV claim as you have surmised to say. It simply adds balance to the articles named. Davidbena ( talk) 04:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean being mean giving equal balance to differing views but providing greater weight to majority views. Since the world described Jordan's control of the West Bank as rule and Israel's as occupation, Wikipedia should as well. In fact, as I pointed out, the circumstances are different. Jordan formally annexed the West Bank, Israel has not. TFD ( talk) 02:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we are aware of de jure annexation of the West Bank by Jordan, while Israel has chosen de facto annexation ^[1] which precludes any formal declarations. But this is irrelevant, since even in Jordan's case, annexation of the West Bank was considered illegal by the international community, ^[2] with only Great Britain, Iraq and Pakistan recognising it. The United States and the Arab states did not acknowledge the annexation. See The United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, by Sandra Berliant Kadosh, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 1984), Indiana University Press.

In any case, the non-expressed reason for the use of "Jordanian rule" in the sub-section Jordanian era in those articles as opposed to "Jordanian occupation," was to disassociate the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank from the so-called Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank. This is unfair and not in keeping with WP:NPOV. While we CANNOT disassociate Israel's presence in the West Bank from being an "occupation" (based on Village Pump policy), we can at least add the distinction that the aforementioned villages in the West Bank are under "Israeli occupation in the absence of prior sovereignty." Davidbena ( talk) 02:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes to wikilink: I think the sensible, balanced way to present the various views is to wikilink the occupation terms made in various articles, to another article that can better unpack the subject, for example in Israeli-occupied territories, as DIYeditor wisely suggested. In that article, if not already, various points of view can be laid out, giving the due weight according to their prominence.( talk) user:Al83tito 16:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• No the bulk of sources call it a state of occupation; the UN calls it an occupation; and the Supreme Court of Israel calls it an occupation. Just because some small group does not like the term and want to play semantic games, which do not appear to have received any traction in national or international courts or even legitimacy beyond their own intellectual circle, is not a reason to give that view prominence here. Jbh ^Talk 17:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  Technically the Israeli Supreme Court has not made such a ruling. The court does recognize that the Israeli authorities have chosen to apply the Geneva convention of their own accord, and that this has created a continuing legal framework (due to continuity). Some polemic pieces, that tend to not understand the Israeli rulings, misrepresent this - however this does not really matter either way. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• 2 cents - I note that not only 'occupied' is used on Wikipedia, but I often see 'illegally occupied' and such. I'm familiar with the view, reiterated above, that every single legal institution (humor me) concerned with international law defines the territories conquered by Israel in 1967 as in a state of belligerent occupation. However, nevertheless, there is an argument to be made, that occupation means the taking of land from a recognized legal owner. Israel took the West Bank from the Kingdom of Jordan, who was illegally occupying the land herself. The technical details of how Jordan came to occupy the West Bank and why it was illegal, are a bit complicated, but the illegality is a fact. Jordan attacked Israel during the 1967 war and Israel's response was to push the Jordanian army back beyond the Jordan river. A state called “Palestine” has never existed within any borders. While I am at it, when it comes to this issue, I have a doubt about throwing the term 'the international community' around like this: 'The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.' -- that's from the 'West Bank' wiki article. I note that apparently, the United States is not part of 'the international community'. Perhaps this seems a quibble? What is 'the international community' to you? Something like the countries of the world considered collectively? Who is the International Community? There is a wiki article on this, of course, and I quote this thought: 'The term is commonly used to imply legitimacy and consensus for a point of view on a disputed issue.' And okay, I wonder what is the position of 'the international community' on the Iran deal, for example? A rhetorical question, though I hint that I am gathering the impression that on Wikipedia, the United States is being edged out of the international community. I think the issue of what is the international community has great merit, and also seems relevant, but getting back to the west bank, I suppose that of course there is 'Israeli control of the West Bank'. And this means, military administration of a territory full of Palestinians who aren't exactly excited about living under Israeli authority. I note a decision by the US State Department to drop the term “occupied” in a report referring to the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights, when the US State Department released its annual report on human rights violations around the world. Whereas previous iterations of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices had a section on “Israel and the Occupied Territories,” this year’s document refers instead to “Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza.” I am not sure whether we are supposed to 'care' about what the State Department hopes these reports will help other governments and civil society activists to reflect on. However, I am providing the reference. With an apology, as I know my comments are lengthy, and as it seems to me, stridently out of sync with established Wikipedia policy on this Israel/Palestine issue. I intent to relent, but here's that link:

https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/

DanLanglois ( talk) 07:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia’s role is to inform, not politicise. Nor is its role to be a trailblazer by applying fringe caveats such as, "in the absence of prior sovereignty", which show 3 results under Google search. Attempts to add such comments to articles here reek of propaganda. Veritycheck✔️ ( talk) 13:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I've stumbled across Arun Pudur, an article about an mysterious maybe-billionaire. He was subject of controversy in 2016, when Forbes discovered they could not verify any sources of income that would account for this wealth. This link was included in the article, but in a very unobstrusive way at the end of the article, while the claims of incredible wealth stay in the first sentences.

Two years have gone and Dupur seems to have dropped from the news entirely. More: His companies have, too. The website of the Pudur corporation, which according to LinkedIn has 60 million costumers, arundupur.com is down. So is celframeoffice.com, the alleged source and his wealth and according to the Wikipedia article a close competitor to Microsoft office. celframe.com is still online, but does not show any signs of business activity. It seems pretty clear: This person is not the successfull entrepreneur, he claimed to be. But how do you incorporate a lack of sources into an article? -- 2A0A:A543:8471:0:76D4:35FF:FE03:2B7E ( talk) 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If RS do not say it neither can we. It is a shame that no RS has bothered to follow up on this. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

. I've shortened the article considerably and removed many unsubstiated or irrelevant claims. -- 2A0A:A543:8471:0:76D4:35FF:FE03:2B7E ( talk) 17:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC is here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 04:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc. may be of interest to board followers. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Purplebricks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few IP and new editors have been removing sizable chunks of content and/or rewriting content on this article with an obviously positive tone. However, the article before the disruption started was very obviously negative in tone. Additionally, I have noticed at least one editor using "our" to describe the article, implying a possible COI. Requesting more eyes/help with this situation, as I don't have the time to do a more NPOV rewrite on my own right now. Aspening ( talk) 21:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Following up on a post at the Teahouse, it may be helpful to get more robust participation at this RfC in order to form a more solid consensus one way or the other. GMG ^talk 12:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to solicit comment on the edits Batreeq has made to Mujaddid. I don't think they reflect WP:NPOV and are basically anti-Ahmadiyya POV that go against extensive discussion of the article content. PepperBeast (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The specific wording used there (Scholars [...] reject the sect) is definitely not neutral. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 19:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@165.234.252.11: Replaced "Scholars" with "The Sunni mainstream" to be accurate with sources as none state that scholars reject it. – Batreeq ^{( Talk) ( Contribs)} 23:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have a couple more thoughts on this:

1. It's pretty weird that Mirza Gulam Ahmad is the only entry on this list to be described in any way. That doesn't mean we shouldn't say anything, but it does have a way of magnifying any POV issues.
2. The description of Ahmadiyya should probably be as short as possible. Is it not sufficient to identify the Ahmadis as simply a sect or messianic movement? These are both implicitly non-mainstream. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 16:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland#Various issues. — Marchjuly ( talk) 10:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

As discussed in the talk page, there is dissagrement on the content that is in the section about criticism. Comments are needed to reach consensus and achieve neutrality. Rupert Loup ( talk) 10:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few IPs have been writing content with a very negative tone. Some of the statements even include possible opinions/OR and/or fake news. Here are some examples:

• allowing greater Chinese intrusions in Philippine economy and sovereignty - which led to Duterte's alternative introduction in Philippine pop culture as a rich Chinese president pretending to be a poor Filipino
• In August 21, it was revealed that Duterte has green-lighted the construction of SEA Games facilities in the proposed New Clark City in Aeta lands in Tarlac or Pampanga, which would displace thousands of indigenous Negrito Aeta people once construction begins, sparking nationwide outrage. - not true, and the complaints came from farmers, not the Aeta association
• Mocha Uson was paid a hefty 120,000 to spread fake news - not true, included source doesn't say this
• Fishes laced with formalin were fished in Philippine waters. - not true, included source does not say this, it came from A COMMENT.

I've tried to make some changes (tried to be as neutral as possible) ( diff) but they've been undone ( diff here) by an IP. However I have managed removed some of the aforementioned statements so its not there anymore. Please read the entire article. Requesting some open eyes to help, because I don't have a lot of free time, however I'm trying to make an NPOV rewrite in my sandbox. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 13:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

There are also commentaries like the case of the Marcos burial with a sweeping declaration it was "dividing the country." The citation did not include that info. A quick reading of the source for the claimed 20,000 killed in the drug war also showed that 16,000 are still under investigation. Darwin Naz ( talk) 04:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Our article on Repeal of Prohibition in the United States says that:

• Alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition.
• Violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition.
• Organized crime did not increase during prohibition.

There are indeed some sources that support at least some of those claims, [7] [8] but a `quick web search also finds:

• The Effect of Alcohol Prohibition on Alcohol Consumption
• Did Prohibition Reduce Drinking?
• The Effect of Prohibition on Alcohol Consumption: Evidence from Drunkenness Arrests
• Did Alcohol Use Decrease During Alcohol Prohibition?
• How Prohibition backfired and gave America an era of gangsters and speakeasies
• Alcohol and Crime: The Prohibition Experiment
• Organized Crime and Prohibition: What Difference Does Legalization Make?
• Prohibition and the Rise of the American Gangster
• Prohibition Profits Transformed the Mob

So which view is supported by the sources? Or could it be, as one source says, "In truth, nobody really knows exactly how much alcohol consumption increased or decreased during Prohibition. The reason was simple enough -- people like Al Capone didn't pay taxes on their product and thereby report their production to the government. Licensed saloons became illegal speakeasies, and many common citizens took advantage of the high sales price of illegal booze by secretly manufacturing booze in their own bathtubs."? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a good bit of controversy on all these questions, mostly because there is no actual data on alcohol consumption etc. during the prohibition. This paper which represents the "standard view" argues that consumption fell drastically. Interestingly, this is the same author of the first paper you cite, basically arguing the opposite. He says that the difference lies in the fact that while consumption fell, this fall cannot be attributed to prohibition itself. This paper says that alcohol consumption fell for the heavy drinkers and maybe for the average drinker. This paper (some of the same authors) suggests that production of beer declined but production of corn based liquor increased. The second paper was subsequently published in Southern Economic Journal, if I'm not mistaken, the first one is a working paper and I don't know if it ever found a journal. This paper finds that the *repeal* of prohibition *increased* child mortality (although there is some nuance in there). So yeah, it's messy. Volunteer Marek 04:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Child mortality? Were there a lot of child alcoholics in the 1930s? I don't think it was the parents drinking more, because The Effect of Alcohol Prohibition on Alcohol Consumption [9] by Jeffrey Miron [10] of the National Bureau of Economic Research says "The overall conclusion of this paper is that Prohibition exerted a modest and possibly even a positive effect on alcohol consumption". Maybe parents got drunk more and some other group got drunk less to make the numbers balance?

Given the fact that reliable sources disagree, is the fact that the current article displays such certainty about this a NPOV problem? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia page: "Scholarly literature regarding the effect of prohibition has held that popular claim that prohibition was a failure is false." This sentence is clearly not WP:NPOV and not how a scientific consensus would ever be framed. As for how we describe research, my approach has always been to attribute claims made by specific studies in the body ("According to study X, the impact of Y is Z"), and describe claims as a consensus only when RS say it is. The impact section in the article should rephrased the findings of the AJPH study to "According to a 2006 study in the AJPH, the impact of prohibition was X" and "According to Mark H. Moore, the impact was Y". Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There are sources that claim alcohol consumption did decline. These include the Prohibition books written by Irving Fisher - Prohibition at its Worst (1927), Prohibition Still at Its Worst (1928), and The Noble Experiment (1930). While we can argue that his treatment of statistics is subject to debate, there were contemporaneous insights there that describe a decline including the reasons why. For instance, there was the case of the institutionalization of the Prohibition with the government targeting employers, pressuring them to impose strict rules regarding alcohol consumption. Previously, these provided alcohol rations to their workers. These employers were also increasingly exposed to penalties. He also cited a favorable public view on Prohibition on account of the increasing mechanization of the workplace and that machinery as well as automobiles could not be safely used after one consumed alcohol. Darwin Naz ( talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

There's essentially only one source supporting that statement and it doesn't seem to be a meta-analysis or literature review. -- tronvillain ( talk) 18:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary or desirable for Wikipedia to anoint a winner of this debate. Rhoark ( talk) 21:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:KosherSwitch#NPOV -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

An RfC regarding PSCI and FRINGE (components of NPOV) has beeen started here [11]. Tornado chaser ( talk) 21:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

An editor has claimed that including the material removed in this edit with this source and this source is a "clearly UNDUE" because in his words there is "scant coverage" in a "weak source" in the case of the Daily Beast. When the book published by Routeledge was brought the user continues to say that this is "clearly UNDUE". Would the inclusion of that material with those sources be UNDUE weight? nableezy - 20:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Who is the author of the essay and what his credentials? -- Shrike ( talk) 12:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Shrike: Rami K. Isaac, C. Michael Hall and Freya Higgins-Desbiolles. Rupert Loup ( talk) 16:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

No, those are the editors. The chapter has beeb authored by Suhail Khalilieh of ARIJ. [12] ARIJ, per their annual 2014 report were involved in the KTH tour in question. Highly POV source to begin with, and in this case involved with the subject. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be neutral, especially when we are citing them for their opinions. What matters is their reputation (and the reputation of the venue that published them.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• The editor in question, myself, raised other concerns as well - namely scant coverage of this single bus tour vs copious coverage for Birthright, PROMO of this single bus tour, and finally the DB article (and summary rehash in a book chapter on tourism) - makes the connection with a question mark and various qualifications - the source does not support the assertion that they are similar - it poses the question. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• We previously excluded sources by non academics even if printed by academic imprint -- Shrike ( talk) 17:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Like what? Would you please provide some examples of academic imprints written by academics that included a non-academic source and thus were excluded on wiki? Please share. --TMCk ( talk) 23:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The author of the essay is not academic.See for example [13] In this discussion it was argued that because the person is not academic in relevant field he has not enough weight.In our case we have a head of a Pro-Palestinian organisation -- Shrike ( talk) 08:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not an example for your claim: "We previously excluded sources by non academics even if printed by academic imprint." Could you please provide some actual examples for your claim or redact/correct your assertion? --TMCk ( talk) 13:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• ( edit conflict)As I understand it, one of the main reasons this paragraph was removed from the article, is that the article about Birthright Israel trips, while the paragraph that was removed is about "Know Thy Heritage" trips, and the connection between the is made only hesitantly in the source, which says "Although there is certainly overlap between Birthright Israel and Know Thy Heritage, Rabie hesitates to make the comparison". This reason was explained in the edit summary, which starts "Single source making a connection, and even it does so with a question makrk and qualifications." Sine the comparison between the two trips is made in a single source, based on a single interview in which the comparison is made only hesitantly, this information is therefore not noteworthy on this article. Basically this is not a question for this noticeboard, IMHO, if not that Nableezy is an aggressive and pushy editor, who wants to use this noticeboard to get his way. Debresser ( talk) 16:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Since the comparison between the two trips is made in a single source... That is untrue. Aside from the Daily Beast, there is a secondary source making the connection here. And the reason it was brought to this board, of course, was because Icewhiz objected based on WP:UNDUE, which is a WP:NPOV objection, but declined to bring it here himself. While we're on the subject, I agree that the topic area would improve if some of the numerous "aggressive and pushy editors" involved in it would step back for a few months, or at least tone it down; but I think that such editors are more likely to listen to people who they perceive as generally agreeing with them rather than ones they've had frequent disagreements with in the past (so they trust that the concerns are good-faith efforts to keep them as productive editors, rather than just being an attempt to settle ongoing content disputes.) I think that if you wanted to get the ball rolling on that, there are a lot of editors who generally agree with you, involved in this topic area, who you could talk to yourself regarding being less aggressive and pushy. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• The sources devote a lot of space to comparing and contrasting the two programs, but the differences noted are arriving in a different airport, visiting different places, and having different stated motivation. Only the third of those is a fundamental difference. I don't like the sentence about being interrogated for hours at the Jordanian border, but otherwise the mere fact that the sources are almost entirely devoted to the comparison makes a mention of the other program appropriate. Zero ^talk 14:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The lead sentence of the article Francisco Franco states, "Francisco Franco Bahamonde[a] (/ˈfræŋkoʊ/;[2] Spanish: [fɾanˈθisko ˈfɾaŋko]; 4 December 1892 – 20 November 1975) was a Spanish general who ruled over Spain as a military dictator". I revised that single word so that the sentence indicated "leader" instead of "dictator", but my edit was reverted. The problem is that no one else is described as a dictator, military or civilian, in the lead sentence of their respective articles. Not Stalin, not Khrushchev, not Ceaucescu, not Castro, not Duvalier, not Ataturk, not Kim Il-sung, not Kim Jong-un, etc.

In fact, very few, if any, are described as dictators at all. Hitler is described as a "dictator" in the third sentence of his lead paragraph. In his lead sentence, Stalin is described as a "revolutionary and politician", Mao as a "communist revolutionary", Kim Il-sung as a "Supreme Leader", Ataturk as an "army officer, revolutionary, and founder", Mussolini as a "politician and journalist who was the leader", etc. We have previously had deletions of categories and lists of dictators, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators currently in power. Views from editors on this subject would be welcome.     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Dictators (such as Franco, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Khrushchev, Ceausescu, Castro, Duvalier) should be described as dictators. Borsoka ( talk) 02:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If the other articles don't have it, this one could just as well omit "as a military dictator". On the other hand, why not add dictator to those other articles if RSs support it? —DIYeditor ( talk) 02:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not even true that "no one else is described as a dictator, military or civilian, in the lead sentence of their respective articles." For example: Bordaberry, Pinochet, Torrijos, Debayle, García, Bagaza, Micombero and Antonescu, and this is definitely not an exhaustive list. Smowo ( talk) 21:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And Stalin is identified as a dictator in the third sentence of his lead. Smowo ( talk) 21:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

We take the lead from how similar tertiary sources write about them. As Sidney Goldberg wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

"[Webster's New World College Dictionary] can call Hitler the "Nazi dictator of Germany" but Stalin merely the "Soviet premier, general secretary of the Communist party of the U.S.S.R." Mussolini is an "Italian dictator," but Tito is "Yugoslav Communist Party leader, prime minister and president of Yugoslavia." Franco is "dictator of Spain" and Salazar "prime minister and dictator of Portugal," but Mao Tse-tung is "Chinese Communist leader, chairman of the People's Republic of China and of its Communist Party."

It could be because right-wing dictators are de jure dictators while left-wing ones are not in most cases.

TFD ( talk) 02:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It could be because right-wing dictators are de jure dictators while left-wing ones are not in most cases. Excellent point, makes sense to me. —DIYeditor ( talk) 02:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the above conclusion is based on reliable sources or its an assumption by editors? Borsoka ( talk) 02:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• The use of labels comes down to sources... if reliable sources routinely use the term “dictator” when referring to the subject of one of our articles, then Wikipedia should use the term in our article. If, however, reliable sources DON’T use the term, Wikipedia can not use it (doing so would be inserting our own POV about the subject). So the question isn’t “was/is X a dictator?”... the question is “are there reliable sources that call X a dictator?”. Blueboar ( talk) 11:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. TFD's point may well explain why there is some discrepancy in the sources, however I would point out that a google search for "Stalin" "dictator" returns over 2 million results, many of them RSes, and the top one is our article on the man, so I wouldn't put too much weight in the notion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

That doesn't tell us much. One of the hits on the first page is from Encylopdia Britannica's article "Joseph Stalin PREMIER OF UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS." [14] (They subsequently call him a dictator.) But compare the naming to their article "Adolf Hitler DICTATOR OF GERMANY". [15] I am not saying that no reliable, neutral sources since the end of the Cold War would describe their positions in the same way, just that most do not, for whatever reason. TFD ( talk) 15:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't think the language here is consistent. Stalin's "Premiership" is probably a more meaningful title since it was actually position in government that lasted beyond Stalin's rule. The position of "Führer" started and ended with Hitler, so it isn't particularly informative to mention that title. It might also partly relate to Hitler's route to power looking more like that of a classical Roman dictator - he took over an existing government during an ostensible emergency. Nblund ^talk 15:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Dictators rarely if ever style their title in the negative form "dictator". The closest euphemisms are the North Korean Dear/Beloved/Supreme Leader. Legitimate titles, such as President, Premier, Chancellor or General Secretary can simply serve as a fig leaf. Franco's official title was "Prime Minister", In addition to "Führer of Germany" (a takeover of Hindenburg's title, "President of the German Reich"), Hitler's official title was "Chancellor of Germany".

Ceaușescu was President and General Secretary, Todor Zhivkov was General Secretary and Premier. Castro was, at various times, Prime Minister, President and General Secretary and so on. There is absolutely no "de facto" or "de jure" distinction between dictators of the right or the left in their use of official titles which are also associated with democratic regimes.     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think anyone mentioned here could arguably be classed as a dictator, but a military dictatorship is a specific type of government. Changing the description to "military leader" (at least in English) might imply that Franco merely led the military e.g.: "James Mattis is a military leader" Nblund ^talk 14:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that in the Franco article's lead sentence, "...was a Spanish general who ruled over Spain as a military dictator", only a single word was changed — "dictator" to "leader". The emphasized preceding words, "ruled over" provided the context. If it is a question of terminology, a couple of other words could have been revised to the effect of, "...was a Spanish general who geverned Spain as a military ruler" or some other form which indicates such content.     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This is definitelly an extremelly interesting topic. My personal view is that we should not label anyone as "dictator" in the first sentence. Dictator has clearly a negative conotation, and by labeling someone as dictator we are taking sides thus breaking neutrality. Another aspect is how much of a dictator a leader has to be to deserve being labeled as one right in the presentation sentence? Also, we will inevitably end up finding some leaders in the grey area and it is utopical to make a strict separation point. My proposal would be to write the introducing first sentence without the labeling of dictator for all cases, and then point out next that by most historiographers (or which ones) they are considered or refered as dictators. FkpCascais ( talk) 17:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The opening sentence should contain strictly the official titles for all politicians, without exception. President, PM, etc. As far as I know, there is no official title of "dictator" thus that description is always subjetive to the description of the nature of that leaders rule, and that should not be included in the opening sentence. Agreed? FkpCascais ( talk) 21:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think Ghaddafi called himself "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution" later in his career, and claimed he had no formal position in Libya. Idi Amin was "His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr. Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE". Neither of these seem acceptable. Dictator does have some negative connotations, but so do terms like " cult leader", and " organized crime boss" - there's no particular reason that we should avoid an accurate description. Ultimately, I don't think that "dictator" vs. "leader" is that big of an issue, but they're both accurate for Franco. Nblund ^talk 18:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Blueboar: we should follow the sources. Not helping is that so many sources are strongly politicized, with the result that any skew in selection shifts the sense of what the sources say. Also not helping is that some viewpoints are amplified by a proliferation of low-quality "sources". Which is why we favor (or should) reliable sources. ♦  J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of a specific guideline, the decision on Wikipedia to use the term "dictator" is basically left to the random perspective of individual editors. As pointed out at the top of this thread, some form of consensus apparently existed to avoid the use of the term and to delete various lists of dictators past and present, but those discussions were held twelve years ago and WP:Consensus may change. For example, only the middle one has apparently been a dictator, as of this writing:

• Kim Il-sung (officially transcribed Kim Il Sung; English pronunciation: /ˈkɪm ˈɪlˈsʌŋ, -ˈsʊŋ/; "Kim Il Sung". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fifth ed.). n.d. Retrieved 6 March 2017. Korean: 김일성; Korean pronunciation: [kimils͈ʌŋ]; born Kim Sŏng-ju (김성주); 15 April 1912 – 8 July 1994) was the first Supreme Leader of North Korea, from its establishment in 1948 until his death in 1994. He held the posts of Premier from 1948 to 1972 and President from 1972 to 1994. He was also the leader of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK) from 1949 to 1994 (titled Chairman from 1949 to 1966 and General Secretary after 1966).
• Kim Jong-il (officially transcribed Kim Jong Il; Korean: 김정일; Korean pronunciation: [kim.dzɔŋ.il]{{The given name Jong-il / Jong Il is pronounced [tsɔŋ.il] in isolation.}}; 16 February 1941 – 17 December 2011) was the second Supreme Leader of North Korea. He ruled from the death of his father Kim Il-sung, the first Supreme Leader of North Korea, in 1994 until his own death in 2011. He was an unelected dictator and was often accused of human rights violations.
• Kim Jong-un (officially transcribed Kim Jong Un; Korean: 김정은; Korean pronunciation: [kim.dzɔŋ.ɯn];{{The given name Jong-un / Jong Un is pronounced Korean pronunciation: [tsɔŋ.ɯn] in isolation.}} born 8 January 1983) is a North Korean politician serving as Supreme Leader of North Korea since 2011 and Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea since 2012. Kim is the second child of Kim Jong-il (1941–2011) and Ko Yong-hui (1952–2004).Moore, Malcolm. Kim Jong-un: a profile of North Korea's next leader.     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"s far as I know, there is no official title of "dictator""

Wrong. "Dictator" was a political office in the Roman Republic. The Roman dictator was a magistrate "entrusted with the full authority of the state to deal with a military emergency or to undertake a specific duty. All other magistrates were subordinate to his imperium, and the right of the plebeian tribunes to veto his actions or of the people to appeal from them was extremely limited."

We have a List of Roman dictators, starting with the original office-holder ( Titus Lartius) in 501 BC, and ending with the death of the last office-holder ( Julius Caesar) in 44 BC.

Dictator as a modern term derives from the Roman title, and comparies the supposed power of various leaders to the imperium of the actual dictators. Dimadick ( talk) 10:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I meant that in modern history there was no such title officially, and not in the cases we are applying, or considering to apply it. To be clear, I am also against the peackok-charged titles some of them use to name their posts, that would also be non-neutral and would then mean we are taking their side. The Kim´s for instance, or Causescu, or Stalin, they were presidents. My ideal view would be to describe them as such in the opening sentence, and then right next, in Kim´s exemple fo instance, write that their title was officially known as Supreme Leader and that his rule is characterized as dictatorial. FkpCascais ( talk) 11:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Should any article mention that the subject was featured in a Google Doodle? There were some attempts to discuss at Talk:Google Doodle. A couple hundred articles seemingly unrelated to Google link to it, and there might be more mentions without a link, so I'm asking here to have some consensus. wumbolo ^^^ 21:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As long as it's mentioned in a secondary RS, I don't see why not. It's the sort of thing a reader might like to know. Note that I wouldn't consider "subject of a google doodle" to be good evidence of notability, however. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I would follow the advice of WP:TRIVIA. If third-party sources noted the topic in a Google Doodle, then it would be appropriate to include on the topic page. (EG one I remember distinctly was the Pac-Man 30th anniversary, which was covered by 3rd party sources). -- Masem ( t) 21:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Include only if covered by third party sources - The coverage should focus on the subject; being mentioned in a "list of the top 40 Google doodles" doesn't count. We should also consider whether it should included in "awards and honors" sections - Is Grace Hopper's google doodle on par with honorary doctorates, national awards and institutions that have been named after her? – dlthewave ☎ 22:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There are a few editors trying to remove the article, or strip any significant references to left-wing identitarianism from the article- even to the point of removing dictionary definitions. Apparently, some feel that identitarianism is only possible by white nationalists. All of the edits which remove this content, of course, are explained to be perfectly within the rules of Wikipedia.

In particular, User:Grayfell has removed significant content, but only the content that opposes the idea that others aside from white nationalists can be identitarians. Also, User:Objective3000 has been especially hostile toward trying to keep the article balanced and resorted to banning my account after I reverted an edit which was very WP:POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBailey ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to start a discussion on a noticeboard, you will find that honesty works much better. I have only made one edit to the article and one edit to the talk page. The edit to the article was a revert to consensus. I was one of four editors that reverted your edit-war. I did not ban your account. I warned you about edit-warring on your talk page. You deleted the warning and continued edit-warring against guidelines. So, I took it to WP:AN3 and an admin quickly gave you a 24hr block. During that block, you sent me a harassing email. I told you to stop this on your TP. You then sent a second harassing email. I could have filed a complaint of email harassment during a block, but simply blocked you from emailing me instead. Calling my actions especially hostile is absurd. Please read WP:BRD and WP:CON. Attacking other editors rarely leads to consensus for your edits. O3000 ( talk) 18:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I am being honest. However, I am being railroaded. DavidBailey ( talk) 19:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, this discussion is likely moot as ten editors, by my count, have !voted that the article be merged. One that it be retained. O3000 ( talk) 18:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, the Identitarian movement article should be merged into the Identitarianism article. Not the other way around. The problem is that people think that identitarianism is exclusively on the European authoritarian right, when it has demonstrably impacted both the right and left. DavidBailey ( talk) 19:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've been watching the discussion there for a few days (and I'm not particularly interested in the topic), and it looks to me very much like a WP:1AM situation, with the OP here disagreeing with multiple other editors and finding that nobody else agrees with him. It's probably just a situation where there is a consensus with which a single editor is unhappy, but it would certainly be a good thing to have fresh eyes there, which is why I suggested posting here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• The article has been merged and the OP blocked a second time. This isn't going anywhere. O3000 ( talk) 21:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's clear what the consensus is, and no good reason for editors at this noticeboard to waste any time on it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"John Gross FRSL (12 March 1935 – 10 January 2011[1][2]) was an eminent English man of letters. A leading intellectual, writer, anthologist, and critic."

Someone who knows something of the topic may want to take a look, the article seems to be on the positive side. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

When the article said he is "leading" in so many areas does this mean in Britain or the rest of the world? I found the original source for that part and updated the dead link accordingly but that article did not phrase the statement in that way. It did cite he was an intellectual. I am also noting how this sentence did not include editor. If there is an aspect he should be leading, it would be in this capacity. He has published four books and several anthologies but these were not exactly groundbreaking. Darwin Naz ( talk) 22:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to request input regarding the Blue Army (Poland) article and assess the possible lack of neutrality in the text, which results form undue weight [(Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight]] "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement...".

This is a rather controversial topic and this dispute has been going on for a couple of YEARS now, where one editor user:Faustian was the author of most of the critical text related to the Blue Army and reports of anit-Jewish violence (which takes up a very significant portion of the article), and now again this editor is blocking any changes from being made to this text. Yet, when you step back and objectively take into consideration the scale of the events in question, this in effect is a secondary issue — since, three years of conflict and an army of 68,000 soldiers resulted in only a portion of the 200-300 Jewish casualties (total not just for the Blue Army but all of Polish forces numbering 200,000) according to the official Anglo-American report (in comparison to thousands of Poles and Ukrainians who were killed). Not to mention examples of current ongoing conflicts where similar sized coalition forces inflicted considerable civilian casualties due to abuses, lack of discipline and collateral damage, and how such information is presented in Wikipedia articles and what portion of the article is dedicated to such information. Thus, in this case placing undue focus on just one ethnic group, through depth of detail and quantity of text.

Thus, I'd like to request assistance from as many editors as possible, to have a fresh and objective look at the text, review the content and provide input and recommendations on how to restore balance to the article given the very large amount of text on this one topic. -- E-960 ( talk) 07:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

While it seems mass murder of hapless civilians is insignificant to some editors, a multitude of academic RSes disagree:

1. "particular reputation for anti-Jewish violence" " Primed for Violence: Murder, Antisemitism, and Democratic Politics in Interwar Poland, Paul Brykczynski, University of Wisconsin Press
2. murder, robbery, and abuse - that led to Paris Peace Conference to dispatch a commision for investigation, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, edited by Dr Robert Rozett, Dr Shmuel Spector, Routledge
3. of this so called army which "especially earned the reputation as notrious Jew baiters and staged brutal pogroms in ..." Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia 1914-1920, Alexander Victor Prusin, University of Alabama Press.
4. and labelled as the "chief perpetrators of these murders". Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present, Joanna B. Michlic, University of Nebraska Press.

Icewhiz ( talk) 11:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz, based on your history with Noticeboards, it appears that several editors in the past complained strongly about your one sided presentation of facts. Terms such as "notorious Jew baiters" or "murder, robbery, and abuse" are bias and sensationalist, and don't square with the the fact that there were only 200-300 Jewish casualties in three years of war, as reported in the Anglo-American Morgenthau Report and American diplomat Hugh S. Gibson, who described the events very differently. Btw, Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources, does say that, quote: "Reliable sources may be non-neutral", however Wikipedia guidelines does say that articles should be neutral, balanced (not carrying undue weight) and encyclopedic. -- E-960 ( talk) 11:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• WP:NPA please. Morgenthau and Gibson are primary contemporary sources - but nor do they agree with your assertion. As for you claim that language is "bias and sensationalist" (an odd assertion for murder, robbery, and abuse - which is rather technical) - this is the language used by academic sources - History professor/Dr. Alexander Victor Prusin in an academic book and the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust published by Routledge (edited by historians Dr Robert Rozett & Dr Shmuel Spector). Icewhiz ( talk) 11:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with primary sources, also in regards to academics such as Alexander Victor Prusin, as stated before just because as source is reliable does not mean that it is neutral. However, Wikipedia articles should be. -- E-960 ( talk) 11:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

To maintain neutrality, present labels (like those under discussion) as opinions - attributed to those who hold them - and not as facts stated in Wikipedia’ Voice. Then we can present contrasting opinions, according to DUE WEIGHT. Blueboar ( talk) 11:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please avoid making unfounded and un-sources assertions regarding BLPs. Prusin's work is well-cited (per google scholar - 61 citations) and has been well received in academic reviews - e.g "deftly developed" [16] or "well-researched monograph" [17]. While academic reviews have pointed out the need for further in-depth research in the field or lack of text fluidity - they have not raised any issue of bias. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, the book might be well written, but again that does not mean that it is neutral in how it presents the evetns. -- E-960 ( talk) 12:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

A preponderance of academic sources describe the mass pogroms staged by the Blue Army. Any sources (academic ones, specifically addressing the Blue Army) backing up your assertion this is "insignificant"? Icewhiz ( talk) 12:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, pls consider depth of detail and quantity of text in article. The section on anti-Jewish violence should be re-named and trimmed, since much less Jews died, than Ukrainians as a result of the Blue Army's actions. Yet, most sourced don't even bother to reference Ukrainian casualties, which were in the thousands, another example of bias.-- E-960 ( talk) 12:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It would seem sources make a distinction between perpetrating pogroms against hapless civilians and combat deaths. In any event we follow the weight in sources - and sources cover the antisemitic pogroms by the Blue Army with quite some weight as you admit above. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

For instance, Jerzy Jan Lerski in his Historical Dictionary of Poland, 966-1945, a source one would generally presume to having a pro-Polish POV bias, sees fit in his single paragraph entry (13 lines) to say "it took part in warfare on the Ukrainian front, where, aside from its fine military performance, it was also involved in some anti-Semitic actions" [18]. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

And I agree that there was some acts of anti-Jewish violence due to lack of discipline and abuse, but that's not a point for a general intro paragraph and it does not justify the creation of the longest section in the entire article — again, depth of detail and length of statements. There are 3 sides to the events, but one with the lest number of casualties is displayed with promenade, well above any other matter. -- E-960 ( talk) 13:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen sources justifying cutting of beards and violent pogroms against innocent Jews by the Blue Army - nor have such sources been presented. Please note that this has been previously discussed in a RfC - Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 6#RFC: use of a reference source that was taken down by the encyclopedia - and the RfC consensus was that this is lede worthy. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: this issues seems to be one for which the Blue Army was well known, for example: “Blue Army” developed a particular reputation for anti-jewish violence. In Primed for Violence: Murder, Antisemitism, and Democratic Politics in Interwar Poland, by Paul Brykczynski. In any case, the weight is not defined by the percentage of certain content in the article, but by what reliables sources have said on the subject. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Photonic curing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure where, if anywhere, it is better to take this other than the talk page, but that didn't even exist before I created it ~1.5 hours ago, so I am not anticipating much traffic there. Regardless, this complex issue is ultimately a neutrality matter, so hopefully this is the appropriate place.

The article, Photonic curing, is an orphan article that was created in July 2011 by a single-purpose account (SPA) with a declared conflict of interest, apparently first as a user subpage which was then moved by another user who is likewise a conflicted SPA. According to their respective user pages, both of them work at the same company which apparently invented photonic curing. Since the article's creation, there have been a few more drive-by promotional edits from employees of other companies, including some significant expansion by an IP address owned by the same company where the two aforementioned SPAs work. All that information is documented in the talk page's {{ Connected contributor}} template.

As of this version, the contributions from those two conflicted SPAs and that conflicted IP user still comprise 71.8% of the article's authorship, even after my minor edits (amounting to 4.7% of authorship). Moreover, it appears (virtually) all the references in the article are not independent sources, some of which appear to be authored by one of the conflicted SPAs.

How should I best proceed? I am not sure if this article deserves to be deleted, but it very well may fail a deletion discussion. If it is to be kept, then the article needs significant work, perhaps even a complete rework. Due to this subject being well beyond my scope of competence (and interest), I doubt I will be very helpful in that regard; however, I do not want to simply leave this article to be neglected for another near-decade, either. I do not typically deal with these situations, so advice is appreciated.

Thank you. — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 Note: Since these edits are stale, I initially thought I should not notify the editors; however, after some consideration, it is probably necessary as a procedural matter. Consequently, I have alerted the following users:

• Dr thermano ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Karlmartinnova ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.155.147.84 ( talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Their notifications are here, here, and here respectively. While notifying the IP user, I noticed that Gogo Dodo had deleted the user talk page in July 2011 on G6 grounds. Ironically, that appears to be the closest to administrative attention this whole situation has ever gotten. — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no comment on the article itself, but since I was pinged about the deleted User talk page, I checked it and it was unrelated to the article in question. It was just a kid leaving a random message about himself. I deleted it as it was irrelevant to a User talk page. The account made no edits related to the article. All of their edits were just the kid playing around writing about himself. I'm not sure how the account found the IP, but they did both make a request for a redirect around the same time. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 03:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I did not expect much if anything worthwhile in the deleted page history; I merely noted it for the record. Learning that it was irrelevant to all this (as expected) is helpful nonetheless.

In the intervening time, I realized that perhaps taking this to the Teahouse might have been better, if only because that is usually the catch-all place for users who are unsure how to proceed with an issue. Since I already posted here and notified the accounts, however, moving it there is likely no longer a worthwhile option to consider. — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the suitability and handling of developer slogans without independent sources in this article, specifically about this content. Rather than repeating all arguments, the differing positions are outlined at Talk:OpenBSD#Current slogan removed. For transparency: I am only requesting help regarding the content-related question itself (a 3RR complaint about alleged conduct is pending). Any additional input from uninvolved editors about the content-related issue in this stalled discussion would be appreciated. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Boud and I have been trying to find some compromises for the Non-science article. (If you are unfamiliar with the demarcation problem, then non-science is whatever's leftover, after you've defined some things to be science. Generally, among scholars, that means things like fine arts, but it also includes things like fashion or e-mail spam.)

A few days ago, Boud added this sentence to the lead:

"Hansson considers metaphysics and religion to be non-science"

Sven Ove Hansson is a well-regarded mainstream philosopher who wrote an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a highly reputable source that is used widely on Wikipedia). However, I don't think that this more-or-less universally agreed-upon statement should be given WP:INTEXT attribution to any singe person. Pretty much everyone except the fringiest of fringey sources agrees that gods and prayers and rituals aren't scientific, and I'm concerned that using INTEXT attribution in this case would make it seem like this is a minority point of view. What do you think? Should we use INTEXT attribution for this kind of statement? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

At a bare minimum, I would change "considers" to "says" and say where he's writing - the "considers" version has a serious issue in that it incorrectly portrays the source as an opinion when, in context, it's clearly meant to be a statement of fact. We can use inline citations for statements of fact when they seem controversial or contested, but in a context like this (where it's a statement of fact in an encyclopedia of philosophy, ie. not someplace devoted to opinion pieces) it has to present them as someone stating a generally-accepted fact rather than as someone stating their own opinion. Beyond that, I would suggest looking for additional sources (especially sources talking in broad terms about how these things are viewed) and, additionally, looking to see if there are any sources that disagree and, if so, who. Then you can use that to frame what the article says. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Aquillion, exactly how many sources do you need before we can say that things like Rainmaking (ritual) and Transubstantiation aren't actually "scientific" without naming specific individuals who hold that view? And do you want only individuals, or shall we name organizations that think that religion and science are separate concepts, such as National Academy of Sciences [19]? Pew Research says "many [American] scientists, including many who are not personally religious, tend to view science and religion as distinct." [20] PMC  2920436 says "Science and religion have long thought themselves mutually exclusive".

As for whether anyone holds the view that religion is science, the answer seems to be that the only people who have said that religion (well, specifically theology; nobody seems to defend religious rituals, sacred writings, religious organizations, etc. as scientific) can be defined as a "science" are those who have a special, expanded definition of science (usually one that includes an individual's personal experiences as a form of "scientific" evidence). In other words, science can be anything you want, "by definition", so long as you get to re-write the definition. Science can be a cat, if you re-write the definition to say that Felix domesticus is science. However, when you're working with the standard definitions (roughly, science is a systematic, progressive, iterative quest for nomographic knowledge of the natural world [including the people in it and their behaviors]), then nobody has seriously held that view for a very long time. Sources on the subject generally cite either Socrates or Galileo as evidence of that view having been rejected long ago. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What I mean is, finding additional sources (especially ones making broad statements about how it's viewed, or unambiguously stating it as fact in a high-quality mainstream publication where that position would reasonably be fact-checked if wrong) is more likely to resolve the dispute. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think WhatAmIDoing is absolutely right that WP:ITA is a bad move here. If you just google "religion is not science" or "metaphysics is not science" so many reliable sources are listed that it is absurd to have more of a discussion about this, in my opinion. Using a single, peer-reviewed source is also fine considering the sort of WP:COMMON knowledge thing that's going on here. jps ( talk) 12:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem in improving on my latest edit to the article based on the above discussion; it's quite credible that philosophers of science in most cultures mostly agree that religion is non-science (although Dawkins strongly disagrees in the sense that religion makes claims that to some degree are testable). Unfortunately, this 8 Oct 2018 revert reversed a whole lot of other improvements going in the direction of inline sourcing, RS and NPOV. An earlier (8 Sep 2018) revert also made it hard to progress in improving the article. Talking about religion as a non-science was not the main issue here, and the revert re-introduced plenty of POV (see the DYK discussion and the talk page: in particular, the en.wikipedia is supposed to be about world knowledge, but written in English, not an English-speaking-world POV). Anyway, I'm not going to try any more edits any time soon in a situation where there are reverts rather than edits. Boud ( talk) 19:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I really don't like the way this article is shaping up. The title suggests a historical overview of the topic, but in fact the article concentrates heavily on the present migrant "crisis". I'm not even sure that the title isn't WP:Synthesis. I would like to hear other views. Deb ( talk) 21:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) has released a report named Bundes­lage­bild Krimi­nalität im Kon­text von Zu­wan­de­rung 2017 so the scope of the article is supported by WP:RS and is therefore not a case of WP:SYNTH. Kind regards, AadaamS ( talk) 04:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

BKA released reports for 2016 and 2015 but there does not seem to be one for 2014 or earlier. If the most comprehensive authorative sources are recent, the article seems to reflect available sources. Added link to article in section heading. Perhaps earlier reports used a different title? AadaamS ( talk) 05:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here. It doesn't matter whether earlier information is difficult to find (and your comment suggests you haven't looked very hard); what matters is that the article purports to be something different from what it is. It begins by defining the topic thus: "Immigration and crime in Germany refers to crimes committed against and by immigrants in Germany." It contains a total of five lines about crimes against immigrants, and the other thirteen lengthy paragraphs are all about crimes committed by immigrants in the years since the 1990s. There is no way that can be considered even-handed or written from a neutral point of view. Deb ( talk) 07:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your concern. Do you suggest that reliable sources proving that the nember of crimes committed against and by immigrants is more or less equal? If this is the case, this piece of information should not be ignored. Borsoka ( talk) 11:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. I'm suggesting that a serious attempt should be made to include crimes committed against immigrants rather than concentrating on those committed by immigrants. An article like this must deal even-handedly with the two types of crime, otherwise it will end up as just another stream of "facts" exclusively taken from German-language sources that are unable to look at the situation from an objective viewpoint. And historical information should be included. Deb ( talk) 12:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources about crimes committed against immigrants, they should be cited. Why is this a case here? Borsoka ( talk) 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I just added a bunch of studies on anti-immigration violence. [21] I think the other editor is expressing the concern that the regular editors on that article are intentionally adding items that reflect poorly on immigrants while intentionally omitting crimes against immigrants and omitting content that paints a more nuanced picture of immigrant crime. You know, a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV by exaggerating certain aspects and omitting other aspects, giving readers a skewed view of reality. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

That's right. Because the article is relatively new and there have been few contributors so far, it would be nice to have consensus as to how to improve it. Deb ( talk) 13:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely an article that needs more eyes. The editor AadaamS adds content that AFAIK exclusively reflects poorly on immigrants, often sourced to German-language sources (which I'm unable to verify). This coupled with repeated attempts to remove reliably sourced content on the relationship between immigration and crime (both for Germany and Sweden) that provides a more nuanced view suggests that there is cause for concern. The editor has for example argued that high-quality English-language RS shouldn't be used in these articles, and has intermittently started edit-wars to remove the same RS content again and again (presumably in the hopes that other editors have stopped patrolling pages such as Immigration and crime, Immigration and crime in Sweden and Immigration and crime in Germany). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Why isn't this just a subsection of Immigration to Germany or Crime in Germany? We have good quality academic research on the relationship between immigration and crime is there any reason to think that relationship is different in Germany? This seems like having an article for "Health Effects of Tobacco (in Germany)" or "Speed of sound (in Germany). The section that breaks down crime by region seems especially pointless - there's really no way to know whether the number of knife attacks in Baden-Württemberg in 2017 is related to immigration or if it is just noise. This reads like a long string of anecdotes, and it really seems like it should be trimmed and merged. Nblund ^talk 13:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd support that. I almost wonder if it's an attempt to blind-side us so as to circumvent the work that's already been done to improve those articles. Deb ( talk) 15:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
    • It's a standalone article fundamentally because the article satisfies the WP:GNG general notability criteria. AadaamS ( talk) 18:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
      • More contributions by editors who are skilled in the German language would be very helpful. The section on crimes against immigrants should be expanded. AadaamS ( talk) 18:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does fit the WP:GNG guidelines - obviously there are sources that discuss this topic, but there don't appear to be sources that discuss this topic as a wholly unique a distinct phenomenon in Germany relative to the rest of the world. Moreover, per WP:PAGEDECIDE: treating this as a totally separate article means that important context - such as research on immigration and crime in other countries and general information about immigration in Germany - is missing from the article. This topic has been studied extensively in the US, but Immigration and Crime in the United States is still a subsection of Immigration in the United States. Why should Germany be different? Nblund ^talk 19:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are conviced that the article doesn't live up to WP:GNG, you should launch a WP:AFD. Can't hurt to have some extra opinions. What do you think? AadaamS ( talk) 20:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the argument that it's a WP:POVFORK of those articles seems credible (in that it essentially covers the same topics, but from an angle that implies a potentially-POV conclusion about the connection between the two topics.) The issue isn't WP:GNG, the issue is that there's no compelling reason to cover this on its own article when we already have articles on crime and immigration in Germany that cover the same topic more rigorously and with more context. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this is basically my assessment as well. -sche ( talk) 21:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• It could maybe stand alone because the AfD and others have been quite successful in painting crime as a problem caused by immigrants--wait. That works everywhere. Drmies ( talk) 21:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• The "crime" section of Immigration to Germany could use some work as well. – dlthewave ☎ 01:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason that there are no reports for 2014 or earlier is that the report is about crime and the refugees who arrived beginning in 2015. In any case it appears to be synthesis. A tally of crimes by immigrants is presented with no analysis, which implies that immigration leads to crime without actually saying so. And the term immigrant is used in a way that would not normally be used in English to include people whose grandparents had immigrated to the country. (We don't for example refer to Donald Trump as an immigrant to America just because his grandparents were immigrants.) TFD ( talk) 04:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Analysis and context can always be added and improved, nobody has argued against that. If terminology needs to be clarified, that can be fixed. Heading 2.2 in the University of Greifswald source is "The crime rates of the second and third generation of immigrants". AadaamS ( talk) 08:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

My point was that the article you used to establish notability of the topic, the Federal Situation Report on Crime in the Context of Immigration for years 2015 and 2016 is specifically about the immigration in 2015 and 2016, when the government allowed one million immigrants to arrive, not about earlier waves of immigration such as Turkish guest workers. So it does not establish notability and we need a source that does, in order to establish the notability of the topic. I suggest that when you do this you read beyond the title to see what the source is really about. TFD ( talk) 13:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• It does interest me that there is no article on this topic in German wikipedia. Maybe AadaamS can shed light on why that is so. Deb ( talk) 12:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Deb, there is an article named Ausländerkriminalität. Per this source from Munich University, the phenomenon appears narrower in scope as it encompasses crimes by migrants and not migrants as victims of crime. Thanks for your contributions to the article, a collaborative approach is appreciated. AadaamS ( talk) 19:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. As you can see, recent edits by User:Greywin and User:Slatersteven have removed the historical background information that I added to try to create an unprejudiced introduction. So now we are back to an article that basically reads like a list of crimes committed by immigrants within the past 5-10 years. How can this possibly be NPOV? Deb ( talk) 14:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Then find RS that actually talk about crimes against IMMIGRANTS (not Germans who are not Aryan, think about that for a moment, lumping Jews in with "non Germans"). Also I would point out I did add some material about how crime (including by immigrants) has been falling. Of courser there are POV issues, that is not addressed by making it about racism in Germany (or by Germans) or antisemitism in Germany, it is addressed by looking at the historical treatment of Immigrants in Germany. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did. I can only include information that exists, not information about crimes that weren't committed or treatment of immigrants that wasn't recorded. Deb ( talk) 14:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

None of the material you added was about immigrants (with the questionable exception of forced laborers). Slatersteven ( talk) 14:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• What do you reckon are the chances that there is significant overlap here to the editors that basically turned Rape in Germany into s treatise on rape committed by immigrants? GMG ^talk 14:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Immigration and crime used to be 4chan copypasta before I cleaned it up years ago. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

As suggested, I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immigration and crime in Germany, where you can all have your say. Deb ( talk) 15:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not much of an opinion on the article, but I am a little surprised by the "Baden-Württemberg" paragraph. The source mentions the statistic just in passing and does not draw a connection between the data so why is it being listed on the article that implies a connection? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I never heard of this guy, but he founded a sub-movement within Roman Catholicism which apparently has a lot of followers. He seems to have been controversial, and the article contains an unsourced assertion that he is now under consideration for canonization. The narrative is written in a strange form of present-tense prose which reads as if it might have been ineptly translated from another language, possibly German. The primary authors seem to be preparing a defense for the guy as a good candidate for sainthood. I sometimes use the term hagiography metaphorically in Wikipedia discussions, but this one seems to veer close to the real thing. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of the unsourced canonization claim, a Washington Post article cited that he is being considered for sainthood. ^[1] However, this is a bit vague because sainthood is a long process and the information available did not clearly state whether such candidacy already completed the three steps (veneration, beatification - the so-called canonical trial - and canonization). Furthermore, it was not mentioned (and I couldn't find any source) whether this particular case was accepted by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints within the Papal Curia. If I am not mistaken, if a figure is candidate for canonization, there is also an official declaration from the Pope. Darwin Naz ( talk) 14:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mateo is insisting on moving the Hitler entry to the "Disputed" section List of vegetarians. His argument for doing so is that there are accounts of Hitler eating meat up to the 1930s.

It is true that Hitler ate meat up until 1937, and these accounts have been used by skeptics to challenge the cnotion that Hitler was vegetarian. For a long while Hitler was classified under the "disputed" section of the list. However, the facts have changed in the last five years. As documented at Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism Hitler's food tester came forward in 2013 and confirmed that all the food she tested was indeed vegetarian. And then last year a forensic analysis of the tartar on Hitler's teeth revealed that there were no meat traces. Both pieces of evidence corroborate Hitler's claim in 1942 that he was vegetarian.

To use outdated accounts as Mateo is doing is factually incorrect and agenda driven IMO. The Hitler entry satisfies all the criteria that other list members satisfy. Could I please get some neutral feedback at Talk:List_of_vegetarians#Hitler_as_a_disputed_vegetarian. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not need to wonder why would Betty Logan misrepresents my arguments, as unfortunately this user has taken this issue very personally and for years is trying to erase all claims of dispute regarding Hitler's diet. A glance at this user's history of contributions in article relating to this issue is further more proving just how much Hitler can be defined as a vegetarian. Mateo ( talk) 13:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Mateo is misrepresenting my actions. I have had to correct the Hitler entry many times but up until 2013 I used to have to restore Hitler to the "disputed" section, as you can see in this edit here (the edit summary doesn't make much sense out of context but you can clearly see I restore Hitler to the "disputed" section). As I outline above (and at the talk discussion), in the last five years new facts have emerged meaning it is beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler was vegetarian. If we are not going to accept scientific evidence and witness testimony from Hitler's food-taster then what exactly will we accept as the threshold for factual corroboration on this topic? We don't set the bar this high for any other entry. Mateo confirms he is vegetarian at the discussion, and Hitler's vegetarianism is a bone of contention for vegetarians. This debate would clearly benefit from editors who are neutral on this matter. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The new evidence actually show that Hitler can't be defined as a clear case of vegetarian. It seems Betty waited for any evidence for her to act in accordance to her presupposed thoughts. I also did not mentioned anything about my personal diet, am not interested in Betty's and wish to keep it that way. Thank you very much! Mateo ( talk) 13:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

No...Betty acted on the evidence that was available at the time. Prior to 2013 there were conflicting accounts so Betty's edits were consistent with this view. Now we have witness testimony corroborated by forensic evidence, so Betty now edits in a manner consistent with the new facts. Adding Hitler back to the "disputed" section using a book written in 1973 challenging the claim is not acceptable. As far as I know there are no counter-claims that directly challenge the new evidence. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Until such time the definition of 'Vegetarian' = 'Has never eaten meat' there is no dispute over Hitler being a Vegetarian for the last 3-8 years of his life - all the historical records confirm it. The only 'dispute' is over how much of a vegetarian he was prior to 1943 - and given then wide range of vegetarianism there isnt that much of a dispute there either. 'List of vegetarians' is a list of people who were/are vegetarians. Hitler was a vegetarian. That he previously ate meat is irrelevant. 99% of the people in that article should be in 'disputed' if prior meat-eating was disqualified you. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Betty, this is not a dispute regarding current events, so it's best to go by the the total sum of evidence and not the most recent one. In the case of Hitler i see that there is no dispute he ate meat most of his adult life, and up until the start of the war. Unlike what Only in death does duty end has said, most of the people in the undisputed list are currently vegetarians or were so for a major part of their lives. This is not a good start for an argument about him being a vegetarian beyond all dispute. But it is also not in dispute that he was quoted as being fond of animals and adhered abstention from meat. The totality of evidence, and the conditions in the last years of the second world war, does raise a dispute weather he could and actually did follow this practice and abstained from any parts of the animal. And even if he did, it's clear it was not more then a couple of years. Compered to other people in the disputed list I do believe Hitler's case is the definition of a disputed vegetarian. 14:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo ( talk • contribs)

'Not more than a couple of years' when pretty much all the evidence is that he attempted from 1937 to his death - no his cook slipping him meat fat does not make him not a vegetarian. And the only reason its in this much details is because its fucking Hitler. No one cares about most of the other people on the list. They dont have a dedicated article to their vegetarianism. So unless you have some actual evidence that Hitler's vegetarianism was in dispute at the time of his death, this is just more ongoing tendentious waste of time to try and claim he wasnt a vegetarian, and its getting to 'Shakespeare didnt write his plays' level. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You can eat meat fat and still claim to be vegetarian? That's news. Perhaps we should change the meaning of the object altogether. It's also funny to think that a cook can "slip" something into Adolf f**** Hitler's food, in total contrast to his dictation. Can't you see the absurdity of your claims? Also I did not at any given point stated that he was not a vegetarian, and I resent your assertion that I was. But it is interesting to see how any attempt to claim for a dispute on the matter is immediately distorted. Fact is that the most prominent historian that dealt with the matter claimed Hitler did not follow a vegetarian diet but was glorified as such by collaborators trying to dress him in compassionate clothes. Now I do agree with you that this is not as important as it is time consuming, therefore unclear to me why the urge to conclude that there is no dispute on this issue. 15:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo ( talk • contribs)

• Mateo has refused to accept the impartial opinion offered at this discussion so I started an RFC at Talk:List_of_vegetarians#RfC_about_Hitler_being_a_vegetarian. Any further comments would be better off added at that discussion. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• List of vegetarians should follow whatever Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism says, and anyone who wishes to claim that Hitler's vegetarianism is disputed should attempt to get a consensus to change Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism, only changing List of vegetarians to disputed after Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism says that it is disputed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a long-running discussion at Talk:AR-15_style_rifle#opinions_on_why_mass_shooters_choose_the_AR-15 concerning the reasons that mass shooters choose AR-15 style rifles and which viewpoints should be presented. Some editors feel that only the opinions of firearms experts should be covered, while others support the inclusion of "lay opinions" written by journalists in sources such as The Atlantic, New York Times and other media outlets. It would be helpful to have more voices in the discussion as only a few editors are participating. – dlthewave ☎ 13:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Not wholly true, at least one of the "authorized firearms experts" (I say "authorized" because there appears to be no chair of Gunology at any major US university, nor a degree in gunanomics, nor indeed even an NVQ 1 in looking at a gun and saying it is a gun, the term "gun experts" is applied by the very media sources that are being rejected for information about guns) is in fact a criminologist, not an expert on guns. Also there is an issue of what is an expert, why is a criminologists (or even a firearm instructors) view acceptable but not a medical professionals. But yes the main dispute is between "experts" and "non experts" (such as lobby groups or media commentators). Slatersteven ( talk) 13:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. More eyes would be very useful. To give a sense, here's the latest source being blocked from inclusion in the article on the grounds that it is not "expert" opinion. This source was proposed to balance the only view currently represented in the article, which comes from here and here (namely, that there's nothing particularly lethal or special about AR-15s and it's just some kind of copycat effect that explains why they killed so many people in so many recent shootings). Ironically, the first source actually presents a fairly balanced view - but only the part saying AR-15s are not actually very lethal has been allowed into the wiki article, the rest was blocked (again for not being "expert" enough - apparently the Brady Campaign for Gun Violence are not experts on gun violence, and even the NRA isn't allowed when it says something that might imply this rifle is deadly). Waleswatcher (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that we have had multiple discussions on this topic (here at NPOV/N, at RSN and at other noticeboards including the Village Pump)... please look through the archives and read these prior discussions before commenting. I am not saying we can’t discuss it now... but we don’t want to endlessly repeat the same arguments. Try to bring something new to the table. Blueboar ( talk) 14:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, after participating for about a month in this discussion, I can understand why it's been ongoing for so long. When the question of whether "more bullets fired faster being deadlier" becomes a debate on WP:MEDRS... Simonm223 ( talk) 14:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Why wasn't the article talk page notified of this discussion? Springee ( talk) 14:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

[22] – dlthewave ☎ 14:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• This isn't about "authorized" experts. It's about WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The article currently has a lay opinion, AR-15's are "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. This is a lay opinion and widely cited. So what do the experts think? We currently have two experts. One is identified as an expert qualified to offer an opinion by two independent news sources. The second is a criminologist with an appropriate academic background. Other source should be added but only with expert opinions, not additional lay opinions since we already have that. Springee ( talk) 14:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I think Waleswatcher's complaint is that there's no requirement of expertise for inclusion, but rather a requirement of notability, which the lay opinion meets. It's ultimately a WP:DUE issue; but the criterion set on page for what is due seems to be designed to constrain inclusion of criticism of the AR-15 as a device designed to kill large groups of humans. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is best now if we allow new blood to comment. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• As a bit of a gun nut, I can certainly understand the position of those wanting to block these sources. Just like with any specialty, the mass media regularly misuses terms, oversimplifies complex subjects, makes generalities based on those oversimplifications and just generally gets almost as much wrong as right, even with an expert consultant on hand.

That being said, there are two things that need to be borne in mind:

1. Wikipedia is guided by the sources. If the sources are wrong, we must also be wrong. It is not our duty to correct the preponderance of sources based on our own knowledge nor even on the disagreement of a small group of suspect (and firearms experts are very much a highly suspect bunch, myself included, and for much the reason that Slater has already pointed out) experts.
2. The popular view of these weapons is a matter of just as much importance as the "crunchy data" about them that the experts like to harp on. I mean, the sources presented as being blocked are quite literally talking about how a certain type of rifle is seen by that portion of the public who commit mass shootings. How one can suggest that the vast preponderance of media depictions of that very type of rifle is not due because that depiction is not entirely accurate is beyond me.

As to the claims in the sources, for what it's worth they're all correct. The 5.56 NATO cartridge and the .223 Rem are not particularly noteworthy in terms of performance characteristics. I personally prefer the 6.8 SPC as an all-around superior round. But that being said, the performance characteristics of the 5.56/.223 are very well balanced for an inexperienced shooter, or for use in a hectic firefight. They will cause more damage than, for example, a 9mm parabellum, and far more than a 22LR, the two most popular rounds around. They perform better at a distance than the .45 ACP or .357 Magnum because they're rifle rounds. But then, that's true of the 7.62 NATO and the .270 Winchester, as well.

So it's fair to say that the rounds fired by the AR-15 style rifle have a performance characteristic that lends itself to mass shootings. It's also fair to say that the performance characteristics of those same rounds are unremarkable (compared to, say, a .50 BMG for example), and their popularity is why mas shooters chose them. Both statements are true. This, my friends, is why no centralized accrediting organization on firearms has ever been formed. There are too many different firearms, different rounds, different shooting styles and different shooting scenarios to ever nail down a science that could be agreed upon by a large majority of firearms experts and taught to prospective experts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I just want to make sure it's clear what is being discussed. The section in question starts by offering a lay/mass opinion that these rifles are "the weapon of choice" for mass shooters. Next it introduces expert opinions on the subject. Those opinions are trying to address WHY the rifles are picked vs other guns. So far we only have two experts. The problem is the proposed new sources aren't interviews with experts who would be qualified to say why a mass shooter is picking a particular weapon. What we need in this case is more sources that say "expert ____ says mass shooters pick this weapon because _____". Springee ( talk) 14:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If the question is being asked "Why the AK-15 is the weapon of choice in crimes?" it seems completely reasonable to leave it to firearms experts and police/other authorities that investigate the crimes and have interviewed shooters (when they can), when those exist (which they do). They would carry much more WEIGHT relative to what non-experts are speculating. If there are reasons put forth by non-experts that are not covered by experts, maybe those can be included too, but if there is disagreement, in a case like this, the experts' views should be included only. -- Masem ( t) 15:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict)And this is where the central conflict lies. Because there is no policy that says the question why must only be sourced to experts and the idea that these guns are popular with mass killers, at least in part, because AR-15s are good at killing large groups of people, regardless of expert opinion, is a widely held, notable opinion that has been commented on by reliable sources, unless we persist in somewhat absurd notion that a statement that AR-15s are good at killing large groups of people is something that must be covered under WP:MEDRS. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXT is a subsection of RS. It actually does say reliability of sources is based on context. If we are asking a question that requires an expert opinion (and we are) then we can only use expert sources because others wouldn't meet the RS standard. Springee ( talk) 15:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's all fine and good and addresses the implications in the last paragraph I posted above. It does not, however, address the two points I numbered. Notable opinions are notable, whether they're wrong, merely parroting what experts say or novel and insightful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I really think that we do need to consider that while notable opinions should be included, when dealing with an article that there is a known body of experts in a relatively specialized field, deference to the experts has to come first and foremost before other opinions are thrown in. It would be different if we were talking politics which is not a specialized field and nearly all journalists can end up "experts" in this, then we'd not have to defer. -- Masem ( t) 15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the last paragraph of my big comment above. I'm arguably one of those experts, having been shooting since I was a boy, having been trained by the US Army in the use, repair and maintenance of a large number of military weapons, and having used them in the conditions for which they were designed to be used. I'm telling you without qualification: firearms experts are just as divided in their opinions on firearms as non-experts, because it is an amazingly complex field with too many variables to ever boil down to a science. It is an art, and as such, experts are only really useful for correction demonstrably inaccurate information. An expert opinion on why a certain rifle is preferred by a certain group is really barely any more valid than that of a non-expert. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

But a key difference is that an expert is going to be able to rightly assemble known facts, figures, and make appropriate synthesis to come to a conclusion that is otherwise objectively impossible to prove, because they have had the education, training, and practical experience to do this. It is certainly possible that you will get differentiating opinions from firearms experts with the same exact core information - that happens in many different scientific fields too. But it comes down to the logic of the argument with the evidence to back that up and importantly their nature as an expert to synthesis their conclusion. Non-experts do not have that, and while they might end up at a similar conclusion as a gun expert, it is usually not be the same rigor of thought as the expert. It is important to see how this mirrors MEDRS/SCIRS, in terms of the weight put on peer-reviewed journals (or in this case, the expert sources). Now MEDRS is purposely strong to avoid giving misinformation from non-experts, even if that information seems true. Here, we're not under the same concern, but we should definitely put more weight on what's coming from experts as the closest to "truth" over what opinions are coming out of non-experts, but we still should consider non-contradictory, significant opinions from non-experts. -- Masem ( t) 16:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict)My point is this: If you ask ten scientists what the best way to figure out the parabolic arc of a thrown rock will be, you'll get one answer. If you ask ten oil painters what the best brush to use to get a certain type of brush stroke, you'll get 2, maybe 3 answers. If you ask ten firearms experts what the best gun to use for CQC in an American suburb is, you'll get 15 answers, at least. It's not a science, full stop. It's an art. Sure, there's science behind it, just like there's science behind digital painting and photo editing. But there are extraordinarily few "what's the best X for Y?" questions that have an answer you can get more than two experts to agree on. That's simply not so for the majority of fields. Other subjects like this I can think of include martial arts (for very similar reasons) and film and literature criticism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You are asking a subjective question meaning there's no right or wrong answer, but there are answers that are better informed and rationalized than others. It doesn't matter that if you ask the question of X experts that you get X different answers - that's wholly expected of a subjective question. We're not expecting agreement, just that the logic and thought to get there is well-informed due to them being an expert. It's when you get to non-experts that we're not sure if they have the same principle of thought to reach said conclusion. They might, they might not. -- Masem ( t) 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No, just because the word "best" is used doesn't make the question subjective. The question asked of the scientists is purely objective: one formula will produce exact results, all others are mere heuristics. The question asked of the artists has only a bit of subjectivity to it: for example, depending on the brush stroke desired, they might name two different fan brushes, but all would agree without hesitation that it must be a fan brush. The question asked of the firearms experts is, in theory at least, purely an objective one. What rifle in what caliber offers the numerically largest results in the following criteria: X, Y and Z (the needs of CQC, which will be fairly universally agreed upon, and the conditions in an American suburb as opposed to typical CQC training environs, which will be purely empirical, so long as the specific American suburb is given). The problem isn't with the question, it's with the answers. Do you want your rounds to be able to maintain a flat arc after penetrating a concrete 8-block so you can shoot through walls? Or do you want frangible ammunition to avoid killing civilians who may not have left? Both have their benefits, but different shooters will have different preferences. What about secondary arms? Pistol or PDW? There are advantages to both, and both depend on the shooter, as well as the environment. As I said, it's an art. In theory, we could make it a science, but we'd have to do the sort of research that would be so incredibly unethical that non-nazi scientists would never consider it. We'd have to shoot people through walls, send thousands of trained and untrained combatants against each other in observed battles in controlled conditions. We know a lot about war and combat. But we simply aren't the kind of species who can take all that knowledge and sort it out using the scientific method, because that's just plain evil. So we can't expose the actual science of combat underneath it, and thus we must treat it as an art. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If we are comparing to the art world, the same concept applies, given art is 100% subjective, and there, we find that we routing turn to known experts in the field to weigh their opinions more over non-experts, even if all those opinions are different. It is clear there is not a black or white answer to why AR-15 is so frequent in these mass shootings, that's a subjective question for certain and will never a single answer, but I would think we weight the opinioned answers of those using science, and those using criminal psychology to be stressed over those speculating without other evidence. -- Masem ( t) 19:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Art techniques (including getting a certain brush stroke) are not subjective. Come on man, haven't you ever watched Bob Ross? ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, in this case we aren't asking for firearms experts. In this case I would say you need an expert in crime and or psychology. We are trying to understand the thinking a criminal was using when picking a weapon. In this case being a gun expert isn't sufficient qualification. Springee ( talk) 16:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would think both areas would be helpful. There are likely technical/practical/tangible elements that a firearms expert could answer related to weigh, size, firing rate, etc. A crime psyhcologist or similar position who has analyzed those that have committed such crimes would be able to postulate more intangible elements and maybe some tangible ones. But again, in both cases, as experts, they have had the background and education and experience to be able to make a sound conclusion from facts. -- Masem ( t) 16:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it's crime and psychology experts, then I certainly would weigh their opinions more. Those subjects are different, with much more empiricism to them. But I still wouldn't discount popular opinions or the opinions of notable non-experts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you can discount significant opinions from non-experts, unless those opinion are contradictory to what experts have said; when they don't overlap, it is fair to include, just with less WEIGHT as experts (that is, they should come after what experts say, in most cases). -- Masem ( t) 16:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason you can't add "AR-15s are good at killing large groups of people" attributed to mass media if his doesn't conflict with what experts have said, the statement is clearly attributed as a hypothesis/speculation by whomever said it (as they are not experts nor have access to that information), and it is weighted less significant than expert opinion (eg placed after what experts state). Eg a possible statement would be something like (I am making up facts here) "Criminologist Sam Smith stated that AR-15s are a preferred weight in gun crimes because they are lightweight and can be easily hidden, while weapon expert Joe Smith said that such weapons are also easy to acquire with minimal background checks. Several journalists, including the NYTimes and CNN, speculated that these facts lead to ease of killing people in large groups." But I do agree with the argument that when you consider the spirit of MEDRS and SCIRS, that in other cases, we weight expert opinion much more heavily than non-expert opinion, but don't necessarily throw the non-expert opinion out. -- Masem ( t) 15:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't need WP:MEDRS for what is effectively WP:BLUE. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that MEDRS applies here, only the spirit. See my comment above to MPants. -- Masem ( t) 15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I dont see how WP:BLUE applies, except for saying bullets are lethal, but that isn't what this is about. Afootpluto ( talk) 15:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify the facts.

• Dr. Pete Blair a Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center(ALERRT) "which studies mass murder". They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013. He is a world renowned expert on active shooter events and has published numerous books, articles, and reports on the topic. He has also presented his research on active shooter events to the FBI, PERF, police chiefs’ organizations, and internationally. A criminologist that our FBI listens to, and can speak to criminals intentions.
• Dean Hazen a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator, and recognized as a gun expert. Not a gun expert as claimed for "even a firearm instructors" but a SWAT Munitions Specialist and Armorer for 25 years makes him a gun expert.

The article content mentioned.

• "Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect." I would point out editors Waleswatcher and Slaterstevn have claimed incorrectly the statement claims the AR-15 lacks lethality. But as seen it assert perceived lethality, neither overly lethal or lacking lethality for there weapon selection. The word lethality has even been blocked from the article even though it is used in the sources, "nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity."
• "AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile mass shootings in the United States"[62] and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes". The Blair and Hazon content has been blocked from directly following this statement and the distinction of saying the media makes this claim has also been denied. The Blair and Hazon content in the article speaks to the weapon of choice claim. How is something used to balance content, then needs further content to balance it?

The claim being made for this discussion by who and there statements in the source.

• "Other experts believe it is the AR-15s extreme lethality, especially when used against civilians, that is responsible." [23]
• journalist James Fallows "What is this gun? Why is it the weapon that people who want to kill a lot of other people, in a hurry, mainly choose?"
• Journalist Tim Dickinson "the AR-15’s emergence as the main implement of mass murder last year"

I would point out that compiled data and expert analysis show these statements are factually wrong.- 72bikers ( talk) 18:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would point out that compiled data and expert analysis show these statements are factually wrong. Umm, those first quote is a question, not a statement. The second quote is a statement, but one the gun experts you cited all agree with: that the AR-15 style rifle is the most popular among mass shooters. And that's something you don't need to be an expert. Now, you can point to claims about "lethality" (which is a BS term if ever I've heard one: trying to boil down penetration, tumble, fragmentation and deflection into a single term is an exercise in futility) as being contradicted by experts, but then I can go get an expert to opine that the 5.56 NATA has excellent performance characteristics for killing quickly, and thereby agree with them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether a statement is - in your opinion - right or wrong. Nor even if experts believe it to be right or wrong. It matters that reliable sources made the statement; unless you're trying to suggest that the AR-15 being a more dangerous weapon than a pistol is a WP:FRINGE position. I really hope you aren't trying to make that claim because it would be silly. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And it's important to point out that the reason you were blocked from including the compiled data is that it was so far out of date that several of the deadliest shootings in US history, including most of those done with an AR-15, were not included in the dataset; and the only 2018 dataset anybody could produce was flawed - and criticized as flawed by the same expert you prefer to use as the key RS for this discussion. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is ok to add some views of journalists and such, but they should not overwhelm the article. Coverage in the media is generally relevant for articles, but it is not reliable for facts or conclusions that a surgeon, criminologist, ballistics expert, etc. would make - unless it is reporting those conclusions. And as came up with regards to this before, there is always a question whether a particular doctor is actually a reliable source on this specific topic, or is just reporting anecdotes and opinions. To sum it up, I agree with Masem that the spirit of WP:MEDRS applies, and the article should be strongly weighted toward the views of experts, and that statements or speculation by journalists, or other people who have not done rigorous study of this topic and been published in it as an expert, should be attributed and in no way described as factual. Also I wish that people who are either strongly pro-gun or anti-gun, or have strong opinions on mass shootings (not saying anyone in particular is or does) would leave articles like this alone. —DIYeditor ( talk) 19:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll note I'm not strongly anti-gun, although I do think firearms that are designed specifically for killing groups of humans should not be available for sale. So I do hope that DIYeditor isn't making assumptions about anybody's specific position. (For the record, I'm actually rather gently pro-hunting, and think firearms that are designed for hunting, when properly registered, are a perfectly reasonable privilege to extend to trustworthy people.) Simonm223 ( talk) 20:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour. Simonm223 (talk), 27 September 2018, [24] speaks for itsself. - 72bikers ( talk) 20:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Simonm223: Ok, so you are anti-AR-15... Rather than balance between pro- and anti- editors on a topic, I think Wikipedia would be better off if we called that a variety of WP:COI. Let people who are removed from the controversy do the editing. At the least, one should be suspicious in reflection on one's own behavior when one's POVs on political topics persistently line up with what benefits those POVs in articles. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Ok, so you are anti-AR-15... I own a Bushmaster XM-15 in .223, a Bushmaster Carbon-15 (5.56) and an LWRC Six8 in (predictably enough) 6.8SPC. In addition, though this was many years ago, I have used several military variants of the rifle, including the M4A1 (with a SOPMOD B2 rig), an Mk12 SPR and a bog-standard M16A4. I am absolutely not "anti-AR-15" in any way. I love the platform and think it is the best all-around assault and sporting rifle platform.

Having an opinion doesn't translate to POV pushing that opinion. Simon's comments here have admitted to having an opinion, but do not appear to me to be POV pushing to demonize this type of rifle. I mostly agree with Simon's comments thus far. I would advise you to focus on the content, and not worry too much about anyone's POV. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work That's why I phrased it as "one", since I don't know Simonm223's editing history. And as I said above I was not saying anyone in particular was doing that. Realistically on a topic like this everyone probably has some kind of viewpoint. I think it is a fair question to ask everyone to consider whether their views on what is policy-compliant for the article are unduly affected by their views on, in this case, whether access to the AR-15 should be more restricted. Personally I think they should be harder to get. It's not a topic I am vehement about though. My point is that like judges sometimes recuse themselves from cases when they can't be impartial, a good Wikipedia editor would do the same. This is not an issue specific to these editors or this article. —DIYeditor ( talk) 02:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The very editors that are claiming NPOV is being denied, have themselves denied RS's with reconized expert analysis.

• a 2013 analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns concluded that 25% of the weapons used in mass shootings were assault weapons.

Only this statement was allowed from a number of sources I provided including the ones below (but not limited to). Only the oldest source was used and only the "were" distinction was allowed as opposed to the "are assault weapons" distinction with more recent support.

• Book by James Alan Fox (a highly respected criminologist) Jan 29, 2018: Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are actually the weapon of choice for most mass shooters. ...two thirds of mass shootings since 2009 involved one or more handgun, of the 72 public mass shooting since 1982, identified by Mother Jones 70 % relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns. [25].
• Book 2016 "A very common misconception is that mass shooters prefer these types of weapons-semiautomatic, military-style rifles . Yet a study done by Fox and Delateur (2014) clearly shows that mass shooters weapons of choice overwhelmingly are semiautomatic handguns" [26]

Both of these are USA Today articles 2017, 2018 in the AR-15 paqge now, February 15, 2018 [27], Nov. 8, 2017 [28], USA Today research and with help from Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries. I would also point Waleswatcher is trying to remove one of these right now from the article [29].

• They state in the last 35 years AR-15 specifically were used in 13 mass shootings and 4 uses in the last 3 years.
• 2015 4 MS with a AR
• 2016 1 MS with a AR
• 2017 2 MS with a AR
• 2018 to date 1 MS with a AR

It would seem some prefer sensationalized journalist speculation of a then news cycle over compiled data and expert analysis and claim it is the mainstream view even when facts show it is incorrect. - 72bikers ( talk) 20:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well this is a difficult issue and it should only be discussed in proportion to its coverage in published sources (and the media). I think as much coverage as this gets in the article (one paragraph? one section?) should be balanced in favor of criminologists, statisticians, published ballistics and firearms experts, military manuals, to an extent opinions doctors and psychologists have formed, and have very little mention of the media. —DIYeditor ( talk) 04:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm baffled by the repeated dismissal of journalists and the media as sources of facts and viewpoints. They are experts at gathering and fact-checking information. News articles are backed by the reputation of the publisher and are not simply the personal opinion of the author. All of the sources in question are written by journalists and many of them quote "experts", in fact the Atlantic piece actually quotes the inventor of the AR-15. – dlthewave ☎ 04:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a fair point. Again I think this needs to be in proportion to its coverage in sources, which I am not very familiar with. If there is a media storm on this topic then that is significant for the article. On the other hand, if a few typically anti-gun or pro-gun journalists published what are primarily opinions or speculation then I think that should be favored less in terms of balance. —DIYeditor ( talk) 05:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Using quotes from experts (as long as we can affirm they are expects) repeated in RSes is fine to source the expert opinion. Those shouldn't be omitted. What we should be careful of is the reporter's own conclusion if they make one. There's an expert quoted in the Atlantic that can be used if that's the "original" source. (To contrast, if a RS reprints part of a published report made by the expert, we should source the immediate report, not the news article). -- Masem ( t) 05:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

But also there was, for a while, a statement from a trauma surgeon with combat experience, sourced to Rolling Stone in which he claimed the AR-15 was too close to a military weapon to be in Civilian hands that was disallowed on the grounds that it failed WP:MEDRS. Simply put, the insistence on treating gun death as a medical issue, compounded by the insane American policy of banning federal medical authorities from investigating gun death, has left us with very limited sources we actually can work from. At times, it seems like 72bikers would prefer to only use Fox, wherever possible; which is a problem when they attempt to insert stale-dated statistical information that no longer reflects recent shootings. It's also problematic when they insist that the only relevant statistic for the AR-15 as a weapon in mass shootings is the historical long-term frequency of semi-automatic rifles as primary weapons in mass shootings. While WP:RECENTISM cautions against Wikipedia concentrating too heavily on recent events, the truth is that changes to firearm regulations and popular culture over the last several years have caused shifting patterns that may be buried in the tail of a measure of historical use patterns. Considering that there was a 10-year ban on many of these rifles between 1994 and 2004 and these weapons didn't even exist before the mid-1950s, this is a flawed methodology for assessing the significance of this weapon as a tool of mass-murder. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Simon223, I wanted to correct a few of the points you are making. The material by the trauma surgeon was problematic because it was trying to reach a conclusion that the surgeon wasn't really qualified to make. However, that can be reviewed at the noticeboard. The "insane American policy of banning federal medical authorities from investigating gun death" is a myth with just enough truth and plenty of appeal so it has stuck. There is no such ban and never was one. What did happen was a prohibition on the CDC funding gun control research. Funding research with the objective of promoting gun control is much different than objectively studying gun violence. The Fox (not Fox new, Dr Fox) source that 72biker's has promoted is strong but people feel, without strong rational, that 5 years makes the material too old for use in the article. Springee ( talk) 12:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This was supposed to be about fresh eyes, so can those of us already involved please shut up? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding frequency of use for any particular purpose, there is also the math of prevalence. As bundled here ("AR-15 style") that bundle is the most prevalent type of rifle and general purpose rifle in the US. North8000 ( talk) 13:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Editor is topic banned. – dlthewave ☎ 15:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah. With Obama inevitably coming for our guns, we need a rifle that we can use to defen- Wait... Obama's still in office, still coming for our guns, right?

Actually, this touches upon something I've been saying when my neighbors ask gun-nut, AR-15-toting ole me why all the mass shooters are using the same type of rifle I like so much: "Because it's the most popular rifle in the country, these past few years". If Winchester 30-30 lever actions become the most popular rifle over the next few years, I'll bet dollars to donuts it also becomes the most popular mass-murder rifle. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Which makes me wonder... would the AR-15 still be so popular if it were only produced in pastel pink? (Think about it... what self respecting mass shooter wants to be remembered as the guy using a “girlie” gun?). Blueboar ( talk) 15:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I own a pastel pink Walther PPQ that I almost always bring to the pistol range. To be fair, I bought it for my wife because she always loved pink guns, but she wanted something smaller, so we replaced that with a black Sig Sauer P365, and I just love the way the PPQ handles, especially when I just unload a mag or two on a CQC course. So I guess the answer to your weapon is "flaming liberal gun nuts who support commonsense gun control because we're smart enough to realize that making it slightly harder for me to buy a new one isn't the same thing as 'coming fer mah guns!' and it might well be the thing that saves my child's life one day when I'm not there to do it." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Blueboar, that would have reduced one driver. From what I've seen, the drivers were/are: 1. Appearance / panache.... looks like the military guns. 2. Efforts to ban them makes people want them more. ....that's how people are 3. It's a system, not a gun. The "mix and match" became a hobby itself and also makes it versatile for widely varying uses. North8000 ( talk) 17:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Editor is topic-banned. – dlthewave ☎ 15:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see editor Simonm223's problematic assertion "72bikers would prefer to only use Fox, wherever possible" to be a valid claim. Why would using Dr. Fox a highly respected professor of criminology, that our government and law enforcement listen to, [30], [31], [32] who has conducted numerous studies on the subject of mass shootings, and is cited by literally hundreds of books and articles, be problematic. This is Dr. Fox on C-SPAN [33] (from 15:50 to 22:50) he speaks to how the media tries to get him to sensationalized some claim by filtering the facts to most this or most that, and how they provoke copycat effect. Please watch this I believe it to provide a lot of clarity.

The claim of "stale-dated statistical information that no longer reflects recent shootings" would appear to be just based opinion. Being that no source has been provided to support this claim. And this claim is a prime example "the truth is that changes to firearm regulations and popular culture over the last several years have caused shifting patterns that may be buried in the tail of a measure of historical use patterns" also a claim that has no actual proof (no data no statistics or expert analysis) provided.

I have not asserted this "the only relevant statistic long-term frequency of semi-automatic rifles" I have repeatedly tried to include the last couple of years data.

• Book by Jaclyn Schildkraut, H. Jaymi Elsass 2016 [34] revolvers 14.1% and semiautomatic handgun 47.9% for a combined total of 62% - shotguns13.4% and assault weapons 24.6% with specific AR-15 use just a portion of.
• Book by James Alan Fox Jan 29, 2018 [35] with handgun use up to 70%.
• Mother Jones compiled data 1982-2018 shows no significant change in weapon use. [36] His excuse for not using was just fox brought up some argument he claimed. But Fox only mentioned in one article he was not in support of all there inclusion parameters, being a anti gun publication there inclusion is not as strict as the FBI and criminologist use. Also there data is easily filtered is how fox uses it.
• USA Today articles 2018 In the AR-15 page now state in the last 35 years AR-15 specifically were used in 13 mass shootings and 4 uses in the last 3 years.
• USA Today articles 2017, In the AR-15 page now state in the last 35 years AR-15 specifically were used in 12 mass shootings. I would also point out the editors that started this discussion of including content are now trying to remove this reference to the very content they are now challenging. - 72bikers ( talk) 23:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I said: I am only suggesting that we verify the amount of media coverage before including many references to journalism itself, not that it should definitely not be included. It may be relevant to telling the story of the AR-15 if we can say there has been strong controversy over it, or quite a number of allegations against the AR-15, or other coverage in the media related to this article. The proportions in article space for each position should be related to how many relevant and significant RSs there are - we should not try to give equal weight unless it exists. WP:DUE is important and perhaps a little tricky to apply. Some weight should be given to prominent media opinions and the opinions of other credible critics. —DIYeditor ( talk) 06:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me use a completely unrelated example of why we want expert opinion over widespread journalist opinion where there are at least some objective aspects to a topic that a layperson is likely not going to know. This week, one of the Nobel prizes went to Donna Strickland - who didn't have an article on WP until this was announced. An original entry for her had been filled with copyvio so was deleted, and while a draft was created ( here) it didn't indicate sufficient notability to be in mainspace (nor passed NPROF). But many journalists [37], [38], [39] claimed that she didn't have an article and that her article was rejected because WP has a gender bias. We certainly have a gender bias, no doubt, but it a combination of outside gender bias in both the lack of coverage of important acadaemics, and the bias in the general STEM areas for women, which all are unfortunately replicated in WP due to our reliance on quality sources. Reviewing all the material (as an expert on WP) tells me that the conclusions these articles jumped to are wrong and make bad assumptions of getting from point A to B, which gives a wrong picture of what happened with Strickland's article.

Same thing here on this issue with AR-15. There are specialized areas of this topic that laypersons - everyday journalists - do not necessary know, but experts - firearms experts, psychologies, officers of the law, etc. - do. We want to weigh the conclusions those experts come to - even if it several different subjective answers - first and foremost over those from laypersons that may be making illogical leaps of logic, perhaps fueled by other desires. -- Masem ( t) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if the media sources do have that kind of bias or ineptitude and they have been publishing on this topic I think it may be relevant to the article to mention that briefly. I am not familiar with the various precedents and interpretations about WP:DUE, WP:RS, only offering my take on this with a little knowledge of those rules, and what I think would make for a full article. But in the Intersectionality dispute mentioned lower on this noticeboard I have sided with limiting the criticisms sections only to experts (broadly interpreted). So I may be contradicting myself if these situations are analogous. —DIYeditor ( talk) 05:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC) This was my stance there. 05:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

In the case of the question "Why are AR-15 rifles common in mass shootings?", the answer is not purely objective, experts are not going to give a wholly objective, unchallengeable answer, but they are going to give an answer that has much weight than laypersons. It is a UNDUE issue to put non-informed opinions over informed opinions. -- Masem ( t) 06:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• This thread is not super useful, because it's become bloated and incoherent. I understand that there is a concern that reliable sources are being excluded, based on the original post by Dlthewave. It is worth remembering that firearms articles are subject to our standard reliable-sourcing guidelines and policies. We do not have separate criteria for sourcing on firearms articles. If clearly reliable sources (such as the Atlantic or the New York Times) are being rejected or otherwise stonewalled inappropriately, please provide a concise summary of such behavior, with diffs or links to relevant talkpage threads, and I will look into it from an administrative perspective. MastCell  ^Talk 00:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This is Dr. Fox a professor of criminology on C-SPAN [40]. The specific content is from the time 15:50 to 22:50.

He states one way the media disturbs him is that they try to say oh it's a record, the biggest the baddest something they have latched onto, then wants him to confirm its the biggest this or that by trying to filter it to make some sensationalized claim and that even highly reliable sources (even the New York Times for example) stoop to these levels of sensationalizing. I do not believe he (nor I) is trying to insinuate in any way that the media is unreliable, but just that they are prone to sensationalize things.

He states that by the media specifically trying to make some sensationalized claim its the biggest this or baddest that or most used this it promotes a copycat effect and provokes a need to outdo. He does not state any specific weapon used in the copycatting, just that the medias specific sensational speculative claims provoke specific copying. We have in the article this statement from other experts mentioned above Hazen and Blair. think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific characteristics but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect I feel because of the medias AR weapon of choice speculative claim, shows reason to use foxes views to support the AR copying by Blair and Hazen who also states this in there sources.

• Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing. When they see other mass shooters use it, it reinforces the image in their mind that this is the evil tool to use.”
• "…and copying them, or it can be using the same type of weapon other shooters have used if you’re planning a mass shooting.”

Fox is clearly supporting Blair and hazen, who also claim copying because of what they see in the media.

This source I feel could also be used in contrast of this. "to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" This statement is only supported by themedia and in the article it does not state this definitive. All of the compiled data and expert analysis say handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice 62% of the time and more recent 70%. Being the facts clearly say this media claim is grossly incorrect, making it just sensationalized speculation. (I am not saying it needs to be removed, but just that it should be put into perspective.) I feel that Dr. Fox's comment on the medias sensationalized speculation's could be that perspective.

At 30:21 he states they don't use assalt weapons all the time only a quarter of the time and if they did not have those there are other weapons as equally deadly.

It has been stated on the AR Talk page that none of this is relevant to the article. "Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk), 7 October 2018"

I would like to hear what uninvolved editors views are on any inclusion for the section in the AR-15 article for the "Use in crime and mass shootings". - 72bikers ( talk) 16:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Are you actually trying to propose here rather than at article talk, that we not talk about the use of AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings at all?!?!? Simonm223 ( talk) 16:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• I mean, I figured the fact that it's a relatively cheap, readily available semi-automatic rifle that sums up "why AR-15s are most likely to be used in mass shootings." It's what most people have access to. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 19:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Related: Related: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I was reading the WP:COI page and it directs one here for those who are dealing with a suspected editor with financial stake in the subject matter that they are editing.

As an editor who works in the pharmaceutical sector, I hope everyone would find it wholly inappropriate to see me editing the articles on competitor products, or downplaying or disappearing the negative effects of our own products.

However this is in essence precisely what is going on with an editor.

Now a big song and dance is made about not "outing", so do I put their username here, or do I get directed to a secret coven? Or what exactly is the protocol for having their undisclosed financial gain, recorded and dealt with?

Boundarylayer ( talk) 03:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I can’t comment on the potential for outting sicne there is not enough evidence to know if it applies in this particular case but I believe WP:COIN is the place to go.-- 76.65.40.44 ( talk) 19:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yup, that's the place. WP:COI says "If an editor has disclosed that s/he is editing with a COI, or edits in a way that leads you to believe they might have a COI, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, citing this guideline, or open a thread on WP:COIN." (emphasis added) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

And you can give their username, Boundarylayer — after all, if you don't, nobody will be able to evaluate it, or warn them, or ask them questions. But don't mention anything that might help anybody identify the real person, and especially not anything you've seen off Wikipedia. There is indeed a big song and dance. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC).

User:Bishonen, while you're here, what's the protocol for disclosing info that cements a COI? Often it takes only a 10 second conversation with Mr. Google to make the situation obvious but we can't disclose what we find on-site. If it becomes necessary, do we explain the connection to an admin, an arbitrator, or someone else? I have vague recollections of an editor being blocked for sending personally identifying info to the wrong party but don't recall the details. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

God, don't ask me, Boris, I'm terrified of telling anybody anything, after the time Jytdog was indeffed (or was it indefinitely topic banned?) by ArbCom for supposed outing. If a chilling effect was intended there, it worked on me. But I suppose explaining to arbcom privately is reasonably safe. (Whether or not it'll have any effect is another question.) Bishonen | talk 10:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

User:Boundarylayer - the first step in resolving any user conduct dispute is the user's talk page per the DR policy. In that post you should make it clear that you see a problem with the user's behavior here in WP and say what it is (an overall trend of promotional editing about X, or negative editing about X, or whatever). You should be able to demonstrate that with diffs if it comes to that, but to open a conversation (which is what should be your goal), there is no need for a bunch of diffs. Then you should ask what is going on - is there some connection, or some passion, that is driving this? It should be a real question, since you cannot know what is driving this. Then see where that goes. If the issue cannot be resolved, the next step is a board -- COIN or this one, depending on what emerges in the conversation. I talk about this on my user page at User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_2:_COI_and_advocacy_in_Wikipedia. Try to remain aware that others may not share your perception that there is a problem. Dealing with this stuff takes some... nuance and carefulness, and it can go south in many different ways. It is pretty easy to avoid the OUTING thing, actually; there is a very bright line there. My indef was the result of my own dumb mistake - posting a link to an off-WP website at a user's talk page, and saying "this is you", was just dumb. I was very tired and was moving too fast. Dumb. Bish, I really hope you are not chilled by that. :) Jytdog ( talk) 15:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright thanks for the replies, they were definitely a window into the inner workings. However the take-away seems to (1) Contact the editor on their talk-page, asking if they're aware of the seriousness of undisclosed conflict of interest editing, but make sure to not mention anything we know from off-site? (2) If the issue continues, I contact arbcom privately? Who will then appraise the conflict of interest. Great ok. Though that still leaves the question, who at Arbcom should one contact privately? Is it just anyone at all?

It would be great if the whole protocol, specifically this reporting procedure was well-defined and coherently communicated. As I'm sure this matter comes up a lot? When establihed editors aren't exactly sure on the steps to take, or who to contact. What hope is there for IP editors, or anyone equally unfamiliarized, to put in the effort, to get things looked at? Boundarylayer ( talk) 19:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org GMG ^talk 19:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

If the issue continues, bring it to COIN, or if you just need help with a potential coi-violation, bring it to COIN or it's talk page.

Diffs indicating information that the editors have disclosed within Wikipedia about themselves should be included, as well as what editing problems the editor has made. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

An RfC has been started on the Military History project's Talk page regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht ("Wehrmacht Report"), a daily communiqué from the Wehrmacht High Command. Since the discussion has centered on issues of due / undue weight, I'm posting this notification here. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)