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 75 | ← | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | → | Archive 85 |
The issued have already been discussed in June 2018 under Talk:Gas_van#Soviet_vans with and Talk:Gas van/Archive 1#Soviet Union section.
I am concerned with NPOV issues, WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION in particular, in this version [1] of the article.
According entries in standard encyclopedias of the Holocaust like Bartrop, Paul R. (2017). "Gas Vans". In Paul R. Bartrop; Michael Dickerman (eds.). The Holocaust: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection. 1. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. p. 234–235: "Gas vans were used by the Nazis to murder Jews and other prisoners through asphyxiation by carbon monoxide. As such a gas van was equipped a mobile gas chamber.” (p. 234). As other scholars have put it “the gas van is a product of the Third Reich, whose origin is traced back to 1939.” (Patrick Montague, Chelmno and the Holocaust, 2012, p. 199) In his standard work on the origins of the Holocaust Henry Friedlander wrote: “For this purpose [killing patients in numerous Wartheland hospitals in 1940], a kind of mobile gas chamber had been invented. We do not know the inventor, but the KTI [Kriminaltechnisches Institut] was probably involved.” (The Origins of Nazi Genocide, 1995, p. 139) None of this scholarship does make any mention of Soviet gas vans.
In 1990 the Russian journalist Evgeny Zhirnov was shown an investigative file on Isay Berg, section chief in the Moscow NKVD who had been tasked with the preparation of the Butovo firing range for the mass execution of people from greater Moscow. Berg was to ensure that these executions occurred without interruption. In this file were transcripts of an investigation against Berg from 1938 and a reopened investigation in 1956. According to some of these documents Berg devised an airtight van in which prisoners were gassed with exhaust fumes during their transport to Butova. Zhirnov published about this in the Russian tabloid Komsomolskaya pravda in October 1990. Yevgenia Albats referred to that story in her book KGB (1995) drawing a direct line between Soviet and Nazi gas vans. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn picked up this story in his infamous book Two Hundred Years Together, emphasizing that Berg was Jewish and noting that Berg “created the infamous “gas wagon” which later brought so much affliction on the Jews themselves”.
As for the other historians being cited, Catherine Merridale and Timothy Colton, they also rely upon Zhirnov’s 1990 article, but both do not link any Soviet gas van to the Nazi gas vans. Merridale speaks about the varius methods of killing employed by the NKVD, stating: “One policeman. Isai D. Berg, gassed some of his prisoners to death...” Timothy Colton devotes one sentence in his 900+ pages book to this: “Isai D. Berg, a cutthroat section chief in the Moscow NKVD, ginned up a gas chamber (dushegubka) on wheels, an airtight lorry camouflaged as a bread van that suffocated internees with engine fumes on the drive out to Butovo.” (p. 286) Futher citations in the Wikipedia article are to Russian newspapers, including another, more recent article by Evgeny Zhirnov.
I am concerned that one minor aspect in the history of gas vans is overemphasized. In fact, based upon highly opinionated sources like Albats and Solzhenitsyn Wikipedia contradicts the whole body of scholarship on gas vans being used during WWII (cited above). Source is heaped upon source, many referring to the same 1990 article, to create the impression, that the topic of Soviet gas vans is well researched and established, which it isn’t. I put some of the sources under review at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#An eyewitness account. I may note that the notion of gas vans being a Soviet “invention” has become a staple of Holocaust denial.
I proposed this version [2] which treats the Soviet gas vans as a separate entity and according to their overall significance in a brief section. Thereby I mainly relied upon scholarly sources.---- Assayer ( talk) 15:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Assayer wrote:
"Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn picked up this story in his infamous book Two Hundred Years Together, emphasizing that Berg was Jewish and noting that Berg “created the infamous “gas wagon” which later brought so much affliction on the Jews themselves”. ... I am concerned that one minor aspect in the history of gas vans is overemphasized. In fact, based upon highly opinionated sources like Albats and Solzhenitsyn Wikipedia contradicts the whole body of scholarship on gas vans being used during WWII (cited above)."
1.
Solzhenitsyn and his book,
"Two Hundred Years Together" faced, and were defended against, accusations of antisemitism. That may be seen in the articles on those subjects, though they are slanted towards the criticisms. For examples of outside source see
[5],
[6],
[7] and
[8]. The descriptive adjectives used by Assayer, infamous and opinionated, are biased.
2. The description of the brief mention of Berg in "Two Hundred Years Ago" is inaccurate and misleading. The mention is in a passage about the reaction of Jewish emigrants: "Who would have guessed during the fiery 1920s that after the enfeeblement and downfall of that “beautiful” (i.e., Communist) regime in Russia, those Jews, who themselves had suffered much from communism, who seemingly cursed it and ran away from it, would curse and kick not communism, but Russia itself – blast her from Israel and from Europe, and from across the ocean!?" Solzhenitsyn goes on to say that ex-citizens of the Soviet Union, Russian and Jewish, both need to share contrition for what happened in the Soviet Union: "We, brothers or strangers, need to share that responsibility. It would have been cleanest and healthiest to exchange contrition for everything committed." He writes: "I will not stop calling the Russians to do that." He goes on: "And I am inviting the Jews to do the same. To repent not for Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev; they are known and anyway can be brushed aside, “they were not real Jews!” Instead, I invite Jews to look honestly into the oppressive depths of the early Soviet system, at all those “invisible” characters such as Isai Davidovich Berg, who created the infamous “gas wagon” which later brought so much affliction on the Jews themselves, and I call on them to look honestly on those many much more obscure bureaucrats who had pushed papers in the Soviet apparatus, and who had never appeared in light." Solzhenitsyn is calling on Jews to share in the act of contrition by not concentrating on major figures such as Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, but minor ones. As an example of a minor figure he names Berg. Berg's Jewishness is not being emphasised as Assayer claimed.
3. The history of the use of the gas van in the Soviet Union was probably unknown to historians of the Nazi Holocaust. It is not surprising that what they wrote has been contradicted.
4. Assayer writes about the "whole body of scholarship on gas vans being used during WWII." The Germans first investigated the viability of euthanasia in late 1936 or early 1937. The committee responsible was re-activated just before the start of the war, when the compulsory registration of severely malformed children was required. Within weeks of the invasion of Poland, German special task forces massacred 13,000 inmates of asylums and clinics in annexed areas there, using shooting or converted removal vans rquipped with bottled carbon monoxide. Afterwards the euthanasia programme for adults extended back into Germany itself. Poison injections were used first, then static and mobile gas chambers. So, gas vans were first used on the Nazi's original euthanasia victims, the mentally and physically handicapped.
← ZScarpia 21:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
From "Two Hundred Years Together":
"Two Hundred Years Together": Quote 01
|
---|
|
"Two Hundred Years Together": Quote 02
|
---|
|
← ZScarpia 22:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Some comments:
← ZScarpia 22:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to tell what the exact issues are here. What I think is: (1) If there is a good source that the NKVD used a gas van in the 1930s, there is no reason it shouldn't go in the article on gas vans. (2) One should not write that the Soviets invented the gas van in a way that might lead readers to think that the Nazis copied it from the Soviets, unless a strong source is found for that (by which I mean a source that cites a Nazi document, not just a source which infers it from the chronology). Neither country invented execution by gas (see USA 1924) and it doesn't take a genius to think of doing it on wheels. (3) Solzhenitsyn might think that the (alleged) Jewishness of the Soviet inventor is significant, but we have our own criteria for significance and should not follow Solzhenitsyn's lead. It would be best to only use sources other than Solzhenitsyn. Zero talk 03:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
While the first Nazi gas vans did indeed use bottled carbon monoxide, this proved to be not practical (they had to wait to replenish new cylinders from Germany, etc), so KTI went on to develop gas vans using exhaust fumes to replace them, see this source on pages 199-200. So in fact Albats was right, both the Soviet and final Nazi version of the gas vans were the same. — Nug ( talk) 03:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am fairly new and haven't difficulty getting a page published. It is with regards to a AAA Game writer who has worked on some of the biggest games in the past few years and I didn't think it would be difficult to publish. I've referenced multiple articles noting their work across games, moves to different project, BBC interviews and so on but I'm being told that they are only passing mentions and I'd need more to show their impact in their field? Comparing this to other articles I've seen, I'm just not sure where I'm going wrong? I don't think they have done lots of interviews or have won any awards specifically as they write for various companies but they are well known in the industry as the Senior Scriptwriter for quite a few multi-million dollar games. Any advice would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousemouse10 ( talk Mousemouse10 ( talk) 09:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)mousemouse10
- /info/en/?search=Gareth_Edwards_(producer) I was comparing it to this one. I can't quite see the difference in references? Again, any advice would be great - thank you. Mousemouse10 ( talk) 09:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)mousemouse10
Four or more editors have been pressuring at the Talk:Criticism of Swaminarayan sect want to include all of the justification from the sect. They tried to give it so by giving more weight to apology and justification. As WP:Criticism states criticism article is for negative viewpoints of the particular philosophy and religion then why justification from the sect can be included in the article? Like, Criticism of Marxism exists and there is no such balancing and inclusion of the arguments regarding justification from marxists. Same with Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Buddhism and Criticism of Religion. If the article will go for balancing the thoughts and inclusion of justification from apologetic then how it will serve the purpose of the criticism as per heading? I tried to let them understand that this is sub POV of Swaminarayana sect in which negative points are included by keeping NPOV in mind but none of them is agreeing on the issue and most of them are not even extended confirmed and pressurising to include positive viewpoints. I had made the page by looking at the pages stated above and if all the things will be added in this article then how it will be different from original POV article i.e. Swaminarayan sect. I am looking for the comments of more experienced editors and administrators regarding this page. -- Harshil want to talk? 18:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Harshil169: posted this article on the NPOV noticeboard and has ignored the other editors @ Ms Sarah Welch, Nizil Shah, Gazal world, Apollo1203, and Sacredsea: and myself who are striving to maintain NPOV and balance on this article. Harshil insists it doesn't apply, which has led to some disagreement, and Harshil has responded with some incivility in his talk and actions (see diffs below).
Ms Sarah Welch has graciously stepped in and is offering feedback to help maintain NPOV. Several editors in good faith are attempting to achieve this balance, and it would be good if it can happen with civility. I have notified the other users mentioned in this article should they wish to weigh in on the neutrality of this article. Moksha88 ( talk) 04:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
[11] seems like WP:SOAP. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Self-coup ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's currently a request for comment over the inclusion of Boris Johnson in the article. At the moment, I think most of the contributors — including myself — are British, so we might all have tinted glasses over it and evaluations from editors in different countries would be appreciated. Sceptre ( talk) 21:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jim, the subject of the James D. Zirin article. In the past, I've made some missteps attempting to update the article, but I've since learned how to work with editors to make changes on my behalf. If you review Talk:James D. Zirin, you'll see I now understand how the edit request process works, and you'll also notice I've tried in earnest to work with editors to remove the 'close connection' tag at the top of the article.
My most recent post to the talk page outlines how I've attempted to resolve the tag by asking both uninvolved and involved editors to identify any non-neutral or otherwise problematic text. If the editor who added the tag is not willing to discuss, the tag is not meant to be a "scarlet letter", and no other editors can point out problematic content, then I'm lost as to why the tag is still needed. I've tried to seek assistance on the article's talk page, at this noticeboard (almost 2 months ago), a WikiProject, and at user talk pages, but no one seems available to help.
I'm hoping someone who reads this page can take a look at the article's text and either remove the tag if there are no major concerns, or share which text is problematic so I can take steps to address. Please, I'm running out of ideas. Thanks. Jim Zirin ( talk) 23:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Pinehouse Photography Club Good day. Im am asking for anyone to help with this page. It seems I need more neutral opinions and edits, although I believe its well cited. Any talk or constructive thoughts welcome :) ---- Dreerwin ( talk) 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Even maybe re wording:
The Pinehouse Photography Club was established in 2017 by a primary care RN(AAP) in Pinehouse Lake. It is a nonprofit organization in northern Saskatchewan whose goal is to help heal and transform lives in its remote community through the use of therapeutic photography.[1] 350 kilometers north of Saskatoon, it’s a place where people, especially youth, can feel isolated and alone, often choosing to make unhealthy choices as a way to cope with the loneliness.[2] The club was created to help youth through the use of therapeutic photography who are at risk for mental health problems and addictions. It has been shown that using photography as a form of therapy helps start the conversation about mental health, without even saying a word.[3]
The nonprofit organization has a studio, a full-time employee who acts as the director of operations, a board of directors, and a van for the youth.[4][5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreerwin ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Please take a look at the following RfC, wherein we discuss whether applying the label "pro-Maduro" to certain Venezela's institutions/branches of government is neutral: /info/en/?search=Talk:Responses_to_the_2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#RfC:_Should_Venezuelan_crisis-related_articles_use_terms_like_'pro-Maduro',_and,_if_not,_what_alternatives_can_be_used? Notrium ( talk) 09:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Mathura Art needs eyes who are familiar with art history and willing to deal with nationalist revisionism. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:FORUMSHOPPING and insufficient prior discussion on article talk page. If no consensus is reached after extensive talk page discussion, suggest
WP:RfC.
|
---|
It seems there is pro-Clinton editing at the Epstein article in a serious violation of NPOV. Virginia Guiffre is the most well known of the Epstein accusers, and her testimony and various claims have been fodder for the Epstein story in media and WP's Jeffrey Epstein article. One of the well documented claims she made was that she saw Bill Clinton at 'Epstein's Island'. The claim has been in the Epstein article since the court documents were released August 9. The NYT stated that in these documents, "an earlier claim" about Bill and the Island made by Guiffre was untrue. Editors at the Epstein article immediately restated this as "the earlier claim" that Clinton was seen by Guiffre on the Island, was untrue. They have insisted that we cannot mention the claim from Guiffre unless we include a rebuttal (the misrepresentation of the NYT article is the only rebuttal in media). The folks at RS/N noted that indeed, within the cited documents there is no mention of the statement WP editors have attributed to the NYT. Guiffre makes minor corrections to reporting from the Daily Mail; a few of the statements weren't true, and she clarified them. But she never said Clinton was not on the Island. A request for a correction at the NYT was made by Newslinger. We await their response, but there is no correction as yet. Editors have insisted we should wait to hear from the NYT before adding back the material, which to me sounds ludicrous and not supported by any or the PAGs. Here are the sources which back up Guiffre's claim: Law and Crime, FORBES, TIME, AP, VICE, NY Mag, The Cut, Chicago Tribune, and Fox8 Editors at Epstein are insisting that the NYT's "an earlier claim" is actually not ambiguous, clearly means "the earlier claim", and that regardless of the numerous sources supporting Guiffre's statement that she saw Clinton on the Island, editors are saying it is a BLP violation to mention it unless we add a rebuttal. There is no rebuttal in RS (otherwise I would add it happily). I would appreciate your help in making sure we're following guidelines and common sense. For now, it seems like the goal is censorship in favor of a politician rather than building an encyclopedia. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
|
There is a request for comment regarding the neutrality and weight of claims in the Jeffrey Epstein article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein § RfC: Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton. — Newslinger talk 13:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
See talk:Maryland#Popishness. There is currently a dispute over whether using the word “Popishness” to describe Catholicism in the lead of Maryland is appropriate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This has been nominated for deletion and some suggest WP:TNT. That's a bit of a problem as it's spun out of sections in other articles, so may indicate NPOV problems at William Barr, for example. I believe the topic to be notable (several sources addressing it directly) and separate from the Ukraine shakedown. Can people please help by reviewing the sourcing and tone? I am by now in the "marking your own homework" zone so I need assistance. Thanks. Guy ( help!) 11:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is titled " Memorex". Memorex was once an independent company that was incorporated, but was dissolved in 1996. The brand has gone through several owners since then, most recently being acquired by a holding company in 2016. Although a timeline of the different owners is included at the bottom, another editor insists that we cannot include relevant, updated information in the article that would reflect the brand's current ownership. If this article is merely about the defunct brand Memorex, Inc., then this timeline should not be relevant to the article. Any relevant information would then not include any changes in the brand beyond 1996. The other editor involved believes that updating the infobox to include the brand's current ownership is "an advertisement for the Memorex Brand which is impermissible in Wikipedia" (see Talk:Memorex #Memorex Corp vs Memorex Brand), but does not point to any specific rule that would imply these changes are an advertisement. The other editor then stated that it "is likely the brand is also defunct" immediately after. Why would any editor "advertise" for a defunct brand that doesn't sell anything? Aren't those two statements a contradiction?
I believe that there are two solutions to this:
1.) The article combines the former Memorex, Inc. and the current status of the brand. We would include both the original logo, as well as the current logo and website. The infobox would also be updated to reflect the brand's current status. This has been done successfully with other consumer electronics brands, such as Polaroid Corporation. I would not describe the combination of the old company's information and the new one's as "advertising". This solution would eliminate any ambiguity from the "two article solution" as proposed by the other editor, and would readers best informed on the brand's past and present.
2.) The article title would have to be changed to "Memorex, Inc." to differentiate between the old company and the brand's current use, and any information about the brand after 1996 would need to be removed, as it would no longer be relevant. This would leave the article with no contradictions. However, leaving the article as-is like this would make it virtually a time capsule that includes no up-to-date information. -- AirportExpert ( talk) 14:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)AirportExpert
The article on Kang Yong-suk seems to be pretty flagrantly POV: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. However, I don't know Korean and am unable to read the cited sources to see what they actually say or to judge them for reliability. While I could just delete the majority of the article, I don't know enough about the subject to rewrite the POV parts. What do people think should be done? Darthkayak ( talk) 11:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing move discussion regarding whether to move Great Replacement → Great replacement conspiracy theory. The discussion currently only has 4 participants, and has been relisted. Additional input would be helpful. Nblund talk 16:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Fellow wikipedians,
For some time now there has been a dispute on which map to include on the introduction of the United Nations wikipedia page. It involves the following two:
1) United Nations Members (green–grey scheme) (the established map)
2) United Nations members de facto borders (the new map)
The green-scheme map broadly follows the norms of the UN and international diplomacy by keeping it to internationally recognized member-states. [17] It has also been used for several years on the page until recent edits brought up the issue. Lastly, it is used in over twenty languages across wikipedia.
The blue-scheme map highlights various de facto (unrecognized) states who are not members of the UN and is highly contentious as 'new' de facto states come and go every now and then and who is to say what a de facto state is? There is no broadly agreed upon standard. Moreover, it is only used one page and only on the English wikipedia.
I wish to receive feedback on this issue from neutral wikipedians who are are not politically invested in this topic. Wadaad ( talk) 12:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Wadaad, you left a long edit on my User Talk page with excuses for your most recent edit-warring regarding the
United Nations article, and I replied in your Talk page to make sure that you see my response. Given that it explains my concerns with your methods of imposing your views on other editors, and the process that I believe would allow us to settle this controversy, I will include my response here as well.
First of all, the map that you wish to include in the article is not an NPOV presentation of the world, even if the UN pretends that Taiwan is ruled by the People's Republic of China and Kosovo is ruled by Serbia. It is misleading to color de facto states that are not members of the UN in the same color as UN member states. When readers see Taiwan colored green, their first thought will be that Taiwan must be part of the UN.
But more to the point, you have a lot of chutzpah to use the fact that you were blocked for edit-warring on this same article (and regarding this same issue) as the reason why you should be permitted to revert, without seeking a consensus, edits made during your month-long ban (which followed several shorter blocks for edit-warring). I'm no expert on Wikipedia's edit-warring policies, but I'm pretty sure that having been blocked from editing for a month because of your persistent edit-warring does not give you carte blanche to continue edit-warring on the same article the minute that your ban expired (or did you wait a full half hour before making your Bold reversion?). And once your Bold reversion was reverted, you should have gone to the Talk page and sought a consensus. Instead, you reverted a second time (and added a POV "clarification" that only made things worse), and when I was forced to revert you again and explain that when Bold reversions are themselves reverted that you should seek a consensus at the Talk page you then reverted for a third time. I'm not going to file a formal accusation of edit-warring (I prefer to talk things through), but it is likely that some other editor will do so unless you don't start acting more civilly.
On another matter, during your edit war last month, you also engaged in inappropriate canvassing when you sought out known anti-Taiwan editor Lo meiin (who soon thereafter was blocked indefinitely for his abusive behavior--most persistently against me--and POV pushing) and asked him to join the map discussion. I see that you now have invited SharabSalam to participate in the discussion of this new controversy, but you did so *without having commenced the discussion in the Talk page*. I am familiar with SharabSalam and, while we've had heated debates in the past, I can vouch for his fairness and civility: If you were seeking another Lo meiin, you will be disappointed. I also see that SharabSalam participated in the map discussion last month, so it was not inappropriate for you to invite him to a new discussion--but you need to start one at the Talk page.
In the spirit of civiliy and seeking a consensus, you should self-revert your third reversion, start a new discussion at the Talk page, and invite all participants in the prior discussion (including Ythlev, Vanilla Wizard and NightHeron) and other frequent collaborators in the United Nations article. But please cease with the edit-warring.
And I would be remiss if I did not add that the discussion of this topic should be open to all interested editors willing to follow the rules, including editors who are "politically invested" in the topic, whom Wadaad apparently wishes to exclude. For example, given that the blue map notes that the de facto Republic of Somaliland is not a UN member, while the green map colors it green as part of Somalia, an editor from Somalia could be said to be "politically invested" in the topic. However, I don't believe that Wadaad should be prohibited from opining just because he's Somalian, and neither should editors from Taiwan, the PRC, Kosovo, Serbia, Cyprus, Georgia, etc. be excluded. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 13:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I just realized that the green-scheme map that colors green everything but for the strip of Western Sahara controlled by the SADR, the State of Palestine, Vatican City and (adding to the confusion) a few lakes currently appears at the top of the Member states of the United Nations article. If the editing community reaches a consensus that neither the green-scheme map nor the blue-scheme map should appear in the infobox of the United Nations article, may I assume that such consensus also would extend to the Member states of the United Nations article, where inclusion of either such map may lead to confusion? AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 20:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Is this particular way of categorising territories an "unpublished idea"? I think not. Ythlev ( talk) 16:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I believe your help is needed concerning EOKA's article (a guerrilla struggle during 1955-59) and a lawsuit on torture that was filed ~55 years later. I believe a sentence or a couple of sentence would be enough, other users though believe a detailed section is needed.
My main argument is that torture allegations are discussed elsewhere in the article (section: Detention Camps and claims of torture"). The lawsuit is an unimportant issue per se, it was settled out-of-court, of course it was covered by some RS newspapers. A lot of RS talked about torture by UK, their opinions are mentioned elsewhere in the article, so it is like we are re-addressing the issue to tell a different story- a sensational one. Talking about the specific lawsuit and its details adds nothing to the article.
Currently, the specific section is 4,212 bytes, in an article of 52,611 bytes. That is ~8%. We skipped many serious events (ie tortures by EOKA - see Menoikos case, or the death toll of EOKA is summarized in a tiny single sentence). In my opinion, the lawsuit shouldnt be mentioned, but even if we mention it, it should be trimmed to 1-2 sentences. No secondary source is covering the specific lawsuit (apart from some newspapers reporting the news, I am not sure they are deemed secondary sources)
Pls @ Dr.K.:, make the counterargument. Cinadon 36 19:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
On Wikipedia's front page, we currently state in Wikivoice that "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi kills himself during a US raid
," when all reliable sources (and our
article on the topic) attribute the claim of Baghdadi's suicide to Trump or US officials:
like the Abbasids, he is dead—smashed to bits, according to Trump, by a self-detonated suicide vest.
Trump said the ISIS leader "died like a dog, he died like a coward. He was whimpering, screaming, and crying."
The president said al-Baghdadi, "went into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way," and died when he detonated a suicide vest.
Baghdadi killed himself during the raid by detonating a suicide vest, Trump said in a televised address from the White House.
The fugitive leader of the Islamic State (IS) group killed himself during a US military operation in north-west Syria, President Donald Trump has said.
US president says jihadist leader detonated suicide vest in US raid in north-west Syria.
As U.S. troops bore down on al-Baghdadi, he fled into a “dead-end” tunnel with three of his children, Trump said, and detonated a suicide vest.
US media cited multiple government sources as saying Baghdadi may have killed himself with a suicide vest as US special operations forces descended.
Based on these sources, our text should clearly be rephrased to something like
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead after a US raid in
Idlib, Syria.
"
However, at In the News, otherwise very reasonable editors (e.g. pinging Masem for courtesy) are arguing that we should convert attribution to fact, unless a reliable source contests the nature of his death. This is really inappropriate, especially for something that is so easy to get right, and when every other reliable source is correctly attributing the claim. - Darouet ( talk) 20:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The biographical section for this page is currently in dispute for neutrality (see: Talk:Jack_Posobiec). There are questions regarding balance and neutral point of view in the presentation of the biography of a living person. A particular point of contention is a disputed association of the subject with the alt-right. Credible, reliable sources indicate both an association and a non-association, but so far, any edits to include sources who categorize the subject as non-associated are reverted. Ihuntrocks ( talk) 19:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Per [26], is a press release by Adbusters a valid source as a rebuttal for criticism in the following para:
I would argue not. Guy ( help!) 15:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
See this twitter with 16K followers calling disciples into action. AstuteRed ( talk) 18:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether the Daily Mail is a usable source of opinions that are not used under WP:ABOUTSELF. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Opinions in the Daily Mail. — Newslinger talk 14:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Scope creep, DIYeditor, and Gwenhope:The use of the word executed is too sanitary and anesthetic when used for the judicial murder of persons, by the state. The same thing goes for the word phrase lawful killing ". A lawful killing is execution by the state,or if you will state sanctioned murder.
When speaking of people put to death for the crime of murder we might use the euphemism: executed, or judicial murder. What then of people put to death, as in Iran, Saudi Arabia for adultery or homosexuality, or authoritarian countries for political reasons. These are lawful (judicious) murders by the law of the land. Hitler had thousands of political opponents judiciously murdered,and millions more murdered simply because of their ethnicity or some undesirable feature. So is it a white wash of a horrific event to call the judicicious murder of some resister, adulterer, pr homosexual execution a lawful killing? And what is an "unlawful killing" anyway. Killings by their nature are unlawful, unless carried out by the state, ostensibly (but not necessarily) after being given due process of law. Then they are actually judicious murders. Or as the coroner reports, "Death by homocide".
So how do we refer to these events in article names and in the articles themselves.? Oldperson ( talk) 23:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Guy It is quite telling, and disgusting, how we humans choose to sanitize the things we do to each other. Execution may be the correct term, when carried out by a state against its own citizens, but execution is just another name for murder. Murder is murder, regardless of who does it, where it is done or by whom? Execution is murder, but we do santize our activities don't we. |
However for WP purposes I guess execution and unlawful killings will have to do, however I do think that the word murder should be used rather than "unlawful killings" Oldperson ( talk) 16:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
My version have been repeatedly reverted without proper reasoning on t/p. No reasoning has been given after I was done with article overhauling. Following are problems with current and old version:
If some editor can look into matter then it will be great help. -- Harshil want to talk? 11:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an invitation to participate at the following RfC regarding the 2019 Hong Kong protests: Add US or other counties or not as supporting counties and official organizations in the infobox's pro-protester side. starship .paint ( talk) 13:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Saint Peter, Saint Nicholas and Saint Joseph etc. I feel that Wikipedia is biased towards Christianity than other religions. We cant put (prophet) next to Muhammad article yet we have these articles describing Christian leaders as Saints. Should we change the titles?.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 15:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project.There is also the argument of sources and COMMONNAME in which the common name is biased but I would note that "Saint" here is a honorific term that should be not regarded as a title and I think for example in Saint Peter the name should be changed to "Simon Peter". I don't have much knowledge in Christianity but I think we can use the full names of these Christian Saints if there is any to disambiguate instead of using the honorific terms. If there is no full name then I think the honorific term should be change to NAME_(Christian Saint). Sorry for the late reply I was busy these days and I totally forgot about this discussion.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 11:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Past discussions on the use of "climate crisis" on Wikipedia concentrated on the timing of such use, claiming that "not enough climate scientists use the term, so we shouldn't either." [27] [28] Counter claims include the fact that "hard" scientists are trained against using superlatives, resulting in under-use even where appropriate; and that the term "crisis" is in the realm of the social sciences and humanities, and scientists in these fields use the term frequently. Well, these concerns should be resolved now: the "Alliance of World Scientists" - a 23,000 strong network - had published a "call to arms" titled World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency, signed at the time of publication by over 11,000 scientists, most of which from the earth and atmospheric sciences, and biology. [1] [2] [3] [4] The statement includes such language as: "climate emergency", "catastrophic threat" and "climate crisis".
This should be more than enough for us to allow the use of "climate crisis" and "climate emergency" in Wikivoice. François Robere ( talk) 20:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation... we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.
Has the language demonstrably changedThis letter is the evidence. It's thousands of RS using those terms. You're moving the goal posts claiming this isn't enough to show use. François Robere ( talk) 15:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Scientists often sign advocacy statements and reports that use strong wording, but don't necessarily use the same language in their other writingSo what? Why does this statement - a statement of consensus - less worthy than any individual paper? François Robere ( talk) 17:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
scientists' consensusand scientific consensus; and that it is the latter that we should be interested in when determining what to couch as fact in Wikipedia's voice. - Ryk72 talk 05:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
based on the limited sources and RECENTISM, it should be treated as a minority view with respect to UNDUE and other facets of NPOVAre you commenting on the language or the actual thing? François Robere ( talk) 19:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:FORUM issue or wrong location for oblique accusations about Wikipedia editors from persistent FORUM/SOAP/RIGHTGREATWRONGS violator.
—DIYeditor (
talk) 00:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
Francoise Robere An observation. There are scores of known paid editors. What is not known is the number and identity of editors paid by corporations, foundations, like the Koch Brothers, nation states like the Saudi's and the Iranians, not to mention infamous Putin that monitor select pages of WP, and are expert at carefully crafting edits, arguments and reverts to comply with WP policy and guidelines and civily pushing POV's that protect their patrons . These would be expertly skilled craftspersons at wordmongering Slipping below the radar and even attaining admin status, tactics include slapping on templates and use WP:AFG, DUE, UNDUE,SOAP, FORUM, BLUDGEON,, etc all are part of their expert tool kit.Not saying that all users of these devices are paid or nefarious, but they are tools to be used by those with expertise Oldperson ( talk) 20:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC) |
Retracted.
François Robere (
talk) 21:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Discussion continues.
François Robere (
talk) 17:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masem wrote: "We can certainly be assertive in that "Over 11,000 scientists supported the statement that the world is undergoing a climate crisis and action must be taken immediately." - that gets the emphasis across in Wikivoice without violating NPOV." He also said: (he) would certainly assert that this (climate change) has been called such (climate crisis) with attribution is fine. If that is 'fine' and doesn't violate NPOV, why was all reference to the 11,000 scientists calling it a crisis deleted?
And if @Springee thinks that "Masem has addressed your (François Robere's) concerns quite effectively" (which appears to suggest he agrees with Masem that we can assertively state that over 11,000 scientists supported the statement that the world is undergoing a climate crisis without violating NPOV) why has the reference to the 11,000 scientists not been reinstated? Notagainst ( talk) 02:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
So you're saying its acceptable to use the term climate crisis in wikivoice but not in the article called Climate Crisis - because its out of scope. The original objection to much of the material I posted on the CCrisis page was that we can't use the term climate change because its not accepted in wikivoice. NAEG wrote QUESTION - Can Wikipedia describe global warming (aka climate change) as "the climate crisis" in WP:WIKIVOICE, without violating WP:Neutrality? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC). Masem and Springee are now saying we can. So do @Simonm223, @india.OHC and @Vision Insider. So it appears the wikivoice argument is no longer a concern.
So instead, you say information can't be included because its out of scope. But you also want to argue that the 11,000 scientists were "in fact not vetted for credentials". This suggests you think the source is unreliable. If the problem is that an article referring to the climate crisis is "out of scope" in an article about the climate crisis (!!!), then whether or not that article comes from a reliable source is irrelevant. If its out of scope, its out of scope. Or are you suggesting that if a more reliable source is found for the same information, suddenly that information would magically become within the scope. If you keep changing your objections and muddying the water with contradictory arguments, no one participating in this discussion can tell what your real objection is to including information about the climate crisis on the Climate Crisis page. Notagainst ( talk) 04:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Also I just checked the list of signatories myself. The signatories are listed in alphabetical order. "Micky Mouse" and "Dumbledore" do NOT appear on the list. Who is the cab driver in Hamilton you are referring to - or are you just making shit up? Notagainst ( talk) 05:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
making shit up(it might be helpful if you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF before using such language). The problem is that you are repeatedly failing to understand what other editors have patiently been explaining to you. Namely, (1) the consensus is that the scope of Climate crisis should be the development of the debate about what terms to use, and so the article should only cite sources that address this issue directly; (2) on Wikipedia generally there is no consensus that the terms "climate crisis", "climate emergency" or "climate destruction" should be used in Wikivoice, although of course it's perfectly okay to quote reliable sources that use those terms (just as it's okay to quote reliable sources that prefer less emotional terms). The specific question being debated in this thread is whether the statement signed by 11,000 people (perhaps all of them scientists, perhaps not) is sufficient reason for (2) to change. It's clear from the discussion that (2) still holds. NightHeron ( talk) 12:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The original objection to much of the material I posted on the CCrisis page was that we can't use the term climate change because its not accepted in wikivoice. ... Masem and Springee are now saying we can.I do not believe that this accurately reflects the statements by either Masem or Springee. - Ryk72 talk 05:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
References
Two users, Deathlibrarian and XelatSharro (suspected sock puppet), Have been changing the result of this town battle from "attacking side victory" to draw. This change is not backed by sources and the user(s) have been arguing it ended in a draw due to defending side withdrawing. Even though the town has been captured. The user Deathlibrarian also unilaterally changed the result and has been constantly reverting me, saying discussion is taking place. Even though he made the change right after opening a discussion about it. 1RR has not been violated by either side. [33] [34] [35] [36] KasimMejia ( talk) 10:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to get some uninvolved editors' opinions on the Craniosacral therapy article.
I am an editor that is uninvolved with the subject of the article – who seems to have walked into the nest of opinion-pushing editors with my improvement suggestions driven by some simple general (i.e. subject-agnostic) logic. (Is it crazy to think that naming the jurisdiction(s) is a necessary part of mentioning a particular law or regulation? More on this on the Talk page which is linked below.)
I had only made or suggested to make a couple simple and fairly minor improvements to the text/source integrity, but was forcefully rebuked and reverted a couple times. This prompted me to take a closer look at what happens around that article.
Looking at its Talk page discussions, it seems that there's a fairly vocal group of editors that is trying to keep the article in the state of being locked into a certain viewpoint – to the extent that even fairly non-controversial copyediting suggestions (e.g. tagging passages with the "where?" tag in search of a clearly missing piece of info) by the editors like myself got rejected.
Again, let me be clear: I have no involvement whatsoever with the article's subject – so it's strange that I'm being addressed on the Talk page as if I'm trying to push a POV on it, which I was not even remotely attempting to. Please review the following two sections of the Talk page: "Jurisdiction..." and "Neutrality dispute" for mine and another editor's attempts to address what's essentially a text/source integrity issue – with these attempts quickly degenerating into a not-at-all-productive discussion with flinging barely useful references to things like WP:1AM and WP:FOC (the latter, ironically, by the editor not being focused on the content at all) and statements like "we are biased towards reality. <the article's subject> is bollocks" – all while refusing to address a very straightforward issue I had originally raised.
For reference, here are my edits that got reverted – which pretty much shows how the good-faith attempts at copyediting/improving the article get reverted flat-out: [37], [38], [39]. In almost any other article these edits would be non-controversial – but here they became controversial even after my attempts to resolve this on the Talk page. cherkash ( talk) 00:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed a systemic problem across Wikipedia: Leaders who are universally described as "dictators" or "authoritarian" in peer-reviewed academic research are not being described as such on Wikipedia pages. Check Kim Jong-un's lede and you'd never know that he happens to rule a non-democracy, never mind one of the most repressive dictatorships in existence. Same goes for the Bashar al-Assad page before I fixed it (the page even brazenly suggested that he was a democratically elected leader). I noticed that similar problems plagued the pages of Putin (whose regime is typically characterized as a hybrid regime or competitive authoritarian regime) and Viktor Orban (who is universally described as having overseen democratic backsliding in Hungary) before I fixed those pages.
There's a humongous literature out there, which is peer-reviewed and written by recognized experts - in many cases, political scientists explicitly list regimes which are democratic, hybrid regimes, authoritarian. Furthermore, there are measures of democracy (Polity, Freedom House) that can inform our language. Use it, people! Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans, François Robere, and GPRamirez5: Wikipedia is not perfect, and many articles stay non-neutral and even non-encyclopedic for far too long; I wish you good understanding and recall of Wikipedia's guidelines in your efforts (and luck). Maybe you should start a WikiProject (maybe called "Authoritarianism")? That could help in efforts on specific persons like Orban. On the other hand, I do not like the way those "Democracy indices" try to aggregate data that does not seem like it should be aggregated ("measuring democracy" and "conceptualizing democracy" seem like productive search terms on libgen). I prefer specific examples of governmental misdeeds of all kinds (crimes, corruption, just immoral) and criticism of policy and laws to simplistic labeling of governmental leaders. Notrium ( talk) 23:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Why has the OP felt it necessary to "fix" the Bashar al-Assad page? Did not that fellow work as an eye surgeon in a UK hospital, before fate called him back to do something that he did not wish to do? MPS1992 ( talk) 23:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
As an example of the misguided ideas on this subject, my text which described the Kim regime as a "dictatorship" in Wiki voice has been changed into saying the Kim regime "is frequently considered" a dictatorship. [41] This attributedpov qualifier is completely unnecessary, and is in fact a brazen NPOV violation because it suggests that there is an active debate about whether Kim rules a dictatorship when there is ZERO debate about it. If the Kim regime is not a dictatorship, then there is simply no such thing as a dictatorship. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is what Sidney Goldberg wrote:
TFD ( talk) 07:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Interesting issue. I think this has to be discussed on the talk page of each article, as individual cases. I'd be happy to participate, and feel free to ping me if such individual discussions are started. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
He's a dictator and Wikipedia should say so in its own voice. Adoring nanny ( talk) 11:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
A recent edit request drew my attention here, which seems to have been tagged for neutrality for quite some time. There have been questions raised that the sources used to portray the article subject positively are not independent (owned by them). This is a bit complicated and beyond what I'm used to dealing with, I'm afraid, so if anyone would like to take a crack at this one, that would be great. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I have copied my text from
/info/en/?search=Talk:Popular_Front_of_India#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_18_November_2019 to here,
The lead mentions it as a "neo social movement" which is what the organization says about itself , but secondary sources say it's an Islamist outfit and radical Muslim organization.
The official twitter account says; "A Neo-Social Movement which strives for the empowerment of marginalized section of India." -
https://twitter.com/PFIOfficial
But what it says about itself is not right. What other news media says should be seen by Wikipedia.
List of sources
|
---|
source 1- https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/this-is-india-not-afghanistan/2011/02/04/ABOyT5E_story.html source 2- Kerala-based Islamist organisation PFI's Gulf link exposed; NIA claims it collected funds from expatriates - https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/nia-kerala-islamist-organisation-popular-frot-of-india-1053512-2017-09-27 source 3- Kerala Asks Centre To Ban Islamist Outfit Popular Front Of India, Says Report - https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/kerala-asks-centre-to-ban-islamist-outfit-popular-front-of-india-says-report/308332 source 4- NIA chargesheet lists radical outfit Popular Front of India's crimes: Why hasn't it been banned? - https://www.indiatoday.in/programme/the-people-s-court/video/popular-front-of-india-nia-chargesheet-helping-isis-trains-cadres-in-explosives-1069319-2017-09-27 source 5- https://www.thequint.com/explainers/explainer-why-government-wants-pfi-banned-popular-front-of-india source 6- Bengaluru: NIA accuses PFI,SDPI of terrorism in murder of RSS worker - https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bengaluru-nia-pfi-sdpi-rss-murder-terrorism-1123833-2018-01-06 source 7- Ban Kerala’s PFI for ‘role in acts of terror’: NIA tells home ministry - https://theprint.in/defence/ban-keralas-pfi-role-acts-terror-nia-tells-home-ministry/9933/ source 8- It was on July 4, 2010 that Joseph, then a professor at Newman College, Thodupuzha, was attacked by a group of Popular Front of India (PFI) activists, who chopped off his right palm for preparing a question paper for the degree examination, that claimed to have defamed Prophet Mohammed. - https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2019/may/12/prof-joseph-to-relive-trauma-of-terror-attack-in--memoir-1975692.html source 11- http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/pfi-trying-to-make-kerala-a--muslim-country--says-vs/651344/ source 12- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/radical-muslim-outfit-faces-ban/articleshow/60917635.cms Source 14- https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/pfis-expansion-assam-alarms-police-authorities source 17- https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/kerala-lefts-love-islamist-pfi-deep-roots source 18- https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/4yef4a1QSSveodVZbHnIAL/TJ-Joseph-the-professor-who-gave-his-hand.html (The question paper set off a series of agitations. Fundamentalist Islamic outfits like the Popular Front of India (PFI) and moderate parties like the Indian Union Muslim League held protest demonstrations against Joseph and his college,) Following are criminal activities, unlike above links which describe the organization. source 20- https://www.dailypioneer.com/2016/india/pfis-arm-sdpi-training-people-to-kill-kerala-cm.html source 21- https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/ed-registers-money-laundering-case-against-pfi/1304051/?next source 23- The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by the Bengaluru president of Islamist organisation, Popular Front of India against initiation of trial for his alleged involvement into murder of an RSS activist, Rudresh in the city on October 16, 2016. Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/sc-dismisses-pfi-members-plea-in-rss-workers-murder-744008.html source 25- “We have been sending periodic reports to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking a ban on these outfits. The reports are based on their day-to-day functioning, their role in inciting communal tensions, their active participation in sensitive issues, among other things,” explained an Intelligence Bureau official. - https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/extremism-to-the-fore/article24422146.ece source 26- The communist government of Kerala has, however, recognized a threat in the activities and growth of PFI. V.S. Achuthanandan, the state’s Chief Minister and a Politburo member of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), at a press conference in New Delhi on July 24, 2010, declared that the PFI and its allies were plotting to make Kerala a "Muslim-dominated" state within 20 years: "For achieving that goal, the outfit is pumping money to attract youth and giving them weapons… Youngsters are being given money and lured to convert to marry Muslim women..." https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/in-gods-own-country/268143
|
In this article those sections which mentions about positive works by PFI are mostly Muslim owned websites which have links with Popular Front of India, while very few are neutral and true.
This was correct according to above sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Popular_Front_of_India&oldid=895190630 AntonyGonzalveZ ( talk) 16:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The map is supposed to be showing Polish borders since 1920, Polish claims after World War One and the areas inhabited by Polish people in 1912. Polish claims looks like authors OR, as far as I know Polish state didn't claim prepartition borders of PLC, what the map suggest, but the areas inhabited by Polish people and free access to the sea. But that's not the main problem. The main problem is misleading representation of the extent of Polish people, especially in the east.
The main source of this map is supposed to be Polish map from 1912 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polska1912.jpg. Nonetheless it is using it very arbitrary. First of all 20-50% scope to indicate territories with large Polish minority is chosen very arbitrary, second of all even this isn't reflected properly on the map. For example city of Vilnius and Trakai county on the base map have over 20% of Polish population, yet they aren't marked in any way on the map in question. What's more the original map is based on 1897 Russian census, which deliberately was diminishing number of Polish people on territories of today's Lithuania and Belarus. The next Russian census of 1909 (so called spisok zémstv) gave much different numbers (for example in Vilnius county the number of Poles raised from 17,8% to 47%). German census made during the war in 1916 also portrayed much different demographic situation, the same goes with post war Polish and Lithuanian censuses.
I was trying to delete this map from article History of Vilnius, but my edit was reverted by @ Sabbatino:. We had a User talk:Sabbatino#Map in history of Vilnius.
Marcelus ( talk) 20:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The article on the book Forced into Glory (2010) seems to have a sharp WP:POV problem, as has been pointed out on its talk page for over a decade (and the article has actually gotten more one-sided since then). Our article is a misleading hatchet-job that cites nothing but critics of the book and opponents of its message (either politically motivated or directly fiduciary conflicts of interest – it's relying almost entirely on authors of competing (and much more complimentary) books about Abraham Lincoln and slavery, even where it claims to be citing just "a 2009 review" rather than someone engaged in a protracted academic dispute with the author, Lerone Bennett Jr. His analysis of Lincoln's own statements on slavery and Africans has been "an academic controversy" (term from an RS not me) that he initiated all the way back in the 1960s (FiG was a very belated followup volume).
The article's talk page seems to have a WP:OWN problem, as well, and said party showed up at my talk page to essentially threaten to edit-war against me simply for "loose, inaccurate, and semi-inflammatory language you use in your edit summaries and on this page" (i.e., my own talk page). This editor does not frequently edit the article itself, so it's kind of weird.
The meat of the matter: I've laid out a detailed bullet list of issues with the article and probable solutions to them at: Forced into Glory#Balance: Conflict between Lincoln critics like Bennett, and critics of those critics. I point to plenty of sources and where to find more of them. The response from this only apparent regular watcher of the page has been a bunch of ad hominem and otherwise fallacious blather, and some WP:OR / WP:FORUM ranting about Bennett and then some "what ifs" regarding how Lincoln could have proceeded other than he did, based on the editor's personal analysis of a historical failed politician.
I don't think this is constructive (much less collegial), and would appreciate some attention to the article from both
WP:NPOVN regulars and those who edit within the broader subjects of Lincoln, the US Civil War, and American slavery and abolitionism. It's our "job" to document the academic disagreement, not help one side of it demonize the other (even if the one side might mostly be in the right as historians). I don't want this to focus on editorial personalities and haven't named any other editor, but will drop off a {{
NPOVN-notice}}
anyway. What I really care about is the unbalanced article being improved, with enough editorial input that it stays improved.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm just going to ignore AnonMoos's pointless ad hominem and straw-man sputterings (I already addressed this focus-on-contributor behavior at the article talk page and in user talk, and seeing it continue here at the noticeboard tells me I was definitely right to bring it to the noticeboard). Let's get back to the meat of the matter, which has not changed despite this distraction attempt:
After I get a clear edit-warring threat on my talk page, and repeated blatantly false claims like "taking a certain little pleasure in spreading loose, inaccurate, and semi-inflammatory statements in his edit summaries to the article" (never happened) and "pushing a strange conspiracy that the 'Lincoln-praisers' ... are conspiring to suppress Bennett's book" (never happened), it's clear that any attempt I make to move the Dirck quote to be with Foner, et al. quotes, in a paragraph or section on the conflicting sides of researchers, and then create a separate section for actually independent and secondary reviews, I'm going to meet with unreasonable opposition from AnonMoos, who virtually never edits the article but is "squatting" on it and being uncivil on its talk page, and the user talk pages of those who disagree with him, and now even noticeboard pages. If no one at this noticeboard cares to help improve the article (the talk page of which has a bullet list including additional sources), then oh well. "There is no deadline", and I can just try again some other time when my antagonist seems to have moved on.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The latest addition to this article has been imposed by a "consensus" of three contributors intent on having the content of this source, including the journalist's personal prejudices, included in its entirety. I feel it would be helpful if some contributors whose first language is English could join the discussion. Deb ( talk) 12:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Users Bondegezou and TU-nor, state that the American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War should not be listed under invasion due to word invasion not being used by RS's. The US presence in Syria has been dubbed an illegal occupation by the UN recognized Gov of Syria [42]. Not necessarily the word invasion has been used. Meanwhile both users support the " Turkish Invasion of Syria" due to the word invasion being used by the media. I see absolutely no difference between the two, both countries are illegally present and are occupying Syria. KasimMejia ( talk) 12:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Look at the history and finance sections in particular. I cannot address this myself at the moment, but it's pretty egregious imho. Elinruby ( talk) 03:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Greetings,
I would like to bring to your attention, and for your consideration, the errors in the following article that has been written as though alleged events have already been proven to have occured.
Title: Marie Yovanovitch URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Yovanovitch
This article omits in several sentences the word "alleged" and treats as yet undertermined circumstaces as though they are foregone conclusions. For example, not one sentence in the following paragraph has been proven to be true and is therefore merely conjecture on the part of the writer/editor though presented in such a way as to appear that it is already history:
"While ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch was subjected to a conspiracy-driven smear campaign, amplified by President Donald Trump and his allies. In May 2019, Trump abruptly recalled Yovanovitch from her post following claims by Trump surrogates that she was undermining Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former vice president and 2020 U.S. presidential election candidate Joe Biden. Yovanovitch's removal preceded a July 2019 phone call by Trump in which he attempted to pressure Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden. Following revelation of a whistleblower complaint about the phone call and attempts to cover it up, an impeachment inquiry against Trump was initiated by the House of Representatives. Yovanovitch testified in several House committee depositions in the inquiry."
My contention is that, in the very least, each statement sould include the word 'alleged' until such time as the facts have been proven. I could not make these changes myself as the editor has conveniently locked the entry. Is this not privileged vandalism in itself?
Thank you for considering this matter and I hope that you will act in a manner that will further the integrity of the Wikipedia ideal.
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:8100:B84:9876:C489:880D:2866 ( talk) 04:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Fairmont_Private_Schools
Hello, I am a new employee at Fairmont Private Schools and I am just seeing that there has been a history of edits by Kansari123== Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. and Looper808== Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. which doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria of neutral point of view and which are not verifiable. While I want to go in and take it out immediately I wish to put it here on this board as I do not wish to be considered biased or as a conflict of interest since I am a school employee.
All text in question which I recommend deleting in entirety and seems to be from dubious sources can be found here and is stated in an erroneous way with a sole goal to damage Fairmont's reputation under "Drawbacks: While Fairmont Private Schools has received a multitude of academic and scholarly awards, many issues hide behind a facade. Fairmont offers a minute number of schools in its operating region (Orange County), this can make it strenuous for students who live beyond Tustin and Anaheim city limits to attend Fairmont. Fairmont also is becoming known to hold a greater amount of foreign students, who can lower the level of education that can be taught in a classroom. Fairmont also struggles with the effects of a small student body, a private investigation found that an approximated 43% of students attending Fairmont have suicidal tendencies."
1) "many issues hide behind a facade" - not verifiable and a judgment statement 2) "Fairmont offers a minute number of schools in its operating region" (this should be deleted as Fairmont offers four schools in its operating region as previously stated elsewhere and this isn't a "drawback.") 3) "This can make it strenuous for students who live beyond Tustin and Anaheim City limits to attend Fairmont." This needs to be deleted. This is like saying that La Salle High School in Pasadena CA makes it strenuous for students who live beyond Pasadena to attend La Salle. Schools service a primary area geographically, by definition and this is said with judgment and does not reflect a neutral point of view. 4) "Fairmont also is becoming known to hold a greater amount of foreign students, who can lower the level of education that can be taught in a classroom." Needs to be deleted. International students primarily attend Fairmont Preparatory Academy (a separate page) and it would be a non-verifiable statement to suggest that these students lower the level of education that can be taught in a classroom. Studies show that international students enrich classrooms. 5) "Fairmont also struggles....43% of students have suicidal tendencies." This needs to be deleted. The most blatant of edits, there is no source for this. In fact, as shown in the link below and through editing history, one can see that the edit first stated 80% of students have suicidal tendencies and there was no mention of a private investigation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fairmont_Private_Schools&oldid=927947025
curprev 21:09, 25 November 2019 98.153.164.154 talk 3,836 bytes +1 . undo curprev 21:07, 25 November 2019 98.153.164.154 talk 3,835 bytes -2 . undo curprev 20:45, 25 November 2019 Looper808 talk contribs 3,837 bytes +657 undothank curprev 20:32, 25 November 2019 98.153.164.154 talk 3,180 bytes +1 . undo curprev 20:26, 25 November 2019 98.153.164.154 talk 3,179 bytes +12 . undo curprev 20:25, 25 November 2019 Kansari123 talk contribs 3,167 bytes -148 undothank Tag: section blanking curprev 20:25, 25 November 2019 98.153.164.154 talk 3,315 bytes -12 . undo curprev 20:25, 25 November 2019 Kansari123 talk contribs 3,327 bytes -107 undothank Tag: section blanking curprev 20:24, 25 November 2019 Kansari123 talk contribs 3,434 bytes +108 undothank curprev 20:22, 25 November 2019 Kansari123 talk contribs 3,326 bytes +148 undothank
While there is no such thing as a perfect school, the drawbacks referenced here are biased and created to make the school in a poor light undeservedly.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My version have been repeatedly reverted without proper reasoning on t/p. No reasoning has been given after I was done with article overhauling. Following are problems with current and old version:
If some editor can look into matter then it will be great help. -- Harshil want to talk? 11:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | ← | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | → | Archive 85 |
The issued have already been discussed in June 2018 under Talk:Gas_van#Soviet_vans with and Talk:Gas van/Archive 1#Soviet Union section.
I am concerned with NPOV issues, WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION in particular, in this version [1] of the article.
According entries in standard encyclopedias of the Holocaust like Bartrop, Paul R. (2017). "Gas Vans". In Paul R. Bartrop; Michael Dickerman (eds.). The Holocaust: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection. 1. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. p. 234–235: "Gas vans were used by the Nazis to murder Jews and other prisoners through asphyxiation by carbon monoxide. As such a gas van was equipped a mobile gas chamber.” (p. 234). As other scholars have put it “the gas van is a product of the Third Reich, whose origin is traced back to 1939.” (Patrick Montague, Chelmno and the Holocaust, 2012, p. 199) In his standard work on the origins of the Holocaust Henry Friedlander wrote: “For this purpose [killing patients in numerous Wartheland hospitals in 1940], a kind of mobile gas chamber had been invented. We do not know the inventor, but the KTI [Kriminaltechnisches Institut] was probably involved.” (The Origins of Nazi Genocide, 1995, p. 139) None of this scholarship does make any mention of Soviet gas vans.
In 1990 the Russian journalist Evgeny Zhirnov was shown an investigative file on Isay Berg, section chief in the Moscow NKVD who had been tasked with the preparation of the Butovo firing range for the mass execution of people from greater Moscow. Berg was to ensure that these executions occurred without interruption. In this file were transcripts of an investigation against Berg from 1938 and a reopened investigation in 1956. According to some of these documents Berg devised an airtight van in which prisoners were gassed with exhaust fumes during their transport to Butova. Zhirnov published about this in the Russian tabloid Komsomolskaya pravda in October 1990. Yevgenia Albats referred to that story in her book KGB (1995) drawing a direct line between Soviet and Nazi gas vans. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn picked up this story in his infamous book Two Hundred Years Together, emphasizing that Berg was Jewish and noting that Berg “created the infamous “gas wagon” which later brought so much affliction on the Jews themselves”.
As for the other historians being cited, Catherine Merridale and Timothy Colton, they also rely upon Zhirnov’s 1990 article, but both do not link any Soviet gas van to the Nazi gas vans. Merridale speaks about the varius methods of killing employed by the NKVD, stating: “One policeman. Isai D. Berg, gassed some of his prisoners to death...” Timothy Colton devotes one sentence in his 900+ pages book to this: “Isai D. Berg, a cutthroat section chief in the Moscow NKVD, ginned up a gas chamber (dushegubka) on wheels, an airtight lorry camouflaged as a bread van that suffocated internees with engine fumes on the drive out to Butovo.” (p. 286) Futher citations in the Wikipedia article are to Russian newspapers, including another, more recent article by Evgeny Zhirnov.
I am concerned that one minor aspect in the history of gas vans is overemphasized. In fact, based upon highly opinionated sources like Albats and Solzhenitsyn Wikipedia contradicts the whole body of scholarship on gas vans being used during WWII (cited above). Source is heaped upon source, many referring to the same 1990 article, to create the impression, that the topic of Soviet gas vans is well researched and established, which it isn’t. I put some of the sources under review at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#An eyewitness account. I may note that the notion of gas vans being a Soviet “invention” has become a staple of Holocaust denial.
I proposed this version [2] which treats the Soviet gas vans as a separate entity and according to their overall significance in a brief section. Thereby I mainly relied upon scholarly sources.---- Assayer ( talk) 15:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Assayer wrote:
"Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn picked up this story in his infamous book Two Hundred Years Together, emphasizing that Berg was Jewish and noting that Berg “created the infamous “gas wagon” which later brought so much affliction on the Jews themselves”. ... I am concerned that one minor aspect in the history of gas vans is overemphasized. In fact, based upon highly opinionated sources like Albats and Solzhenitsyn Wikipedia contradicts the whole body of scholarship on gas vans being used during WWII (cited above)."
1.
Solzhenitsyn and his book,
"Two Hundred Years Together" faced, and were defended against, accusations of antisemitism. That may be seen in the articles on those subjects, though they are slanted towards the criticisms. For examples of outside source see
[5],
[6],
[7] and
[8]. The descriptive adjectives used by Assayer, infamous and opinionated, are biased.
2. The description of the brief mention of Berg in "Two Hundred Years Ago" is inaccurate and misleading. The mention is in a passage about the reaction of Jewish emigrants: "Who would have guessed during the fiery 1920s that after the enfeeblement and downfall of that “beautiful” (i.e., Communist) regime in Russia, those Jews, who themselves had suffered much from communism, who seemingly cursed it and ran away from it, would curse and kick not communism, but Russia itself – blast her from Israel and from Europe, and from across the ocean!?" Solzhenitsyn goes on to say that ex-citizens of the Soviet Union, Russian and Jewish, both need to share contrition for what happened in the Soviet Union: "We, brothers or strangers, need to share that responsibility. It would have been cleanest and healthiest to exchange contrition for everything committed." He writes: "I will not stop calling the Russians to do that." He goes on: "And I am inviting the Jews to do the same. To repent not for Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev; they are known and anyway can be brushed aside, “they were not real Jews!” Instead, I invite Jews to look honestly into the oppressive depths of the early Soviet system, at all those “invisible” characters such as Isai Davidovich Berg, who created the infamous “gas wagon” which later brought so much affliction on the Jews themselves, and I call on them to look honestly on those many much more obscure bureaucrats who had pushed papers in the Soviet apparatus, and who had never appeared in light." Solzhenitsyn is calling on Jews to share in the act of contrition by not concentrating on major figures such as Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, but minor ones. As an example of a minor figure he names Berg. Berg's Jewishness is not being emphasised as Assayer claimed.
3. The history of the use of the gas van in the Soviet Union was probably unknown to historians of the Nazi Holocaust. It is not surprising that what they wrote has been contradicted.
4. Assayer writes about the "whole body of scholarship on gas vans being used during WWII." The Germans first investigated the viability of euthanasia in late 1936 or early 1937. The committee responsible was re-activated just before the start of the war, when the compulsory registration of severely malformed children was required. Within weeks of the invasion of Poland, German special task forces massacred 13,000 inmates of asylums and clinics in annexed areas there, using shooting or converted removal vans rquipped with bottled carbon monoxide. Afterwards the euthanasia programme for adults extended back into Germany itself. Poison injections were used first, then static and mobile gas chambers. So, gas vans were first used on the Nazi's original euthanasia victims, the mentally and physically handicapped.
← ZScarpia 21:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
From "Two Hundred Years Together":
"Two Hundred Years Together": Quote 01
|
---|
|
"Two Hundred Years Together": Quote 02
|
---|
|
← ZScarpia 22:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Some comments:
← ZScarpia 22:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to tell what the exact issues are here. What I think is: (1) If there is a good source that the NKVD used a gas van in the 1930s, there is no reason it shouldn't go in the article on gas vans. (2) One should not write that the Soviets invented the gas van in a way that might lead readers to think that the Nazis copied it from the Soviets, unless a strong source is found for that (by which I mean a source that cites a Nazi document, not just a source which infers it from the chronology). Neither country invented execution by gas (see USA 1924) and it doesn't take a genius to think of doing it on wheels. (3) Solzhenitsyn might think that the (alleged) Jewishness of the Soviet inventor is significant, but we have our own criteria for significance and should not follow Solzhenitsyn's lead. It would be best to only use sources other than Solzhenitsyn. Zero talk 03:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
While the first Nazi gas vans did indeed use bottled carbon monoxide, this proved to be not practical (they had to wait to replenish new cylinders from Germany, etc), so KTI went on to develop gas vans using exhaust fumes to replace them, see this source on pages 199-200. So in fact Albats was right, both the Soviet and final Nazi version of the gas vans were the same. — Nug ( talk) 03:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am fairly new and haven't difficulty getting a page published. It is with regards to a AAA Game writer who has worked on some of the biggest games in the past few years and I didn't think it would be difficult to publish. I've referenced multiple articles noting their work across games, moves to different project, BBC interviews and so on but I'm being told that they are only passing mentions and I'd need more to show their impact in their field? Comparing this to other articles I've seen, I'm just not sure where I'm going wrong? I don't think they have done lots of interviews or have won any awards specifically as they write for various companies but they are well known in the industry as the Senior Scriptwriter for quite a few multi-million dollar games. Any advice would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousemouse10 ( talk Mousemouse10 ( talk) 09:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)mousemouse10
- /info/en/?search=Gareth_Edwards_(producer) I was comparing it to this one. I can't quite see the difference in references? Again, any advice would be great - thank you. Mousemouse10 ( talk) 09:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)mousemouse10
Four or more editors have been pressuring at the Talk:Criticism of Swaminarayan sect want to include all of the justification from the sect. They tried to give it so by giving more weight to apology and justification. As WP:Criticism states criticism article is for negative viewpoints of the particular philosophy and religion then why justification from the sect can be included in the article? Like, Criticism of Marxism exists and there is no such balancing and inclusion of the arguments regarding justification from marxists. Same with Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Buddhism and Criticism of Religion. If the article will go for balancing the thoughts and inclusion of justification from apologetic then how it will serve the purpose of the criticism as per heading? I tried to let them understand that this is sub POV of Swaminarayana sect in which negative points are included by keeping NPOV in mind but none of them is agreeing on the issue and most of them are not even extended confirmed and pressurising to include positive viewpoints. I had made the page by looking at the pages stated above and if all the things will be added in this article then how it will be different from original POV article i.e. Swaminarayan sect. I am looking for the comments of more experienced editors and administrators regarding this page. -- Harshil want to talk? 18:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Harshil169: posted this article on the NPOV noticeboard and has ignored the other editors @ Ms Sarah Welch, Nizil Shah, Gazal world, Apollo1203, and Sacredsea: and myself who are striving to maintain NPOV and balance on this article. Harshil insists it doesn't apply, which has led to some disagreement, and Harshil has responded with some incivility in his talk and actions (see diffs below).
Ms Sarah Welch has graciously stepped in and is offering feedback to help maintain NPOV. Several editors in good faith are attempting to achieve this balance, and it would be good if it can happen with civility. I have notified the other users mentioned in this article should they wish to weigh in on the neutrality of this article. Moksha88 ( talk) 04:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
[11] seems like WP:SOAP. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Self-coup ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's currently a request for comment over the inclusion of Boris Johnson in the article. At the moment, I think most of the contributors — including myself — are British, so we might all have tinted glasses over it and evaluations from editors in different countries would be appreciated. Sceptre ( talk) 21:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jim, the subject of the James D. Zirin article. In the past, I've made some missteps attempting to update the article, but I've since learned how to work with editors to make changes on my behalf. If you review Talk:James D. Zirin, you'll see I now understand how the edit request process works, and you'll also notice I've tried in earnest to work with editors to remove the 'close connection' tag at the top of the article.
My most recent post to the talk page outlines how I've attempted to resolve the tag by asking both uninvolved and involved editors to identify any non-neutral or otherwise problematic text. If the editor who added the tag is not willing to discuss, the tag is not meant to be a "scarlet letter", and no other editors can point out problematic content, then I'm lost as to why the tag is still needed. I've tried to seek assistance on the article's talk page, at this noticeboard (almost 2 months ago), a WikiProject, and at user talk pages, but no one seems available to help.
I'm hoping someone who reads this page can take a look at the article's text and either remove the tag if there are no major concerns, or share which text is problematic so I can take steps to address. Please, I'm running out of ideas. Thanks. Jim Zirin ( talk) 23:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Pinehouse Photography Club Good day. Im am asking for anyone to help with this page. It seems I need more neutral opinions and edits, although I believe its well cited. Any talk or constructive thoughts welcome :) ---- Dreerwin ( talk) 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Even maybe re wording:
The Pinehouse Photography Club was established in 2017 by a primary care RN(AAP) in Pinehouse Lake. It is a nonprofit organization in northern Saskatchewan whose goal is to help heal and transform lives in its remote community through the use of therapeutic photography.[1] 350 kilometers north of Saskatoon, it’s a place where people, especially youth, can feel isolated and alone, often choosing to make unhealthy choices as a way to cope with the loneliness.[2] The club was created to help youth through the use of therapeutic photography who are at risk for mental health problems and addictions. It has been shown that using photography as a form of therapy helps start the conversation about mental health, without even saying a word.[3]
The nonprofit organization has a studio, a full-time employee who acts as the director of operations, a board of directors, and a van for the youth.[4][5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreerwin ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Please take a look at the following RfC, wherein we discuss whether applying the label "pro-Maduro" to certain Venezela's institutions/branches of government is neutral: /info/en/?search=Talk:Responses_to_the_2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#RfC:_Should_Venezuelan_crisis-related_articles_use_terms_like_'pro-Maduro',_and,_if_not,_what_alternatives_can_be_used? Notrium ( talk) 09:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Mathura Art needs eyes who are familiar with art history and willing to deal with nationalist revisionism. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:FORUMSHOPPING and insufficient prior discussion on article talk page. If no consensus is reached after extensive talk page discussion, suggest
WP:RfC.
|
---|
It seems there is pro-Clinton editing at the Epstein article in a serious violation of NPOV. Virginia Guiffre is the most well known of the Epstein accusers, and her testimony and various claims have been fodder for the Epstein story in media and WP's Jeffrey Epstein article. One of the well documented claims she made was that she saw Bill Clinton at 'Epstein's Island'. The claim has been in the Epstein article since the court documents were released August 9. The NYT stated that in these documents, "an earlier claim" about Bill and the Island made by Guiffre was untrue. Editors at the Epstein article immediately restated this as "the earlier claim" that Clinton was seen by Guiffre on the Island, was untrue. They have insisted that we cannot mention the claim from Guiffre unless we include a rebuttal (the misrepresentation of the NYT article is the only rebuttal in media). The folks at RS/N noted that indeed, within the cited documents there is no mention of the statement WP editors have attributed to the NYT. Guiffre makes minor corrections to reporting from the Daily Mail; a few of the statements weren't true, and she clarified them. But she never said Clinton was not on the Island. A request for a correction at the NYT was made by Newslinger. We await their response, but there is no correction as yet. Editors have insisted we should wait to hear from the NYT before adding back the material, which to me sounds ludicrous and not supported by any or the PAGs. Here are the sources which back up Guiffre's claim: Law and Crime, FORBES, TIME, AP, VICE, NY Mag, The Cut, Chicago Tribune, and Fox8 Editors at Epstein are insisting that the NYT's "an earlier claim" is actually not ambiguous, clearly means "the earlier claim", and that regardless of the numerous sources supporting Guiffre's statement that she saw Clinton on the Island, editors are saying it is a BLP violation to mention it unless we add a rebuttal. There is no rebuttal in RS (otherwise I would add it happily). I would appreciate your help in making sure we're following guidelines and common sense. For now, it seems like the goal is censorship in favor of a politician rather than building an encyclopedia. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
|
There is a request for comment regarding the neutrality and weight of claims in the Jeffrey Epstein article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein § RfC: Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton. — Newslinger talk 13:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
See talk:Maryland#Popishness. There is currently a dispute over whether using the word “Popishness” to describe Catholicism in the lead of Maryland is appropriate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This has been nominated for deletion and some suggest WP:TNT. That's a bit of a problem as it's spun out of sections in other articles, so may indicate NPOV problems at William Barr, for example. I believe the topic to be notable (several sources addressing it directly) and separate from the Ukraine shakedown. Can people please help by reviewing the sourcing and tone? I am by now in the "marking your own homework" zone so I need assistance. Thanks. Guy ( help!) 11:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is titled " Memorex". Memorex was once an independent company that was incorporated, but was dissolved in 1996. The brand has gone through several owners since then, most recently being acquired by a holding company in 2016. Although a timeline of the different owners is included at the bottom, another editor insists that we cannot include relevant, updated information in the article that would reflect the brand's current ownership. If this article is merely about the defunct brand Memorex, Inc., then this timeline should not be relevant to the article. Any relevant information would then not include any changes in the brand beyond 1996. The other editor involved believes that updating the infobox to include the brand's current ownership is "an advertisement for the Memorex Brand which is impermissible in Wikipedia" (see Talk:Memorex #Memorex Corp vs Memorex Brand), but does not point to any specific rule that would imply these changes are an advertisement. The other editor then stated that it "is likely the brand is also defunct" immediately after. Why would any editor "advertise" for a defunct brand that doesn't sell anything? Aren't those two statements a contradiction?
I believe that there are two solutions to this:
1.) The article combines the former Memorex, Inc. and the current status of the brand. We would include both the original logo, as well as the current logo and website. The infobox would also be updated to reflect the brand's current status. This has been done successfully with other consumer electronics brands, such as Polaroid Corporation. I would not describe the combination of the old company's information and the new one's as "advertising". This solution would eliminate any ambiguity from the "two article solution" as proposed by the other editor, and would readers best informed on the brand's past and present.
2.) The article title would have to be changed to "Memorex, Inc." to differentiate between the old company and the brand's current use, and any information about the brand after 1996 would need to be removed, as it would no longer be relevant. This would leave the article with no contradictions. However, leaving the article as-is like this would make it virtually a time capsule that includes no up-to-date information. -- AirportExpert ( talk) 14:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)AirportExpert
The article on Kang Yong-suk seems to be pretty flagrantly POV: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. However, I don't know Korean and am unable to read the cited sources to see what they actually say or to judge them for reliability. While I could just delete the majority of the article, I don't know enough about the subject to rewrite the POV parts. What do people think should be done? Darthkayak ( talk) 11:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing move discussion regarding whether to move Great Replacement → Great replacement conspiracy theory. The discussion currently only has 4 participants, and has been relisted. Additional input would be helpful. Nblund talk 16:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Fellow wikipedians,
For some time now there has been a dispute on which map to include on the introduction of the United Nations wikipedia page. It involves the following two:
1) United Nations Members (green–grey scheme) (the established map)
2) United Nations members de facto borders (the new map)
The green-scheme map broadly follows the norms of the UN and international diplomacy by keeping it to internationally recognized member-states. [17] It has also been used for several years on the page until recent edits brought up the issue. Lastly, it is used in over twenty languages across wikipedia.
The blue-scheme map highlights various de facto (unrecognized) states who are not members of the UN and is highly contentious as 'new' de facto states come and go every now and then and who is to say what a de facto state is? There is no broadly agreed upon standard. Moreover, it is only used one page and only on the English wikipedia.
I wish to receive feedback on this issue from neutral wikipedians who are are not politically invested in this topic. Wadaad ( talk) 12:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Wadaad, you left a long edit on my User Talk page with excuses for your most recent edit-warring regarding the
United Nations article, and I replied in your Talk page to make sure that you see my response. Given that it explains my concerns with your methods of imposing your views on other editors, and the process that I believe would allow us to settle this controversy, I will include my response here as well.
First of all, the map that you wish to include in the article is not an NPOV presentation of the world, even if the UN pretends that Taiwan is ruled by the People's Republic of China and Kosovo is ruled by Serbia. It is misleading to color de facto states that are not members of the UN in the same color as UN member states. When readers see Taiwan colored green, their first thought will be that Taiwan must be part of the UN.
But more to the point, you have a lot of chutzpah to use the fact that you were blocked for edit-warring on this same article (and regarding this same issue) as the reason why you should be permitted to revert, without seeking a consensus, edits made during your month-long ban (which followed several shorter blocks for edit-warring). I'm no expert on Wikipedia's edit-warring policies, but I'm pretty sure that having been blocked from editing for a month because of your persistent edit-warring does not give you carte blanche to continue edit-warring on the same article the minute that your ban expired (or did you wait a full half hour before making your Bold reversion?). And once your Bold reversion was reverted, you should have gone to the Talk page and sought a consensus. Instead, you reverted a second time (and added a POV "clarification" that only made things worse), and when I was forced to revert you again and explain that when Bold reversions are themselves reverted that you should seek a consensus at the Talk page you then reverted for a third time. I'm not going to file a formal accusation of edit-warring (I prefer to talk things through), but it is likely that some other editor will do so unless you don't start acting more civilly.
On another matter, during your edit war last month, you also engaged in inappropriate canvassing when you sought out known anti-Taiwan editor Lo meiin (who soon thereafter was blocked indefinitely for his abusive behavior--most persistently against me--and POV pushing) and asked him to join the map discussion. I see that you now have invited SharabSalam to participate in the discussion of this new controversy, but you did so *without having commenced the discussion in the Talk page*. I am familiar with SharabSalam and, while we've had heated debates in the past, I can vouch for his fairness and civility: If you were seeking another Lo meiin, you will be disappointed. I also see that SharabSalam participated in the map discussion last month, so it was not inappropriate for you to invite him to a new discussion--but you need to start one at the Talk page.
In the spirit of civiliy and seeking a consensus, you should self-revert your third reversion, start a new discussion at the Talk page, and invite all participants in the prior discussion (including Ythlev, Vanilla Wizard and NightHeron) and other frequent collaborators in the United Nations article. But please cease with the edit-warring.
And I would be remiss if I did not add that the discussion of this topic should be open to all interested editors willing to follow the rules, including editors who are "politically invested" in the topic, whom Wadaad apparently wishes to exclude. For example, given that the blue map notes that the de facto Republic of Somaliland is not a UN member, while the green map colors it green as part of Somalia, an editor from Somalia could be said to be "politically invested" in the topic. However, I don't believe that Wadaad should be prohibited from opining just because he's Somalian, and neither should editors from Taiwan, the PRC, Kosovo, Serbia, Cyprus, Georgia, etc. be excluded. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 13:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I just realized that the green-scheme map that colors green everything but for the strip of Western Sahara controlled by the SADR, the State of Palestine, Vatican City and (adding to the confusion) a few lakes currently appears at the top of the Member states of the United Nations article. If the editing community reaches a consensus that neither the green-scheme map nor the blue-scheme map should appear in the infobox of the United Nations article, may I assume that such consensus also would extend to the Member states of the United Nations article, where inclusion of either such map may lead to confusion? AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 20:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Is this particular way of categorising territories an "unpublished idea"? I think not. Ythlev ( talk) 16:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I believe your help is needed concerning EOKA's article (a guerrilla struggle during 1955-59) and a lawsuit on torture that was filed ~55 years later. I believe a sentence or a couple of sentence would be enough, other users though believe a detailed section is needed.
My main argument is that torture allegations are discussed elsewhere in the article (section: Detention Camps and claims of torture"). The lawsuit is an unimportant issue per se, it was settled out-of-court, of course it was covered by some RS newspapers. A lot of RS talked about torture by UK, their opinions are mentioned elsewhere in the article, so it is like we are re-addressing the issue to tell a different story- a sensational one. Talking about the specific lawsuit and its details adds nothing to the article.
Currently, the specific section is 4,212 bytes, in an article of 52,611 bytes. That is ~8%. We skipped many serious events (ie tortures by EOKA - see Menoikos case, or the death toll of EOKA is summarized in a tiny single sentence). In my opinion, the lawsuit shouldnt be mentioned, but even if we mention it, it should be trimmed to 1-2 sentences. No secondary source is covering the specific lawsuit (apart from some newspapers reporting the news, I am not sure they are deemed secondary sources)
Pls @ Dr.K.:, make the counterargument. Cinadon 36 19:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
On Wikipedia's front page, we currently state in Wikivoice that "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi kills himself during a US raid
," when all reliable sources (and our
article on the topic) attribute the claim of Baghdadi's suicide to Trump or US officials:
like the Abbasids, he is dead—smashed to bits, according to Trump, by a self-detonated suicide vest.
Trump said the ISIS leader "died like a dog, he died like a coward. He was whimpering, screaming, and crying."
The president said al-Baghdadi, "went into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way," and died when he detonated a suicide vest.
Baghdadi killed himself during the raid by detonating a suicide vest, Trump said in a televised address from the White House.
The fugitive leader of the Islamic State (IS) group killed himself during a US military operation in north-west Syria, President Donald Trump has said.
US president says jihadist leader detonated suicide vest in US raid in north-west Syria.
As U.S. troops bore down on al-Baghdadi, he fled into a “dead-end” tunnel with three of his children, Trump said, and detonated a suicide vest.
US media cited multiple government sources as saying Baghdadi may have killed himself with a suicide vest as US special operations forces descended.
Based on these sources, our text should clearly be rephrased to something like
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead after a US raid in
Idlib, Syria.
"
However, at In the News, otherwise very reasonable editors (e.g. pinging Masem for courtesy) are arguing that we should convert attribution to fact, unless a reliable source contests the nature of his death. This is really inappropriate, especially for something that is so easy to get right, and when every other reliable source is correctly attributing the claim. - Darouet ( talk) 20:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The biographical section for this page is currently in dispute for neutrality (see: Talk:Jack_Posobiec). There are questions regarding balance and neutral point of view in the presentation of the biography of a living person. A particular point of contention is a disputed association of the subject with the alt-right. Credible, reliable sources indicate both an association and a non-association, but so far, any edits to include sources who categorize the subject as non-associated are reverted. Ihuntrocks ( talk) 19:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Per [26], is a press release by Adbusters a valid source as a rebuttal for criticism in the following para:
I would argue not. Guy ( help!) 15:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
See this twitter with 16K followers calling disciples into action. AstuteRed ( talk) 18:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether the Daily Mail is a usable source of opinions that are not used under WP:ABOUTSELF. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Opinions in the Daily Mail. — Newslinger talk 14:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Scope creep, DIYeditor, and Gwenhope:The use of the word executed is too sanitary and anesthetic when used for the judicial murder of persons, by the state. The same thing goes for the word phrase lawful killing ". A lawful killing is execution by the state,or if you will state sanctioned murder.
When speaking of people put to death for the crime of murder we might use the euphemism: executed, or judicial murder. What then of people put to death, as in Iran, Saudi Arabia for adultery or homosexuality, or authoritarian countries for political reasons. These are lawful (judicious) murders by the law of the land. Hitler had thousands of political opponents judiciously murdered,and millions more murdered simply because of their ethnicity or some undesirable feature. So is it a white wash of a horrific event to call the judicicious murder of some resister, adulterer, pr homosexual execution a lawful killing? And what is an "unlawful killing" anyway. Killings by their nature are unlawful, unless carried out by the state, ostensibly (but not necessarily) after being given due process of law. Then they are actually judicious murders. Or as the coroner reports, "Death by homocide".
So how do we refer to these events in article names and in the articles themselves.? Oldperson ( talk) 23:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Guy It is quite telling, and disgusting, how we humans choose to sanitize the things we do to each other. Execution may be the correct term, when carried out by a state against its own citizens, but execution is just another name for murder. Murder is murder, regardless of who does it, where it is done or by whom? Execution is murder, but we do santize our activities don't we. |
However for WP purposes I guess execution and unlawful killings will have to do, however I do think that the word murder should be used rather than "unlawful killings" Oldperson ( talk) 16:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
My version have been repeatedly reverted without proper reasoning on t/p. No reasoning has been given after I was done with article overhauling. Following are problems with current and old version:
If some editor can look into matter then it will be great help. -- Harshil want to talk? 11:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an invitation to participate at the following RfC regarding the 2019 Hong Kong protests: Add US or other counties or not as supporting counties and official organizations in the infobox's pro-protester side. starship .paint ( talk) 13:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Saint Peter, Saint Nicholas and Saint Joseph etc. I feel that Wikipedia is biased towards Christianity than other religions. We cant put (prophet) next to Muhammad article yet we have these articles describing Christian leaders as Saints. Should we change the titles?.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 15:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project.There is also the argument of sources and COMMONNAME in which the common name is biased but I would note that "Saint" here is a honorific term that should be not regarded as a title and I think for example in Saint Peter the name should be changed to "Simon Peter". I don't have much knowledge in Christianity but I think we can use the full names of these Christian Saints if there is any to disambiguate instead of using the honorific terms. If there is no full name then I think the honorific term should be change to NAME_(Christian Saint). Sorry for the late reply I was busy these days and I totally forgot about this discussion.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 11:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Past discussions on the use of "climate crisis" on Wikipedia concentrated on the timing of such use, claiming that "not enough climate scientists use the term, so we shouldn't either." [27] [28] Counter claims include the fact that "hard" scientists are trained against using superlatives, resulting in under-use even where appropriate; and that the term "crisis" is in the realm of the social sciences and humanities, and scientists in these fields use the term frequently. Well, these concerns should be resolved now: the "Alliance of World Scientists" - a 23,000 strong network - had published a "call to arms" titled World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency, signed at the time of publication by over 11,000 scientists, most of which from the earth and atmospheric sciences, and biology. [1] [2] [3] [4] The statement includes such language as: "climate emergency", "catastrophic threat" and "climate crisis".
This should be more than enough for us to allow the use of "climate crisis" and "climate emergency" in Wikivoice. François Robere ( talk) 20:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation... we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.
Has the language demonstrably changedThis letter is the evidence. It's thousands of RS using those terms. You're moving the goal posts claiming this isn't enough to show use. François Robere ( talk) 15:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Scientists often sign advocacy statements and reports that use strong wording, but don't necessarily use the same language in their other writingSo what? Why does this statement - a statement of consensus - less worthy than any individual paper? François Robere ( talk) 17:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
scientists' consensusand scientific consensus; and that it is the latter that we should be interested in when determining what to couch as fact in Wikipedia's voice. - Ryk72 talk 05:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
based on the limited sources and RECENTISM, it should be treated as a minority view with respect to UNDUE and other facets of NPOVAre you commenting on the language or the actual thing? François Robere ( talk) 19:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:FORUM issue or wrong location for oblique accusations about Wikipedia editors from persistent FORUM/SOAP/RIGHTGREATWRONGS violator.
—DIYeditor (
talk) 00:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
Francoise Robere An observation. There are scores of known paid editors. What is not known is the number and identity of editors paid by corporations, foundations, like the Koch Brothers, nation states like the Saudi's and the Iranians, not to mention infamous Putin that monitor select pages of WP, and are expert at carefully crafting edits, arguments and reverts to comply with WP policy and guidelines and civily pushing POV's that protect their patrons . These would be expertly skilled craftspersons at wordmongering Slipping below the radar and even attaining admin status, tactics include slapping on templates and use WP:AFG, DUE, UNDUE,SOAP, FORUM, BLUDGEON,, etc all are part of their expert tool kit.Not saying that all users of these devices are paid or nefarious, but they are tools to be used by those with expertise Oldperson ( talk) 20:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC) |
Retracted.
François Robere (
talk) 21:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Discussion continues.
François Robere (
talk) 17:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masem wrote: "We can certainly be assertive in that "Over 11,000 scientists supported the statement that the world is undergoing a climate crisis and action must be taken immediately." - that gets the emphasis across in Wikivoice without violating NPOV." He also said: (he) would certainly assert that this (climate change) has been called such (climate crisis) with attribution is fine. If that is 'fine' and doesn't violate NPOV, why was all reference to the 11,000 scientists calling it a crisis deleted?
And if @Springee thinks that "Masem has addressed your (François Robere's) concerns quite effectively" (which appears to suggest he agrees with Masem that we can assertively state that over 11,000 scientists supported the statement that the world is undergoing a climate crisis without violating NPOV) why has the reference to the 11,000 scientists not been reinstated? Notagainst ( talk) 02:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
So you're saying its acceptable to use the term climate crisis in wikivoice but not in the article called Climate Crisis - because its out of scope. The original objection to much of the material I posted on the CCrisis page was that we can't use the term climate change because its not accepted in wikivoice. NAEG wrote QUESTION - Can Wikipedia describe global warming (aka climate change) as "the climate crisis" in WP:WIKIVOICE, without violating WP:Neutrality? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC). Masem and Springee are now saying we can. So do @Simonm223, @india.OHC and @Vision Insider. So it appears the wikivoice argument is no longer a concern.
So instead, you say information can't be included because its out of scope. But you also want to argue that the 11,000 scientists were "in fact not vetted for credentials". This suggests you think the source is unreliable. If the problem is that an article referring to the climate crisis is "out of scope" in an article about the climate crisis (!!!), then whether or not that article comes from a reliable source is irrelevant. If its out of scope, its out of scope. Or are you suggesting that if a more reliable source is found for the same information, suddenly that information would magically become within the scope. If you keep changing your objections and muddying the water with contradictory arguments, no one participating in this discussion can tell what your real objection is to including information about the climate crisis on the Climate Crisis page. Notagainst ( talk) 04:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Also I just checked the list of signatories myself. The signatories are listed in alphabetical order. "Micky Mouse" and "Dumbledore" do NOT appear on the list. Who is the cab driver in Hamilton you are referring to - or are you just making shit up? Notagainst ( talk) 05:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
making shit up(it might be helpful if you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF before using such language). The problem is that you are repeatedly failing to understand what other editors have patiently been explaining to you. Namely, (1) the consensus is that the scope of Climate crisis should be the development of the debate about what terms to use, and so the article should only cite sources that address this issue directly; (2) on Wikipedia generally there is no consensus that the terms "climate crisis", "climate emergency" or "climate destruction" should be used in Wikivoice, although of course it's perfectly okay to quote reliable sources that use those terms (just as it's okay to quote reliable sources that prefer less emotional terms). The specific question being debated in this thread is whether the statement signed by 11,000 people (perhaps all of them scientists, perhaps not) is sufficient reason for (2) to change. It's clear from the discussion that (2) still holds. NightHeron ( talk) 12:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The original objection to much of the material I posted on the CCrisis page was that we can't use the term climate change because its not accepted in wikivoice. ... Masem and Springee are now saying we can.I do not believe that this accurately reflects the statements by either Masem or Springee. - Ryk72 talk 05:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
References
Two users, Deathlibrarian and XelatSharro (suspected sock puppet), Have been changing the result of this town battle from "attacking side victory" to draw. This change is not backed by sources and the user(s) have been arguing it ended in a draw due to defending side withdrawing. Even though the town has been captured. The user Deathlibrarian also unilaterally changed the result and has been constantly reverting me, saying discussion is taking place. Even though he made the change right after opening a discussion about it. 1RR has not been violated by either side. [33] [34] [35] [36] KasimMejia ( talk) 10:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to get some uninvolved editors' opinions on the Craniosacral therapy article.
I am an editor that is uninvolved with the subject of the article – who seems to have walked into the nest of opinion-pushing editors with my improvement suggestions driven by some simple general (i.e. subject-agnostic) logic. (Is it crazy to think that naming the jurisdiction(s) is a necessary part of mentioning a particular law or regulation? More on this on the Talk page which is linked below.)
I had only made or suggested to make a couple simple and fairly minor improvements to the text/source integrity, but was forcefully rebuked and reverted a couple times. This prompted me to take a closer look at what happens around that article.
Looking at its Talk page discussions, it seems that there's a fairly vocal group of editors that is trying to keep the article in the state of being locked into a certain viewpoint – to the extent that even fairly non-controversial copyediting suggestions (e.g. tagging passages with the "where?" tag in search of a clearly missing piece of info) by the editors like myself got rejected.
Again, let me be clear: I have no involvement whatsoever with the article's subject – so it's strange that I'm being addressed on the Talk page as if I'm trying to push a POV on it, which I was not even remotely attempting to. Please review the following two sections of the Talk page: "Jurisdiction..." and "Neutrality dispute" for mine and another editor's attempts to address what's essentially a text/source integrity issue – with these attempts quickly degenerating into a not-at-all-productive discussion with flinging barely useful references to things like WP:1AM and WP:FOC (the latter, ironically, by the editor not being focused on the content at all) and statements like "we are biased towards reality. <the article's subject> is bollocks" – all while refusing to address a very straightforward issue I had originally raised.
For reference, here are my edits that got reverted – which pretty much shows how the good-faith attempts at copyediting/improving the article get reverted flat-out: [37], [38], [39]. In almost any other article these edits would be non-controversial – but here they became controversial even after my attempts to resolve this on the Talk page. cherkash ( talk) 00:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed a systemic problem across Wikipedia: Leaders who are universally described as "dictators" or "authoritarian" in peer-reviewed academic research are not being described as such on Wikipedia pages. Check Kim Jong-un's lede and you'd never know that he happens to rule a non-democracy, never mind one of the most repressive dictatorships in existence. Same goes for the Bashar al-Assad page before I fixed it (the page even brazenly suggested that he was a democratically elected leader). I noticed that similar problems plagued the pages of Putin (whose regime is typically characterized as a hybrid regime or competitive authoritarian regime) and Viktor Orban (who is universally described as having overseen democratic backsliding in Hungary) before I fixed those pages.
There's a humongous literature out there, which is peer-reviewed and written by recognized experts - in many cases, political scientists explicitly list regimes which are democratic, hybrid regimes, authoritarian. Furthermore, there are measures of democracy (Polity, Freedom House) that can inform our language. Use it, people! Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans, François Robere, and GPRamirez5: Wikipedia is not perfect, and many articles stay non-neutral and even non-encyclopedic for far too long; I wish you good understanding and recall of Wikipedia's guidelines in your efforts (and luck). Maybe you should start a WikiProject (maybe called "Authoritarianism")? That could help in efforts on specific persons like Orban. On the other hand, I do not like the way those "Democracy indices" try to aggregate data that does not seem like it should be aggregated ("measuring democracy" and "conceptualizing democracy" seem like productive search terms on libgen). I prefer specific examples of governmental misdeeds of all kinds (crimes, corruption, just immoral) and criticism of policy and laws to simplistic labeling of governmental leaders. Notrium ( talk) 23:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Why has the OP felt it necessary to "fix" the Bashar al-Assad page? Did not that fellow work as an eye surgeon in a UK hospital, before fate called him back to do something that he did not wish to do? MPS1992 ( talk) 23:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
As an example of the misguided ideas on this subject, my text which described the Kim regime as a "dictatorship" in Wiki voice has been changed into saying the Kim regime "is frequently considered" a dictatorship. [41] This attributedpov qualifier is completely unnecessary, and is in fact a brazen NPOV violation because it suggests that there is an active debate about whether Kim rules a dictatorship when there is ZERO debate about it. If the Kim regime is not a dictatorship, then there is simply no such thing as a dictatorship. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is what Sidney Goldberg wrote:
TFD ( talk) 07:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Interesting issue. I think this has to be discussed on the talk page of each article, as individual cases. I'd be happy to participate, and feel free to ping me if such individual discussions are started. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
He's a dictator and Wikipedia should say so in its own voice. Adoring nanny ( talk) 11:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
A recent edit request drew my attention here, which seems to have been tagged for neutrality for quite some time. There have been questions raised that the sources used to portray the article subject positively are not independent (owned by them). This is a bit complicated and beyond what I'm used to dealing with, I'm afraid, so if anyone would like to take a crack at this one, that would be great. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I have copied my text from
/info/en/?search=Talk:Popular_Front_of_India#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_18_November_2019 to here,
The lead mentions it as a "neo social movement" which is what the organization says about itself , but secondary sources say it's an Islamist outfit and radical Muslim organization.
The official twitter account says; "A Neo-Social Movement which strives for the empowerment of marginalized section of India." -
https://twitter.com/PFIOfficial
But what it says about itself is not right. What other news media says should be seen by Wikipedia.
List of sources
|
---|
source 1- https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/this-is-india-not-afghanistan/2011/02/04/ABOyT5E_story.html source 2- Kerala-based Islamist organisation PFI's Gulf link exposed; NIA claims it collected funds from expatriates - https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/nia-kerala-islamist-organisation-popular-frot-of-india-1053512-2017-09-27 source 3- Kerala Asks Centre To Ban Islamist Outfit Popular Front Of India, Says Report - https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/kerala-asks-centre-to-ban-islamist-outfit-popular-front-of-india-says-report/308332 source 4- NIA chargesheet lists radical outfit Popular Front of India's crimes: Why hasn't it been banned? - https://www.indiatoday.in/programme/the-people-s-court/video/popular-front-of-india-nia-chargesheet-helping-isis-trains-cadres-in-explosives-1069319-2017-09-27 source 5- https://www.thequint.com/explainers/explainer-why-government-wants-pfi-banned-popular-front-of-india source 6- Bengaluru: NIA accuses PFI,SDPI of terrorism in murder of RSS worker - https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bengaluru-nia-pfi-sdpi-rss-murder-terrorism-1123833-2018-01-06 source 7- Ban Kerala’s PFI for ‘role in acts of terror’: NIA tells home ministry - https://theprint.in/defence/ban-keralas-pfi-role-acts-terror-nia-tells-home-ministry/9933/ source 8- It was on July 4, 2010 that Joseph, then a professor at Newman College, Thodupuzha, was attacked by a group of Popular Front of India (PFI) activists, who chopped off his right palm for preparing a question paper for the degree examination, that claimed to have defamed Prophet Mohammed. - https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2019/may/12/prof-joseph-to-relive-trauma-of-terror-attack-in--memoir-1975692.html source 11- http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/pfi-trying-to-make-kerala-a--muslim-country--says-vs/651344/ source 12- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/radical-muslim-outfit-faces-ban/articleshow/60917635.cms Source 14- https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/pfis-expansion-assam-alarms-police-authorities source 17- https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/kerala-lefts-love-islamist-pfi-deep-roots source 18- https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/4yef4a1QSSveodVZbHnIAL/TJ-Joseph-the-professor-who-gave-his-hand.html (The question paper set off a series of agitations. Fundamentalist Islamic outfits like the Popular Front of India (PFI) and moderate parties like the Indian Union Muslim League held protest demonstrations against Joseph and his college,) Following are criminal activities, unlike above links which describe the organization. source 20- https://www.dailypioneer.com/2016/india/pfis-arm-sdpi-training-people-to-kill-kerala-cm.html source 21- https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/ed-registers-money-laundering-case-against-pfi/1304051/?next source 23- The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by the Bengaluru president of Islamist organisation, Popular Front of India against initiation of trial for his alleged involvement into murder of an RSS activist, Rudresh in the city on October 16, 2016. Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/sc-dismisses-pfi-members-plea-in-rss-workers-murder-744008.html source 25- “We have been sending periodic reports to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking a ban on these outfits. The reports are based on their day-to-day functioning, their role in inciting communal tensions, their active participation in sensitive issues, among other things,” explained an Intelligence Bureau official. - https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/extremism-to-the-fore/article24422146.ece source 26- The communist government of Kerala has, however, recognized a threat in the activities and growth of PFI. V.S. Achuthanandan, the state’s Chief Minister and a Politburo member of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), at a press conference in New Delhi on July 24, 2010, declared that the PFI and its allies were plotting to make Kerala a "Muslim-dominated" state within 20 years: "For achieving that goal, the outfit is pumping money to attract youth and giving them weapons… Youngsters are being given money and lured to convert to marry Muslim women..." https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/in-gods-own-country/268143
|
In this article those sections which mentions about positive works by PFI are mostly Muslim owned websites which have links with Popular Front of India, while very few are neutral and true.
This was correct according to above sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Popular_Front_of_India&oldid=895190630 AntonyGonzalveZ ( talk) 16:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The map is supposed to be showing Polish borders since 1920, Polish claims after World War One and the areas inhabited by Polish people in 1912. Polish claims looks like authors OR, as far as I know Polish state didn't claim prepartition borders of PLC, what the map suggest, but the areas inhabited by Polish people and free access to the sea. But that's not the main problem. The main problem is misleading representation of the extent of Polish people, especially in the east.
The main source of this map is supposed to be Polish map from 1912 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polska1912.jpg. Nonetheless it is using it very arbitrary. First of all 20-50% scope to indicate territories with large Polish minority is chosen very arbitrary, second of all even this isn't reflected properly on the map. For example city of Vilnius and Trakai county on the base map have over 20% of Polish population, yet they aren't marked in any way on the map in question. What's more the original map is based on 1897 Russian census, which deliberately was diminishing number of Polish people on territories of today's Lithuania and Belarus. The next Russian census of 1909 (so called spisok zémstv) gave much different numbers (for example in Vilnius county the number of Poles raised from 17,8% to 47%). German census made during the war in 1916 also portrayed much different demographic situation, the same goes with post war Polish and Lithuanian censuses.
I was trying to delete this map from article History of Vilnius, but my edit was reverted by @ Sabbatino:. We had a User talk:Sabbatino#Map in history of Vilnius.
Marcelus ( talk) 20:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The article on the book Forced into Glory (2010) seems to have a sharp WP:POV problem, as has been pointed out on its talk page for over a decade (and the article has actually gotten more one-sided since then). Our article is a misleading hatchet-job that cites nothing but critics of the book and opponents of its message (either politically motivated or directly fiduciary conflicts of interest – it's relying almost entirely on authors of competing (and much more complimentary) books about Abraham Lincoln and slavery, even where it claims to be citing just "a 2009 review" rather than someone engaged in a protracted academic dispute with the author, Lerone Bennett Jr. His analysis of Lincoln's own statements on slavery and Africans has been "an academic controversy" (term from an RS not me) that he initiated all the way back in the 1960s (FiG was a very belated followup volume).
The article's talk page seems to have a WP:OWN problem, as well, and said party showed up at my talk page to essentially threaten to edit-war against me simply for "loose, inaccurate, and semi-inflammatory language you use in your edit summaries and on this page" (i.e., my own talk page). This editor does not frequently edit the article itself, so it's kind of weird.
The meat of the matter: I've laid out a detailed bullet list of issues with the article and probable solutions to them at: Forced into Glory#Balance: Conflict between Lincoln critics like Bennett, and critics of those critics. I point to plenty of sources and where to find more of them. The response from this only apparent regular watcher of the page has been a bunch of ad hominem and otherwise fallacious blather, and some WP:OR / WP:FORUM ranting about Bennett and then some "what ifs" regarding how Lincoln could have proceeded other than he did, based on the editor's personal analysis of a historical failed politician.
I don't think this is constructive (much less collegial), and would appreciate some attention to the article from both
WP:NPOVN regulars and those who edit within the broader subjects of Lincoln, the US Civil War, and American slavery and abolitionism. It's our "job" to document the academic disagreement, not help one side of it demonize the other (even if the one side might mostly be in the right as historians). I don't want this to focus on editorial personalities and haven't named any other editor, but will drop off a {{
NPOVN-notice}}
anyway. What I really care about is the unbalanced article being improved, with enough editorial input that it stays improved.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm just going to ignore AnonMoos's pointless ad hominem and straw-man sputterings (I already addressed this focus-on-contributor behavior at the article talk page and in user talk, and seeing it continue here at the noticeboard tells me I was definitely right to bring it to the noticeboard). Let's get back to the meat of the matter, which has not changed despite this distraction attempt:
After I get a clear edit-warring threat on my talk page, and repeated blatantly false claims like "taking a certain little pleasure in spreading loose, inaccurate, and semi-inflammatory statements in his edit summaries to the article" (never happened) and "pushing a strange conspiracy that the 'Lincoln-praisers' ... are conspiring to suppress Bennett's book" (never happened), it's clear that any attempt I make to move the Dirck quote to be with Foner, et al. quotes, in a paragraph or section on the conflicting sides of researchers, and then create a separate section for actually independent and secondary reviews, I'm going to meet with unreasonable opposition from AnonMoos, who virtually never edits the article but is "squatting" on it and being uncivil on its talk page, and the user talk pages of those who disagree with him, and now even noticeboard pages. If no one at this noticeboard cares to help improve the article (the talk page of which has a bullet list including additional sources), then oh well. "There is no deadline", and I can just try again some other time when my antagonist seems to have moved on.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The latest addition to this article has been imposed by a "consensus" of three contributors intent on having the content of this source, including the journalist's personal prejudices, included in its entirety. I feel it would be helpful if some contributors whose first language is English could join the discussion. Deb ( talk) 12:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Users Bondegezou and TU-nor, state that the American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War should not be listed under invasion due to word invasion not being used by RS's. The US presence in Syria has been dubbed an illegal occupation by the UN recognized Gov of Syria [42]. Not necessarily the word invasion has been used. Meanwhile both users support the " Turkish Invasion of Syria" due to the word invasion being used by the media. I see absolutely no difference between the two, both countries are illegally present and are occupying Syria. KasimMejia ( talk) 12:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Look at the history and finance sections in particular. I cannot address this myself at the moment, but it's pretty egregious imho. Elinruby ( talk) 03:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Greetings,
I would like to bring to your attention, and for your consideration, the errors in the following article that has been written as though alleged events have already been proven to have occured.
Title: Marie Yovanovitch URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Yovanovitch
This article omits in several sentences the word "alleged" and treats as yet undertermined circumstaces as though they are foregone conclusions. For example, not one sentence in the following paragraph has been proven to be true and is therefore merely conjecture on the part of the writer/editor though presented in such a way as to appear that it is already history:
"While ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch was subjected to a conspiracy-driven smear campaign, amplified by President Donald Trump and his allies. In May 2019, Trump abruptly recalled Yovanovitch from her post following claims by Trump surrogates that she was undermining Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former vice president and 2020 U.S. presidential election candidate Joe Biden. Yovanovitch's removal preceded a July 2019 phone call by Trump in which he attempted to pressure Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden. Following revelation of a whistleblower complaint about the phone call and attempts to cover it up, an impeachment inquiry against Trump was initiated by the House of Representatives. Yovanovitch testified in several House committee depositions in the inquiry."
My contention is that, in the very least, each statement sould include the word 'alleged' until such time as the facts have been proven. I could not make these changes myself as the editor has conveniently locked the entry. Is this not privileged vandalism in itself?
Thank you for considering this matter and I hope that you will act in a manner that will further the integrity of the Wikipedia ideal.
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:8100:B84:9876:C489:880D:2866 ( talk) 04:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Fairmont_Private_Schools
Hello, I am a new employee at Fairmont Private Schools and I am just seeing that there has been a history of edits by Kansari123== Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. and Looper808== Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. which doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria of neutral point of view and which are not verifiable. While I want to go in and take it out immediately I wish to put it here on this board as I do not wish to be considered biased or as a conflict of interest since I am a school employee.
All text in question which I recommend deleting in entirety and seems to be from dubious sources can be found here and is stated in an erroneous way with a sole goal to damage Fairmont's reputation under "Drawbacks: While Fairmont Private Schools has received a multitude of academic and scholarly awards, many issues hide behind a facade. Fairmont offers a minute number of schools in its operating region (Orange County), this can make it strenuous for students who live beyond Tustin and Anaheim city limits to attend Fairmont. Fairmont also is becoming known to hold a greater amount of foreign students, who can lower the level of education that can be taught in a classroom. Fairmont also struggles with the effects of a small student body, a private investigation found that an approximated 43% of students attending Fairmont have suicidal tendencies."
1) "many issues hide behind a facade" - not verifiable and a judgment statement 2) "Fairmont offers a minute number of schools in its operating region" (this should be deleted as Fairmont offers four schools in its operating region as previously stated elsewhere and this isn't a "drawback.") 3) "This can make it strenuous for students who live beyond Tustin and Anaheim City limits to attend Fairmont." This needs to be deleted. This is like saying that La Salle High School in Pasadena CA makes it strenuous for students who live beyond Pasadena to attend La Salle. Schools service a primary area geographically, by definition and this is said with judgment and does not reflect a neutral point of view. 4) "Fairmont also is becoming known to hold a greater amount of foreign students, who can lower the level of education that can be taught in a classroom." Needs to be deleted. International students primarily attend Fairmont Preparatory Academy (a separate page) and it would be a non-verifiable statement to suggest that these students lower the level of education that can be taught in a classroom. Studies show that international students enrich classrooms. 5) "Fairmont also struggles....43% of students have suicidal tendencies." This needs to be deleted. The most blatant of edits, there is no source for this. In fact, as shown in the link below and through editing history, one can see that the edit first stated 80% of students have suicidal tendencies and there was no mention of a private investigation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fairmont_Private_Schools&oldid=927947025
curprev 21:09, 25 November 2019 98.153.164.154 talk 3,836 bytes +1 . undo curprev 21:07, 25 November 2019 98.153.164.154 talk 3,835 bytes -2 . undo curprev 20:45, 25 November 2019 Looper808 talk contribs 3,837 bytes +657 undothank curprev 20:32, 25 November 2019 98.153.164.154 talk 3,180 bytes +1 . undo curprev 20:26, 25 November 2019 98.153.164.154 talk 3,179 bytes +12 . undo curprev 20:25, 25 November 2019 Kansari123 talk contribs 3,167 bytes -148 undothank Tag: section blanking curprev 20:25, 25 November 2019 98.153.164.154 talk 3,315 bytes -12 . undo curprev 20:25, 25 November 2019 Kansari123 talk contribs 3,327 bytes -107 undothank Tag: section blanking curprev 20:24, 25 November 2019 Kansari123 talk contribs 3,434 bytes +108 undothank curprev 20:22, 25 November 2019 Kansari123 talk contribs 3,326 bytes +148 undothank
While there is no such thing as a perfect school, the drawbacks referenced here are biased and created to make the school in a poor light undeservedly.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My version have been repeatedly reverted without proper reasoning on t/p. No reasoning has been given after I was done with article overhauling. Following are problems with current and old version:
If some editor can look into matter then it will be great help. -- Harshil want to talk? 11:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)