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 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | → | Archive 85 |
In this article Shakespeare Authorship Question this sentence in the lede states two opinions as facts:
I propose modifying this sentence by the addition of this text, to turn it from a statement of fact in Wikipedia voice, which is a violation of NPOV, into a a statement of the scholarly consensus:
For the first clause, the whole article is really a discussion of different theories about whether such direct evidence exists for other candidates. And the article only touches on four of the possible candidates, there are dozens of others: List of Shakespeare authorship candidates.
For the second clause, there is an active academic debate among mainstream scholars on the issue. Please see this RS on the subject in an academic journal: Shakespeare Authorship Doubt in 1593, ROSALIND BARBER, Critical Survey, Vol. 21, No. 2, Questioning Shakespeare (2009), pp. 83-110 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41556314
In addition, this sentence violates NPOV by stating an opinion as fact:
I propose modifying it:
This is an active issue of debate among mainstream scholars --independent of the Shakespeare Authorship Question -- and opinions differ sharply. Please see this sentence from a well-respected mainstream scholar: https://blog.oup.com/2015/12/shakespeare-holinsheds-chronicles/
These are small issues, but since this is such a high profile article, I think we should scrupulously adopt NPOV, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Kfein ( talk) 17:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Note of clarification: There are three separate issues here, three separate statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Each needs to be decided independently. I just put them together into one post for convenience. Kfein ( talk) 17:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Erik Satie was an eccentric composer who was reported to have eaten a diet of only white foods. I have found at least six reliable sources that mention this. There has been a discussion on the talk-page already but no agreement.
I added these sources to the article (several reliable books) but they were removed several times. Also I recently found this: Among the many eccentricities of the French composer Erik Satie was his diet confined to white foods – eggs, sugar, shredded bones, the fat of dead animals, coconuts, chicken cooked in white water, rice, cheese (white varieties) and certain kinds of fish (without their skin). Satie thought that white foods got him into the mood for musical compositions that were unimpassioned and lucid". ( Steven Shapin. You are what you eat’: historical changes in ideas about food and identity) That is a peer-reviewed paper in the Historical Research journal from 2014.
The content stating that Satie ate a diet of white foods was removed. Reason's listed by user Francis Schonken have been because the sources are a "minority view", are "superstitious", "credulous" or not-neutral. I believe this is not the case. All the sources I cited have been reliable secondary sources that merely point out Satie ate a diet of white foods. I have documented these sources on the talk-page. [1].
I just want to point out, apart from being well sourced, the only content I now want to add on this article is a single line [2]. Hardly controversial but it was also removed. My suggestion is that the content is restored and we can also use the Shapin paper above. What is the consensus view on this? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Two days ago, the editor Gandydancer edited a section on the Bernie Sanders page where he removed all RS content that disputed that the media was biased against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election, but kept all the content that says "yes, the media was anti-Bernie". The editor justified these edits by claiming that he was only trimming a long article, but this was a very strange way of doing so, given that he removed overview academic assessments of media bias in the 2016 election, but kept mundane minutiae, such as Democracy Now! complaining about media bias on one occasion, a non-academic report on media bias that exclusively covered 2015 (rather than the whole primary) and a statement by the NY Times ombudsperson. Earlier today, I tried to add four sentences [3] for the sake of balance and NPOV, which exclusively cited peer-reviewed academic research assessments (A Princeton University Press book on the 2016 election [4] and a Palgrave book on the 2016 election [5]) and a report by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center [6], but this was immediately reverted by Gandydancer. [7] For simplicity's sake, here are three questions:
This seems to me to be a pretty clear NPOV violation. Not only is one particular view scrubbed from the page, but the views in question that were removed were those found in peer-reviewed research (which "are usually the most reliable sources" per the RS guidelines) whereas the views kept were a hodgepodge of minutiae from lower quality sources. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I honestly think both of you might want to step away from this topic for a while. You've already both brought your bickering to numerous noticeboards and started a talkpage section purely for personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 02:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
In the article, the Russian scientific community is referred to as foreign - although it is not foreign since the archaeological objects of this state are located on the territory of Russia.
In addition, his position is very distorted in favor of the point of view of the South Korean. In particular, a certain Petrov is presented as an expert, who is not a Russian scientist - although he is an ethnic Russian and was once a Russian student - but works in Australia and has never had anything to do with excavations or official Russian science.
At the same time, the position of such a universally recognized authority as Shakunov Ernest Vladimirovich is very distorted. Ignored all of his work proving that this state is Tungus-Manchurian and not Korean. Which is the official position of Russian science.
The words are distorted - when the text says that "there was some influence of Korean fine art and architecture" the article says that it is "Most Russian archaeologists and scholars describe Balhae as a kingdom of displaced Goguryeo people." Although this is not true, the statement "In relations with Japan, Balhae referred to itself as Goguryeo, and Japan welcomed this as a kind of restoration of its former friendly relationship with Goguryeo." and it’s not at all backed by valid references to official Russian science.
All attempts to fix this are met with fierce resistance from Korean users and the provocation of war on their part.
Wikipedia does not reflect the real position of Russian science even in the article on positions. In addition, it distorts their position and status to the position of a country that allegedly does not have a scientific school and material - although this South Korean side has no archaeological material. Since on its territory this state has never been. In the DPRK and China, they are not allowed to dig. And in Russia they are allowed only under Russian patronage as a workforce. And this is South Korea a foreign country in relation to Bohai. 185.17.129.116 ( talk) 01:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks again for the speedy response to my previous post.
This is a new question: The genealogist (Valdes) who is quoted in the article had two theories of the Queen’s ancestry. Only one is referenced by Wikipedia. If I were to contribute his other one, (re-phrased to avoid copyright infringement), and provide proper citations, would this, too, likely be removed to keep the section short? Thank you for your attention. 2605:A601:A1A8:CD00:3114:55B1:F1CE:5A61 ( talk) 03:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The article Ethnocide of Uyghurs in China was created over the last month by a host of new SPAs. It seems to largely be a re-hashing of Xinjiang conflict and Xinjiang re-education camps with a large introduction to ethnocide, but with large tracts of unreferenced content and some potential POV & synthesis elements. Would appreciate if someone helped take a look at this large new article. — MarkH21 talk 07:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The Institute of National Remembrance is Poland's national institute for commemoration and lustration of World War II and Communist-era crimes. It's been politicized in different times for different purposes, something we write about in the criticism section. Some recent additions to that section (not by me, but I think they're interesting) instigated a minor edit war, and I've asked for PP and invited editors to discuss. Only a couple of editors accepted the invitation; I'm inviting uninvolved editors to join in and opine [11] before PP expires and we're thrust back to the same place. François Robere ( talk) 17:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Ongoing WP:PROMOTION and puffery featuring a massive list of non-notable TV shows as part of a TV producer's WP:RESUME relentlessly curated by SPA's over time. Tried to clean it up years ago, but it didn't stick. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The piece presents only positives regarding the individual's public career. Examples- 1- No mention of the tremendous upset in the Armenian-American community regarding her Congressional testimony ;largely downplaying the Armenian Genocide. 2- Analysis of her Congressional testimony in Fall (Oct-Nov) 2019 contains only Democratic Representative questions and viewpoints with NO REPUBLICAN questioning at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwest57 ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This dispute arises from Economic policy of Donald Trump talk, where I claimed and back with facts evidence from other articles that Economic policy of Donald Trump was not Neutral and seemed to be more on the criticism side. At the end an administrator claimed that my tag and neutrality clam was not warranted. Even after I present many facts and quotes from other Wikipedia article dealing with similar subjects, which all had been written in a neutral point of view (except Economic policy of Donald Trump article). I will admit that after the administrator removed the tag, I put the same tag back on but because I thought that the article needed more consideration. I will provide the dispute discussion but would suggest you go and read the article first and then read the dispute discussion. Talk page link /info/en/?search=Economic_policy_of_Donald_Trump
BigRed606 ( talk) 00:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
It is in my opinion that the article about Economics Policy’s of Donald Trump sounds like a criticism article about his economics policies and not a article explaining about his economic policies. Personally I would like a couple other administrators look at it. Because if you read Economic policy of Donald Trump and the read Economic policy of the Barack Obama administration and compare the two, you find out that the Economics Policy’s of Donald Trump is not neutral. BigRed606 ( talk) 00:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The /info/en/?search=Complex_post-traumatic_stress_disorder article section "Arguments Against Complex PTSD Diagnosis" is written in a different style than the rest of the article and in my opinion from a biased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.178.187 ( talk) 21:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Douma chemical attack ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Extended discussion about what constitutes neutrality on this article and talk page. Additional eyeballs would be appreciated. VQuakr, 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template.
This did not open with a particular focus on NPoV concerns, but has turned that way (in short, whether colorful/flashy quotation templates pose a WP:UNDUE problem, or are simply a harmless layout choice like colored backgrounds in infoboxes). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Salfit Governorate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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 user in question appears to have a conflict of interest with respect to certain types of diets. Of note:
WP:DUCK makes me strongly wonder whether this editor has a conflict of interest in writing more positive articles on animal-free diets and removing articles that discuss diets that include animals. Bringing up concern about the edit warring brought this response which included accusations of bringing the concerns about edit warring in bad faith, accusations of being a meat puppet, and that I was a "high-up friend on Wikipedia" roped into trying to get this editor banned (which is, as far as I know, not one of the generally handed down punishments from edit warring, usually that is just a time-out at worst.) -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 01:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
This is pure harassment from Mr. Vernon.
No it is not absurd. Look at the facts. BecomeFree a banned sock-puppet has spammed my username off-site on carnivore diet communities to harass me. Before yesterday nobody cared or had heard of my username, then these troll threads were created and my username put all over social media platforms.
The above links were found by Guy Macon [15]. You only returned yesterday to Wikipedia after nearly two years silence and those threads were made yesterday. You are a carnivore diet proponent and you want to have me banned because you think I am a biased vegan. You have singled me out because you were told to do so. I get it, but I am not a vegan, anyone can see that from my editing. I do not have any conflict of interest. I have written about all kinds of historical people. They are all reliably sourced. I have created around 80 articles. Only 3 of them were animal rights activists.
Here is the comment [16] and here Is there some way to report Psychologist Guy for removing this? Not to try to ban the guy but to get someone higher up to at least have a look and reverse what this ideologue is doing. Maybe put some restrictions on Psychologist Guy as well so he quits spreading bullshit. Your SPI and admin report failed, so now you are doing it here. You have some deep grudge and you want to restrict my account like your off-site buddies asked you to. I am not further responding to this. It's bullshit. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't claim to be an expert on theology, but a lot of the wording in this article comes off as very "in-universe".
Understanding helps one relate all truths to one's supernatural purpose
Counsel functions as a sort of supernatural intuition, to enable a person to judge promptly and rightly, especially in difficult situations
The gift of knowledge allows one, as far as is humanly possible, to see things from God's perspective.
I mean, it's one thing to describe what Francis or Aquinas have written or said, but this seems to go a bit far in using Wikipedia's voice to describe the supernatural as things rather than as beliefs. Thought? GMG talk 14:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This regards the article at the address en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucille_Eichengreen.
It contains the passage, "... the Jews became exposed to growing reprisals by the Nazis as well as insults and assaults by the local population."
The word "reprisals" presupposes some prior antagonistic action or actions by the Jewish population toward the wider German society. No such action is described in the article, and it is widely accepted that no such action was ever committed.
Suggestion: that the word "reprisals" be replaced by "attacks" in the interests of grammatical and historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.196 ( talk) 13:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The mission = parameter (and some synonyms) were deprectaed from {{ infobox organization}} some time ago, citing WP:MISSION. This was not carried forward into cloned templates such as {{ Infobox institute}}, where often-Orwellian statements are still being included as a matter of course. I have proposed deprecation at Template talk:Infobox institute. Guy ( help!) 12:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Is the inclusion of the "ideological Turing test" in the infobox of Bryan Caplan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article appropriate? RfC at talk:Bryan Caplan. Guy ( help!) 13:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
A user made a request for edits at this article. The issue seems to be an issue related to society in England, India, and South Africa.
Can someone please respond to the user's request? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Please participate in Talk:Tucker Carlson#RFC on MMfA white supremacy timeline where the reliability of a Media Matters for America primary source list of 192 statements by Tucker Carlson since 2004, and a Salon interview with its author, along with the quality of the list itself, have been called into question with both sides strongly opposed, with accusations of a lack of good faith and misleading partisan bias. EllenCT ( talk) 04:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#NPOV issue: "Local residents" about how to summarise the incidents surrounding the Death of Luo Changqing in the main article 2019-20 Hong Kong protests. Participation from editors who do not have a prior involvement with this issue would be greatly appreciated. Deryck C. 12:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm engaged in an ongoing dispute on Neera Tanden's page. A number of editors have stonewalled against the addition of any content critical of the article subject. While revised content that addresses the substance of some of the criticism has been proposed, it has not been allowed to be integrated to the article. The parties opposed to the proposed additions have not proposed ways of including such topics with a more neutral point of view. In short, I feel that content critical or unfavorable to the subject isn't being allowed to be integrated in any form.
Furthermore, two Single-purpose accounts are engaged in the editing and consensus process Bewildered_Oregonian and User1956a. The second account, User1959a, appears to be engaged in canvassing by sending notifications only to users who have agreed with them in the past. I'm hesitant to call for a sockpuppet investigation because some of the other editors are clearly dedicated editors who simply disagree with me and the other editors.
Jonathan Williams ( talk) 18:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The Tanden Wikipedia page is constantly being vandalized. Without this constant vandalism, I would spend less time editing it and could focus more on other topics! Negative Informationen, such as that added by Jonathan Williams yesterday about the 2018 Buzzfeed article has been included, because is is sourced in relevant and mainstream media sources, unlike anything pertaining to the Libya controversy. The information he wants to add about the Libya email comes from partisan fringe sources with a vendetta. Users other than me, two of which have longer edit histories than me, have pointed this out to him. It is incorrect that no negative information is being included, but the argument is the negative information here does not merit inclusion, particularly in her political views section, because it cannot be established that a single email from almost a decade ago represents her views. User1956a ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
(restart indent) According to WP:BALASP, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."
The Libya "controversy" has been controversial in partisan sources only, probably because Glenn Greenwald's claim Tanden wrote "emails" (plural) "arguing that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues to repay the U.S." is hogwash, based on a single email by Tanden, responding to a thread "Re: Should Libya pay us back?" that "having oil rich countries partially pay us back doesn't seem crazy to me." [17] That one comment, made in 2011 in private email made public by Wikileaks, has never been controversial in any RS because, quite simply, there's nothing there. Some of Tanden's other Wikileaked (and embarrassing) comments are in the article, and nobody has sanitized them out of it.
Critics of Tanden and CAP have repeatedly removed descriptions of them as "liberal" or "progressive" -- even though RS typically refer to them as "liberal" or "progressive." I also haven't seen an argument that adding a controversy section, which is deprecated by WP:CRITS, is appropriate in this article, is there such an argument? The editors described above as SPAs are simply new editors, and we should engage with their arguments, not bite them. HouseOfChange ( talk) 06:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
User1956a continues to remove factual, sourced, and unbiased information about Neera Tanden. How interesting...
I maintain that the above user, who is making edits like like wrt Tanden https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/941634069 is not providing factual or NPOV information about her, and personal attacks on me aren’t helpful. I support adding the section HouseOfChange has proposed to clarify the Tanden article, what I don’t support is repeated attempts to vandalize the page or make Wikipedia speak with the voice of online Tanden haters. User1956a ( talk) 22:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
actually i have provided plenty of valid factual npov information, despite my first edit on wikipedia being a clear joke. like this: In 2008, Neera Tanden encountered criticism when she pushed Faiz Shakir, a reporter who asked Neera Tanden a question about Hillary Clinton and the Iraq War. (source:obeserver) whats wrong with this information user1956a? -jomalleyp
The article at Jack Posobiec has been the subject of a NPOV dispute since 2017. A lengthy discussion at Talk:Jack_Posobiec#NPOV_dispute_added did not appear to reach any consensus. Here are the two primary issues with the article:
1. The article has a section specifically dedicated to listing the subject's political activities, which also happens to take up half of the page. It makes the page look like a "shit-list" to ridicule the subject of the article. At this point the page isn't an objective biography, but rather a subjective borderline attack page in my opinion.
2. The lead section reads like whoever wrote it has something against Posobiec. See the discussion I added in August 2017 at Talk:Jack_Posobiec/Archive_1#Proposed_changes. It very clearly fails WP:LABEL and other editors, for whatever reason, seem to be against noting that Posobiec has denied and rejected the label of "alt-right". This was done in a now deleted tweet that I can't figure out a way to access.
Can you find any other article that reads like this one does? I mean, it's just straight up not neutral. CatcherStorm talk 05:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Another comment - see the lead of Alex Jones "Jones has described himself as a conservative, paleoconservative and libertarian, terms he uses interchangeably. Others describe him as conservative, right-wing, alt-right, and far-right." They very clearly take into account the subject's perspective, something that this article does not do. CatcherStorm talk 08:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
far-right conspiracy theorist. If you think the lede to Alex Jones' article is acceptable, it's unclear why you don't think that is appropriate in the lede of Jack Posobiec's article. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
It was removed under section nine of the non-free content policy, which I find to be odd. Regardless, I will paraphrase the quotes in question. For reference the article in question is located here. Here is my undeleted rationale:
1. The author of the column, Jonathan Valania, is demonstrably a left-leaning author shown by his contributions to Philly Mag. He has repeatedly covered topics with a left-leaning agenda, as seen at this article he wrote praising the anti-Trump "resistance".
2. The title of the column labels Posobiec as "the king of fake news", which is quite obviously an opinion.
3. The subtitle of the column labels Posobiec as "the Trump troll the Internet loves to hate". Again, very clearly an opinion. Rationales 4 and 5, which were deleted, are as follows:
4. See this screenshot of the quote in question. The author begins the column like he's telling a story. If that paragraph wasn't enough to convince you, see below.
5. Take a look at this screenshot, where the author calls Posobiec a slew of names.
Clearly demonstrates an unreliable source due to bias. CatcherStorm talk 03:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: The discussion listed at
WP:DRN was closed since this discussion is more active. Copy and pasting another issue regarding editor conduct on this page I have below:
Here is the edit history of the page. When I restructured the list section into prose, I was immediately reverted by Grayfell and accused of "whitewashing" - something that this user seems to have done in the past before, which violates WP:AGF. Furthermore, even though the article has been the subject of NPOV disputes and quite obviously still is, editors continue to remove the POV dispute tag from the article. Volunteer Marek frequently cites WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a Wikipedia essay, as rationale for removing the NPOV template. Seems to imply that he thinks whoever has an issue with the tone of this article (I'm not the only one) is only putting it there because they are fans of Posobiec and are editing to make him look better. The NPOV template was put there because it is blatantly under dispute. CatcherStorm talk 05:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
CatcherStorm, you wrote: "Clearly demonstrates an unreliable source due to bias." No, bias is not how we determine the reliability of a source. It's perfectly possible for both left- and right-wing sources that are fairly close to center to have a clear bias without becoming counterfactual. When the bias of sources becomes extreme, that is when it affects their reliability. Bias alone is not what determines reliability. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources can still be biased or use opinionated wording in reference to subjects; when they do so, their wording should be acknowledged based on due weight but should nevertheless be counted as an opinion. "Internet troll" is ultimately a judgment made by certain journalists and columnists and therefore should be attributed per WP:WIKIVOICE. Note that WP:WIKIVOICE applies even if the opinion judgment is a very well-reasoned judgment that most editors would agree with, as can be seen from the example in the policy about the morality of genocide. Jancarcu ( talk) 20:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I’m away from my computer so I will provide a full length response when I get back in around 5 hours from the time I posted this comment, but I am going to page everyone who responded above: @ Jancarcu:, @ Bullrangifer:, @ Someguy1221:, @ Grayfell:, @ JzG:. The issue we were discussing was the inclusion of that source and its use 14 times throughout the article to characterize the subject of the article. Now that I’ve read everyone’s responses, it’s becoming clearer to me that you guys think that there is absolutely zero problem with the tone of this article and how it is written, nor can you understand or see why anyone would object to the content in this article and how it is written. I invite each and everyone of you to lay your political affiliation aside and read the entire article. If you STILL think that the article is perfect the way it is, then say so below. CatcherStorm talk 22:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Needs discussion I would like to officially identify the issues regarding the article and begin to move towards proposing changes. My primary concerns are: the list structure of the political activities section, and the attribution of certain labels in the lead section (might need to be wholly reworked) as Wikivoice.
CatcherStorm [[User
white supremacistis an acceptable label because it factually describes a person's beliefs; it just so happens to make the subject sound bad because it gives the reader facts that would make most readers think the subject is bad. This does, indeed, create a level of editorial discretion, but all policies and principles require editorial discretion, which can be achieved here by hashing this out via local consensus. Jancarcu ( talk) 21:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
provokes others (chiefly on the Internet) for their own personal amusement or to cause disruption. [1] Given that the writers of the sources could not actually see inside Posobiec's brain, their opinion that he is an internet troll is based on their subjective judgment that he is obnoxious. Furthermore, even if you could turn "troll" into a factual label, it would still carry a bunch of baggage as a slang term. To call a BLP an internet troll is un-encyclopedic and biased. Jancarcu ( talk) 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
If it's necessary to state that he claimed the label, it would seem necessary to state that he has stated he's ceased the behavior as well, as that's recorded by secondary sources. For something requiring that much nuanced discussion, it would seem inappropriate to leave it in the lead.
About the Third Opinon request: A Third Opinion request about this discussion has been removed (i.e. declined) because Third Opinions are only for discussions between exactly two editors. There are many more than two involved in this discussion. If additional dispute resolution is needed, consider filing at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or file a Request for Comments at the article talk page. Be sure to thoroughly read and comply with all instructions at those processes. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)
There is a motion at the talk page to reinstate the NPOV tag to the top of the article or at least the political activities section. Template documentation states that the template should be there if there is a serious issue identified with the pov of the article, and based off of the lengthy discussion listed here there is very clearly an issue identified. I would reinstate it myself but other editors have continued to insta-revert the tag citing a "fringe viewpoint" in terms of NPOV, when this discussion clearly shows otherwise. CatcherStorm talk 02:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment so far, this looks like a one versus many dispute. If that continues to be the case, there is no justification whatever in restoring the tag. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I have to largely agree with Masem and CatcherStorm on what they've said here. While the opposition makes a few small correct points as well, they're basically trivial, side-stepping the larger question. It is not okay for us to write up a hatchet-job on someone, even if various discrete facts in the piece can be verified, and even if the majority of WP's editorship and probably even its readership would like to pretend there's no problem due to their distaste for the subject (and the ease with which a far-right conspiracy theorist can be mocked). Sculpting a condemnatory article (with just enough CYA wiggle room to not get sanctioned for blatant PoV-pushing) is WP:GAMING the system and basically a drawn-out example of the ad hominem fallacy; it's just poor writing to resort to that, especially when the facts speak for themselves no matter how you lay them out. And, no, it is not okay to cite an opinion piece (well, rant) that calls the subject a "toxic ... dirty-trick ... ratfucker" as if it is a reliable source.
Two+ years is too long for an NPoV dispute this basic to be going on. If this NPOVN doesn't resolve it, then I would suggest a series of RfCs, neutrally "advertised" at
WT:NPOV,
WT:BLP,
WP:VPPOL, and specifically grounded in NPOV and
WP:NOT#ADVOCACY policy. Start with lead cleanup, including presentation of his own self-description along with the third-party labeling, as at the
Alex Jones article. Then another RfC to convert the "shitlist" into a proper prose section;
MOS:PROSE wants that anyway. If this noticeboard doesn't have the collective will to resolve the overall matter, perhaps because of "too many asks" at once, break them up into discrete yes/no issues to resolve, and ensure editors from outside the subject-area's "regulars" are drawn
neutrally to the discussion.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I will be requesting an RfC on this discussion soon. CatcherStorm talk 13:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
This article has been the subject of NPOV disputes since late 2017. As of February 22, 2020 the primary concerns being raised are with the political activities section (specifically how it is in list format, and not prose) and use of contentious labeling in wikivoice.
CatcherStorm
talk 01:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I would like to dispute the addition of a picture added by CharlesShirley on 03:40, 19 November 2019. (See View History). He replaced the official picture from my campaign website electjudgerichardson.com to the wikipedia page "Bert Richardson (judge)" with a picture that is clearly edited/photoshopped to be unflattering. This was done during very contentious election campaigns between myself and my opponent. I have taken the picture down several times only to have CharlesShirley replace it shortly after. I have since replaced the edited photo submitted by CharlesShirley by the official photo from the campaign website. CharlesShirley is clearly not one of my fans (as made apparent in his comments regarding one of my prior judgements on 03:44, 19 November 2019 and 17:14, 8 October 2019) which is completely fine. Nevertheless, the posting of and the site's use of unflattering photos for candidates running for election/reelection amidst their campaigns renders any such page to be non-neutral. It's also a mean thing to do. It is my understanding that Wikipedia's policy and mission is to remain an unbiased source of information and knowledge. I believe that these kinds of things violates Wikipedia's ideals and purpose.
Respectfully, Bert Richardson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BertRichardson ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The article, while mostly factually correct, has bias in language. It very cleverly hides the violence initiated by Muslim groups as 'mob' action, while it spares no opportunity to blame Hindu groups or BJP by calling them out. It does mention that the CAA was seen by Muslims as Anti-Muslim, and hence the reader is supposed to understand that the sit-outs and attacks on killing of police officers, who tried to break open the various road occupations for days, was done by angry Muslim mobs. The mob violence (actually acts of defense) committed by Hindu groups was in retaliation only when the Muslim mob would go around destroying property and people. It is easy to understand who would lose control first if they are already filled with anger at the CAA passage. However, when one reads the article, one comes out with an impression that 'poor' Muslims were oppressed and Hindu mobs went around burning and killing. My sister lives in that same area, and she told me that the perpetrators were Muslim gangs who came from outside Delhi, including illegal Bangladeshi's, who had nothing to lose, did the arsons and killings and then conveniently ran away. So even if there are CCTV images, these folks would be hard to find. The article missed stating the above fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManuPrakash52 ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. I'm skeptical that WP:NPOV policy is being properly employed by some of the respondents there, who seem to be taking the RM (fast on the heels of a WP:DRV-overturned attempt to delete the page entirely) as an opportunity to engage in social activism. As another commenter there said, these antics could (if they gutted or ghettoized WP's article on the subject) effectively cede public mindshare control of this topic to alt-right media – the worst kind of back-fire that could happen about a subject like this. WP has a responsibility to cover the matter and to do it properly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
There are significant NPOV issues with the PJ Media page, in particular using SPLC as a source when SPLC is in fact one of the entities on which PJ Media has reported extensively. This is a clear issue of neutral point of view. Charlie (Colorado) ( talk) 23:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to publicize my request for comment on the generative grammar article. I am concerned that a section entitled "Lack of evidence" is polemical doesn't accurately describe criticisms of this field. I have similar concerns about the lede. I have raised these concerns on the article's talk page, but the editor who added the material hasn't been willing to engage with them substantively. Botterweg14 ( talk) 00:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. Levivich dubious – discuss 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy#Request for comment regarding the removal of three words from the lead of the article. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 22:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I do not think the first sentence of this article is appropriate: "The Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study in Greifswald (in German: Alfried Krupp Wissenschaftskolleg Greifswald) is an institute for advanced study named after Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, the convicted criminal against humanity. ". This article is about the Institute, not about the person for whom it is named. It's true that this person was one whose memory many people might feel was not appropriate to honor in this way. The way to say this in a Wikipedia article is not to editorialize, especially not in the lede sentence, but, if there are discussions or protests that are reported in reliable sources, to include content about them. (And It could also be mentioned in the article about the person--I am certainly not arguing to suppress the information) I changed it, but Hyrdlak changed it back. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a serious issue, but I wanted to call attention to Category:All articles with a promotional tone. This backlog has 25,000 articles in it, and I need some other editors to help me clear it. Thanks, King of Scorpions 15:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Middle East Forum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like it was almost entirely written by supporters. But see a recent discussion at RSN [21], a NYT article a few days ago [22], etc as well as articles about its head and founder Daniel Pipes, eg [23]. In fact Pipes article is also a problem with a lead that doesn't mention criticism and text that doesn't mention the SPLC's criticism, only the removal of an article criticising it (I've posted a short note to Talk:Daniel Pipes. No criticism in Middle East Quarterly either. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif . Does inclusion of the image of a controversial book cover in the Ezra Taft Benson article constitute a NPOV violation? Epachamo ( talk) 03:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I’m not an official user of Wikipedia so I’m not sure if this is the right place to do this but I recently came upon many articles calling Crimea “occupied” and the events there as an “illegal occupation”. Now while I entirely agree with that statement personally, as soon as I saw that it bothered me that Wikipedia articles were not being neutral on this topic. As far as I have seen before Wikipedia exclusively called the events in Crimea an annexation and referred to the peninsula as annexed and disputed. Those terms are very neutral in nature, and so I embarked on replacing the non-neutral occupied with either disputed and annexed, or simply by removing it where it is not necessary at all (where it solely seemed to refer to the geographic location, like in airline articles). However I have now noticed two users, namely Toddy1 and Koncorde, replacing it back to the non-neutral occupied saying that it was me who was POV pushing. In many of those reversions Toddy1 even said that I was imposing the POV of the Russian government. I couldn’t believe it when I read that as that is absolutely ridiculous as I am fairly sure the POV of the Russian government is that Crimea is simply Russian territory that had reunified with the country. However just as that statement wouldn’t be neutral, neither is calling it occupied. Thankfully in one of those incidents, a user named Beaumain once again reverted their reversions saying that I was indeed more neutral. I really hope that something could done about keeping those article neutral. Thank you!-- 72.141.150.236 ( talk) 02:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The question is "Should the lede include an infographic (e.g. bar graph, pie chart, map) based on the 2011 census?" [24] Khirurg ( talk) 17:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I am an OTRS volunteer. In October 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation legal team received an inquiry from a journalist who expressed concern about some articles that may have experienced subtle whitewashing. The journalist's analysis is reproduced here, with permission:
We found evidence of what seems to appear to be organised editing happening to convey a pro-China stance on several pages of Wikipedia, both English language and Chinese. Some example topics include the recent Hong Kong protests (where changes in language have varied from the protestors being labelled as such or as rioters), Tiananmen Square (where the numbers killed are in dispute, and actions by the government are described as stopping the unrest to quell counter revolutionary riots and stabilising the domestic situation) and territories such as Taiwan and Senkaku Islands are suggested as being part of China. Similarly language changes are used to question the status of Tibet and the Dalai Lama. While the edits may involve nuanced edits, taken as a whole they help to change the way a situation is viewed.
The journalist included this list of articles to be evaluated by the community for neutrality or bias tampering:
Due to the time passed since the original communication with Legal, it's possible that the problems have been cleared up. I'm posting this here to get some more eyes on these articles, and correct any remaining bias if found. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
DRI Capital is probably one of the most blatantly promotional articles I have ever seen. It has a whole suggestion full of buzzwords explaining how you can make money from the company. I'm not proposing to delete it, as it a genuine fund manager, but does anyone have any suggestions on how it could obtain a bit more of a neutral point of view? — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕ Contribs 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I started an RfC about a week ago at Talk:Project Veritas#RfC on motives for targeting ACORN and, since no one has commented since then, wanted to post a neutral notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. Although this is the only WikiProject listed at Talk:Project Veritas, I'm concerned this may be perceived as canvassing. Can someone here please give me guidance on whether such a notification would be appropriate? (Disclosure: I work for Project Veritas.) Sal at PV ( talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I have a current disagreement with an editor about the article on Sani Abacha. There seem to be a pro military slant but with poor sources. The issues are WP:V in this diff [25], concerning the use of statesman without incline citation. Then this section using an opinion piece without a reliable secondary source [26] WP:PRIMARY. Lastly, this is poorly sourced [27]. I am close or within 3RR and that is usually my limit but will like someone to take a look at the issues. Alexplaugh12 ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Personal intro: Anyone can go back through the less than 100 edits, and verify I added favorable information ( here, for example), which still remains in the article. You can view the article Talk page where I have tried to start discussions. Trying to support notability, I added a couple less than reliable sources [28], which were later removed (rightfully). I fixed one of those by finding a better source. [29] I have made small corrections to better capture what sources actually said. I have undone my own edits to remove things I added, to be consistent with lessons learned from a "advertisement" Speedy Delete by JzG of another article I created. [30] [31]
Issues: (1) Should the article on fact-checking sites Climate/Health/Science Feedback be whitewashed of all criticism, or should mentions of criticisms or mention of a censure for violating the Code of Principles of the "certifying" organization be included? I have added both favorable and unfavorable coverage to the article, but other editors persistently remove even the slightest mentions of criticism, leaving only favorable statements. (2) Is the certifying organization, Poynter/IFCN, "independent" secondary, or "primary" source as Snooganssnoogans' edit summary said when removing criticism in bulk? Note: This was after I already significantly shortened it, after User Talk page discussions with JzG and Newslinger. (3) Should any of the involved editors be given "discretionary sanctions" for conduct?
Background: Climate/Health/Science Feedback are websites, with a browser plugin available, that publish fact-checking reviews online for at least two (broad, multi-disciplinary) areas of science, using volunteer PhD reviewers, with summaries being written by an "editor." It's not clear how many, if any, "editors" are paid staff, versus volunteers. Climate Feedback was started around 2015, and Health Feedback was started around fall 2018. Note ClimateFeedback.org's and HealthFeedback.org's "about" links both go to sciencefeedback.co/about/. These sites are joined at the hip, or at Emmanuel Vincent, who sometimes also writes articles or what some would call posts. Brief summaries are posted both on Science Feedback website, and on Climate or Health Feedback websites, with links to follow back to those sites for more detailed summaries, and Science Feedback site adds (infrequent?) "news & events" summaries posted on ScienceFeedback.co. It is one operation with (at least) 3 websites.
Also, Climate [32] [33]/Health [34]/Science [35] Feedback posts about Poynter or IFCN. Poynter/IFCN posts about C/H/S Feedback. [36] [37] [38] It starts to be unclear who is the publisher/promoter, and who is the "independent" certification or fact-checking organization.
Other interesting relationships, and coverage, or lack of, in WP: Poynter Institute runs the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which annually "certifies" organizations like Climate/Health/Science Feedback (for a fee). Poynter and IFCN also publish newsletter articles or posts. Poynter operates Politifact, but that fact is not mentioned in the Poynter article (where Politifact is mentioned once). Three (of 15) sources in Climate Feedback are from Poynter/IFCN.
Collapse edits and interactions history, and difficult editing environment comments by Yae4
|
---|
Details of some edits and interactions history: Snooganssnoogans started the article called Climate Feedback in late December 2018. Six weeks later, Citrivescence added the Notability Tag, rightfully. In my opinion, it then looked like a short advertisement. It looks like a longer advertisement today. A few months later, Emvincent, who has a username resembling Climate/Health/Science Feedback's founder, Emmanual Vincent, removed the Notability Tag, and added a couple sources, in April 2019. With one exception, in article edits, EmVincent has only spread Climate Feedback info to articles. One of those sources he added is published by Facebook, is all about Facebook, and only lists "Science Feedback" the parent organization of Climate Feedback in a short line in a pulldown list, under United States; According to Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network, the "certification" review organization, Science Feedback non-profit is registered in France, not in USA (but Vincent is located in California, according to this blog post, so the inconsistency is understandable). The second source added by EmVincent, an Axios post has published a "Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Science Feedback does not have a website." Climate/Health/Science Feedback ARE website operations, centered on ScienceFeedback.co, so this was an appalling error by Axios IMO. Axios general reliability is currently being discussed. This was brought up in January on Talk:Climate_Feedback#Axios_as_a_reliable_source? as a question, with essentially zero discussion occuring - Snooganssnoogans responsed, "Axios is fine." In January I was undecided; now I consider Axios to be generally unreliable, and somewhat better than a Twitter feed. Newslinger created a redirect from Science Feedback to Climate Feedback on October 6, 2019, and added Climate Feedback to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources list on October 16, 2019, saying, it "is a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change" and "Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." I seriously question these statements, because (by my count) only about 16 editors participated, with about 9 clearly favoring, 4 with mixed opinions, 2 opposing, and 1 only commenting without a clear opinion stated. I brought it up on RSPS noticeboard, but the discussion was about other blogs, and Climate/Health/Science Feedback was not really discussed. Health Feedback is still a red link. JzG aka Guy advised attribution for Axios, because they are "with an agenda." [39] So, I added attributions. Snooganssnoogans latest edits removed all Axios attributions, and removed source details, and every bit of criticism. This includes the mention of the fact that (the month before Wikipedia added Climate Feedback to the Reliable Source Perennial Source list), they were censured: Source
JzG has done similar, a couple times claiming these are "a different site." Other conduct creating or worsening a "difficult" editing environment: JzG has thrown personal attacks in this article's edit summaries. Snooganssnoogans has thrown personal attacks and accusations in this article's edit summaries. Snooganssnoogans has attacked my integrity in previous Noticeboards and retracted it (see stricken paragraph). -- Yae4 ( talk) 00:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC) |
The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback.( Detailed ARTICLE on an INVESTIGATION into conduct)
Collapse off topic and
WP:BLUDGEON responses by Yae4
|
---|
|
Collapse off topic and
WP:BLUDGEON responses by Yae4
|
---|
|
Collapse off topic and
WP:BLUDGEON responses by Yae4
|
---|
|
-- Yae4 ( talk) 11:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback.( Detailed ARTICLE on an INVESTIGATION into conduct)
There is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among film fan editors that films can have plot summaries based on personal observations of the movie, with no sources cited. This is usually unproblematic but we have an increasing number of articles on movies whose plot is blatantly dishonest (e.g. Vaxxed, Unplanned, Death of a Nation (2018 film)). In some cases (Vaxxed being an obvious example) we do not fall for this. In others ( God's Not Dead (film) for example) we do. Am I the only one who thinks this is a problem? WP:NOR is policy, so surely if a plot section is challenged, independent sources become mandatory, as they do for every other piece of content on Wikipedia? Guy ( help!) 00:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
After seeking God's help in church through prayer, Dave eventually realizes that his case has only made things worse and that St. James is not the right church for God and his followers.You could defend something along the lines of "after praying, Dave decides to drop the lawsuit..." or something, but to frame this as "seeking god's help through prayer" is to beg pretty much every question in the movie. Guy ( help!) 11:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
we have an increasing number of articles on movies whose plot is blatantly dishonest
After seeking God's help in church through prayer, Dave eventually realizes that his case has only made things worse and that St. James is not the right church for God and his followers.There might be ways to phrase that better, but I see no POV problem. If that's the story of the film, that's the story of the film. It is not a statement about reality, only an event in the fictional film. The article is not saying God is real any more than the Back to the Future plot summary suggests that time travel is real with statements like "Marty finds himself transported to November 5, 1955". Popcornfud ( talk) 02:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"A small-town girl meets three magical friends and they embark on an incredible journey that ends in a surprise"is not what I would define as simple and objective. El Millo ( talk) 02:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"definitive point-of-view"or
"biased interpretation"out of everything there? El Millo ( talk) 03:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
In the history section of Epirus, between 1204 and the Ottoman conquest, there is a sentence that misrepresents the view of the source it is based on and also distorts the position of its scholar, Konstantinos Giakoumis. After my edits were reverted twice, I would appreciate the intervention of a neutral admin, who can possibly thoroughly read the 12-pages long article of Giakoumis, or at least, the below description and make the necessary changes.
1. Here is the existing sentence of the wiki article (in bold, the words that differ from the source):
2. Here is my 2nd edit that was completely reverted ( [43] and [44])
References
1. A) Nowhere in the article does Giakoumis mention that the Venetian document is the “oldest reference” to Albanians. Instead, he mentions “two documented sources” that also attest the Albanians’ presence in the area, after having mentioned in the previous page “the perennial coexistence of Greek-speaking and Albanian-speaking populations” (quote: The presence of Albanians in the Epeirote lands from the beginning of the thirteenth century is also attested by two documentary sources: the first is a Venetian document of 1210, which states that the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians and the second is letters of the Metropolitan of Naupaktos John Apokaukos to a certain George Dysipati, who was considered to be an ancestor of the famous Shpata family.)
Moreover, he adds 13 Albanian names that are mentioned in an Angevin document of 1304; thus citing 3 references of this people that predate the migrations of the 14th century.
2. B) The subordinate conjunction though (needs a comma before), here used to question the credibility of the above mentioned document and the clause it adds, further implies that a previous migration would be the only way for the document to be true (but that is improbable). Whereas Giakoumis writes (quote from page 176): "Are we obliged to see in this a possible earlier Albanian immigration in the Epeirote lands, as Kostas Komis did in the case of the etymology of the toponym 'Preveza'? I believe that the use of hypothetical immigrations as a basis to interpret sources that indicate the presence of Albanians in the Epeirote lands prior to the thirteenth-fourteenth century is somewhat arbitrary. For it serves the concept of national purity in zones with clear lines of communication, mutual relations (as linguistic research has proved) and common traditions, religion as well as principal language of communication. It is evident that this was the case in a period when co-existence and understanding among people of different nations (in the modern sense of the term) were far better than they are today." Instead of questioning the credibility of the documents, Giakoumis disagrees on using the possible earlier hypothetical migrations, that he sees as serving nationalism (national purity) and stresses on the lines of communication, mutual relations, common traditions and simply put: co-existence.
Even in the very beginning of the article he writes, I quote: "The purpose of this article is to put together recent linguistic and historical studies, in order to challenge the views of 'older' Greek and Albanian scholarship with respect to the presence of a solely Greek or Albanian population in the regions of Epeiros, with specific reference to the district of Dropull in the light of primary sources dealing with the Albanian immigrations of the fourteenth century. It will show that Greek and Albanian-speaking populations had all along been living together in Epeiros, while in the fourteenth century immigrant Albanians migrated into the regions of Gjirokaster."
And in the end he concludes that, I quote: "in the fourteenth century immigrant Albanians taking advantage of the decimation of the local Epeirote population by the Black Death also migrated into the regions of Gjirokaster. Moreover, I suggested that the reactions of local milieux against the new settlers, as expressed by their participation in the campaign of Isau against Gjin Zenebis (1399), should be attributed to the disintegration of the previous local elites rather than to resistence against a 'foreign' invasion."
Thus Albanians seems to have been no foreigners in the area, and the migration is presented as an event that happened due to certain reasons, after a prior presence (all along). The conjunction “though”, used in the sentence of the wikipedia article, gives a disfigured meaning and simply implies that the 14th century migration is actually the first “confirmed” presence of the Albanians in Epirus. An analysis that implies a conclusion not stated by the source. Besides distorting the source, it violates the neutral POV, as it clearly falls in one of this categories that Giakoumis himself mentions in the beginning of his article, I cite: “The issue of the Albanian presence in the lands of Epeiros has long been a point of contention between Greek and Albanian scholarship. On the one hand it is claimed that only in the thirteenth and especially the fourteenth century Albanians originating from the Elbasan region migrated to Epeiros, Macedonia and Thessaly and from there to more distant districts, including Roumeli (central Greece) and the Peloponncse, regions inhabited by Greek populations, and on the other hand that the Albanians have been the indigenous population in Epeiros. It is needless to analyse how this scheme served the idea of national purity in zones claimed by both Greece and Albania in the beginning of the 20th century. [...] The first viewpoint was upheld chiefly by 'older' Greek scholarship, which either disregarded much of the evidence presented in support of the second viewpoint or even manipulated it to fit into its ideological position. [...] The second viewpoint was mostly supported by Albanian historiography which, in contrast, alleged that Epeiros was solely inhabited by Albanians."
2. A) In the light of the content of Giakoumis' article, I would re-frame the wiki article's sentence into this paragraph, with the citations I have attached in the beginning:
If, according to the last edit, the clause "According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have all along been living together in Epirus" still is problematic, we can vaguely define it as "According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have been living together before 1210 in Epirus". Empathictrust ( talk) 01:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
VirnetX is a short article about a company that has been accused as being a patent troll. Back in 2018 and into this year it was heavily edited by Patent_Facts ( talk · contribs) to remove mentions that the company was described as a patent troll. Those edits, and a resulting dispute with other editors, led, at least in part, to Patent_Facts being banned. More recently, 47.35.6.243 ( talk · contribs) attempted to delete the patent troll mentions here and here, and after I reverted the new account Patentinvestor ( talk · contribs) made edits to try to shape the language of the article in what I consider a very POV light. This edit includes phrases like "The company has also been wrongly [and pejoratively] referred to as a patent troll" and "VirnetX's ability to win in court is a product of superior legal representation...and strong patents."
I attempted to clean up the language to become more NPOV with this edit, which describes the company, notes the accusation of being a patent troll, while also noting the company won various patent litigations. Patentinvestor reverted me, and then I restored my edits while suggesting this should be discussed on the talk page. At this point, I also looked at the page's history and added back some older content that provided more context and history for the company, generally.
Meanwhile, Patentinvestor ( talk · contribs) has again partially reverted my attempt to create a more NPOV description. I have avoided reverting again as I don't want to engage in an edit war, but I would appreciate a third opinion on the neutrality of VirnetX. -- ZimZalaBim talk 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
++
PatentInvestor here. The phrase "patent troll" is a pejorative and HIGHLY inaccurate term for a company that has developed a product to sell and has every right to protect its patented property in a court of law. Especially with the wide and demeaning use of the phrase in big business supported media and without any sort of definition offered, I'd suggest that it has NO place on a company's Wikipedia page in the first place. If a widely accepted definition of "patent troll" can even be offered that attempts to incorporate VirnetX I feel confident I could prove it inaccurate. I've removed the "superior legal representation comment (as it is self-evident by beating Apple). The patent troll issue is still intact as well.
I'm an investor in VirnetX and make no bones about it. I'm ALL in favor of a NPOV, but I would argue it cannot be done without both sides of the troll narrative being covered (my intent). I question why zim here is even tilting at this particular windmill as it is a little used page about a small company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatentInvestor ( talk • contribs)
You thinking that calling anything a troll is neutral is what is laughable and your definition of patent troll is lacking. Here is Wikipedia's opening sentence on "patent troll": "In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art..." Wikipedia even calls it pejorative (which is definitely not neutral). Here is Investopia's definition of "patent troll": "A patent troll is a derogatory term used to describe a company that uses patent infringement claims to win court judgments for profit or to stifle competition." Here's Encyclopedia Britannica: "Patent troll, also called nonpracticing entity or nonproducing entity (NPE), pejorative term for a company..." I'd say a totally uninterested party would side with my version of "neutral" over zims.
I removed this paragraph because it is terrible. The sources are shoddy and the statements are in some instances puffery (e.g. "however, that all changed" and "protecting its lawfully issued United States Patents through successful litigation"). For example, Forbes "Contributors" are not reliable sources. Not to mention things like refs being placed before the punctuation which indicate inexpert hands have been editing. I am inclined to restore the prior cited material that said some sources characterize this company as a patent troll. It doesn't matter if "patent troll" is pejorative if we source and attribute it. PatentInvestor please do not edit the article any further as you have a conflict of interest. If you continue to edit it you will probably be blocked. Ditto goes for anyone else who comes along to whitewash the article. —DIYeditor ( talk) 01:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Encountered while wikilinking. Some sort of avid dispute over a recent book about libertarian economist. Needs someone with enough prior knowledge to judge weight. Elinruby ( talk) 20:01, 19 April 2020 (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.
There has been continuous discussion for about a month over whether the terms "China virus" and "Wuhan virus" should be included in the lead as alternative names for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the cause of COVID-19. The discussion has reached a stalemate. One of the main proponents is a new editor Symphony Regalia ( talk · contribs) who has contributed little to wikipedia aside from the topic, and was blocked for edit warring during the early stages of the discussion for repeatedly adding the former term despite oppositon. The main argument used by the proponents in favour is based on its apparent inclusion in newspaper headlines, but while they are using the two words in succession, they clearly aren't being used as a noun, and is simply a result of cramped, condensed nature of the medium, and the terms never appear in the main body of the text. While the terms do have some use on social media, I think their inclusion lends undue weight to a minority viewpoint. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Probably worth noting that those names have been used but they are also controversial (I'm sure we can find sources to support that last point). Springee ( talk) 03:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: posted a belated notification about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#NPOV noticeboard discussion on SARS-CoV-2. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
This has been open for a while. I think we have clear consensus. Can somebody close this and notify Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19 when they do?
It seems the majority view is that only the official medical names should be used in the lead but the terms "Wuhan virus" (generally used in the initial phase of the outbreak) and "Chinese Virus" (mostly used for political reasons in the US) could be used in a section on naming history since the controversy seems notable. -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 08:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
References
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 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | → | Archive 85 |
In this article Shakespeare Authorship Question this sentence in the lede states two opinions as facts:
I propose modifying this sentence by the addition of this text, to turn it from a statement of fact in Wikipedia voice, which is a violation of NPOV, into a a statement of the scholarly consensus:
For the first clause, the whole article is really a discussion of different theories about whether such direct evidence exists for other candidates. And the article only touches on four of the possible candidates, there are dozens of others: List of Shakespeare authorship candidates.
For the second clause, there is an active academic debate among mainstream scholars on the issue. Please see this RS on the subject in an academic journal: Shakespeare Authorship Doubt in 1593, ROSALIND BARBER, Critical Survey, Vol. 21, No. 2, Questioning Shakespeare (2009), pp. 83-110 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41556314
In addition, this sentence violates NPOV by stating an opinion as fact:
I propose modifying it:
This is an active issue of debate among mainstream scholars --independent of the Shakespeare Authorship Question -- and opinions differ sharply. Please see this sentence from a well-respected mainstream scholar: https://blog.oup.com/2015/12/shakespeare-holinsheds-chronicles/
These are small issues, but since this is such a high profile article, I think we should scrupulously adopt NPOV, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Kfein ( talk) 17:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Note of clarification: There are three separate issues here, three separate statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Each needs to be decided independently. I just put them together into one post for convenience. Kfein ( talk) 17:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Erik Satie was an eccentric composer who was reported to have eaten a diet of only white foods. I have found at least six reliable sources that mention this. There has been a discussion on the talk-page already but no agreement.
I added these sources to the article (several reliable books) but they were removed several times. Also I recently found this: Among the many eccentricities of the French composer Erik Satie was his diet confined to white foods – eggs, sugar, shredded bones, the fat of dead animals, coconuts, chicken cooked in white water, rice, cheese (white varieties) and certain kinds of fish (without their skin). Satie thought that white foods got him into the mood for musical compositions that were unimpassioned and lucid". ( Steven Shapin. You are what you eat’: historical changes in ideas about food and identity) That is a peer-reviewed paper in the Historical Research journal from 2014.
The content stating that Satie ate a diet of white foods was removed. Reason's listed by user Francis Schonken have been because the sources are a "minority view", are "superstitious", "credulous" or not-neutral. I believe this is not the case. All the sources I cited have been reliable secondary sources that merely point out Satie ate a diet of white foods. I have documented these sources on the talk-page. [1].
I just want to point out, apart from being well sourced, the only content I now want to add on this article is a single line [2]. Hardly controversial but it was also removed. My suggestion is that the content is restored and we can also use the Shapin paper above. What is the consensus view on this? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Two days ago, the editor Gandydancer edited a section on the Bernie Sanders page where he removed all RS content that disputed that the media was biased against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election, but kept all the content that says "yes, the media was anti-Bernie". The editor justified these edits by claiming that he was only trimming a long article, but this was a very strange way of doing so, given that he removed overview academic assessments of media bias in the 2016 election, but kept mundane minutiae, such as Democracy Now! complaining about media bias on one occasion, a non-academic report on media bias that exclusively covered 2015 (rather than the whole primary) and a statement by the NY Times ombudsperson. Earlier today, I tried to add four sentences [3] for the sake of balance and NPOV, which exclusively cited peer-reviewed academic research assessments (A Princeton University Press book on the 2016 election [4] and a Palgrave book on the 2016 election [5]) and a report by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center [6], but this was immediately reverted by Gandydancer. [7] For simplicity's sake, here are three questions:
This seems to me to be a pretty clear NPOV violation. Not only is one particular view scrubbed from the page, but the views in question that were removed were those found in peer-reviewed research (which "are usually the most reliable sources" per the RS guidelines) whereas the views kept were a hodgepodge of minutiae from lower quality sources. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I honestly think both of you might want to step away from this topic for a while. You've already both brought your bickering to numerous noticeboards and started a talkpage section purely for personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 02:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
In the article, the Russian scientific community is referred to as foreign - although it is not foreign since the archaeological objects of this state are located on the territory of Russia.
In addition, his position is very distorted in favor of the point of view of the South Korean. In particular, a certain Petrov is presented as an expert, who is not a Russian scientist - although he is an ethnic Russian and was once a Russian student - but works in Australia and has never had anything to do with excavations or official Russian science.
At the same time, the position of such a universally recognized authority as Shakunov Ernest Vladimirovich is very distorted. Ignored all of his work proving that this state is Tungus-Manchurian and not Korean. Which is the official position of Russian science.
The words are distorted - when the text says that "there was some influence of Korean fine art and architecture" the article says that it is "Most Russian archaeologists and scholars describe Balhae as a kingdom of displaced Goguryeo people." Although this is not true, the statement "In relations with Japan, Balhae referred to itself as Goguryeo, and Japan welcomed this as a kind of restoration of its former friendly relationship with Goguryeo." and it’s not at all backed by valid references to official Russian science.
All attempts to fix this are met with fierce resistance from Korean users and the provocation of war on their part.
Wikipedia does not reflect the real position of Russian science even in the article on positions. In addition, it distorts their position and status to the position of a country that allegedly does not have a scientific school and material - although this South Korean side has no archaeological material. Since on its territory this state has never been. In the DPRK and China, they are not allowed to dig. And in Russia they are allowed only under Russian patronage as a workforce. And this is South Korea a foreign country in relation to Bohai. 185.17.129.116 ( talk) 01:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks again for the speedy response to my previous post.
This is a new question: The genealogist (Valdes) who is quoted in the article had two theories of the Queen’s ancestry. Only one is referenced by Wikipedia. If I were to contribute his other one, (re-phrased to avoid copyright infringement), and provide proper citations, would this, too, likely be removed to keep the section short? Thank you for your attention. 2605:A601:A1A8:CD00:3114:55B1:F1CE:5A61 ( talk) 03:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The article Ethnocide of Uyghurs in China was created over the last month by a host of new SPAs. It seems to largely be a re-hashing of Xinjiang conflict and Xinjiang re-education camps with a large introduction to ethnocide, but with large tracts of unreferenced content and some potential POV & synthesis elements. Would appreciate if someone helped take a look at this large new article. — MarkH21 talk 07:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The Institute of National Remembrance is Poland's national institute for commemoration and lustration of World War II and Communist-era crimes. It's been politicized in different times for different purposes, something we write about in the criticism section. Some recent additions to that section (not by me, but I think they're interesting) instigated a minor edit war, and I've asked for PP and invited editors to discuss. Only a couple of editors accepted the invitation; I'm inviting uninvolved editors to join in and opine [11] before PP expires and we're thrust back to the same place. François Robere ( talk) 17:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Ongoing WP:PROMOTION and puffery featuring a massive list of non-notable TV shows as part of a TV producer's WP:RESUME relentlessly curated by SPA's over time. Tried to clean it up years ago, but it didn't stick. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The piece presents only positives regarding the individual's public career. Examples- 1- No mention of the tremendous upset in the Armenian-American community regarding her Congressional testimony ;largely downplaying the Armenian Genocide. 2- Analysis of her Congressional testimony in Fall (Oct-Nov) 2019 contains only Democratic Representative questions and viewpoints with NO REPUBLICAN questioning at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwest57 ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This dispute arises from Economic policy of Donald Trump talk, where I claimed and back with facts evidence from other articles that Economic policy of Donald Trump was not Neutral and seemed to be more on the criticism side. At the end an administrator claimed that my tag and neutrality clam was not warranted. Even after I present many facts and quotes from other Wikipedia article dealing with similar subjects, which all had been written in a neutral point of view (except Economic policy of Donald Trump article). I will admit that after the administrator removed the tag, I put the same tag back on but because I thought that the article needed more consideration. I will provide the dispute discussion but would suggest you go and read the article first and then read the dispute discussion. Talk page link /info/en/?search=Economic_policy_of_Donald_Trump
BigRed606 ( talk) 00:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
It is in my opinion that the article about Economics Policy’s of Donald Trump sounds like a criticism article about his economics policies and not a article explaining about his economic policies. Personally I would like a couple other administrators look at it. Because if you read Economic policy of Donald Trump and the read Economic policy of the Barack Obama administration and compare the two, you find out that the Economics Policy’s of Donald Trump is not neutral. BigRed606 ( talk) 00:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The /info/en/?search=Complex_post-traumatic_stress_disorder article section "Arguments Against Complex PTSD Diagnosis" is written in a different style than the rest of the article and in my opinion from a biased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.178.187 ( talk) 21:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Douma chemical attack ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Extended discussion about what constitutes neutrality on this article and talk page. Additional eyeballs would be appreciated. VQuakr, 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template.
This did not open with a particular focus on NPoV concerns, but has turned that way (in short, whether colorful/flashy quotation templates pose a WP:UNDUE problem, or are simply a harmless layout choice like colored backgrounds in infoboxes). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Salfit Governorate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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 user in question appears to have a conflict of interest with respect to certain types of diets. Of note:
WP:DUCK makes me strongly wonder whether this editor has a conflict of interest in writing more positive articles on animal-free diets and removing articles that discuss diets that include animals. Bringing up concern about the edit warring brought this response which included accusations of bringing the concerns about edit warring in bad faith, accusations of being a meat puppet, and that I was a "high-up friend on Wikipedia" roped into trying to get this editor banned (which is, as far as I know, not one of the generally handed down punishments from edit warring, usually that is just a time-out at worst.) -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 01:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
This is pure harassment from Mr. Vernon.
No it is not absurd. Look at the facts. BecomeFree a banned sock-puppet has spammed my username off-site on carnivore diet communities to harass me. Before yesterday nobody cared or had heard of my username, then these troll threads were created and my username put all over social media platforms.
The above links were found by Guy Macon [15]. You only returned yesterday to Wikipedia after nearly two years silence and those threads were made yesterday. You are a carnivore diet proponent and you want to have me banned because you think I am a biased vegan. You have singled me out because you were told to do so. I get it, but I am not a vegan, anyone can see that from my editing. I do not have any conflict of interest. I have written about all kinds of historical people. They are all reliably sourced. I have created around 80 articles. Only 3 of them were animal rights activists.
Here is the comment [16] and here Is there some way to report Psychologist Guy for removing this? Not to try to ban the guy but to get someone higher up to at least have a look and reverse what this ideologue is doing. Maybe put some restrictions on Psychologist Guy as well so he quits spreading bullshit. Your SPI and admin report failed, so now you are doing it here. You have some deep grudge and you want to restrict my account like your off-site buddies asked you to. I am not further responding to this. It's bullshit. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't claim to be an expert on theology, but a lot of the wording in this article comes off as very "in-universe".
Understanding helps one relate all truths to one's supernatural purpose
Counsel functions as a sort of supernatural intuition, to enable a person to judge promptly and rightly, especially in difficult situations
The gift of knowledge allows one, as far as is humanly possible, to see things from God's perspective.
I mean, it's one thing to describe what Francis or Aquinas have written or said, but this seems to go a bit far in using Wikipedia's voice to describe the supernatural as things rather than as beliefs. Thought? GMG talk 14:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This regards the article at the address en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucille_Eichengreen.
It contains the passage, "... the Jews became exposed to growing reprisals by the Nazis as well as insults and assaults by the local population."
The word "reprisals" presupposes some prior antagonistic action or actions by the Jewish population toward the wider German society. No such action is described in the article, and it is widely accepted that no such action was ever committed.
Suggestion: that the word "reprisals" be replaced by "attacks" in the interests of grammatical and historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.196 ( talk) 13:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The mission = parameter (and some synonyms) were deprectaed from {{ infobox organization}} some time ago, citing WP:MISSION. This was not carried forward into cloned templates such as {{ Infobox institute}}, where often-Orwellian statements are still being included as a matter of course. I have proposed deprecation at Template talk:Infobox institute. Guy ( help!) 12:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Is the inclusion of the "ideological Turing test" in the infobox of Bryan Caplan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article appropriate? RfC at talk:Bryan Caplan. Guy ( help!) 13:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
A user made a request for edits at this article. The issue seems to be an issue related to society in England, India, and South Africa.
Can someone please respond to the user's request? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Please participate in Talk:Tucker Carlson#RFC on MMfA white supremacy timeline where the reliability of a Media Matters for America primary source list of 192 statements by Tucker Carlson since 2004, and a Salon interview with its author, along with the quality of the list itself, have been called into question with both sides strongly opposed, with accusations of a lack of good faith and misleading partisan bias. EllenCT ( talk) 04:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#NPOV issue: "Local residents" about how to summarise the incidents surrounding the Death of Luo Changqing in the main article 2019-20 Hong Kong protests. Participation from editors who do not have a prior involvement with this issue would be greatly appreciated. Deryck C. 12:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm engaged in an ongoing dispute on Neera Tanden's page. A number of editors have stonewalled against the addition of any content critical of the article subject. While revised content that addresses the substance of some of the criticism has been proposed, it has not been allowed to be integrated to the article. The parties opposed to the proposed additions have not proposed ways of including such topics with a more neutral point of view. In short, I feel that content critical or unfavorable to the subject isn't being allowed to be integrated in any form.
Furthermore, two Single-purpose accounts are engaged in the editing and consensus process Bewildered_Oregonian and User1956a. The second account, User1959a, appears to be engaged in canvassing by sending notifications only to users who have agreed with them in the past. I'm hesitant to call for a sockpuppet investigation because some of the other editors are clearly dedicated editors who simply disagree with me and the other editors.
Jonathan Williams ( talk) 18:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The Tanden Wikipedia page is constantly being vandalized. Without this constant vandalism, I would spend less time editing it and could focus more on other topics! Negative Informationen, such as that added by Jonathan Williams yesterday about the 2018 Buzzfeed article has been included, because is is sourced in relevant and mainstream media sources, unlike anything pertaining to the Libya controversy. The information he wants to add about the Libya email comes from partisan fringe sources with a vendetta. Users other than me, two of which have longer edit histories than me, have pointed this out to him. It is incorrect that no negative information is being included, but the argument is the negative information here does not merit inclusion, particularly in her political views section, because it cannot be established that a single email from almost a decade ago represents her views. User1956a ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
(restart indent) According to WP:BALASP, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."
The Libya "controversy" has been controversial in partisan sources only, probably because Glenn Greenwald's claim Tanden wrote "emails" (plural) "arguing that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues to repay the U.S." is hogwash, based on a single email by Tanden, responding to a thread "Re: Should Libya pay us back?" that "having oil rich countries partially pay us back doesn't seem crazy to me." [17] That one comment, made in 2011 in private email made public by Wikileaks, has never been controversial in any RS because, quite simply, there's nothing there. Some of Tanden's other Wikileaked (and embarrassing) comments are in the article, and nobody has sanitized them out of it.
Critics of Tanden and CAP have repeatedly removed descriptions of them as "liberal" or "progressive" -- even though RS typically refer to them as "liberal" or "progressive." I also haven't seen an argument that adding a controversy section, which is deprecated by WP:CRITS, is appropriate in this article, is there such an argument? The editors described above as SPAs are simply new editors, and we should engage with their arguments, not bite them. HouseOfChange ( talk) 06:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
User1956a continues to remove factual, sourced, and unbiased information about Neera Tanden. How interesting...
I maintain that the above user, who is making edits like like wrt Tanden https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/941634069 is not providing factual or NPOV information about her, and personal attacks on me aren’t helpful. I support adding the section HouseOfChange has proposed to clarify the Tanden article, what I don’t support is repeated attempts to vandalize the page or make Wikipedia speak with the voice of online Tanden haters. User1956a ( talk) 22:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
actually i have provided plenty of valid factual npov information, despite my first edit on wikipedia being a clear joke. like this: In 2008, Neera Tanden encountered criticism when she pushed Faiz Shakir, a reporter who asked Neera Tanden a question about Hillary Clinton and the Iraq War. (source:obeserver) whats wrong with this information user1956a? -jomalleyp
The article at Jack Posobiec has been the subject of a NPOV dispute since 2017. A lengthy discussion at Talk:Jack_Posobiec#NPOV_dispute_added did not appear to reach any consensus. Here are the two primary issues with the article:
1. The article has a section specifically dedicated to listing the subject's political activities, which also happens to take up half of the page. It makes the page look like a "shit-list" to ridicule the subject of the article. At this point the page isn't an objective biography, but rather a subjective borderline attack page in my opinion.
2. The lead section reads like whoever wrote it has something against Posobiec. See the discussion I added in August 2017 at Talk:Jack_Posobiec/Archive_1#Proposed_changes. It very clearly fails WP:LABEL and other editors, for whatever reason, seem to be against noting that Posobiec has denied and rejected the label of "alt-right". This was done in a now deleted tweet that I can't figure out a way to access.
Can you find any other article that reads like this one does? I mean, it's just straight up not neutral. CatcherStorm talk 05:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Another comment - see the lead of Alex Jones "Jones has described himself as a conservative, paleoconservative and libertarian, terms he uses interchangeably. Others describe him as conservative, right-wing, alt-right, and far-right." They very clearly take into account the subject's perspective, something that this article does not do. CatcherStorm talk 08:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
far-right conspiracy theorist. If you think the lede to Alex Jones' article is acceptable, it's unclear why you don't think that is appropriate in the lede of Jack Posobiec's article. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
It was removed under section nine of the non-free content policy, which I find to be odd. Regardless, I will paraphrase the quotes in question. For reference the article in question is located here. Here is my undeleted rationale:
1. The author of the column, Jonathan Valania, is demonstrably a left-leaning author shown by his contributions to Philly Mag. He has repeatedly covered topics with a left-leaning agenda, as seen at this article he wrote praising the anti-Trump "resistance".
2. The title of the column labels Posobiec as "the king of fake news", which is quite obviously an opinion.
3. The subtitle of the column labels Posobiec as "the Trump troll the Internet loves to hate". Again, very clearly an opinion. Rationales 4 and 5, which were deleted, are as follows:
4. See this screenshot of the quote in question. The author begins the column like he's telling a story. If that paragraph wasn't enough to convince you, see below.
5. Take a look at this screenshot, where the author calls Posobiec a slew of names.
Clearly demonstrates an unreliable source due to bias. CatcherStorm talk 03:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: The discussion listed at
WP:DRN was closed since this discussion is more active. Copy and pasting another issue regarding editor conduct on this page I have below:
Here is the edit history of the page. When I restructured the list section into prose, I was immediately reverted by Grayfell and accused of "whitewashing" - something that this user seems to have done in the past before, which violates WP:AGF. Furthermore, even though the article has been the subject of NPOV disputes and quite obviously still is, editors continue to remove the POV dispute tag from the article. Volunteer Marek frequently cites WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a Wikipedia essay, as rationale for removing the NPOV template. Seems to imply that he thinks whoever has an issue with the tone of this article (I'm not the only one) is only putting it there because they are fans of Posobiec and are editing to make him look better. The NPOV template was put there because it is blatantly under dispute. CatcherStorm talk 05:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
CatcherStorm, you wrote: "Clearly demonstrates an unreliable source due to bias." No, bias is not how we determine the reliability of a source. It's perfectly possible for both left- and right-wing sources that are fairly close to center to have a clear bias without becoming counterfactual. When the bias of sources becomes extreme, that is when it affects their reliability. Bias alone is not what determines reliability. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources can still be biased or use opinionated wording in reference to subjects; when they do so, their wording should be acknowledged based on due weight but should nevertheless be counted as an opinion. "Internet troll" is ultimately a judgment made by certain journalists and columnists and therefore should be attributed per WP:WIKIVOICE. Note that WP:WIKIVOICE applies even if the opinion judgment is a very well-reasoned judgment that most editors would agree with, as can be seen from the example in the policy about the morality of genocide. Jancarcu ( talk) 20:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I’m away from my computer so I will provide a full length response when I get back in around 5 hours from the time I posted this comment, but I am going to page everyone who responded above: @ Jancarcu:, @ Bullrangifer:, @ Someguy1221:, @ Grayfell:, @ JzG:. The issue we were discussing was the inclusion of that source and its use 14 times throughout the article to characterize the subject of the article. Now that I’ve read everyone’s responses, it’s becoming clearer to me that you guys think that there is absolutely zero problem with the tone of this article and how it is written, nor can you understand or see why anyone would object to the content in this article and how it is written. I invite each and everyone of you to lay your political affiliation aside and read the entire article. If you STILL think that the article is perfect the way it is, then say so below. CatcherStorm talk 22:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Needs discussion I would like to officially identify the issues regarding the article and begin to move towards proposing changes. My primary concerns are: the list structure of the political activities section, and the attribution of certain labels in the lead section (might need to be wholly reworked) as Wikivoice.
CatcherStorm [[User
white supremacistis an acceptable label because it factually describes a person's beliefs; it just so happens to make the subject sound bad because it gives the reader facts that would make most readers think the subject is bad. This does, indeed, create a level of editorial discretion, but all policies and principles require editorial discretion, which can be achieved here by hashing this out via local consensus. Jancarcu ( talk) 21:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
provokes others (chiefly on the Internet) for their own personal amusement or to cause disruption. [1] Given that the writers of the sources could not actually see inside Posobiec's brain, their opinion that he is an internet troll is based on their subjective judgment that he is obnoxious. Furthermore, even if you could turn "troll" into a factual label, it would still carry a bunch of baggage as a slang term. To call a BLP an internet troll is un-encyclopedic and biased. Jancarcu ( talk) 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
If it's necessary to state that he claimed the label, it would seem necessary to state that he has stated he's ceased the behavior as well, as that's recorded by secondary sources. For something requiring that much nuanced discussion, it would seem inappropriate to leave it in the lead.
About the Third Opinon request: A Third Opinion request about this discussion has been removed (i.e. declined) because Third Opinions are only for discussions between exactly two editors. There are many more than two involved in this discussion. If additional dispute resolution is needed, consider filing at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or file a Request for Comments at the article talk page. Be sure to thoroughly read and comply with all instructions at those processes. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)
There is a motion at the talk page to reinstate the NPOV tag to the top of the article or at least the political activities section. Template documentation states that the template should be there if there is a serious issue identified with the pov of the article, and based off of the lengthy discussion listed here there is very clearly an issue identified. I would reinstate it myself but other editors have continued to insta-revert the tag citing a "fringe viewpoint" in terms of NPOV, when this discussion clearly shows otherwise. CatcherStorm talk 02:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment so far, this looks like a one versus many dispute. If that continues to be the case, there is no justification whatever in restoring the tag. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I have to largely agree with Masem and CatcherStorm on what they've said here. While the opposition makes a few small correct points as well, they're basically trivial, side-stepping the larger question. It is not okay for us to write up a hatchet-job on someone, even if various discrete facts in the piece can be verified, and even if the majority of WP's editorship and probably even its readership would like to pretend there's no problem due to their distaste for the subject (and the ease with which a far-right conspiracy theorist can be mocked). Sculpting a condemnatory article (with just enough CYA wiggle room to not get sanctioned for blatant PoV-pushing) is WP:GAMING the system and basically a drawn-out example of the ad hominem fallacy; it's just poor writing to resort to that, especially when the facts speak for themselves no matter how you lay them out. And, no, it is not okay to cite an opinion piece (well, rant) that calls the subject a "toxic ... dirty-trick ... ratfucker" as if it is a reliable source.
Two+ years is too long for an NPoV dispute this basic to be going on. If this NPOVN doesn't resolve it, then I would suggest a series of RfCs, neutrally "advertised" at
WT:NPOV,
WT:BLP,
WP:VPPOL, and specifically grounded in NPOV and
WP:NOT#ADVOCACY policy. Start with lead cleanup, including presentation of his own self-description along with the third-party labeling, as at the
Alex Jones article. Then another RfC to convert the "shitlist" into a proper prose section;
MOS:PROSE wants that anyway. If this noticeboard doesn't have the collective will to resolve the overall matter, perhaps because of "too many asks" at once, break them up into discrete yes/no issues to resolve, and ensure editors from outside the subject-area's "regulars" are drawn
neutrally to the discussion.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I will be requesting an RfC on this discussion soon. CatcherStorm talk 13:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
This article has been the subject of NPOV disputes since late 2017. As of February 22, 2020 the primary concerns being raised are with the political activities section (specifically how it is in list format, and not prose) and use of contentious labeling in wikivoice.
CatcherStorm
talk 01:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I would like to dispute the addition of a picture added by CharlesShirley on 03:40, 19 November 2019. (See View History). He replaced the official picture from my campaign website electjudgerichardson.com to the wikipedia page "Bert Richardson (judge)" with a picture that is clearly edited/photoshopped to be unflattering. This was done during very contentious election campaigns between myself and my opponent. I have taken the picture down several times only to have CharlesShirley replace it shortly after. I have since replaced the edited photo submitted by CharlesShirley by the official photo from the campaign website. CharlesShirley is clearly not one of my fans (as made apparent in his comments regarding one of my prior judgements on 03:44, 19 November 2019 and 17:14, 8 October 2019) which is completely fine. Nevertheless, the posting of and the site's use of unflattering photos for candidates running for election/reelection amidst their campaigns renders any such page to be non-neutral. It's also a mean thing to do. It is my understanding that Wikipedia's policy and mission is to remain an unbiased source of information and knowledge. I believe that these kinds of things violates Wikipedia's ideals and purpose.
Respectfully, Bert Richardson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BertRichardson ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The article, while mostly factually correct, has bias in language. It very cleverly hides the violence initiated by Muslim groups as 'mob' action, while it spares no opportunity to blame Hindu groups or BJP by calling them out. It does mention that the CAA was seen by Muslims as Anti-Muslim, and hence the reader is supposed to understand that the sit-outs and attacks on killing of police officers, who tried to break open the various road occupations for days, was done by angry Muslim mobs. The mob violence (actually acts of defense) committed by Hindu groups was in retaliation only when the Muslim mob would go around destroying property and people. It is easy to understand who would lose control first if they are already filled with anger at the CAA passage. However, when one reads the article, one comes out with an impression that 'poor' Muslims were oppressed and Hindu mobs went around burning and killing. My sister lives in that same area, and she told me that the perpetrators were Muslim gangs who came from outside Delhi, including illegal Bangladeshi's, who had nothing to lose, did the arsons and killings and then conveniently ran away. So even if there are CCTV images, these folks would be hard to find. The article missed stating the above fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManuPrakash52 ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. I'm skeptical that WP:NPOV policy is being properly employed by some of the respondents there, who seem to be taking the RM (fast on the heels of a WP:DRV-overturned attempt to delete the page entirely) as an opportunity to engage in social activism. As another commenter there said, these antics could (if they gutted or ghettoized WP's article on the subject) effectively cede public mindshare control of this topic to alt-right media – the worst kind of back-fire that could happen about a subject like this. WP has a responsibility to cover the matter and to do it properly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
There are significant NPOV issues with the PJ Media page, in particular using SPLC as a source when SPLC is in fact one of the entities on which PJ Media has reported extensively. This is a clear issue of neutral point of view. Charlie (Colorado) ( talk) 23:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to publicize my request for comment on the generative grammar article. I am concerned that a section entitled "Lack of evidence" is polemical doesn't accurately describe criticisms of this field. I have similar concerns about the lede. I have raised these concerns on the article's talk page, but the editor who added the material hasn't been willing to engage with them substantively. Botterweg14 ( talk) 00:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. Levivich dubious – discuss 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy#Request for comment regarding the removal of three words from the lead of the article. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 22:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I do not think the first sentence of this article is appropriate: "The Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study in Greifswald (in German: Alfried Krupp Wissenschaftskolleg Greifswald) is an institute for advanced study named after Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, the convicted criminal against humanity. ". This article is about the Institute, not about the person for whom it is named. It's true that this person was one whose memory many people might feel was not appropriate to honor in this way. The way to say this in a Wikipedia article is not to editorialize, especially not in the lede sentence, but, if there are discussions or protests that are reported in reliable sources, to include content about them. (And It could also be mentioned in the article about the person--I am certainly not arguing to suppress the information) I changed it, but Hyrdlak changed it back. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a serious issue, but I wanted to call attention to Category:All articles with a promotional tone. This backlog has 25,000 articles in it, and I need some other editors to help me clear it. Thanks, King of Scorpions 15:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Middle East Forum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like it was almost entirely written by supporters. But see a recent discussion at RSN [21], a NYT article a few days ago [22], etc as well as articles about its head and founder Daniel Pipes, eg [23]. In fact Pipes article is also a problem with a lead that doesn't mention criticism and text that doesn't mention the SPLC's criticism, only the removal of an article criticising it (I've posted a short note to Talk:Daniel Pipes. No criticism in Middle East Quarterly either. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif . Does inclusion of the image of a controversial book cover in the Ezra Taft Benson article constitute a NPOV violation? Epachamo ( talk) 03:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I’m not an official user of Wikipedia so I’m not sure if this is the right place to do this but I recently came upon many articles calling Crimea “occupied” and the events there as an “illegal occupation”. Now while I entirely agree with that statement personally, as soon as I saw that it bothered me that Wikipedia articles were not being neutral on this topic. As far as I have seen before Wikipedia exclusively called the events in Crimea an annexation and referred to the peninsula as annexed and disputed. Those terms are very neutral in nature, and so I embarked on replacing the non-neutral occupied with either disputed and annexed, or simply by removing it where it is not necessary at all (where it solely seemed to refer to the geographic location, like in airline articles). However I have now noticed two users, namely Toddy1 and Koncorde, replacing it back to the non-neutral occupied saying that it was me who was POV pushing. In many of those reversions Toddy1 even said that I was imposing the POV of the Russian government. I couldn’t believe it when I read that as that is absolutely ridiculous as I am fairly sure the POV of the Russian government is that Crimea is simply Russian territory that had reunified with the country. However just as that statement wouldn’t be neutral, neither is calling it occupied. Thankfully in one of those incidents, a user named Beaumain once again reverted their reversions saying that I was indeed more neutral. I really hope that something could done about keeping those article neutral. Thank you!-- 72.141.150.236 ( talk) 02:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The question is "Should the lede include an infographic (e.g. bar graph, pie chart, map) based on the 2011 census?" [24] Khirurg ( talk) 17:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I am an OTRS volunteer. In October 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation legal team received an inquiry from a journalist who expressed concern about some articles that may have experienced subtle whitewashing. The journalist's analysis is reproduced here, with permission:
We found evidence of what seems to appear to be organised editing happening to convey a pro-China stance on several pages of Wikipedia, both English language and Chinese. Some example topics include the recent Hong Kong protests (where changes in language have varied from the protestors being labelled as such or as rioters), Tiananmen Square (where the numbers killed are in dispute, and actions by the government are described as stopping the unrest to quell counter revolutionary riots and stabilising the domestic situation) and territories such as Taiwan and Senkaku Islands are suggested as being part of China. Similarly language changes are used to question the status of Tibet and the Dalai Lama. While the edits may involve nuanced edits, taken as a whole they help to change the way a situation is viewed.
The journalist included this list of articles to be evaluated by the community for neutrality or bias tampering:
Due to the time passed since the original communication with Legal, it's possible that the problems have been cleared up. I'm posting this here to get some more eyes on these articles, and correct any remaining bias if found. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
DRI Capital is probably one of the most blatantly promotional articles I have ever seen. It has a whole suggestion full of buzzwords explaining how you can make money from the company. I'm not proposing to delete it, as it a genuine fund manager, but does anyone have any suggestions on how it could obtain a bit more of a neutral point of view? — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕ Contribs 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I started an RfC about a week ago at Talk:Project Veritas#RfC on motives for targeting ACORN and, since no one has commented since then, wanted to post a neutral notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. Although this is the only WikiProject listed at Talk:Project Veritas, I'm concerned this may be perceived as canvassing. Can someone here please give me guidance on whether such a notification would be appropriate? (Disclosure: I work for Project Veritas.) Sal at PV ( talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I have a current disagreement with an editor about the article on Sani Abacha. There seem to be a pro military slant but with poor sources. The issues are WP:V in this diff [25], concerning the use of statesman without incline citation. Then this section using an opinion piece without a reliable secondary source [26] WP:PRIMARY. Lastly, this is poorly sourced [27]. I am close or within 3RR and that is usually my limit but will like someone to take a look at the issues. Alexplaugh12 ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Personal intro: Anyone can go back through the less than 100 edits, and verify I added favorable information ( here, for example), which still remains in the article. You can view the article Talk page where I have tried to start discussions. Trying to support notability, I added a couple less than reliable sources [28], which were later removed (rightfully). I fixed one of those by finding a better source. [29] I have made small corrections to better capture what sources actually said. I have undone my own edits to remove things I added, to be consistent with lessons learned from a "advertisement" Speedy Delete by JzG of another article I created. [30] [31]
Issues: (1) Should the article on fact-checking sites Climate/Health/Science Feedback be whitewashed of all criticism, or should mentions of criticisms or mention of a censure for violating the Code of Principles of the "certifying" organization be included? I have added both favorable and unfavorable coverage to the article, but other editors persistently remove even the slightest mentions of criticism, leaving only favorable statements. (2) Is the certifying organization, Poynter/IFCN, "independent" secondary, or "primary" source as Snooganssnoogans' edit summary said when removing criticism in bulk? Note: This was after I already significantly shortened it, after User Talk page discussions with JzG and Newslinger. (3) Should any of the involved editors be given "discretionary sanctions" for conduct?
Background: Climate/Health/Science Feedback are websites, with a browser plugin available, that publish fact-checking reviews online for at least two (broad, multi-disciplinary) areas of science, using volunteer PhD reviewers, with summaries being written by an "editor." It's not clear how many, if any, "editors" are paid staff, versus volunteers. Climate Feedback was started around 2015, and Health Feedback was started around fall 2018. Note ClimateFeedback.org's and HealthFeedback.org's "about" links both go to sciencefeedback.co/about/. These sites are joined at the hip, or at Emmanuel Vincent, who sometimes also writes articles or what some would call posts. Brief summaries are posted both on Science Feedback website, and on Climate or Health Feedback websites, with links to follow back to those sites for more detailed summaries, and Science Feedback site adds (infrequent?) "news & events" summaries posted on ScienceFeedback.co. It is one operation with (at least) 3 websites.
Also, Climate [32] [33]/Health [34]/Science [35] Feedback posts about Poynter or IFCN. Poynter/IFCN posts about C/H/S Feedback. [36] [37] [38] It starts to be unclear who is the publisher/promoter, and who is the "independent" certification or fact-checking organization.
Other interesting relationships, and coverage, or lack of, in WP: Poynter Institute runs the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which annually "certifies" organizations like Climate/Health/Science Feedback (for a fee). Poynter and IFCN also publish newsletter articles or posts. Poynter operates Politifact, but that fact is not mentioned in the Poynter article (where Politifact is mentioned once). Three (of 15) sources in Climate Feedback are from Poynter/IFCN.
Collapse edits and interactions history, and difficult editing environment comments by Yae4
|
---|
Details of some edits and interactions history: Snooganssnoogans started the article called Climate Feedback in late December 2018. Six weeks later, Citrivescence added the Notability Tag, rightfully. In my opinion, it then looked like a short advertisement. It looks like a longer advertisement today. A few months later, Emvincent, who has a username resembling Climate/Health/Science Feedback's founder, Emmanual Vincent, removed the Notability Tag, and added a couple sources, in April 2019. With one exception, in article edits, EmVincent has only spread Climate Feedback info to articles. One of those sources he added is published by Facebook, is all about Facebook, and only lists "Science Feedback" the parent organization of Climate Feedback in a short line in a pulldown list, under United States; According to Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network, the "certification" review organization, Science Feedback non-profit is registered in France, not in USA (but Vincent is located in California, according to this blog post, so the inconsistency is understandable). The second source added by EmVincent, an Axios post has published a "Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Science Feedback does not have a website." Climate/Health/Science Feedback ARE website operations, centered on ScienceFeedback.co, so this was an appalling error by Axios IMO. Axios general reliability is currently being discussed. This was brought up in January on Talk:Climate_Feedback#Axios_as_a_reliable_source? as a question, with essentially zero discussion occuring - Snooganssnoogans responsed, "Axios is fine." In January I was undecided; now I consider Axios to be generally unreliable, and somewhat better than a Twitter feed. Newslinger created a redirect from Science Feedback to Climate Feedback on October 6, 2019, and added Climate Feedback to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources list on October 16, 2019, saying, it "is a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change" and "Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." I seriously question these statements, because (by my count) only about 16 editors participated, with about 9 clearly favoring, 4 with mixed opinions, 2 opposing, and 1 only commenting without a clear opinion stated. I brought it up on RSPS noticeboard, but the discussion was about other blogs, and Climate/Health/Science Feedback was not really discussed. Health Feedback is still a red link. JzG aka Guy advised attribution for Axios, because they are "with an agenda." [39] So, I added attributions. Snooganssnoogans latest edits removed all Axios attributions, and removed source details, and every bit of criticism. This includes the mention of the fact that (the month before Wikipedia added Climate Feedback to the Reliable Source Perennial Source list), they were censured: Source
JzG has done similar, a couple times claiming these are "a different site." Other conduct creating or worsening a "difficult" editing environment: JzG has thrown personal attacks in this article's edit summaries. Snooganssnoogans has thrown personal attacks and accusations in this article's edit summaries. Snooganssnoogans has attacked my integrity in previous Noticeboards and retracted it (see stricken paragraph). -- Yae4 ( talk) 00:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC) |
The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback.( Detailed ARTICLE on an INVESTIGATION into conduct)
Collapse off topic and
WP:BLUDGEON responses by Yae4
|
---|
|
Collapse off topic and
WP:BLUDGEON responses by Yae4
|
---|
|
Collapse off topic and
WP:BLUDGEON responses by Yae4
|
---|
|
-- Yae4 ( talk) 11:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback.( Detailed ARTICLE on an INVESTIGATION into conduct)
There is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among film fan editors that films can have plot summaries based on personal observations of the movie, with no sources cited. This is usually unproblematic but we have an increasing number of articles on movies whose plot is blatantly dishonest (e.g. Vaxxed, Unplanned, Death of a Nation (2018 film)). In some cases (Vaxxed being an obvious example) we do not fall for this. In others ( God's Not Dead (film) for example) we do. Am I the only one who thinks this is a problem? WP:NOR is policy, so surely if a plot section is challenged, independent sources become mandatory, as they do for every other piece of content on Wikipedia? Guy ( help!) 00:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
After seeking God's help in church through prayer, Dave eventually realizes that his case has only made things worse and that St. James is not the right church for God and his followers.You could defend something along the lines of "after praying, Dave decides to drop the lawsuit..." or something, but to frame this as "seeking god's help through prayer" is to beg pretty much every question in the movie. Guy ( help!) 11:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
we have an increasing number of articles on movies whose plot is blatantly dishonest
After seeking God's help in church through prayer, Dave eventually realizes that his case has only made things worse and that St. James is not the right church for God and his followers.There might be ways to phrase that better, but I see no POV problem. If that's the story of the film, that's the story of the film. It is not a statement about reality, only an event in the fictional film. The article is not saying God is real any more than the Back to the Future plot summary suggests that time travel is real with statements like "Marty finds himself transported to November 5, 1955". Popcornfud ( talk) 02:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"A small-town girl meets three magical friends and they embark on an incredible journey that ends in a surprise"is not what I would define as simple and objective. El Millo ( talk) 02:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"definitive point-of-view"or
"biased interpretation"out of everything there? El Millo ( talk) 03:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
In the history section of Epirus, between 1204 and the Ottoman conquest, there is a sentence that misrepresents the view of the source it is based on and also distorts the position of its scholar, Konstantinos Giakoumis. After my edits were reverted twice, I would appreciate the intervention of a neutral admin, who can possibly thoroughly read the 12-pages long article of Giakoumis, or at least, the below description and make the necessary changes.
1. Here is the existing sentence of the wiki article (in bold, the words that differ from the source):
2. Here is my 2nd edit that was completely reverted ( [43] and [44])
References
1. A) Nowhere in the article does Giakoumis mention that the Venetian document is the “oldest reference” to Albanians. Instead, he mentions “two documented sources” that also attest the Albanians’ presence in the area, after having mentioned in the previous page “the perennial coexistence of Greek-speaking and Albanian-speaking populations” (quote: The presence of Albanians in the Epeirote lands from the beginning of the thirteenth century is also attested by two documentary sources: the first is a Venetian document of 1210, which states that the continent facing the island of Corfu is inhabited by Albanians and the second is letters of the Metropolitan of Naupaktos John Apokaukos to a certain George Dysipati, who was considered to be an ancestor of the famous Shpata family.)
Moreover, he adds 13 Albanian names that are mentioned in an Angevin document of 1304; thus citing 3 references of this people that predate the migrations of the 14th century.
2. B) The subordinate conjunction though (needs a comma before), here used to question the credibility of the above mentioned document and the clause it adds, further implies that a previous migration would be the only way for the document to be true (but that is improbable). Whereas Giakoumis writes (quote from page 176): "Are we obliged to see in this a possible earlier Albanian immigration in the Epeirote lands, as Kostas Komis did in the case of the etymology of the toponym 'Preveza'? I believe that the use of hypothetical immigrations as a basis to interpret sources that indicate the presence of Albanians in the Epeirote lands prior to the thirteenth-fourteenth century is somewhat arbitrary. For it serves the concept of national purity in zones with clear lines of communication, mutual relations (as linguistic research has proved) and common traditions, religion as well as principal language of communication. It is evident that this was the case in a period when co-existence and understanding among people of different nations (in the modern sense of the term) were far better than they are today." Instead of questioning the credibility of the documents, Giakoumis disagrees on using the possible earlier hypothetical migrations, that he sees as serving nationalism (national purity) and stresses on the lines of communication, mutual relations, common traditions and simply put: co-existence.
Even in the very beginning of the article he writes, I quote: "The purpose of this article is to put together recent linguistic and historical studies, in order to challenge the views of 'older' Greek and Albanian scholarship with respect to the presence of a solely Greek or Albanian population in the regions of Epeiros, with specific reference to the district of Dropull in the light of primary sources dealing with the Albanian immigrations of the fourteenth century. It will show that Greek and Albanian-speaking populations had all along been living together in Epeiros, while in the fourteenth century immigrant Albanians migrated into the regions of Gjirokaster."
And in the end he concludes that, I quote: "in the fourteenth century immigrant Albanians taking advantage of the decimation of the local Epeirote population by the Black Death also migrated into the regions of Gjirokaster. Moreover, I suggested that the reactions of local milieux against the new settlers, as expressed by their participation in the campaign of Isau against Gjin Zenebis (1399), should be attributed to the disintegration of the previous local elites rather than to resistence against a 'foreign' invasion."
Thus Albanians seems to have been no foreigners in the area, and the migration is presented as an event that happened due to certain reasons, after a prior presence (all along). The conjunction “though”, used in the sentence of the wikipedia article, gives a disfigured meaning and simply implies that the 14th century migration is actually the first “confirmed” presence of the Albanians in Epirus. An analysis that implies a conclusion not stated by the source. Besides distorting the source, it violates the neutral POV, as it clearly falls in one of this categories that Giakoumis himself mentions in the beginning of his article, I cite: “The issue of the Albanian presence in the lands of Epeiros has long been a point of contention between Greek and Albanian scholarship. On the one hand it is claimed that only in the thirteenth and especially the fourteenth century Albanians originating from the Elbasan region migrated to Epeiros, Macedonia and Thessaly and from there to more distant districts, including Roumeli (central Greece) and the Peloponncse, regions inhabited by Greek populations, and on the other hand that the Albanians have been the indigenous population in Epeiros. It is needless to analyse how this scheme served the idea of national purity in zones claimed by both Greece and Albania in the beginning of the 20th century. [...] The first viewpoint was upheld chiefly by 'older' Greek scholarship, which either disregarded much of the evidence presented in support of the second viewpoint or even manipulated it to fit into its ideological position. [...] The second viewpoint was mostly supported by Albanian historiography which, in contrast, alleged that Epeiros was solely inhabited by Albanians."
2. A) In the light of the content of Giakoumis' article, I would re-frame the wiki article's sentence into this paragraph, with the citations I have attached in the beginning:
If, according to the last edit, the clause "According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have all along been living together in Epirus" still is problematic, we can vaguely define it as "According to recent linguistic and historical studies, the Greek and the Albanian-speaking communities have been living together before 1210 in Epirus". Empathictrust ( talk) 01:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
VirnetX is a short article about a company that has been accused as being a patent troll. Back in 2018 and into this year it was heavily edited by Patent_Facts ( talk · contribs) to remove mentions that the company was described as a patent troll. Those edits, and a resulting dispute with other editors, led, at least in part, to Patent_Facts being banned. More recently, 47.35.6.243 ( talk · contribs) attempted to delete the patent troll mentions here and here, and after I reverted the new account Patentinvestor ( talk · contribs) made edits to try to shape the language of the article in what I consider a very POV light. This edit includes phrases like "The company has also been wrongly [and pejoratively] referred to as a patent troll" and "VirnetX's ability to win in court is a product of superior legal representation...and strong patents."
I attempted to clean up the language to become more NPOV with this edit, which describes the company, notes the accusation of being a patent troll, while also noting the company won various patent litigations. Patentinvestor reverted me, and then I restored my edits while suggesting this should be discussed on the talk page. At this point, I also looked at the page's history and added back some older content that provided more context and history for the company, generally.
Meanwhile, Patentinvestor ( talk · contribs) has again partially reverted my attempt to create a more NPOV description. I have avoided reverting again as I don't want to engage in an edit war, but I would appreciate a third opinion on the neutrality of VirnetX. -- ZimZalaBim talk 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
++
PatentInvestor here. The phrase "patent troll" is a pejorative and HIGHLY inaccurate term for a company that has developed a product to sell and has every right to protect its patented property in a court of law. Especially with the wide and demeaning use of the phrase in big business supported media and without any sort of definition offered, I'd suggest that it has NO place on a company's Wikipedia page in the first place. If a widely accepted definition of "patent troll" can even be offered that attempts to incorporate VirnetX I feel confident I could prove it inaccurate. I've removed the "superior legal representation comment (as it is self-evident by beating Apple). The patent troll issue is still intact as well.
I'm an investor in VirnetX and make no bones about it. I'm ALL in favor of a NPOV, but I would argue it cannot be done without both sides of the troll narrative being covered (my intent). I question why zim here is even tilting at this particular windmill as it is a little used page about a small company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatentInvestor ( talk • contribs)
You thinking that calling anything a troll is neutral is what is laughable and your definition of patent troll is lacking. Here is Wikipedia's opening sentence on "patent troll": "In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art..." Wikipedia even calls it pejorative (which is definitely not neutral). Here is Investopia's definition of "patent troll": "A patent troll is a derogatory term used to describe a company that uses patent infringement claims to win court judgments for profit or to stifle competition." Here's Encyclopedia Britannica: "Patent troll, also called nonpracticing entity or nonproducing entity (NPE), pejorative term for a company..." I'd say a totally uninterested party would side with my version of "neutral" over zims.
I removed this paragraph because it is terrible. The sources are shoddy and the statements are in some instances puffery (e.g. "however, that all changed" and "protecting its lawfully issued United States Patents through successful litigation"). For example, Forbes "Contributors" are not reliable sources. Not to mention things like refs being placed before the punctuation which indicate inexpert hands have been editing. I am inclined to restore the prior cited material that said some sources characterize this company as a patent troll. It doesn't matter if "patent troll" is pejorative if we source and attribute it. PatentInvestor please do not edit the article any further as you have a conflict of interest. If you continue to edit it you will probably be blocked. Ditto goes for anyone else who comes along to whitewash the article. —DIYeditor ( talk) 01:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Encountered while wikilinking. Some sort of avid dispute over a recent book about libertarian economist. Needs someone with enough prior knowledge to judge weight. Elinruby ( talk) 20:01, 19 April 2020 (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.
There has been continuous discussion for about a month over whether the terms "China virus" and "Wuhan virus" should be included in the lead as alternative names for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the cause of COVID-19. The discussion has reached a stalemate. One of the main proponents is a new editor Symphony Regalia ( talk · contribs) who has contributed little to wikipedia aside from the topic, and was blocked for edit warring during the early stages of the discussion for repeatedly adding the former term despite oppositon. The main argument used by the proponents in favour is based on its apparent inclusion in newspaper headlines, but while they are using the two words in succession, they clearly aren't being used as a noun, and is simply a result of cramped, condensed nature of the medium, and the terms never appear in the main body of the text. While the terms do have some use on social media, I think their inclusion lends undue weight to a minority viewpoint. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Probably worth noting that those names have been used but they are also controversial (I'm sure we can find sources to support that last point). Springee ( talk) 03:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: posted a belated notification about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#NPOV noticeboard discussion on SARS-CoV-2. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
This has been open for a while. I think we have clear consensus. Can somebody close this and notify Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19 when they do?
It seems the majority view is that only the official medical names should be used in the lead but the terms "Wuhan virus" (generally used in the initial phase of the outbreak) and "Chinese Virus" (mostly used for political reasons in the US) could be used in a section on naming history since the controversy seems notable. -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 08:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
References