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 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 90 |
At articles like Karl von Habsburg, we're seeing things like this in the infobox:
Spouse: Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza (m. 1993)
Issue:
Archduchess Eleonore
Archduke Ferdinand
Archduchess Gloria
and similar things throughout the article.
Note: archduke titles removed on Karl von Habsburg, other articles still have this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Lights ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a problem under all of at least
WP:BLP,
WP:NOR,
WP:NPOV,
WP:ABOUTSELF,
WP:SOAPBOX, and more. These titles are not only not used by these people, they are actually illegal to be used by most of them (other than some of those who have moved, to places that don't care), and for most of these people we have no evidence they actually attempt to use such titles, so we should not be imposing them on these subjects. These titles are basically a fantasy (and some of them appear to be "If this were still real, then so-and-so would have inherited this title from such-and-such" OR conducted by editors. The jurisdictions and legal systems in which they would be real ceased to exist around World War I or a bit later in most places, and countries like the UK where some of this sort of thing still exists do not automatically recognize such titles and honors and yadda yadda of alleged pretenders to extinct sovereignties.
There's a bit of a MOS:FICTION element here, too. For anyone from a deposed formerly royal family who does still assert and use such titles, styles, and honors (and there are a few of them running around; Karl von Habsburg's father was one of them), we have to be clear in our material that this is pretender stuff that most of the world does not take seriously (including people in non-deposed noble families in jurisdictions that still recognize nobility – except inasmuch as they may be looking for a "suitable" marriage partner, though even that stuff is drawing to a close as genetic effects inbreeding (including compounded cousin marriages) are well-studied now, and royal–commoner marriages like those in the recent British royal family have been accepted within those circles and by the public).
I'm not really sure if we just have a problem at a few dozen articles, or if there's a more systemic one that needs to be addressed in a guideline. I suspect the latter. E.g., when I look at List of current pretenders, I see a lot of entries that are people whom various WP editors believe (through various genealogy studies of their own) to be legitimate pretenders, but whom our articles (and more importantly, the reliable sources in them) do not indicate that they are in fact pretenders to (claimants of) the listed thrones, realms, titles, etc.
Let's look just at Karl von Habsburg: "Born a member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, he does not use his ancestral titles, since the use of such titles is now illegal in both Hungary and Austria. ... In 1961, his father, Otto von Habsburg, renounced all claims to the Austrian throne, as a necessary legal condition to being allowed to return to Austria." (What part of "renounced" wasn't clear?) His family has been trying since the 1960s to regain seized assets including estates, but this is not the same thing as being pretenders to the throne and other noble titles and offices and powers. Otto is also the grand master of the Habsburg-Lorraine Order of St. George which is an internal house order of the family (i.e., a private club). It is not the Habsburg Order of St. George (est. 1469); it has only existed since 2008 or 2011 (sources conflict), simply as a means of promoting and awarding pan-Europeanism; and of the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece, which is older but "an honour solely for Catholic royalty and nobility". So, this again is not the same as being a pretender to a throne or the asserter of a title like HI&RH Archduke, etc. The grand-mastering of these orders isn't really any different from chairing the board of directors of a charity or being the executive director of a learned society. It is not even issuance of historical chivalric titles as a pretender-sovereign. (In the first case, it's a recently invented private-sector award by the head of the Habsburg-Lorraine family to [any] recipients for international political do-gooding in the family's eyes, so it's not particularly different in nature from the Nobel Peace Prize or any other award from a family foundation. In the second case, it's simply an internal family matter, of nobles giving titles to related other nobles; it is a private club, albeit an old one and one which long ago meant something legally, under feudal class systems that have long since been abolished in the relevant jurisdictions.)
Much less does any of this stuff amount to an assertion that Karl von Habsburg's son Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg is "Archduke Ferdinand" as our infoboxes are claiming; it's an assertion for which he could be criminally prosecuted. So where is this stuff coming from, and how do we weed it out? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
In the case of Ferdinand Habsburg, the von should definitely be removed at least from the title (and probably also the lead, barring evidence that it's his legal birth name, or whatever). He doesn't use von, and sources mostly don't use it
[1], so it fails various aspects of
WP:COMMONNAME,
WP:NOR,
WP:ABOUTSELF,
MOS:IDENTITY, and
WP:BLP. Similarly, we know for a fact that Karl Habsburg renounced the Austrian title, so this archduke stuff cannot apply to him in later life, nor to his son (at all). Honestly, it's kind of weird to me that this has even come up. It's comparable to still referring to
Edward, Duke of Windsor, as "King Edward VIII" after he abdicated and became governor of the Bahamas, and calling Wallis Simpson "Queen Wallis" on the basis that the wife of that king must be a queen. It makes almost exactly the same kind of confused not-sense as calling Ferdinand Habsburg the archduke today just because his father was at one time the archduke and Ferdinand is the eldest son. Gaaahhh ....
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
At this point, I think a WP:VPPOL RfC might be the best bet, using a lot of examples from this thread. While WP:NPOV can often reach a decision on a small matter, it's not very good at spurring action. But everyone and their dog are watchlist VPPOL, so a clear result there should interest various people in collectively doing some cleanup on this mess. It's too big a job for just a couple of editors to try to take on. I certainly don't have the time for it in the current crisis. I barely have time to answer a few pings. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
What we call people can be handled perfectly well by the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Emperor Norton, Queen Latifah, Princess Yasmin Aga Khan, Princess Nokia, Princess Superstar, Prince Narula, Duke Albrecht, Princess Maria-Olympia, whatever tickles the fancy of reliable sources. It is not up to Wikipedia to judge whether Queen Latifah has the right to be called a queen. The problem here is the immense number of biographies in which no common name can be ascertained because there is no coverage. Articles such as Duchess Elisabeth of Württemberg (b. 1933) and Karl-Konstantin von Habsburg should not be renamed but deleted. They are nothing but genealogy. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there is a huge problem with users attributing claims to people. Here we had a living individual listed as the pretender to an imperial throne without any source stating that the person does claim that title. Apparently people do not understand how serious that is. Someone went along and named Uma Thurman's mother Baroness Nena von Schlebrügge. Neither she nor reliable sources use that title. It is a case of monkey see, monkey do: people see titles attributed to actors, politicians, and other people who do not use the said titles and they just go ahead and attribute titles to other people. Ahnentafeln have spread the same way; suddenly every article must have them despite general biographies never including that stuff. This mess should be untangled ruthlessly. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
This thread: “The law. Hungary is a Republic and deposed its royal family a hundred years ago and legally it doesn’t recognise titles so there can’t be any Princes, therefore Wikipedia can’t possibly call this Habsburg a Prince” (even though that’s what a load of verifiable sources do) An alternative way to look at this thread “The law. Hungary legally doesn’t allow a person to change their birth gender so that Wikipedia article on that Hungarian who was born a woman but now identifies as a man must be called a woman on Wikipedia because that’s what the Hungarian law says there gender is, so Wikipedia can’t possibly call her a him” (even though that’s what a load of verifiable sources do. But in all seriousness there is a really simple straightforward answer already out there, Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:Reliable sources (which apparently gets thrown at the Editors with the law/reality on their side whether it’s a fake royal they are tackling or a fake Hungarian man/woman (because hey the law is the law right, Wikipedia must bend over no questions asked to a countries laws) - it’s always the identity of the minority groups that get erased sadly Royal, noble, transgender etc. What is disturbing here though is a lot of people would appear to want to disregard policy and cook up some random fairy tale naming conventions and rules solely for members of deposed Royal Families because it’s the law of X country. So in the unenlightened, regressive outside world people will read about a “ Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece”, they will come on Wikipedia and find an article about what exactly, a Miss Maria-Olympia Glücksburg or whatever made up nonsense the progressive, enlightened Wikipedia Editors have cooked up by ignoring their own policies to serve their own agendas. I’ve got no problem with an article called Karl von Habsburg (mentioned right at the top of the thread), that would appear to be his common name I’m not insisting he be called Emperor Karl II of Austria, or Karl, Archduke of Austria, Archduke Karl von Habsburg (which is actually quite common) because I respect WP policies not just when it suits me, can everyone in this thread say the same? - dwc lr ( talk) 23:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Pretenders and defunct titles, a closely related thread (though confined necessarily to page-title matters, while the above is more about in-article content). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Alleyne
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Does the Praise & Criticism section contain editorializing?
Does the Praise & Criticism section contain poor writing?
Is the sourcing in the Praise & Criticism section unreliable?
Are the topics chosen in the Praise & Criticism section worthy of inclusion?
/info/en/?search=Talk:Jacobin_(magazine) BuilderJustLikeBob ( talk) 00:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
People who watched Tiger King may recall Doc Antle, and probably would not be surprised that a great deal of the sourcing about Antle following the documentary has been critical (other than the sources about how he was unhappy with how critical the series was). Our article, however, seems to have some PR work going on, with a whole section of primary sourced conservation work and critical language reframed. It's not something I have the capacity to work on at the moment, but I figured there are enough people into those related articles that posting here might attract the necessary attention. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Please, review the Paleolithic_diet article. The article's opening section seems to imply the diet is highly (entirely) flawed, yet, the article contents both support and refute the diet.
I suggest removing "mistakenly" from "mistakenly assumed".
The phrase "mistakenly assume" (in the article's opening section) is redundant or incorrect. Any assumption is, by definition, not proven. Thus, until proven, the assumption has the potential to be either a mistake or correct. It's the same as a theory upon which scientific research is based. If the assumption is proven wrong then the phrase "mistakenly assume" is redundant. If the assumption is proven correct then the phrase "mistakenly assume" is a contradiction. I'd suggest "mistakenly" be removed from the phrase so as not to bias the reader with hyperbole.
Please notice, too, that other editors were concerned with using the phrase "fad diet" in the opening sentence.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Liberty5651 ( talk) 22:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Center for Countering Digital Hate ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
User:The Anome could use some help. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Edward Colston was the C17/18 merchant and slave owner trader whose
statue in Bristol was torn down recently. The disagreement between editors is whether he should be described as a "philanthropist" in the opening paragraph. He gave money to causes he supported, and in the past has been described as a "philanthropist" in many biographies and on the plaque on the monument itself - but there is a strong view among some editors, myself included, that he should not be described neutrally, in Wikipedia's voice, as a "philanthropist" now. Comments and thoughts from disinterested editors are welcome.
Ghmyrtle (
talk) 15:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
contribs) 15:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose any change suggested here, I am not going to try and follow 15 separate threads. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
This is also wp:notforum. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
"Edward Colston was a slave trader who invested much of his wealth in philanthropic efforts, particularly for the benefit of his native Bristol, where he also served as an MP." is a very nice compromise I think. The key to neutrality is not applying value judgements, it is about letting the reader make up their own mind about what they think of such a man now, in the 21st Century. Krypto Wallace ( talk) 18:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Many bad people have been "philanthropists", and personally I dislike the fact that the English language has a word for a special category of charitable giving that is only attainable by the very rich. However, the word "philanthropist" is usually applied based on how much someone has given away and not the source of the funds, however unethical. The Land ( talk) 18:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
"A person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes." Oxford and co.
"a person who helps the poor, especially by giving them money:" Cambridge
"A philanthropist is someone who freely gives money and help to people who need it. Collins
I will also remind users to observe wp:npa, it dos not matter how right you are or how riotous your cause, comment on content not users. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The statue actually marks the high point of the reinvention of Colston as the ‘father of the city’ in the Victorian era.
Jordan’s point is that the historical figure of Colston was being reinvented in the Victorian period to represent the economic, social and political perspectives of the Bristol business elite.
Ritual commemoration, celebration and memorialisation of Edward Colston in the Victorian public domain were crucial to propagating both the elite concept of Colston and the belief that this concept was validated by long-standing tradition.
The organisations used for propagating this Victorian version of Colston were primarily the four charitable societies; the Dolphin, Anchor, Grateful and Colston (or Parent) Societies. Leading members of these associations were tied closely to other organisations of the Bristol elite such as the Society of Merchant Venturers.
Dr Dresser said she disagreed with the third proposal, claiming it 'sanitised' the slave trade.
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.Schazjmd (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
A statue of a slave trader that was thrown into a harbour by anti-racism protestors has been retrieved from the water.
The statue of the slave trade[r] was pulled out by Bristol City Council</ref>
Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that argues that tax cuts bolster economic growth far more than what other economists think. Supply-siders frequently argue that tax cuts will not have the adverse effects on net tax revenue that other economists claim they have, with some arguing that the tax cuts made by Reagan, Bush and Trump would pay for themselves (either that they would be revenue-neutral or that revenues will go up). Per all RS, Arthur Laffer is a prominent supply-siders and the Laffer Curve is a key concept in supply-side economics. I added two peer-reviewed studies to the article which explicitly refer to supply-side economics and explicitly assess the validity of the supply-side argument that tax cuts will pay for themselves:
However, both of these studies are being kept out of the article by two editors who are engaging in gatekeeping. [8] It is clearly a NPOV violation to solely include pro- Supply-side economics content while removing peer-reviewed studies which conflict with the pro- Supply-side economics literature. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to handle this one. It's about a book, although it doesn't have any real discussion of the book, and is used mainly for a list of the top 10. At the top of course is Muhammad, described as "The last prophet of God, Secular and religious leader, shepherd and merchant", which is clearly a violation of MOS:ISLAM, and the long bit on his influence starts with "Muhammad was revealed to Islam, the Qur'an was revealed to him..." I'm not at all sure that all this detail on the top 10, which doesn't seem to come from the book, belongs in the article. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am nominating Escobar Inc to be checked for its neutrality, because it has been the target of so much sockpuppetry over the past month that it is very hard to determine what is biased and what is correct. There have been two opposing factions of sockpuppets connected to or possibly created by people associated with the company - those of WowWashington, who are on the side of former executive Daniel Reitberg, and those of Verbatimusia, who are apparently on the side of current executive Olof Gustafsson. These sockpuppet armies have edit-warred over the page and filed SPI cases against each other. In addition, there are several fishy-looking lone wolf contributors to the page such as Danielreitberg, whom Juanmestizo claims is actually Olof Gustafsson trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and not Daniel Reitberg as his name might suggest. This whole thing is a complete mess and I am hoping someone here can bring back a semblance of normality. Passenger pigeon ( talk) 08:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The usual problem of "royalcruft" appears to infect Ra'ad bin Zeid and successors, but with a complication that the British-installed Hashemite monarchy is still apparently recognised by the Jordanian house of Hashem (unsurprisingly). The result is articles that refer to people as Jordanian Prince(ss)es and (crown) prince(ss)es of Iraq despite Iraq being a republic since 1959. This is further compliucated by the recent deprecation of some self-published royalty fansites,m which were the only sources for much of the content, notably the styles and titles. I have switched Ra'ad bin Zeid from {{ infobox royalty}} to {{ infobox person}}, but Princess Sarah Zeid of Jordan is more complex - is she actually a Jordanian Princess, or a "Princess" of Iraq recongised by Jordan and thus referred to by Jordan as royalty? It's unclear (and the tone of many sources makes Hello! look like the FT). Guy ( help!) 10:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute around the prehistory section in the Mustang article, which has resulted in the article being locked. In essence, the dispute is because there is a lot of argument about whether Mustangs are an invasive or re-introduced species. The taxonomy for Pleistocene North American equines is a complete mess, with over 50 species having being named, often from dubious material. Recent papers sequencing ancient DNA from prehistoric equine specimens from the Late Pleistocene ~(50,000 to 12,000 years ago) have found that some of the specimens are closely related to living horses and have been suggested to be part of the same species, see. [1] [2] [3] . The dispute revolves around the due weight of phrasing this section about the relationship between the north american caballine (horse-line) equines and wild horses (given that this relationship is based on primary sources), the distinction between the E. ferus and E. caballus, and whether mentioning the New world stilt legged horse, Haringtonhippus, which the only other equine in Late Pleistocene North America alongside caballines, and Przewalski's horse are revevant.
Another issue is whether it is due weight to include a footnote about the idea that the horse was present in North America prior to Columbus, the current text is as follows
In 1991, ethnohistorian Claire Henderson put forth a theory based in part on Lakota Sioux oral history that Equus was not completely extirpated from North America, but that the northern Plains Indians had domesticated and preserved horses prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Deb Bennett, a vertebrate paleontologist who, at the time was on the staff of the Smithsonian Institution, expressed skepticism about Henderson's theory, but conceded that "there may have been isolated pockets of grasslands untouched by the glaciers of the Ice Age in which horses could have survived. However, it is generally accepted that, at the beginning of the Columbian Exchange, there were no equids in the Americas. [references have been removed for clarity]
This refers to The Aboriginal North American Horse a statement apparently given by Dr. Henderson (who I can find nothing about) in 1991 in response to a North Dakota bill, the full context of which can be found in this Chicago Tribune article, which includes Deb Bennett views. However, given that this theory is not mentioned in any reliable sources, per WP:FRINGE it should not be mentioned at all. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
References
The notice for this article is its map (right side). Quick rundown, the article is about a planned pipeline project with 3 participant countries, Israel, Cyprus and Greece. Carrying gas from Israel to Greece in that order. The POV dispute is regarding the coloring of other countries, namely entire Europe the same color as the 3 participating countries, due to an organization called Union for the Mediterranean. This organization, per the references in the article has no connection to the project, yet it is colored in the map. 3 users (who have pro-Greek histories) have reverted me when I removed this organization from the map. I have opened a discussion and pinged them regarding this unreferenced addition to the map, which they did not respond. Can an administrator share their thoughts on this? ArtyomSokolov ( talk) 09:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
More input would be much appreciated at the following RfC:
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#RfC: J. K. Rowling
Crossroads -talk- 03:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I have discussed a possible COI / Advocacy issue with the author of Catena_(linguistics) on User_talk:Tjo3ya#Possible_COI_/_Advocacy_on_catenas. Since it concerns the entire article, not just some changes, I am not including diffs, but I do copy my original question summarizing the problem as I see it here:
The user in question has agreed to "likely reduce the number of those sources" on the catena page, but this does not address the main issue of links to that page. This is for me the main source of the issue, since it may give undue weight to the concept of catena in linguistics. In other words: I am worried mostly about undue weight to the concept, less about undue weight to the author.
Guidance would be appreciated, since I am not all that familiar with Wikipedia. Kaĉjo ( talk) 08:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Since posting this I found that two others have raised concerns about the treatment of the catena concept by Tjo3ya before. See User_talk:Tjo3ya#(=_xxx) and User_talk:Tjo3ya#Ling/ellipsis_edits,_thanks!,_and_some_suggestions. Kaĉjo ( talk) 10:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Here is the background of my concerns around Catena (linguistics) if it helps you, Tjo3ya, to understand why this may be an issue: I am learning some syntax, saw a sentence I couldn't draw a tree of, found a relevant wiki, and there it seemed that the catena was a very common way to address the issue. I then discussed with my supervisor and he had never heard of it. Hence my question how generally accepted it is, and whether there is any WP:UNDUE weight. I'd like that others coming across this in the future are not sent down what may be a rabbit hole.
I would suggest we tag Catena (linguistics) with Template:COI, and start a discussion on the talk page there to also look at the incoming links. Hopefully this will attract attention from neutrals who can also tell when there are issues of WP:UNDUE. Is that okay with you? Kaĉjo ( talk) 07:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we get some more eyes for NPOV over at Falun Gong? Until recently, the article made no mention of a variety of facts, and since then the article has seen repeated and sustained attempts at scrubbing it, including removing anything that the new religious movement would not approve of—such as any discussion about where it is headquartered, its political involvement, and even its status as a new religious movement. Much of the article seems to read as a puff piece. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This article discusses a shift that occured in 2017, and, indeed, from that time the vast majority of sources start popping up. It appears coverage has only snowballed since, a risk the organization seems willing to take to continue to wield political influence. Let's continue digging through media coverage:
More straightforward discussion from MSNBC, reporting on an NBC News article discussed above:
The NBC article refers to an article by The New Yorker:
And a few years back, here in Germany, referring to the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD):
These are a few examples of sources regularly scrubbed from the article. The material is strongly referenced to both media and academic sources, which are plentiful. :bloodofox: ( talk) 06:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead in History of Poland was overly embellished with phrased such as "thousands of years of human activity", "an inseparable part of western civilization", "intricate history", "innumerable tribes" and "brilliant period of economic prosperity". [10] I took to cleaning it up, [11] [12] but was reverted. [13] [14] I've looked at the articles of Poland's neighbours' ( Germany, Czech Republic, etc.), and none are so embellished; nor are Greece or Syria, whose histories span many thousands of years. I've tried to discuss it, [15] but obviously some editors think it stylish or due. Comment welcome. François Robere ( talk) 15:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried to fix the beginning of the lead in multiple ways already, (finally by just mostly removing the offending first paragraph of the lead, as it was unnecessary anyway and only recently added), but the two editors there just keep adding back the absurd tourism-pamphlet-style wording back in. (The issues are puffery, but also vagueness/lack of precision of certain phrases.)
To be honest I don't know how to proceed: they are not giving any argumentation or anything, so I can't even imagine what would a compromise-solution be like because I don't know what their position is (except that they like tourism advertisements better than encyclopedias or something). An RfC seems like a potential, but tricky solution: what would I name the RfC; I mean I don't know if there should be a different RfC for each offending phrase, or what? (The whole first paragraph of the lead is horrible, but there is at least one other offending phrase in the next paragraph.) And why would an RfC even be needed for such blatant style and verifiability violations? What do other editors usually do in such a situation? Notrium ( talk) 11:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The section about about NATO and Western media role in the Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars article was labeled as POV. Meanwhile, the section has been considerably rearranged, references by esteemed and relevant authors have been added, as well as criticism of their opinions.
No one on the talk page made specific objections to the sources and current content. Nicholas Cull, David Holbrook Culbert and David Welch are historians specializing in propaganda. Scott Taylor is a well known military journalist, while Michael Parenti is a well known political and social scientist. Philip Hammond is a professor of media and communications focused on the role of the media in post-Cold War conflicts and international interventions. David Binder was the Harvard University-graduated journalist who reported on Yugoslav Wars. Mark Wolfgram is a political scientist who has published his work in peer-reviewed academic journals. Noam Chomsky's propaganda model has been confirmed by a number of scholars around the world. Here we don't list their views on the war in general, but the subject of the article is propaganda. The authors' relevance to this topic is difficult to dispute. Furthermore, criticism of their claims have been added. Even Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Wesley Clark discussed the “propaganda war” as part of the strategy. There is really no doubt that NATO propaganda is well documented.
Can the POV template be removed now? Also, can the “claims about” be removed from the title of the section, as in other parts of the article? Thanks.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 11:08, 27 June 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.
[16]This edit is a NPOV violation and should be reverted.
Two editors on the Race and crime in the United States page (a page that has in the past been used by white supremacists and racists to defend their rhetoric about black people), "Gazelle55" and "David A", are removing all peer-reviewed research from the article about evidence that racial biases among police, juries and judges affect police interactions with blacks, arrests of blacks, convictions of blacks, and sentencing of blacks. These are studies published in the top journals. The editors have moved all of this content to another less prominent page with much fewer pageviews ( Race in the United States criminal justice system). The editors are completely incapable of justifying why this content should be moved: if discrimination by law enforcement and judges/juries increases the black-white gap in crime, then it's obviously pertinent to the page Race and crime in the United States, which is primarily about the rates that different races commit crimes. The editor "David A" justified the removal of the studies with:
The removal of content which contextualizes and explains the black-white gap is a clear NPOV violation. Furthermore, the fact that it's happening on a page with a sordid past (the page has been used as a propaganda tool and recruitment tool for racists), it's imperative that the content be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
We are not here to right great wrongs. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Snoog, I'm not sure you have made the case that this is NPOV vs simply what is/isn't in scope for the article. How much of the recently removed content was the material you added earlier this month vs long term material? Also, comments like this are problematic when trying to address content disputes [ [22]]. Please FOC and remain CIVIL. Springee ( talk) 18:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I am very surprised to find myself on this noticeboard, and in particular that Snooganssnoogans says I provided absolutely no explanation for the changes. In fact, let me copy here the long message I posted on the talk page:
Given what David has said I think this should be closed, before it does any harm. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:50, 18 June 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.
This article was started and for a long time WP:OWNed by a now blocked sockpuppet of a banned user.
One of the things this user introduced was an extensive primary-sourced section on commentary over the book's withdrawal from Amazon.
There is now a dispute over whether these primary-sourced opinion pieces belong int he article.
They are:
We have at least two solid secondary sources discussing the Amazon withdrawal. It is my contention that (a) we do not need primary-sourced opinion pieces; (b) we definitely don't need primary-sourced opinion pieces with titles like "Amazon.com Surrenders To The Homintern", and (c) given that this is a book promting the pseudoscientific and dangerous practice of conversion therapy we should be really careful to include only secondary sources. The Dreher piece is especially contentious: Google shows 24 hits for the article title, none of which seem to me to establish its significance per WP:UNDUE.
Against that we have an editor who says that there's no policy-based reason for not including primary-sourced opinion pieces from biased sources. Guy ( help!) 20:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
primary-sourced opinion pieces from biased sources".
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.
Repeatedly inserting things like "He is considered one of the great virtuoso pianists of our time.." and "and is considered one of the great pianists." which is a pretty exceptional claim that asserts it is generally accepted as a fact he is "one of the greatest" which needs to be directly supported by exceptional sources. They initially made edit requested one of those phrasing in their edit request, but it was recommended against by another editor in 2011 Talk:Horacio_Gutiérrez#Reworking_by_user:Fluffernutter. The user is now repeatedly edit-warring to re-insert this repeatedly but as far as I can locate, reliable sources don't support this as being general fact rather than them being opinions of opinion writers. The edit summary in Special:Diff/964936714 "body of work and award attest to description." shows the basis for their insertion is WP:OR, because it is a conclusion drawn by Maryphillips1952 based on their interpretation of sources instead of a strong source in their stating that "he is considered one of the greatest pianists"
Previous concerns raised
Graywalls ( talk) 07:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
May also be of interest edit history on the same article on German Wikipedia I stumbled upon while Googling the source "Horacio Gutierrez Queen Elizabeth Hall" Maryphillips1952 cited. Graywalls ( talk) 14:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Moved down from the top of the thread, where it was completely confusing. Not that I can understand what it means now, but at least it's in the right place. Please don't top-post, Mary. Keep the discussion chronological.' Bishonen | tålk 16:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC).] Others have inserted and edited this post. Recently removal of great pianist raised questions since Grraywalls does not consistently delete form other posts. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The insertions in question was already present, vetted, and approved by previous editors. It is a common assertion on many wiki posts (great pianist) as long as appropriate references are documented. There are many wiki posts with "great pianist" with fewer or less appropriate sources. Currently the post reads Gutiérrez's performance career spans over four decades and is considered one of the great pianists.[11] [12][13][14] These citations, body of work, records, and awards confirm this. This is a common statement in many wiki posts of classical artists. Some have blogs, and websites to document "great pianist," Graywalls finds nothing worng with these posts, but takes issue with Mr. Gutierrez'. My concern is inherent bias against Mr. Gutierrez. His wiki is NOW a list of things with references. Removing great pianist must then be done with ALL poorly sourced wiki posts of classical pianists. Graywalls has not removed claim from other edits with lesser sourcee, It appears the issue is with Mr. Gutierrez. His weiki now looks like a list of things. I am not sure if Graywalls is a colleague, critic, or rival. Again, I am a novice and willing to learn what sources you need and what format you want to make a great article. I welcome help to make the post an excellent post to reflect Mr. Gutierrez' life time work. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Please see comments above regarding the editor. I welcome your help to make Mr. Horacio Gutierrez'article excellent. Maryphillips1952 ([[User Mr. Graywalls - Thank you for your help. I included additional references similar to other classical artists wiki posts. Again, thank you for your help.
Gutiérrez's performance career spans over four decades and is considered one of the great pianists. [1] [2] [3] [4] User: talk: maryphillips1952 Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
References
His virtuosity is of the kind of which legends are made. ... he could become one of the very great pianists of the century.
Gutiérrez has matured into a truly great pianist, one with a mastery of architecture, whose long-lauded technical prowess serves a penetrating musical intelligence.
Again, thank you for your help.
I Added additional references... what references do you need? Other wiki posts from artists have similar claims and have references from blogs and papers. You have not removed or questioned these sources. What would satisfy the post. Since other posts have similar claims you have not removed or found fault.Are you a critic, colleague, rival? Getting paid by others? Currently reads: Gutiérrez's performance career spans over four decades and is considered one of the great pianists.[refs 1-4 above] User: talk: maryphillips1952 Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
References
I consider myself a novice and welcome your help. I have edited many wiki pages and enjoy finding citations when needed. One post, Horacio Gutierrez, has been extensively vetted, edited, and approved by several wiki editors. Recently, Graywalls began deleting and finding issues with the post. I locate references and pattern the posts I make after other similar posts so that they follows the wiki format. My concern is that Graywalls may have an inherent bias against Mr. Gutierrez (Hispanic). I am not sure if he is a colleague or critic, or? He is questioning the use of great pianist in his post (which has been there for years). I added additional references and the body of work, awards, records, concerts over 4 decades and career speak for Mr. Gutierrez. Graywalls has placed issues with the article once again that has been already vetted. It barely reads like a biography anymore from his continued edits. Yet, he is still finding issues. I believe his posts (all posts on wiki) need to be reviewed. I am sorry to bring this up. But, I am not sure how to get someone to help me. maryphillips52
If you go back to 2006 - This is how the post read (editor Davis Kosner) Gutierrez is known for playing that is imbued with a rare combination or romantic abandon and a classical sense of proportion and is considered by many piano connoisseurs to be one of the greatest pianists of the second half of the 20th century. You will need to go back to much later posts to get a full picture of Mr. Gutoerez' post history. I am trying to make an excellent post with your help. Please refer to the entire history of the post. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand it raises questions and I referenced many sources, if you read Gutierrez' post, he is considered o a great pianist. Many classical artists use great on their posts. I was following their protocol, but added substantial references. Gutierrez' post was started 9in 2006 and has undergone major revisions. I have sought help to make the entry an excellent, one. I edit wiki as a hobby. My goal is to write excellent wiki articles. My apologies for any problems I am still a novice. I would like to be unbloacked and perhaps if you have a mentor, I can work with one. Thank you for your help. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Maryphillips1952: Please drop the stick. COI editors accusing those who oppose their COIness of a conflict of interest is not something we are unfamiliar with. Cheers, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
My sincere apologies for any inconvenience.
Issue deals with WP:NPV. Editors might be interested. Can find it here: Talk:Audrey Strauss#RfC including Strauss's political party . Casprings ( talk) 19:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently no dispute but I would like guidance on a couple of issues:
A) I am changing all instances of "Indian" since the term is highly deprecated, and presumably falls into the category of things that should not be said in wikivoice. Where I can discern that it is a particular tribe, I am using the name of that tribe. Where it is more global (since many tribes were involved in this war) I have been using "tribal", "Native" or "Native American." First of all, is there any policy on any of "those" terms? I haven't had to use First Nations yet, as the one battle I have seen in Quebec so far specifically involved the Mohawk.
B) what to do about long pull-out quotes from Americans of the period, some of which are cringeworthy, and at least one of which is pretty racist? Article also repeatedly complains that Indians were preventing Americans from taking good land. I haven't really tackled this yet.
C) article seems very focused on unquestioned US expansionism, but also goes into great length about the British insults to American honor, etc. I have already flagged the article NPOV for this. I am assuming that the thing to do here is write about these things, which do seem to have been factors, as neutrally as possible without seeming to endorse them?
Feedback appreciated. Elinruby ( talk) 03:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you seriously maintaining that disagreeing with the US view of its own imperialism is unprofessional? Elinruby ( talk) 06:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Tirronan: I notified you because you were commenting on the RfC about the infobox. The text is boilerplate and says you"may" be involved in the sense that you may care, and want to comment. This is optional, like all participation on Wikipedia. I am not aware of a Wikipedia guideline to use "Indian". I personally believe that the applicable policy is the one that says that we call ethnic groups the name that they wish to be called. In general this would afaik mean using Mohawk or Cheyenne, etc. But when you have members of more than one tribal group then the usual formulation would be Native American in the US and First Nations in Canada. However at the time neither country existed in its current form, so I understand that "Indian" is convenient, but I have been taught that it is offensive. So I posted here as a question, which has now become a dispute. Incidentally, I do think we should lose the long pull-out quote about how you can't trust Indians. Imagine being a First Nations child reading that. Elinruby ( talk) 20:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Peter Gulutzan: thank you for coming back to this. I don't have time to look at your links this second, but I am interested and will do so. I found the policy, which is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification. This deals with naming conventions for articles, but the broad principle is the same. If the term "Indian" is offensive, even if only to some people, why use it? We do have a growing consensus on the page (I think) that where possible we should say Shawnee, Six Nations, Muscogee and so on, but when there are multiple indigenous nations on both sides of the conflict, we do need a collective noun, and the usual and accepted terms within Canada and the US (First Nations, Native Americans) are specific to those countries and the article deals with history from before there was a border. My concern is merely that if I am going to replace "Indian" I don't want to replace it with something equally offensive. I would like some documentation of the contention that "native" and "tribe" are offensive to somebody, but if that is correct, we are left with "Indigenous". Elinruby ( talk) 17:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd like an expert opinion on this one please! The results of the war of 1812 are debated. At the moment, the war of 1812 article says there are two opinions, in the memory and historiography section. The majority view (more popular in the US) is that the war of 1812 was a stalemate/draw. The minority view (more popular in Canada) is that the war was a victory for Britain/Canada. Both these views are mentioned in the article, and both views are supported by mainstream historians. However, At the moment, only the majority view is listed in the results box. Is this against NPOV policy? Should both views be listed in the infobox (or something like "result disputed"?) the argument being that the one view sums up the views of the article incorrectly? Thanks Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
My view is that it does not say that. It clearly states that In recent decades, the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive.
Then it talks about the minority view, which is that Some scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat.
I am fine with this, but the infobox should reflect the consensus among historians and the de facto result of military stalemate (draw, inconclusive or other similar wording). Deathlibertarian base their argument on the flawed view that there is a national bias, but
this request for comments clearly established there is not a national bias.
Deathlibertarian have also showed a clean misunderstanding of
WP:Fringe, for example
here. Per
Calidum (that is the consensus of historians. It should be noted that the infobox had described the outcome as a draw (or a synonym) for many years until it was changed recently
) and
The Four Deuces (The info-box should say the outcome of the war was a draw because that is the consensus of historians
), we should follow the consensus of historians that it was a draw (or similar wording). Per
Rjensen, The Canadian-victory viewpoint was widespread decades ago but is no longer found in Canadian scholarly articles & books or university textbooks. It may still be taught at the high school level in Canada, but I think it's now "fringe" in mainstream Canadian reliable sources in 21st century. Old notions become fringe when the RS drop them.
Deathlibertarian propose that we link
Memory and historiography of the War of 1812 but that it is not really helpful because (1) per
Shakescene, Infoboxes are intended to give a short overview at a glance, which is hardly achieved by directing readers to #Memory and Historiography
; and (2) it gives the false impression or imply that there is such a big dispute among experts, that there is not a consensus at all when that is not true. In other words, Deathlibrarian wants us to give equal weight to the minority view (fringe, per Rjensen and others) when that is undue and unwarranted as it does not express the consensus of the majority of historians (mainstream, per Calidum, The Four Deuces and others); and they are accusing me of pushing a view when I could not care less about it and I am merely trying to follow the consensus among historians. They are confusing the popular views (which see the Britain/Canada win viewpoint more widespread) with that of historians, whose majority consensus is that it was a draw or stalemate, which is exactly what de facto happened with the Treaty of Ghent and the status quo ante bellum. For what is worth it,
this is my proposal for the infobox.--
Davide King (
talk) 04:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
popular [views] within their respective countries, so what is the difference? Yet for the Korean War we follow the historians and de facto view that it was a military stalemate, which is exactly what happened here too; and this is in spite of the popular, not historian, claim that Britain/Canada won. Finally, the parameter for the infobox also suggests
Inconclusivewhich is exactly the same thing and what we should say. The article is currently a mess, so any reference to how it currently is does not mean much; until 30 June 2020, it still included a national bias section despite you being the only one to support in a request for comments. Either way, this back and forth diatribe is useless unless uninvolved users step in, so let us stop and wait for them, shall we?-- Davide King ( talk) 06:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Simply putting the fact it was a stalemate in, just matches the popular US view, and ignores he Canada viewimplies there is a national bias when there was consensus not to support that. I think the Korean War example suffices because both countries think they won.-- Davide King ( talk) 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field)? And you think or see fringe as a pejorative that represents pseudoscientific and wholly unreasonable views when it is also used to mean
reasoned theories presented in academic papers(which I believe this is the case). You write
but this war was definitely part of how Canada came to be. And editors claim that this doesn't warrant a mention?That is not my point or issue, which is the infobox. The infobox should say Military stalemate because that is what it was and is the consensus among historians. Popular views that see
Canadians knowing they won [...], Americans somehow think they won, and the Indians [...] definitely know they lostare already in the main body and I do not really have an issue with that. Here, you write you like two infobox proposals which use Military stalemate, so what are you actually disputing?-- Davide King ( talk) 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It's become axiomatic among historians that Canadians know they won the War of 1812, Americans somehow think they won, and the Indians — who'd continue to cede land to American expansion — definitely know they lost, despite fighting alongside British regulars and Canadian militia..-- Moxy 🍁 19:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This is kind of related to the recent discussion "Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles: NPOV, BLP, NOR and other policy problems", roughly the same issues are present.
Consider Joan Bates, Paddy Roy Bates or Michael Bates (Sealand); all royalty of an imaginary nation/state within British territory - Principality of Sealand. They all have titles like "Prince" or "Princess" in their infoboxes - that's absurd.
A wider issue is that articles like Micronation or List of micronations use Wikipedia to try to give legitimacy to imaginary nations.
And the use of the word "micronation" on articles for "micronations" (e.g., Liberland) is itself very suspect: I ran a Google Scholar search for micronation and there does not seem to be any good results. The present results do not seem to be scholarly, and the most cited paper is cited only 3 times; except for the top result, which uses "micro-nation" and a completely different meaning than used on Wikipedia - applying the term to Liechtenstein. This suggests the neologism "micronation" is powered by cheap press, which may have just picked it up from Wikipedia anyway. Notrium ( talk) 04:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
There has been a report by The Intercept that there was scrubbing at Kamala Harris. This issue was discussed in the section it got noticed. I've started a discussion on what editors believe is the best option moving forward to resolve the issues, namely being revert to last good version and readd in updates, or stay at the latest version and vet ~500-600 edits and undo/readd options as necessary. Input from editors is appreciated at Moving forward with NPOV issues. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Harris was the only Democratic candidate for the Senate to receive a campaign contribution). Nicer wording in Special:Diff/954661588. To his credit, of course, he's removed a lot of garbage, like in Special:Diff/956351080 and Special:Diff/954310981. But I don't know how we can feel confident, given the amount of examples of POV edits, that this article can ever be free of neutrality issues. Even if the content is reintroduced (which itself is difficult, due to major structural changes), there's lots of little wording changes across 90k readable prose which makes a big difference. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
At Murder of Rina Shnerb several users have said that including material on the attack occurring in a spring seized by Israeli settlers is "justifying the murder" and "POV" and "UNDUE". The material is based on this Haaretz feature that discusses the killing of Shnerb within the context of the takeover of Palestinian springs at length and this NYT source that likewise discusses the springs being frequent hot points due to settler takeovers of the springs. It has been argued that these are "op-eds" (I think that is pretty clearly untrue). The edit in question has been this wholesale removal which has been removed without comment a couple of times before the above arguments were offered. Is it undue weight to include material cited to this Haaretz feature and this NYT news article or are these actually "two partisan op-ed" that demonstrate no weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nableezy ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Except in cases of certifications or master-apprentice-type guilds, is it ever okay to start an article with [Firstname Lastname] was a master [occupation]"? I would say no, based on WP:Peacock and article precedents? ɱ (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to know what you think. about SETA, a Turkish think Tank linked to the Turkish Government and is used as a source in several articles. I'd say it is even more Government linked than the Anadolu Ajansi as it was founded by Ibrahim Kalin, a chief adviser to Erdogan. Press freedom is now not a strength of Erdogan and... They also like to write about YPG terrorists, and say HDP is carrying out the orders of the PKK. These are really just Turkeys views, and in most of the rest of the world, both organizations are viewed as opposing terrorism. I think, I've never read a neutral article of SETA. I think SETA can be used as a source to describe the Organization. But on other topics, if the subject is notable, it should also have an article in an other news outlet and we could then use this one as a source. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 01:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Could be rather interesting, see Talk:War_in_Donbass#Recent_controversial_edits. Heptor ( talk) 19:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
More input would be very welcome at Talk:Genetic Literacy Project#RfC about the word nonpartisan for the Genetic Literacy Project. NightHeron ( talk) 15:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
"The English people are a nation and an ethnic group native to England who speak the English language, and share a common history and culture. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ('family of the Angles'). Their ethnonym is derived from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who migrated to Great Britain around the 5th century AD.[8] England is the largest and most populous country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the majority of people living there are British citizens."
This is being used to argue that, for example, Idris Elba is not English.
As far as I can tell, this lead paragraph is a massive dose of WP:SYN. When addressing ewthnicity, for example, the Office of National Statistics uses "Whiote British", not "English". English is not an ethnicity and never has been. The idea that speaking English is a qualifying factor would have been an inc onvenience in the early days of the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha or even the early Hanovers. Common history and culture? The English national dish is either fish ands chips (invented by Italians in Glasgow) or chicken tikka masala. Then we get to the religion part. Anglicanism? Not according to Voltaire, who documented numerous religions including the Quakers, who were the last to abandon the familiar "thee" and "thou" of old English.
This article reads to me as a giant pille of WP:SYN. What do others think? Guy ( help!) 23:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
within this narrative the countryside has tended to be deployed as an endangered and essentialised symbol of what Englishness is and this chapter has suggested that rural nature has been invested with the meanings and representations of English ethnicityetc - in other words, it's a narrative, not a fact (and the text goes on to make this even clearer). And that is pretty much my point: the idea of the "ethnic English" is a narrative, and one with a profoundly unattractive provenance. Guy ( help!) 23:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This article seems biased particularly the political viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:1201:55D3:8D95:85A3:87B9:915E ( talk) 20:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I think in article McKenzie method violates the Neutral point of view. The essence of the dispute is set forth in here. The debate concerns mainly the chapter "Effectiveness". NDenPT ( talk) 11:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I would like to raise a concern about the label American “charlatan" on Dr. Mercola's Wikipedia page.
The reference used to support this claim is the Chicago Magazine article. The article used the word “charlatan” as a speculation of the writer, and not as a fact. Here is the direct quote.
"Warrior or quack, straight shooter or charlatan, the question is the same: How has a site built on ideas so contrary to mainstream science—so radical that even some staunch alternative health advocates are uncomfortable with some of his positions—become so popular?"
I believe this is a violation of Wikipedia's two core policies:
• WP:NPOV – Neutral point of view. The word “charlatan” is a derogatory term that signifies bias against Dr. Mercola. • WP:V – Verifiability. The reference that made use of the word “charlatan” as a matter of fact, and not opinion, is not factual.
I've brought this up in the Talk page, but editors have denied my request.
As a Wikipedia reader and user myself, I am aware that this site aims to disseminate information, and I am open to accepting criticisms as long as they are appropriately backed by reliable factual sources. But this seems like a direct attack on Dr. Mercola to unfairly taint his image in the public’s eye.
What I would propose is to strike out the label from the first sentence of the bio, and instead directly use the quote from Chicago Mag, so Wiki readers can see that it is a speculation/opinion, and not a fact.-- Lein23 ( talk) 02:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I would also like to add that the writer of the Chicago Mag article, which was used as the source, isn't even claiming the charlatan label as his own opinion, but is stating it as one of several possibilities - none of which even he has established any certainty.-- Lein23 ( talk) 03:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales made no specific reference to Dr. Mercola when he said that statement, but instead was referring to his response to the Change.org petition. No doctors were named in that petition.
The main issue here would be the use of the label "charlatan" as it is taken from a reference that used the word as a matter of opinion, and not a fact.
If the Chicago Mag article will be used as a reference for the charlatan tag, then it should be posted in its entirety, rather than cherry pick a word the author used. That would count as information suppression, which is another violation of Wikipedia policies.-- Lein23 ( talk) 06:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Steven Salzberg, a prominent biologist, professor, and researcher at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, calls Mercola “the 21st-century equivalent of a snake-oil salesman.”Which is synonymous with "charlatan". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Mercola is, by a wide variety of sources, a quack. He's gotten warning letters from the FDA, so it's essentially official. -- Calton | Talk 23:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
More input is needed at White Fragility, and on its talk page: Talk:White Fragility#Overhaul. Crossroads -talk- 21:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a dispute between whether there are 2 languages or 3 languages the film is being shot on and whether it is POV and OR as said by ThaThinThaKiThaTha. More input is needed on this talk page: Talk:Radhe Shyam#Original languages. SP013 ( talk) 16:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 90 |
At articles like Karl von Habsburg, we're seeing things like this in the infobox:
Spouse: Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza (m. 1993)
Issue:
Archduchess Eleonore
Archduke Ferdinand
Archduchess Gloria
and similar things throughout the article.
Note: archduke titles removed on Karl von Habsburg, other articles still have this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Lights ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a problem under all of at least
WP:BLP,
WP:NOR,
WP:NPOV,
WP:ABOUTSELF,
WP:SOAPBOX, and more. These titles are not only not used by these people, they are actually illegal to be used by most of them (other than some of those who have moved, to places that don't care), and for most of these people we have no evidence they actually attempt to use such titles, so we should not be imposing them on these subjects. These titles are basically a fantasy (and some of them appear to be "If this were still real, then so-and-so would have inherited this title from such-and-such" OR conducted by editors. The jurisdictions and legal systems in which they would be real ceased to exist around World War I or a bit later in most places, and countries like the UK where some of this sort of thing still exists do not automatically recognize such titles and honors and yadda yadda of alleged pretenders to extinct sovereignties.
There's a bit of a MOS:FICTION element here, too. For anyone from a deposed formerly royal family who does still assert and use such titles, styles, and honors (and there are a few of them running around; Karl von Habsburg's father was one of them), we have to be clear in our material that this is pretender stuff that most of the world does not take seriously (including people in non-deposed noble families in jurisdictions that still recognize nobility – except inasmuch as they may be looking for a "suitable" marriage partner, though even that stuff is drawing to a close as genetic effects inbreeding (including compounded cousin marriages) are well-studied now, and royal–commoner marriages like those in the recent British royal family have been accepted within those circles and by the public).
I'm not really sure if we just have a problem at a few dozen articles, or if there's a more systemic one that needs to be addressed in a guideline. I suspect the latter. E.g., when I look at List of current pretenders, I see a lot of entries that are people whom various WP editors believe (through various genealogy studies of their own) to be legitimate pretenders, but whom our articles (and more importantly, the reliable sources in them) do not indicate that they are in fact pretenders to (claimants of) the listed thrones, realms, titles, etc.
Let's look just at Karl von Habsburg: "Born a member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, he does not use his ancestral titles, since the use of such titles is now illegal in both Hungary and Austria. ... In 1961, his father, Otto von Habsburg, renounced all claims to the Austrian throne, as a necessary legal condition to being allowed to return to Austria." (What part of "renounced" wasn't clear?) His family has been trying since the 1960s to regain seized assets including estates, but this is not the same thing as being pretenders to the throne and other noble titles and offices and powers. Otto is also the grand master of the Habsburg-Lorraine Order of St. George which is an internal house order of the family (i.e., a private club). It is not the Habsburg Order of St. George (est. 1469); it has only existed since 2008 or 2011 (sources conflict), simply as a means of promoting and awarding pan-Europeanism; and of the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece, which is older but "an honour solely for Catholic royalty and nobility". So, this again is not the same as being a pretender to a throne or the asserter of a title like HI&RH Archduke, etc. The grand-mastering of these orders isn't really any different from chairing the board of directors of a charity or being the executive director of a learned society. It is not even issuance of historical chivalric titles as a pretender-sovereign. (In the first case, it's a recently invented private-sector award by the head of the Habsburg-Lorraine family to [any] recipients for international political do-gooding in the family's eyes, so it's not particularly different in nature from the Nobel Peace Prize or any other award from a family foundation. In the second case, it's simply an internal family matter, of nobles giving titles to related other nobles; it is a private club, albeit an old one and one which long ago meant something legally, under feudal class systems that have long since been abolished in the relevant jurisdictions.)
Much less does any of this stuff amount to an assertion that Karl von Habsburg's son Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg is "Archduke Ferdinand" as our infoboxes are claiming; it's an assertion for which he could be criminally prosecuted. So where is this stuff coming from, and how do we weed it out? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
In the case of Ferdinand Habsburg, the von should definitely be removed at least from the title (and probably also the lead, barring evidence that it's his legal birth name, or whatever). He doesn't use von, and sources mostly don't use it
[1], so it fails various aspects of
WP:COMMONNAME,
WP:NOR,
WP:ABOUTSELF,
MOS:IDENTITY, and
WP:BLP. Similarly, we know for a fact that Karl Habsburg renounced the Austrian title, so this archduke stuff cannot apply to him in later life, nor to his son (at all). Honestly, it's kind of weird to me that this has even come up. It's comparable to still referring to
Edward, Duke of Windsor, as "King Edward VIII" after he abdicated and became governor of the Bahamas, and calling Wallis Simpson "Queen Wallis" on the basis that the wife of that king must be a queen. It makes almost exactly the same kind of confused not-sense as calling Ferdinand Habsburg the archduke today just because his father was at one time the archduke and Ferdinand is the eldest son. Gaaahhh ....
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
At this point, I think a WP:VPPOL RfC might be the best bet, using a lot of examples from this thread. While WP:NPOV can often reach a decision on a small matter, it's not very good at spurring action. But everyone and their dog are watchlist VPPOL, so a clear result there should interest various people in collectively doing some cleanup on this mess. It's too big a job for just a couple of editors to try to take on. I certainly don't have the time for it in the current crisis. I barely have time to answer a few pings. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
What we call people can be handled perfectly well by the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Emperor Norton, Queen Latifah, Princess Yasmin Aga Khan, Princess Nokia, Princess Superstar, Prince Narula, Duke Albrecht, Princess Maria-Olympia, whatever tickles the fancy of reliable sources. It is not up to Wikipedia to judge whether Queen Latifah has the right to be called a queen. The problem here is the immense number of biographies in which no common name can be ascertained because there is no coverage. Articles such as Duchess Elisabeth of Württemberg (b. 1933) and Karl-Konstantin von Habsburg should not be renamed but deleted. They are nothing but genealogy. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there is a huge problem with users attributing claims to people. Here we had a living individual listed as the pretender to an imperial throne without any source stating that the person does claim that title. Apparently people do not understand how serious that is. Someone went along and named Uma Thurman's mother Baroness Nena von Schlebrügge. Neither she nor reliable sources use that title. It is a case of monkey see, monkey do: people see titles attributed to actors, politicians, and other people who do not use the said titles and they just go ahead and attribute titles to other people. Ahnentafeln have spread the same way; suddenly every article must have them despite general biographies never including that stuff. This mess should be untangled ruthlessly. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
This thread: “The law. Hungary is a Republic and deposed its royal family a hundred years ago and legally it doesn’t recognise titles so there can’t be any Princes, therefore Wikipedia can’t possibly call this Habsburg a Prince” (even though that’s what a load of verifiable sources do) An alternative way to look at this thread “The law. Hungary legally doesn’t allow a person to change their birth gender so that Wikipedia article on that Hungarian who was born a woman but now identifies as a man must be called a woman on Wikipedia because that’s what the Hungarian law says there gender is, so Wikipedia can’t possibly call her a him” (even though that’s what a load of verifiable sources do. But in all seriousness there is a really simple straightforward answer already out there, Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:Reliable sources (which apparently gets thrown at the Editors with the law/reality on their side whether it’s a fake royal they are tackling or a fake Hungarian man/woman (because hey the law is the law right, Wikipedia must bend over no questions asked to a countries laws) - it’s always the identity of the minority groups that get erased sadly Royal, noble, transgender etc. What is disturbing here though is a lot of people would appear to want to disregard policy and cook up some random fairy tale naming conventions and rules solely for members of deposed Royal Families because it’s the law of X country. So in the unenlightened, regressive outside world people will read about a “ Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece”, they will come on Wikipedia and find an article about what exactly, a Miss Maria-Olympia Glücksburg or whatever made up nonsense the progressive, enlightened Wikipedia Editors have cooked up by ignoring their own policies to serve their own agendas. I’ve got no problem with an article called Karl von Habsburg (mentioned right at the top of the thread), that would appear to be his common name I’m not insisting he be called Emperor Karl II of Austria, or Karl, Archduke of Austria, Archduke Karl von Habsburg (which is actually quite common) because I respect WP policies not just when it suits me, can everyone in this thread say the same? - dwc lr ( talk) 23:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Pretenders and defunct titles, a closely related thread (though confined necessarily to page-title matters, while the above is more about in-article content). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Alleyne
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Does the Praise & Criticism section contain editorializing?
Does the Praise & Criticism section contain poor writing?
Is the sourcing in the Praise & Criticism section unreliable?
Are the topics chosen in the Praise & Criticism section worthy of inclusion?
/info/en/?search=Talk:Jacobin_(magazine) BuilderJustLikeBob ( talk) 00:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
People who watched Tiger King may recall Doc Antle, and probably would not be surprised that a great deal of the sourcing about Antle following the documentary has been critical (other than the sources about how he was unhappy with how critical the series was). Our article, however, seems to have some PR work going on, with a whole section of primary sourced conservation work and critical language reframed. It's not something I have the capacity to work on at the moment, but I figured there are enough people into those related articles that posting here might attract the necessary attention. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Please, review the Paleolithic_diet article. The article's opening section seems to imply the diet is highly (entirely) flawed, yet, the article contents both support and refute the diet.
I suggest removing "mistakenly" from "mistakenly assumed".
The phrase "mistakenly assume" (in the article's opening section) is redundant or incorrect. Any assumption is, by definition, not proven. Thus, until proven, the assumption has the potential to be either a mistake or correct. It's the same as a theory upon which scientific research is based. If the assumption is proven wrong then the phrase "mistakenly assume" is redundant. If the assumption is proven correct then the phrase "mistakenly assume" is a contradiction. I'd suggest "mistakenly" be removed from the phrase so as not to bias the reader with hyperbole.
Please notice, too, that other editors were concerned with using the phrase "fad diet" in the opening sentence.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Liberty5651 ( talk) 22:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Center for Countering Digital Hate ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
User:The Anome could use some help. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Edward Colston was the C17/18 merchant and slave owner trader whose
statue in Bristol was torn down recently. The disagreement between editors is whether he should be described as a "philanthropist" in the opening paragraph. He gave money to causes he supported, and in the past has been described as a "philanthropist" in many biographies and on the plaque on the monument itself - but there is a strong view among some editors, myself included, that he should not be described neutrally, in Wikipedia's voice, as a "philanthropist" now. Comments and thoughts from disinterested editors are welcome.
Ghmyrtle (
talk) 15:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
contribs) 15:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose any change suggested here, I am not going to try and follow 15 separate threads. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
This is also wp:notforum. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
"Edward Colston was a slave trader who invested much of his wealth in philanthropic efforts, particularly for the benefit of his native Bristol, where he also served as an MP." is a very nice compromise I think. The key to neutrality is not applying value judgements, it is about letting the reader make up their own mind about what they think of such a man now, in the 21st Century. Krypto Wallace ( talk) 18:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Many bad people have been "philanthropists", and personally I dislike the fact that the English language has a word for a special category of charitable giving that is only attainable by the very rich. However, the word "philanthropist" is usually applied based on how much someone has given away and not the source of the funds, however unethical. The Land ( talk) 18:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
"A person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes." Oxford and co.
"a person who helps the poor, especially by giving them money:" Cambridge
"A philanthropist is someone who freely gives money and help to people who need it. Collins
I will also remind users to observe wp:npa, it dos not matter how right you are or how riotous your cause, comment on content not users. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The statue actually marks the high point of the reinvention of Colston as the ‘father of the city’ in the Victorian era.
Jordan’s point is that the historical figure of Colston was being reinvented in the Victorian period to represent the economic, social and political perspectives of the Bristol business elite.
Ritual commemoration, celebration and memorialisation of Edward Colston in the Victorian public domain were crucial to propagating both the elite concept of Colston and the belief that this concept was validated by long-standing tradition.
The organisations used for propagating this Victorian version of Colston were primarily the four charitable societies; the Dolphin, Anchor, Grateful and Colston (or Parent) Societies. Leading members of these associations were tied closely to other organisations of the Bristol elite such as the Society of Merchant Venturers.
Dr Dresser said she disagreed with the third proposal, claiming it 'sanitised' the slave trade.
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.Schazjmd (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
A statue of a slave trader that was thrown into a harbour by anti-racism protestors has been retrieved from the water.
The statue of the slave trade[r] was pulled out by Bristol City Council</ref>
Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that argues that tax cuts bolster economic growth far more than what other economists think. Supply-siders frequently argue that tax cuts will not have the adverse effects on net tax revenue that other economists claim they have, with some arguing that the tax cuts made by Reagan, Bush and Trump would pay for themselves (either that they would be revenue-neutral or that revenues will go up). Per all RS, Arthur Laffer is a prominent supply-siders and the Laffer Curve is a key concept in supply-side economics. I added two peer-reviewed studies to the article which explicitly refer to supply-side economics and explicitly assess the validity of the supply-side argument that tax cuts will pay for themselves:
However, both of these studies are being kept out of the article by two editors who are engaging in gatekeeping. [8] It is clearly a NPOV violation to solely include pro- Supply-side economics content while removing peer-reviewed studies which conflict with the pro- Supply-side economics literature. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to handle this one. It's about a book, although it doesn't have any real discussion of the book, and is used mainly for a list of the top 10. At the top of course is Muhammad, described as "The last prophet of God, Secular and religious leader, shepherd and merchant", which is clearly a violation of MOS:ISLAM, and the long bit on his influence starts with "Muhammad was revealed to Islam, the Qur'an was revealed to him..." I'm not at all sure that all this detail on the top 10, which doesn't seem to come from the book, belongs in the article. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am nominating Escobar Inc to be checked for its neutrality, because it has been the target of so much sockpuppetry over the past month that it is very hard to determine what is biased and what is correct. There have been two opposing factions of sockpuppets connected to or possibly created by people associated with the company - those of WowWashington, who are on the side of former executive Daniel Reitberg, and those of Verbatimusia, who are apparently on the side of current executive Olof Gustafsson. These sockpuppet armies have edit-warred over the page and filed SPI cases against each other. In addition, there are several fishy-looking lone wolf contributors to the page such as Danielreitberg, whom Juanmestizo claims is actually Olof Gustafsson trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and not Daniel Reitberg as his name might suggest. This whole thing is a complete mess and I am hoping someone here can bring back a semblance of normality. Passenger pigeon ( talk) 08:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The usual problem of "royalcruft" appears to infect Ra'ad bin Zeid and successors, but with a complication that the British-installed Hashemite monarchy is still apparently recognised by the Jordanian house of Hashem (unsurprisingly). The result is articles that refer to people as Jordanian Prince(ss)es and (crown) prince(ss)es of Iraq despite Iraq being a republic since 1959. This is further compliucated by the recent deprecation of some self-published royalty fansites,m which were the only sources for much of the content, notably the styles and titles. I have switched Ra'ad bin Zeid from {{ infobox royalty}} to {{ infobox person}}, but Princess Sarah Zeid of Jordan is more complex - is she actually a Jordanian Princess, or a "Princess" of Iraq recongised by Jordan and thus referred to by Jordan as royalty? It's unclear (and the tone of many sources makes Hello! look like the FT). Guy ( help!) 10:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute around the prehistory section in the Mustang article, which has resulted in the article being locked. In essence, the dispute is because there is a lot of argument about whether Mustangs are an invasive or re-introduced species. The taxonomy for Pleistocene North American equines is a complete mess, with over 50 species having being named, often from dubious material. Recent papers sequencing ancient DNA from prehistoric equine specimens from the Late Pleistocene ~(50,000 to 12,000 years ago) have found that some of the specimens are closely related to living horses and have been suggested to be part of the same species, see. [1] [2] [3] . The dispute revolves around the due weight of phrasing this section about the relationship between the north american caballine (horse-line) equines and wild horses (given that this relationship is based on primary sources), the distinction between the E. ferus and E. caballus, and whether mentioning the New world stilt legged horse, Haringtonhippus, which the only other equine in Late Pleistocene North America alongside caballines, and Przewalski's horse are revevant.
Another issue is whether it is due weight to include a footnote about the idea that the horse was present in North America prior to Columbus, the current text is as follows
In 1991, ethnohistorian Claire Henderson put forth a theory based in part on Lakota Sioux oral history that Equus was not completely extirpated from North America, but that the northern Plains Indians had domesticated and preserved horses prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Deb Bennett, a vertebrate paleontologist who, at the time was on the staff of the Smithsonian Institution, expressed skepticism about Henderson's theory, but conceded that "there may have been isolated pockets of grasslands untouched by the glaciers of the Ice Age in which horses could have survived. However, it is generally accepted that, at the beginning of the Columbian Exchange, there were no equids in the Americas. [references have been removed for clarity]
This refers to The Aboriginal North American Horse a statement apparently given by Dr. Henderson (who I can find nothing about) in 1991 in response to a North Dakota bill, the full context of which can be found in this Chicago Tribune article, which includes Deb Bennett views. However, given that this theory is not mentioned in any reliable sources, per WP:FRINGE it should not be mentioned at all. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
References
The notice for this article is its map (right side). Quick rundown, the article is about a planned pipeline project with 3 participant countries, Israel, Cyprus and Greece. Carrying gas from Israel to Greece in that order. The POV dispute is regarding the coloring of other countries, namely entire Europe the same color as the 3 participating countries, due to an organization called Union for the Mediterranean. This organization, per the references in the article has no connection to the project, yet it is colored in the map. 3 users (who have pro-Greek histories) have reverted me when I removed this organization from the map. I have opened a discussion and pinged them regarding this unreferenced addition to the map, which they did not respond. Can an administrator share their thoughts on this? ArtyomSokolov ( talk) 09:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
More input would be much appreciated at the following RfC:
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#RfC: J. K. Rowling
Crossroads -talk- 03:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I have discussed a possible COI / Advocacy issue with the author of Catena_(linguistics) on User_talk:Tjo3ya#Possible_COI_/_Advocacy_on_catenas. Since it concerns the entire article, not just some changes, I am not including diffs, but I do copy my original question summarizing the problem as I see it here:
The user in question has agreed to "likely reduce the number of those sources" on the catena page, but this does not address the main issue of links to that page. This is for me the main source of the issue, since it may give undue weight to the concept of catena in linguistics. In other words: I am worried mostly about undue weight to the concept, less about undue weight to the author.
Guidance would be appreciated, since I am not all that familiar with Wikipedia. Kaĉjo ( talk) 08:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Since posting this I found that two others have raised concerns about the treatment of the catena concept by Tjo3ya before. See User_talk:Tjo3ya#(=_xxx) and User_talk:Tjo3ya#Ling/ellipsis_edits,_thanks!,_and_some_suggestions. Kaĉjo ( talk) 10:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Here is the background of my concerns around Catena (linguistics) if it helps you, Tjo3ya, to understand why this may be an issue: I am learning some syntax, saw a sentence I couldn't draw a tree of, found a relevant wiki, and there it seemed that the catena was a very common way to address the issue. I then discussed with my supervisor and he had never heard of it. Hence my question how generally accepted it is, and whether there is any WP:UNDUE weight. I'd like that others coming across this in the future are not sent down what may be a rabbit hole.
I would suggest we tag Catena (linguistics) with Template:COI, and start a discussion on the talk page there to also look at the incoming links. Hopefully this will attract attention from neutrals who can also tell when there are issues of WP:UNDUE. Is that okay with you? Kaĉjo ( talk) 07:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we get some more eyes for NPOV over at Falun Gong? Until recently, the article made no mention of a variety of facts, and since then the article has seen repeated and sustained attempts at scrubbing it, including removing anything that the new religious movement would not approve of—such as any discussion about where it is headquartered, its political involvement, and even its status as a new religious movement. Much of the article seems to read as a puff piece. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This article discusses a shift that occured in 2017, and, indeed, from that time the vast majority of sources start popping up. It appears coverage has only snowballed since, a risk the organization seems willing to take to continue to wield political influence. Let's continue digging through media coverage:
More straightforward discussion from MSNBC, reporting on an NBC News article discussed above:
The NBC article refers to an article by The New Yorker:
And a few years back, here in Germany, referring to the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD):
These are a few examples of sources regularly scrubbed from the article. The material is strongly referenced to both media and academic sources, which are plentiful. :bloodofox: ( talk) 06:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead in History of Poland was overly embellished with phrased such as "thousands of years of human activity", "an inseparable part of western civilization", "intricate history", "innumerable tribes" and "brilliant period of economic prosperity". [10] I took to cleaning it up, [11] [12] but was reverted. [13] [14] I've looked at the articles of Poland's neighbours' ( Germany, Czech Republic, etc.), and none are so embellished; nor are Greece or Syria, whose histories span many thousands of years. I've tried to discuss it, [15] but obviously some editors think it stylish or due. Comment welcome. François Robere ( talk) 15:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried to fix the beginning of the lead in multiple ways already, (finally by just mostly removing the offending first paragraph of the lead, as it was unnecessary anyway and only recently added), but the two editors there just keep adding back the absurd tourism-pamphlet-style wording back in. (The issues are puffery, but also vagueness/lack of precision of certain phrases.)
To be honest I don't know how to proceed: they are not giving any argumentation or anything, so I can't even imagine what would a compromise-solution be like because I don't know what their position is (except that they like tourism advertisements better than encyclopedias or something). An RfC seems like a potential, but tricky solution: what would I name the RfC; I mean I don't know if there should be a different RfC for each offending phrase, or what? (The whole first paragraph of the lead is horrible, but there is at least one other offending phrase in the next paragraph.) And why would an RfC even be needed for such blatant style and verifiability violations? What do other editors usually do in such a situation? Notrium ( talk) 11:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The section about about NATO and Western media role in the Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars article was labeled as POV. Meanwhile, the section has been considerably rearranged, references by esteemed and relevant authors have been added, as well as criticism of their opinions.
No one on the talk page made specific objections to the sources and current content. Nicholas Cull, David Holbrook Culbert and David Welch are historians specializing in propaganda. Scott Taylor is a well known military journalist, while Michael Parenti is a well known political and social scientist. Philip Hammond is a professor of media and communications focused on the role of the media in post-Cold War conflicts and international interventions. David Binder was the Harvard University-graduated journalist who reported on Yugoslav Wars. Mark Wolfgram is a political scientist who has published his work in peer-reviewed academic journals. Noam Chomsky's propaganda model has been confirmed by a number of scholars around the world. Here we don't list their views on the war in general, but the subject of the article is propaganda. The authors' relevance to this topic is difficult to dispute. Furthermore, criticism of their claims have been added. Even Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Wesley Clark discussed the “propaganda war” as part of the strategy. There is really no doubt that NATO propaganda is well documented.
Can the POV template be removed now? Also, can the “claims about” be removed from the title of the section, as in other parts of the article? Thanks.-- WEBDuB ( talk) 11:08, 27 June 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.
[16]This edit is a NPOV violation and should be reverted.
Two editors on the Race and crime in the United States page (a page that has in the past been used by white supremacists and racists to defend their rhetoric about black people), "Gazelle55" and "David A", are removing all peer-reviewed research from the article about evidence that racial biases among police, juries and judges affect police interactions with blacks, arrests of blacks, convictions of blacks, and sentencing of blacks. These are studies published in the top journals. The editors have moved all of this content to another less prominent page with much fewer pageviews ( Race in the United States criminal justice system). The editors are completely incapable of justifying why this content should be moved: if discrimination by law enforcement and judges/juries increases the black-white gap in crime, then it's obviously pertinent to the page Race and crime in the United States, which is primarily about the rates that different races commit crimes. The editor "David A" justified the removal of the studies with:
The removal of content which contextualizes and explains the black-white gap is a clear NPOV violation. Furthermore, the fact that it's happening on a page with a sordid past (the page has been used as a propaganda tool and recruitment tool for racists), it's imperative that the content be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
We are not here to right great wrongs. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Snoog, I'm not sure you have made the case that this is NPOV vs simply what is/isn't in scope for the article. How much of the recently removed content was the material you added earlier this month vs long term material? Also, comments like this are problematic when trying to address content disputes [ [22]]. Please FOC and remain CIVIL. Springee ( talk) 18:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I am very surprised to find myself on this noticeboard, and in particular that Snooganssnoogans says I provided absolutely no explanation for the changes. In fact, let me copy here the long message I posted on the talk page:
Given what David has said I think this should be closed, before it does any harm. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:50, 18 June 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.
This article was started and for a long time WP:OWNed by a now blocked sockpuppet of a banned user.
One of the things this user introduced was an extensive primary-sourced section on commentary over the book's withdrawal from Amazon.
There is now a dispute over whether these primary-sourced opinion pieces belong int he article.
They are:
We have at least two solid secondary sources discussing the Amazon withdrawal. It is my contention that (a) we do not need primary-sourced opinion pieces; (b) we definitely don't need primary-sourced opinion pieces with titles like "Amazon.com Surrenders To The Homintern", and (c) given that this is a book promting the pseudoscientific and dangerous practice of conversion therapy we should be really careful to include only secondary sources. The Dreher piece is especially contentious: Google shows 24 hits for the article title, none of which seem to me to establish its significance per WP:UNDUE.
Against that we have an editor who says that there's no policy-based reason for not including primary-sourced opinion pieces from biased sources. Guy ( help!) 20:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
primary-sourced opinion pieces from biased sources".
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.
Repeatedly inserting things like "He is considered one of the great virtuoso pianists of our time.." and "and is considered one of the great pianists." which is a pretty exceptional claim that asserts it is generally accepted as a fact he is "one of the greatest" which needs to be directly supported by exceptional sources. They initially made edit requested one of those phrasing in their edit request, but it was recommended against by another editor in 2011 Talk:Horacio_Gutiérrez#Reworking_by_user:Fluffernutter. The user is now repeatedly edit-warring to re-insert this repeatedly but as far as I can locate, reliable sources don't support this as being general fact rather than them being opinions of opinion writers. The edit summary in Special:Diff/964936714 "body of work and award attest to description." shows the basis for their insertion is WP:OR, because it is a conclusion drawn by Maryphillips1952 based on their interpretation of sources instead of a strong source in their stating that "he is considered one of the greatest pianists"
Previous concerns raised
Graywalls ( talk) 07:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
May also be of interest edit history on the same article on German Wikipedia I stumbled upon while Googling the source "Horacio Gutierrez Queen Elizabeth Hall" Maryphillips1952 cited. Graywalls ( talk) 14:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Moved down from the top of the thread, where it was completely confusing. Not that I can understand what it means now, but at least it's in the right place. Please don't top-post, Mary. Keep the discussion chronological.' Bishonen | tålk 16:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC).] Others have inserted and edited this post. Recently removal of great pianist raised questions since Grraywalls does not consistently delete form other posts. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The insertions in question was already present, vetted, and approved by previous editors. It is a common assertion on many wiki posts (great pianist) as long as appropriate references are documented. There are many wiki posts with "great pianist" with fewer or less appropriate sources. Currently the post reads Gutiérrez's performance career spans over four decades and is considered one of the great pianists.[11] [12][13][14] These citations, body of work, records, and awards confirm this. This is a common statement in many wiki posts of classical artists. Some have blogs, and websites to document "great pianist," Graywalls finds nothing worng with these posts, but takes issue with Mr. Gutierrez'. My concern is inherent bias against Mr. Gutierrez. His wiki is NOW a list of things with references. Removing great pianist must then be done with ALL poorly sourced wiki posts of classical pianists. Graywalls has not removed claim from other edits with lesser sourcee, It appears the issue is with Mr. Gutierrez. His weiki now looks like a list of things. I am not sure if Graywalls is a colleague, critic, or rival. Again, I am a novice and willing to learn what sources you need and what format you want to make a great article. I welcome help to make the post an excellent post to reflect Mr. Gutierrez' life time work. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Please see comments above regarding the editor. I welcome your help to make Mr. Horacio Gutierrez'article excellent. Maryphillips1952 ([[User Mr. Graywalls - Thank you for your help. I included additional references similar to other classical artists wiki posts. Again, thank you for your help.
Gutiérrez's performance career spans over four decades and is considered one of the great pianists. [1] [2] [3] [4] User: talk: maryphillips1952 Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
References
His virtuosity is of the kind of which legends are made. ... he could become one of the very great pianists of the century.
Gutiérrez has matured into a truly great pianist, one with a mastery of architecture, whose long-lauded technical prowess serves a penetrating musical intelligence.
Again, thank you for your help.
I Added additional references... what references do you need? Other wiki posts from artists have similar claims and have references from blogs and papers. You have not removed or questioned these sources. What would satisfy the post. Since other posts have similar claims you have not removed or found fault.Are you a critic, colleague, rival? Getting paid by others? Currently reads: Gutiérrez's performance career spans over four decades and is considered one of the great pianists.[refs 1-4 above] User: talk: maryphillips1952 Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
References
I consider myself a novice and welcome your help. I have edited many wiki pages and enjoy finding citations when needed. One post, Horacio Gutierrez, has been extensively vetted, edited, and approved by several wiki editors. Recently, Graywalls began deleting and finding issues with the post. I locate references and pattern the posts I make after other similar posts so that they follows the wiki format. My concern is that Graywalls may have an inherent bias against Mr. Gutierrez (Hispanic). I am not sure if he is a colleague or critic, or? He is questioning the use of great pianist in his post (which has been there for years). I added additional references and the body of work, awards, records, concerts over 4 decades and career speak for Mr. Gutierrez. Graywalls has placed issues with the article once again that has been already vetted. It barely reads like a biography anymore from his continued edits. Yet, he is still finding issues. I believe his posts (all posts on wiki) need to be reviewed. I am sorry to bring this up. But, I am not sure how to get someone to help me. maryphillips52
If you go back to 2006 - This is how the post read (editor Davis Kosner) Gutierrez is known for playing that is imbued with a rare combination or romantic abandon and a classical sense of proportion and is considered by many piano connoisseurs to be one of the greatest pianists of the second half of the 20th century. You will need to go back to much later posts to get a full picture of Mr. Gutoerez' post history. I am trying to make an excellent post with your help. Please refer to the entire history of the post. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand it raises questions and I referenced many sources, if you read Gutierrez' post, he is considered o a great pianist. Many classical artists use great on their posts. I was following their protocol, but added substantial references. Gutierrez' post was started 9in 2006 and has undergone major revisions. I have sought help to make the entry an excellent, one. I edit wiki as a hobby. My goal is to write excellent wiki articles. My apologies for any problems I am still a novice. I would like to be unbloacked and perhaps if you have a mentor, I can work with one. Thank you for your help. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Maryphillips1952: Please drop the stick. COI editors accusing those who oppose their COIness of a conflict of interest is not something we are unfamiliar with. Cheers, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
My sincere apologies for any inconvenience.
Issue deals with WP:NPV. Editors might be interested. Can find it here: Talk:Audrey Strauss#RfC including Strauss's political party . Casprings ( talk) 19:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently no dispute but I would like guidance on a couple of issues:
A) I am changing all instances of "Indian" since the term is highly deprecated, and presumably falls into the category of things that should not be said in wikivoice. Where I can discern that it is a particular tribe, I am using the name of that tribe. Where it is more global (since many tribes were involved in this war) I have been using "tribal", "Native" or "Native American." First of all, is there any policy on any of "those" terms? I haven't had to use First Nations yet, as the one battle I have seen in Quebec so far specifically involved the Mohawk.
B) what to do about long pull-out quotes from Americans of the period, some of which are cringeworthy, and at least one of which is pretty racist? Article also repeatedly complains that Indians were preventing Americans from taking good land. I haven't really tackled this yet.
C) article seems very focused on unquestioned US expansionism, but also goes into great length about the British insults to American honor, etc. I have already flagged the article NPOV for this. I am assuming that the thing to do here is write about these things, which do seem to have been factors, as neutrally as possible without seeming to endorse them?
Feedback appreciated. Elinruby ( talk) 03:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you seriously maintaining that disagreeing with the US view of its own imperialism is unprofessional? Elinruby ( talk) 06:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Tirronan: I notified you because you were commenting on the RfC about the infobox. The text is boilerplate and says you"may" be involved in the sense that you may care, and want to comment. This is optional, like all participation on Wikipedia. I am not aware of a Wikipedia guideline to use "Indian". I personally believe that the applicable policy is the one that says that we call ethnic groups the name that they wish to be called. In general this would afaik mean using Mohawk or Cheyenne, etc. But when you have members of more than one tribal group then the usual formulation would be Native American in the US and First Nations in Canada. However at the time neither country existed in its current form, so I understand that "Indian" is convenient, but I have been taught that it is offensive. So I posted here as a question, which has now become a dispute. Incidentally, I do think we should lose the long pull-out quote about how you can't trust Indians. Imagine being a First Nations child reading that. Elinruby ( talk) 20:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Peter Gulutzan: thank you for coming back to this. I don't have time to look at your links this second, but I am interested and will do so. I found the policy, which is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification. This deals with naming conventions for articles, but the broad principle is the same. If the term "Indian" is offensive, even if only to some people, why use it? We do have a growing consensus on the page (I think) that where possible we should say Shawnee, Six Nations, Muscogee and so on, but when there are multiple indigenous nations on both sides of the conflict, we do need a collective noun, and the usual and accepted terms within Canada and the US (First Nations, Native Americans) are specific to those countries and the article deals with history from before there was a border. My concern is merely that if I am going to replace "Indian" I don't want to replace it with something equally offensive. I would like some documentation of the contention that "native" and "tribe" are offensive to somebody, but if that is correct, we are left with "Indigenous". Elinruby ( talk) 17:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd like an expert opinion on this one please! The results of the war of 1812 are debated. At the moment, the war of 1812 article says there are two opinions, in the memory and historiography section. The majority view (more popular in the US) is that the war of 1812 was a stalemate/draw. The minority view (more popular in Canada) is that the war was a victory for Britain/Canada. Both these views are mentioned in the article, and both views are supported by mainstream historians. However, At the moment, only the majority view is listed in the results box. Is this against NPOV policy? Should both views be listed in the infobox (or something like "result disputed"?) the argument being that the one view sums up the views of the article incorrectly? Thanks Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
My view is that it does not say that. It clearly states that In recent decades, the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive.
Then it talks about the minority view, which is that Some scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat.
I am fine with this, but the infobox should reflect the consensus among historians and the de facto result of military stalemate (draw, inconclusive or other similar wording). Deathlibertarian base their argument on the flawed view that there is a national bias, but
this request for comments clearly established there is not a national bias.
Deathlibertarian have also showed a clean misunderstanding of
WP:Fringe, for example
here. Per
Calidum (that is the consensus of historians. It should be noted that the infobox had described the outcome as a draw (or a synonym) for many years until it was changed recently
) and
The Four Deuces (The info-box should say the outcome of the war was a draw because that is the consensus of historians
), we should follow the consensus of historians that it was a draw (or similar wording). Per
Rjensen, The Canadian-victory viewpoint was widespread decades ago but is no longer found in Canadian scholarly articles & books or university textbooks. It may still be taught at the high school level in Canada, but I think it's now "fringe" in mainstream Canadian reliable sources in 21st century. Old notions become fringe when the RS drop them.
Deathlibertarian propose that we link
Memory and historiography of the War of 1812 but that it is not really helpful because (1) per
Shakescene, Infoboxes are intended to give a short overview at a glance, which is hardly achieved by directing readers to #Memory and Historiography
; and (2) it gives the false impression or imply that there is such a big dispute among experts, that there is not a consensus at all when that is not true. In other words, Deathlibrarian wants us to give equal weight to the minority view (fringe, per Rjensen and others) when that is undue and unwarranted as it does not express the consensus of the majority of historians (mainstream, per Calidum, The Four Deuces and others); and they are accusing me of pushing a view when I could not care less about it and I am merely trying to follow the consensus among historians. They are confusing the popular views (which see the Britain/Canada win viewpoint more widespread) with that of historians, whose majority consensus is that it was a draw or stalemate, which is exactly what de facto happened with the Treaty of Ghent and the status quo ante bellum. For what is worth it,
this is my proposal for the infobox.--
Davide King (
talk) 04:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
popular [views] within their respective countries, so what is the difference? Yet for the Korean War we follow the historians and de facto view that it was a military stalemate, which is exactly what happened here too; and this is in spite of the popular, not historian, claim that Britain/Canada won. Finally, the parameter for the infobox also suggests
Inconclusivewhich is exactly the same thing and what we should say. The article is currently a mess, so any reference to how it currently is does not mean much; until 30 June 2020, it still included a national bias section despite you being the only one to support in a request for comments. Either way, this back and forth diatribe is useless unless uninvolved users step in, so let us stop and wait for them, shall we?-- Davide King ( talk) 06:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Simply putting the fact it was a stalemate in, just matches the popular US view, and ignores he Canada viewimplies there is a national bias when there was consensus not to support that. I think the Korean War example suffices because both countries think they won.-- Davide King ( talk) 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field)? And you think or see fringe as a pejorative that represents pseudoscientific and wholly unreasonable views when it is also used to mean
reasoned theories presented in academic papers(which I believe this is the case). You write
but this war was definitely part of how Canada came to be. And editors claim that this doesn't warrant a mention?That is not my point or issue, which is the infobox. The infobox should say Military stalemate because that is what it was and is the consensus among historians. Popular views that see
Canadians knowing they won [...], Americans somehow think they won, and the Indians [...] definitely know they lostare already in the main body and I do not really have an issue with that. Here, you write you like two infobox proposals which use Military stalemate, so what are you actually disputing?-- Davide King ( talk) 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It's become axiomatic among historians that Canadians know they won the War of 1812, Americans somehow think they won, and the Indians — who'd continue to cede land to American expansion — definitely know they lost, despite fighting alongside British regulars and Canadian militia..-- Moxy 🍁 19:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This is kind of related to the recent discussion "Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles: NPOV, BLP, NOR and other policy problems", roughly the same issues are present.
Consider Joan Bates, Paddy Roy Bates or Michael Bates (Sealand); all royalty of an imaginary nation/state within British territory - Principality of Sealand. They all have titles like "Prince" or "Princess" in their infoboxes - that's absurd.
A wider issue is that articles like Micronation or List of micronations use Wikipedia to try to give legitimacy to imaginary nations.
And the use of the word "micronation" on articles for "micronations" (e.g., Liberland) is itself very suspect: I ran a Google Scholar search for micronation and there does not seem to be any good results. The present results do not seem to be scholarly, and the most cited paper is cited only 3 times; except for the top result, which uses "micro-nation" and a completely different meaning than used on Wikipedia - applying the term to Liechtenstein. This suggests the neologism "micronation" is powered by cheap press, which may have just picked it up from Wikipedia anyway. Notrium ( talk) 04:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
There has been a report by The Intercept that there was scrubbing at Kamala Harris. This issue was discussed in the section it got noticed. I've started a discussion on what editors believe is the best option moving forward to resolve the issues, namely being revert to last good version and readd in updates, or stay at the latest version and vet ~500-600 edits and undo/readd options as necessary. Input from editors is appreciated at Moving forward with NPOV issues. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Harris was the only Democratic candidate for the Senate to receive a campaign contribution). Nicer wording in Special:Diff/954661588. To his credit, of course, he's removed a lot of garbage, like in Special:Diff/956351080 and Special:Diff/954310981. But I don't know how we can feel confident, given the amount of examples of POV edits, that this article can ever be free of neutrality issues. Even if the content is reintroduced (which itself is difficult, due to major structural changes), there's lots of little wording changes across 90k readable prose which makes a big difference. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
At Murder of Rina Shnerb several users have said that including material on the attack occurring in a spring seized by Israeli settlers is "justifying the murder" and "POV" and "UNDUE". The material is based on this Haaretz feature that discusses the killing of Shnerb within the context of the takeover of Palestinian springs at length and this NYT source that likewise discusses the springs being frequent hot points due to settler takeovers of the springs. It has been argued that these are "op-eds" (I think that is pretty clearly untrue). The edit in question has been this wholesale removal which has been removed without comment a couple of times before the above arguments were offered. Is it undue weight to include material cited to this Haaretz feature and this NYT news article or are these actually "two partisan op-ed" that demonstrate no weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nableezy ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Except in cases of certifications or master-apprentice-type guilds, is it ever okay to start an article with [Firstname Lastname] was a master [occupation]"? I would say no, based on WP:Peacock and article precedents? ɱ (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to know what you think. about SETA, a Turkish think Tank linked to the Turkish Government and is used as a source in several articles. I'd say it is even more Government linked than the Anadolu Ajansi as it was founded by Ibrahim Kalin, a chief adviser to Erdogan. Press freedom is now not a strength of Erdogan and... They also like to write about YPG terrorists, and say HDP is carrying out the orders of the PKK. These are really just Turkeys views, and in most of the rest of the world, both organizations are viewed as opposing terrorism. I think, I've never read a neutral article of SETA. I think SETA can be used as a source to describe the Organization. But on other topics, if the subject is notable, it should also have an article in an other news outlet and we could then use this one as a source. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 01:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Could be rather interesting, see Talk:War_in_Donbass#Recent_controversial_edits. Heptor ( talk) 19:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
More input would be very welcome at Talk:Genetic Literacy Project#RfC about the word nonpartisan for the Genetic Literacy Project. NightHeron ( talk) 15:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
"The English people are a nation and an ethnic group native to England who speak the English language, and share a common history and culture. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ('family of the Angles'). Their ethnonym is derived from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who migrated to Great Britain around the 5th century AD.[8] England is the largest and most populous country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the majority of people living there are British citizens."
This is being used to argue that, for example, Idris Elba is not English.
As far as I can tell, this lead paragraph is a massive dose of WP:SYN. When addressing ewthnicity, for example, the Office of National Statistics uses "Whiote British", not "English". English is not an ethnicity and never has been. The idea that speaking English is a qualifying factor would have been an inc onvenience in the early days of the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha or even the early Hanovers. Common history and culture? The English national dish is either fish ands chips (invented by Italians in Glasgow) or chicken tikka masala. Then we get to the religion part. Anglicanism? Not according to Voltaire, who documented numerous religions including the Quakers, who were the last to abandon the familiar "thee" and "thou" of old English.
This article reads to me as a giant pille of WP:SYN. What do others think? Guy ( help!) 23:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
within this narrative the countryside has tended to be deployed as an endangered and essentialised symbol of what Englishness is and this chapter has suggested that rural nature has been invested with the meanings and representations of English ethnicityetc - in other words, it's a narrative, not a fact (and the text goes on to make this even clearer). And that is pretty much my point: the idea of the "ethnic English" is a narrative, and one with a profoundly unattractive provenance. Guy ( help!) 23:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This article seems biased particularly the political viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:1201:55D3:8D95:85A3:87B9:915E ( talk) 20:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I think in article McKenzie method violates the Neutral point of view. The essence of the dispute is set forth in here. The debate concerns mainly the chapter "Effectiveness". NDenPT ( talk) 11:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I would like to raise a concern about the label American “charlatan" on Dr. Mercola's Wikipedia page.
The reference used to support this claim is the Chicago Magazine article. The article used the word “charlatan” as a speculation of the writer, and not as a fact. Here is the direct quote.
"Warrior or quack, straight shooter or charlatan, the question is the same: How has a site built on ideas so contrary to mainstream science—so radical that even some staunch alternative health advocates are uncomfortable with some of his positions—become so popular?"
I believe this is a violation of Wikipedia's two core policies:
• WP:NPOV – Neutral point of view. The word “charlatan” is a derogatory term that signifies bias against Dr. Mercola. • WP:V – Verifiability. The reference that made use of the word “charlatan” as a matter of fact, and not opinion, is not factual.
I've brought this up in the Talk page, but editors have denied my request.
As a Wikipedia reader and user myself, I am aware that this site aims to disseminate information, and I am open to accepting criticisms as long as they are appropriately backed by reliable factual sources. But this seems like a direct attack on Dr. Mercola to unfairly taint his image in the public’s eye.
What I would propose is to strike out the label from the first sentence of the bio, and instead directly use the quote from Chicago Mag, so Wiki readers can see that it is a speculation/opinion, and not a fact.-- Lein23 ( talk) 02:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I would also like to add that the writer of the Chicago Mag article, which was used as the source, isn't even claiming the charlatan label as his own opinion, but is stating it as one of several possibilities - none of which even he has established any certainty.-- Lein23 ( talk) 03:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales made no specific reference to Dr. Mercola when he said that statement, but instead was referring to his response to the Change.org petition. No doctors were named in that petition.
The main issue here would be the use of the label "charlatan" as it is taken from a reference that used the word as a matter of opinion, and not a fact.
If the Chicago Mag article will be used as a reference for the charlatan tag, then it should be posted in its entirety, rather than cherry pick a word the author used. That would count as information suppression, which is another violation of Wikipedia policies.-- Lein23 ( talk) 06:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Steven Salzberg, a prominent biologist, professor, and researcher at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, calls Mercola “the 21st-century equivalent of a snake-oil salesman.”Which is synonymous with "charlatan". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Mercola is, by a wide variety of sources, a quack. He's gotten warning letters from the FDA, so it's essentially official. -- Calton | Talk 23:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
More input is needed at White Fragility, and on its talk page: Talk:White Fragility#Overhaul. Crossroads -talk- 21:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a dispute between whether there are 2 languages or 3 languages the film is being shot on and whether it is POV and OR as said by ThaThinThaKiThaTha. More input is needed on this talk page: Talk:Radhe Shyam#Original languages. SP013 ( talk) 16:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)