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.

Editors are invited to opine on how to rename or restyle the title so as to make clear that "LGBT ideology" is not a thing. Threads: Talk:LGBT ideology-free zone#Title, Talk:LGBT ideology-free zone#LGBT-free zone, Talk:LGBT ideology-free zone#What is 'LGBT ideology'? François Robere ( talk) 10:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead already makes that clear:

"An 'LGBT ideology-free zone'... refers to some regions of Poland which have declared themselves unwelcoming of an alleged 'LGBT ideology.' "

There is no need to call it something other than what those 100 municipalities call it.

Also, it most certainly is "a thing". See Ideology. Ideologies exist. Some are good, some are bad. Some are based on evidence, some are based on bullshit. I can't think of any group or person who is100% ideology free. Why would you think that the LGBT community is different in this regard than pretty much every other community? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think they are saying that LGBT itself is not an ideology and therefore there can't be an LGBT ideology-free zone, but that argument is based on WP:OR so can't be used. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. is an ideology is not the same as has an ideology. Wikipedia has an ideology but Wikipedia isn't itself an ideology. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

In which case the current title is misleading, as the regulations described in that article are aimed against LGBT people; the "ideology" is just an excuse. Trasz ( talk) 21:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether it is an ideology or not is irrelevant. We should follow the name from the sources. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, excelt that it's not the "LGBT ideology" they are banning. It's the ideology of accepting that LGBT people are human. Guy ( help!) 21:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

What is 'LGBT ideology'? User talk:Chrisdevelop) 00:50, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Emir, per policy we should not be using "LGBT ideology" in Wikivoice if the best sources agree that no such ideology exists. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

and/or change Title to 'LGBT ideology-free zones in Poland' (perhaps placing "LGBT ideology" in "so-called" inverted commas) or merge with either LGBT rights in Poland or LGBT history in Poland, or merge all three. User talk:Chrisdevelop) 01:27, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Wikivoice applies to statements of fact, not to titles of things. People use misleading titles for things all of the time. We don't say in the article title that the title they chose is misleading. We can only report in the lead that a notable source called the title misleading. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree that "it's not the 'LGBT ideology' they are banning. It's the ideology of accepting that LGBT people are human". Yes, accepting that LGBT people are human is an ideology -- one of the good ones. And I don't think I need to engage in virtue signalling by pointing out that my opinion on not accepting that LGBT people are human is exactly the same low opinion of everyone else here.

Nonetheless, we don't rename things with new names because we don't agree with the name that the people doing the naming chose. We follow WP:COMMONNAME.

• We don't change Pro Life Campaign to So-called "Pro Life" (anti-abortion, actually) campaign.
• We don't call the National Socialism Association the National Socialism (but they are really fascists, not socialists) Association.
• We don't rename Liberation theology into Liberation theology (well, not really -- the truth is that it is Marxist theology).
• We don't rename People's republic into Falsely-called "people's" falsely-called "republic" (not to be confused with any actual republic).

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Since 'LGBT-free zones' are already discussed in LGBT rights in Poland under a dedicated heading LGBT_rights_in_Poland#"LGBT_free_zones" and there is an 'LGBT-free zone' image posted in LGBT history in Poland, this topic does not warrant its own article, which duplicates what is already in the other two. It should be merged with LGBT rights in Poland under the heading that is already there, and the duplicated material edited out. User talk:Chrisdevelop) 02:29, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Why not just change it to LGBT free zone? It is mentioned in the lead section as an alternative way to refer to it, backed-up by several sources. Whereas LGBT ideology-free zone may be the COMMONNAME, LGBT free zone is more concise, probably more recognizable and more natural, and still precise enough. El Millo ( talk) 01:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Chrisdevelop, I am going to ask a good-faith question, and I am purposely doing it before looking at the pages you linked to. Please take this is the spirit I wrote it in; I am not trying to pick a fight. Are you proposing a merge because there isn't enough material to justify a stand-alone article (which would be the right reason)? Or are you proposing a merge as a backdoor way of getting rid of an article title based on the fact that pretty much everyone agrees that "LGBT ideology-free zones" is misleading but some of us don't think that we should go against WP:COMMONNAME? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, not a bad idea, if there are significant sources that use that name. Could someone who understands polish do a web search in that language and tell us how many sources use LGBT free zone as opposed to using LGBT ideology-free zone? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon The heading at LGBT_rights_in_Poland#"LGBT_free_zones" places "LGBT free zones" in inverted commas, which takes care of the "so-called" aspect, since there is not currently a defintion of what LGBT ideology actually is, or purports to be, or is believed to be, nor is there an article on it. Splitting the topic of LGBT+ Rights in Poland across three articles creates quite some duplication. If it is not agreed that there should be a merge of all three of these articles into one comprehensive, then the existing article could itself either be renamed to 'LGBT-free zones in Poland', or expanded to include other states that have the equivalent. There are 'LGBT-ideology free' countries, e.g. Russia, whose Duma passed a Russian_gay_propaganda_law prohibiting 'Gay Propaganda', which amounts to the same thing. User talk:Chrisdevelop) 03:18, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

I made a Google search of both names: Strefa wolna od ideologii LGBT (LGBT ideology-free zone) returns 71 results and Strefa wolna od LGBT (LGBT free zone) returns 108 results. El Millo ( talk) 02:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I think we should rename that article "LGBT free zones" immediately and keep discussing whether to merge, and which way. Does anyone object to the move? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename to "LGBT free zones" only if other 'LGBT-free' countries are to be included, such as Russia, which has a Russian_gay_propaganda_law, and Iran whose former president Ahmadinejad declared in Controversies_of_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Columbia_University "in Iran we don't have homosexuals". Otherwise, rename to 'LGBT-free zones in Poland'. Removal of "ideology" is necessary, since no-one knows what 'LGBT ideology' is. "LGBT-free zone" can be conflated in intention with Judenfrei ("Jew-free zone"), since Nazis also exterminated homosexuals. User talk:Chrisdevelop) 04:23, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Rename *For title purposes, the terms used in Polish don't matter at all; per WP:COMMONNAME, titles on enwiki go by the English-language common name. (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources, emphasis mine.) That said, glancing at the English-language sources makes it clear "LGBT free zones" is the most common name in English, so obviously it should be renamed. --- Aquillion ( talk) 03:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Could someone who understands polish do a web search in that language and tell us how many sources use LGBT free zone as opposed to using LGBT ideology-free zone?Sure, the organisers of these zones made it clear they do not oppose LGBT people themselves, but rather the LGBT movement and what they believe to be LGBT ideology(as LGBT people do not equal the LGBT movement). Here are two reliable sources from mainstream news sources which describe what their intent was and what they believe to be "LGBT ideology", while distancing themselves from attempts to discriminate LGBT people themselves.

• 1. [1]

Część samorządowców z Lubelszczyzny wystosowała właśnie apel do organizacji i instytucji unijnych pod hasłem "Uwolnijmy Europę od ideologii". Na konferencji prasowej przekonywali, że ich intencje związane z przyjmowaniem uchwał anty-LGBT zostały źle zrozumiane, bo nigdy nie byli przeciwko ludziom, ale przeciwko ideologii.Na spotkaniu z dziennikarzami udowadniali, że celem tej ideologii jest utopia. - Ta utopia oznacza przede wszystkim dyktaturę mniejszości nad większością. Jeżeli pozycja rodziny, która przynosi wielki dar życia i wychowania kolejnego pokolenia, jest poniżana i kwestionowana, to z całą pewnością jest to świat, którego nie chcielibyśmy oglądać w naszych wioskach i miastach. I to jest to niebezpieczeństwo, przed którym chcielibyśmy chronić - mówił Radosław Brzózka z zarządu powiatu świdnickiego. Ten powiat jako pierwszy w Polsce przyjął uchwałę anty-LGBT. Translation: Part of local politicians from Lubelszczyzna issued an appeal to organisations and European Union institutions under the slogan "Let's free Europe from ideology". During press conference they were explaining that their intention connected to issuing anti-LGBT proclamations were wrongly interpreted, because they never were against people, but against ideology.During the meeting with reporters they attested that the ideology has utopia as its goal-This utopia means first and foremost dictatorship of minority over majority. If position of family, which brings great gift of life and upbringing of new generations is humiliated and questioned, than most certainly this is a model which we wouldn't like to see in our villages and towns. And this is the danger we would like to protect from-said Radoslaw Brzozka from swidnicki district. This district was one of the first district who issued an anti-LGBT proclamation.

• 2. [2]

Andrzej Pruś podkreśla, że stanowisko przyjęte uchwałą w żadnym punkcie nie popierało wykluczania społecznego, dyskryminacji, szykanowania przedstawicieli środowisk LGBT, a jedynie miało na celu wyrażenie sprzeciwu i dezaprobaty wobec prób promocji ideologii opartej na afirmacji LGBT. Translation: Andrzej Prus underlines that the statement in no point at all supported social exclusion, discrimination or persecutions representatives of LGBT groups, andwas only intended to express opposition to attempts to promote ideology based on affirmation of LGBT. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename. I'm okay with inclusion of other countries if the concepts overlap. François Robere ( talk) 11:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A new heading 'Proposal to rename' has been placed in the Talk page Talk:LGBT_ideology-free_zone#Proposal_to_rename_as_'LGBT-free_zones User talk:Chrisdevelop) 17:46, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Merge discussion

See here. François Robere ( talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

There is a discussion going on at the article for Swaminarayan Sampradaya. There seems to be a discussion going but there is an issue that a break off group BAPS has editors that want to use their texts and version of their ideology to dominate the original groups article.

136.2.16.181 ( talk) 15:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I reviewed the article and its talk page and found what appears to be WP:BATTLEGROUND. @ 136.2.16.181 states there is a problem with a specific group. In reviewing the multiple edits and reverts I saw that many developments in the tradition that occurred following the death of its founder, Swaminarayan, were removed thereby reducing the diversity of thought in the article. The article is definitely not about the founder since there is a separate article covering his life. The article’s content is about the denomination, the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, which includes multiple perspectives that are no longer reflected by the recent edits and move the overall page away from NPOV. Best wishes, Skubydoo ( talk) 05:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the article states all the facts about the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and is not biased towards any of the denominations of the sampradaya and I agree with Skubydoo. The edits made by multiple unregistered users introduced a bias by removing details unrelated to one group. Currently, it has been written for anyone to understand the holistic views of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and its history. Apollo1203 ( talk) 20:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Skubydoo ( talk · contribs) and Apollo1203 ( talk · contribs). As it stands, the vast majority of materials cited in the article are from independent, secondary sources with primary sources only being used to corroborate details cited in the aforementioned sources. Where relevant, material from all major branches of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is cited. Harshmellow717 ( talk) 18:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

How come you guys are always agreeing on BAPS related articles? Have you even looked at the sources? They are from Aksharpith and BAPS related articles. I wouldn't be surprised if these users are sock puppets or at minimum members of BAPS. We need some additional users involved. I can assure you that Moksha88 will be here supporting BAPS claims. 136.2.32.181 ( talk) 14:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Following up: Users Apollo1203 and Moksha88 have a history of trying to dominate users forcing editors into not making any negative or critical appearing edits to BAPS and related articles. My theory was that they are members of the group and are constantly working together to constantly remove items and have been accused in the past /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Moksha88/Archive and this is partially true. I investigated the Moksha88 history further and I found that Moksha88 is a member or representative of BAPS and they disclose this fact in a earlier edit as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93261344. This editor has an extremely NPOV view point. The article and edits in question are heavily sources with biased BAPS materials and constantly group attacks editors regarding anything critical to BAPS. How so I report this conflict of interest and how to report this to get him banned from editing more swaminarayan articles? They are already edit warring and undoing edits and see how blatant it is here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Swaminarayan_Sampradaya Applebutter221 ( talk) 02:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This article could use a good examination and clean up. I just made changes to make it clear that it was not condemned by the United Nations, per se, but by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, and removed a few WP:UNDUE instances WP:NPOV, such as listing the number of deaths there in six years without specifying if that number of unusual for a residential school. Still, the article as a whole seems extremely biased against the school, and in favor of the attempts to close it down.

The Center may well be a terrible institution, I don't know enough about it to tell, but if it is terrible, we need to convey that in as neutral and unbiased a way as possible. The article as it stands seems more like propaganda for the activists attempting to shut it down then a proper Wikipedia article.

Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to make edits on the above page, in order to fairly include 'all points of view' with regards to the creation of this television show. After all, that is one Wikipedia's fundamental principles. At the moment, and I have referenced these, the article does not include the opinions of: a) a number of faculty members at a leading writing university (one of the most respected of its kind in the world), including its head, who have publicly supported the original author: they believe the show is based on an adaptation of his academically submitted work. b) a second respected university faculty (a legal one) who have acknowledged the controversy on their newsletter, which has been published and is available online. c) 1,500 signatories of an online petition, who all believe that the correct author has not been accredited with the show's creation. d) the known opinion of 45,000 YouTube viewers, the majority of which overwhelmingly support the above notion.

The small clique of editors who removed my initial edits, and who I am trying to debate this with amicably, keep avoiding answering my questions and obfuscating. They also keep removing the 'neutrality tags' when another user has tried to flag the matter.

How can an article be fairly weighted, when the above views (including from world-class subject experts and academics) aren't being referred to within it? Furthermore, it surely cannot be right that a small group of editors are actively trying to stop a debate around the articles neutrality, by the wider Wiki community. I've read WP:NPOV and its clear that this is exactly why there needs to be an open and independent discussion about this article. Thanks, SR SethRuebens ( talk) 17:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This same issue has been opened at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Britannia_(TV_series). Schazjmd  (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:sps. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note I am happy to continue the debate in one thread, over on the dispute page, but I request that until I do so, this chain stay open (as the discussion there is centred around two things: the neutrality of the article and the validity of the references I used in it). The neutral point of view policy is not being adhered to. Thanks for reading, SR SethRuebens ( talk) 09:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There's some edit warring going on in Poland in an attempt to keep the following statement:

Poland is the only European country which never criminalized homosexuality

while erasing the statement:

though a hundred municipalities, comprising about a third of the country, have declared themselves " LGBT-free".

You're welcome to participate in the discussion at Talk:Poland#LGBT status in Poland. François Robere ( talk) 10:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Francois Robere, at least for appearances’ sake, can you please ping people who you are involved in a dispute with when you post to notice boards? Failure to do so is at best discourteous and might very well look like attempts at WP:GAMEing and forum shopping. Volunteer Marek 05:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm inviting people from here to go there, not the other way around... But yeah, okay. I usually do that. By the way, VM, why didn't you ping me? François Robere ( talk) 20:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

We have an issue with 3 quotes at Tell Abyad, where there are three quotes included which as to my account are contrary to Wikipedia:Quotations and neutrality, Wikipedia:Quotations, Wikipedia:Quotations/2, MOS:QUOTE.

• There have been 4 discussions about them, which you can read at the articles talk page.
• Other discussions about them where at the 3RR noticeboard and DNR where as to me no solution was found.

I provide a wikilink here to the section citation of Wikipedia:quoatations/2 where it states "Quotes generally should come from notable sources or entities directly of some relevance to an article. The policy WP:UNDUE applies. If the source of the quote is neither notable nor otherwise important to the article, then there's no reason to be using a quote in the first place. Relevant sources need not be notable - for example, in an article about a murder, a sentence by a neighbor may be well worth quoting directly. Naming of such sources should follow notability and BLP. Quotations should not be represented out of context or in articles where they are not relevant to the overall topic; i.e. an article on the Pentagon doesn't include Washington's warning about standing armies."

The Kurdwatch quote:

"None of KurdWatch’s Arab or Turkmen interview partners reported of ethnically motivated mass expulsions from Tall Abyad and the surrounding areas. In fact, we can assume that there have been no large-scale ethnically motivated expulsions in the region. For demographic reasons alone a »Kurdification« of the area is out of the question. The proportion of around ten percent Kurds is simply too low. At the same time, regulations such as only Kurds from ʿAyn al-ʿArab or Tall Abyad can act as a guarantor for refugees so that they can return to Tall Abyad from Turkey clearly discriminate on the basis of ethnicity."

Regarding the Kurdwatch quote: Kurdwatchs authors are not made known to the public, and its content managers were Eva Savelsberg and Siamend Hajo who are closely linked to the ENKS, and have very few hits on google. So no notability is given here. The were both content managers invited to a SETA forum together with Kyle Orton, an Author who equates the YPG with the PKK. Siamends Hajos membership of the ENKS was suspended for his attendance of the forum. ^[1]. This quote is sure a POV quote as the ENKS was an opponent of the PYD. Eva Savelsberg, as provided in the Youtube link criticizes the PYD for their press freedom record. During the Syrian Civil War there was never as much press freedom as under the Government of the PYD. But even for the ENKS Siamend Heja crossed the line for attending a SETA forum equating the PYD with the PKK.

The Washington Post Quote penned by Liz Sly:

The Kurds formally renamed Tal Abyad with a Kurdish name, "Gire Spi", and proclaim its new identity in signs throughout the town — written in the Latin script used by Turkish Kurds but not readily understood by Syrian Kurds or Arabs. They have also unilaterally detached it from the existing Syrian province of Raqqa and made it a part of their newly formed autonomous enclave, carved from areas traditionally inhabited by Kurds but steadily encroaching also on territories that were historically Arab.

Regarding the Washington Post Quote penned by Liz Sly: The Quote ignores opposing information that shows that the PYD and the Syrian Democratic Forces SDF have called Tell Abyad all the time Tell Abyad and also haven't removed the Welcome to Tell Abyad plate and the entrance to the city. Formally renamed is not really neutral for mentioning that they allowed the Kurdish name to be used as well. Then Latin script was and is common to the Syrian population as it is used throughout Syrians traffic signs. Tell Abyad was also not unilaterally detached from an existing Raqqa Governorate, as the Raqqa Governorate was at the time (2015) called Raqqa Wilaya and mainly controlled by the Islamic State. Therefore I see the Quote as POV.

The quote from The Washington Institute penned by Fabrice Balanche:

In administrative terms, Tal Abyad district no longer belongs to the Syrian government province of Raqqa, but to the Kurdish canton of Kobane. Although the population is predominantly Arab, there is no civil council to represent them as in Manbij, Deir al-Zour, Raqqa, and other Arab-majority locales liberated by Kurdish forces. Instead, the YPG’s goal is to fully integrate Tal Abyad into Kurdish territory, which the group still envisions as an autonomous belt along most of the northern border.

Regarding the quote from The Washington Institute penned by Fabrice Balanche: Besides the fact that Balanche ignores the Civil council consisting of an Arab Majority also mentioned in the Washington Post article (behind a paywall) penned by Liz Sly, and the Tell Abyad canton mentioned in numerous sources, it has also no direct relevance to the article. Balanche has no widely known connection specifically to Tell Abyad, nor has the Washington Institute. Therefore I see the Quote as POV and lacks of Notability for the article.

I support the removal of the Quotes as I did here. I was reported at the 3RR noticeboard for removing a KurdWatch quote, and had to revert and include all the three quotes again, so I come with my arguments to here and hope for dispute resolution. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 08:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I already explained here about your edit war.[ [3]] You want delete reliable sourced content with WP:ORIGINAL local "source" How is this POV? This person keeping seeking new excuses to delete large encyclopedic material from wikipedia. He wants this one POV version [ [4]] Shadow4dark ( talk) 17:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

All discussions, we had first 5 people involved but dropped now to 3. /info/en/?search=User_talk:EdJohnston#Konli17_Block /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_191#Tell_Abyad And the talk page Shadow4dark ( talk) 17:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

essays are not policies that we are required to obey. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, MOS:Quote is not an essay, but within the Manual of Style guideline and links to WP:Quotations right below the title. But true, WP:Quoatations is mentioned as an essay so are the other two which I mentioned. Within MOS:QUOTE there is also MOS:QUOTEPOV which would also be interesting to read regarding the quotes. Then also, for what are essays written and included on Wikipedia? For that someone can read it and enhance the information available at Wikipedia? I guess this is at least one of the the reasons. We either follow them or refute them, but that's everyones own choice. I chose to read them. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 18:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not really sure whether this discussion is needed, given all the previous discussions we had over this across WP. Just to give some background here, after failing on the Talk page and aggressive reverts, user Paradise Chronicle had opened a DRN case about one of the quotes, but did not like the suggestion of volunteer user Nightenbelle. We have beaten this discussion to death on the Talk page of this article and I have refuted all the points mentioned by Paradise chronicle, who was blocked (with another edit-warrior) over their edit-warring behavior in this article, but still they want to keep discussing for ever. Here is a very brief summary of my response (see DRN for more references and details):

1. Kurdwatch is a human rights organization with no political affiliation, unlike the Kurdish sources Paradise C prefers to use (ANF, Hawar, Rudaw, Kurdistan24, you name it..). Their coverage was fair and balanced, including covering YPG human rights violations, hence YPG supporters don't like them.
2. Balanche, a professor of history and fellow with The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is an established expert in the Syrian civil war and author of the reference work Sectarianism of Syria's civil war, and possibly the most informed person about the ethnic/sectarian details of the civil war. He is quoted across WP and elsewhere. He [ here accurately and meticulously described the Arab population of Tel Abyad and the Kurdish population around it], and the Arab tribes geographical distribution and relations with the government, opposition, YPG, so I guess you can hardly say "Balanche has no widely known connection specifically to Tell Abyad, nor has the Washington Institute."
3. Washington Post reporter Liz Sly was based in Akcakale (the Turkish part of Tel Abyad, separated by a fence), interviewing refugees from Tel Abyad. So, your claim she is not relevant is so funny.
4. The fact that the Balanche and WaPo quotes share so many points make them even more credible and more relevant for this article. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 19:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned before, there has not been any real Sysop action in the discussions. Sysops only blocked for edit war and I wish not to go into it for now. But from Sysops, so far no arguments about the content and significance of the quotes came. About the political affiliation: Kurdwatch had as a content manager Siamend Hajo, who is a leader of the Kurdistan Future Party, as it was presented several times by Anadolu here and here and by Seta here, both are outlets rather critical to the PYD party, a pro-Kurdish party, the only political party which enabled Kurdish in school. The Future party of is also part of the Kurdish National Council, better known as the ENKS, who is also critical to the PYD. About the relevance:Fabrice Balanche is no expert in the Syrian Civil War, as he ignores several significant facts which I have mentioned above. He has also no clear connection to Tel Abyad, he hasn't lived at the town for a relevant time. Also the Washington Institute can not provide a "unique" connection to Tell Abyad. Then the quote from the Washington Post of Liz Sly is also not uniquely connected with Tell Abyad and has significant contradictions to the Fabrice Balance quote and also to the facts. Just read it, please and also the sources we have provided. Thank you. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 00:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

As part of the RFC can i tag some neutral people with high knowledge of the syrian civil war, User:EkoGraf and User:Mr.User200. This dispute gets annoying Shadow4dark ( talk) 16:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Has Liz Sly ever been to Syria, or is all her information from interviewing the jihadist supporters that Turkey shelters? Balanche has great maps and some of his information is revelatory, but his analysis can sometimes be spotty. The issue here isn't the references or the information in them; the issue is that these quotes, which are contradicted by other sources, are being framed as the only acceptable references, and the information contained in them is being distorted to push a POV. Konli17 ( talk) 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

1 of the 3 quotes is deleted as per talk page agreement Shadow4dark ( talk) 12:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Not so much an agreement as a bullshit pretence at a quid pro quo, agreed between POV-pushers. The issue isn't the sources, but their presentation. Konli17 ( talk) 12:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Note, this user above was banned and has dispute with several editors. [ [5]][ [6]] [ [7]] Shadow4dark ( talk) 12:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

a comment to the "note" by Shadow4dark: The editor is relevant to the discussion as he was blocked for the dispute about Tell Abyad. He was blocked for allegedly having reverted 9 times. Actually both reverted 8 times, and Ibn Amr (the reporting party at the 3RR noticeboard) was the reverting party in the first place. And while Konli17 was active at the talk page, opening a discussion on the dispute, Ibn Amr literally wrote I don't care what you think. I too was partially blocked for a little time for removing the very Kurdwatch quote that was now removed. Also after having been reported by Ibn Amr at the 3RR noticeboard. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 13:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC for Disputed Quotes at Tell Abyad

How should Wikipedia include quotes in the Tell Abyad article? Please see the arguments above. Thank you. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 07:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A section of the article on Urban decay violates the neutral point of view rule.

The initial section states at one point that "[Urban decay] is mostly due to poor black people and their lifestyle choices. Low income neighborhoods that were previously occupied by predominantly poor white immigrants never had these issues."

Not only does this not include a citation to attempt to support the notion that it is "mostly due to poor black people" or that "low income neighborhoods that were previously occupied by predominantly poor white immigrants never had these issues" but the phrasing places blame on "poor black people and their lifestyle choices" (said "choices" left undefined as there is no support nor citation), rather than highlighting how systemic racism can play into poverty and lead to urban decay, rather than focusing on what may lead to the necessity of certain "choices" such as stealing to eat or selling drugs for money (issues prevalent due to hunger and poverty as a whole, not experienced by just one race or group of people with said choices not the fault of the people themselves but the issues driving them to engage in it).

The article references more than once the existence of urban decay outside the United States and while "many tenants [of public housing developments are often of] North African origin," the housing development population also generally includes "recent immigrants" not of any particular race with "city centers [tending to be] occupied mainly by upper-class residents" shifting to a focus to wealth vs poverty with the intersectionality of race, without blame for urban decay placed on the people themselves.

The section on urban decay in South Africa mentions that "low-income workers and unemployed people, including many refugees and illegal immigrants from neighboring countries" replaced many of the "middle-class white residents" who had moved elsewhere, causing businesses to "[follow] their customers to the suburbs." Again, urban decay is not arising due to the race of the people involved or their choices somehow predestined by race but, to give one example, the wealth gap between these "middle-class white residents" and the "low-income... unemployed... refugees and illegal immigrants."

It is even mentioned later that "from the 1930s until 1977, African-Americans seeking borrowed capital for housing and businesses were discriminated against via the federal-government–legislated discriminatory lending practices for the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)," referencing outright that the inability of black people to obtain better housing or improve business, thus improving wealth and with it living conditions, food stability, and so on, was due to discrimination, not the features of their race or their "lifestyle choices."

There is a connection between poverty level and race but it not only should place the blame on a system that allows this discrepancy, this favoritism of "middle-class white residents" over the rest (mentioned later , not the race and choices of the people themselves, but it also focuses on wealth and lack thereof with an additional focus on racial intersectionality- not a complete overlap of the two; for the blame of urban decay to be placed on "black people and their lifestyle choices" is not only ignorant of the systems that place black people in squalid, unfavorable conditions, forcing them to possibly make certain "lifestyle choices" out of necessity but ignorant of the "other:" these "low-income workers... unemployed people," and so on that are affected by urban decay due to classism, lack of educational and other opportunities, etc. without the overlap of race.

Allocating blame to black people rather than attributes of a system favoring the white and wealthy, stating factually that all people of said group make the same "lifestyle choices" rather than discussing factual causes of urban decay such as wealth distribution, lack of resources, lack of opportunities, systemic racism while includes issues with the above but with a focus on the black community, not erasure of non-black people experiencing said issues, is biased and guides the reader towards blaming people, their choices, their existences, their race- rather than a system within societal structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teathau ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no such article. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean Urban decay? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Note since posing the above the correct page has been linked to now. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Not an actual neutrality problem. The sentence is completely unsourced and should have been removed in the first place. Dimadick ( talk) 17:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There's an editor on New York City Police Department who is edit-warring text into the lead [8] which says:

• "The crime rate in New York City has been declining over the last few decades which some analysts attribute to the NYPD's "broken windows" policing strategy introduced in the early 1990s."

However, the academic literature on broken windows policing is divided. Is it therefore not a NPOV violation to shoehorn one side of that debate into the lead while omitting the other side? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

IN the lede, yes its A POV violation. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not the sort of information that should be in the lead. Springee ( talk) 13:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a POV violation which conveniently ignores that crime across the U.S. has been on the decline in recent decades. (Not to mention that it is also a violation of MOS:LEAD because none of the added content appears in the body of the article.) Calidum 15:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And ignores the dramatic decrease in unemployment. O3000 ( talk) 15:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Probably should not be in the lead... but should be in the article. In addition, we should avoid the weasel wording... rather than an anonymous “some analysts”, we should attribute the opinion and specify WHICH analysts. Blueboar ( talk) 16:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is POV, a controversial statement, arguably not the dominant view, and certainly not lead-worthy. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As the editor in question, I'd like to point out that I am trying to rework this para in good faith after an RFC found the original version was overly biased toward the negative. User:Snooganssnoogans (who wrote the original paragraph and started this NPOV Noticeboard discussion) has so far reverted/contested every attempt to include positive aspects of the NYPD to balance the lede since the RFC. The "broken windows" reference was added by me after he reverted the introduction of declining crime rates on the basis that they "have nothing to do with the NYPD per se" [9], and was an attempt to appease his concerns of relevance. I agree that it doesn't need to be there, as the connection between falling crime and public perception of the police stands on its own. Tobus ( talk) 02:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, as Steven says, in the lede, for sure. A "some attribute" without the "and at least as many absolutely do not" is an NPOV failure. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that's it's a problem in the lede. It would be a good idea to get the RfC formally closed trying to resolve this. It's unclear what this is summarizing from the article body into the lede. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 22:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Clive Wynne Candy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently come onboard to edit the biography of Chris Heaton-Harris, a UK MP. Specifically, he seeks to add content regarding Heaton-Harris' support of multi-level marketing based on as speech the MP delivered in Parliament in support of the UK branch of the Direct Selling Association. Based on this screed posted at Talk:Chris Heaton-Harris, Candy clearly has a axe to grind regarding the MLM business model, and seeks to denigrate Heaton-Harris based on a perceived support of that industry. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 12:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What I have posted are true and accurate statements supported by quantifiable evidence (principally, the Parliamentary record, Hansard) which WikiDan61 has removed and characterised as being an attempt to denigrate Chris Heaton-Harris. Clive Wynne Candy ( talk) 12:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Clive Wynne Candy: What you have added are your own interpretations of Heaton-Harris' speech. In his speech, ^[1] he makes no mention of MLM, instead speaking on behalf of one particular entity, the DSA. Rather, you chose to introduce MLM into the narrative based on your own desire to denigrate Mr. Heaton-Harris as a "supporter of MLM", which you view as an inherent evil (based on this edit) rather than the perfectly legal business model that it is. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 13:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Since you have already accepted that all significant members of the UK DSA operate MLM schemes, the proposition that Heaton-Harris was not speaking in support of MLM, but of the DSA, is a distinction without a difference. Heaton-Harris' words are there for anyone to read in the Parliamentary record. Obviously, I have reported them accurately and I made no suggestion in my edit as to the motives of Heaton-Harris for uttering them. 'Inherent evil' is a phrase that you have introduced and falsely-ascribed to me. Clive Wynne Candy ( talk) 13:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Is that all it operates? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Please explain your question? Clive Wynne Candy ( talk) 14:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Clive Wynne Candy: I think Slatersteven intended: does the DSA do anything else, or does it just support MLM as a business model? (At which point, one might ask, why doesn't it call itself the Multi-Level Marketing Association?) WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 14:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much, I thought it was obvious. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Single level, traditional direct selling of cheap and cheerful consumer goods (aka. door to door peddling) based on value and demand, doesn't really exist anymore. It died out with the arrival of supermarkets, wide-ownership of automobiles and lately Online shopping. During this protracted death, the 'MLM' phenomenon effectively stole the identity of direct selling. Today there are DSAs all over the globe, but originally (prior to WWII) this was an American association which comprised traditional direct selling companies, like 'Kirby Brushes.' The original American DSA introduced common-sense rules which protected non-salaried sales agents from competition. Thus, the number of agents was limited to geographically defined enclaves so that they each had a chance of finding sufficient customers to have a reasonable chance of making a living. Today's DSAs comprise companies that set absolutely no common-sense limits on the numbers of non salaried agents being recruited. In fact, MLM companies offer non-salaried agents comission-payments on their own purchases and on on those of their recruits and on those of the recruits of their recruits, etc. ad infinitum. When rigorously investigated it has been discovered that virtually no declared MLM sales have been to members of the general public based entirely on value and demand. They have been to persons under contract to the MLM companies, based on the false expectation of future reward. Clive Wynne Candy ( talk) 14:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

On the talk page of the Heaton-Harris article, a document was linked from the DSA itself in which they state that >99% of their members operate so-called MLM models. So yeah, that is effectively all they do. If it is such a ‘widely-accepted’, and ‘perfectly-legal’ business model as is claimed on that same talk page, I really do not understand why it would be such a problem that the terms are used interchangeably, as the DSA does itself. StanTwoCents ( talk) 14:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Which link? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be this one: ^[1]. Here is how that document is referenced also on the multi-level marketing page. “The Direct Selling Association (DSA), a lobbying group for the MLM industry, reported that in 1990 only 25% of DSA members used the MLM business model. By 1999, this had grown to 77.3%.[27] By 2009, 94.2% of DSA members were using MLM, accounting for 99.6% of sellers, and 97.1% of sales.[28]” StanTwoCents ( talk) 14:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"US", "2009". So how is this referring to a UK association in 2015? Please read wp:synth. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

True. Do you have anything to suggest that the situation is different in the UK or that this situation changed in any meaningful way since 2009? I could raise the point that the DSA UK website lists 39 current members, and that all of these members according to themselves and/or Wikipedia operate MLM compensation plans, but then I would probably be asked to provide evidence that they already did so in 2015, and/or that they also do this in Mr Heaton-Harris’ constituency, so I will refrain from doing so. StanTwoCents ( talk) 15:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI, this is what the DSA UK says when asked what Direct Selling is, nothing more: “Many Direct Selling companies are now organised on multi-level principles. This is where Direct Sellers are given the opportunity to build their own sales teams, in addition to the rewards from making personal sales.  In doing so, they are able to receive additional rewards that come from the sales achieved by those they have recruited, trained, helped and motivated.“ ^[1] StanTwoCents ( talk) 15:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Might I point out the blindingly-obvious fact that there are no significant traditional single tier direct selling compnanies still operating in the UK. This type of enterprise has long since vanished due to market forces. Clive Wynne Candy ( talk) 15:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

May I point out wp:or and your only source is neither about the UK or even uo to date with the comment by the MP. This is now getting wp:tendentious and I am asking you to WP:DROPIT. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue at hand here is not whether the DSA membership consists of MLM companies or not, but rather whether MLM companies are inherently bad. Candy has tried to point out that Heaton-Harris' support of the DSA is problematic because it ignored the accepted overall 99+% net-loss/churn rates for participation in MLM schemes, and repeated unsupported statistics from the UK DSA - openly claiming that: member companies of the UK DSA were providing UK citizens (approximately 400 000, 75% of whom are women) with an opportunity to start their own businesses and earn significant income; making a significant contribution to the UK economy; reducing unemployment; etc. Heaton- Harris also described how employees of the UK DSA had been regularly promoting MLM participation as a secure and viable route to enter the world of business and earn income, to students attending Northampton University. The facts he asserts that Heaton-Harris ignored are not verified by any sources, and appear to be used to denigrate Heaton-Harris. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 15:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

How is that the issue at hand? You yourself have stated on the talk page that MLM is widely-accepted and perfectly-legal (also does not sound entirely neutral, by the way), but still felt using the terms direct selling and multi level marketing interchangeably, as the DSA does itself, was problematic in the light of Wikipedia guidelines. StanTwoCents ( talk) 15:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ StanTwoCents: A) I'm not aware that the DSA uses the terms "direct selling" and "multi-level marketing" interchangeably, and if I have used them that way, it has been by mistake. My understanding is that direct selling refers to any business model in which consumers or other non-professional salespeople sell products directly to other consumers. MLM is simply one model of doing this. And MLM is not inherently bad or illegal, despite the fact that some bad actors have played in this industry. B) My point in raising this discussion is Candy's attempt to denigrate Heaton-Harris based on his support of the DSA, because Candy (and apparently also Stan) do not like MLM and have an axe to grind against the industry and one of its players. This attempted denigration is the crux of the neutrality problem, and it is the only matter that should be up for discussion in this forum. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 15:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Why would I have an axe to grind with a business model that is apparently perfectly legal and widely accepted (on your say so), with ‘only a few bad apples’? It might just be me, but it sounds like you have more than just a casual opinion on the matter yourself. For me, the discussion is not whether or not MLMs are bad news - but whether or not it is ok for Candy to equate direct selling to multi level marketing in the context of Heaton-Harris’ speech in parliament. I absolutely do not see how that could even be considered a neutral point of view issue, as the DSA - whichever country it operates in - lobbies virtually exclusively on behalf of MLM companies, and uses the terms interchangeably in its literature and on its website. By arguing it is somehow unacceptable to publicly associate Heaton-Harris with MLM, you are the one that implies that that is a bad thing, not Candy nor me. StanTwoCents ( talk) 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ StanTwoCents: The exact words that Candy added to the article included: During the course of his speech, Heaton-Harris ignored the accepted overall 99+% net-loss/churn rates for participation in MLM schemes, and repeated unsupported statistics from the UK DSA - openly claiming that: member companies of the UK DSA were providing UK citizens (approximately 400 000, 75% of whom are women) with an opportunity to start their own businesses and earn significant income; making a significant contribution to the UK economy. This language is not neutral. I can't explain my point more clearly. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 15:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ WikiDan61: All due respect, but that is not the issue you brought here. If the guidelines have a legitimate issue with the language that is used, it should be amended. If there is an issue with sources, those should be added or verified. To my knowledge, the 99% is well-documented and referenced on the multi-level marketing page, and Mr Heaton-Harris is not misquoted in that fragment, was he? The goal here should not be to debate the validity of some controversial business model, but rather to provide accurate content about Heaton-Harris, right? StanTwoCents ( talk) 15:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ StanTwoCents:, you and @ Clive Wynne Candy: apparently have one view of what constitutes a neutral point of view and I have a differing view. That is why the issue has been brought here, so that others can weigh in. I can see no point in us continuing to bang heads, and I will cease replying to you or Clive. Should any other participants in this discussion require my input, please ping me. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 16:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ WikiDan61: I am one of those others weighing in. My apologies that I do not agree with you, but neutral does not mean ‘the way I see things’. Statements should have a strong base in evidence. Have a nice day. StanTwoCents ( talk) 16:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

StanTwoCents, it is interesting to ponder: where on Wikipedia does ignorance-based amorality/neutrality end, and knowledge-based morality begin?

The man who drafted the US federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act 1970, is Prof. G. Robert Blakey.

Blakey was once contracted to offer his expert opinion of the original MLM company, Amway. Blakey's evidence-based opinion is contained in this linked-document https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Amway/blakey_report.pdf

Blakey's opening statement, and indeed the rest of his opinion, was based on his many years studying and combatting the complex phenomenon of organized crime in the USA. He is widely-considered to be one the greatest living experts on the subjet.

"It is my opinion that the Amway business is run in a manner that is parallel to that of major organized crime groups, in particular the Mafia. The structure and function of major organized crime groups, generally consisting of associated enterprises engaging in patterns of legal and illegal activity, was the prototype forming the basis for federal and state racketeering legislation that I have been involved in drafting. The same structure and function, with associated enterprises engaging in patterns of legal and illegal activity, is found in the Amway business."

According to Hansard, Heaton-Harris spoke at length in the UK parliament in effusive praise of Amway in particular. His only source of information on Amway was evidently persons of his aquaintence who are long-time adherents of Amway. Clive Wynne Candy ( talk) 19:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We do not deal in morality we deal in verifiability. Find a source that explicitly says he supports MLM. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to what you imagine I have written, I was not asking for Wikipedians to abandon moral relativity, I was pondering where on Wikipedia does ignorance-based amorality/neutrality end, and knowledge-based morality begin? Obviously, readers of Wikipedia are free to make their own moral judgements, but in order to make such judgements, they need first to be fully-informed. That should be the role of Wikipedia. As for verifiability - below you can read Heaton-Harris' own words which are to be found in my linked reference to Hansard. Heaton-Harris was speaking in effusive support of Amway (which is the original MLM company and upon which all other MLM companies have been copied). His only source of information on Amway/MLM was evidently persons of his aquaintence who are long-time adherents of Amway. This quantifiable evidence proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Heaton-Harris has, in effect, placed a scripted-endorsement of Amway/MLM in the parliamentary record. I have merely reported these matters truthfuly and accurately, and I have made absolutely no suggestion in my edit as to why Heaton-Harris did this. I have certainly expressed no moral judgement of Heaton-Harris' behaviour in my contribution. That said, for reasons best-known to him/herself, WikiDan61 has pretended that, in my contribution, I have characterised MLM as being 'inherently evil' and that I have 'an axe to grind' (some sort of hidden sinister motive) for doing this.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150113/halltext/150113h0002.htm "In the time remaining, I will say a bit about the benefits of self-employment, and specifically about the opportunities in direct selling, including opportunities for female entrepreneurship. With the help and sponsorship of Amway, one of the biggest direct sellers, I have hosted a lunch and an afternoon tea in Parliament on the subject with some of the great and good of politics from the House of Lords, the House of Commons and local government, and business representatives and some amazing female entrepreneurs and their advocates.

"Amway is the world’s No. 1 direct selling company, established in 1959, and Amway business owners operate in more than 100 markets around the world. There are more than 40,000 Amway business owners in the UK alone, selling products across a wide range of industries including skin care, cosmetics, hair care and so on. One good example of an Amway business owner is Brenda Wills. She and her daughter Sally Brinner have been working as distributors for Amway for more than 30 years. Sally was introduced to the business by her parents, who started their Amway business together in the mid-80s, and they have worked together in the industry ever since."

"Sally’s parents were drawn to the prospect of owning a business that offered independence, flexibility and a chance to earn a living on their own terms. Some 30 years later, Brenda is still working from home and enjoying an income aged 81, and Sally and her own 27-year-old daughter Victoria, who has been an Amway business-owner since the age of 18, are now driving the business forward. That means three generations of the same family are part of this entrepreneurial industry, which sells products globally."'' Chris Heaton-Harris.

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/94afc761-e7b8-41b9-9f1d-2c284b5cadc7 Heaton Harris' parliamentary speech can be watched on this link at 16:43:18. The video remains linked as a 'credible' endorsement of MLM/direct selling on Amway's own Website http://www.e-sendit.co.uk/amway/week87/uk/index.html#article-9

Amway's own website describes Heaton-Harris' parliamentary speech as:

"Some credible positive messages and promotion of direct selling which included Amway."

Clive Wynne Candy ( talk) 09:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Note he says direct selling not MLM, all this means he may not know what he is talking about. Not that he supports MLM, so does my OR beat yours? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Heaton-Harris carefully avoided the controversial term 'MLM,' is conclusive evidence that his 'positive' speech was given to him by MLM promoters. I would fully-agree that if (given the abundance of quantifiable evidence/rational analysis publicly available concerning the hidden catastrophic overall net-loss/churn rates for MLM/direct selling participation) Heaton-Harris still sincerely believes MLM/direct selling companies like Amway to offer a viable opportunity for UK citizens to earn income, then he is probably far too stupid to be held to account. Having said all that, Heaton-Harris has definitely given a speech in support of MLM/ direct selling in general, and of Amway in particular. Whether or not he has any understanding of this, is an entirely different matter. However, Heaton-Harris cannot plead ignorance, because his eyes-wide-shut behaviour in regard to the MLM/direct selling phenomenon has been openly-criticised on the Net and, true to form, he has refused to engage with persons criticising him.

https://www.talentedladiesclub.com/articles/why-were-appalled-that-an-mp-and-government-minister-promoted-mlms-like-amway-in-parliament/

Clive Wynne Candy ( talk) 11:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Or that he did not make the link. That is the point we wp:or and why we have wp:v. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This is getting a little sad. Per Wikipedia, Amway (short for "American Way") is an American multi-level marketing company that sells health, beauty, and home care products. Agreed upon by the NY Times ^[1], Time Magazine ^[2], Huffington Post ^[3], Academia ^[4], oh and Amway itself ^[5]. But I know, I know - was that also the case in 2015 and in the UK? StanTwoCents ( talk) 12:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not know who they were till this thread, and maybe he does not really know who they are. There is no education or intellectual requirement to be an MP, they can be as thick as me. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh come on, according to that speech he knows a whole lot about them. Moreover, if I support Trump not knowing which party he is from, do I then not support a Republican president - albeit unwittingly? StanTwoCents ( talk) 12:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No he knows what they have told him. You need him talking about (excellent) MLM's or an RS making the connection, not you. Read [ [10]], MP's often jump on anything that makes them look good without checking Slatersteven ( talk) 12:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Should I point out that that article is from months later, not about Amway, and about a completely different MP? This is getting wp: sad. You know very well it is not original research that Direct Selling and Amway are MLM, whatever that might entail. How neutral is your point of view? StanTwoCents ( talk) 13:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

wp:or and wp:v are very clear, we only say what RS explicitly say, not what we interpret them as saying. So until this argument stop relying on purely OR I will not respond, and just assume will I say I oppose this addition. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The argument about whether or not Heaton-Harris knows that Amway is an MLM company is irrelevant. The point of this neutrality forum discussion is to point out that Clive Wynne Candy was not editing neutrally when he added this information to Heaton-Harris' biography, but instead was trying to malign the MP based on the MP's support of a business model that the editor does not like. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 12:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If you had simply followed WP:DRP and amended the wording, all of this could have been avoided. Instead you violated WP:SRI and WP:PA and levied a baseless sockpuppet allegation against me and Clyve, without any evidence whatsoever. You know that Heaton-Harris in this speech meant to endorse the MLM industry, which he here refers to as Direct Selling following its primary lobbying instrument. This could be included in a neutral manner in the article if it were not for all this pettiness. It is probably not something he is ashamed of himself, nor is anyone claiming that he should be. StanTwoCents ( talk) 13:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"...trying to malign the MP based on the MP's support of a business model that the editor does not like." That's merely WikiDan61's opinion. At no point in my contribution did I offer any opinion of Heaton-Harris' motivation. If I had suggested in my contribution that he is a useful idiot, and/or a crook, then Dan would have a point, but I merely reported the plain facts and left it to Wikipedia readers to form their own judgement. I have also supplied verification that on the Amway company website, Heaton-Harris has been touted as a guarantee of legitimacy. If a person reading the Amway Website were then to turn to Wikipedia in search of the truth, surely they should be able to find it? Clive Wynne Candy ( talk) 13:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Clive Wynne Candy: In your edits, you have repeatedly pointed out not only what Heaton-Harris said, but what he did not say, with the intention of pointing out that he omitted "facts" (for which you have provided no citations) that you feel are important. The fact that you feel these facts are important, but that Heaton-Harris did not feel they were important, is where your neutrality becomes problematic. If we want to report that Heaton-Harris rose to speak in favor of the DSA, cited to the Hansard, that is fine (although so monumentally trivial as to question its inclusion). If you want to question Heaton-Harris' motives about why he omitted certain facts that you feel are important, you'll have to provide reliable sources that specifically pointed out this omission. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 13:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This needs to close. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The point of bring the matter here was not to litigate it, but to get an admin's opinion on the matter. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 13:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought you said you brought it here, so that “others could weigh in”? StanTwoCents ( talk) 14:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiDan61 No one seriously disputes that the overall net-loss/churn rates for participation in MLM direct selling schemes have been effectively 100%. For verification, I suggest you read this scholarly document published by the FTC. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/trade-regulation-rule-disclosure-requirements-and-prohibitions-concerning-business-opportunities-ftc.r511993-00017%C2%A0/00017-57317.pdf I have already pointed out that the UK Fraud Act 2006 (section 3) defines and prohibits fraud by the withholding of information. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/pdfs/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf For obvious reasons, MLM companies and their de facto agents, have been engaged in a global campaign to hide the truth about the catastrophic results of their activities in respect of their constantly-churning adherents. They have had billions of dollars, and armies of attorneys and PR types, at their disposal to pursue this ongoing campaign of information monopoly. The fact that Heaton-Harris recited the MLM fairy story, and omitted to mention reality, in Parliament, is not in dispute. His motivations for doing this remain open to debate. That said, right now, I am prepared to accept that he was just a fool unless other compelling evidence comes to light. I detect from your spelling that you are not from the UK. So might I ask why you are so interested in a speech made in the UK Parliament? Clive Wynne Candy ( talk) 19:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Note there are also wp:undue issues relating to this. No third party RS even seem to have deemed this speech worth mentioning, let alone important. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Well Amway UK certainly mentioned it, and the company still features Heaton-Harris, and a link to his scripted Amway/MLM promotional speech, on its website. The fact that the UK media has largely-ignored the MLM phenomenon and UK politicians and celebrities being fooled by it, illustrates the widespread lack of understanding of it. Heaton-Harris' speech is worth reporting, because in it, he promoted demonstrably fake-income opportunities (with effectively 100% overall net-loss churn rates) which, contrary to the UK Fraud Act 2006 (section 3), rely on the maintainence of a monopoly of information regarding their quantifiable results. Current estimates are that between 200 000 and 300 000 UK citizens are being quietly churned through MLM schemes annually, whilst the UK DSA continues to trumpet that there are 400 000+ MLM direct sellers in the UK. This, and other gross distortions, were read into the Parliamentry record by Heaton-Harris, and they remain there. WikiDan61, who appears not to be British (judging by his spelling of the English language) has gone to an enormous effort to make sure that this accurate information does not appear in Heaton Harris' biography. WikiDan61 has also tried to character-assassinate me and anyone supporting my rational position. I find it astonishing that a UK MP (who is currently Transport Secretary) can deliver a scripted-speech in which he effusively praised 'Amway' - a contraversial American-based labyrinth of corporate structures which has been compared to the Mafia by one of America's leading experts on organised crime - and yet this truthful and accurate information can be arbitrarily dismissed as being 'not worth mentioning' by editors who freely-confess to having no real knowledge of the MLM phenomenon. It is interesting to note that it has been reported that Heaton-Harris has been involved with the American Legislative Exchange Council - a contraversial right wing organisation that the Amway Corporation has also been a member of. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Corporations#A The function of ALEC, is explained in this Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/04/alec-rightwing-group-lawsuit In simple terms, ALEC acts like a dating agency where right-leaning legislators can cuddle up to wealthy American companies and individuals. Presumeably this truthful and accurate information will also be arbitarily dismissed as being 'not worth mentioning.' Clive Wynne Candy ( talk) 13:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Clive Wynn Candy: If, as you say, the UK media has largely-ignored the MLM phenomenon, then so should we at Wikipedia. (See WP:OR and WP:AXE). WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 13:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiDan61 You don't seem to understand the useful concept of the past-tense. Take a breath and please try to follow? I didn't say the media is largely ignoring the MLM phenomenon, I said that it has largely-ignored it. A quick Google news search reveals that the MLM phenomenon is becoming increasingly covered by the media, particulary since the arrival of the Covid-19 crisis. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300074555/the-dark-side-of-a-side-hustle-my-brush-with-multilevel-marketing https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/06/government-tech-fund-ceo-multilevel-marketing-392406 https://time.com/5864712/multilevel-marketing-schemes-coronavirus/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8565031/Woman-BLASTS-friends-giving-impersonal-gift-one-pal-MLM-brand-ambassador.html

BTW. The quantity of information on Wikipedia that hasn't featured in the media, is vast, perhaps you could delete all that as well? Clive Wynne Candy ( talk) 13:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Clive Wynne Candy has been blocked based on a report at WP:ANI. I believe this thread can be closed and archived now. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 12:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Over at Talk:Douma_chemical_attack#Article_in_The_Nation_(July_2020) There is an ongoing RfC about whether a piece in The Nation by Aaron Maté entitled Did Trump Bomb Syria on False Grounds? should be included in the article. Maté is strongly associated with and writes for the deprecated website The Grayzone. The article repeats claims published in The Grayzone and other Pro-Assad sources (including RT) about OPCW leaks, claiming that these are evidence of flaws in the OPCW investigation which found Assad to be culpable for the attack. These claims have been mostly ignored by reliable sources and dismissed by those who acknowledge them, including a 4 part rebuttal by Bellingcat. Your participation would be welcomed. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia War That Shows How Ugly This Election Will Be: An editing battle over Kamala Harris’s race is a sign of what’s to come. --The Atlantic

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The Richard Stallman article is biased to an absolutely astonishing level, of which I have never seen before on this website. I have currently restored a previous version of the particular section but it has already been reverted once and I expect it will be reverted again. The section in question can be seen in this diff and regards the statements Stallman made related to the Jeffrey Epstein situation last year. The linked version is quite obviously written from the perspective of someone who has adopted Stallman's stance and is not only defending him but is actively advancing his stance. It is incredible to me that this has been publicly available on wiki for what seems to be a period of months. I think this will be obvious to anyone who reads it and I ask for your assistance in ensuring the previous version is not again restored. Thanks. Lazer-kitty ( talk) 22:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide concrete evidence supporting your claims? They sound like nothing more than personal opinions to me. The revision that you are trying to revert has more details and seems more accurate (based on the provided sources). Considering that this is a BLP, information regarding controversies should be as detailed explained as possible. daveout ^(talk) 23:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You are the person reverting the article to the most insanely biased version I have ever seen. Honestly, PLEASE, someone needs to look at this. This is ridiculous. Lazer-kitty ( talk) 00:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This probably should be at BLP/N , but regardless: The version that Daveout is restoring uses BLPSPS (LaPorte News a self-published YouTube channel, as well as a github archive) and leaves quotes unsourced (though implied to be to an email thread. Further, the version tries to craft an argument against Stallman's logic about what assault is, which is absolutely against NOR particularly when a BLP is involved. One can use whatever logic covered by that Wired article as the point of reference to explain the fallacies, but WP editors cannot bring in their own arguments to that which Daveout's version is doing (in addition to unallowable sources). -- Masem ( t) 00:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Masem: Can you please revert AVRS's change and lock the page? I'm not sure what actions you feel are necessary but to me it is absolutely unacceptable to publish this kind of propaganda. I would violate 3RR to revert again but frankly I'm willing to take that bullet at this point. Lazer-kitty ( talk) 02:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lazer-kitty, geez, calm down. Can you specify what exactly you find so biased and unacceptable in the article? daveout ^(talk) 07:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You absolutely know what you're doing. The article quite obviously and intentionally takes Stallman's side and advances his own argument. At one point someone even added - and commented out, thank god - a line claiming BILL GATES was behind all of it. It's outright propaganda and it's disgusting.

@ Masem: I don't want to force the issue and I know you're busy but I kind of think time is of the essence here, we cannot keep crap like this up on an encyclopedia. Lazer-kitty ( talk) 13:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Bill Gates? I really don't know what you're talking about. To me, it looks like the problem is this: Stallman was " cancelled" last year, and as we know, "cancellers" are never satisfied unless those that they are trying to cancel are portrayed as Satan. daveout ^(talk) 13:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The version of the article you keep restoring includes a commented out line accusing Gates of being behind the criticism of Stallman. And the second part of the above comment is absolutely astonishing and perfectly illustrates why you have no business crafting any part of this article. Lazer-kitty ( talk) 19:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an obviously improper HIDDEN note. But as the name suggests, it is not promptly visible and I probably missed it because I was busy reading the visible part of the text. daveout ^(talk) 20:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made changes to the article. (including adding quotations inside inline citations.) tell me what you think. daveout ^(talk) 11:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Lazer-kitty's preferred version frames Stallman's words to claim that he was rationalizing something and to take them out of context to make them sound as bad as possible, almost like the outright falsehoods in the media did; e.g. some of his isolated words actually mostly consisted of a quotation, but he hadn't used quotemarks there. As to the statement using self-published sources (LaCorte News is supposedly by a former Fox News executive, but I don't remember if I checked that): for the fact that his critics misquoted him right after quoting him, start by looking at Gano's original blog post for that; the other source combines links to other misleading articles (although having such a list on Wikipedia is probably not good because of that) and to Stallman's misquoted posts and their sources. If you cannot interpret at all, you could as well remove all hyperlinks from Wikipedia. Rather than asking for explanations though, preferably look at the edit history and edit summaries. -- AVRS ( talk) 01:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Masem. You are correct: those sources are unacceptable for BLP and they have been removed. I didn't analyse every source in depth before, the revision I was trying to preserve simply appeared to be more detailed. To be fair, Lazer-kitty didn't complain about the sources and is not doing a good job at explaining the bias claim. daveout ^(talk) 07:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

As a fresh starting point, I have tried to write that whole section more neutrally but keeping all the salient points from the RSes. Note that I don't descend into all the rigors of what the definition of "assault" or "rape" is, just that that was part of the email chain and thus raise numerous eyebrows and why his past writings were looked at. (eg we are not either working to defend or argue against his comments on the thread itself), only making sure his post-resignation comments are fairly accurate. -- Masem ( t) 14:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with your revision. I agree with AVRS that sensationalist publications are misquoting Stallman and that those mischaracterisations are reflected in previous revisions of the article. For instance, stating that Stallman wrote that Giuffre "presented herself to him as entirely willing" without explaining that he also said that she was being coerced and harmed by Epstein (and therefore, not "entirely willing") seems misleading to me. We should avoid interpreting Stallman's words and voicing 3rd party interpretations, we should preferably present Stallman's own words instead. Reading the full thing without editorialization gives us a completely different impression. daveout ^(talk) 14:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not so much the 3rd party interpretations but that 3rd parties took note of it his language, as WPians taking his words as a primary source and trying to craft the logic is also OR and potentially NOR. Fortunately, the Guardian coverage gets to the section where he states "she was harmed" from the email chain, which I have included just now, to show that he was still critical of Epstein. What the version you or AVRS were trying to do was dig further into Stallman's explanation and explain point by point, which no RS does, that I can see. They just point out his comments, for the most part, that balk at the idea about the "willing" factor. It's not WP's role to try to give Stallman's arguments any fairer assessment than the media has given him, and I believe what I wrote is a neutral assessment that gives his arguments the benefit of doubt to what the RSes say, no more, no less. -- Masem ( t) 15:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Since Daveout reverted again (this now approaching admin action, and I am now too involved to do steps), I will point out his claim that "no reliable source claims Stallman defended Minsky" (as I had written) is wrong: Wired "Stallman put himself in the path of that outrage by contributing to a CSAIL mail thread defending the late artificial intelligence guru Marvin Minsky." [15]. Daveout, you need to recognize your preference version is far far away from what neutrality is on WP and engages in synthesis and OR. -- Masem ( t) 01:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Masem: Why can't you just revert the page to your version? What is happening here? I feel like I'm talking to a multiple brick walls. This is easy to solve, the admins here simply refuse to do so. Lazer-kitty ( talk) 01:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be an improper use of the admin broom, I feel at this point. -- Masem ( t) 03:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Masem: It is more acceptable to you to allow Wikipedia to be co-opted for propaganda purposes? I'm sorry but I just don't understand that. This article in its current state is an embarrassment to any remaining respectability this website has. Lazer-kitty ( talk) 14:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thre are processes to be followed and using admin bits to "win" certain things when involved is not allowed, period. -- Masem ( t) 14:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Masem:Ok, but that source wasn’t in the paragraph when I checked it. We now have one source saying that Stallman defended Minsky. The Guardian and Business Insider are careful enough to use the words “appeared to…” before the claim, as in “Stallman appeared to defend...”. The Washington Post is careful enough to attribute that impression to others, as in “Stallman questions struck some colleagues as an attempt to downplay…”. The Boston Globe and Ars Techinca avoid making such conjectures entirely. What WIRED is doing is trying to GUESS Stallman’s intentions. We shouldn’t jump the gun and turn an “appeared to” into a “did” when nearly all sources avoided doing so. If we are going to do that, I feel that we should at least attribute the claim.

The Boston Globe’s article is a good example of how to cover the matter, they emphasized Stallman’s own words (featuring complete quotations) instead of interpretations and guesses. That’s what I meant before, I definitely wasn’t suggesting that we should engage in original research in order to explain his views. daveout ^(talk) 08:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Just one last comment: could you specify where exactly is there wp:or in the article? I believe you are referring to this sentence: ("assault" on its own usually refers to actual violence or threats, not nominal, while "sexual assault" is also applied to non-statutory rape) which was not the best way to report this statement made by Stallman : The word ‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. . I’ve already removed that sentence. The disputed versions are now very similar, I wouldn’t mind implementing your revision but I prefer AVRS’s as a starting point instead, the main difference is that the present version includes full quotations. And since Lazer-kitty accused me of being trollish, I want to point out that I’m not the one here who was recently blocked and attempted to evade it through sock puppetry. Daveout (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This diff [16] right before you removed what I wrote has the wired source at ref 124, it was there. The OR still includes the fact you are directly going to a 2003 source (about Richard Pyror) as a WPian to include. Yes, in the actual event, people did go back and pull out things, but it is not our place to go further unless the lines are explicitly drawn for us. And overall, there's far too much focus on quoting Stallman and not the situation around the events to this point (eg understanding WHY there was a email thread going on , and thus why he was speaking about Minsky, and how fast it went from Vice's publication to his resignation). -- Masem ( t) 14:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I specifically said that "that source wasn’t in the paragraph when I checked it.". And since your version is now reinstated I think you should fix that. (but i still think that it is best to avoid claiming that Stallman defended Minsky and full quotations should be included. Accuracy is very important in sensitive cases like this one). Daveout (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

And to clarify: that source was there before AND AFTER my revision. Your comment could give the false impression that I had removed the source. The problem is that you claimed that Satllman defended Minsky but didn't provide inline citation corroborating that. I just wanted to be on the safe side. Daveout (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Masem: I want to apologise for aggressively reverting your revision before. That was extremely rude of me. I appreciate your efforts to mediate and solve this dispute. So thank you. I was just overwhelmed by Lazer-kitty's confrontational attitude. Anyway, I've added these lines to the text: 1) Stallman's words were perceived by some as an attempt to downplay sexual exploitation and minimize Minsky's alleged involvement. and 2) A joint statement signed by 33 GNU project developers classified Stallman's behavior as being alienating and advocated his departure from the project.. I've also fixed the William Pryor's reference that you mentioned above. Hope this will settle or at least attenuate this dispute. -- Daveout ^(talk) 16:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Masem: Sorry to bother you again (this is the last time, i promise) but this is very important. I just want to ask whether you still think that my revision, with all the corrections I've made (including corrected inline citations), is still in violation of WP:NPOV? Take a second look please, it's a short read: ( Shortcut). This will greatly facilitate future agreements regarding this matter.-- Daveout ^(talk) 11:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Global Center to Combat Extremism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While recently removing a questionable source from various articles I fell on this one. Unless I'm mistaken, this is a Salafi "anti-extremist" center? Considering the strange source I removed there, I welcome interested editors to evaluate the quality of the other sources and of the article itself. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 06:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

More comments are requested at Talk:Falkland_Islanders#Request_for_comment_on_whether_the_claim_"Falklanders_can_claim_Argentine_citizenship"_is_OR_and_violates_NPOV. Thanks. Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Heads up, this heretofore-obscure article will need patrolling. Oleandrin has recently become the subject of unsupported claims that it cures or otherwise treats COVID-19. See this Axios article for details. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

For the Fourth Crusade's 1204 Sack of Constantinople in relation to the Hagia Sophia, is it preferable to attribute statements made (uncorroborated) by contemporary Byzantine politician and chronicler Nicetas Choniates? For context Choniates was the most important senator in the Byzantine Senate and the head of the imperial civil service until a palace coup caused a change in emperors and Choniates fell from power. Ultimately the political instability lead to the Crusaders sacking Hagia Sophia along with the rest of the city, which Choniates fled as the enemy arrived. He then composed the rest of his chronicles at the Byzantine rump state of Nicaea. Needless to say, as an embittered medieval non-eyewitness writing in a high rhetorical style for a political audience at time of military occupation and sectarian warfare, his is not the most neutral of accounts, though it is by far the longest, most detailed, and most frequently quoted, as well as the most sensational. (Latin sources don't breathe a word on the entire matter.) In detail it is wholly uncorroborated. At present, his account is summarized briefly in its essentials, and the report attributed to him at the relevant place in the article.

Note that Nicetas Choniates never claimed to have witnessed what he described as having been rumoured to have happened in Hagia Sophia. Choniates wrote:

The report [N.B., that the following is explicitly not Nicetas's own testimony] of the impious acts perpetrated in the Great Church are unwelcome to the ears. The table of sacrifice, fashioned from every kind of precious material and fused by fire into one whole-blended together into a perfection of one multicolored thing of beauty, truly extraordinary and admired by all nations-was broken into pieces and divided among the despoilers, as was the lot of all the sacred church treasures, countless in number and unsurpassed in beauty. They found it fitting to bring out as so much booty the all-hallowed vessels and furnishings which had been wrought with incomparable elegance and craftsmanship from rare materials. In addition, in order to remove the pure silver which overlay the railing of the bema, the wondrous pulpit and the gates, as well as that which covered a great many other adornments, all of which were plated with gold, they led to the very sanctuary of the temple itself mules and asses with packsaddles; some of these, unable to keep their feet on the smoothly polished marble floors, slipped and were pierced by knives so that the excrement from the bowels and the spilled blood defiled the sacred floor. Moreover, a certain silly woman laden with sins [N.B., this is often worded in other mass-market sources as "prostitute" or occasionally even "Western prostitute"], an attendant of the Erinyes, the handmaid of demons, the workshop of unspeakable spells and reprehensible charms, waxing wanton against Christ, sat upon the synthronon [N.B., non-historian sources frequently, and mistakenly, refer to a "throne"] and intoned a song, and then whirled about and kicked up her heels in dance.

A dispute has arisen over whether we can say in Wikivoice that these things (the possessed woman, the disembowelled pack-animals) happened for real without attributing them to their partisan 13th-century author as would normally be done for any topic in pre-modern history. Objections to using Nicetas Choniates's name to attribute statements appear to be based on the absence of such an attribution in some non-academic works and various media, particularly this quotation from Vryonis, S. Jr. Byzantium and Europe. (Library of European Civilization) London: Thames & Hudson, 1967. The omission of crucial details about sourcing from the work is hardly surprising, it being a pop-history work of fewer than 200 pages and covering an entire civilization of a millennium's durance without footnotes for the general reader. Nevertheless, because a passage of Vryonis's book is quoted by a psychologist non-historian in Falk, A. Franks and Saracens: Reality and Fantasy in the Crusades. Karnac, 2010 as an illustration of how "the Greek historian Speros Vyronis gave us a vivid account", a question has been raised as to whether we should repeat the sloppy usages of these two non-specialist and non-academic works, or else follow normal historiographical practice and relate claims of historical accounts to the people that wrote them. Another non-specialist and non-academic work that treats Choniates's account as fact without attributing it is Roudometof, V. Globalization and Orthodox Christianity: The Transformations of a Religious Tradition. Routledge, 2013, which devotes all of half a page to the Sack of Constantinople.

Previous discussion on this subject is to be found at Talk:Hagia_Sophia#Questions. GPinkerton ( talk) 04:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Reading through a lot of articles about historical figures, I've noticed that there is a very strong bias for how to report the religion on historical individuals. As I guess most know, Christianity grew apart during the 1st millennium resulting in the Great Schism of 1054 formally splitting Christianity into Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Since both claim to be the "original" church, the Catholic POV is that Christianity prior to 1054 was Catholic and the Orthodox POV is that it was Orthodox. In most articles on religion, WP deals quite well with this, finding the proper balance. However, for historical figures there is a strong bias in that famous Christians in the West are routinely claimed to have been "Catholics": the likes of Clovis I, Chlothar I, Charlemagne etc. are all claimed to have been Roman Catholics long before the schism, thus taking the Catholic POV that Christianity prior to 1054 was Catholic. For historical figures in the East, it looks very different: the likes of Vladimir the Great, Saint Helena, John Chrysostom are not claimed as Orthodox. Instead, they are given as 'Chalcedonian Christianity' or 'Nicene Christianity'. These descriptions are accurate, I'd say, as they avoid claiming the individuals as "Catholic" or "Orthodox". However, if one takes a step back, it does look like a systematic albeit unintended bias. If WP claims famous Western Christians as "Catholics" but refuses to call famous Eastern Christians "Orthodox", then we are in fact adhering to the Catholic POV. Fortunately, the solution is simple: I suggest that infoboxes of famous persons who died prior to 1054 should not claim they were "Catholic" or "Orthodox", as both are POV, and instead stick to the neutral and factual 'Chalcedonian christianity' that many infoboxes already use. Jeppiz ( talk) 21:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Two problems:

First. the Council of Chalcedon was in 451. You are proposing assigning "Chalcedonian Christianity" to the entire 1st millennium. Would you call Nestorius a Chalcedonian Christian?

The First seven ecumenical councils were:

1. The First Council of Nicaea in 325
2. The First Council of Constantinople in 381
3. The Council of Ephesus in 431
4. The Council of Chalcedon in 451
5. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553
6. The Third Council of Constantinople from 680 to 681
7. The Second Council of Nicaea in 787

• The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church accept all seven.
• The Oriental Orthodox Churches accept only the first three.
• The Church of the East accepts only the first two.

Second, you are assuming that the East–West Schism of 1054 is when the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church split. That was the final step, but the beginnings of the split go at least as far back as the Photian schism from 863 to 867 and it could be argued that the last time the two were completely unified was in the reign of Theodosius I (379– to 395) -- the last Emperor to rule both the eastern and western halves of the Roman Empire.

Major denominational families in Christianity:

This box:

• view
• talk

Western Christianity

Eastern Christianity

Protestantism

Anabaptism

Anglicanism

Lutheranism

Reformed

(Latin Church)

Catholic Church

(Eastern Catholic Churches)

Eastern Orthodox Church

Oriental Orthodox Churches

Church of the East

Schism (1552)

Assyrian Church of the East

Ancient Church of the East

Protestant Reformation

(16th century)

Great Schism

(11th century)

Council of Ephesus (431)

Council of Chalcedon (451)

Early Christianity

Great Church

( Full communion)

(Not shown are ante-Nicene, nontrinitarian, and restorationist denominations.)

So the solution for Wikipedia is not as simple as you suggest. You need to look at each biography and make a decision based upon geographical location and the complex history of the early Christian church. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That should be "since the Acacian schism (484–519)", and for this purpose, Theodosius was far from the last emperor to rule east and west; the return of Rome to the empire in the 6th century enabled the Byzantine Papacy until the 8th. I agree with the OP, though, that the situation of many saints and other worthies is quite irregular and often seeks to claim denominational allegiance wholly anachronistically, but then, some of them are venerated only in either east or west, but sometimes formerly in both. State church of the Roman Empire is much-neglected in terms of links to it. GPinkerton ( talk) 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, that graphic will need updating if the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church don't sort out their mutual excommunications over Ukraine. GPinkerton ( talk) 01:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles should useg commonly understood terms. Since Chalcedonian Christian is not commonly understood, we would have to explain it in each article it is added to. I don't see the problem anyway with describing Charlemagne and his successors as Roman Catholic. The recognized the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope, as the spiritual authority within their realms. Whether or not the bishops of Constantinople were in full, partial or no communion with Rome at the time is of little relevance. In any case, we should be guided by what secondary sources do. AFAIK they use the term Catholic. TFD ( talk) 01:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The common terms Latin Catholic and Latin Christianity are available, do not require exact affiliations and communions, redirecting to Latin Church, which is very often what is meant by "Roman Catholic", especially in the 1st millenium. I'm not sure Nicene Christianity is so uncommonly understood as Chalcedonian Christianity, so that's an option too. GPinkerton ( talk) 01:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)