This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The lead section at Project Veritas does not follow NPOV. My attempt to resolve this issue on the talk page was greeted with little interest, and my hope is that the readership of this noticeboard is more sensitive to NPOV issues and can more effectively avoid the kind of partisanship that characterizes some of the discussions at Talk:Project Veritas. (Pinging Slatersteven and Horse Eye Jack, who each posted in the discussion thread.)
To summarize what I wrote on the Talk page: By stating, "The group is known for producing deceptively edited videos," Wikipedia's voice suggests that all or most of Project Veritas's videos are "deceptively edited," when in fact most of the group's videos never received any such criticism from reliable sources. The wording also implies that the videos were deceptively edited as an undisputed fact, when in fact this criticism has been disputed in multiple reliable sources, such as by Clark Hoyt of the New York Times (cited in the Wikipedia article itself) and by Mona Charen of National Review.
My proposal is to change the sentence to: "The group is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, some of which have been widely criticized for being deceptively edited." I think this version satisfies NPOV, while the current version does not. Disclosure: I work for Project Veritas, and have disclosed this on my user page and on the article's Talk page. Sal at PV ( talk) 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Some examples of how PV is viewed by sources:
There are two issues raised, I do not see why we need to say "left wing" it is both an assumption and tells us nothing other then they have a political bias. As to how often they deceptively edit videos, has any source given any indication of how often the deceptively edit videos? They do do it (so we can say they do), but can it be shown its not a majority of the stuff they produce? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [ [7]] "Like most of O’Keefe’s work, it’s deceptively edited". Slatersteven ( talk) 14:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
refusing to give the significant minority viewpoint its due weight as well? Hoyt is already in the article -- although he only commented on one video and said it was heavily edited. Mona Charen referred to PV as the: "ironically named Project Veritas". [8] This doesn't look like a significant view endorsing PV. O3000 ( talk) 13:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Verge, Snoops, and The Guardian are ... reliable sources" Is my edit of your statement misleading? That would probably depend on context. Both your original sentence and my edit convey the idea that the listed sources are reliable thus I can argue my edit isn't misleading. However, my edit makes it look like you are expressing your opinion while your actual statement (and the context of this discussion) imply that Wikipedia consensus has found those sources to be reliable. I mention this to show how "deceptive" in the case of my edit of your sentence can be subjective. This would be especially important if you personally didn't like those sources but you were speaking to the Wikipedia consensus. My point is that "deceptive" has a level of value judgement. I might claim my edit of your sentence was not deceptive. However, if your personal feelings regarding those sources was different than the consensus Wikipedia view then you could rightly claim my edit was deceptive since it ascribed an opinion to you rather than to the group. Vox is hardly a centrist news source and they certainly aren't right leaning. If Vox says, "the following was edited out of the video" that is a statement of objective fact. If they say this changes the meaning, that is arguably objective. Saying that this is deceptive is now subjective (ie the opinion of the Vox author). It then becomes more subjective to for Vox to say PV is known for. How did they establish that fact? Did they conduct a pole and find that x% of people who had heard of PV associated them with deceptive video edits? This is effectively a contentious label and thus the sourcing either needs to be rock solid or we should attribute the claim. It's a problem with Wikipedia that this sort of issue comes up so often. Springee ( talk) 17:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles.Political topics like PV is not within that range of reliable uses. Regardless, this is beating around the bush. Springee ( talk) 20:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Subjective: "the missing 33 seconds was a deceptive edit". Yes, the rules are simple, a contentious claims should be attributed. Note here that Politico doesn't claim "deceptive editing" in their own voice. [
[10]] The operation is known for its hidden-camera interviews in which it looks to lure members of established news outlets into making supposedly compromising ethical statements. It has been criticized for deceptively editing footage to misrepresent the subjects’ comments.
. If Politico is unwilling to say it in their own voice why should we? Do your proposed sources state in their own voice that PV is known for deceptive edits?
Springee (
talk) 00:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you going to reject every source by opining that they are left-leaning?: from past experience, that is exactly what defenders of every right-wing grifter do. The right has built a walled garden of media that is effectively insulated from disconfirming fact, and presents all mainstream and fact-based sources as "left wing" because admitting that reality-based and conservative-leaning are antonyms would be saying the quiet part out loud. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This is going nowhere, at this point DR may be needed. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
So the state of play so far, two users object, one with a massive COI vs 5(?) users who say its fine. I think we have a consensus here. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be good practice to avoid, as often as possible saying clearly negative, subjective things about any article subject in Wiki-voice. There is nothing subjective about the fact that PV's videos are deceptively edited; it is objective, widely-reported fact. People can still disagree about such facts (and it's naturally expected that for a highly partisan subject like PV, both it the foot-soldiers in its cause would strenuously disagree with any facts that make them look bad); this does not free us from our responsibility to accurately cover them according to the most reliable sources we have. But beyond that, I strenuously and completely disagree with your argument that even things you personally feel are "subjective" and negative cannot be stated in wiki-voice. Our obligation as an encyclopedia is to cover the truth according to the best sources available; if we hedge on it and censor ourselves out of fear that what those sources say is too "negative", we are doing far more harm both to our projects and to the people involved. For example, in the particular example at hand, you are arguing that we should essentially smear PV's victims by implying, despite overwhelming consensus among reliable sources otherwise, that there is a possibility that they are actually guilty of the misdeeds PV has falsely accused them of. We minimize such harm to subjects by hewing as closely as possible to what the sources say, not by censoring it into the sort of groundless WP:FALSEBALANCE you are suggesting here. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
In article 2020 Delhi Riots there are violations of NPOV. NPOV says"Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." While in the article lead, in there are two following lines which violate this.
1. "Muslims were marked as targets for violence."
2. "In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males— who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised."
Both the statements in RS are in quote attribution to someone else. What is anecdotal in the Reliable Source is presented as an overarching fact in the article. I had discussions on the talk page, but the only reply given is that the source is reliable, which is not even the discussion. Request resolution. Notice to editors - SerChevalerie and Slatersteven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.cba ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
References
References
See [25].
This edit has several problems:
Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reliable independent sources. We have multiple reliable independent sources for the dissolution of German monarchies after the First World War - the former titles were converted to family names. Royalty fansites and society pages cannot then roll back history by declaring people to be princes. There's a walled garden of royalty fandom sites that are being used to assert a parallel reality in which Germany still has princes, and a few Wikipedians are taking that ball and running with it. Guy ( help! - typo?) 17:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, this law stipulated that the name of the previous noble families and their relatives should be the name that was previously passed on to the not particularly privileged family members as a family name (e.g. prinz instead of fürst, herzog instead of könig)) in 1966 (source includes this snappy (translated) quote:
Many of them have long since refrained from giving the registry offices their false names for entry in the civil register, and only figure as prince of the telephone book, letterhead or champagne). Precisely because this is a contentious, perennially-litigated issue with entire legal bodies dedicated to sorting out who even gets a nobiliary particle in their surname, Wikipedia cannot default to the minority royalist POV. From the official German authority on aristocracy:
The nobility in Germany has been officially abolished for almost 90 years. Since then, traditionalist aristocratic associations have been working to ensure that no one notices this.The same body, quoting and affirming this text in Der Spiegel May 10 1999 describing the current naming laws and attempts to contravene them:
JoelleJay ( talk) 21:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)By right, the former nobility predicates are now just any syllables in the name. Mind you: in the surname. Therefore, for example, it must also be called "Hans Graf von Meier" - because a count Hans von Meier, like princesses, princes and barons in Germany, has only existed in the fairy tale world since 1919.
But the bearers of former noble names do not want to stay there. The 1998 overview of the "Personnel occupation of the organizations of the nobility" published in the "Deutsche Adelsblatt" in 1998 lists a large number of barons, counts, barons and baronesses - the supposed nobility titles illegitimately before the first name--- p.119 moved. In the case of the "Princes" and "Princes" there is even an SD (His Highness) in front of the name, the "Margrave Max von Baden" wants to be addressed with SKH (His Royal Highness).
This is very practical for gossip pages - they like to pick up the templates, make Frederic Prince of Anhalt Prince Frederic of Anhalt without further ado, and the readership is happy about a little noble glory in Germany. Also the abbreviation of parts of names like "v.", "Frhr.", "Rr." Spoenla-Metternich criticizes: "Names like, 'Obermüller' 'or, Hoffmann' 'may not be abbreviated, O.müller' 'or, Hoffm.' ' And since the name is a unit, all "vons" in bibliographies and catalogs be classified under "V".
So Reliable Sources say Karl von Habsburg is head of the House of Habsburg, Franz, Duke of Bavaria is head of the House of Wittelsbach and so on, so naturally Wikipedia reflects that. JzG, JoelleJay, Smeat75 etc are you happy with that or is that an absurdity too that needs correction. I assume you are opposed to that practice too, or is it fine saying someone is head of a royal house, or a former royal house, but using a royal title per Reliable Sources or even worse using infobox royalty is completely unacceptable as it “gives the wrong impression” (but your fine with giving the wrong impression by inventing or supporting made up last names for BLPs [26], [27]?) Because how can the House of Habsburg exist, where does it exist, we can’t even presumably call them head of the family because how can a family have a formal head? Presumably one could say they “claim to be” but how do we source that, no doubt you are likely all against using the term “pretender” for those very reasons. - dwc lr ( talk) 07:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The only people who object to calling someone from a “former royal house” by a title is some Wikipedia editors.Did you not read the {{ tqb}} Der Spiegel passages quoted on the official German Institute for the Recognition of Aristocracy website? In the section "Explanations on the concept of nobility in the opinion of the Association of German Adelsverband e. V. (VdDA) and representatives of the historic German nobility"--apparently drawing background from the German wiki on Adel, but nevertheless useful as a proxy for their own stated opinion--they stress that the modern titling by aristocratic associations "applies exclusively within the association and has no legal effect outside of these associations" and furthermore advance this rather scathing indictment of those who support titling: "The self-image of the aristocratic associations and their relatives, based on the historical concept of nobility, as well as corresponding reporting, above all in the rainbow press, but also in reputable media, has meant that in some sections of the population the fact that the German nobility has been extinct since 1919 is not noticed." So no, it is not just "some Wikipedia editors" who are bothered by improper ennoblement. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Well I assume an insignificant fringe who live an echo chamber, probably class warriors consumed with bigotry and an overinflated sense of self importance, cared out there in the real world.•
(Not that you seem overly concerned by nuisances like Verifiability, you certainly have not not cited a single source which states the surname of the subject of this thread, yet you boldly profess to know it)Seriously? Those are some pretty bold personal attacks. And the German wiki cites this obituary for the name (Friedrich Wilhelm Fürst von Hohenzollern) registered at his death. I don't see why we shouldn't as well. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Hence, if the State alters its constitution, no one who thereby loses his title and rank would be justified in saying that what was his own had been taken from him; because he could only call it his own under the condition of the continued duration of the previous form of the State.Obviously I'm not advocating using OR here, just countering DWC LR's claim that only a couple Wikipedia editors care at all about who is titled. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The concern seems to be that editors are creating articles about non-notable people who claim to hold noble titles.Where do you get the idea that this is the concern? How would this apply to Ferdinand von Habsburg, who is notable as a race car driver? And would you agree that the Austrian government and academic articles on the nobility in Austria are reliable sources on the title "Archduke of Austria"? Not on a particular person, but the status of the title itself. Also, what does it matter whether an Irish title has legal status in the UK (Scottish peers have been recognized since 1963), or that North Korea is officially the DPRK (we cite academic and governmental sources on the name to support our name usage, which is what should be used for titles too if you are really trying to make this comparison)? JoelleJay ( talk) 17:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Austria has not had an archduke since 1804, when the archduchy was absorbed into the Austrian Empire and the title was assigned to the emperor's heir apparent. In the German duchies, when the dukes abdicated, they no longer used the title of duke, instead using the title of prince, which was the title assigned to the sons of reigning dukes in the German Empire. Similarly Wales was incorporated into England and ceased to have a prince, but the title Prince of Wales was assigned to the heir apparent to the English throne. The Queen not her son is the sovereign of Wales. I totally agree that we should not refer to people using offices they do not hold, such as Emperor of Germany, Austria or Russia, or King of Italy or Greece or Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. TFD ( talk) 01:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia is "[a] member of the Royal House of Yugoslavia". That's a remarklable feat given that Yuygoslavia hasn't existed since 1992, and the Yugoslavia that had a monarchy (unlike the 1945 foundation, which was a Communist republic) only existed for 25 years, ending 15 years before his birth. Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I would add that as well as a monarchist bias in using these titles, there could also be an anti-Italian and anti-German bias in some cases, acting as if the unification of these countries in the mid-19th century, which swept aside various mini-states like Tuscany and Hanover, never happened. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Ireland is a republic but there is nonetheless an Earl of Limerick and a Duke of Leinster. Noble titles are near-forbidden in Ireland. GPinkerton ( talk) 03:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
My evaluation of the article is that it unduly leans towards embellishing favorable points of view and make excessive use of direct opinion quotes and quotations of subject'self statements. There is an excessive amount of indiscriminate images as well. Furthermore, the article contains editorialized puffery like "prestigious" "famous" that are not properly cited or cited at all. I've made changes to those and left detailed edit, but it has not been a productive engagement with My Beyond My Ken and I would like additional inputs and edit.
" This designation stems from the Los Angeles area's producing a group of the most influential postmodern architects, including such notable Gehry contemporaries as Eric Owen Moss and Pritzker Prize-winner Thom Mayne of Morphosis, as well as the famous schools of architecture at the Southern California Institute of Architecture (co‑founded by Mayne), UCLA, and USC, where Gehry is a member of the board of directors.[citation needed]"
"Gehry is known for his sometimes cantankerous personality. During a trip to Oviedo, Spain, to accept the prestigious Prince of Asturias Award in October 2014, he received a significant amount of attention, both positive and negative, for publicly flipping off a reporter at a press conference who accused him of being a "showy" architect." (this is unsupportable for sources provided within the article) Graywalls ( talk) 02:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Not all news-articles or sources maintain a neutral point of view nor have a true depiction of the fact. There are a few articles that still have some claims based out of old sources which have been proved wrong by little more recent sources. If there are recent sources of information that have a better factual and intelligent interpretation of facts, can those sources be treated as a reason to correct the articles ? If so, will it be appropriate for someone to raise a flag saying that it's in violation of WP:NPOV if such edits are reverted by another editor/author ? RamRaghubn ( talk) 13:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Copy pasted from the talk page:
The wording in this article is extremely suspicious.
- Anti-Japaneseism radicalized this argument by claiming that even communist revolution could not redeem Japan because the Japanese themselves possess an inherent "aggressive nature".
- Proponents of this theory believe that the only way to redeem oneself from the "oppressor and criminal Japanese race" is to fight against all Japanese interests until the "Japanese" archipelago has been purged of anything Japanese.
- The so-called "final solution" of Anti-Japaneseism is to wipe the nation called "Japan" from the face of the earth and exterminate the Japanese race.
- A section titled: Strategy to extinguish Japanese ethnicity
There's a genuine possibility this could be neutral but I'm going to use my Occam's razor here and say that either:
- This is a hoax.
- This is an ideology that is so radically fringe, with so few members, that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards.
- It is, in some way, being inaccurately represented.
I have full confidence that, considering this article is only linked to by eleven actual articles that are, for the most part, obscure topics themselves, this article is not going to have enough traffic to be source-vetted by a native Japanese speaker. Despite this, it seems to have been linked to or cited on numerous online sources where some degree of political discussion, however immature, is bound to take place. For this reason, I'm going to copy-paste this message onto the NPOV noticeboard so someone more knowledgeable than me can take a look at the issue.
96.55.212.210 ( talk) 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
the article "me going their own way" has been warring. users declaring the movement is anti feminist as well as misogynist instead of making claims that the "movement" has links to anti-feminism, misogyny and so fourth
an other concern is an article pertaining to domestic abuse has been deleted or redirected to an an article with a feminist bias instead of a being gender neutral.
sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.181.41 ( talk) 20:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree: In my view, this article has failed WP:NPOV at least since April 2018. I recommend reversion to the article version on 00:30, 23 February 2018 and start over from there by adding a "Criticisms" section that meets the WP:NPOV standard. I also recommend that after the reversion-plus action, the article protection level be bumped up to WP:Full protection. The criticisms could be summarized at the end of the intro but both the main part of the intro and the added criticisms need to be NPOV. Smulthaup ( talk) 23:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Smulthaup ( talk) 02:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC) I propose the following edit to the intro section to make it NPOV. This proposed intro includes 100% of the sourced content from the current article plus sourced content from the February and April 2018 versions:
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
As a result of these views, such men are making logical, factual and cost-benefit-based decisions about women, dating and sex – and their brutally stark conclusion is that it's simply not worth the risk, expense or effort.
Smalthaup has posted this same thing over at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#Propose Reversion and I've replied there, so I won't bother copying my response here unless someone particularly wants me to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ Smulthaup: I think I have been quite clear about how to achieve your change: provide sourcing to show that the mainstream view that MGTOW is misogynist and anti-feminist has been challenged in any significant way. I can tell you one way you won't achieve your change, which is throwing a tantrum and insulting the people you disagree with for following Wikipedia policy on NPOV and reliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ GorillaWarfare: I never said that "the mainstream view that MGTOW is misogynist and anti-feminist has been challenged". Therefore, why would I source that when I never said it? Remember, my proposed intro included 100% of the existing intro in essentially the same form as it exists now. And all my additions have non-MGTOW sources as supplied by the Feb & Apr 2018 article. But there I go trying logic again. Silly me. Smulthaup ( talk) 04:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ Smulthaup: Hey, this is progress! Since you are not saying it has been challenged, then we can agree that per WP:ASSERT "When a statement is a fact (e.g., information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution." since the addition of in-text attribution is the only thing keeping paragraph two of your suggested revision from being exactly the same as what's there now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ GorillaWarfare: Okay I will take progress where I can find it. So how about this. You write up a proposed intro that includes all of my first paragraph as-is and then you can write the second paragraph however it suits you and I will let you know what I think. I'm tired of doing all the work around here. Smulthaup ( talk) 04:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, Smulthaup is begging for a topic ban from gender issues, broadly construed, based on CIR and IDHT.-- Jorm ( talk) 04:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
This entire section is severely biased toward the progressive agenda mentioning only cases of claimed victims of sexual harassment and not providing any standing for false accusation.
The following excerpt clearly exhibits the bias : "The Trump administration has made changes to guidelines that were implemented during the Obama administration. These changes shift the determination of sexual assault from "preponderance of the evidence" to a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, which is typically used for civil cases in which serious allegations are made (as opposed to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases).[68] On September 22, 2017, US Department of Education Secretary Betsy Devos rescinded the Obama-era guidelines which had prodded colleges and universities to more aggressively investigate campus sexual assaults"
Whereas the Obama-era guidelines did NOT prod universities to aggressively INVESTIGATE <CLAIMS> of sexual assault, but merely provided a platform for universities to punish the accused without representation or due process.
There was never a "preponderance of evidence" standard because the accusation alone provided that in the realm of unqualified personnel within colleges. Rather, the updated Title IX is designed to restore DUE PROCESS so that all involved can expect fair and unbiased treatment.
For more info on the new Title IX: https://www.thefire.org/new-title-ix-regulations-carefully-balance-the-rights-of-all-students/?fbclid=IwAR2fFtZvnbbYuGULpEYAjXnOFcZ_qgGh_srMUl44t_HLYECqG1WRIGHD6kM
This whole Wiki article should be reviewed and at least provide a reference to the FIRE ( https://www.thefire.org/) organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdelapointe ( talk • contribs) 09:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Radio Farda ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Looks like there is some POV pushing going on, but I am having trouble figuring out what the NPOV should be. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The "battered person syndrome" article pertaining to domestic abuse has been deleted or redirected to an an article with a feminist bias instead of a being gender neutral.
sincerely
20:12, 29 July 2020 216.180.181.41
@ user:216.180.181.41 See the talk page for that article: the consensus was to merge "battered person syndrome" and "battered woman syndrome" to "battered woman syndrome" as almost of all of the literature about the subject pertained to women, and the more common name used in courts is "battered woman syndrome". If more articles and cases focused on gender neutral attacks using this term, then the Wikipedia article may be changed. Changing the title without those sources would be original research. If you would like to read about domestic abuse against men and other people, then see those respective articles. Also, your use of "feminism" is a bit inaccurate here, as the primary idea of feminism is gender equality and neutrality. RealSanix ( talk) 23:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
"On July 1, 2020, Adams predicted" something. Then something else happened which someone interpreted as that something, but too early. No reliable source noticed that, but User:WikiFan11427 did and wrote it into the article. The same user also wrote more observations and opinions there. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
NPOV patrollers may want to look in to the RfC on Rumi and Iqbal, where two editors have been removing mentions of Iqbal, apparently because they object to connecting him to Pakistan rather than India. -- Macrakis ( talk) 17:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The article treats this as a real thing rather than what it appears to be, some sort of publicity attempt - my web search turned up nothing that indicates it exists. It even uses the country infobox. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a disagreement between myself and another editor CentristCentrist regarding the Wikipedia page on Helmut Norpoth. Norpoth is a political scientist who created a model for predicting US Presidential Election results. His 2020 model and results were published on March 2, 2020, declaring that President Donald Trump had a 91% chance of winning re-election. (This model has since been criticized for not taking into account the fall-out of the COVID-19 pandemic, but this is I don't believe necessary to include on the Norpoth page.) In August 2020, Stonybrook University wrote an article sharing these same results ( https://news.stonybrook.edu/facultystaff/maverick-modeller-helmut-norpoth-predicts-another-win-for-trump/).
My concern is with the following statement in the Wikipedia article: "On August 3, 2020 Norpoth stated that his model gave incumbent United States President Donald Trump a 90% chance of winning re-election amidst his strong stance on law and order in response to riots across the US between June and September 2020." I believe this statement is non-neutral for the following reasons: (1) The statement implies that Norpoth first stated his model outcome in Aug 2020, when in fact it was published in March 2020; (2) It gives the impression that the model's outcome is based on Donald Trump's stance on law and order in response to riots, when again, the model predates any such "riots", and (3) The term riots may be misconstrued as purposely inflammatory and dismissive of legitimate protests against police brutality. I proposed a change to matter-of-fact language, which was reversed by the other editor.
I am requesting others' input as I believe politically-neutral language is preferable when editing Wikipedia. UltravioletAlien ( talk) 17:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)( talk) 17:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
{{subst:NPOVN-notice}}
on their talk page, not
CentristCentrist:NPOV-notice
—
MarkH21
talk 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)There's some disagreement between myself and another editor if Drew Pavlou is just a student activist, or if it's okay to call him an anti-Chinese government student activist based on his activism. My claim is that since a supermajority (I think I counted 13 out of 19 news sources) describe Pavlou's activism and his notability as anti-Chinese government, it therefore is okay to describe Pavlou as an anti-Chinese government student activist. FOARP claims that it is a violation to infer this and that it gives undue weight to terms that don't support Pavlou.
Examples of what I mean by descriptions of his activism:
Is there a NPOV issue in describing someone based on their activism? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Drew Pavlou is an Australian... best known for his criticism of the Chinese government). Consequentially, I'd probably merge the last sentence of the second paragraph in the lead:
Pavlou is also known for organising protests on-campus in support of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, activism for increased scrutiny around universities' international relationships and against Chinese government policies on Uyghurs and Tibetans.How is that for you? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Editors on the NYPD article keep edit-warring text into the lead that says [29]:
None of this content is covered in the body. Furthermore, the poll [30] used to support the claim that public support for the NYPD is favorable also says that most respondents consider "police corruption" and "police brutality" to be serious problems. It seems like a clear-cut NPOV problem to only mention parts of a poll that are positive while omitting mixed or negative parts. That said, I'm generally very opposed to including survey results in leads unless its for organizations or policies whose notability and importance is tied to their level of public support (e.g. Social Security, the War on Terror, Obamacare) or whose level of public support is unique. The mention of the "crime rate" was addressed in a previous NPOV discussion (this board unanimously rejected its inclusion), but has been added again. The suggestion to readers is that the NYPD is the reason for the declining crime rate, which is not substantiated by the body. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.
Before we make claims like that we need reliable sources- and you don't need a reliable source for your claim that
poorer people are more likely to see [police] as harassing them? Crossroads -talk- 05:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You haven't provided any sources that lower crime increases public opinion and just your own selective interpretation of facts to show that lower levels of crime can be attributed to the police. And policing is a political issue. What do you think all those people out in the streets are there for? Why do you think the protests have polarized the U.S. along ideological lines? TFD ( talk) 00:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The NYPD responded to nearly 500,000 reports of crime and made over 200,000 arrests during 2019, down from over 1 million when crime in New York peaked in the 1980s-1990s. Public support for the NYPD is generally favorable, although critics highlight instances of police brutality and corruption, as well as discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality. - would this resolve both WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH concerns? I think it successfully separates the drop in crime and the public support so there's no implication that they are connected. Tobus ( talk) 04:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Can people keep an eye on the Cuties aritlce? I'm sure you've all heard the controversy so I don't think I need to recount it here. There's a lot of editing by infrequently active users and lots of uses of dubious sources (like forbes blogs) which require a cleanup. Kind Regards. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I have been trying to clear the Navid Afkari article of original research and non-neutral content. However, User:Ali mjr keeps reverting it. The problem is their additions are trying to advance a certain point of view, namely that Afkari is innocent and the execution is unlawful. The additions also include original research. They admit as much on their talk page.
Some examples of this content are:
I had previously opened a discussion on the article's talk page, and also communicated on the user's talk page, but the user does not engage in dialogue and simply re-adds the content. ... discospinster talk 21:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
All the additions have been cited. If anyone had put the time to read and educate themselves on the matter, would know what is being said and why is being said. Everything that has been bolded is there for a reason and that is clear. To explain your call,
I tried to answer you to the best I could but you did not want to listen, nor did you "simply" read the citations. There is nothing I can do when you turn a blind eye to what was said. mjrx ( talk) 23:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC) am
The page for the progressive organization GetUp! seems to indicate biased reporting. Particularly with its insistence in pushing for a connection with George Soros and its repeated citing of the Morning Mail. Soros as I recall, is a figure commonly associated with various biases in his reporting, and is subject to various theories in regards to his political involvement. I am unfamiliar with the organization by-large and I would appreciate some insight onto what should be done for this page. Hopefully this is the correct venue to do so. -- Ornithoptera ( talk) 07:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments are requested here: Talk:George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon#Proposal to include poll of public opinion. Crossroads -talk- 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,
There's currently a dispute regarding NPOV (and SYNTH) over at Talk:2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy#Quotes in background section. Given the small editorship of the article, more eyes on the discussion couldn't go amiss. Sceptre ( talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could I get some assistance at this article? I surfed in on a link last week and noticed the POV was seriously negative. I tidied up and added more info, including a notable lawsuit (see history). My edit was reverted, and I put up a POV tag, which has also been removed without discussion. Just made another effort to edit the intro to balance the POV, but the rewrite and info I added to the article last week have all been reverted again. Thanks for any help. Pkeets (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I have concern about this page: /info/en/?search=Gam-COVID-Vac
There is an ongoing dispute and editing wars between different "parties" which clearly indicates there is a neutrality issue. My main concern is the "Scientific assessment" section which is full of political statements and opinions of the official from different countries. I propose either to remove all the information in the section and replace it with the scientific research assessment or to rename it "Political and other statements of the officials from different countries and organizations", which it is now. It is very misleading to call "political and other statements" "scientific assessments". 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:102C:3581:147C:582F ( talk) 21:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
can you tell me if this edit by this guy breaches pov rule for wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Isfahan&diff=979414452&oldid=979248952 Baratiiman ( talk) 09:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
To Whom it may concern: There is currently an ongoing dispute regarding NPOV of this page: /info/en/?search=Robert_E._Lee_Academy You can see it at /info/en/?search=Talk:Robert_E._Lee_Academy
or in the revision history. I left a lot of edits requests for BillHPike, Jacona but those editors ignored most of my reasoning. I think the editors are clearly biased and cannot edit the page from the NPOV. Here is the proof of their bias: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Billhpike/Archive_4 The section “Rober E. Lee Academy “ Jakona (the editor heavily involved in the editing) cites: “I believe that the article is WP:NPOV because it doesn't delve sufficiently into the white supremacy. The naming of the school for Lee, a man who was famous as a traitor to the U.S., a slaveholder, and a particularly violent one, and an emblem of white power needs far more attention. Some of this can be found here. More about Lee as a slaveholder, torturer, murderer, traitor, and symbol of white supremacy is easily sourced.” Question: how the person who edit encyclopedia can neutrally edit the page on the same topic? While Robert E. Lee page is balanced and neutral, this cannot be said about the school.
The most important thing: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Guide_to_addressing_bias
Due to the bias, the editors refuse to see the positive changes for the school for the last years and use the information in the sources selectively to reflect their bias opinion. Even a request to change the page name by using proper sources, was rejected. I’m asking non-biased editors to come and read the Talk page and check the page for neutrality.
Disclaimer: I also have a conflict of interest and I admitted it on my talk page. I only asked for the edits requests according to the Wikipedia policy. Fritzsmith20 ( talk) 21:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Jacona, after all what you said on BillHPike’ Talk Page, (see your own words cited above) I doubt that you can edit Lee Academy page without bias and I don’t think it is appropriate to edit on this topic while representing your own ideology. Do you have any conflict of interest related to the subject, such as your friends or relatives related somehow to the topic? If “yes”, please, recognize it as I did on my page and give unbiased editors to do their volunteer work properly.
This is not my field, but edits to the article appear to have introduced a strong bias in favour of the views of GMO organisations. There are some strong claims, with links to questionable surveys funded by big GM players.
I have added a section in talk - but do not feel qualified enough to review the content as it stands. Bear in mind that, at first, it may appear to be fairly written; source tracing and analysis begins to uncover the bias.
Personally I feel that there is little room for statements as ‘fact’’, on a controversial subject - especially in an article supposed to be depicting the controversy; unless those facts concern the controversy rather than the positions taken by the parties to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 ( talk • contribs)
this article is currently a thinly veiled attempt by the GM lobby to argue the GM case. For anyone not familiar, we had a DS-enforced WP:GMORFC a while ago when it comes to neutrality of content (e.g., scientific consensus and the public perception mismatch with it) while dealing with WP:FRINGE points of view. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
User:AxelRemain seems to have missed my point. The article (and the responses above) depict the issues of the argument, not the argument itself. When we describe a conflict in an encyclopaedia we don’t try to determine who is right! It’s ludicrous. The point is to explain the conflict, describe the antagonists, and understand - at the very least empathise with their motives for investing in the conflict. The article mentioned here does none of that. Moreover, the attacks above seem to imply that my views are somehow WP:FRINGE yet all I have argued is that 1) the arguments are in the wrong place, and 2) the sources of those arguments are clearly backed, and owned by, one of the antagonists. My own view - that the source used comes across more as pseudoscientific claptrap written to impress investors and legislators - may well be seen to be fringe by those who defend such a position - but do you not find it interesting that articles such as “The more favorable attitude of the citizens toward GMOs supports a new regulatory framework in the European Union” are not being covered by the press? No press releases for this sort of thing - because the media is not the intended audience. 20040302 ( talk) 21:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
There doesn’t seem to be a consensus that there’s a consensus on GMOs: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
The arguments given above concern whether or not GMOs can be eaten safely. But no mention is given of devastating economic, environmental, or social impacts that -at least some - GMO practices have already shown. I say “there’s an ongoing debate concerning GMOs”, and I am told “it’s safe to eat GMO food” Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 ( talk • contribs)
Generally we would treat a review study published by Springer as the final word on whether or not there was consensus among scientists.Not when there are numerous other reviews and statements from scientific societies saying something else. And no, being wrong does not mean it will necessarily be retracted. By your logic, any so-called review article, so long as it was published by an academic publisher ( not automatically a green light), could overrule any other set of sources. Crossroads -talk- 21:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
No it's not getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory since I am not publishing my own thoughts and analyses or new information. I have no opinion and have expressed no opinion on the safety of GMO products. This is WP:NPOVN which is the appropriate forum for discussing the neutrality of articles. In other words, you are unable to provide any review studies about the safety of GMO and instead refer to earlier conversations. I'll take that as your answer.
The climate change denial actually cites a review, "Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015." If climate change deniers said it was cherry-picked then I would ask them to present an alternative review that came to different conclusions. Cherry picking means to search for examples that support one's conclusions. The proper approach, which both the Climate Change Denial article and I follow is to look for sources without prejudice and accurately reflect them. It's not as if I neglected any review studies. I asked you to provide any and you are unwilling or unable to do so.
Incidentally, I did not participate in WP:GMORFC so please don't imply that I did. No idea what you mean by my ideas were not considered WP:DUE. WP:DUE refers to article content not arguments about content.
TFD ( talk) 14:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't continue to imply that the scientific consensus around the safety of GMOs doesn't exist
, I merely stated that the only review study presented says that. Articles should not be based on our personal opinions, but on what reliable sources say, whether or not we agree with them.
While one editor who voted against the proposal in WP:GMORFC mentioned the Hilbeck study, it does not appear to have been discussed.
Since the RfC, Bayer (which bought Monsanto) was settled for claims that Round up caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bayer has also confirmed that Monsanto hired scientists to prepare reports that said GMO was safe and paid people to defend them on the internet.
The final thing I would mention about the RfC is that it is rare for discretionary sanctions to cover content rather than behavioral disputes.
So it seems that there is good reason to revisit the RfC. I have asked here for someone to provide a definitive academic review study that says there is consensus about the safety of GMO and have been assured they exist but will not be provided.
I certainly don't want to open an RfC that has no chance of success. Bear in mind that they occupy a great deal of time for all concerned. So before I do that I would like to ask you once again to show that the review study has been debunked or that subsequent review studies have come to different conclusions.
TFD ( talk) 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Many reviews have indicated that foods from GE crops are as safe as foods from non-GE crops, but the committee re-examined the original studies of this subject. The design and analysis of many animal-feeding studies were not optimal, but the large number of experimental studies provided reasonable evidence that animals were not harmed by eating food derived from GE crops. Additionally, long-term data on livestock health before and after the introduction of GE crops showed no adverse effects associated with GE crops. The committee also examined epidemiological data on incidence of cancers and other human-health problems over time and found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops.And this statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, referring to multiple other scientific societies:
The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.(Though from 2012, if the scientific consensus had actually changed since then, we would see a retraction or updated contradictory opinion from one or more of these societies. No such statement exists.)
A RfC has been opened is asking to revisit this question, should Andy Ngo be described as a journalist in wikivoice in the lead sentence of the article. In related discussions what other terms may be OK in wiki or attributed voice. Editors have suggested "writer" and "provocateur" be included in the lead in Wiki voice. Discussion here Talk:Andy_Ngo#RFC:_"journalist". Springee ( talk) 15:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
There is an RfC here about whether Democratic Progressive Party should be one of the MOS:CHINA exceptions to including both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese in the {{ Infobox Chinese}}. Part of it concerns whether inclusion/exclusion satisfies WP:NPOV. The participation of interested editors is appreciated. — MarkH21 talk 20:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I asked for a copyedit to a locked article, and was answered by condescension, accusations of "POV pushing", and WP:WALLS of irrelevant material. Input welcome. François Robere ( talk) 18:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the Family International’s talk page (section "Cult vs. New religious movement (again)") as to whether it should be labelled as a “cult” or as a “new religious movement”.
The word "cult" has been named as one of Wikipedia’s “words to watch”, as an example of a word that is “best avoided” and cannot be used without an in-text attribution. According to Wikipedia's definition of "cult", it is “considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices.” Because of this, the term has long been abandoned in academia, and the neutral term of “new religious movement” is used instead.
Since academic sources consistently call this organization a “new religious movement”, and sources that call it a “cult” are generally biased and focus on negative and controversial aspects of the group, I believe that the organization should be labelled as a “new religious organization”, in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies regarding a NPOV, Words to Watch, and academic sources.
However, another editor believes that the organization should be primarily referred to as a cult, since this term is used in certain unspecified sources. So far, we have not been able to come to an agreement. Theobvioushero ( talk) 00:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a "cult" are uncommon. It isn't evidence for that. If I were looking to cite google searches as evidence for the counterfactual ("scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a cult are common") I would have substituted "children of god"+ cult and pointed toward the ~16,000 results. I didn't do that, because search result numbers alone are not evidence to buttress either POV, nor would they form a method of framing a NPOV if they were. Stick to actual evidence, not google search pages.
are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The argument you are trying to make has no basis in the policies used to determine content on WP. There is no suggestion in the MOS, nor in any policy, that we should censor academically published use of specific words because they have fallen out of fashion amongst scholars in certain disciplines. If numerous scholars have stated that the subject of the article is a cult – and a brief perusal of the contents of some of the 16,000+ g scholar results on the subject indicate that numerous scholars have done so, including recently – then the article should state as much.
To clarify, I am not saying that the term "cult" should be censored, just that it needs in-text attributions
– so we agree that in the lead paragraph it should state that scholars and media organisations have described it as both a cult and a new religious movement, with some specific examples.
The subject of the article is the Children of God/The Family, not two sociologists’ views about what is or is not “morally neutral”. For the same reason, what an encyclopaedia, or an undergraduate writing a term paper, thinks is generally true, does not countervail the widespread use of the term cult in this specific instance. Are you suggesting that a cult and a new religious movement are the same thing? If so, your proposed changes and this thread is a waste of time. If not, in a situation where many scholars call it one thing, while many scholars, media, and NGOs call it something different, choosing one over the other as a neutral term is not a NPOV. A neutral term would be something which is a category into which both terms clearly fall – i.e. a “movement”, or a “group”, or an “organization”. It doesn’t say very much because it’s designed not to, in order to be neutral. We don’t give more weight to one set of scholars because they represent the POV you happen to prefer.
First couple of pages of results of news organizations which refer to it as a cult, with no mention of religion: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Cambial foliage❧ 11:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
References
I'm having a discussion with another user on which of these 2 versions is more netural:
(A) According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks",[59] while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".
(B) According to Antun Vrančić, Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks". According to the Romanian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that they easily equal all of the others,[59] while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".
This is the talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:History_of_Transylvania#Antonius_Verancius'_quote My diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=979026390&oldid=978024079 His diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=979473136&oldid=979026390
The original text in Latin is the following: Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant." doesn't specify the word "any" in its translation. The word for word translation is as following: qui = who or whom, quamlibet = however, harum = these, facile = easily, magnitudine = size, aequant = match. The word "any" is non existent and not implied by the author.
The other user argues that: Quamlibet means as well "any", to any extent, any degree, "quamlibet harum" in this context appoints this, as the three main nations are listed in the first place, and added one to be mentioned which number may be equal with any of these. While I argue that: Quamlibet does have more meanings depending on context, but the context "quamlibet" is used here doesn't imply the use of quamlibet as "any". This is the debate that scholars had as well. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. Anyway, this doesn't matter that much as our personal opinions on the subject doesn't matter, we only have the sources to work with and through. I just posted this so you know it was already discussed. We have 2 sources contradicting each other and need to find a balance.
The other user argues that: the page has a consensus on the current content sourced. I argue that: the current content is sourced correctly but interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. It is not a problem of sources, both sources are already present in the article, but rather a problem of wording.
I argue that: His edits with language that implied one is objectively correct is clear violation of WP:NEUTRALITY. While I on the other hand, simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources on equal grounds, despite the clean latin version supporting the Romanian translation. He argues that: What you did is the assertion some expressions the sources did not say, on the other hand the last stable version properly summarizes what the sources in fact say, without taking sides.
Eventually, I told him again that: The text you are trying to keep, is worded overwhelmingly in favor of Hungarian historians implying the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one. Clear Hungarian bias. I simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources, and removed the language that implied one is objectively correct. Despite the Romanian version being supported by the clean Latin translation, I did not mention that because of WP:NEUTRALITY. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While as far as I know, only Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. The sources, for both versions, are already listed in the article, but are interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. My job here is not to tell which one is right, I simply list both versions on equal grounds. Unlike you, who wants to list the clearly in favor of the Hungarians version wording. I get that you disagree, but you can't disagree simply on the grounds that you don't like it. Wikipedia is for education not personal opinions. Which is why I believe the only solution is a 3rd opinion.
He argued that: There has been not any bias, sources were cited and summarized (the Romanian and Hungarian interpretations are both identified, in this order), what you do here is pure OR, and yes, your personal opinions should be ignored, which you don't do. I argued that: a version with a wording such as "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", which falsely implies that one is objectively correct, is far from neutral.
What do you think, which version is compliant with WP:NEUTRALITY and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar and Borsoka, it has been 10 days since you requested we find other sources. So far we've found 2 other sources: Jean W. Sedlar and George W. White, using same interpretation as the Romanian version in their works. And no other sources using the Hungarian version. LordRogalDorn ( talk) 15:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, let's WP:DROPTHESTICK. Blueboar and Borsoka, we were unable to find any other translations, what else can we do? If everything else fails, I suggest we go back to the initial idea of judging which diff is more neutral, or if we can't agree on version (A) or (B), we can create together a new version with a neutral wording, a version that we can all agree is not misleading in favor of one side or another. What do you think about this one?
LordRogalDorn ( talk) 02:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The lead section at Project Veritas does not follow NPOV. My attempt to resolve this issue on the talk page was greeted with little interest, and my hope is that the readership of this noticeboard is more sensitive to NPOV issues and can more effectively avoid the kind of partisanship that characterizes some of the discussions at Talk:Project Veritas. (Pinging Slatersteven and Horse Eye Jack, who each posted in the discussion thread.)
To summarize what I wrote on the Talk page: By stating, "The group is known for producing deceptively edited videos," Wikipedia's voice suggests that all or most of Project Veritas's videos are "deceptively edited," when in fact most of the group's videos never received any such criticism from reliable sources. The wording also implies that the videos were deceptively edited as an undisputed fact, when in fact this criticism has been disputed in multiple reliable sources, such as by Clark Hoyt of the New York Times (cited in the Wikipedia article itself) and by Mona Charen of National Review.
My proposal is to change the sentence to: "The group is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, some of which have been widely criticized for being deceptively edited." I think this version satisfies NPOV, while the current version does not. Disclosure: I work for Project Veritas, and have disclosed this on my user page and on the article's Talk page. Sal at PV ( talk) 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Some examples of how PV is viewed by sources:
There are two issues raised, I do not see why we need to say "left wing" it is both an assumption and tells us nothing other then they have a political bias. As to how often they deceptively edit videos, has any source given any indication of how often the deceptively edit videos? They do do it (so we can say they do), but can it be shown its not a majority of the stuff they produce? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [ [7]] "Like most of O’Keefe’s work, it’s deceptively edited". Slatersteven ( talk) 14:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
refusing to give the significant minority viewpoint its due weight as well? Hoyt is already in the article -- although he only commented on one video and said it was heavily edited. Mona Charen referred to PV as the: "ironically named Project Veritas". [8] This doesn't look like a significant view endorsing PV. O3000 ( talk) 13:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Verge, Snoops, and The Guardian are ... reliable sources" Is my edit of your statement misleading? That would probably depend on context. Both your original sentence and my edit convey the idea that the listed sources are reliable thus I can argue my edit isn't misleading. However, my edit makes it look like you are expressing your opinion while your actual statement (and the context of this discussion) imply that Wikipedia consensus has found those sources to be reliable. I mention this to show how "deceptive" in the case of my edit of your sentence can be subjective. This would be especially important if you personally didn't like those sources but you were speaking to the Wikipedia consensus. My point is that "deceptive" has a level of value judgement. I might claim my edit of your sentence was not deceptive. However, if your personal feelings regarding those sources was different than the consensus Wikipedia view then you could rightly claim my edit was deceptive since it ascribed an opinion to you rather than to the group. Vox is hardly a centrist news source and they certainly aren't right leaning. If Vox says, "the following was edited out of the video" that is a statement of objective fact. If they say this changes the meaning, that is arguably objective. Saying that this is deceptive is now subjective (ie the opinion of the Vox author). It then becomes more subjective to for Vox to say PV is known for. How did they establish that fact? Did they conduct a pole and find that x% of people who had heard of PV associated them with deceptive video edits? This is effectively a contentious label and thus the sourcing either needs to be rock solid or we should attribute the claim. It's a problem with Wikipedia that this sort of issue comes up so often. Springee ( talk) 17:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles.Political topics like PV is not within that range of reliable uses. Regardless, this is beating around the bush. Springee ( talk) 20:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Subjective: "the missing 33 seconds was a deceptive edit". Yes, the rules are simple, a contentious claims should be attributed. Note here that Politico doesn't claim "deceptive editing" in their own voice. [
[10]] The operation is known for its hidden-camera interviews in which it looks to lure members of established news outlets into making supposedly compromising ethical statements. It has been criticized for deceptively editing footage to misrepresent the subjects’ comments.
. If Politico is unwilling to say it in their own voice why should we? Do your proposed sources state in their own voice that PV is known for deceptive edits?
Springee (
talk) 00:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you going to reject every source by opining that they are left-leaning?: from past experience, that is exactly what defenders of every right-wing grifter do. The right has built a walled garden of media that is effectively insulated from disconfirming fact, and presents all mainstream and fact-based sources as "left wing" because admitting that reality-based and conservative-leaning are antonyms would be saying the quiet part out loud. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This is going nowhere, at this point DR may be needed. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
So the state of play so far, two users object, one with a massive COI vs 5(?) users who say its fine. I think we have a consensus here. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be good practice to avoid, as often as possible saying clearly negative, subjective things about any article subject in Wiki-voice. There is nothing subjective about the fact that PV's videos are deceptively edited; it is objective, widely-reported fact. People can still disagree about such facts (and it's naturally expected that for a highly partisan subject like PV, both it the foot-soldiers in its cause would strenuously disagree with any facts that make them look bad); this does not free us from our responsibility to accurately cover them according to the most reliable sources we have. But beyond that, I strenuously and completely disagree with your argument that even things you personally feel are "subjective" and negative cannot be stated in wiki-voice. Our obligation as an encyclopedia is to cover the truth according to the best sources available; if we hedge on it and censor ourselves out of fear that what those sources say is too "negative", we are doing far more harm both to our projects and to the people involved. For example, in the particular example at hand, you are arguing that we should essentially smear PV's victims by implying, despite overwhelming consensus among reliable sources otherwise, that there is a possibility that they are actually guilty of the misdeeds PV has falsely accused them of. We minimize such harm to subjects by hewing as closely as possible to what the sources say, not by censoring it into the sort of groundless WP:FALSEBALANCE you are suggesting here. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
In article 2020 Delhi Riots there are violations of NPOV. NPOV says"Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." While in the article lead, in there are two following lines which violate this.
1. "Muslims were marked as targets for violence."
2. "In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males— who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised."
Both the statements in RS are in quote attribution to someone else. What is anecdotal in the Reliable Source is presented as an overarching fact in the article. I had discussions on the talk page, but the only reply given is that the source is reliable, which is not even the discussion. Request resolution. Notice to editors - SerChevalerie and Slatersteven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.cba ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
References
References
See [25].
This edit has several problems:
Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reliable independent sources. We have multiple reliable independent sources for the dissolution of German monarchies after the First World War - the former titles were converted to family names. Royalty fansites and society pages cannot then roll back history by declaring people to be princes. There's a walled garden of royalty fandom sites that are being used to assert a parallel reality in which Germany still has princes, and a few Wikipedians are taking that ball and running with it. Guy ( help! - typo?) 17:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, this law stipulated that the name of the previous noble families and their relatives should be the name that was previously passed on to the not particularly privileged family members as a family name (e.g. prinz instead of fürst, herzog instead of könig)) in 1966 (source includes this snappy (translated) quote:
Many of them have long since refrained from giving the registry offices their false names for entry in the civil register, and only figure as prince of the telephone book, letterhead or champagne). Precisely because this is a contentious, perennially-litigated issue with entire legal bodies dedicated to sorting out who even gets a nobiliary particle in their surname, Wikipedia cannot default to the minority royalist POV. From the official German authority on aristocracy:
The nobility in Germany has been officially abolished for almost 90 years. Since then, traditionalist aristocratic associations have been working to ensure that no one notices this.The same body, quoting and affirming this text in Der Spiegel May 10 1999 describing the current naming laws and attempts to contravene them:
JoelleJay ( talk) 21:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)By right, the former nobility predicates are now just any syllables in the name. Mind you: in the surname. Therefore, for example, it must also be called "Hans Graf von Meier" - because a count Hans von Meier, like princesses, princes and barons in Germany, has only existed in the fairy tale world since 1919.
But the bearers of former noble names do not want to stay there. The 1998 overview of the "Personnel occupation of the organizations of the nobility" published in the "Deutsche Adelsblatt" in 1998 lists a large number of barons, counts, barons and baronesses - the supposed nobility titles illegitimately before the first name--- p.119 moved. In the case of the "Princes" and "Princes" there is even an SD (His Highness) in front of the name, the "Margrave Max von Baden" wants to be addressed with SKH (His Royal Highness).
This is very practical for gossip pages - they like to pick up the templates, make Frederic Prince of Anhalt Prince Frederic of Anhalt without further ado, and the readership is happy about a little noble glory in Germany. Also the abbreviation of parts of names like "v.", "Frhr.", "Rr." Spoenla-Metternich criticizes: "Names like, 'Obermüller' 'or, Hoffmann' 'may not be abbreviated, O.müller' 'or, Hoffm.' ' And since the name is a unit, all "vons" in bibliographies and catalogs be classified under "V".
So Reliable Sources say Karl von Habsburg is head of the House of Habsburg, Franz, Duke of Bavaria is head of the House of Wittelsbach and so on, so naturally Wikipedia reflects that. JzG, JoelleJay, Smeat75 etc are you happy with that or is that an absurdity too that needs correction. I assume you are opposed to that practice too, or is it fine saying someone is head of a royal house, or a former royal house, but using a royal title per Reliable Sources or even worse using infobox royalty is completely unacceptable as it “gives the wrong impression” (but your fine with giving the wrong impression by inventing or supporting made up last names for BLPs [26], [27]?) Because how can the House of Habsburg exist, where does it exist, we can’t even presumably call them head of the family because how can a family have a formal head? Presumably one could say they “claim to be” but how do we source that, no doubt you are likely all against using the term “pretender” for those very reasons. - dwc lr ( talk) 07:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The only people who object to calling someone from a “former royal house” by a title is some Wikipedia editors.Did you not read the {{ tqb}} Der Spiegel passages quoted on the official German Institute for the Recognition of Aristocracy website? In the section "Explanations on the concept of nobility in the opinion of the Association of German Adelsverband e. V. (VdDA) and representatives of the historic German nobility"--apparently drawing background from the German wiki on Adel, but nevertheless useful as a proxy for their own stated opinion--they stress that the modern titling by aristocratic associations "applies exclusively within the association and has no legal effect outside of these associations" and furthermore advance this rather scathing indictment of those who support titling: "The self-image of the aristocratic associations and their relatives, based on the historical concept of nobility, as well as corresponding reporting, above all in the rainbow press, but also in reputable media, has meant that in some sections of the population the fact that the German nobility has been extinct since 1919 is not noticed." So no, it is not just "some Wikipedia editors" who are bothered by improper ennoblement. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Well I assume an insignificant fringe who live an echo chamber, probably class warriors consumed with bigotry and an overinflated sense of self importance, cared out there in the real world.•
(Not that you seem overly concerned by nuisances like Verifiability, you certainly have not not cited a single source which states the surname of the subject of this thread, yet you boldly profess to know it)Seriously? Those are some pretty bold personal attacks. And the German wiki cites this obituary for the name (Friedrich Wilhelm Fürst von Hohenzollern) registered at his death. I don't see why we shouldn't as well. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Hence, if the State alters its constitution, no one who thereby loses his title and rank would be justified in saying that what was his own had been taken from him; because he could only call it his own under the condition of the continued duration of the previous form of the State.Obviously I'm not advocating using OR here, just countering DWC LR's claim that only a couple Wikipedia editors care at all about who is titled. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The concern seems to be that editors are creating articles about non-notable people who claim to hold noble titles.Where do you get the idea that this is the concern? How would this apply to Ferdinand von Habsburg, who is notable as a race car driver? And would you agree that the Austrian government and academic articles on the nobility in Austria are reliable sources on the title "Archduke of Austria"? Not on a particular person, but the status of the title itself. Also, what does it matter whether an Irish title has legal status in the UK (Scottish peers have been recognized since 1963), or that North Korea is officially the DPRK (we cite academic and governmental sources on the name to support our name usage, which is what should be used for titles too if you are really trying to make this comparison)? JoelleJay ( talk) 17:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Austria has not had an archduke since 1804, when the archduchy was absorbed into the Austrian Empire and the title was assigned to the emperor's heir apparent. In the German duchies, when the dukes abdicated, they no longer used the title of duke, instead using the title of prince, which was the title assigned to the sons of reigning dukes in the German Empire. Similarly Wales was incorporated into England and ceased to have a prince, but the title Prince of Wales was assigned to the heir apparent to the English throne. The Queen not her son is the sovereign of Wales. I totally agree that we should not refer to people using offices they do not hold, such as Emperor of Germany, Austria or Russia, or King of Italy or Greece or Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. TFD ( talk) 01:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia is "[a] member of the Royal House of Yugoslavia". That's a remarklable feat given that Yuygoslavia hasn't existed since 1992, and the Yugoslavia that had a monarchy (unlike the 1945 foundation, which was a Communist republic) only existed for 25 years, ending 15 years before his birth. Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I would add that as well as a monarchist bias in using these titles, there could also be an anti-Italian and anti-German bias in some cases, acting as if the unification of these countries in the mid-19th century, which swept aside various mini-states like Tuscany and Hanover, never happened. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Ireland is a republic but there is nonetheless an Earl of Limerick and a Duke of Leinster. Noble titles are near-forbidden in Ireland. GPinkerton ( talk) 03:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
My evaluation of the article is that it unduly leans towards embellishing favorable points of view and make excessive use of direct opinion quotes and quotations of subject'self statements. There is an excessive amount of indiscriminate images as well. Furthermore, the article contains editorialized puffery like "prestigious" "famous" that are not properly cited or cited at all. I've made changes to those and left detailed edit, but it has not been a productive engagement with My Beyond My Ken and I would like additional inputs and edit.
" This designation stems from the Los Angeles area's producing a group of the most influential postmodern architects, including such notable Gehry contemporaries as Eric Owen Moss and Pritzker Prize-winner Thom Mayne of Morphosis, as well as the famous schools of architecture at the Southern California Institute of Architecture (co‑founded by Mayne), UCLA, and USC, where Gehry is a member of the board of directors.[citation needed]"
"Gehry is known for his sometimes cantankerous personality. During a trip to Oviedo, Spain, to accept the prestigious Prince of Asturias Award in October 2014, he received a significant amount of attention, both positive and negative, for publicly flipping off a reporter at a press conference who accused him of being a "showy" architect." (this is unsupportable for sources provided within the article) Graywalls ( talk) 02:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Not all news-articles or sources maintain a neutral point of view nor have a true depiction of the fact. There are a few articles that still have some claims based out of old sources which have been proved wrong by little more recent sources. If there are recent sources of information that have a better factual and intelligent interpretation of facts, can those sources be treated as a reason to correct the articles ? If so, will it be appropriate for someone to raise a flag saying that it's in violation of WP:NPOV if such edits are reverted by another editor/author ? RamRaghubn ( talk) 13:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Copy pasted from the talk page:
The wording in this article is extremely suspicious.
- Anti-Japaneseism radicalized this argument by claiming that even communist revolution could not redeem Japan because the Japanese themselves possess an inherent "aggressive nature".
- Proponents of this theory believe that the only way to redeem oneself from the "oppressor and criminal Japanese race" is to fight against all Japanese interests until the "Japanese" archipelago has been purged of anything Japanese.
- The so-called "final solution" of Anti-Japaneseism is to wipe the nation called "Japan" from the face of the earth and exterminate the Japanese race.
- A section titled: Strategy to extinguish Japanese ethnicity
There's a genuine possibility this could be neutral but I'm going to use my Occam's razor here and say that either:
- This is a hoax.
- This is an ideology that is so radically fringe, with so few members, that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards.
- It is, in some way, being inaccurately represented.
I have full confidence that, considering this article is only linked to by eleven actual articles that are, for the most part, obscure topics themselves, this article is not going to have enough traffic to be source-vetted by a native Japanese speaker. Despite this, it seems to have been linked to or cited on numerous online sources where some degree of political discussion, however immature, is bound to take place. For this reason, I'm going to copy-paste this message onto the NPOV noticeboard so someone more knowledgeable than me can take a look at the issue.
96.55.212.210 ( talk) 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
the article "me going their own way" has been warring. users declaring the movement is anti feminist as well as misogynist instead of making claims that the "movement" has links to anti-feminism, misogyny and so fourth
an other concern is an article pertaining to domestic abuse has been deleted or redirected to an an article with a feminist bias instead of a being gender neutral.
sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.181.41 ( talk) 20:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree: In my view, this article has failed WP:NPOV at least since April 2018. I recommend reversion to the article version on 00:30, 23 February 2018 and start over from there by adding a "Criticisms" section that meets the WP:NPOV standard. I also recommend that after the reversion-plus action, the article protection level be bumped up to WP:Full protection. The criticisms could be summarized at the end of the intro but both the main part of the intro and the added criticisms need to be NPOV. Smulthaup ( talk) 23:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Smulthaup ( talk) 02:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC) I propose the following edit to the intro section to make it NPOV. This proposed intro includes 100% of the sourced content from the current article plus sourced content from the February and April 2018 versions:
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
As a result of these views, such men are making logical, factual and cost-benefit-based decisions about women, dating and sex – and their brutally stark conclusion is that it's simply not worth the risk, expense or effort.
Smalthaup has posted this same thing over at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#Propose Reversion and I've replied there, so I won't bother copying my response here unless someone particularly wants me to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ Smulthaup: I think I have been quite clear about how to achieve your change: provide sourcing to show that the mainstream view that MGTOW is misogynist and anti-feminist has been challenged in any significant way. I can tell you one way you won't achieve your change, which is throwing a tantrum and insulting the people you disagree with for following Wikipedia policy on NPOV and reliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ GorillaWarfare: I never said that "the mainstream view that MGTOW is misogynist and anti-feminist has been challenged". Therefore, why would I source that when I never said it? Remember, my proposed intro included 100% of the existing intro in essentially the same form as it exists now. And all my additions have non-MGTOW sources as supplied by the Feb & Apr 2018 article. But there I go trying logic again. Silly me. Smulthaup ( talk) 04:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ Smulthaup: Hey, this is progress! Since you are not saying it has been challenged, then we can agree that per WP:ASSERT "When a statement is a fact (e.g., information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution." since the addition of in-text attribution is the only thing keeping paragraph two of your suggested revision from being exactly the same as what's there now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ GorillaWarfare: Okay I will take progress where I can find it. So how about this. You write up a proposed intro that includes all of my first paragraph as-is and then you can write the second paragraph however it suits you and I will let you know what I think. I'm tired of doing all the work around here. Smulthaup ( talk) 04:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, Smulthaup is begging for a topic ban from gender issues, broadly construed, based on CIR and IDHT.-- Jorm ( talk) 04:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
This entire section is severely biased toward the progressive agenda mentioning only cases of claimed victims of sexual harassment and not providing any standing for false accusation.
The following excerpt clearly exhibits the bias : "The Trump administration has made changes to guidelines that were implemented during the Obama administration. These changes shift the determination of sexual assault from "preponderance of the evidence" to a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, which is typically used for civil cases in which serious allegations are made (as opposed to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases).[68] On September 22, 2017, US Department of Education Secretary Betsy Devos rescinded the Obama-era guidelines which had prodded colleges and universities to more aggressively investigate campus sexual assaults"
Whereas the Obama-era guidelines did NOT prod universities to aggressively INVESTIGATE <CLAIMS> of sexual assault, but merely provided a platform for universities to punish the accused without representation or due process.
There was never a "preponderance of evidence" standard because the accusation alone provided that in the realm of unqualified personnel within colleges. Rather, the updated Title IX is designed to restore DUE PROCESS so that all involved can expect fair and unbiased treatment.
For more info on the new Title IX: https://www.thefire.org/new-title-ix-regulations-carefully-balance-the-rights-of-all-students/?fbclid=IwAR2fFtZvnbbYuGULpEYAjXnOFcZ_qgGh_srMUl44t_HLYECqG1WRIGHD6kM
This whole Wiki article should be reviewed and at least provide a reference to the FIRE ( https://www.thefire.org/) organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdelapointe ( talk • contribs) 09:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Radio Farda ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Looks like there is some POV pushing going on, but I am having trouble figuring out what the NPOV should be. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The "battered person syndrome" article pertaining to domestic abuse has been deleted or redirected to an an article with a feminist bias instead of a being gender neutral.
sincerely
20:12, 29 July 2020 216.180.181.41
@ user:216.180.181.41 See the talk page for that article: the consensus was to merge "battered person syndrome" and "battered woman syndrome" to "battered woman syndrome" as almost of all of the literature about the subject pertained to women, and the more common name used in courts is "battered woman syndrome". If more articles and cases focused on gender neutral attacks using this term, then the Wikipedia article may be changed. Changing the title without those sources would be original research. If you would like to read about domestic abuse against men and other people, then see those respective articles. Also, your use of "feminism" is a bit inaccurate here, as the primary idea of feminism is gender equality and neutrality. RealSanix ( talk) 23:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
"On July 1, 2020, Adams predicted" something. Then something else happened which someone interpreted as that something, but too early. No reliable source noticed that, but User:WikiFan11427 did and wrote it into the article. The same user also wrote more observations and opinions there. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
NPOV patrollers may want to look in to the RfC on Rumi and Iqbal, where two editors have been removing mentions of Iqbal, apparently because they object to connecting him to Pakistan rather than India. -- Macrakis ( talk) 17:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The article treats this as a real thing rather than what it appears to be, some sort of publicity attempt - my web search turned up nothing that indicates it exists. It even uses the country infobox. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a disagreement between myself and another editor CentristCentrist regarding the Wikipedia page on Helmut Norpoth. Norpoth is a political scientist who created a model for predicting US Presidential Election results. His 2020 model and results were published on March 2, 2020, declaring that President Donald Trump had a 91% chance of winning re-election. (This model has since been criticized for not taking into account the fall-out of the COVID-19 pandemic, but this is I don't believe necessary to include on the Norpoth page.) In August 2020, Stonybrook University wrote an article sharing these same results ( https://news.stonybrook.edu/facultystaff/maverick-modeller-helmut-norpoth-predicts-another-win-for-trump/).
My concern is with the following statement in the Wikipedia article: "On August 3, 2020 Norpoth stated that his model gave incumbent United States President Donald Trump a 90% chance of winning re-election amidst his strong stance on law and order in response to riots across the US between June and September 2020." I believe this statement is non-neutral for the following reasons: (1) The statement implies that Norpoth first stated his model outcome in Aug 2020, when in fact it was published in March 2020; (2) It gives the impression that the model's outcome is based on Donald Trump's stance on law and order in response to riots, when again, the model predates any such "riots", and (3) The term riots may be misconstrued as purposely inflammatory and dismissive of legitimate protests against police brutality. I proposed a change to matter-of-fact language, which was reversed by the other editor.
I am requesting others' input as I believe politically-neutral language is preferable when editing Wikipedia. UltravioletAlien ( talk) 17:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)( talk) 17:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
{{subst:NPOVN-notice}}
on their talk page, not
CentristCentrist:NPOV-notice
—
MarkH21
talk 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)There's some disagreement between myself and another editor if Drew Pavlou is just a student activist, or if it's okay to call him an anti-Chinese government student activist based on his activism. My claim is that since a supermajority (I think I counted 13 out of 19 news sources) describe Pavlou's activism and his notability as anti-Chinese government, it therefore is okay to describe Pavlou as an anti-Chinese government student activist. FOARP claims that it is a violation to infer this and that it gives undue weight to terms that don't support Pavlou.
Examples of what I mean by descriptions of his activism:
Is there a NPOV issue in describing someone based on their activism? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Drew Pavlou is an Australian... best known for his criticism of the Chinese government). Consequentially, I'd probably merge the last sentence of the second paragraph in the lead:
Pavlou is also known for organising protests on-campus in support of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, activism for increased scrutiny around universities' international relationships and against Chinese government policies on Uyghurs and Tibetans.How is that for you? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Editors on the NYPD article keep edit-warring text into the lead that says [29]:
None of this content is covered in the body. Furthermore, the poll [30] used to support the claim that public support for the NYPD is favorable also says that most respondents consider "police corruption" and "police brutality" to be serious problems. It seems like a clear-cut NPOV problem to only mention parts of a poll that are positive while omitting mixed or negative parts. That said, I'm generally very opposed to including survey results in leads unless its for organizations or policies whose notability and importance is tied to their level of public support (e.g. Social Security, the War on Terror, Obamacare) or whose level of public support is unique. The mention of the "crime rate" was addressed in a previous NPOV discussion (this board unanimously rejected its inclusion), but has been added again. The suggestion to readers is that the NYPD is the reason for the declining crime rate, which is not substantiated by the body. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.
Before we make claims like that we need reliable sources- and you don't need a reliable source for your claim that
poorer people are more likely to see [police] as harassing them? Crossroads -talk- 05:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You haven't provided any sources that lower crime increases public opinion and just your own selective interpretation of facts to show that lower levels of crime can be attributed to the police. And policing is a political issue. What do you think all those people out in the streets are there for? Why do you think the protests have polarized the U.S. along ideological lines? TFD ( talk) 00:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The NYPD responded to nearly 500,000 reports of crime and made over 200,000 arrests during 2019, down from over 1 million when crime in New York peaked in the 1980s-1990s. Public support for the NYPD is generally favorable, although critics highlight instances of police brutality and corruption, as well as discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality. - would this resolve both WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH concerns? I think it successfully separates the drop in crime and the public support so there's no implication that they are connected. Tobus ( talk) 04:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Can people keep an eye on the Cuties aritlce? I'm sure you've all heard the controversy so I don't think I need to recount it here. There's a lot of editing by infrequently active users and lots of uses of dubious sources (like forbes blogs) which require a cleanup. Kind Regards. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I have been trying to clear the Navid Afkari article of original research and non-neutral content. However, User:Ali mjr keeps reverting it. The problem is their additions are trying to advance a certain point of view, namely that Afkari is innocent and the execution is unlawful. The additions also include original research. They admit as much on their talk page.
Some examples of this content are:
I had previously opened a discussion on the article's talk page, and also communicated on the user's talk page, but the user does not engage in dialogue and simply re-adds the content. ... discospinster talk 21:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
All the additions have been cited. If anyone had put the time to read and educate themselves on the matter, would know what is being said and why is being said. Everything that has been bolded is there for a reason and that is clear. To explain your call,
I tried to answer you to the best I could but you did not want to listen, nor did you "simply" read the citations. There is nothing I can do when you turn a blind eye to what was said. mjrx ( talk) 23:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC) am
The page for the progressive organization GetUp! seems to indicate biased reporting. Particularly with its insistence in pushing for a connection with George Soros and its repeated citing of the Morning Mail. Soros as I recall, is a figure commonly associated with various biases in his reporting, and is subject to various theories in regards to his political involvement. I am unfamiliar with the organization by-large and I would appreciate some insight onto what should be done for this page. Hopefully this is the correct venue to do so. -- Ornithoptera ( talk) 07:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments are requested here: Talk:George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon#Proposal to include poll of public opinion. Crossroads -talk- 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,
There's currently a dispute regarding NPOV (and SYNTH) over at Talk:2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy#Quotes in background section. Given the small editorship of the article, more eyes on the discussion couldn't go amiss. Sceptre ( talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could I get some assistance at this article? I surfed in on a link last week and noticed the POV was seriously negative. I tidied up and added more info, including a notable lawsuit (see history). My edit was reverted, and I put up a POV tag, which has also been removed without discussion. Just made another effort to edit the intro to balance the POV, but the rewrite and info I added to the article last week have all been reverted again. Thanks for any help. Pkeets (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I have concern about this page: /info/en/?search=Gam-COVID-Vac
There is an ongoing dispute and editing wars between different "parties" which clearly indicates there is a neutrality issue. My main concern is the "Scientific assessment" section which is full of political statements and opinions of the official from different countries. I propose either to remove all the information in the section and replace it with the scientific research assessment or to rename it "Political and other statements of the officials from different countries and organizations", which it is now. It is very misleading to call "political and other statements" "scientific assessments". 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:102C:3581:147C:582F ( talk) 21:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
can you tell me if this edit by this guy breaches pov rule for wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Isfahan&diff=979414452&oldid=979248952 Baratiiman ( talk) 09:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
To Whom it may concern: There is currently an ongoing dispute regarding NPOV of this page: /info/en/?search=Robert_E._Lee_Academy You can see it at /info/en/?search=Talk:Robert_E._Lee_Academy
or in the revision history. I left a lot of edits requests for BillHPike, Jacona but those editors ignored most of my reasoning. I think the editors are clearly biased and cannot edit the page from the NPOV. Here is the proof of their bias: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Billhpike/Archive_4 The section “Rober E. Lee Academy “ Jakona (the editor heavily involved in the editing) cites: “I believe that the article is WP:NPOV because it doesn't delve sufficiently into the white supremacy. The naming of the school for Lee, a man who was famous as a traitor to the U.S., a slaveholder, and a particularly violent one, and an emblem of white power needs far more attention. Some of this can be found here. More about Lee as a slaveholder, torturer, murderer, traitor, and symbol of white supremacy is easily sourced.” Question: how the person who edit encyclopedia can neutrally edit the page on the same topic? While Robert E. Lee page is balanced and neutral, this cannot be said about the school.
The most important thing: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Guide_to_addressing_bias
Due to the bias, the editors refuse to see the positive changes for the school for the last years and use the information in the sources selectively to reflect their bias opinion. Even a request to change the page name by using proper sources, was rejected. I’m asking non-biased editors to come and read the Talk page and check the page for neutrality.
Disclaimer: I also have a conflict of interest and I admitted it on my talk page. I only asked for the edits requests according to the Wikipedia policy. Fritzsmith20 ( talk) 21:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Jacona, after all what you said on BillHPike’ Talk Page, (see your own words cited above) I doubt that you can edit Lee Academy page without bias and I don’t think it is appropriate to edit on this topic while representing your own ideology. Do you have any conflict of interest related to the subject, such as your friends or relatives related somehow to the topic? If “yes”, please, recognize it as I did on my page and give unbiased editors to do their volunteer work properly.
This is not my field, but edits to the article appear to have introduced a strong bias in favour of the views of GMO organisations. There are some strong claims, with links to questionable surveys funded by big GM players.
I have added a section in talk - but do not feel qualified enough to review the content as it stands. Bear in mind that, at first, it may appear to be fairly written; source tracing and analysis begins to uncover the bias.
Personally I feel that there is little room for statements as ‘fact’’, on a controversial subject - especially in an article supposed to be depicting the controversy; unless those facts concern the controversy rather than the positions taken by the parties to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 ( talk • contribs)
this article is currently a thinly veiled attempt by the GM lobby to argue the GM case. For anyone not familiar, we had a DS-enforced WP:GMORFC a while ago when it comes to neutrality of content (e.g., scientific consensus and the public perception mismatch with it) while dealing with WP:FRINGE points of view. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
User:AxelRemain seems to have missed my point. The article (and the responses above) depict the issues of the argument, not the argument itself. When we describe a conflict in an encyclopaedia we don’t try to determine who is right! It’s ludicrous. The point is to explain the conflict, describe the antagonists, and understand - at the very least empathise with their motives for investing in the conflict. The article mentioned here does none of that. Moreover, the attacks above seem to imply that my views are somehow WP:FRINGE yet all I have argued is that 1) the arguments are in the wrong place, and 2) the sources of those arguments are clearly backed, and owned by, one of the antagonists. My own view - that the source used comes across more as pseudoscientific claptrap written to impress investors and legislators - may well be seen to be fringe by those who defend such a position - but do you not find it interesting that articles such as “The more favorable attitude of the citizens toward GMOs supports a new regulatory framework in the European Union” are not being covered by the press? No press releases for this sort of thing - because the media is not the intended audience. 20040302 ( talk) 21:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
There doesn’t seem to be a consensus that there’s a consensus on GMOs: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
The arguments given above concern whether or not GMOs can be eaten safely. But no mention is given of devastating economic, environmental, or social impacts that -at least some - GMO practices have already shown. I say “there’s an ongoing debate concerning GMOs”, and I am told “it’s safe to eat GMO food” Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 ( talk • contribs)
Generally we would treat a review study published by Springer as the final word on whether or not there was consensus among scientists.Not when there are numerous other reviews and statements from scientific societies saying something else. And no, being wrong does not mean it will necessarily be retracted. By your logic, any so-called review article, so long as it was published by an academic publisher ( not automatically a green light), could overrule any other set of sources. Crossroads -talk- 21:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
No it's not getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory since I am not publishing my own thoughts and analyses or new information. I have no opinion and have expressed no opinion on the safety of GMO products. This is WP:NPOVN which is the appropriate forum for discussing the neutrality of articles. In other words, you are unable to provide any review studies about the safety of GMO and instead refer to earlier conversations. I'll take that as your answer.
The climate change denial actually cites a review, "Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015." If climate change deniers said it was cherry-picked then I would ask them to present an alternative review that came to different conclusions. Cherry picking means to search for examples that support one's conclusions. The proper approach, which both the Climate Change Denial article and I follow is to look for sources without prejudice and accurately reflect them. It's not as if I neglected any review studies. I asked you to provide any and you are unwilling or unable to do so.
Incidentally, I did not participate in WP:GMORFC so please don't imply that I did. No idea what you mean by my ideas were not considered WP:DUE. WP:DUE refers to article content not arguments about content.
TFD ( talk) 14:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't continue to imply that the scientific consensus around the safety of GMOs doesn't exist
, I merely stated that the only review study presented says that. Articles should not be based on our personal opinions, but on what reliable sources say, whether or not we agree with them.
While one editor who voted against the proposal in WP:GMORFC mentioned the Hilbeck study, it does not appear to have been discussed.
Since the RfC, Bayer (which bought Monsanto) was settled for claims that Round up caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bayer has also confirmed that Monsanto hired scientists to prepare reports that said GMO was safe and paid people to defend them on the internet.
The final thing I would mention about the RfC is that it is rare for discretionary sanctions to cover content rather than behavioral disputes.
So it seems that there is good reason to revisit the RfC. I have asked here for someone to provide a definitive academic review study that says there is consensus about the safety of GMO and have been assured they exist but will not be provided.
I certainly don't want to open an RfC that has no chance of success. Bear in mind that they occupy a great deal of time for all concerned. So before I do that I would like to ask you once again to show that the review study has been debunked or that subsequent review studies have come to different conclusions.
TFD ( talk) 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Many reviews have indicated that foods from GE crops are as safe as foods from non-GE crops, but the committee re-examined the original studies of this subject. The design and analysis of many animal-feeding studies were not optimal, but the large number of experimental studies provided reasonable evidence that animals were not harmed by eating food derived from GE crops. Additionally, long-term data on livestock health before and after the introduction of GE crops showed no adverse effects associated with GE crops. The committee also examined epidemiological data on incidence of cancers and other human-health problems over time and found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops.And this statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, referring to multiple other scientific societies:
The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.(Though from 2012, if the scientific consensus had actually changed since then, we would see a retraction or updated contradictory opinion from one or more of these societies. No such statement exists.)
A RfC has been opened is asking to revisit this question, should Andy Ngo be described as a journalist in wikivoice in the lead sentence of the article. In related discussions what other terms may be OK in wiki or attributed voice. Editors have suggested "writer" and "provocateur" be included in the lead in Wiki voice. Discussion here Talk:Andy_Ngo#RFC:_"journalist". Springee ( talk) 15:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
There is an RfC here about whether Democratic Progressive Party should be one of the MOS:CHINA exceptions to including both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese in the {{ Infobox Chinese}}. Part of it concerns whether inclusion/exclusion satisfies WP:NPOV. The participation of interested editors is appreciated. — MarkH21 talk 20:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I asked for a copyedit to a locked article, and was answered by condescension, accusations of "POV pushing", and WP:WALLS of irrelevant material. Input welcome. François Robere ( talk) 18:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the Family International’s talk page (section "Cult vs. New religious movement (again)") as to whether it should be labelled as a “cult” or as a “new religious movement”.
The word "cult" has been named as one of Wikipedia’s “words to watch”, as an example of a word that is “best avoided” and cannot be used without an in-text attribution. According to Wikipedia's definition of "cult", it is “considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices.” Because of this, the term has long been abandoned in academia, and the neutral term of “new religious movement” is used instead.
Since academic sources consistently call this organization a “new religious movement”, and sources that call it a “cult” are generally biased and focus on negative and controversial aspects of the group, I believe that the organization should be labelled as a “new religious organization”, in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies regarding a NPOV, Words to Watch, and academic sources.
However, another editor believes that the organization should be primarily referred to as a cult, since this term is used in certain unspecified sources. So far, we have not been able to come to an agreement. Theobvioushero ( talk) 00:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a "cult" are uncommon. It isn't evidence for that. If I were looking to cite google searches as evidence for the counterfactual ("scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a cult are common") I would have substituted "children of god"+ cult and pointed toward the ~16,000 results. I didn't do that, because search result numbers alone are not evidence to buttress either POV, nor would they form a method of framing a NPOV if they were. Stick to actual evidence, not google search pages.
are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The argument you are trying to make has no basis in the policies used to determine content on WP. There is no suggestion in the MOS, nor in any policy, that we should censor academically published use of specific words because they have fallen out of fashion amongst scholars in certain disciplines. If numerous scholars have stated that the subject of the article is a cult – and a brief perusal of the contents of some of the 16,000+ g scholar results on the subject indicate that numerous scholars have done so, including recently – then the article should state as much.
To clarify, I am not saying that the term "cult" should be censored, just that it needs in-text attributions
– so we agree that in the lead paragraph it should state that scholars and media organisations have described it as both a cult and a new religious movement, with some specific examples.
The subject of the article is the Children of God/The Family, not two sociologists’ views about what is or is not “morally neutral”. For the same reason, what an encyclopaedia, or an undergraduate writing a term paper, thinks is generally true, does not countervail the widespread use of the term cult in this specific instance. Are you suggesting that a cult and a new religious movement are the same thing? If so, your proposed changes and this thread is a waste of time. If not, in a situation where many scholars call it one thing, while many scholars, media, and NGOs call it something different, choosing one over the other as a neutral term is not a NPOV. A neutral term would be something which is a category into which both terms clearly fall – i.e. a “movement”, or a “group”, or an “organization”. It doesn’t say very much because it’s designed not to, in order to be neutral. We don’t give more weight to one set of scholars because they represent the POV you happen to prefer.
First couple of pages of results of news organizations which refer to it as a cult, with no mention of religion: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Cambial foliage❧ 11:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
References
I'm having a discussion with another user on which of these 2 versions is more netural:
(A) According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks",[59] while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".
(B) According to Antun Vrančić, Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks". According to the Romanian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that they easily equal all of the others,[59] while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".
This is the talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:History_of_Transylvania#Antonius_Verancius'_quote My diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=979026390&oldid=978024079 His diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=979473136&oldid=979026390
The original text in Latin is the following: Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant." doesn't specify the word "any" in its translation. The word for word translation is as following: qui = who or whom, quamlibet = however, harum = these, facile = easily, magnitudine = size, aequant = match. The word "any" is non existent and not implied by the author.
The other user argues that: Quamlibet means as well "any", to any extent, any degree, "quamlibet harum" in this context appoints this, as the three main nations are listed in the first place, and added one to be mentioned which number may be equal with any of these. While I argue that: Quamlibet does have more meanings depending on context, but the context "quamlibet" is used here doesn't imply the use of quamlibet as "any". This is the debate that scholars had as well. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. Anyway, this doesn't matter that much as our personal opinions on the subject doesn't matter, we only have the sources to work with and through. I just posted this so you know it was already discussed. We have 2 sources contradicting each other and need to find a balance.
The other user argues that: the page has a consensus on the current content sourced. I argue that: the current content is sourced correctly but interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. It is not a problem of sources, both sources are already present in the article, but rather a problem of wording.
I argue that: His edits with language that implied one is objectively correct is clear violation of WP:NEUTRALITY. While I on the other hand, simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources on equal grounds, despite the clean latin version supporting the Romanian translation. He argues that: What you did is the assertion some expressions the sources did not say, on the other hand the last stable version properly summarizes what the sources in fact say, without taking sides.
Eventually, I told him again that: The text you are trying to keep, is worded overwhelmingly in favor of Hungarian historians implying the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one. Clear Hungarian bias. I simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources, and removed the language that implied one is objectively correct. Despite the Romanian version being supported by the clean Latin translation, I did not mention that because of WP:NEUTRALITY. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While as far as I know, only Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. The sources, for both versions, are already listed in the article, but are interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. My job here is not to tell which one is right, I simply list both versions on equal grounds. Unlike you, who wants to list the clearly in favor of the Hungarians version wording. I get that you disagree, but you can't disagree simply on the grounds that you don't like it. Wikipedia is for education not personal opinions. Which is why I believe the only solution is a 3rd opinion.
He argued that: There has been not any bias, sources were cited and summarized (the Romanian and Hungarian interpretations are both identified, in this order), what you do here is pure OR, and yes, your personal opinions should be ignored, which you don't do. I argued that: a version with a wording such as "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", which falsely implies that one is objectively correct, is far from neutral.
What do you think, which version is compliant with WP:NEUTRALITY and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar and Borsoka, it has been 10 days since you requested we find other sources. So far we've found 2 other sources: Jean W. Sedlar and George W. White, using same interpretation as the Romanian version in their works. And no other sources using the Hungarian version. LordRogalDorn ( talk) 15:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, let's WP:DROPTHESTICK. Blueboar and Borsoka, we were unable to find any other translations, what else can we do? If everything else fails, I suggest we go back to the initial idea of judging which diff is more neutral, or if we can't agree on version (A) or (B), we can create together a new version with a neutral wording, a version that we can all agree is not misleading in favor of one side or another. What do you think about this one?
LordRogalDorn ( talk) 02:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".