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 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

→

Archive 95

User Newimpartial will not allow an NPOV tag on the article when there's a clear dispute. See the ​Talk page. It would also help if a non-involved editor could review the entire article and comment on its neutrality. In my opinion it's one of the worst, most biased, articles on Wikipedia. Arcturus ( talk) 20:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

More eyes are certainly needed; at the moment, Arcturus is editwarring to include a tag although consensus was reached on the article's NPOV in November, and some of the issues raised in the most recent diatribe have been discussed on the Talk page even more recently. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was certainly not achieved: most of the issues I raised were not even addressed, such as the complaint about the fake signatories. Others were "answered" hastily and dismissively. For instance, how is it possible to object to my request to cite some of the credentials of the authors of the Declaration without calling into questions the credentials of the critics, which are cited profusely and off-topic? While my points are different from the other ones raised in the talk, the fact that the neutrality of the article is continuously disputed should raise concern. In the meanwhile, I have made further research and read an article about the Declaration on The Lancet by Talha Khan Burki. Wikipedia should imitate the balanced way such scientific issues are discussed in such journals, and avoid ad hominem, confusing, and unbalanced treatment on such important, controversial issues. The Declaration has been signed by more than 13 thousand medical scientists and 40 thousand medical practitioners. Whatever one thinks of their views, they deserve being treated with respect. Their positions cannot be associated with the flat-earth society or other nonsensical science fiction, as happened in the replies to my thread in the talk. Interventions from non-involved editors are urgent to avoid this article becomes a shame for the whole Wikipedia community. In the meanwhile, the tag on the disputed neutrality has to be restored. Αλογόμυγα ( talk) 21:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If this article is Wikipedia policies in action, clearly they do not work, Maculosae tegmine lyncis ( talk) 21:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The question of fake signatories was raised and consensus reached in this discussion in December. Given that the more than 13 thousand medical scientists and 40 thousand medical practitioners that the tagging editor has just referred to include "Professor Cominic Dummings" and "Doctor Johnny Bananas", mention of the fake signatures is rather on-point. And where editors get the idea that it is OK to add drive-by tags or post WALLOFTEXT change requests without reading an article's (quite recent) Talk page history, I have no idea. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

how is it possible to object to my request to cite some of the credentials of the authors of the Declaration without calling into questions the credentials of the critics In my response I did call those into question: we should remove the honorifics that are there. Nobody else "object[ed] to [your] request to cite some of the credentials". So, what are you talking about?

the fact that the neutrality of the article is continuously disputed should raise concern The neutrality of every article on fringe topics is continuously disputed. Every day, I see several new sections "This article is BIASED!" on Talk pages of the fringe articles I watch. Should that raise concern? Should we do WP:FALSEBALANCE for all of those or only for those fringe ideas you like? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is not fringe. Arcturus ( talk) 09:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is not FRINGE but the GBD is most definitely a FRINGE 'science' intervention into the public health debate. And no number of 'verified' retirees and people with unrelated expertise signing the petition will change that. This is climate change denial literally all over again, complete with Koch. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus is right, the article is not fringe, nor is the Great Barrington Declaration or its content. It is issued and signed by a large number of respected scientists: approximately 3 times more many than the opposing "John Snow's Memorandum", as I recalled in the talk page. I also recalled that signatures from scientists (currently more than 13 000) and from more than 40 000 medical practitioners are now verified and vetted. This is explained on the Great Barrington Declaration's webpage, but the Wikipedia entry would suggest the opposite. And there are many other issues. The NPOV tag reflects the reasons of readers such as Arcturus and me, of many others who have written in the "talk" page, and of countless readers who would have identified with it, had it not been taken away arbitrarily, without even addressing the issues. It is a matter of fact that the neutrality of the article is routinely called into question: the tag must stay there. Αλογόμυγα ( talk) 12:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The two of you repeatedly saying a thing does not make it true, nor does it make the GBD less FRINGE, nor does or justify the tagging against consensus. Please stop edit warring and participate in discussion on the Talk page, preferably without WALLOFTEXT manifestos. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note the "NPOV" tag has been added again, against repeated recent consensus. Could we please have more editorial eyeballs on this? Newimpartial ( talk) 12:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The matter is being discussed here. That should be enough justification in itself for the tag. Arcturus ( talk) 14:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not the way tags work. Each page is not an open invitation to add an NPOV tag and open a Talk page discussion to re-hash issues that have recently been resolved on the same Talk page. This is the third NPOV discussion on Talk:Great Barrington Declaration in less than 90 days. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Newimpartial and the rest; the article is scrupulously neutral, and that the argumentum ad populum is a poor logical fallacy to choose when claiming to represent one's position as supported by facts, as poor as any. Where are the reliable sources? GPinkerton ( talk) 03:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have outlined here what I believe to be some flaws in the way this article is written.-- JBchrch ( talk) 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the examples given I would agree with JBchrch's concerns. I think that is less a question of NPOV and more IMPARTIAL. Springee ( talk) 16:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that the article for Traditional Chinese Medicine hammers in the term "pseudoscience" excessively. Although many aspects of it are pseudoscientific, some Chinese medicines are clinically proven, and under WP:FRINGE/PS, I think it would more accurately be described as "questionable science". Félix An ( talk) 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, we do not need to say it every other paragraph. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That's what I think is a problem: it keeps saying "x and pseudoscience", "y and pseudoscience", "z and pseudoscience", etc. Félix An ( talk) 18:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page. DGG ( talk )

Hello, can you have a look at the List of one-hit wonders on the UK Singles Chart article about what constitutes a one-hit wonder in the UK chart, was I think some editors are making their own rules up rather than just reflecting what is posted on the Official Charts Company site...but first some background information...

Originally in 2008, Cexycy updated the list and put this in the comments page...

"I have the Guiness Hit Singles book, edition 7. Yes I know this is a long time ago, however later versions do not seem to include the One Hit Wonders and other interesting bits of pop trivia. I did e-mail them and asked them to include bits and they said they would in the next edition. Sadly this was not the case. In the edition I have, they list the One Hit Wonders, up to 1988, then they list the ones which appeared in different guises, such and Frank and Nancy Sinatra with Something Stupid, etc. It is in this list that John Denver appears as on his own, he IS a OHW, however him and Placido Domingo are technically another artist. Therefore under the guide of (just) John Denver, he IS a ONW, not the sort that should be included in the main list. should be included in the Worthy Note section of the article for this very reason. As should all the other artist collabortations. They have just as much right to be there as the charity acts, who are just the same. I forgot to add, the article itself says Guinness Book of Hit Singles' policy will be used, and they have included John Denver in their list of OHWs in other guises. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but please bear this in mind". -- Cexycy ( talk) 14:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

and the reply years later was...

"Yes, I agree, the Guinness Book of does list all the collaborations, so fair enough. It's probably worth listing given that he's never had another hit otherwise.
As for the Nancy and Frank Sinatra case - that's a tricky one really, the Guinness Book of does list all those instances as well, as an act in their own right, they are technically a OHW, but I feel that common sense needs to come into it a little bit with these artists - as well as the fact that the list will become very long. If you look - Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin are listed seperately although their No.1 was together, but are in the list because neither had another hit.
It's a bit of a grey issue, but it would seem a bit silly to have Frank Sinatra listed as a OHW, but I won't argue on a technicality and it's up to consensus really. But yes, I agree with you now, John Denver would be worth mentioning at least". -- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 15:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Now a few days ago I added "Party Rock Anthem" by LMFAO/ Lauren Bennett/ GoonRock as it was missing from the list...at a point that the one hit wonders list was full of secondary/featured artists and so added it and put the following info in the comments section...

"Info about GoonRock (see below) added under 'Collaborations classified as one-hit wonders' though you might want to move him to the main section. I only have the Virgin book to hand, not the Guinness ones so I cannot check how they listed collaborations between three artists listed equally...though it is likely to be separate in the early days of the Guinness books as something like 'DAVID GUETTA & CHRIS WILLIS' ^[1] would have been listed as a separate recording act to David Guetta on his own as they've had 4 hits together (if it was just one David Guetta ft Chris Willis that would be added to Guetta's hit total) As the methodology stated in the intro is about two artists releasing a record together and getting to number one and not three artists credited equally by the OCC getting to number one, I wasn't sure where to add GoonRock, but obviously it needs to be on here...

According to the Official Charts Company (OCC), " Party Rock Anthem" is a number one record credited jointly to LMFAO/ Lauren Bennett/ GoonRock. ^[2] Of these three acts LMFAO are credited with having five Top 75 hits with their other number one " Gettin' Over You" only credited to David Guetta and Chris Willis at this moment (the OCC have decided not to credit LMFAO and Fergie, even though their names are shown on the website, appearing on the single's cover) ^[3] Lauren Bennett has never had any other hits under her own name, but has had a few hits as part of the band G.R.L., while GoonRock is a producer who has also never had any credited hits of his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.169.1 ( talk) 15:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

...however at this point Tuzapicabit came back after deleting the information...and said...

"I've already removed the entry. The OCC doesn't give accurate credits probably due to space. The single was by LMFAO and featured the other two, so not eligible". Tuzapicabit ( talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

...however I think that this is not just reporting on what the OCC have put, but turning into a bit of 'original research' by Tuzapicabit as he has put no links to this reasoning...with Tuzapicabit deciding what can or cannot be on the list. However as he didn't want all the secondary artists listed they were all removed from the main list as a compromise...I replied...

"...but you can only go off what the OCC states not what Wikipedia is saying and if the OCC state they are credited jointly then so be it. By the way I have removed all the featured artists from the list because that is your reasoning for GoonRock not being in the main list (he should be, though note that I didn't add him directly to the main list). I have not removed Avery Storm at this point ^[4] at this point as if you look at the wikipedia article for Nasty Girl (The Notorious B.I.G. song) you can see the cover of the record an it it by Notorious B.I.G. featuring Diddy, Nelly Jagged Edge, and Avery Storm. You can be overly pedantic if you want but all information has to be treated equally, and therefore I expect you to delete Avery Storm from the list if you believe all featured artists are not eligible". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.237.218 ( talk) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Now the inclusion of featured artists (or more correctly secondary artists) boils down to the introduction in a very old chart book...which is probably 30 years out of date and one which has not kept up to date with the charts, as in the 1980s any artist with an '&' and 'versus' on their name were seen as a completely separate act and given their own entry. However, now the OCC state that Tina Turner's first hit was "RIVER DEEP, MOUNTAIN HIGH" (number 3 in 1966 with Ike) with Tina having 44 UK Top 75s between 1966 - 2020. Its the same for Cher, who had had 42 UK Top 75s between 1965 - 2013 with her first hit being "I GOT YOU BABE", a number one. So are you going to argue with the Official Charts Company, who are the people whose information we are basing the facts on, the people who make the rules? By the way, there seems to be no information to what makes a hit in the current chart rules for a secondary artist...with the only information being found being the following...

"5.0 Combining of Transactions

i) A maximum of three singles within the Top 100 by the same artist will be chart eligible. These will be the three most popular singles in a week based on combined sales and streams. (Also see 6.0 Exclusions)

ii) In the case of singles featuring a secondary artist(s), they will only count towards the primary named artist’s maximum of three chart eligible singles.

iii) In the case of singles that are equal collaborations between two or more artists, a single will count towards the maximum of three chart eligible singles of the artist on the releasing label".

However from the lists of edits it looks like some people have been making it up as they go along, deciding what the rules are...doesn't this go against the idea of Wikipedia, the 'No original research', the neutral point of view, the just 'report on the information from the primary source' idea of the site. I deleted the featured artists from the main list to give people the benefit of the doubt, in good faith, because that what the advice was. But I don't think this is correct, I don't think they should be deleted, I still believe its important information, and I would expect someone to re-edit the information back at some point and maybe put elsewhere in the article.

Its one thing to continue a list from a 1989 Guinness Book of British Hit Singles because the book is not being published, but it does seem that people are sitting on the article, making up their own rules as they go along which is not helping help the wikipedia project, not welcoming to newcomers and you might as well scrap the article and merge it into the main One-hit wonders list as it becomes and as worthy as OnePoll's The Nation's Favourite One Hit Wonders list.

Some of the entries that remain even contradict the OCC's information provided on their site ( "...records with re-recorded vocals (for example, live versions) and Remixes released with substantially different catalogue numbers did not count towards the total and were seen as new hits (see " Blue Monday" as an example). ^{[5] [6]}"]] but if its the Official Charts Company information that people are using to state what is number one then it should always be the primary source.

Metrodora (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The lead article of today's "Kurier", the German Wikipedia's "Signpost" equivalent, criticizes the accuracy of a German article's translation source, Metrodora.

• Talk:Metrodora
• de:Special:PermanentLink/208448526, 2021-02-04, top left
• Special:Permalink/988814535, criticized source revision

~ ToBeFree ( talk) 00:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Holodomor in modern politics

Communism in the 20th century is always contentious. I don't expect Wikipedia to say "Stalin defeated the Nazis with his amazing good looks". Let's criticize the past, but do so within acceptable research.

TimothyBlue has been adding unsourced, original research. When I remove them, he reverts them. See:

• plagarism: [ [1]
• original research (not supported by source): [ [2]], 'The United Nations has passed multiple resolutions commemerating [sic] the Holodomor ' is not in any source.
• original research [ [3]], there are no sources stating that 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide"'. The sources he cites just refer to the Holodomor Memorial.
• original research[ [4]], reverting edits that were explicitly stated in the source.

I've tried to have a discussion at Talk:Holodomor in modern politics#"The following countries have recognized the Holodomor" controversy. That countries like Albania "recognized the Holodomor" is not supported by the source.

He's trying to have a war with me at [ [5]]. Despite another editor telling him that my edits are correct, he's still arguing. He keeps reverting edits without making meaningful changes. Looking at his history, he's heavily involved in POV pushing and edit wars in pages about communism. I hate to be personal, but he strikes me as someone that struggles to admit when he's wrong. He reverts edits without trying to fix them and without talking about them. Stix1776 ( talk) 09:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stix1776 for the ANI thread. The above is nonsense and completely without merit. The false accusations against me do need to be addressed.  //  Timothy ::  talk  09:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if someone could take effort in cleaning up this article for NPOV, OR, and non-RS issues. Relevant discussions can be seen at here and here.-- 2409:4073:2E80:F2A6:6C13:B647:F9F6:9303 ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Article: Persecution of Falun Gong

This discussion was concerning Binksternet's removal of a photo (on the right) that shows the subject matter in the background section. Binksternet's edit summary said that the photo is irrelevant. However, when I pointed out that it’s an appropriate photo to let people know what Falun Gong looks like, Binksternet turned to arguing that it’s "rah-rah cheerleading stuff" and thus not neutral to insert.

I then pointed to FLG’s demographics, saying that: "77% of adherents hold at least a university degree in Toronto, Montreal, and Boston” ^[1], indirectly proving that the photo conforms to reality (the photo is taken in Toronto, per WikiCommons). However, Binksternet said: No promo photos. Just no

Though My very best wishes commented that they have no problem adding the photo back, I’m more inclined to obtain a clearer consensus here due to Binksternet's strong opinion against it. Thomas Meng ( talk) 22:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about persecution. Does the image illustrate that? No. WP:IMGCONTENT says that images are intended "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." There is nothing relevant to persecution in the disputed image. Binksternet ( talk) 22:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Binksternet here. While illustrating the background section of that article with a free image would be nice, the image selection needs to be neutral, and given the nature of Falun Gong, perhaps something less recent, like File:Origins-GuangzhouPractice.jpg (from 1999) before it was the subject of persecution would make more sense, as long as that is added in the body. -- Masem ( t) 23:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a great solution, with a caption that links the large size of the group with government fears of their power, as described in the David Palmer source. Binksternet ( talk) 23:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Tim Eyman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to have been written by the subject or a super fan. Much of the sourcing is Eyman’s own writing. Anyone looking for coverage of his legal woes - banned from being treasurer of a PAC then banned from running one - has to go hunting in the small print. The major contributor, “Chanjagent”, has edited no other articles and has not responded to questions about COI. 82.20.240.157 ( talk) 07:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Fenetrejones

• Fritz Sauckel
• Albert Speer
• Baldur von Schirach
• Wilhelm Keitel

Fenetrejones and I have been disputing whether a Nazi war criminal can be categorized as a Christian if they converted in Spandau prison. Fenetrejones has inserted such classification here, here and here.

I have pointed to WP:CATDEF which says that categories must be "commonly and consistently" applied to the subject, and in these cases, the main body of sources do not call the person a Christian or even a converted Christian. But Fenetrejones feels that a death row conversion absolutely applies to these men, redefining them. Binksternet ( talk) 19:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Albert Speer was not executed. If some RS say it so can we, do any RS contest they were not Christians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven ( talk • contribs)

That's not what is said at WP:CATDEF, which is looking for labels that are commonly applied. So the question remains: is the term "Christian" commonly applied to these guys? Binksternet ( talk) 19:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

How come it was already applied too: Ans van Dijk, Oswald Pohl, Hans Frank are also included even though it happened after being captured. (I did not do those edits). I didn't say they were redefined as people. Fenetrejones ( talk) 20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

These are also WP:NONDEF and should be removed. ( t · c) buidhe 00:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversial commentator Andy Ngo recently released a book about antifa. Thus far the only review published in RS media is a scathing article from the LA Times.[ [6]] As part of the article the reviewer compares Ngo to Joseph Goebbels (Nazi propaganda minister). This was done in context to make a point about Ngo's handling of material about antifa. Is it IMPARTIAL to include the specific comparison of Ngo to Goebbels in Ngo's BLP page? Edit in question [ [7]] and talk page discussion [ [8]]? Springee ( talk) 02:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I believe it is not impartial, due to the truly evil things associated with Goebbels and the Nazis. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 02:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@ 777burger: The L.A. Times article associates Andy Ngo with the evil things associated with Goebbels and the Nazis. "Ngo crosses the line into truly despicable," the article contends. "Every act of violence by antifa, meanwhile, is described so meticulously and ominously that Herr Goebbels would have been proud. In no way do I make that allusion flippantly. Maligning the opposition was central to the Nazi strategy, and it is critical to today's far-right extremists. Ngo's intention here seems not just to discredit antifa, but to run a diversionary tactic for Patriot Prayer and other groups that are far more dangerous than their leftist counterparts." To reference this article in our BLP, we must not gloss over its accusations against Ngo. Whitewashing what the L.A. Times says about him would be a disservice to Wikipedia readers, who must understand what a "truly despicable" human being Andy Ngo is, in the attributed words of a major American news organization. NedFausa ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• @ NedFausa, In what way would the article be whitewashed? Also, while I am still a bit confused, you do make a good point. I believe that if we reference the L.A. Times article, we should indeed provide context, rather than just saying that Ngo was compared to Goebbels. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 02:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The L.A. Times article would be whitewashed by our removing any explicit comparison of Ngo to Goebbels, substituting instead something vague such as the reviewer disapproved of Unmasked, and overlooking the newspaper's character assassination of Andy Ngo. We must remain true to the source, not sanitize it. NedFausa ( talk) 02:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a stretch. The comparison to Goebbels in the LAT article was at least presented with some level of context. The contextual point could be summarized in the BLP article without including the hyperbole. Conversely, if we only include the hyperbolic comparison then we are no longer being impartial. I would also point out that many claims were made in the review. Why is this particular one, one which was later in the review, the material that we must quote? Springee ( talk) 03:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it constitutes the heart of the review. If we're going to quote other portions, and provide additional context, that's fine—as long as we retain the undiluted essence of what makes Andy Ngo, in the eyes of the L.A. Times, "truly despicable." NedFausa ( talk) 03:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I've seen the comparison in the press elsewhere, but I don't recall just where. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Think this is probably due and apt criticism rather than a mere hasty reductio ad Hitlerum. This should be summarized carefully and tied specifically to his methods in this book, (not just "the LA Times says he a Nazi") but assuming that's done right I think it is a notable criticism from a decent source and not to be omitted in the context of the street-fighting ideologues of modern America to which the Times compares Ngo. GPinkerton ( talk) 02:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

When reporting opinions, neutrality requires we should explain who holds them and how extensive they are. If we just quote an opinion then we are implying that it is universally shared. We should use a source that explains the various reactions to the book. It might say something like, "The book was largely ignored by the press. The only review came from Alexander Navaryan in the LA Times, who wrote...."

Until we have a secondary source that reports the reactions to the book, it is not neutral to include them. While this is probably a fair description of Ngo's book, not everything written in every book review is. Perhaps we could provide a link to the review in the Further Reading or similar section.

TFD ( talk) 14:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• On the article talk page Peter Gulutzan noted that the writer, Nazaryan has previously be quick to throw out Nazi comparisons and Newsweek apologized for one such case. "Newsweek apologizes after writer Alexander Nazaryan compares Ted Cruz fans to Nazis". This would suggest such comparisons were over the top vs a clear rational analysis we should include in the article. Springee ( talk) 18:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  Springee, why? Neither comparison seems especially unusual or unreasonable. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I think this is the right place to report a problem in List of military disasters. I have tried to resolve this problem on talk page and after a lengthy discussion users I was discussing with decided to ignore my comments. Discussion can be viewed here.

Problem is - does Battle of Vukovar belong on this list. This battle was first added on list in October [9], by an IP address, without any sources to back that claim up. Up until February this year battle would be removed from the list and repeatedly added back.

Several issues here:

1. End result for Battle of Vukovar is Pyrrhic victory, yet here it is regarded as a military disaster. I find those two claims to be contradictory, that someone achieved a Pyrrhic victory (a claim I find suspicious to use for this battle) and suffered a military disaster at the same time.

2. What is a military disaster? One could find many conditions that determine what one is, but on page in question three rules were set using McNab, C. "World's Worst Military Disasters" as a source and those are: chronic mission failure (the key factor), successful enemy action and (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure. These factors are used so that not very battle could be added to the list and to create some sort of standard that needs to be followed. I explained on the talk page why this battle does not meet these three rules.

3. No reliable sources. During discussion on talk page, it came to light that only source which claims this battle was a disaster is a Balkan Battlegrounds Vol. 1, pp. 99-100. Another user quoted this source saying "the strategic offensive as a whole is described as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA". An offensive, but not battle. The only source on the internet which uses this term and it paints with a rather broad brush describing everything as a disaster.

Putting this battle on the list is problematic because to put it shortly - Yugoslav Army captured the town, killed or captured most of the opposing Croatian force, struck a blow to the enemy morale, had casualties which were about the same as the Croatian ones, continued offensive after capturing town and after international pressure which led to Vance plan and a ceasefire - has still somehow suffered a military disaster. This is why I believe battle of Vukovar should be removed from the list of military disasters. Istinar ( talk) 09:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey there,

I've opened a discussion at Template talk:God#"God" vs. "Gods" three days ago after being reverted on a change I made. [10] Since I haven't gotten a reply, I'm inviting the community to opine. Cheers. François Robere ( talk) 13:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to make it very simple. I have problem trying to reach a consensus with another wiki user. I currently have a wording problem in the Genetic section of Uyghurs [1] , which lead to a long wall discussion in the Uyghur talk page [2]. I want you to tell me who correct and who is wrong because my dispute with the user Hzn have lasted for weeks and getting nowhere. The problem is in our wording and interpretation of a genetic paper. I interpreted everything exactly from the genetic paper but user Hzn user insist in interpretation in a different way, by removing some important elements in the source and claiming the source is not accurate. After reading this rule WP:MEDRS I believe there is Neutral point of view and original research by the Hzn user.

The roots of the problem is here

I edited the genetic section of Uyghur by using the 2009 Li's paper " Genetic Landscape of Eurasia and “Admixture” in Uyghurs " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790568/

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

"STRUCTURE cannot distinguish recent admixture from a cline of other origin, and these analyses cannot prove admixture in the Uyghurs; however, historical records indicate that the present Uyghurs were formed by admixture between Tocharians from the west and Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu, according to present Chinese pronunciation) from the east in the 8th century CE.14 The Uyghur Empire was originally located in Mongolia and conquered the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang. Tocharians such as Kroran have been shown by archaeological findings to appear phenotypically similar to northern Europeans,15 whereas the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolians. The two groups of people subsequently mixed in Xinjiang to become one population, the present Uyghurs. We do not know the genetic constitution of the Tocharians, but if they were similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty, admixture would already be biased toward similarity with East Asian populations. "

I originally added the source with quotation [3], that was later removed by the user Hzn [4]

Weeks later I tried another attempt in editing it .Here is how I later edited it (it's basically exactly the same, everything based on the source, no misinterpretation)

According to the paper by Li et al. Historical records indicates Uyghurs were formed through admixture between the conquered Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang and the invading Orkhon Uyghur people from Mongolia, the two population eventually mixed and became one population that formed present Uyghurs. Archaeological findings shows Tocharians such as Kroran phenotypically similar to northern Europeans while the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolians. Overall, genetic study shows western East Asians are more closely related to Uyghurs than to eastern East Asians, but it is unsure what constituted the exact original genetics of the Tocharians. The study also indicates that the analysis cannot distinguish the original ancient component of Tocharians originated from the West from the more recent Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu) of the East. It was speculated they were similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty, admixture would already be biased toward similarity with East Asian populations.

But the user Hzn decided to reword the entire paragraph like this [5]. I mean we dicussed on talk page, I asked him to refute the study made by Li, but he doesn't provide any sources and insist on rewording the genetic study of Li how he likes it. For several weeks there were no replies until now but still he doesn't show me any source to refute Li's 2009 study but just kept rewording the source.

"A different study by Li et al. (2009) used a larger sample of individuals from a wider area and found a higher East Asian component of about 70%, with much more similarity to "Western East" Eurasians than East Asian populations, while the European/West Asian component was about 30%. The paper by Li et al. noted that historical records suggest that Uyghurs may be formed through admixture between the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang and the Orkhon Uyghur people from Mongolia, but the study cannot distinguish the original ancient component of the Tocharians. It speculated that the Tocharians may be genetically similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty people, and admixture would already be biased toward the East Asian populations. "

The problem here is Hzn basically 1) Removed the entire archeological information of Tocharians from the Li paper, 2) Removed information of Tocharians in Xinjiang were conquered by the Uyghur empire from Mongolia, when such information is historical record and also provided in full history in wikipedia article of the Uyghur Qocho kingdom, which shows they conquered territories of Xinjiang and assimilated the Tocharians) ,3) Also the wording on Tocharians being genetic similar to Khanty seems a bit too off with the original aswell. So please tell me. Am I correct, is he committing Neutral point of view (and doing original research) in the genetic section? Vamlos ( talk) 17:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I waited for 5 days. Any good help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Vamlos ( talk) 08:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Vamlos: I suspect you are not getting a reply because nobody has a good answer. I know I don't. I see you have recently opened an RFC. Since I don't have an opinion on the "right" answer I did not reply, but you may want to push that. But in the spirit of someone who is somewhat interested but just barely knows enough to know I know nothing, I do have some questions that may help you get closer if you give them some thought.

• What is the importance of the genetic background of the Uyghur? To the article, that is; I have seen huge disputes over whether this or that people in that region is Turkic, or descended from Chinese settlers, etc. Then there is China's treatment of the Uyghur. The topic seems likely to be contentious, and also may fall under WP:MEDRS, which is an additional standard for medical information. They have their own project and maybe you should ask there.
• You seem to have only one source. I have not attempted to evaluate it, but I also find it unlikely that only one source exists if this has been studied at all, and then you will have to weigh relative reliability, nature of the source, and number of times cited.
• The other editor did not comment. You did notify him of your question here, right?
• I realize that articles about ethnic groups tend to have an origin story, but this is often legend or oral history rather than science. Once you in science the process is quite different, and likely would involve weighing so many pros and cons that the topic possibly should be its own sub-article for reasons of WEIGHT. There is a lot else to be said about the Uyghur beyond their genotype.

I do not have the availability to try to settle this, or the knowledge, or the authority. But. I would, personally, write about the origin of the Uyghur from a historical point of view in this article. If there are a LOT of studies maybe do the sub-article; if you have not looked at scholar.google.com I suggest that. Unless you yourself have a background in genetics I would try to enlist some help. Perhaps there is a Central Asia or genetics project where you could find editors with topic knowledge. One final thought: I spent some time, recently, trying to find references for the origin story of a certain 7th-century Khanate, and found that a lot of the Google hits were in Turkish, Kazakh, or (especially) Chinese. The Chinese apparently have some records made by travelling scribes, but I don't speak any of those languages, they are not terribly understandable in machine translation, and the article had been nominated for deletion. But if this is going to be a long-term project, Wikipedia and Wikipedia maintain lists of editors who speak other languages and might be willing to help out; possibly you could get one or more of them to do some searches for you, and let you know of any pertinent results that are worth translating.

Hope some of that helps. Elinruby ( talk) 09:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m starting this dispute resolution after I tried the Talk Page and the problem was not resolved.

This DR is filed for the Wikipedia page of the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan. As a platform to provide valid and accurate information about entities, Wikipedia has provided tools for contributors to edit articles.

The article about Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan ^[1] includes disinformation and misinformation, and I have tried to correct the wrong information posted through friendly discussions with sources and links on the Talk page ^[2]. Specifically speaking, this organization is a Kurdish opposition group which works for the promotions of democracy and freedoms in Iran and its Kurdish region. It’s one of the two major Kurdish political parties with a long history. Through its long history, it has gone through a lot of changes in its values and policies. At some point, the organization joined forces with the Communist Party of Iran. It’s fine to mention that in the history of the organization, but Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan is NOT a communist party these days. In fact, KPIK is promoting social democracy and it has been its ideological and political basis for a long time passed in its convention. KPIC is a member of international organizations of social democratic organizations. The article should reflect this fact to be valid and reliable.

As an opposition group opposing the values and policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, KPIC has been named a terrorist group by the Iranian government. To be neutral, we would like the article to mention Iran as a state-sponsor or terrorism and it’s IRGC as a terrorist organization. As far as the Japanese government is concerned, we are in contact with their missions to resolve the issue and we believe the source for that news story is invalid and unreliable. There are theee organizations in Iran using the acronym Komala and the Japanese website does NOT clearly mention which organization it is referring to in that brief description. Besides, KPIC has condemned that act in a press release immediately after the incident.

Iran is famous for having a cyber army of well-trained hackers. It’s obvious this page is being controlled by the Iranian hackers. If you look at the history of the article, you will find out changes and additions are immediately reversed or removed by those users. In a normal situation, it would take a while for such changes to be reviewed. Unless you are assigned to monitor this page and reverse edits, you cannot change, remove or reverse things instantly. Please refer to the history to find out.

I am filing this application for a DR in hopes for the article about Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan to be valid, accurate and neutral. This article needs to a be reliable source with contributions from neutral editors but most editors and users working on this article are not neutral. Instead they are mostly trying their best to define KPIC as an evil force and that’s what the hackers of the Iranian cyber army want. These hackers are very professional and well trained and these sabotage actions is part of their job indeed. I’m formally asking for a third party to help resolve this dispute. I’m willing to provide reliable sources for all my comments and arguments here

• Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan is NOT a communist party:

Komala Party is a social democratic political party ^{[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]} Kak kayvan ( talk) 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The talk page for Compulsory public education in the United States generally agrees that NPOV has been violated there. The "Massive Public Education System" section stands out in particular - it includes things like:

It is essential to train the youth in becoming dynamic contributors in self-government. Casting votes is not enough. Citizens of the United States must help look after the common good which entails nurturing debate proficiency, critical thinking, and civic virtues of students.

(That's not a quote placed in the article, that's a quote of the article itself.)

Weirdly, the KKK part at the top of the article is not part of my complaint; it turns out that's true. If it were more neutral it would probably note their objection to desegregation later on...

Really, I feel like this article needs a "This article has multiple issues" flag.

Colin Fredericks ( talk) 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem was that the topic of the article had become muddled. As far as I can tell, it's supposed to be about compulsory public education (i.e., prohibiting private schools and requiring all children to attend public schools), but a bunch of information had been added about U.S. public education in general. I've removed the off-topic information and I think the article looks somewhat better now, though it still needs work. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 16:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I made a few edits here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Star-Spangled_Banner&action=history

Had a user dispute both, one of which I agreed to (lack of citations). However, Ive proposed my other is a direct example of a previous statement made by others, which supports this statement. This statement further had a citation needed tag. My example further was cited.

Whats wrong here? What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapman987 ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Please explain to me wp:undue issue in Jovan Rašković article. I have two sources [11] which say that mother of Jovan Rašković is Croat and father was judge in NDH. Can I do something to prevent wp:undue issue? Or for some reason such information should not be included in the article, maybe this information is not important or more sources for confirmation is needed? I don't understand entirely that rule, so if someone could explain in more detail what exactly undue problem means in this case? Tnx. Mikola22 ( talk) 14:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It means "what do most experts say". If a view is only held by a few (or is not even considered relevant by most) it may be undue to give it any prominence. For example, why does it matter what nationality his mother was (and let's not forget Croatia did not even exist as a nation at the time)? Why does it matter if his father was a judge in the NHD (was he a judge before this, was he a judge after?). Slatersteven ( talk) 14:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE usually doesn't apply to factual information like the parent of a BIO/BLP, however; UNDUE is when there's different opinions in the RSes to determine. UNDUE would apply if we've got far too much attention on one part of an article that's not indicative of how the topic is covered otherwise in the media; if we only had one source to expand into 5 pages of pre-career bio, but then condensed the rest of the bio's career to one paragraph based on twenty other sources, that's a problem too. But neither seems to be the case here: It is usually standard in BIOs that if we can reliably source info like nationality and jobs of the parents directly, we usually include that. (That is, we want one single or maybe a couple sources that directly say that. We don't want a source that says so-and-so parents' were, and then we synthesize the rest by going to national databases to look that up). So the question should be, is the source being used here reliable for those fact? -- Masem ( t) 14:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, for this information one source is strong RS. But it probably needs more sources. I think I understand that information about his mother and father is not so important and goes in one direction ie probably Pov. I thought that this information was important in the context of his activities in Croatia, pro-Serbian or Greater Serbian policy. In that sense, the sources also have that context.

I used Jovan Rašković article as an example, but there are more articles and more examples which I cannot understand. Article Statuta Valachorum and there was information about Vlachs which are mostly Serbs, also we have and this information from same article "A large migration of Serbs (called "people of Rascians or Vlachs" into Croatia and Slavonia from Ottoman territory took place in 1600" (based on two sources from 1914 and 1911), and in some other articles I came across mentions of "Vlachs (Serbs)" information. Behind information(Vlachs which are mostly Serbs, from introductory section, Statuta Valachorum]) there are several sources which speak of Vlach-Serbs fact but there are different historical and historical time contexts in these sources.

Since I found 10 or 9 strong sources(Military Frontier,introductory section) which talk about Serbs and Vlachs as separate groups as Vlachs and Serbs who come or live in Military Frontier, is it because of that information "Vlachs (Serbs)" undue? They were mostly Croatian, Serbian, German, Vlach and other colonists.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. I guess everything is clean here and in NPOV because we must respect all sources but I have to ask that when I'm already here. It is not clear to me, so the Vlachs are Serbs information and Vlachs and Serbs information, whether it can be in a common context or in same article? I also say this from the Croatian perspective because Vlachs are historically and today's Croats so maybe someone could conclude that the Croats are actually of Serbian origin. Mikola22 ( talk) 18:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue of Article Statuta Valachorum has been discussed over at RSN, undue, NPOV and god knows where else. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but this is a more specific question given that 9 or 10 sources not so long ago are included in the Military Frontier article, and Croat, Serb, Vlach etc information. This is a recent fact that has not been discussed, in this context. It would be good to hear opinion of the wider community. Mikola22 ( talk) 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Its also changing the topic of your question to a more broader point, that you have had a wider opinion of since (at least) [ [12]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I recently removed some unsubstantiated, partisan views such as

• "Meanwhile, Trump remained optimistic on the future of the coronavirus in the United States." and
• "because the Trump administration worried about 'bad optics'" (which was also misquoted)
• "The theory correctly stated" - "correctly" is opinion

from the above article, but "Love of Corey" keeps reverting to the statements that violate the Neutral Point of View principle. I tried to discuss with "Love of Corey", but to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmwittko ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"Correctly" is opinion - no, that seems supported by the source - we clearly know that asymptomatic people can easily transmit COVID. There is no substantial medical debate on that point.

It is not a "partisan view" to note that Trump downplayed the pandemic for weeks and months. That seems easily sourced and substantiated. That you don't like that fact does not mean you can remove it from Wikipedia.

Have you discussed your proposed changes on the article talk page? It's incumbent on you to gain support for them. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 15:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing surprises me anymore about how values change in the wake of “COVID”. I’m not even American, so I have little emotions rather than having been appalled by what I noted. If you want Wikipedia to transition from an encyclopedia to a partisan pamphlet, so be it. Apologies if I don’t always know all of the secret handshakes to be used with this somewhat anachronistic user interface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmwittko ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Kmwittko, WP:NPOV doesn't mean we treat Trump with half positive and half negative information. It means we neutrally reflect was is in the WP:RS, and what the RS say is that Trump didn't take the pandemic seriously, downplayed it, and turned wearing masks another front in the culture wars. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Demographics of Eritrea has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Boud ( talk) 22:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm putting this on the NPOV Noticeboard because one of the three options proposed is an NPOV option, and there are too few active participants. A partly overlapping discussion on the same talk page is Talk:Demographics of Eritrea#Do we remove the table with the history of the age distribution of the Eritrean population? Boud ( talk) 22:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is for the Kaworu Nagisa article. The other editor that has been updating the Neon Genesis Evangelion articles, as a new film has recently been released, but he is much more adamant about some of the stuff here than he was in the other articles and though his work is generally good it did need adjustments before. I already made hundreds of edits to his previous rewrites. I think he doesn't realize he's not close enough to NPOV - he used a lot of inaccurate translations and was way too selective in his representation of facts, lots of undue weight, non-neutral language, blatant mistranslations, etc. I presented some 10+ new sources that were necessary to improve things and had to rewrite about a third of the article. He agreed to that initially but after a while just started to stonewall me. He has accused me of vandalism and now refuses to reply to my arguments, accusing me of sophistry. It bugs me because I don't want to discourage him.

• About a third of the article was rewritten already and this was agreed by him before, but now we're at an impasse as he insists on his changes, though he either just says "no", or responds to an argument I didn't make. Here is the diff. I have asked a number of experts outside Wikipedia for consultation on how to adjust the article (as before). One of them has also expressed his agreement in the talk page. There were, earlier on, several problematic practices like insisting on Google Translator over professional translations of sources (despite those translations being referenced in sources used elsewhere in the article), to use non-neutral language. I have also asked some other WP users involved to a lesser degree and one of them has broadly agreed, but suggested I go here as content is fairly esoteric and the discussion got really long over a few days. In Talk:Kaworu_Nagisa#Section break I have re-explained my remaining disputes. Those were explained further before in more detail, but I do not require you to go through all of that as it includes things that were already resolved. I'll just briefly reiterate my points, not going over the evidence proper which is available on the talk page. I believe the current state of the article leads the reader to assume an intent on the creator's part that is not true and a particular POV and interpretation of the character and work:

• I am not defending the deletion of the early episode drafts as the other editor says, but to balance their depiction. Instead of long, detailed and puffery descriptions of individual rejected scenes, I simply referred to their differing tone from the accepted, canon version. I used the same argument for replacing the long spin-off detailing with more numerous instances instead. These early drafts were done independently by an episode writer, and ultimately rejected by staff and the director, something which the original rewrite of the article neglected to include.

• Removal of fan speculation identified as such, on the character being based on the creator of another show. This is a persistent fan rumor motivated by Shipping (fandom), and he insisted on including an interview with the target of this speculation in a fan book, a fairly normal way for interviewers looking for a scoop to fish for some bombastic revelation. In this interview, he is dismissive of the rumours, but mentions he understands why some people would think that. However, it was denied by the creator and the character designer directly in sources already mentioned in the article. It was additionally never even alluded to in more than one source that details the character's design process, including sources already used in the article.

• Including the creator's comments on the ambiguity, open-endedness and value of the interpretation of the series as a whole. This is supported previously by talking about the depiction of the character and language. Ambiguity doesn't disprove or prove any particular point of view, it just says that both sides are plausible. People may argue that either side is undisputable, and the editor has done so in the past, so I had to add in more stuff from the same sources he was using. A few were misattributed, or had third-parties presented as official information. One source was a fan book with a reprinted comic panel, with the page presented as an official guide on the character.

• Removal of a joke made by an assistant director, and half of the quotation fails presents something an interviewer said as coming from this director. I quoted the translator himself saying it. It's not just because something is in a reliable source that it needs to be included. The director responds jokingly and makes fun of fans. In that very same section, he does the same with another character, Rei Ayanami, along with other humorous remarks of all sorts. That joke isn't included in that character's page, but I provided it as an example of how ludicrous it'd sound to take something a non-staffer says.

• Inclusion of additional context in the Reception section, including from a book specifically dealing with the series and including a part on the character's depiction and the cultural phenomenon he's part of, to counterbalance an extremely over-represented view by biased sources (including an advocacy group) made around a fan controversy that gathered media attention back in 2019. Those sources were, additionally, taking an extremely Western point of view to give their views on the Japanese media landscape and culture. Again, I have been asked to include this from the people that translated the material used and provided me consultation and are familiar with that landscape. It might not look like it, but it's quite a sensationalist claim. They find it culturally offensive.

• One more review. WP:RS says that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." This writer is used in reference #97, writing for IGN, an independent publication, so I assume he can be considered reliable in his own site too, particularly just for a critical reception.

• Lastly, Legacy has one mention of a bonus material that is not related to the character at all, but this isn't made explicit(and it'd look silly if it was) so it naturally leads the reader to assume it is, so I removed it. FelipeFritschF ( talk) 03:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to make this very simple as I've been going from different noticeboards to noticeboards trying to get help to resolve the issue, including leaving messages to discuss with the user on their talk page + asking for help from admins.

• Livi Zheng ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 45.48.15.139 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few weeks ago, I added substantial information to both pages to reflect important aspects of both individuals (who are siblings in the film industry) that have been major points of public interest. This includes a string of controversies regarding the former claims of her achievements in the industry. The other problem that led me to make the edits was that both pages read too much like promotional advertisements of them as people in the film industry. It only highlights self-made claims and statements quoted by obscure publications. Some examples:

• "She began her career as a stuntwoman at the age of fifteen" -- not supported by any credible source/film credit
• "Zheng represented Washington State’s Karate team during her college years and won more than 25 medals and trophies for regional as well as national competition throughout the United States. Zheng won competitions ranging from 2009 US Open, Orlando, 36th Annual Shorinryu Open Karate Championships, to 2010 Washington State Karate Federation Invitational Tournament and USA National Karate Federation Qualifier. Livi started her career in stunts." -- not supported by any credible source
• "Livi produced and directed her first feature film “Brush with Danger” at the age of 23. “Brush with Danger” tells a story about a painter, and a fighter - both artists in their own ways. The brother and sister, forced to flee their home, and they arrive at Seattle, the Emerald City, inside a shipping container. Trying to make their way in a new strange world, the pair struggle to survive. Until, one day, an art dealer takes an interest in the sister’s painting, and the pair find themselves living a dream come true. The sister loses herself in her art, painting, and the brother seizes the opportunity to express himself, as a fighter. But it really is all just a dream. Conned by her patron into forging a long lost Van Gogh that was purchased by a ruthless criminal with a passion for fine art. The brother and sister soon find themselves embroiled in Seattle’s criminal underworld and a Brush With Danger. “Brush with Danger” was released theatrically both in the US and internationally in 2014." -- no source whatsoever, which raised my suspicion that the IP address making these edits are either connected to her/herself/paid to make these edits.
• "After “Brush with Danger”, Livi produced and directed “Bali: Beats of Paradise” starring Grammy Award Winning American singer-songwriter Judith Hill, Nyoman Wenten and Nanik Wenten. “Bali: Beats a Paradise” is a story of this profound and irreplicable love. Love - it’s more than a relationship between two people. It is a connection between two souls that embodies a passion for music and culture. This film explores the story of Indonesian couple Pak Wenten and Bu Nanik - two artists who bonded over their love for traditional Indonesian dance and its accompanying musical style of gamelan. When they moved to the U.S. from Bali in the 1970’s, Pak Wenten and Bu Nanik gained acclaim as ambassadors for their respective crafts. As the sun is beginning to set on this aging, yet ever energetic couple, they wanted to share gamelan and Indonesian dance one more time in an inspiring way before their retirement to Indonesia. They decided to break the paradigm and teamed up with Grammy winning musician and songwriter, Judith Hill and filmmaker, Livi Zheng. Their ambitious project is unlike anything else in the music industry: the creation of a music video that bends the rules of gamelan and Funk to create an awe inspiring music video set in Joshua Tree National Park. This film is the story behind the art and the music video. It is an unforgettable blend of documentary, love story, and genre shattering music." -- reads more like a promotional adverts.

In addition, the edits made by the aforementioned IP address does not follow the standard formula used in making a biography article. Would appreciate your attention and help on this as the last thing I'd like to be involved in is a warring edit. In their editing notes, the person behind the IP address suggests that the references used to highlight her family political connections have been deemed infactual by the Indonesian Press Council (which had since been removed from the article) and that my edits are not neutral (which is just the pot calling the kettle black, given that if I was not neutral, I'd include a lot of rumors about the person but instead I only included information that are confirmed through verifiable sources).

If you ask me, given that this IP address seems familiar with how to edit a Wikipedia page, including in using the coding, as well as because their only "contributions" to Wikipedia have been on both pages, my suspicion is that they are engaged in UPE and/or related in some ways to the subjects and seek to use Wikipedia as promotional avenues that only include what could be deemed "positive" of the persons and not the unpretty facts. CalliPatra ( talk) 08:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• The current version of the article is strikingly negative. I did a bit of searching online and got the impression that this negativity may not fully reflect the consensus of reliable sources. That said, the IP's version of the article is certainly not neutral either. I've made a small edit per WP:CSECTION and will try to look at this more closely later today. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 09:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly these sources, some of which I found in a previous revision, could be used to expand the Livi Zheng article and make it more balanced: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] Some more detail could be added from these sources: [19] [20]

As for the Ken Zheng article – I think it's too focused on Livi Zheng instead of Ken Zheng. I'd say we should cut down the amount of information about Livi Zheng's comments in that article. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 12:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for pitching in Mx. Granger. Your inputs are very insightful and I'd take a good look and re-edit the article to portray better, more neutral narrative of her based on the available sources (including the ones you tagged) tomorrow. CalliPatra ( talk) 14:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! My name is Nicole and I work for Vineyard Vines. I've clearly disclosed my employer and conflict of interest on my profile and at Talk:Vineyard Vines, where I've been working with a very helpful editor ( User:Crystallizedcarbon) to update the page by submitting a series of edit requests. I understand this is the preferred community process and I'm happy to abide. However, I am concerned about a single editor who seems solely focused on adding allegations about the company to the page, even when User:Crystallizedcarbon has attempted to remove not once, not twice, but three times over the span of a couple months.

I believe the editor's early attempts introduced copyright violations, violated WP:BLPCRIME, and included Category:Discrimination and Category:Lawsuits, which I think speak to this editor's motives. The sources about the allegations are local and I assume Legal Newsline is not considered a reputable publication by Wikipedia. I understand editors can and should be skeptical when companies attempt to update their Wikipedia articles, but I also think these edits are a clear violation of Wikipedia's rules. User:Crystallizedcarbon has asked User:OdinNeith to discuss on the Talk page; the invitation has not been accepted. OdinNeith has also said they will "escalate to wiki administrators", so I'm taking them up on this offer. I should note, Crystallizedcarbon has said they wish to avoid engaging in an edit war and are willing to remove the Legal Issues section again in March. I appreciate this offer, but would prefer to address sooner. Again, I thank Crystallizedcarbon for their continued help and willingness to review update requests.

I'm hoping some editors here may be willing to address this issue. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Nicole at Vineyard Vines ( talk) 22:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Nicole at Vineyard Vines, (formality) yet not had a look on the edits but you must notice the User about that there is a discussion ongoing, just noticing that I have done this for you in the meantime. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 13:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I have two issues with the contributions by OdinNeith one is with the content and the other is with the failure to follow advice on our policies. The user added the section: ( Vineyard_Vines#Legal_Matters). I removed it as undue because in my opinion it violated WP:BLPCRIME for the first part and WP:NOTNEWS for the rest, as it was referenced by routine coverage. I asked the editor to follow WP:BRD and discuss in talk before adding the disputed content back. I tried both with edit summaries and in the user's talk page. You can see the response here: User_talk:OdinNeith. I did not know how best to proceed, as it was not just a matter for dispute resolution, and after three failed attempts I simply gave up to avoid an edit war. When Nicole at Vineyard Vines requested help on the talk page about this issue I contacted an admin but got no response, so I decided to let it sit for a while in the hope that some new editors would get involved.

I don't think that edit warring is the right way to impose changes to an article. OdinNeith is a single purpose account that only edited this article (see here: Special:Contributions/OdinNeith) and made bold changes by introducing that negative section about lawsuits, my attempts to restore the status quo and my pleads to the user to follow WP:BRD and discuss to reach a consensus on the talk page all failed. The user made small changes, but the section is still in the article. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 17:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

On the class action lawsuit: Sourcing is extremely thin here. WP:UNDUE, it seems.
On the discrimination lawsuit: When someone sues a company, even if the lawsuit names the owners of the company, I have a hard time seeing a justification of removal from the company page based on BLPCRIME. Justification for being careful with the wording? Sure. The lawsuit was picked up by the Hartford Courant and Vineyard Gazette. That's not a bad start to establish WP:WEIGHT, but it's not a sure thing either. Certainly doesn't seem like enough to justify its own section, but I can see why it was separated out given the current organization of the page.
On the behavioral issues: OdinNeith is a single-purpose account who has made no attempt at discussion and is instead just edit warring. @ OdinNeith: Wikipedia relies on volunteers talking things out rather than just repeatedly adding material over objections of others. If you don't find consensus on the talk page, you will almost definitely be blocked (either altogether or blocked from editing that page).

In sum: remove the class action suit and remove the discrimination lawsuit pending discussion on the talk page about how best to include it. Don't restore until consensus is reached per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no hidden agenda here. Wiki is intended as a public open source fact based exchange of information. I do not post information that does not have multiple references. And none of my posts contain personal opinions. If you take issue with the articles referenced or dispute the fact based information then I suggest you take it up with the authors of the source materials referenced in the section. I will also point you to several other similar wiki pages such as “legal issues” on the Abercrombie & Fitch wiki page, the “other issues” and “labor practices” contained on the H&M wiki page, there are hundreds of equivalent examples contained and published on Wikipedia. It is a standard practice and quite typical. To suppress this info runs counter to the terms of Wikipedia. If you would like to present information that refutes the references please do so, but suppression is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@ OdinNeith: Please do take the time to read WP:UNDUE, WP:ONUS and specially WP:BRD. When we make a bold edit and it gets reverted, the course of action is to discuss in the talk page and reach a consensus before adding back the contentious content, not to edit war by continue to add it back. Some of the content you added might be notable enough to be included in the article, but this is a collaborative project. The way forward is to debate first and once consensus is reached then the changes can be introduced. It is not correct to just to keep adding what you think is right, disregarding other editors. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 08:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Those are very thin arguments at best and in the context you provided which is also very thin one could suppress pretty much any publicly referenced factual info. Do you have a hidden agenda here? Do you work for a company trying to “clean up” or suppress public factual information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and you are of course welcome to provide arguments to defend it at the article's talk page and to try to reach a consensus there. To answer your question, No, I can assure you that I have absolutely no hidden agenda and I do not work or edit for pay for any company. My only interest is improving Wikipedia, but since you raise the point of a possible conflict of interest, please clarify why your only contributions to our project have been to insert a lawsuit section in the article about that company and to repeatedly engage in edit-warring to repost it despite the many requests to follow WP:BRD. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 16:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

[Following is moved from an unnecessary new section below — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)]

Hello, what recourse is there if a company is disputing and potentially suppressing public info with multiple references from appearing on their wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith ( talk • contribs)

OdinNeith, why are you starting a new discussion when this issue is under discussion earlier on the page? Schazjmd  (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OdinNeith, there is no evidence that the company itself is suppressing information on these legal matters. Rather, the issue appears to be the proper degree to which those legal matters should be brought up at all; you have been directed in edit summaries viewable on the history page to first reach consensus on the article's talk page, but have failed to do so. That is the first step you should take before bringing it to this Noticeboard: creating a section on the talk page explaining your reasoning, pinging involved editors (in this case, the one/s who have reverted your edits), and going from there. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)( talk, contribs) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OdinNeith that people are objecting to your additions does not mean there's a conspiracy here. Wikipedia operates according to consensus and doesn't prioritize one person over another. If you want to add something that has been challenged -- regardless of what that is -- it is your responsibility to convince people to add it on the talk page. Forums like this are intended as a secondary discussion venue when talk page threads have been unsuccessful. It looks like you have not participated at all on the talk page but jumped here. Make your case there ( Talk:Vineyard Vines), and don't restore the material until there is consensus to do so. See above for my assessment of the material. I'm watching the page now, so you can be assured at least one more person with no connection to VV (even as a customer) will be involved. There is no need to keep this noticeboard thread open before article talk has been tried. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites clearly this is an attempt to suppress publicly accessible and factual referenced informations from respectable and established newspapers, public proceedings, and open source factual public information all of which been accurately referenced. Stop suppressing the info without due cause or you will undoubtedly be suspended. It is not my job to convince you that open, public, factual, relevant and referenced data and info be included. It is now your job to demonstrate why it should not be. Let’s hear your case sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

[sigh] This is now at WP:ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This is currently under discussion at RSN and Talk:PragerU.

Two sources, Yahoo! News and Slate, have covered PragerU's Paycheck Protection Program loan. Slate discusses it in the context of right-wing organizations that have received PPP loans, while Yahoo states "The analysis by Global Disinformation Index and Alethea Group also flagged Prager University, or PragerU, as both a top source of COVID-19 misinformation and recipient of a PPP loan of between $350,000 and $1 million." Several options have been suggested:

1. Include the PPP loan in the Financials section. ( example)
2. Include COVID misinformation in the Reception section. ( example)
3. Include both pieces of information together as reported by Yahoo

Arguments for inclusion:

• Reported in multiple reliable sources
• Yahoo News is a reputable source
• The Yahoo News source is not promotional; it includes in-depth reporting and responses from the organizations mentioned
• Misinformation is a significant aspect of PragerU

Arguments against inclusion:

• There are only two sources, and the Alethea/GDI report has only been reported by Yahoo
• The Yahoo News source is a puff piece/warmed-over press release/churnalism
• Content is undue/promotional because Alethea Group and Global Disinformation Index are redlinked/non-notable
• What constitutes COVID misinformation is highly subjective
• Neither Yahoo News nor Alethea are "prominent"
• It's unclear how the PPP loan is relevant; it doesn't tie in with the rest of the article and we don't tell the reader why they should care
• The PPP loan sources imply something negative about PragerU, as an "appeal to outrage"
• We shouldn't just insert standalone facts into articles
• "Including it as a sort of easteregg to get the desired "PragerU is hypocritical" content linked to the article is a problem."
• "Neither Slate nor Yahoo have much weight"
• The claim that Yahoo News has wide readership seems suspect

Is this content DUE in any form? – dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors: @ Springee, Hipal, Noteduck, LokiTheLiar, North8000, MasterTriangle12, Ryk72, Jlevi, Shinealittlelight, Rhododendrites, Horse Eye's Back, and Acousmana: – dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• There are strong arguments to treat Yahoo! News (shortened to Y!N) original reporting in general as standard NEWSORG RS, as discussed on RSN and the article page. The piece in particular is extensive, including multiple avenues of inquiry: a joint report from two nonprofits, an investigation into PragerU's media output by the reporter, inclusion of financial data from the Small Business Administration compiled by ProPublica, attempts to reach out to the discussed companies for their perspectives, and analysis weaving these pieces together. Since this is reported in an RS, and since this is a substantive exploration of both financial details and misinformation, discussion of both features is DUE.

The brief discussion by Slate also helps establish weight for the financial information. There is also extensive (though more ticky-tacky) discussion of PragerU's coronavirus misinformation in other sources that could bolster support for inclusion, though the Y!N piece seems strong enough.

Finally, it seems like the behaviors and fates of any company during a (hopefully) once-in-a-lifetime pandemic should have some enduring significance. The fact that PPP loans have been discussed regarding many entities suggests that it is generally of interest. Jlevi ( talk) 04:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Edited: 04:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the object to say we should cover the response to PragerU's COVID related videos? I don't see an issue with that as COVID is a big topic. Like their climate change videos their positions and what others think of those positions should be covered. But why should that mean we cover the PPP loan? It seems little more than a moralist rant by Slate and AG. Springee ( talk) 04:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A comment on the PPP loan stuff - a LOT of entities that questionably shouldn't have qualified for the first round of PPP funding ended up getting funds, an issue that I presume is covered on that page. That PragerU was one of those seems to be something we shouldn't stress unless there is additional commentary about PragerU's specific loan request. It would be different if it were the only entity that abused the program but that's definitely not the case. -- Masem ( t) 04:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of the sources said that PragerU didn't properly qualify or somehow shouldn't have been able to accept the loans. Springee ( talk) 04:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Then even in general, thousands of businesses got PPP loans, and unless there was something unusual about PragerU's, bringing it up seems trivial and unnecessary. -- Masem ( t) 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• This doesn't pass the 10Y test. No sources have actually claimed PragerU didn't rightly qualify for the loans. The Alethea Group tried to suggest it was hypocritical for a group that it felt was spreading COVID misinformation to then take COVID relief money. That's a logically disconnected claim since the relief money was meant to help organizations that have been harmed by the response to COVID (ie shutdowns etc). None of the sources are specifically about PragerU. All mention PragerU deeper in the articles as "one example of" sort of things. An argument has been made that Y!N is reliable but that doesn't mean it carries any weight. How many people see Y!N articles on their home pages because they haven't changed the Edge default settings? Should we care what the Alethea Group says? We don't have an article on them which suggests they aren't a very significant special interest group. That means there is basically no weight for the "spreads COVID misinformation but takes PPP loan" angle. Slate has a similar but not identical "hypocrite" angle talking about various companies that rail against big government then took the loans. Clearly PragerU wasn't their primary focus since it was only mentioned with a few others in the last paragraph of the article. So what about just the "Org participated in the PPP loans" angle? Why would that be significant? What does that add to the article? What is the reader supposed to take from such a statement? Again, why would we care in 10 years? No one doubts that PragerU took the loans since Propublica lists them with many other companies. The question is why should the readers care? The outrange angles are UNDUE. Springee ( talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, but I already said my peace and sort of left. IMO both should be left out for the sake of article quality. They are just spin swipes / talking points by their opponents and are not info about nor informative about PragerU. North8000 ( talk) 05:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Putting aside this US culture war/partisan nonsense that certain editors here are obsessed with, sources pass WP:RS, and - relative to the coverage of other aspects in the article - the content passes WP:DUE. Whether or not they qualified for PPP is not the issue, the reason receipt of payment is notable is that PragerU actively participated in a COVID19 disinformation campaign. It's notable that a bailed out organization worked against the public interest during the pandemic, that's why mention is due. Acousmana ( talk) 11:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Are you saying editors involved with the PragerU article are acting that way or some editors generally on Wikipedia? Suggesting that motive in this case is failing to AGF. As for RSs, please see ONUS. DUE is being debated here and yes, if PragerU qualified is an issue. As was said before, if PragerU was being harmed by the response to the pandemic then why shouldn't they use a program for which they were qualified? If the only reason to cover this is the "hypocritical" angle then we have very limited sourcing and sources that don't have much WEIGHT. The sources are conflating legitimate criticism of Covid coverage with some sort of moralistic opinion that critics of the governemtn response couldn't have been harmed and thus shouldn't use PPP loans. That's a logically flawed position. Springee ( talk) 12:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • sources are WP:RS, it's WP:VER, and article content stemming from cited material meets WP:BALASP, there really is very little more to say on the matter that doesn't stink of political bias. Acousmana ( talk) 14:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Please see ONUS. Yes, BALASP does apply and "controversies" that are trivial or have no lasting impact are UNDUE. Springee ( talk) 14:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• When the Yahoo source was brought up at RSN, I did point out that it would be far better if the article was structured to have a section that talked broadly about PragerU and its problems with misinformation, where this Yahoo piece would fit much better in a summary piece, rather than as a standalone fact. That seems to be the crux here as well - by itself it seems pointy but if a proper summary that talked of how PragerU has been criticized for misinformation was put together, it would be wholly appropriate there. -- Masem ( t) 14:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Acousmana and Masem, and am concerned that behavioral problems are disrupting consensus-making. We've spent more than enough time on the factoid that PragerU received PPP loans. That factoid should be included in the article. We need to move on to determining what context it should be presented in. Thirteen potential references are listed in Talk:PragerU#Climate_change_and_COVID-19_coverage_and_misinformation, yet with all the discussion there's still no proposal for how to expand the article from them. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Just in case, I want to make it clear I am for putting information regarding responses to PragerU's COVID videos. I think the PPP loan material is not worth including but I'm not opposed to including it in context of "PragerU used the program". My concern is only when we try to highlight what a few sources have claimed is hypocritical behavior. Springee ( talk) 17:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Which source mentions hypocrisy, and what's wrong with highlighting it if they do? – dlthewave ☎ 18:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Jlevi and Acousmana: these are clearly RSes and they're clearly due. I agree with Masem they should be put in the context where the criticism makes sense, but I would have thought that was obvious, honestly. Loki ( talk) 17:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • So what is the correct context? Since this isn't a case of all or nothing perhaps a discussion regarding what to put in and where? Springee ( talk) 17:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe the correct context is to have just a small mention of the PPP info in the 'Finances' section, as has already been implemented, and a COVID disinformation passage should be placed in the 'Content' section until there is a separate 'Misinformation' section or similar. They should be separate unless further sources link PU to more significant hypocrisy than has already been discussed i.e. if it turned out they had argued against COVID relief or something like that. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Unless there was something "special" about PragerU's PPP loan that differs from all other companies that got PPP loans, it's an unnecessary fact here. We are not required to document everything that is published by RSes, and unless the concern is that PragerU should not have gotten that loan (and moreso beyond the general problems that the PPP loan program has had) then this is just random info that doesn't fit into a summary article. -- Masem ( t) 23:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there is general agreement that the PPP info does not need to be and/or should not be connected with the COVID misinformation with the current sources we have, and that expressing it as just financial information in the 'Finances' section is NPOV. The current content on the page seems to fulfil this, so unless opinions differ from the current content, or my characterisation of viewpoints, then I believe we should put more focus into discussion of whether inclusion of the COVID misinformation with our current sources is NPOV.
Also, several sources have been brought up elsewhere and I think it may be useful to repeat some of them here: thedailybeast, reuters fact check, huffingtonpost, healthfeedback, MSN/Y!N. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 02:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes obviously due and the source is acceptable. Most against-arguments cited by dlthewave appear invalid... — Paleo Neonate – 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Good evening, I've recently come across this claim on the page United States: "[The US] is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world. Considered a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, its population has been profoundly shaped by centuries of immigration."'

This claim is placed in the introduction of the article, with no source being cited. It was originally added by Ovinus in revision 975555920. Given WP:V, I started searching for empirical studies to back up this claim and did not find any. In fact, the studies that I did find opposed this claim. ^{[1] [2]}

I therefore made the following edit (as I did not want to completely delete it): "Popular national myths claim that the U.S. is an exceptional melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, though scientific studies have shown that the U.S. ranks averagely in a global comparison of ethnic and cultural diversity."

The studies I quoted are peer-reviewed and highly-cited (having been cited in over 8,000 other scientific publications). They have also been praised for their contribution in providing comprehensive measurements of diversity. See for example: "We obtained the data on host countries' ethnic and linguistic diversity levels from Alesina et al. (2003), who calculated these levels using the hitherto most comprehensive data on the sizes of ethnic and linguistic segments in countries." ^[1]

They are also being used on other relevant Wikipedia pages, see e.g. Papua New Guinea, Italians or Multiculturalism.

As my edit was reverted and the original, unsourced claim was reinstated, I would like to see discussion on two questions:

1. Do you consider the article in its current state ("The US is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world", no source) to be neutral?
2. Do you consider the wording of my edit to be neutral? If not, what improvement would you like to see?

Sarrotrkux ( talk) 19:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• The lead paragraphs of an article are not usually supported by citations, as they are supposed to be a summary of information that is gone into in more detail (and supported with cited sources) later in the article. So... check the subsequent sections to see if there a similar statement, and whether it is cited. If so, then that citation supports what is said in the intro. Blueboar ( talk) 19:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The dubious claim does not seem to be supported by the body as far as I can tell. At least it's not supported by the "Demographics" section, which is where I would expect to find this information. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 19:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I did check the section about demographics, but none of the sources there support this claim. The claim is also not made anywhere else in the article, only in the intro.

-- Sarrotrkux ( talk) 19:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok... just making sure. If it isn’t supported later (and since you have contradictory sources) then I would say it should indeed be challenged. Blueboar ( talk) 19:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think the OP is correct, but I would suggest two changes in the OP's edit, so that it reads something like: Popular national myths claim that the U.S. is an exceptionally diverse mixture of cultures and ethnicities, though scientific studies have shown that the U.S. ranks about average in a global comparison of ethnic and cultural diversity. Replacing "averagely" with "about average" is just a copy-edit. The trouble with the word "melting pot" is that it implies a homogenizing of the population and cultural assimilation of immigrants, and so many have questioned whether the "melting pot" notion is pro- or anti-diversity. NightHeron ( talk) 20:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, especially the seeming contradiction of "melting pot" and "diversity" (and the surrounding debate) is indeed an important factor to consider and should probably be avoided in the lead.

-- Sarrotrkux ( talk) 21:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the discussion had to move here from Talk:United States. Per my comments on that page, the "most .. diverse" sentence doesn't seem to be supported by the article or its current references, but the suggested replacement also has serious problems. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The reason I am asking for input here specifically is for judgement of the phrasing (of both the original claim and my edit) and potential changes that could be made from a neutrality POV. There was some criticism of my phrasing on the talk page but no suggestion of what to change, so I thought it wise to get a discussion started here to address the issue of neutral phrasing specifically. The suggestion of NightHeron is a good example of the kind of feedback that was not at all present on the talk page.

-- Sarrotrkux ( talk) 21:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me about this. I don't recall adding it but I apologize for my carelessness. It'd be nice to include in the lead that the U.S. has roughly average diversity among countries, but not that it's a "popular myth". That it's a popular myth could (and imo, should) be included in the body, though I'd prefer "misconception" to "myth" in the name of neutrality. Best wishes, Ovinus ( talk) 00:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Dispute on the Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi article. An editor ( User:Ragnimo) is adamant on the introduction labelling the subject a Somali despite this being one of the rare articles that has a whole ethnicity section. The subjects origin is disputed, any academic that discusses his ethnic origin in detail disagrees with Ahmed being regarded as a Somali. I've tried to explain this to the user with no avail [21].

I propose the article should leave out his ethnicity in the intro and let readers decide by reading all viewpoints in the ethnic section. [22] hence the introduction should only state "Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi was an Imam and General of the Adal Sultanate"'. Magherbin ( talk) 01:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It's the mainstream consensus view point. The lead should have the mainstream view, the most widely head view is that he is somali. Only a negligent small minority of scholars differ in that POV.

Again i refer you to Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#NPOV,_neutrality,_and_false_balance

"NPOV does not mean "neutral" or neutered content, nor does it mean that there should be a false balance between opposing POV. All opinions are not equal."

"The mainstream view should get the most weight, so the due weight of the article should read in favor of the mainstream view."

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Based on this i am not even certain that we should even add any other minority view point.

Ragnimo ( talk) 13:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes only if the creators of the article didnt decide to have an ethnic slot to debate his ethnicity, oh and Oxford; "His legacy as the guardian of Islamic pride and resistance to Ethiopian-Christian domination was recycled locally mainly by Somali speakers, who refer to him as Ahmad Guray. Though it was never fully established that he was a Somali, he was adopted by modern Somali nationalists and Islamic activists as their forefather" [23] Magherbin ( talk) 06:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you show me the full text in where that statement is mentioned? Because i don't see it from the link you showed.

Furthermore:

In the standard Ethiopian historiography,. Imam Ahmad is presented as a Somali [24]

These are not modern Somali nationalists but a diverse group scholars of scholars that reviewed the evidence and came to that conclusion. And there is enough reliable sources is listed for that on the page itself , 8 of them actually.

Lastly we should debate about removing the ethnicity slot altogether. Aside from the widely held scholarly view of him being Somali , everything else seem like fringe theories and minority opinion that differ from it.

Ragnimo ( talk) 15:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Atleast quote an author who doesnt disagree with the subject being Somali, also quote the full text; "In the standard Ethiopian historiography, Imam Ahmad is presented as a Somali. However, Arab Faqih makes it clear that he was not a Somali", this is on p.179 [25]. Taddesse Tamrat a well known Ethiopian historian states on p.120 " A number of these Somali tribes did participate later in the campaigns. But Gragn himself was not at all a Somali; and his army was multi- ethnic in composition just as the forces he had to confront in the Ethiopian interior. Besides a number of Somali tribes, the Futuh also lists several other ethnic groups contributing troops to Gragn's army, like the Harla, the Hargaya, the Šáwa, and the Gedaya." [26]. Also Merid Wolde Aregay states on p.133 "Ahmad ibn Ibrahim was born sometime in 1506 or 1507. Although there is no clear evidence to show that he was a Somali, his father seems to have been connected with the chiefs of Harla". The PDF can be accessed for free if you create an account [27] Magherbin ( talk) 23:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. After a fairly extensive series of additions I made to the Sean Duffy article were blanked by another editor, I started a discussion at Talk:Sean Duffy#Duffy's Feb 2017 CNN interview, before I knew there was a Noticeboard for NPOV. Can interested parties join that discussion? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 16:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_cities_in_Morocco&diff=1014030736&oldid=1013464104&diffmode=source

Could someone knowledgeable about the Political status of Western Sahara please have a look at the history of List of cities in Morocco? Thanks ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 13:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Please help resolve this POV dispute.

RFC HERE

-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 21:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Corporate media, oh man. If you renamed the article to "Criticism of corporate media", it'd work just fine. Every single section, from the lead to the background to I'm pretty sure even "See also", consists entirely of a long, long essay about criticism of the concept of corporate-owned media, pushing the idea that they censor and twist perspectives (while I sort of believe that, c'mon, at least make the article coherent). Most of the article is uncited. Apparently, the article was written by a student who was doing this for a mass communication course at a university or something.

A while back, I removed some wording (including one emotive line that appeared to imply corporate media was responsible for the Iraq War and thus the deaths of hundreds of thousands) and added POV and cleanup notices, but that's really all I can see myself being able to do, since I'm not an expert at this topic. Can someone help and try and reword this stuff or something? AdoTang ( talk) 14:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that article is terrible. Why not redirect this to Media ownership? Neutrality ^talk 17:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Made a merge request, not sure I formatted it right or did it right. Looking to make this a "Criticism" section under Concentration of media ownership or Media bias in the United States. Of course, if that doesn't pass, I'm going to make this a redirect and this article is going to the abyss. AdoTang ( talk) 13:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Article is gone, now redirecting to Concentration of media ownership, but why didn't you use AfD? There's no content worth keeping, and the redirect target is too narrow for "media owned by corporations". Can I bring it to RfD? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I see the article Corporate media is gone. Are we still discussing here the neutrality of Concentration of media ownership? Or is that now going to be discussed on the talk page? Cheers, Pedrote112 ( talk) 23:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

AfD thing made. AdoTang ( talk) 14:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Two editors are seeking to exclude properly sourced and relevant information from this article; I suggest that this is because of non-neutral points of view which I believe may be motivated by nationalism and/or possibly anti-homosexuality.

Background: Frédéric Chopin is an FA article, attracting about 1.2m views per year. Confession: I was one of the editors who brought it to FA and I have kept a watching brief since then. There are many reputable biographies of Chopin, and editions of his correspondence. Modern authorities on Chopin mention and have discussed a series of letters written by Chopin at the age of 19 and 20 to his friend Tytus Woyciechowski, which contain wording which can be (and has been) interpreted as expressing homosexual intent. There are no indications of homosexual activity by Chopin in later life. There is a consensus amongst modern writers on Chopin that the wording of the letters to Tytus is suggestive of homosexual yearnings on Chopin's partvat that time, but that nothing can be proved. Nonetheless, Tytus is the only one of Chopin's male correspondents whom he addresses in such language.

In November/December last year the article was the subject of a concerted attack by two or three editors to assert that Chopin was fundamentally gay. This was discussed in a detailed RfC on Chopin and Sexuality. The suggestions included a separate section on Chopin's sexuality. There was little support for the "hard" gay line, and some concern about mentioning Chopin's sexuality at all. The conclusion reached by the the closing editor was "the community fails to reach a consensus". There is concern amongst Polish nationalists at attributing any 'weakness' to figures in Polish history and this may also have been an element in some contributions.

Subsequent to the RfC, I and one or two other editors subsequently sought to tidy up the article, updating references and adding new material, outside the scope of the issues discussed in the RfC.

I did however add the following (the references are to sources listed in the article, all of whom are recognized authorities on Chopin):

Other letters from Chopin to Woyciechowski in the period 1829–30 contain erotic references to dreams and to offered kisses and embraces. Chopin's biographer Alan Walker considers that, insofar as such expressions could be perceived as homosexual in nature, they would not denote more than a passing phase in Chopin's life. ^[1]

together with a note:

Walker writes that the letters, from which he cites many excerpts, "open the door to a large topic through which more than one Chopin biographer has wandered with no satisfactory explanation of what was found on the other side." ^[2] He also cites the biographer Pierre Azoury who notes that Chopin did not use such expressions in correspondence with his other friends - "the only convincing answer is that Chopin's feelings for Tytus were different and exclusive to him." ^{[3] [4]}

Two editors have objected to this - one politely ( User:Nihil novi) by discussion on the article talk page, another ( User:Crossroads) by consistent deletion of the passage, which I reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, as a consequence of which the Chopin page is at the time of writing protected for 24 hours.

Both these editors seek to prevent any mention of Chopin's letters to Woyciechowski. In the case of User:Nihil novi the excuses are that a) the material is WP:UNDUE and b) Nihil novi's own translations/interpretations of the letter contents (which I would regard as WP:OR). I have no complaints whatever about Nihil novi's courtesy or conduct (although in this matter I profoundly disagree with him). In the case of User:Crossroads it appears to be that he cannot accept the opinions of the authorities cited, and he has taken upon himself judgemental conclusions about the RfC which were not made by the editor who closed it. He insists on the matter as WP:UNDUE and that my contribution in some way contradicts the resolution of the RfC. He also accuses me of WP:ADVOCACY.

My reasons for introducing the passage under discussion were simply that all modern authorities on Chopin discuss this issue and that it is accordingly correct to report it. Similar content has existed in the article Tytus Woyciechowski, without comment by other editors, since January of this year, contributed by a third-party editor. I have no personal view on the matter one way or the other. I have asked on the talk page for any potential citations that would counter the passage I included - none have been forthcoming. I personally believe that it is relevant to post on Wikipedia the opinions and conclusions of appropriate authorities, regardless of whether people like or don't like them. Suppression, or attempted suppression, of the opinions of recognized authorities on this (or any other matter) seems to me to be a clear case of non-neutrality - on this basis, both Nihil novi (courteously) and Crossroads (aggressively) are seeking to impose a non-neutral point of view. I believe on the other hand that the text I have supplied on this matter is WP:NPOV. I should be grateful for the opinion of this noticeboard.-- Smerus ( talk) 10:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• - Smerus, I fully support your position. Perhaps a formal Rfc is required? Johnbod ( talk) 17:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. It is my intention to introduce an RfC about this on the article talkpage - possibly following the outcome (if any) of this discussion. The previous RfC on Chopin's sexuality and accompanying discussion (which can be seen on the talkpage and archive) included a welter of irrelevancies which I believe pertain to the NNPOV attack on article content. I would hope that a future RfC could avoid these and concentrate on the issue involved.-- Smerus ( talk) 17:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Smerus' description of the situation assumes bad faith, engages in personal attacks by accusing his opponents of nationalism or anti-homosexuality, and poisons the well of discussion by doing so. He accuses me of edit warring, but it takes two to edit war, and he was the one contravening WP:ONUS (the onus is on him to get a consensus for inclusion).

Here is the relevant discussion on the talk page where the problems have been discussed: Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Woyciechowski. I noted there that his recent addition was POV compared to his own proposal from the RfC. Note how much more cautious that text is, in both describing Walker's views and in adding other relevant views: According to Niecks, Chopin had two passions: his love for Gładkowska and his friendship for Woyciechowski, while he expressed his friendship for the latter sometimes in words a lover would use towards his beloved.[18] Zamoyski considered the letter of 4 September consistent with how feelings were expressed in the Romantic era -"The spirit of the times, pervaded by the Romantic movement in art and literature, favoured extreme expression of feeling ... Whilst the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely, it is unlikely that the two were ever lovers."[19] Walker considers that the passage in the letter of 4 September 1830 is undeniably erotic, and that Chopin transferred what he was feeling for Gładkowska to Woyciechowski. Insofar as such expressions could be perceived as homosexual in nature, they would not denote more than a passing phase in Chopin's life.[20] Kallberg, writing in 1994, says that concepts of sexual practice and identity were very different in Chopin's time, so modern interpretation is problematic.[21][n 2]

In the talk page discussion, Nihil novi noted: "Smerus, you could begin by citing the above Zamoyski quotation, that Chopin's epistolary expressions of affection for Tytus Woyciechowski "carry no greater implication than 'love' concluding letters today.""

I then added: "Exactly. Replying to Smerus: The RfC was about whether there should be a separate section on sexuality. No, it is very clearly about how, if at all, such material should be included, not a mere technicality like if it should have a heading, and was spurred on by a POV pusher whom you appear to be surrendering to for no reason. It was not about censorship - removing UNDUE and POV text is not censorship. In no way does the text you have deleted (and which I have now restored) say that Chopin was bisexual - a statement that he was attracted to a male friend implies just that (since sexual orientation isn't a "phase") and is the very matter which we just overcame POV pushing about. all reputable contemporary biographers (Walker, Zamoyski, Azoury) cover this issue - all of them conclude, as does Walker, that it must remain an open question. As noted above, Zamoyski states it carries no special implication. Does Azoury say it definitely was sexual feelings and towards Woyciechowski? You may not like what the reputable authorities say, but that is tough - WP is here to report what they say....any argument that suggests, without justification, the deletion of the opinions of reputable sources, is itself a clear WP:NNPOV - not about me. What I don't like is WP:UNDUE WP:ADVOCACY material which we just got done spending tons of time overruling, but which has returned from the dead for some reason. And we do exclude sourced material if it is WP:UNDUE. If you find a reputable authority who says that there was no way that Chopin ever had any non-heterosexual impulses - you're asking me to find a source proving a negative, which is impossible. If it was due that Chopin was non-heterosexual than I am all for it. But this sort of cherry-picked source speculating this or that historical person is gay or bisexual is not encyclopedic material. I think this has ended up being an end-run around the RfC above which found no consensus for any of this 'was he sexually interested in Woyciechowski?' material. We should be respecting that and the enormous amount of time sunk into it. It should only be added if there is a clear consensus for it, per WP:ONUS, and for NPOV would need to include Zamoyski's clarification and possibly Niecks' view from your draft as well. But I prefer not to cover that question at all per the RfC finding no consensus for change; we should stick to known and due facts, not speculations."

In an earlier statement, I wrote: "Either his sexuality is ignored entirely (my preference) or it gets a balanced treatment." Note from both that and the above that I stated willingness to compromise in including the matter but insisted on NPOV in doing so.

Smerus has yet to reply to either of those comments. I think to move forward we need to two things. First, Smerus, do you agree that if this matter is covered in the article, NPOV requires that we also give balancing perspectives like Zamoyski? And second, once the proposed addition is made balanced, I guess we have to do another RfC on whether the whole speculative matter is WP:DUE for inclusion or not. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Zamoyski does not 'balance' this text. He concludes that "whilst the possiblity cannot be ruled out entirely, it is highly unlikely that thw two were ever lovers." He gives no rationale for his conclusion that it is "highly unlikely"; and indeed there is no concrete evidence one way or the other on this, as the citation from Walker makes clear. I.e. both Walker and Zamoyski discuss the texts and conclude that they could be interpreted in this way. All modern authorities conclude that this is a possiblity, and none state that is is not. Sso my prorposed text, which makes clear the ambivalence of the situation in the view of these authorities, is hardly WP:POV. Ironically, what Crossroads fails to appreciate is that the more detail and nuancing is given about this matter, the more the content would become WP:UNDUE in proportion to the article. What he does fails to explain is why he is so anxious to hide what Walker, Zamoyski and others are perfectly happy to discuss openly, and why he feels that WP users should have it hidden from them. WP is here to report what authorities have to say, not to conceal what some editors don't like in what they say. There can be no excuse for wielding WP:DUE as a pretence for censorship, and as a coverup for WP:NNPOV. -- Smerus ( talk) 09:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Zamoyski gives his rationale for that conclusion in your own text when he says the wording of that letter is consistent with the style for the Romantic period. While no author is obviously going to be definite on the matter given what little there is to work with, there is no way that excluding that view (that attraction was unlikely) is NPOV while including Walker's view (that attraction was plausible but was "a phase"). I think arguing that Walker's view alone is neutral is absurd. Your old version also includes Walker suggesting that "Chopin transferred what he was feeling for Gładkowska to Woyciechowski", which is also now absent for some reason. Regarding length of material, some could be put in a note, but what exactly to include can be discussed. Regarding the rest of your comment, where you frame this as being about "hiding", I could just as well ask why you are so eager to include such inconclusive material in an article that's short relative to a book, based on just a few pages of said book. The fact that this keeps being framed as "erasure" and "hiding", and others accused of censorship and "dontlikeit", does not assuage my concerns. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Many of the past five months' advocacies for including, in the " Chopin" article, homosexual or bisexual interpretations of Chopin's sexual orientation – nearly two centuries after his penning of a few letters containing a few passages of unclear import, sometimes mistranslated from the Polish into English – have been redolent of a poor-quality gossip column. Such speculative matter would not serve well the world's Wikipedia readers who expect solid, substantial, meaningful information on a subject – especially from a Featured Article.

Indeed, it is a question whether, for some years now, it should have been a featured article, having for example been tendentiously censored of even the mention (only belatedly restored by Smerus on 30 March 2021) of Chopin's first known love, the teen opera soprano Konstancja Gładkowska, whose singing is thought to have contributed to inspiring Chopin's invention of important musical devices in his compositions.

Similarly, if not quite as radically, downplayed (and a little less so since I myself restored previously deleted information) has been the second known love of Chopin's life, his fiancée Maria Wodzińska, the talented teen portraitist who, according to Tad Szulc, painted the best portrait we have of Chopin, besides Delacroix's portrait which Chopin hated.

In lieu of genuine, indubitable aspects of Chopin's love life, we have been offered ersatz speculations – whose own authors acknowledge to be speculations – about a few passages, in a teen's private correspondence, lacking in adequate context for establishing their import.

Nihil novi ( talk) 06:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References for discussion on Chopin (see above)

Since I've seen pretty much every discussion on these topics result in a firestorm on the person looking to change it... well, I'll go ahead anyways. Worth a shot.

The setting is Tariq Nasheed and Hidden Colors. Bread and butter small-scale article about someone the world has never heard of, and his little documentary series about African-Americans. Great! Perfect.

And it's got issues! Hidden Colors, for example, leads us to believe that "Africans were the first to circumnavigate the globe, there was "pre-European settlement in the United States", that Africans created the first Asian dynasties, and that the Vatican created Egyptology": WP:Fringe? The reviews for that page have only one negative review, and one semi-negative review. Even though, y'know, I'm almost certain black people didn't create Asian dynasties or reach the New World and not tell anyone, but whatever. I'm Asian, not black. I think.

Then you've got the page of the man himself. Brief, short, and straight to the point. You can call a black woman who dates a white woman a bed wench, according to this guy. Go ahead! Call someone that! It's very inspirational...

Then you check the talk page, and you realize you're in for some deep... er, sit.

Four deletion nominations, a wall of text of heated conversations about the guy, and a big ol' section about how our friend Tariq is actually a racist, homophobic black supremacist and conspiracy theorist! Oooh. And people are defending it, because he can't be a bad person, no? You just don't like how he, y'know, hates everyone and thinks black people can't get COVID. Nah.

With none of this info present anywhere. No, rather, the entire article is presented like the word of God! Crazy. And did I mention a self-admitted representative of Nasheed edited the article? Because he did. And it says it nowhere there.

Almost all of the talk page knows Nasheed exists knows he's a black supremacist, but every attempt to mention this is blocked because it doesn't have a source or whatever (barely anyone knows the guy exists for God's sakes, how do you expect me to find a source that isn't some random page that supports him?!). I get we can't add controversy sections to BLP, and I agree, but wow. Dude's banned from entering the UK; there's clearly something up, and it certainly ain't the Brits being mega-racist...

This page is worse than Corporate media. Just in a different way. Can we do something, or are we just gonna let the stew simmer? AdoTang ( talk) 20:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Tariq Nasheed is definitely not "someone the world has never heard of" even as someone not from America I've heard of him. He has a notable and controversial presence on Twitter. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Judging by the talk page, the problem is simply the lack of reliable sources (given this is a BLP) that discuss these facets of the person. Even if "everyone knows" he has these fringe views, if that's not reported by quality sources, our hands our tied. We can downplay any puffery that may be present to try to present that person better than they are but WP cannot introduce criticism that's already existing out there, period. -- Masem ( t) 21:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Socraticlove appears to have brought in a good amount of sources. I wasn't saying we should create things against him out of thin air, but c'mon, the articles act like this guy came from Heaven. AdoTang ( talk) 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The bulk of those sources presented fail WP:RS; the closest is the NYTimes but that would require additional interpretation to get any any of the requested claims, which we don't allow particularly on BLPs. If no RSes has validly criticized him, our hands our tied that we can't criticize him either. -- Masem ( t) 21:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources with criticism are lacking, it's a good AfD candidate (indication that BLPN is not met, or marginally)... — Paleo Neonate – 20:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I noticed over the past week there are a couple of editors in Astrazeneca article who are rather defensive of the vaccine (which is fine - debate creates better articles) but are adamant on no reference being made to AstraZeneca being the only Covid-19 vaccine which so far has been associated to Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events as is reported by the latest government and medical sources. My sourced edits have been outright deleted [28] or heavily editorialized with confusing language so as to minimize or downplay potential risks [29] with edit summaries on the lines of "it wasn't suspended it was a temporary pause(!). I have of course complained about this slant in the talk page but have been met with insults [30] (stoking anti-vax fears a euphemism for being a nutjob and threats) [31] "Tread very carefully or you will be forcibly stopped". My main complain is that we are dealing with two highly POV editors who are not being balanced about this particular vaccine and are using WP:MEDRS as a catch-all non-argument ironically for censoring statements by medical agencies. I have tried to add some balance but its still a mess. I do not want to get into an edit war since hostility is ongoing so I seek other Wikipedians to look into this and give their outside opinion. Hopefully this will help improve a very important and visible article on wikipedia which no doubt gets tens of thousands of daily views. -- Huasteca ( talk) 21:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's actually Huasteca who is pushing a POV here - they seem to want to push a claim that the AZ vaccine is "bad" because it "caused" these things, when there's no proof of this at all. I recommend a minimum of a topic ban from COVID-19 vaccines (under COVID-19 general sanctions which this user was notified of officially before, and reminded of by myself today), and I think a WP:NOTHERE block is also likely to be warranted here. This user is violating WP:SYNTH to push their point of view that the AZ vaccine is definitely the cause of these deaths, when no such thing has been suggested or proven by any reliable medical source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 21:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's see User, the sourced text which you have deleted here [32] followed by a flurry of threats [33], [34], [35] does not say AstraZeneca is bad. It does not say anything but what the sources say - that AstraZeneca vaccinations have been associated to thrombotic events and a number of deaths. Exactly 45 deaths according to the latest EMA update. A fact, which is sourced and which is rather uncontroversial and which sets AstraZeneca apart from other vaccines and explains why they are being suspended in multiple juridisctions. It was deleted as POV-pushing and I am starting to find this systematic and highly suspicious. Huasteca ( talk) 21:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Huasteca, sure, but what it implies, by using words such as "association" (without including a sentence clarifying that it hasn't been proven to be causation), and saying that it "led to a number of deaths" without clarifying that those deaths have not been proven to be caused by the vaccine, is not appropriate. You leave out all of the other information but only include the "damning information" - which is a clear case of being here not to build an encyclopedia but to "right great wrongs". You also refuse to mention that, of the jurisdictions that have suspended its use in some/all people, most have resumed use in all patients, or at least in most patients - so why do you refuse to accept this and mention it as well? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 21:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't care what the term "association" conveys to you or others emotionally. It is the term that is used by sources so we can't edit it out infantilizing wikipedia readers. The EMA also specifically use the term "safety signal" which means there is potential causation requiring fast track investigation according to the EMA's own definition. 45 deaths from cerebral thrombosis are a core component of this safety signal and, again, we can't hide this from the public out of concern that "we might scare them". Wikipedia is not censored and it certainly should not behave like government PR management. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-review-very-rare-cases-unusual-blood-clots-continues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huasteca ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

And yes, as I mentioned in the article talk page "Associated" implies correlation, not causation. So it is the correct term. I do think there is a causal link personally but we don't know that yet. We will know soon enough... Huasteca ( talk) 22:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

If I said "I'm associated with Joe Smith", would you assume that means I know him, and am connected to him in some way? Or would you assume that means that we happened to be in the same grocery store for a 5 minute period and didn't even see each other? The first is causation, the second is correlation - "association" implies more causation than correlation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Huasteca has been aggressively pushing a scaremongering, anti-vax POV by misrepresenting sources, in about the worst possible way for the topic in question given the state of the news. Since COVID-19 topics are subject to GS, and Huasteca is aware of these, I think some admin action to remove them from the topic would be to the Project's benefit. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• By fortuitous coincidence, I am an admin, and I also happen to be the creator of the COVID-19 vaccine article (and a handful of other vaccine-related articles), so I know enough about the subject matter to know that Huasteca is pressing a viewpoint that lacks scientific support for causation. The UK's medical regulatory agency (which should count for WP:MEDRS) basically says all that can be said – review is ongoing (i.e., conclusions have not been reached) and the risk is extraordinarily low. BD2412 T 06:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No offense T, but you may have misinterpreted my position here. Although I do personally believe there is a causal relationship, my position is that the article reflect that Astrazeneca has been associated to post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events which have led to 45 deaths so far and that the possible causation is currently being investigated by national and European medical agencies in the context of a safety signal. It should also reflect that a warning has been included in the product information mandated in both Canada and the EU for this rare type of blood clot. Nothing in the UK government's announcement you link to contradicts this fact. Huasteca ( talk) 22:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Also T FYI [36]-- Huasteca ( talk) 22:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If you were to ask a random selection of 20 million seniors to read the Wikipedia article on hedgehogs, and then follow up on their health a few weeks later, you would inevitably find that some number of them have died, and that some commonality could be parsed out of their deaths. In fact, if you were to point out some factor in the cause of death for one, others might be discovered to have had that factor who might have been overlooked if attention had not been brought to the first case. BD2412 T 22:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That may be your opinion T and is worthy of respect and consideration but it is not really aligned to reliable sources on the matter. The EMA will confirm a causal link between Astrazeneca and heightened thrombosis risk in the coming hours. https://today.rtl.lu/news/world/a/1701034.html Huasteca ( talk) 10:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Huasteca, actually, apparently not - [37] - it's been stated by the EMA that this was one person voicing their opinion. Historically, people who reveal things early like this are attempting to do one of two things - gain notoriety by doing so (which puts into question whether they were correct in the first place), or to sow doubt in an impending opposite ruling by the authority by coming out before it's even made and saying that they disagree. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez Are you honestly arguing that the head of the EMA's safety committee who has all the data at hand is trying to gain notoriety? He is leading the investigation, knows the results and has jumped the gun in a politically sensitive issue which has to be treated delicately. I wonder what is behind your frantic attempts to eliminate all reference to this issue. Its starting to smell of paid work and/or WP:CONFLICT. In any case, this can only go on for so long. Its all falling apart now isn't it? Huasteca ( talk) 21:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No, he is one member of the group conducting the investigation. His status as the "leader" of the group is a managerial position, not a "I'm the smartest and get to decide the results". You said it yourself - he jumped the gun and there's no official statement yet. If you continue to cast aspersions towards myself or others who are attempting to enforce Wikipedia policy, I'll request you be blocked. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 21:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also remind Huasteca that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. You say that the EMA "will confirm a causal link"; if so, then when this link is confirmed that confirmation can be reported as encyclopedic information. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia for long-term usage, not a project to stir immediate concerns based on speculations regarding current events. BD2412 T 04:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• The OP regards what they call "British government" medical sources as unreliable though. [38] Note in that diff they also falsely say "We now know the mechanism whereby this thrombosis occurs with Astrazeneca". This almost looks to me like a deliberate misinformation-spreading account. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  The "falsehood" I was spreading was referring to something which is not a falsehood - namely this [39] and this [40]. We do know that cerebral vein thromboses are ocurring more frequently in AZ vaccinated populations and that the mechanism involved is antibodies binding to platelets following vaccination.-- Huasteca ( talk) 22:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ Huasteca: Less than 24 hours ago you started a section at article talk. That's good although an aggressive heading ("Continued POV pushing") is not suitable. At any rate, your statement included "There is no longer any doubt on the causal link between Astrazeneca and the clots". Do you still believe that? I ask because your comments there a few hours later are quite different. Again, that is not a suitable approach for a topic like this—more care is needed in what is written, particularly when following an aggressive heading. What is your current proposal? What is your response to the "We now know the mechanism..." comment just above mine? Johnuniq ( talk) 07:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Alexbrn Look, scrutinizing my statements is not conducive to anything. Its about the article not about me and I honestly don't care that much. I just want more wikipedians to have a look at this article and ensure it is balanced and does not conceal basic information about AZ and its relation to Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events. It currently doesn't even link to this article, let alone mention any deaths. As long as the bias doesn't jump at your face with a cursory glance, I'm happy. Huasteca ( talk) 18:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ok... other editors have been notified of your concerns. That is the most you can do. Suggest you take a break and wait to see what happens next. Blueboar ( talk) 19:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  In fact Huasteca this is about you. About your asserting demonstrably untrue things both on the article's Talk page, and in article space, on a topic for which General Sanctions apply. Whether it's malice of incompetence, it's a problem with your editing and, one way or another, it's got to stop. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  Good, Blueboar, that was pretty much my only objective. I'm wondering, do you find Alexbrn's tone and attitude here acceptable? I personally find this level of hostility and personal attacks surprising. Perhaps someone could guide this particular editor on the principles of Wikipedia etiquette? For me, this is an additional red flag that the article needs to come under wider and more serious scrutiny from the Wikipedia community. As suggested, I'll be observing how things develop at a distance. Huasteca ( talk) 21:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think you both need to take a break. You are obviously at the point where neither is listening to the other. You are both trying to WIN and letting your disagreement become personal, and that is never constructive. Blueboar ( talk) 21:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I would note at this point that the proposed connection between the vaccine and the blood clot reaction has been more fully vetted. This does not mean that the push to include it in articles prior to this development was proper or justified. Quite the opposite, it means, in fact, that our system works. Wait patiently for appropriate sources to reflect developments, and if the suspicions at issue are determined to be valid, those sources will come about quickly. BD2412 T 03:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite right: Wikipedia follows, and does not lead. Is it likely we're going to see this pattern repeated with the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine I wonder? Alexbrn ( talk) 03:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

More fully vetted, yes, but there are still editors trying to overstate the connection - every agency has still made clear that a link hasn't been proven to be connected to the vaccine yet, and that the developments so far are out of an abundance of caution. In fact, recent developments suggest that it may be not due to the vaccine per se but related to accidental injection into the bloodstream (as evidenced by at least one organization recommending aspiration, which has long been disused in vaccination as unnecessary). I agree that it means the system works - but people who violated (and continue to violate) the system should be considered for topic bans still per COVID general sanctions as this will repeat itself if/when more "extremely rare potential side effects" are discovered. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 04:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Voluntary Agency Network of Korea, also known as VANK, is a private organization in South Korea that is interested and involved in national disputes of South Korea against other countries, such as China and Japan, over Goguryeo controversies, Comfort women etc. This nationalistic organization is controversial in both China, Japan, and even South Korea.

I am currently active in a dispute against User:Daiichi1, who is trying to delete the content about the organization's counter move against the cyber-bullying of Chinese Internet warriors against a Korean celebrity. Since it is the only China-related activity present on the Wikipedia article, I believe that deleting the content damages the neutrality of the article and potentially mislead readers that the organization is only interested in Japan-related issues since the other activities that the article presents is only about Japan-related activity of the organization. User:Daiichi1 refuted that the deletion of the content does not damage the neutrality per WP:NPOV, and the Wikipedia editor wants to push deletion because the issue is 'trivial' in his/her criteria. I want to hear the opinions of other Wikipedians regarding this dispute. Npovobsessed ( talk) 00:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Particularly under the "sensitivity" heading. Too many citations from same source. Highly selective and not representing the whole picture. Biased. The section seems to be making a point rather than reporting science. I have made a number of suggestions which are declined for spurious reasons - 'too old' - I believe the tag 'this page has multiple issues' should be applied. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 19:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The article needs to be updated with pmid:32994555, as is being discussed on its Talk page. I'm unsure what "spurious reasons" the OP is referring to. WP:MEDDATE is a thing. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to your reluctance to use relevant material because it was eight years old. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 17:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Being out-of-date was but one problem with some of the sources you proposed. For its biomedical content, Wikipedia must accurately reflect current knowledge – and one of the sources you proposed was a systemic review published this year, an excellent source! We should use that to update the article. I'm not really seeing what the problem is. Neutral content is that which reflects reliable sources. We have an excellent source proposed by you. So ... Alexbrn ( talk) 17:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple issues on this page. The text selected simply proves the point you wish to make. There is debate is all I think needs to be shown. Let us proceed one step at a time. Please change the heading for 'Sensitivity' to "The Question of Sensitivity' A further citation that the debate has not concluded is current NHS advice "Other possible complications of circumcision may include: Permanent reduction in sensation.." I have edited to include this. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-men/ I apologise that this is in the context of circumcision - it's part of the debate. The science to date on this subject is ongoing and not a you say 'over years ago'. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 19:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is for the Kaworu Nagisa article. The other editor that has been updating the Neon Genesis Evangelion articles, as a new film has recently been released, but he is much more adamant about some of the stuff here than he was in the other articles and though his work is generally good it did need adjustments before. I already made hundreds of edits to his previous rewrites. I think he doesn't realize he's not close enough to NPOV - he used a lot of inaccurate translations and was way too selective in his representation of facts, lots of undue weight, non-neutral language, blatant mistranslations, etc. I presented some 10+ new sources that were necessary to improve things and had to rewrite about a third of the article. He agreed to that initially but after a while just started to stonewall me. He has accused me of vandalism and now refuses to reply to my arguments, accusing me of sophistry. It bugs me because I don't want to discourage him. I'm looking to get more opinions. This is the gist of it:

• I wanted to replace the detailed descriptions of individual scenes of the discarded drafts made indepedently by one writer, much beyond the creator's orientation, and instead mention scenes that got reused in later works.
• Removoing fan speculation, identified as such, that the character was based on a non-staffer. This is point blank denied by the creator and character designer and not even alluded to in more than one interview that deal with his design. There is one interview with this non-staffer where he acts dismissive of those rumours and just says he thought one scene was similar. I think it's not necessary to include disproven rumours, just like a...
• Joke made by an interviewer when talking to the assistant director, that portrayed as being made by the director himself, ignoring he is poking fun at the fans - he does the same with Rei in that same page. It's not included in her page nor should it be here.

• Repeated quote by that same non-staffer (source used thrice) that is just praising him instead of commenting on reception - I didn't look for an alternative yet.
• Balancing of reception by sensationalist outlets that largely went after clicks during a fan controversy in 2019. Very silly and out context receptions by people clearly unfamiliar with the material or cultural context. FelipeFritschF ( talk) 04:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Every year, hundreds of people are nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize because thousands of people have the right to nominate anyone they want (Hitler was nominated for one in 1939). Often the media cover these nominations, in particular the controversial ones. Should Wikipedia articles cover these nominations, which misleadingly confer clout and false praise upon the nominees? I keep seeing this in articles and it strikes me as a form of puffery which shouldn't be in WP articles. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

18 Republican lawmakers nominate President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize Heh! Nominations by interested parties aren't worth a whole lot. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is indeed puffery and should probably be excluded under WP:NOTNEWS. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 14:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

NOt really, being awarded one yes, being nominated no. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think it could be mentioned, but only if it was clear who did the nominating, and if there was more than routine coverage surrounding it. There's a world of difference between "President Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize" and "18 Republican lawmakers nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize." Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)0
• Generally noteworthy and worthy of inclusion. As Mackensen says, attribution to the nominator is a necessity. Cambial foliage❧ 14:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Cambial Yellowing, it's worth noting that the nominators are kept secret until 50 years later (unless they reveal themselves)... Aza24 ( talk) 16:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Not appropriate for inclusion; we're not talking the short list of final contenders here. Its like for Oscars: we know hundreds of films are sent in for consideration, and some of that may even be well-documented, but it is only the 5-10 films announced in each category - those selected by the larger jury prior to voting - that matter. Basically, its like a lack of "peer-review" for these Nobel Prize nominations - the peer-review only becoming the shortlists that are revealed 50+ years after the award per Aza24. -- Masem ( t) 16:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• It's a POV problem because of how it can be misinterpreted. People probably do see being nominated for a Nobel as akin to being a finalist for an Oscar. It should not be included on any page, unless they win the Nobel. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's likely because there's a fallacy or misunderstanding that "nominated for Nobel" is not the same step of the award consideration process as "nominated for Oscar". Technically, all those "nominated for Nobels" should be "submitted for consideration for Nobels", and in that frame, it is definitely inappropriate since anyone can do that, but obviously some groups or people that do that submission or who are the person that is getting the consideration think it is a big deal. We know much better and can reject those arguments. -- Masem ( t) 16:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It's not the case that anyone can make a nomination. Only individuals in certain recognised professions. Cambial foliage❧ 18:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Still broad and open enough of who can make the "nomination" as make trivial (eg Trump being named by GOP congresspeople shows the lunacy of the process). There's no checks and balance at the Nobel side at that point. We only care about what the Nobel committee shortlists and names as the winner at the end of the day. -- Masem ( t) 04:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • The categories are certainly extensive: university professors/associate professors in several fields; members of legislatures; nobel laureates (or board members); members of the ICJ, PCA and Institut de Droit International — but this is hardly sufficiently to be considered "open". The idea that the length of the list automatically renders nominations trivial does not really hold water. The Trump nomination is a perfect example of notability, even if in that case it serves only to illustrate the absurd tactics employed by Republican members of the US congress. Stupid ≠ trivial. Cambial foliage❧ 14:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would say it's not automatically noteworthy but that it depends on the degree of coverage - especially whether it's WP:SUSTAINED and how it compares to the prominence of the individual in question. Whether it directly relates to their existing points of notability also matters. For example, the standard to mention President Trump being nominated is higher (given how much coverage he gets for anything related to him), compared to eg. a botanist getting nominated for their work, where that might be one of the most heavily-covered aspects of their biography in the sources. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • But even in the case of Trump, that's not really a "nomination", that a submission to be considered for nomination. Trump and the GOP may make a big deal, and because of how the US media works, that gets echoed there, but its definitely a RECENTISM/NOT#NEWS issue that we don't have to repeat on WP especially knowing how the Nobels work. If it were truly the case that Nobels gave a shortlist of nominees prior to naming their prize winner, and Trump was on that, absolutely we should include that, but this is just effectively self-serving, echoed by the media, and a systematic bias we can rightfully ignore. -- Masem ( t) 17:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• There should be no blanket treatment of this. We should not post contextless statements to the effect of "so-and-so was nominated for a Nobel Prize", however, we should also NOT erase every such mention from all Wikipedia articles. Instead, we should consider each such event in context, and make an individual decision on each individual article how, and in what context, and with what wording, such nominations should be covered (if at all). This is way too variable a situation to make overall pronouncements of "how we should do things". How we should do things is consider each article and situation in its own context, and arrive at a decision that is best for that one article, without extending that discussion or decision into other unrelated articles where it may or may not be appropriate for any number of reasons. -- Jayron 32 17:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with above comments suggesting it should be generally advised against. It's trivia at best, misleading at worst. Potentially some particular instances might be noteworthy, but are probably unusual enough to leave as exceptions/IAR to a guideline. CMD ( talk) 17:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• If someone was in the top contention for the prize and was actually seriously debated by the Nobel committee, then maybe, if it's just a random nomination that wasn't under serious consideration then probably not. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Question: Is being nominated for a Nobel other than the Peace Prize (say for Physics or Literature) something that is more selective (and thus, potentially more noteworthy)? Blueboar ( talk) 19:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• This lists who can nominate someone. It's a bit more selective, but some of the categories are slightly arbitrary, so I would say it varies but isn't automatically noteworthy by default - it looks like it still only requires one person to back them, so I could easily see eg. a tenured professor in the physical sciences but in a totally different field nominating someone with extremely WP:FRINGE views to make a point, which we wouldn't want to cover uncritically. People familiar with the issues we ran into in the past in articles on evolution, young-earth creationism, and climate science will know how that sort of thing works. The world is big enough that if only 0.01% of academics support something that's still going to be enough to nominate someone utterly unqualified in an effort to push patiently fringe theories if they want. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• In general, it's puffery, of zero importance. I can't really think of an instance where "nominated for a Nobel Prize" is of more importance than "ran for middle school class president". Except perhaps in the context, "He often bragged about being nominated for a Nobel Prize." --jpgordon ^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• The key here is WP:DUE. If the nomination receives significant coverage in reliable sources, then it is due even if the person isn't ever in serious contention. If it does not, then it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia articles, regardless of if it's true or not. This has nothing to do with NPOV - this is a WP:DUE question at its core and needs to be framed as such. It is not puffery to report on nominations for awards that are due weight, nor is it "point of view" to exclude nominations that are ignored in reliable sources. For those that are borderline, or those that reliable sources rebut, it should be acceptable to include a qualifier that it was a "nomination that was not seriously considered" or similar - but beyond that, WP:DUE guides the inclusion of these awards. NPOV is an editorial decision - DUE is not - and this is a DUE issue, meaning editors opinions are less important than that of reliable sources providing coverage to this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 22:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Being nominated for a Nobel prize is never WP:DUE in a biographical article. It's trivial (as hundreds of people get nominations every year, often for political reasons), and mainly used as part of POV-pushing to make the person who received it look good. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would think that it would be reasonable to include this in a separate article (if one already exists) listing awards and honors for an individual. For example, some pop stars and similar entertainers engage in a great deal of humanitarian work, and if they have a page listing both their awards from the entertainment world and those received due to humanitarian work, a sourced Nobel Peace Prize nomination identifying the nominator should be includable on such a list. BD2412 T 04:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, once the fact of their nomination has been made public by the Nobel Committee, per WP:V. This happens after fifty years has elapsed, which should be enough time to dissuade its use for mere puffery. Anyone can claim to have been nominated (and almost anyone to have nominated someone else), so unverifiable claims like that should be ignored unless the claims themselves are notable. Daveosaurus ( talk) 07:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Like any other fact it should be based on WEIGHT in context of the article in question. We should not have a blanket designation that it is or is not. Springee ( talk) 15:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Snopes: [41] the bar for being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is lower than many American voters might imagine, and the list of nominees is typically neither a short nor exclusive one. It has in the past even contained the names of some of the most reviled and controversial figures in 20th century history ... Joseph Stalin ... Benito Mussolini ... Josip Broz ... Rafael Trujillo ... The total number of individuals eligible to nominate someone else for the Nobel Peace Prize is therefore likely to be greater than half a million, though this is only a rough estimate ...

In 2019, Olav Njolstad, secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, summed up the dynamics of the nomination process, telling the AFP news agency: “There are so many people who have the right to nominate a candidate that it’s not very complicated to be nominated.” Geir Lundestad, Njolstad’s predecessor on the committee, added: “It’s pretty easy to be nominated. It’s much harder to win.”

Per above, in general we should not be accepting Nobel Peace Prize nominations as notable. Even the Peace Prize committee members acknowledge that it is relatively easy to be nominated. starship .paint ( exalt) 01:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Specific example: Jared Kushner

The specific case that motivated the request for clarification on the matter is the recent edit-warring on the Jared Kushner where editors such User:Davefelmer, User:Springee, User:Malerooster and User:Mr Ernie insist not only that (i) Nobel Peace Prize nominations belong in the body [42] but also seek to obscure that Kusher was (ii) nominated by Alan Dershowitz [43] and (iii) that Dershowitz is himself prominently involved with the Trump administration (Trump's attorney in his impeachment trials). [44] Nobel Peace Prize nominations have bugged me for a long time though (see my complaints on the BLM page a few weeks ago [45]) so I'm glad to see that many editors agree with me in the abstract that these nominations are tosh of no encyclopedic value. My principled position is that nominations do not belong at all. If the community does decide they do belong in articles, then at the very least, any conflicts of interests between the nominator and nominee should be clarified (just as the media often does with controversial nominations [46]). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Dershowitz has been a high profile and vocal advocate for Isreal for most of his career. Check out his books The Case for Israel and The Case for Peace. It is weird to sneak a note in about the Trump impeachment when Dershowitz is far more notable for his advocacy Isreal, which is what Kushner's nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize was about. Please don't state that I'm obscuring anything, as I have no opinion on your (i) or (ii). Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue that Snoosanssoogans is bringing up, and the general problem with recognizing these Nobel Peace Prize nominations, is the possible conflict of interest here - Kushner and Dershowitz are strongly connected through Trump, and while Dershowitz's nomination of Kushner may have been made honestly without that considering, it, like most other of these nominations, still have the air of being a result of favoritism or conflicts of interest. Add that "hundreds" of these nominations are made each year (per Nobel's site), and basically its not really a distinguishing factor (unlike being on the shortlist or actually awarded the prize, where the conflict of interest is eliminated) that we should focus on. -- Masem ( t) 15:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

To add, this is basically the same logic around why we ditched porn star notability; the bulk of those were based on industry awards but it was found there was too much inside basis for those that made them effectively non-independent types of awards. Same factors around the problems of covering cryptocurrency today. -- Masem ( t) 15:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This nomination was mentioned by a RS and in the Wiki article it was in context of Kushner's involvement with the Abraham Accords. It was not a stand alone fact added randomly into the article. Snoogans' claim that Dershowitz was involved with the Trump administration is misleading. Dershowitz did defend Trump during his first impeachment but I don't believed he represented Trump outside of that and in that case it was because he felt the legal grounds for the impeachment were wrong. Dershoitz has also worked with other presidents and has defended a very large range of people. Certainly he was well known as a legal scholar and for his legal views long before Trump was in office. Springee ( talk) 15:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I reverted this material once because it looked like there was a dispute and I started a talk page discussion. I commented that it possibly belonged, but without the extra "commentary". That's all. Whatever the consensus is, in or out, is fine with me. -- Malerooster ( talk) 16:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Because the fact of having been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is in itself completely non-notable for reasons stated above, it doesn't matter at all who made the completely non-notable nomination. --jpgordon ^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Should be excluded from the Kushner article, per discussion in the #"Person_X_was_nominated_for_a_Nobel_Peace_Prize" section. Trivial / puffery from a PR effort. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Include in fifty years' time, once the fact of the nomination can be verified (or otherwise). Daveosaurus ( talk) 05:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Starship.paint removed the content from the article. I disagree with the removal as I think in context the nomination, reported by a RS, is DUE. A lot of the above discussion is if a nomination is automatically DUE. Those who say "no" are correct in my view but I think most editors also agree that local consensus on specific examples takes precedent over general views/dispositions. Also, when presented as a random factoid I think the removal case is much stronger. When presented in full context, as was the case at the article, this makes a lot more sense to include. Also, Kushner's nomination has received quite a bit of press coverage [ [47]][ [48]][ [49]][ [50]][ [51]][ [52]][ [53]][ [54]] (some of these are opeds saying Kushner should/shouldn't). Give the RS coverage and it was in the article in context, not as a stand alone factoid, I think it is DUE. Springee ( talk) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I cannot read the entire NYTimes article you included there [55] but by its headline alone "Nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize? Wait Until You Receive It to Brag" (in addition to what I can see before the ad-cutoff), that article supports the very principle that Nobel "nominations" that aren't from the shortlist of the award are bits of puffery. I can agree that there may be context for when the nomination may be mentioned, but it should be more than just one line as at Kushner's page. If the peace deal made by Kushner and the three others was considered significant by politicians and other analysts (I'd assume it was), a paragraph to talk about how the deal was praised would be reasonable, and ending that "Dershowitz nominated Kushner for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the peace deal." would make a lot more sense with that context. But as it stands as a single line alone, it looks like the type of context-less puffery that the NYTimes article is warning about and that the above discussion raises concern. -- Masem ( t) 16:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @ Masem: [56] starship .paint ( exalt) 01:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I usually stay well clear of AP but Messrs Trump, Pompeo and Kushner have all been milking these normalization agreements (they are not really peace agreements) for all they are worth. The Nobel stuff is all to do with that I expect and the fact that Kushner is going to write a book about it all has nothing whatever to do with it. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

WaPo - [57] - [Kushner] almost certainly won’t win it ... while a Nobel Peace Prize nomination is a bit trickier than simply sending a guy in Norway a postcard with someone’s name on it, it’s not much trickier than that. A nomination is, in essence, as serious as the person doing the submitting — who is a member of a not particularly rarefied group of people .... numbering no more than in the hundreds of thousands

CNN - [58] Being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is a LOT different than actually winning it. Mostly because a whole lot of people can nominate you to be in the running ... Save your outrage until Kushner or Abrams actually wins. Which is very unlikely.

Guardian - [59] The bar for nominations is low, as they are are accepted from thousands of people, from members of parliament to former winners and heads of state.

NYT - [60] Unlike major Hollywood awards shows, where it really is an honor just to be nominated, the Nobel Peace Prize accepts submissions from a potential pool of thousands of nominators

Reliable sources above (all of which mention Kushner's nomination) do not value a nomination. Neither should we. starship .paint ( exalt) 01:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you tell me where that is part of DUE? If they are discussing it then why wouldn't we? Springee ( talk) 03:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

They're discussing that in the context that it isn't a huge honor to be nominated. That's exactly why we wouldn't include it. starship .paint ( exalt) 07:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hundreds of instances of "nominated for Nobel Peace Prize"

Per Google, there are 263 results for Wikipedia pages that say "nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize" [61] and more than a thousand that say "nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize" [62]. This seems highly problematic Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

From one of those hits I see there's a page that you can search all the nominees [63], which reports over 18,000 "nominees" (those submitted to the committee) up through 1966; expect the total number today to be close to double that given time frames. And there are only 962 total Laureates. Hence more evidence that "nominated for a Nobel X Prize" is mostly puffery, its only if they get on the shortlist or actually win that we should document. (I can't see to find an easy way to find their shortlists though). -- Masem ( t) 14:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the identity of the nominator, when disclosed, may also matter. Although the pool is broad, there are certainly more and less consequential possible nominators. BD2412 T 15:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Too open to subjectivity. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

If multiple secondary sources explain that after nominee X did such-and-such a thing (that is discussed at length in their article) that led to nominator Y (who should be a significant person involved/tied to the actions that were taken) to nominate X for the award, so that the nomination is not without context, that might be something to include, as I was suggesting for Kushner above if more was added. But if we just said Y nominated X for the prize, that's absolutely puffery with no context for inclusion and should be removed. -- Masem ( t) 16:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

These inquiries may well be subjective. If, for example, a figure of relatively minor notability is nominated, that nomination may itself constitute an item of greater significance to their biography. An example, I think, would be celebrity chef José Andrés, whose article notes his 2018 nomination, which was itself covered in an Esquire magazine piece. Elements of that nomination that I think make it suitable for mention in that article are the media coverage, and the fact that it came in the wake of the subject actually receiving several humanitarian awards. BD2412 T 16:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Congressman John Delaney of Maryland nominated Andrés for a Nobel Peace Prize - while Delaney was a candidate for president of the United States. I think a publicity scheme (this time on the part of the nominator) was the reason for the nomination being publicized and there's no need to mention it (though the article might be a source for other information about Andrés). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Like anything else, inclusion depends on the extent of coverage relative to the overall coverage of the person. TFD ( talk) 15:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute on Radio Free Asia (RFA) about whether to describe the network as "propaganda" in the opening sentence ( eg). This has been discussed at Talk:Radio Free Asia#Recent back and forth editing.

Specifically, the word "propaganda" is being supported through the citing of this 1953 CIA document and this 2000 Senate Subcommittee hearing. Neither of these sources apparently actually describes the network as propaganda, but it is argued that based on those sources RFA " bears all the hallmarks of a propaganda outlet regardless if the issues it does report on are factually reported correctly". One of my objections is that, per WP:DUE, the lead should describe the network in line with how reliable sources describe it (eg. BBC). This was rejected, under the argument that " There is no precedent for using journalistic phrasing as-is to fill for Wikipedia lead descriptors nor is it regular that any label must be expressis verbis repeated in multiple journalistic sources to be used". Another objection I made was that describing it as propaganda was not only using primary sources but interpreting them, which should not be done per WP:PRIMARY. This was rejected, with the argument " it is not interpretation to use words that describe at short what is described at length in a primary source", supported by an analogy to a imaginary terrorism incident that was not reported as such. It was also separately asserted that " the word propaganda is not considered a Value-laden label", which seems dubious to me, as it seems a clear example of WP:WTW.

Given that this goes beyond content into questions of policy and guidelines, and discussion has come to an impasse, it would be useful to have further community input into the matter. Thanks, CMD ( talk) 09:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the specific word "propaganda" specifically is used in reference to RFA's 1950s iteration in the CIA document you have provided ("The programs [broadcast by the CFA] are principally anti-Communist propaganda" to quote; where the CFA is the handler agency of RFA as stated in the same source). I believe the other editor involved was invoking this as a historical precedent in the case. Specifically the argumentation used by myself wrt. your WP:NOR claim is that examining the material background of a phenomenon to then ascribe a term to it does not constitute original research as this interpretation causes, for example, the use of exact synonyms to terms used by journalistic sources to be considered OR whereas one would consider this a natural feature of language itself - there is no attempt to construct a new thesis or narrative based on the sources. As for the value-laden label claim - propaganda is certainly not a term exclusively associated with what we would now refer to as "disinformation" or even "fake news" - see citation for (specifically RFA) example. ^[1] As an aside, why NPOV noticeboard? NPOV was never brought up in the course of the discussion, only an IP editor mentioned it in one of the edits in the last week. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 10:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I put it on this board because of WP:DUE, although it wasn't a strong preference. CMD ( talk) 13:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunkdavis here; "propaganda" is a loaded term and it brings to mind doubts in journalistic reliability. If there are sources that call RFA propaganda (and it looks like, per WP:RSN, that there is a community consensus that RFA isn't of poor journalistic quality), then we would need to explicitly cite them. I don't really think there's a way around the egregious WP:NPOV issue that calling a news agency "propaganda" would create. You'd think if it were legitimately a propaganda station, then the New York Times would [call it that, rather than a " news service", for example. The most neutral descriptor seems to be "news service" or "news agency" with some mention of both its US funding and its editorial independence as a broadcaster. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I see that instead of responding to me addressing this point (yet again) in the article talk page you take this here instead, restating what was already refuted therein. As discussion continues unabated on the article talk page I see no reason to use this noticeboard as of now - it only introduces chaos. EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 22:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This would violate WP:NPOV, and there are no reliable sources that call it such. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 01:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and it is WP:OR too. It clearly violates the principles at MOS:WTW. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It is quite obvious to me that both of you have not read the relevant talk page as this is being addressed there. I would suggest that this noticeboard entry ceases activity for the time being and that discussion instead moves over to the article talk page, as I see no point duplicating information that I have already provided there, and that clearly discussion there has not come to a standstill. I welcome you to contribute there, with reasoning behind your assertions. EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 10:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Could you please describe which part of the proposed edit corresponds to your "original research" accusation and how did you come to the conclusion? I am afraid I can not see it. Furthermore, as many people have said both here and on the talk page, propaganda is not a value-laden label, evidenced by many literary works using the word without any problem. Or do you argue that academic research is now compromised by "contentious labels"? As of now, the word "propaganda" is used in 33 840 articles on the English wikipedia, does not seem to me like the majority of the editors see this issue in the same light as you two do. Concluding, I would like to ask that Oranjelo100 familiarize themselves with the issue before parroting things that have already been said before and debunked. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 10:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

With regards to it violating principles at MOS:WTW, how so, exactly? The word 'propaganda' was only added under the contentious labels category after this discussion had already began (and is currently removed as there was no discussion pertaining to its addition). It's used in many other articles without contention, as the above user has noted. OED, Cambridge & Merriam-Webster don't consider it to be an inherently loaded word (I understand dictionaries are not always favoured as sources on Wikipedia but given this is about the meaning of a word I don't see my using them in this instance as a cardinal sin). ToeSchmoker ( talk) 13:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

To point to an earlier discussion I raised on the WTW talk page, there are some terms like "propaganda", "conspiracy theorist", "philanthropist" and so on that aren't necessarily value-laden labels, though represent characterizations based on behavior rather than objective descriptions, and have potential for misuse. They aren't improper terms when they are clearly used regularly in the reliable sourcing, but they should not be terms introduced into articles by editors when no other sources use it, or when the sourcing to support those terms are weak (one or two sources, or weak or non-reliable RSes); we should also consider RECENTISM factors that may cause these terms to be thrown out in the short term but don't stick in the long term. (eg: Fox News is frequently compared to propaganda in how it handles some stories but the term doesn't stick). -- Masem ( t) 13:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I have a few questions however. You said that there are some terms like "propaganda", "conspiracy theorist", "philanthropist" and so on that aren't necessarily value-laden labels, though represent characterizations based on behavior rather than objective descriptions, and have potential for misuse. which I am not really sure I understand, specifically the represent characterizations based on behavior rather than objective descriptions isn't the behavior of an organization more descriptive than its "objective description"? As for the sourcing issue you mentioned, I cited literary sources, articles and primary sources both on the talk page and my on article edits, you can find some of them on the Talk page of RFA and in my past edits. Also, no offense, but I feel that comparing Fox News' situation of being sensationally called propaganda outlet to an organization with US-government funding is a bit absurd. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 16:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether the characterization of an organization is more notable than its more objective definition is something to review under UNDUE or other factors. But from a neutrality standpoint, anytime we get into judgement of a entity, we should start being careful about how to word that in Wikivoice, and unless it is strongly established by a wealth of sources over time, the term should still be used with attribution if its coming from RSes, and avoid it if its not being used by RSes. And from the RFA talk page, I'm seeing the issue of original research and synthesis coming up that I alluded to in these terms; just being backed by a state government does not equate to being "propaganda" unless you clearly have the proper sourcing that explicit speaks to "propaganda", though there certainly are numerous examples of this in the past (eg like RT.com) -- Masem ( t) 16:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The crux of your argument lies on the presumption that "propaganda" cannot at any point be an objective descriptor rather than subjective characterization - I think this in a way contradicts what you said yourself regarding "propaganda" not being loaded/value-laden, because if it isn't an objective term then its subjectivity must lie in some sort of judgement that the speaker exerts onto the subject being discussed. I have always stated, from the beginning of this discussion, that the term "propaganda" - as described in many dictionaries, as described on this very Wiki itself, in fact - does not imply journalistic ineptitude, disinformation, or any kind of failing on RFA's part - while I have my disagreements with some of RFA's reporting practices this is absolutely not an expression of them and I am seeking to represent truth as much as any other editor involved here. Many sources have been brought up here re. RFA's "editorial independence" or quality of their reporting or about how they are a "news agency", "uncensored" etc. - apparently to contradict what I and other editors are putting forward. I repeatedly insisted, and still insist, that the term being suggested is not in contradiction with any of those terms - they are all simultaneously true and the concurrent truthfulness of the other labels has not been in any meaningful way disputed by myself and (I'd like to believe) the other editors standing besides me in this dispute. The term has an objective meaning, which can be ascribed by examining RFA itself. Coming back to the very start of this conversation, the SYNTH allegations I find somewhat misdirected as at no point are we creating a new thesis or narrative using the primary sources we provided - examining a longer bloc of text regarding the issue at hand and ascribing a single word to the nature of the issue described - a word that does not occur within the text itself yet reflects its meaning accurately - is a form of summery, not recontextualization. As for sources, they surely exist, both in journalistic ^{[1] [2] [3]} and academic ^{[4] [5]} contexts. EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 18:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

These terms like "propaganda" do have objective definitions compared to value-laden labels, but at what point does bias and favortism in writing become propaganda is still a subjective line (in the same way as when does donating to charity become philanthropy?), and hence why we want to see RSes using those terms before we adopt them. -- Masem ( t) 19:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

To respond to the media source, the RSP entry for Salon notes that there is no consensus to its reliability (and the piece itself is actually a republication of FAIR). People's world is an advocacy publication closely affiliated with the Communist Party of the United States that does not appear to have a retraction policy or a reputation for accurate reporting. And, while there was concern for a brief time under the Trump administration that he would attempt to turn VOA, etc. into propaganda outlets, the administration failed to do so (see the [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_333#RfC%3A_Radio_Free_Asia_(RFA) RfC] on Radio Free Asia's reliability for use in articles for more details on that). In any case, I find that it's odd for us to say that RFA is propaganda when reliable sources describe it as a news group and praise the quality of their detailed reporting so often, never mentioning the "propaganda" label. The label should be applied to the source in the article only when there are a good number of reliable sources that are actually applying the label; especially in the face of so many reliable sources describing them as a "news" and not "propaganda" the mention of it as "propaganda" seems WP:UNDUE.— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Round and round it goes. I never precluded attribution and insisted on Wikivoice - the claim may be attributed and it perhaps should be, but - yet again, perhaps with emphasis: the quality of the source, the quality of the journalistic work, its status as a news group: none of those things preclude the proposed label as has been explained, multiple times, within the scope of both this discussion as well as the talk page. Please internalize this argument or contend with it, either way as of now you are orbiting the discourse instead of engaging with it. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 12:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

All those factors pretty much apply in evaluating whether one or two sources are sufficient to introduce the word within the scope of UNDUE or FRINGE. If the only sources supporting the use of "propaganda" are coming from poor or weak RSes, while the multitude of other sources do not express anything along the lines of propaganda, then that's a FRINGE view and one we do not include even with attribution. -- Masem ( t) 14:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

To be fringe, it would have to contradict the majority viewpoint - which it does not, as we've established, it coexist with it. There is both scholarly (as of yet completely unquestioned, by the way) and journalistic support for the idea and its relative absence in what is considered "major sources" puts it in a significant minority position, not fringe. Since it also reflects on the overarching character of RFA it should be mentioned. I myself think CCPEnjoyer's position of including it in the lead sentence is undue, but leaving it out completely is ignorance of a significant viewpoint. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 14:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no requirement that a fringe view needs to be contradicting, simply that it is held by a fringe minority. But key here is whether you have sufficiently good sourcing relative to those that do not state RFA as propaganda to include it, hence why questions about sourcing quality are important. -- Masem ( t) 15:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven't really read the entirety of the above discussion, but a quick search of academic journals finds slightly older but high-grade academic sources describe the current iteration of Radio Free Asia as propaganda:

  • Patterned after Radio Free Europe, RFA began broadcasting to China in September 1996, and now airs programs for North Korea, Tibet, Vietnam, Laos, and Burma. The stated mission is to broadcast truthful information to countries where governments censor information and ban freedom of the press. [...] RFA proponents then explained that its broadcasts would be entirely in the native language of targeted countries, and that the goal of its journalists and "information specialists" would be to destabilize government control. In other words, RFA would function primarily as a propaganda operation.
    —  Snow, Nancy (1998). "The Smith‐Mundt Act of 1948". Peace Review. 10 (4): 619–624. doi: 10.1080/10402659808426214. ISSN  1040-2659.

  • America's taxpayer-funded global radio and TV services--Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, and many others--are pumping out propaganda to the world around the clock. [...] Under the current system, there is much duplication of effort among many different services, including the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Marti, Marti TV, and Worldnet. The U.S. is propagandizing the world with a jumble of wasteful, redundant radio and TV programs--Voice of America, Radio Free This-and-That. [...] Brookings Institution Asian scholar Catharin Dalpino says, "I do think Radio Free Asia is propagandistic. [...]"
    — Hopkins, Mark (1999). "A Babel of Broadcasts". Columbia Journalism Review. 38 (2): 44. ISSN  0010-194X.

  • [...] in a separate category, the ‘non-profit, grantee corporations’ Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and Radio Free Asia (RFA). Although it is claimed that this arm’s-length structure acts as ‘a firewall, protecting editors and reporters from government and congressional censorship’ this is something of a fiction as the broadcasters are funded by Congress and expected to serve clear foreign policy purposes-which they do, in the case of the surrogates in particular, with missionary zeal. [...] Catharin Dalpino of the Brookings Institution has called Radio Free Asia ‘propagandistic. It focuses on dissidents who articulate western values and democracy'
    — Smyth, Rosaleen (2001). "Mapping US Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century". Australian Journal of International Affairs. 55 (3): 421–444. doi: 10.1080/10357710120095252. ISSN  1035-7718.

  — MarkH₂₁ ^talk 20:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

With the multiple high-quality scholarly sources by experts in relevant fields (Communications, Foreign Policy, Asian Studies etc.) provided, I think we can discount this theory that the proposed change is FRINGE, and therefore undue. I can sense this dispute is slowly but surely coming to a resolution. I think the sources provided conclusively prove a significant (although, from the looks of it, non-majority) viewpoint among scholars as to the nature of the current iteration of RFA. I would recommend also locating some scholarly sources that explicitly contend with the propagandist character of RFA (as claimed by the sources here; I'm sure they exist) in order to include both viewpoints from a scholarly perspective. This (to me) seems fitting for a "Some scholars suggest [...] although many others points to [...]" - and so on - reference. With the topic being hotly contested I'm sure with oversight from both sides of this dispute we'll be able to work out a way to incorporate this viewpoint into the article in a way that is DUE. If any editors have any objections as to the scholarly sources provided by both myself and MarkH211 please do voice them - as of now all of the major policy objections (OR, SYNTH, UNDUE/FRINGE) seem to resolved to me. EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 11:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The only thing with those scholarly sources is that if you do ID RFA as propaganda, you should also include mention of the other agents (like RFE) that are also considered propaganda by the same sources, as they appear to talk not specific to RFA but the class of stations. They aren't calling out RFA separately from those. -- Masem ( t) 13:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is for RFA and I don't really see the significance of grouping them together for the purpose of this article specifically, although the findings do reflect on other such entities under the USAGM - so at the same time, I don't really see why not, either. If you really think that way then "RFA, among other news agencies under the USAGM" would be acceptable, yes. EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 13:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the way those academic sources present it, they are not isolating RFA but any of several state-backed news agencies that they consider as propaganda, and that suggested language is fine. Omitting mention that RFA was grouped with others from these studies would be a small NPOV issue since it would make it appear RFA alone out of any state-backed news agency was propaganda. -- Masem ( t) 15:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

A user has gone forward and edited the article to include this section's findings. I myself am satisfied with this state of the page, I want to see what all the (thus far) major opponents of the change think of it - Chipmunkdavis, Mikehawk10 - but also what the other major proponent makes of it, CPCEnjoyer, as I understand none of them had the chance to reflect after the new sources uncovered by MarkH21. Unless there's any major objections I see a clear way towards closing this dispute. EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Although I still feel like there is some room for improvement, I am fine with these changes so far. Perhaps when more reliable sources are found or published, we can talk about editing it further. I am happy we reached an agreement. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 17:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I would avoid labelling something a propaganda outlet, since the meaning is ambiguous and often subjective. While common usage of the term is for fake news with an ideological agenda, the term is usually used to refer to outlets that concentrate on stories that support an ideological narrative. For example, U.S. Cold War networks might broadcast positive news about the U.S. and avoid negative subjects such as racial unrest. But every news outlet decides what weight if any to apply to stories based on its own ideological perspective. TFD ( talk) 22:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Since Mikehawk10 is already aware of the edit (having contributed to it) and Chimpmunkdavis has seemingly moved on, with no challenge to the newly established state of the article for days now, I will take the liberty of marking this dispute as resolved. If some editor has a meaningful objection to this they may re-open before the discussion is archived, but seeing as clear support has been established in multiple scholarly sources I don't see where they might come from. Thanks to everyone for their input in reaching this consensus. EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 15:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).

Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.

The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith " Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith " Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.

Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A few months ago, an IP added "philanthropist" to the lead of Sheldon Adelson, cited primarily to obituaries shortly after his death. While there are certainly sources that use the term, most of them only use it in passing; none of them present it as central to his notability, and several of them are careful to note that the donations in question were intended overwhelmingly to “strengthen the State of Israel and the Jewish people”". I feel that it's inappropriate to characterize him solely as a philanthropist (a term with clear emotive weight and one which should therefore require extremely strong sourcing) with no further detail in the first sentence of the lead under those circumstances, and that it's undue to make his philanthropy a focus in the first sentence of the lead in any case when it is at best secondary to his actual notability. I also have concerns about relying so heavily on obituaries to establish weight for the first sentence of the lead; they are, after all, often focused more on eulogizing the dead than on strict neutrality. I objected when the word was added, and have raised several objections since; but it has been repeatedly reverted back in, so I figured I ought to raise the question here. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The IP was not the one who originally added it in. "Philanthropist" had been in the lead up until Jan 12. before someone removed it: Special:Permalink/999891172. The IP placed it back here. I have already provided a plethora of sources that 1) describe him as a philanthropist and 2) mention what charitable causes he donated to. See: the talk page. And, once again, I find the argument, "He only donated to Jewish/Israeli causes so he's not a real philanthropist" quite dubious. Why does it matter which causes he donated to? Is someone not a philanthropist because they support a special interest? For the record, the Adelson Foundation donates heavily to medical research too. Per the Forward: "And their philanthropy extends far beyond the Jewish sphere. The Adelsons, whose fortune stems from a casino empire headquartered in Las Vegas, also funded the Adelson Medical Research Foundation, which gave nearly $38 million in 2018, according to the most recent annual filing available online, to causes like the Boston Children’s Hospital Trust, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, the John Wayne Cancer Center and universities in Israel and the United States. (Miriam Adelson is a doctor.)Through yet another nonprofit, Adelson, whose son Mitchell died of a drug overdose in 2005, also quietly funded a drug treatment and rehabilitation facility for opioid-addicted patients." Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 21:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not a matter of whether we think the fact that his philanthropy was heavily focused on strengthening the state of Israel "disqualifies" it or not - the point is that almost every source that discusses his philanthropy at all focuses on that point, which makes it inappropriate to separate those points out and present him as a nebulously-defined philanthropist in the lead; a word with such heavy emotional meaning shouldn't be stripped of its context in a way that implies that his philanthropy was broader, more general, or more apolitical than it was. (Yes, he did donate to other causes as well, but even those sources specifically note that this was a small portion of his giving - a footnote to something that is already just a footnote to his notability.) And beyond that, none of your sources establish that his philanthropy is his primary point of notability - in fact, outside of one or two of the obituaries, the fast majority of them are worded along the lines of "hey, you know that guy who is famous for this? Well, you probably don't know this, but he also donated money to these causes!" That's exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't go in the first sentence of an article's lead. Almost everyone who has a lot of money gives some of it away to advance their favored causes; we don't normally describe them as a "philanthropist" in the first sentence of their lead unless that is specifically a major part of what they are notable for. Otherwise we risk turning articles on wealthy individuals into hagiographies, since any donations by a wealthy individual at all will attract some coverage. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

George Soros is labeled a philanthropist in the first sentence. I find it really wrong to discount someone's philanthropy based on the target, and I note that Adelson didn't just donate to Jewish or Israeli causes and in fact he continued to pay payroll for his company during the pandemic and his medical foundation is religious agnostic. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly Adelson was a philanthropist in that he contributed substantial funds to charity. The determinant for what we say in the first sentence is how often it is mentioned in reliable sources. The late Glen Davis, who spent most of his time with charities, is routinely referred to as a philanthropist, [64] and I would expect the description to be used in the first sentence of an article about him. TFD ( talk) 21:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• As the RS points out, "His philanthropic giving surpassed his political contributions." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Pointing to my comments in the ""Propaganda" as the introductory description for Radio Free Asia" section above, "Philanthropist" should be something clearly sourced to RSes to be included as such, not because its a value-laden label but it can be an inappropriate term to be applied due to improper SYNTH by editors (one or two donations != philanthropy) From what Sir Joseph and Aquillion have stated, it appears that a source review on his death clearly shows the term used by RSes and thus appropriate for us to use. If there's additional issues about the solitary focus of the donations that are documented in sources within the scope of UNDUE, that can be brought up, but that doesn't seem to be the case. -- Masem ( t) 22:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• What Masem said. We should characterize the subject as RS characterizes him. And if they don't lead with philanthropist, neither should we. Guy ( help! - typo?) 08:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Call me cynical, but in general the use of the word "philanthropist" is generally a good indication of COI/UP editing, and seems to have become a puff word often used merely to stand for "somebody who gave some money to charity". I do think if somebody is really to be described as such to be put alongside Andrew Carnegie et al, it's kind of an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and needs very strong sourcing. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It absolutely should be (a good source survey should be done to make sure the term is used frequently enough by high quality sources before we use it) since it can be misapplied and be used for puffery by dependent sources, absolutely. In this case, it seems that all those checkboxes are met. If "philanthropist" is used, there better be a section of the body that expands on this (what type of donations/philanthropic work they did) and inclusion of the sources that used the term, if those cannot easily be summarized in the lede. -- Masem ( t) 12:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is disagreement about whether the current version of World language is neutral. Suffice it to say that talk page discussion at Talk:World language has reached an impasse. I'll let the editor who raised objections— Dajo767—explain the issue as they see it. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

TBAN, maybe? – Austronesier ( talk) 20:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Issues with this article

1. French is not given equal position with English as a World Language, despite French fulfilling the criteria of a World Language as much as English. The article gives the position of the World Language only to English and lists French among potential World language. French deserves equal status with English as the World Language. But this article declares English as the sole World language.
2. Languages such as Japanese, Dutch, Malay, Hindi, and Swahili are among the languages listed as potential World languages when they are not widely accepted as such. The number of potential world languages can be limited to only Spanish, Arabic, Russian and Chinese. Dajo767 ( talk) 20:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussions can be seen at /info/en/?search=Talk:World_language#No_special_importance_given_to_French,_and_other_major_issues_with_the_article. Dajo767 ( talk) 20:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks to me to be a fairly clear-cut case of an editor trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Dajo767 appears not to have produced a source that backs their POV that French is a world language of the same importance as English.

The argument they're making appears to be that we must ignore all sources that do not adhere to their POV. Most editors will doubtless not need it explaining that WP:NPOV and WP:V do not allow this argument. Note also the Nazi comparison in that message.

Ultimately, this needs to come down to the WP:WEIGHT given to each point in reliable secondary sources. But it seems fair to me to say that if Dajo767 is not willing or not able produce sources backing their POV, it's fair to assume that that's because there aren't any. Kahastok  talk 21:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It might depend on context, too. The article is I think talking about general usage, but there is a least one other context https://ask.un.org/faq/14463 Selfstudier ( talk) 21:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Kahastok, if you go through all edits for the past eight months, and all the talk page bickering, I believe you'll find two editors righting great wrongs back and forth, back and forth. The rest of us just had to drop out at some point because the constant fighting at the article is exhausting. Just take a look at how many edits Dajo767 and TompaDoma each have. On the positive side, I believe them both to have good intentions. On the negative side, both are part of the problem. Dajo767 is of course wrong we should put truth before sources, that's not how WP functions. TompaDoma is wrong to OWN the article to this extent. The current version is nothing short of parody and could be useful for an example of WP:CHERRYPICKING. Unfortunately, the toxic back-and-forth scares away all other user. Jeppiz ( talk) 22:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

− As someone who has followed the discussion for many months, I should point out the issue runs much deeper than some comments above seem to assume. The article is a complete mess, although I don't think neutrality is the issue as much as rampant original research. In 2020 and 2021, different users have fought hard for their own definition, often producing ludicrous results (the article in its current form is an example). The problem is that almost anyone can find some to include to support their own preferred version. This gives rise to downright silliness such as the current version grouping together languages at very different levels under the same heading. I wouldn't agree with Dajo767 that French is at the same level as English - although that is no less silly than the current version of the article putting French at the level of Dutch. Last but not least: after months of following the discussion closely, I dare say it would be wrong to point finger at any one user in particular. Jeppiz ( talk) 21:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be fair to say I was looking fairly narrowly at recent exchanges.

I can perfectly accept your point that the problem may be POV caused by OR. In my experience, POV problems and OR problems often go together on this kind of article, because there's no way to judge what WP:WEIGHT to give original research. And I guess the correct way to resolve that is to get rid of everything whose weight can't be justified based on secondary sources on the topic at hand. Even if that's more than half the article, as it probably would be in this case.

(And, of course, if there are not sufficient secondary sources to make a judgement on WP:WEIGHT, then we have to start asking whether the article should exist at all.) Kahastok  talk 22:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have come to the same conclusion. Perhaps a short article about the concept but without examples, as the examples are what people fight over - what language to include or not to include. The current article is the opposite of that: very little about the actual concept, and more than 95% dedicated to examples of language X, Y, Z etc. Having done my PhD on this, I know that the current article would draw smiles (for all the wrong reasons) but ai do not think solution is to change how we describe language X or language Z (as all the fighting is about). Jeppiz ( talk) 22:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I've made a WP:BOLD attempt to solve the issue and bypass all the brinkmanship and back-and-forth of the two users (Dajo767 and TompaDompa) by removing the examples as WP:CHERRYPICKING and keeping all information on the concept. My edit can be found here and my explanation on the talk page here. I won't revert back to it if someone reverts my edit, but I do hope neither Dajo767 nor TompaDompa is the one to revert. The idea of the article should be to explain what the concept of World language means, not to argue over "My language is bigger than yours" as much of the examples boiled down to. Jeppiz ( talk) 23:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I rather object to your characterisation of my actions as WP:Righting Great Wrongs. I don't particularly care what the article says, I care that it accurately reflects what the sources say. To this end, I have removed material that failed WP:V and/or WP:NOR and tried to locate additional sources (with some, though surely incomplete success). I believe my track record on both the article itself and the associated talk page demonstrate that sourcing has always been my main concern.

I would like to note for the record that I suggested that one option could be to not list world languages at all, but instead having the article only describe the concept back in September. I still consider that a valid option—and while I was writing this, it was implemented by way of a WP:BOLD edit—but I think that it would be even better to expand the article based on additional sources. The only problem with the latter option is that we have yet to locate the additional sources that would allow us to do so—if there are any important sources that have been missed, please do add them (or point them out, at least).

With regards to WP:NPOV, I think the version prior to your WP:BOLD edit was policy-compliant—sources disagree, and we described their disagreement without taking sides. The main point I'm unsure about is WP:WEIGHT, which is not altogether easy to assess (especially when we have a comparatively small sample of sources that may not be entirely representative). With regards to WP:OR, I wholeheartedly agree about that being the main problem until mid-February—which is why I rewrote basically the entire article then—but I honestly don't see what you're referring to when it comes to the version prior to your WP:BOLD edit. Perhaps you can give examples as to what about that version was WP:OR? The same thing goes for WP:CHERRYPICKING.

The issue of whether and how to group languages hierarchically from a world language perspective is something that I, LiliCharlie, and DLMcN discussed at some length over at Talk:World language#Two categories? about two months ago (after the discussion last year at Talk:World language#Spanish language is also a World language failed to resolve the issue and after some additional sources were located and added to the article). Having Dutch and French in the same category was even specifically mentioned— by me—as something that would be a problem. We didn't end up coming up with a grouping that we were happy with, so the status quo of simply listing the languages in alphabetical order was retained.

Finally, I really don't see how you arrived at more than 95% dedicated to examples. By word count, it was (prior to your WP:BOLD edit) about two-thirds, with the last third being dedicated to the concept itself. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

TompaDompa, you're right and I should have said nobody is righting great wrongs; my reply was more about this not being the case of one disruptive user but rather a (too) long back and forth between two users, both with good intentions. Apologies if you took it as me questioning your motives, that was not the intention. I do think the article reads a bit too much of "Person A says this, person B says that" ; it still does. I can see why, as academics from different fields will approach the topic differently. Perhaps that's an avenue we could take the article, more looking at how linguistics treat it, how political science treats it? Grouping the academics in question into topics instead? Again, apologies if my earlier comments came across as in any way casting doubts on your intentions; that was not my intention. I believe the last month in particular has been too much back and forth (and I have deliberately stayed out) but I do not doubt the good intentions of anyone involved. Jeppiz ( talk) 00:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It is going too far to have absolutely no examples. Right now, English is the dominant international language. It is relevant to at least discuss certain others which do not quite "make the grade" - say, French, Spanish, Russian, Standard Arabic (and possibly Mandarin Chinese and Portuguese). -- DLMcN ( talk) 06:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I quite agree with DLMcN that having no examples is not the right way to go about this. The status of English as a world language features so prominently in the literature on world languages that not mentioning it would be a highly conspicuous omission, and I frankly think it would be counter to WP:NPOV by not giving it WP:Due weight proportionate to its treatment by the sources. The issue then becomes what to do with the other languages. We have to come up with a method for determining what languages to include based on the sources, otherwise we are just arbitrarily picking and choosing which viewpoints to represent in the article—in clear violation of WP:NPOV. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Interligne (organization) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to need a major rewrite, but I'd prefer to stay uninvolved as I have blocked the major contributor. A simple revert won't work, as there seem to have been factual corrections as well. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 22:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree, I did some rewriting and pruning. VikingDrummer ( talk) 06:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey VikingDrummer, thank you very much! :) I was afraid noone would deal with it. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 07:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. VikingDrummer ( talk) 08:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this page ( /info/en/?search=Rwandan_genocide_denial) states as fact at the end of the first paragraph that authors who don't entirely embrace the Rwandan government's narrative are "disputing reality".

To be clear... there is a world of difference between genocide-deniers and those such as Susan Thomson (who is cross-referenced in that paragraph) who state that atrocities were carried out by both sides.

That paragraph doesn't mention the Rwandan government, it mentions the "scholarly consensus". The second paragraph states that people who disagree with the Rwandan government's narrative may be accused of genocide denial, but doesn't state that they are denyong genocide. - Sylvester Penn ^{Yell at me} _{Stuff I did} 18:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry, I should have made my point clearer.

I think my concern is the use of the word "fringe" in the first paragraph here. Although it's probably technically right to use that word, "fringe" gives the impression of a small group of lunatics.

And given that the Rwandan government is the biggest proponent of the alternative view, calling those writers "fringe writers" unjustly dismisses them as being potentially extremist.

There is a debate at Talk:2021 Jersey dispute to determine if the article 2021 Jersey dispute should use {{ Infobox civil conflict}} or {{ Infobox military conflict}}. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have been locked out of editing for Salomon Morel, who was a Jewish man whose family was murdered in the Holocaust. The information on his wikipedia page is provided by Polish nationalists, and one of the sources cited is the many citations in that article is from the "Institute of National Remembrance", which is an anti-Semitic organization known to spread anti-Jewish lies and propaganda since inception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genealogykid82 ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Genealogykid82, you have not been specifically locked out, it's just protected from editing by users with fewer than 500 edits because of recent disruption. You can edit the talk page and propose changes there. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)