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.

Because it is implied in the above that I endorse opening this RfC, I would like to observe that the implication is totally dishonest; that this RfC is obviously tendentious; and that the closure is appropriate. -- JBL ( talk) 20:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify something about the decision here. In the past two months, the issue of sources being misrepresented and/or declared unreliable has been raised at three different noticeboards: at the NOR noticeboard in March, [4] at the RS noticeboard earlier this month, [5] and most recently here. All three discussions were shut down within a few days, before the community could decide whether these sourcing decisions were compatible with policy, and the reason given for the closure was different in each case. In your comment that I quoted above, you initially made it sound as though you had no objection to these sourcing issues being addressed in a separate RFC, but now it's clear that you object very strongly to this being done.

My understanding of these decisions, taken together, is that editors who think that these sourcing decisions are incompatible with Wikipedia's policies cannot be allowed to raise that question to the broader Wikipedia community. Is that correct? And will any future noticeboard discussion that attempts to raise these issues also be quickly shut down? -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 20:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

AndewNguyen, A better interpretation of these decisions would be that starting discussions with nonneutral opening statements is just going to get them closed down early, no matter how many times it is attempted. MrOllie ( talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That isn't a reasonable interpretation, because having a non-neutral opening statement was not the closure reason given in discussion above, nor was it the closure reason given in the discussion opened by Stonkaments at the NOR noticeboard. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 21:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Has it not occurred to you that you should have asked my opinion before attributing a view to me? The previous RfC question was not proper, so an RfC whose question is "[insert previous RfC question here]" also is not proper. To pretend that a person who opined against the propriety of the previous RfC would support this one is evidence of either serious dishonesty or serious incompetence. I am frankly very close to starting an ANI thread asking for you to be indefinitely blocked over this obviously shitty behavior. -- JBL ( talk) 21:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) @ AndewNguyen: As usual, you are posing the issue very tendentiously. Sources that promote racial hereditarianism are included in the R&I article, but they're cited in a context that makes clear the fringe nature of that theory, in accordance with last year's RfC. For example, the fervent racial hereditarian Jensen is cited 6 times in the article and Jensen-Rushton is cited 5 times. Per WP:FRINGE, such sources must not be used as reliable sources for "balance", and so opponents of last year's RfC would have to overturn last year's RfC in order to achieve your objective. The current RfC at the R&I talk-page revisits last year's RfC. After five days we see 3 editors arguing to overturn last year's RfC, and more than 30 arguing to endorse it. NightHeron ( talk) 21:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Andew cannot even be bothered to do 150 edits worth of productive editing or vandal fighting to get ECP says it all, really. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

After almost a year-long hiatus, Andew popped up on Ferahgo's RfC with this comment: Okay, THIS looks like the thing that I've been waiting for over the past year. Depending on the outcome of this RFC, perhaps it's time for me to become active again. [6] To me this looks like an admission of being an WP:SPA. They do not currently appear to have any other interests on WP besides overturning the consensus on race and intelligence. For this reason, I would suggest that the best response to their shenanigans would be to WP:DENY recognition as far as possible (until such time as their disruption rise to the level of a sanctionable offense). Generalrelative ( talk) 21:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the list of the 45 excluded sources? There are no Jensen sources on the list, and the Jensen & Rushton 2005 paper is not on it either. I've looked through most of the removal diffs. The list seems to be completely accurate.

Every time someone has tried to raise these sourcing issues, you've accused them of "beating a dead horse" and tried to get the discussion shut down as quickly as possible. If you want to ensure the broader community cannot discussing the sourcing issue, so be it. I just want us to all be honest about what's actually going on here. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 21:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Including a large number of additional citations to sources that promote racial hereditarianism would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. NightHeron ( talk) 21:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It's funny how the person opening this read my comment and read it completely opposite to what I intended.. I thought I was clear. This should be discussed among editors to form a good RfC before any RfC is opened. I have the same problem with this one as I do with the one currently active - neither provides information on the topic area and there is no good summary available anywhere, leading to many !votes based solely on opinions/beliefs/politics, not based on reliable sources. Until a good summary of reliable sources that are out there exists, a useful RfC on this topic cannot be had. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 21:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Berchanhimez: I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your comment. I'm not going to start another RFC about this issue, but if you wish to make an attempt at starting one yourself (and are confident you could prevent it from being closed immediately), I'd be glad to assist with collecting sources for it. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 21:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• All of the complaints here are complaints about WP:PROFRINGE and WP:UNDUE. That's it. There's nothing more to discuss about this. This is pure whining with a heavy dose of beating a dead horse thrown in for good measure, all while refusing to listen to anyone else. The next step is arbitration enforcement, as this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions specifically to prevent this very type of disruption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Security Network (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over the past week or so, the above article has had a ton of POV edit warring by various IPs and SPAs. I don't feel qualified to clean up the article or start a discussion, but the article's badly in need of attention from an experienced editor—hopefully someone here can help sort things out. Gaelan 💬 ✏️ 06:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The damage is pretty minimal (they are all reverting each other), but yes this page needs some protection at the very least. JBchrch ( talk) 19:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the damage is minimal—the current wording of the lead seems to mostly come from this POV IP edit about a week ago, though it's been toned down a bit. Gaelan 💬 ✏️ 05:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed a common pattern in the articles for political leaders whereby socio-economic outcomes that happen under their rule are implicitly or explicitly linked to the leader's policies. Rarely, if ever, are such claims supported by strong RS, such as high-quality RS and academic sources. It's frequently just stated that improvements happened under the rule (which is verifiable) and attributed to the leader (which is rarely verified). The problem with that is that socio-economic outcomes are not necessarily caused by a single leader's policies. A specific example of this is the article for the Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame, which emphasizes in the lead that he has "prioritized national development, launching programmes which have led to development on key indicators, including healthcare, education and economic growth." The problem with that statement is that it's hard to imagine a country embroiled in a civil war not to improve its socio-economic outcomes during a subsequent period of peace. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say about Kagame's role in the economic development of his country? -- Jayron 32 14:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Could we have some eyes on the Julian Assange article, where talk page discussion has repeatedly rejected UNDUE coverage of a certain bit of content regarding his imprisonment and where a minority of editors has laid out their support of such content at considerable length. Thanks. The talk page threads are Health and Less is more. The associated article content is referenced in them and can be seen in a recent string of reverts of my trimming some of the disputed text. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, $DEITY yes. It's WP:OWNed by a handful of Assange cultists. Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@ JzG: Please strike this aspersion. It would also be best if you would delete your own BLP-violating comment at Talk: Julian_Assange. I think you know exactly what comment I'm talking about. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 23:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, that's a great example of the problem. The article is dominated by obsessives who give every appearance of believing that Assange is the Messiah. But he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not appropriate behavior (to put it lightly), particularly coming from an admin. I asked you to strike your personal attack on your fellow editors and to delete your really needless insults against a living person, but you've doubled down. At some point, the community will have to evaluate whether or not it wants to maintain someone who behaves in this manner as an admin. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 09:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This looks to be yet another case where if we asked editors to write towards the 10/20-year view of things, we would have a far better article. There is no need for this level of detail this soon after events even though it may be possible to document it from RSes. Editors need to write like these events happened 20 years ago and take a broader picture of his career/biography. Obviously there will be points necessary to slow down and detail coverage, but the fact much of the article is written in PROSELINE tells me no one has attempted a summary approach yet.-- Masem ( t) 14:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your wise counsel Masem. The immediate need is some more editors on the article page and talk page to break the logjam of revert warring and refusal to accept any cuts whatsoever. Nobody's proposed entirely eliminating the Melzer bit, but from the 20 year or now even the 2 year vantage point, it is indeed just a bit. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Masem, precisely my point as made on Talk. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Reaction here seems pretty clear. Meanwhile over on the article and its talk page, progress remains blocked against any trimming at all of the UNDUE content. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A former Wikipedia editor claimed in an article that this site engaged in a multi-year smear campaign against Mark Levin. Is there any merit to the accusations? I decided to post this here because I have not gotten a response from the talk page of his article. X-Editor ( talk) 20:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's not give a site banned editor another platform. YODADICAE👽 20:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Praxidicae: Why was he banned? X-Editor ( talk) 05:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate was banned by the Arbitration Committee for "continuing harassment of other editors" diff. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Also see WP:GAMERGATE for more background to that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. This guy was clearly in the wrong. X-Editor ( talk) 16:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that I spotted in that that has anything potentially actionable related to sourcing is removal of conversive-based reviews of his book (eg such as the series of edits that start at this one [7]). I have no idea who expert reviewers are in this political space, but RSOPINION would allow reviews from non-RS sources as long as that person is considered an appropriate expert in that field (eg as to avoid every Tom Dick and Harry review being added). We are not just going to add conservative reviews just to balance those from liberal, but if there are notable expert reviewers in that area, we should including their reviews appropriately. But again, I personally can't judge who would be expert in this area so I can't being to access if this can be actionable on WP.

Broadly, Levin' page tends to suffer the general problem of documenting all bits of negative commentary about him that has been published rather than seeking out how to describe his views from a 10/20-year view. It does need more treatment in broad strokes than specifics, but that's not something of discussion in said article. -- Masem ( t) 12:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Masem hits it on the nose. What the article needs is summarization. This is a common flaw in BLPs (especially in BLPs of active politicians and politically outspoken pundits)... we have a tendency to go overboard on the details of what the person has done or said, rather than presenting the “big picture”. We stick in every idiotic thing the subject says or does, when a few well chosen examples would suffice. Blueboar ( talk) 16:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages on police departments have a systemic problem of copy-pasting mundane "organizational structure"/"organizational chart"-type information from the websites of the police departments. I believe this type of content is a flagrant violation of WP:WEIGHT. Not only is the content of no interest to most readers, but it fails WP:RS and fills pages to the brim with filler that diverts readers from actual substantive encyclopedic information. For example, here is just some of the content that I tried to remove from the Los Angeles Police Department page (all of which is sourced to the LAPD itself) and all of which was immediately reverted [8]:

• "The Chief of Staff is responsible for coordinating the flow of information from command staff to ensure that the Chief is fully informed prior to making decisions, performing and coordinating special administrative audits and investigations, and assisting, advising, and submitting recommendations to the Chief of Police in matters involving employee relations. The Office of the Chief of Staff is composed of the Board of Police Commissioners Liaison, the Public Communications Group, the Media Relations Division, and the Employee Relations Group"
• "The Information Technology Bureau is responsible for providing Information Technology services to the department.[27][4] The Information Technology Bureau is composed of the following subordinate units: Information Technology Division (ITD), Application Development & Support Division (ADSD), Emergency Command Control & Communications Systems (ECCCS) Division, Innovation Management Division (IMD)"
• Every subdivision of the "Office of Support Services"
• All the subdivisions of the "Detective Bureau" [9]
• An enormous list of the dozens of types of awards that the LAPD gives to its staff [10]

I noticed that this problem is also somewhat common on pages for businesses, but it is generally easy to remove it without any pushback (there are no passionate defenders of keeping the organizational chart of the subdivisions of the accounting department at McDonalds). The police department pages are more problematic because (1) the "organizational chart"-type content appears to have been systematically edited into the pages in the first place, and (2) There is pushback in removing it. Surely it fails WP:NPOV (in particular, WP:WEIGHT) to keep this kind of "organizational chart" copypasta content? While there is value in basic information about the organizational structure, surely there is no encyclopedic value in the "Office of Chief of Staff [does Chief of Staff-style actions] and has four subdivisions which have the names ABCD"? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 03:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above, with a few comments: My take is that most of the org structure and medals sections are of interest to only a small subset of readers and that unless these are sourced with Independent Sources are generally WP:UNDUE detail.

I'm not an expert in "standard" or "normal" police rank/department structure, but unless an Org's structure is NOTABLY unique, I would say that there should be little detail discussing it. Some articles on large churchs/denominations have one or two paragraphs of explanation on their structure, but not as large of sections as in the LAPD article. I have seen the same list of medals/insignia/rank structure in other PD pages as well, and think that it shouldn't fill the page, as anyone interested can get this from the Department's website. --- Avatar317 ^(talk) 05:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the Oakland Police Department article is a good example of how this type of content should look, but it could use a lead that better summarizes the article. --- Avatar317 ^(talk) 05:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Do other encyclopedias include rank structure and organization (beyond the "top of the chain" and obviously like main groups/departments within)? Remembering that we are not limited by space maybe it is encyclopedic, but if they don't include it I think we should strongly consider that maybe this sort of information isn't encyclopedic in the first place. Certainly a table of ranks is not encyclopedic in nature - it's trivia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 05:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, this kind of straightforward factual material is exactly the reason that WP:ABOUTSELF exists. Wikipedia is meant to be a general reference work, not a newspaper. Organisational details aren't exciting and they're not going to be written about in the New York Times, but that doesn't mean that they're trivia. Wikipedia provides context. Whereas the media quotes Assistant Commissioner Jones or states that Officer Martin is a twelve year veteran with a Medal of Distinction, an encyclopedia should explain what an Assistant Commissioner and a Medal of Distinction actually are. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 05:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, to address the elephant in the room, Snooganssnoogans, I feel that you're making an error when you see organisational information as a distraction from police misconduct. I don't know if you're familiar with Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch reports, but they typically include a chapter laying out chain of command of the groups involved. May seem mundane, but its an crucial part of establishing institutional responsibility. Explaining the structure of a police force is complimentary to detailing the scandals, not detrimental. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 05:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• My view is much more in line with RaiderAspect (full disclosure: this thread was opened regarding my revert of the OP). There is a thread on that talk page: Talk:Los Angeles Police Department#More removals. As I said there, I agree that there may be some excessive detail in there; however, [the] claims of it being unencyclopedic and of no interest "to anyone" are 100% subjective....we have to keep WP:PRESERVE in mind regarding material for which better sources likely exist. WP:PRIMARY sources also are not banned. There are many sources that talk about policing in detail, how it's done and how it's organized, and not just from a perspective of focusing on brutality. WP:TE is editing in a partisan and skewed manner, which I believe applies to editing police department articles only to add stuff about brutality and corruption and removing other stuff. We should be editing so as to speak of the good and the bad per due weight, not all one or the other. Articles on major American police departments absolutely need more eyes from editors focused on upholding NPOV. They get very little attention except that over the past year, there's been a big push to add stuff about police misconduct to the leads of these articles, most of which are very short, while at the same time attempts are made to gut other material. See New York Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department, Chicago Police Department, and Philadelphia Police Department, among others. Yes, we should of course cover misconduct with WP:Due weight. However, this is happening at the same time that almost no attention or effort whatsoever (and literally zero on the part of some editors) is going into editing any aspect of law enforcement other than misconduct, except to remove material on it. Any of those articles' histories and talk pages show this. How is this NPOV? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• I don’t see this as a WEIGHT/NPOV issue. However, we should not be simply copying the language directly from a PD website and pasting it into WP. THAT has potential COPYRIGHT problems. The organizational charts are beneficial, but need better summarization. Simplify, don’t omit. Blueboar ( talk) 20:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Problems in articles on American police departments

• Adding on to my comment earlier, the OP and editor who is spearheading the adding of this misconduct material into PD leads, Snooganssnoogans, is continuing POV editing. Here they add stuff to the lead of Columbus Division of Police about a DOJ complaint from 1999, as well as a judge's injunction from that same week a couple days before the edit ( WP:RECENTISM, anyone?). (5/14 EDIT: RECENTISM is only referring to the recent injunction.) Here's the kicker: The very AP source they were using to label the Columbus Police as engaging in racial profiling, in context of the DOJ complaint, also stated in the very next sentence, A federal judge in 2002 dismissed the lawsuit after the city, which had fought it, made changes on the use of police force and handling of complaints against officers. Omitting this is a smoking gun of POV editing. In fact, material on that was already there in the body, albeit unsourced, and was removed in that very diff! There is absolutely no legitimate reason to omit that verifiable fact and thus imply that nothing has been done about those problems. How many more sources are being presented one-sidedly in these police department articles? How many sources are being excluded that present a more balanced picture? If this continues, I will have no choice but to seek a topic ban. WP:Tendentious editing, "partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole", is absolutely not allowed. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Edits per misunderstanding below. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is what the body said without any source: "Since that time many of the DOJ mandates have been implemented through policy changes and additional training." The AP News story does not support that language. Furthermore, the AP News story [11] is literally about how the department in 2021 is rife with the very same problems that prompted the DOJ to conclude that the department engaged in racial profiling and police brutality in 1999. That said, the 2002 decision by the judge should be in the history section and I would have added it had I seen it in that particular source. If there is anyone who should tread carefully with NPOV violations, it's you. It's you who is systematically scrubbing and downplaying reliably sourced content about police departments engaging in racial discrimination and misconduct from page after page, even when such content is sourced to a plethora of peer-reviewed studies and DOJ investigations. It's the kind of behavior that is contributing to the Racial bias on Wikipedia whereby the experiences of and misconduct against non-whites are systematically minimized in Wikipedia content through decisions by editors, who for whatever reason, believe that racial discrimination by police is just not important (even when WP:DUE appears obvious, as in the cases of the NYPD and LAPD where the racial discrimination is legendary and highly consequential to the organizations). I have on the other hand added content sourced to studies and high-quality RS, and sought external input through RfCs whenever you have tendentiously blocked such content. In all instances that I recall [12] [13] [14], the Wikipedia community has supported the content I proposed and expressed opposition to your whitewashing proposals. Having been wrong side of every content dispute on the topic, you're now calling for me to be topic-banned because I didn't keep unsourced content in one article and I didn't add content that I missed from a particular RS? I have taken the challenge to improve how Wikipedia portrays race and gender, and part of that is to reflect how non-whites have historically and presently been treated by some police departments. It is unfortunate that other editors respond to that by scrubbing reliably sourced content and downplay that history, and call for banning the few editors who bother to actually beef up the sourcing in those articles (e.g. with peer-reviewed history books, social science books, widely-reported-on DOJ investigations). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  The solution to problems of "whiteness" of Wikipedia editors is not to elevate information in the lead that doesn't merit it based on the body. I don't disagree with the edits you made - but you focused only on the misconduct, and didn't focus on improving the lead overall by including, as Crossroads stated, the rebuttal to the claim you made. Intentionally only presenting one side (i.e. the "misconduct") without including the other information is an example of being here to right great wrongs - which is even more clear when reading this response from you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  "Elevate information in the lead that doesn't merit it based on the body"? The largest and most well-sourced section in the entire article is about the department's controversies related to race and misconduct. I believe it's entirely consistent with WP:LEAD to reflect what sizable parts of the body says. Personally, I think that's more consistent with WP's lead policy than listing every single squad the MPD has and telling readers that the MPD has dogs (which is what the current lead says). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  After Crossroads's edits on the CPD page, readers will not be able to read about the CPD's history, unless they sift through the unreadable mundane details copy-pasted from the CPD website into the Wikipedia article's body and make it to the end of the article where they can learn that the DOJ did conclude that the CPD engaged in systemic racial discrimination and police misconduct, and that these patterns persist to the present day. Is that your idea of neutral? Is it neutral that the only content actually sourced to high-quality reliable sources is dumped at the bottom of this article? In my view, it's a good example of how the experiences of non-whites are minimized and downplayed on Wikipedia, and it startles me to see editors defend it. Am I going to edit-war to fix it or tendentiously block edits by other editors? No, as always, I let the community decide. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  They can literally see "misconduct" right there in the contents and click on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's false and you know it that I've been on the "wrong side of every content dispute on the topic". At Talk:New York City Police Department/Archive 3#RfC on neutrality of lead, literally no one except for an IP editor agreed with your version of the lead, and there were 12 other participants, including me. And all of these other disputes ended up with you being quick to start an RfC with a gish gallop of sources (e.g. Talk:Chicago Police Department#RfC: Police misconduct). Given what you excluded from the AP source, and your approach to the topic, I am skeptical of the neutrality of your presentation of these sources and choice of sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  That RfC does not show support for your version of the lead. When I put the specific contents of your version of the lead up to a RfC, it concluded with a consensus against [15]. My version of the NYPD lead is largely what the current version is, so your claims that the community decided against it are inaccurate. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Funny - there are two completely different RfC's being discussed, and both of you are using them to say "you're wrong" to the other person - Crossroads, the RfC you reference I can't find any evidence that the options you presented were either heavily edited by Snoogansssnoogans. On the other hand, Snooganssnoogans is using an RfC on one particular sentence to attempt to claim that Crossroads is persistently against consensus in this topic area. Both of you should really take a step back - you're both getting heated. And on the subject of Snooganssnoogans, you've made some comments here that clearly put your edits in this topic area into RGW territory, and I think Crossroads has a clear case if they were to formulate such. I recommend you rethink how you're approaching your effort to reduce systematic bias in these topic areas - because it's clear to me (and likely others) that you're overcompensating heavily. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 00:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  The July 12, 2020 lead version that was voted down at the RfC I linked was that way due to material added by Snooganssnoogans in this edit on June 5, 2020: [16] Incidentally, this edit also contained the claim that "The NYPD has strongly resisted attempts at criminal justice reform", a massive overgeneralization and exaggeration from the source, a Politico article about the NYPD (and the mayor, governor, and many other Democrats!) blaming a specific bail reform law for an increase in crime - not "strongly" resisting all or even several reforms nor even doing any resistance other than blame. I didn't have time to read all the other sources being cited for the rest of all that material added then. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC) added Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I checked Crossroads's editing since August 2018 and I have found no instance of Crossroads adding any substantive negative content to articles on police departments, even though the editor has edited pages for several police departments, and has edited a lot on those pages since the killing of George Floyd (a juncture in which historical and present misconduct came to the forefront of public discourse and was covered comprehensively in contemporary RS). Furthermore, if you look at Crossroads's complaint about me not using every part of this AP News source (because I didn't see one sentence at the end of the piece) [17], doesn't Crossroads fall afoul of the same violation when he fails to add content on how the CPD are vastly more likely to use force against Blacks: "Records show that Black residents, about 28% of the Columbus population, accounted for about half of all use-of-force incidents from 2015 through 2019"? [18] If he's using the AP News source, why does he cherry-pick one positive sentence and omit pertinent negative content? That's the same complaint the editor is making against me. I certainly don't think any of the above merits a topic ban (or sanction of any sort for that matter), but I find it hypocritical to be calling for bans on others for purportedly lopsided editing in the other direction. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen you add any content except negative content to articles about police departments. Resisting POV pushing is not POV pushing itself. As for why I didn't add that, you are comparing apples and oranges - it's not like I added other contrary material about race and use of force from the source and left that out. You, though, cited that AP source about a DOJ lawsuit from 1999 and completely omitted the very next sentence where a federal judge dismissed it on the basis of reforms made. How you 'missed seeing it' I have no idea. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment/Issue - Firstly, I have seen very little of the overall editing on police departments by both editors disputing here so I can't comment on that, but I would like to make a point or raise an issue.

Media nowadays does publish stats like what Snoo stated: "Records show that Black residents, about 28% of the Columbus population, accounted for about half of all use-of-force incidents" ... but this type of reporting leads the reader to a false conclusion of racism. Here's a fact: Males make up about half of the US population, but account for close to 95% of all use-of-force incidents by police departments nationwide, and make up about 95% of prisoners. Does that mean that police and the justice system are sexist and should incarcerate more females? No, it just means that males commit more crime, and more violent crime. This may be true for black people (not because of skin color or genetics, but because of poverty and racial discrimination breeding anger)...for example, the number one killer of young black males (18-25) in the US is other young black males. That statistic is not the case for young white males.

My take is that I oppose having statements that LEAD the reader to believe that racial disrimination exists, when the science doesn't specifically say that. To compare here, as an example: we need rate of police violence against (whites who resist arrest) vs. police violence against (blacks who resist arrest). Studies by criminologists should be more represented than simple population ratio to police violence ratio statements. --- Avatar317 ^(talk) 05:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"Resisting arrest?" What? Science? How about simple verified facts? SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that police officers are far more likely to use the excuse of "resisting arrest" to justify violence against black people than they are against white people. -- Jayron 32 14:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• This looks like a typical political POV argument to me, so I'm largely going to stay out of, but I was curious so I started reading the section. I was immediately struck by the absurdity of someone citing WP:RECENTISM to complain about events from 22 years ago being mentioned in the article, using sources from this year. The edit in question is pretty much the best possible edit from the standpoint of WP:RECENTISM. I don't know about the rest of the issues here, but that one... Well.. Hoo boy... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  MjolnirPants, I can tell this is about my statement above, and it is a misunderstanding. I have clarified the comment above. The criticism of RECENTISM applies only to the addition of an injunction from mere days before the edit being added to the lead. ( diff) The rest I addressed in the remainder of my comment and below. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but establishing that this is something that's still being litigated after 22 years doesn't really justify it much. It's akin to AfDing scientific racism per WP:NOTNEWS because Richard Lynn published a paper last week. Just because something's had a recent development doesn't mean it's a recent thing. Conversely, if we're going to talk about something that's still being litigated 22 years after it began, I would fully expect WP's coverage to edge right up to the current day's news on the subject, when it comes to developments like a judge's ruling, which isn't bound to change with time. I mean, even if it's eventually overruled, it still seems WP:DUE to mention it.

Now, if that edit had contained mention of some RS pontificating about the "impact" or "precedent" of the recent ruling, even if that RS were the world's foremost legal scholar on LTL weapon use by police, I'd be right there with you on citing NOTNEWS (more specifically, WP:RECENTISM). Those sorts of things are bound to change, and RS views on them improve with time. But simply stating what the judgement was and quoting the basis for it like that is so dispassionate that there's no downside to including it within seconds of the source being published. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, RECENTISM was never claimed to apply to the 22 years ago stuff, so your analogy doesn't apply. As for the very recent material, I was not against including it in the article, just in the lead. And yes, it is POV and basically SYNTH to combine some stuff that happened 22 years ago ending with a federal judge being satisfied with the reforms with a news piece about a super-recent ruling to spin a narrative of long-time corruption and brutality and to stuff the lead with it. There will always be at least a few people "litigating" complaints about law enforcement; how we handle that is all about WP:DUE and WP:NOTADVOCACY. To establish DUE-ness, and especially regarding the lead, we should be sticking to peer-reviewed and academic sources ( WP:SOURCETYPES), and surveying sources more broadly, and not only seeking out sources about misconduct, picking out only the negative bits of those sources, and adding them to the most prominent places. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC) clarified Crossroads ^-talk- 16:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking for NPOV experts on the matter, the article currently has an ethnicity dispute section however the lede contradicts this by establishing an ethnicity to the subject. I think this violates our NPOV policy see WP:VOICE. The question on the RFC is should the lede state the subjects ethnic background? [19] Magherbin ( talk) 20:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As stated in the article's Talk page, three users removed every single mention of content that might be considered negative about the company, even though the sources were reliable (for example, official announcement by European and Australian authorities). This was a very bold move that was repeatedly done without providing a real evidence. I wish to remind that removing such content - and even deleting entire section entitled "Controversies" - is blatant advertising. I would also recommend on conducting an investigation into the three relevant users as they are probably sockpuppets.

Here is the link to the version of the article before the blatant advertising by removing specific content (published on May 3, 2021). On May 7, 2021, User:Antiantonio removed every single mention of negative content, obviously for promotional reasons ( link to diff), but it was immediately reverted by User:SunDawn.

During a single day on May 7, the three users tried again to promote the company by omitting information and rephrasing the article. Here are few diffs for example:

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3

I reverted the removal of the content, but user User:Vlavluck kept reverting my edits.

The revision history of the article clearly shows the questionable edits SoftSwiss (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I am sure that further investigation will show these account also have conflict of interests with the relevant company. -- Fact789 ( talk) 09:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This should probably also be at WP:COIN all three are SPAs with a likely conflict of interest. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 09:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please visit the talk page of the mentioned article SoftSwiss to see the report about why this edits been done and to find the consensus.

User:Hemiauchenia, User:Fact789 As stated in the article's Talk page, according to Wikipedia:Content removal the deleted part of article have been removed because of WP:INAPPROPRIATE WP:ICW the links used for citation failed verification, not reliable, have no information about quoted text. In addition to this, few unconfirmed theses contain traces of the original research. They have been tagged by Antiantonio and Coldmanviktor you can learn it through history of changes bad source tags According the principles described in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not this part of article have been removed by me Vlavluck ( talk) 15:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC) There are no problems between me and negative comments about the company, there are only problems with shit links that does not contain information about the quoted text. User:Hemiauchenia We can't leave such a poor supplied thesis in the article. Check following "Report about detected original research case" under or make your own one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlavluck ( talk • contribs)

Report about detected original research case

Theses deleted from the article:

• "In 2021, multiple gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were banned in Australia as well as several European countries, following formal investigations into illegal activity by the respective Gambling Authorities". - There are no any mentions on resources that SoftSwiss is operates any of blocked casinos. Softswiss as article says is a software developer, not a casino operator. There're even no mentions about SoftSwiss in the link which support the theses, look through them ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

• "In February 2021, multiple illegal offshore gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were blocked due to illegal activity, following an order given by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to Australian internet service providers (ISPs). The ACMA also urged Australian users of these sites to withdraw their money" - references do not contain information supporting this thesis, look through them ^{[5] [6]}

• "In March 2021, Spillemyndigheden, the Danish Gambling Authority (DGA), announced the blocking of several online casinos operated by SoftSwiss subsidiary, Direx N.V. According to the DGA, these gambling websites operated without a license and offered Danish users unfair and illegal gambling products. The Swedish Gambling Authority (SGA), Spelinspektionen, also recently banned some of SoftSwiss' online casinos, but later revoked the decision" - References do not contain information supporting this thesis, look through them ^{[7] [8] [9]}

Deleted theses violate the principals described in Wikipedia:No original research, and also demonstrate disrespect to the requirements for verifiability and reliability of references described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Vlavluck ( talk) 09:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

There is disagreement over at Talk:Spanish Empire#Colonial empire about whether referring to the Spanish empire as a colonial empire in the WP:LEAD is compliant with WP:NPOV. Further input would be appreciated. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly about this article's subject or potential title, but I wanted to post this here for wider scrutiny because I suspect it gets to the core of WP:NPOV and its application as it relates to religious beliefs that directly conflict with science. There was only brief discussion on the talk page around this move ( Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups#Article title in May 2020, but nothing further, which I was surprised by. — Goszei ( talk) 02:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Why?? There's no Wikipedia policy that says that all discussions must take a long time. It seems like a simple and not particularly controversial change in the wording of the title. I don't see the core of WP:NPOV here. NightHeron ( talk) 11:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, but I support the move from: "Creation–evolution controversy" to "Rejection of evolution by religious groups": as the editor who moved it (Vsmith) said: "There is no controversy." and that is correct; there is no controversy in the science. I see this as similar to some previous Pope's "Rejection of condoms as a means of AIDS prevention"...we wouldn't title an article "Controversy over the effectiveness of condoms at preventing transmission of HIV" --- Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've started an RfC on whether a name used by less than 1% of the local population of Bar, Montenegro, should be in the first line of the lede: [25]. Khirurg ( talk) 22:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: VikingDrummer ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi ·  lta) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

I am new to this and was unaware of some of the rules and still trying to figure it out and I do have a coi as I am a relative of the bio grandchild of Bob Gibson. He has a grandson and someone who likely has a coi and is a relative of Bob's son who wants to keep the fact he has a child hidden due to his abandonment of the child. The child was born on July 7, 2010 and had a relationship with Bob but not with his bio dad, Bob's son Chris. The child does exist and shouldn't be forced out of claiming himself as Bob's grandson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troooth ( talk • contribs)

There is no reliable secondary source for this, and it is really immaterial, being that the fact is not about Gibson himself, but a non-notable minor child. There is no basis for inclusion in his article. Elizium23 ( talk) 13:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Troooth, this requires a source. Is there a newspaper or other reliable source reporting on the grandson and Gibson's family? VikingDrummer ( talk) 06:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There is an RFC on Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute#RFC concerning whether or not the current article title is an appropriate neutral descriptive title, additional views welcome. nableezy - 03:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 has an ongoing RFC for how we should refer to the report authored by the WHO and based on a study conducted jointly with China. 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. Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 19:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I raised concerns about lack of coverage of doubts about efficacy at WikiProject Psychology here. I listed some sources, but I'm hoping that someone with better psych background than I have could look at those two articles and bring them in line with WP:NPOV. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 00:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: VikingDrummer ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi ·  lta) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

On the talk page, I listed sources that discuss Theodorakis' antisemitic statements. [51] But my inclusion of them in the article was reverted twice without the opponents of inclusion engaging on talk. I appreciate the attention of uninvolved editors in this dispute; hopefully we can settle this without a RfC. ( t · c) buidhe 05:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source so cannot verify the context in which the remarks were made. One of the reverting editors said the remarks were taken out of context. Given Theodorakis' background and beliefs, it seems odd that he would call himself an anti-Semite. Are you able to post the passage in which the quote appears so that the context can be seen? I did find an opinion piece that mentioned part of the quote you referenced. ^[1] It said that Theodorakis said "Today we may say that this small nation is at the root of evil and not of good". It does not mention Theodorakis describing himself as an anti-Semite, which would have been more noteworthy. It does discuss how Theodorakis' words were then transformed by Thomas Friedman and Israel’s interior minister, Tommy Lapid, into "Jews are the root of evil". Burrobert ( talk) 05:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I read the first article from the list you posted on the talk page. It mentions the quote "small nation is at the root of evil" but does not mention that Theodorakis has described himself as an anti-Semite. Do any sources mention this quote? Burrobert ( talk) 06:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

:::Here's a source:

[52] He did apologize later in a letter. VikingDrummer ( talk) 10:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)sock puppet of banned user- GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That’s not all VikingDrummer - full text below:

Accused of anti-Semitism

During a press conference in 2003, Theodorakis' criticism of Israeli policy reached a new level, as he said, "Today we can say that this little country is the root of evil, not of good, which means that too much self-righteousness and stubbornness are evil." In a 2011 television interview he even described himself as an "anti-Semite and anti-Zionist," adding that "American Jews" had been responsible for the global economic crisis that had hit Greece as well.

Those statements horrified not only people in Israel. In a later apology, Theodorakis explained his position in a letter to the Central Council of Jews in Greece. What he had meant by "root of evil" was the "unfortunate policies" of the state of Israel and its ally, the US. Had he once described himself as "anti-Semitic," he had misspoken after a very long and tiring interview. "I love the Jewish people, I love the Jews!" said Theodorakis.

[53] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe, are there any records of him saying similar things on other occasions? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, looks like this has been discussed in the past.. [54], [55] and other editors tried to include it back in a day [56], [57], [58], [59], [60] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it could be added .. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 11:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

One of the sentences at issue is "He has described himself as "anti-Israel and anti-Semite," because "this small nation (Israel) is the root of evil"". From the information above, this seems to be a combination of a press conference from 2003 and a TV interview from 2011. Burrobert ( talk) 12:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It's fine to mention this since it was considered significant enough to include in his Deutsche Welt biography. [61] But you have to accurately represent the complete story. You mention for example that he once called himself an anti-Semite but don't mention his response when confronted with that. Here's a link to an article about his 2003 interview. While I believe that lots of people are falsely accused of anti-Semitism, his remarks are less ambiguous. It's surprising how little attention it received outside Israeli and Jewish media. But then I guess his fame had faded. So I think the additions provide the proper weight, since weight is determined by overall coverage in reliable sources. TFD ( talk) 13:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC 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. Benevolent human ( talk) 00:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Benevolent human:, your RfC notifications seem rather one-sided, all are either antisemitic topics, or Jews, or Israel, etc... Do you think that those who are active on articles such as Islam, Somalia, Islamophobia, Feminism, to name a few, would be interested in participating in this discussion as well? Zaathras ( talk) 02:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Zaathras:, yes, this has now been addressed [62]. I think the issue, from my perspective, is that the people who frequent the articles you mentioned are already closely watching the Omar page, and I wanted to balance it out. Benevolent human ( talk) 02:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That's known as canvassing and is highly undesirable. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Benevolent human, how do you know who is watching which pages? -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Talk:Tether (cryptocurrency)#RFC about tone concerning whether the lede (e.g. "Tether is a controversial crypto currency") and the article as a whole are written with an impartial tone. Additional views welcome. - DaxMoon ( talk) 09:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The article on Eric Feigl-Ding currently has a section on criticism he has received. The neutrality of this section is in dispute. I have been trying to address this on the talk page, but I have received very little direct engagement on my questions from the editors who have written this section. I believe the entirety of the section violates WP:NPOV, and almost every sentence violates some specific sub-policy.

Rather than me going into detail immediately, I would like to ask you to read the section titled "criticism" and then note your answers to the following questions, which I will argue is misleading:

1) Who was criticizing him? Are their qualifications relevant?

2) Can you name anyone who was praising him? Are their qualifications relevant?

3) What is he criticized for?

4) Who used the app he helped develop?

5) What conclusion is supported by mentioning the app in this section? What purpose is being served by mentioning the Google Scholar section?

6) Is there a source that supports the claim he has “a relevant academic background”?

7) Does the second paragraph of this 2 paragraph section have anything to do with the topic?

The article: https://undark.org/2020/11/25/complicated-rise-of-eric-feigl-ding/ provides some evidence to back up what I say below, but if you're willing to take my word for it, here's some of the concerns.:

a) The people who criticized him are among the most respected infectious disease researchers in the world. Does that come across in the wikipedia article?

b) The unsourced statement made in point 6) above is in dispute. Given that, does this statement promote one point of view above others (c.f., WP:VOICE)?

c) The named person praising him in point 2) above has no infectious disease experience. Does the juxtaposition of his praise with the anonymous criticism violate WP:UNDUE?

d) In point 3) above, did you answer that they were criticizing him for using social media or for not having an infectious disease background? They are criticizing him because they believe much of the information he is spreading is inaccurate and sometimes dangerous, and that he seemingly implied that he had expertise that he did not (which gives undue credibility to his statements). Does the section in any way convey these concerns?

Now consider the sources given about his app development. Both sources are from https://www.hackreactor.com/blog, and regard an app that was developed at Hack Reactor.

e) I believe this is an example of a "publication put out by an organization" about a "topic that organization has an interest in promoting." (c.f., WP:IS).

f) If your answer to 4) above was that it was used for the Ebola response you are wrong. It was never used for this. Hack Reactor is a site that teaches programming skills. I see nothing in the blog posts that clearly states that this was anything more than a class project which was never installed on anyone's phone for the purpose of contact tracing anywhere (the website for the app http://germtheorylabs.org/ mentioned in one of the blog posts is abandoned). I have looked extensively for any other source about this app and I can find none other than Ding's tweets, which came out after extensive prominent work on COVID apps by others was announced. I believe the current wording of the Wikipedia article on this point is potentially misleading, and I think the whole point is actually an example of WP:OR --- see g) below.

Finally, the person who added the comments on the app and Google Scholar said on the talk page:

″Also, the 'zero experience' infectious disease claim seems to be wrong. The two Hack Reactor points out Feigl-Ding was involved in the development of a 2014 contact tracing app for outbreaks. Also his Google Scholar publication record includes many papers on global health and on infectious disease risk factors. We cannot just dismiss all those. Hence added citations to them for balance.″  

g) So these are clearly intended to support the conclusion that he has prior infectious disease expertise. However, the cited sources do not themselves make this point. Additionally the "balance" achieved here also involved watering down the explicit statement from a prominent infectious disease researcher (who had undoubtedly seen his Google Scholar page) that he has 'zero experience' with understanding infectious disease epidemic dynamics. This would appear to me to be a violation of WP:SYNTH as well as WP:UNDUE. As an infectious disease researcher myself I dispute any implication that his Google Scholar page demonstrates experience studying epidemic dynamics.

I have given a detailed explanation of what I consider to be violations of a number of Wikipedia policies in the relevant talk page in the section on "balancing discussion". My impression of the responses I have received is that they have ignored my questions about whether the section violates WP:NPOV in general and WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:IS, WP:UNDUE, etc in particular. Instead they argue that the criticism is "unfair" and "propaganda". The fact that this is their response to the more clinical question of whether a statement exemplifies original research or whether a source is independent makes me believe they are not interested in conveying the content of the criticisms and the responses to them. They are engaging in the dispute rather than describing it, which violates WP:VOICE.

After feeling that my points were being ignored, I added a section "Current Violations of Wikipedia Policy in the Article", to the talk page which has been ignored except for one person who responded positively, and one person who called it "superfluous". There is still no engagement from the relevant editors on the explicit examples I claim violate the various policies.

In full disclosure, I am one of the infectious disease researchers who has criticized Eric Feigl-Ding for what I view as numerous dangerously inaccurate statements he has made on social media. Our primary concern is the inaccuracy. I can point to other people who are also not infectious disease researchers who are commenting about COVID on social media whose content I promote. So it is not about the use of social media, or even being from outside the field. These people who I promote typically make comments on specific subtopics on which they do have expertise. Additionally, it isn't even a difference of opinion about policies --- I am generally supportive of the same policies that he promotes with a few exceptions. The issue with Ding is that he does not constrain himself to things on which he has expertise --- he makes bold sensational comments on things he doesn't understand, and he is often wrong (but he strongly implies he has expertise on the topics). When he makes mistakes he tends to ignore them for a while, and if he ever does anything about it it's usually a quiet delete a week later, with no attempt to correct the record, generally after hundreds of thousands of impressions. When given a choice between an accurate statement or something misleading that might go viral, I believe he chooses the latter. These are my opinions. Because I recognize my conflict, I have refrained from directly editing the page and restrict myself to the talk page.

But I'm tired of my questions being ignored. I believe that the section not only misrepresents the criticism, it has been written to refute the criticism. It needs to get fixed, and I really want to stop wasting my time on it. I was blissfully unaware of how it had evolved over the past year, but when he tweeted out a link to his patreon page asking for monthly donations, I decided to take a look at the article, and I was shocked by the inaccuracy of it.

I would like to see the section either accurately reflect the criticism or be entirely removed. I feel that the criticism should be included, but I would prefer it be removed than that the section be left in its current form. Joelmiller ( talk) 14:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@ GlobeGores, Sahiljain22, Yug, Smojarad, Zmlpqa01, and Ekpyros:

@ Joelmiller: wow, yep, you're right. This is particularly egregious, because people come here to find good quality info. Many of the citations and parts of that section are not of wiki-quality. I'll start helping you fix it!-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 to all criticisms highlighted by User:Joelmiller. GlobeGores ( talk page | user page) 06:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This relate to the John McGuirk page ( /info/en/?search=John_McGuirk) and particularly to the comment that he is editor of a "far-right" media outlet called Gript. This designation, that Gript is "far-right" has been the subject of an extensive, going discussion on the talk page, but I wanted to escalate that discussion to here as I am concerned that the article has serious issues, and I would like to involve the wider community.

Effectively the issue is that the claim is sourced to a pseudo-anonymous blog, which calls Gript alt-right, and an academic article which says Gript will sometimes "echo" the talking points of the far-right, but does not claim that Gript is itself far-right. During the discussion a third source, which does class Gript as far-right was added.

I have argued that the decision to class Gript as far-right, when it has been widely discussed in Irish media either and has never been called far-right by a reputable mainstream Irish publication, gives undue weight to a fringe publication and appears to be an attempt by an editor to enshrine a personal political view.

I have linked numerous articles which describe Gript as right-wing and conservative, and I attempt to expand the description of Gript on the page to read "He is the editor of the news and opinion website Gript, which has been described alternatively as conservative, right-wing and alt-right." I thought that was a fair compromise, as it included the description of Gript as alt-right even though it comes from a pseudo-anonymous, and openly partisan, blog, whilst showing that that was not the general position - the material was still removed.

It is my view that the article does not represent the wider understanding of Gript in Ireland, but rather privilege's a very particular political perspective on it. I would be interested in other's thoughts, as there are only four of us on the talk page and I do not feel the issues on the page are likely to be dealth with.

As a sidenote, and this may not be of relevance to this board - as a new contributor to Wikipedia I was appalled at the behaviour of one of the other edtiors (Bastun), who seemed to take my edits as a personal affront. He reverted my original attempts to fix the article without reason; mocked me; implied I am innumerate; accused me of lying; said my NPOV dispute was disingenuous; started a sockpuppet investigation into my account; and consistently refers to me as a SAP in a fashion that I take to be an attempt to denigrate rather than a mere statement of fact. It is not what I expected, and I have not done anything to him to justify his venom. It has certainly made me reconsider devoting further time to improving articles if this is the accepted approach towards new comers.

Thank you for your consideration. Perpetualgrasp ( talk) 21:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a look at that page history, and I have to concur with Bastun. You've been edit warring your own unsupported claims in place of well-sourced information for over a week now, and you ought to be blocked to stop it. And while Bastun isn't entirely blameless here, they're close enough to it that, from where I sit, nothing more than a reminder that WP:AN3 exists is needed. Bastun is enforcing an existing consensus and accurate information, whereas you are making inaccurate changes that contradict the consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I legitimately do not understand how expanding the article to add in the sentence above, all of which was sourced from mainstream reporting and gives a fuller understanding of the topic, can be considered edit-warring or improper in any way? On edit warring, bar the addition of the sentence I highlighted above, and undoing the removal of an NPOV dispute tag, which another editor had accepted the need to add, I haven't made any edits to the article since Bastun undid my original edit. Perpetualgrasp ( talk) 22:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)( talk) 22:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As someone involved in this discussion, here is my interpretation of the sourcing:

• IrishCentral is an Irish news site founded by journalist Niall O'Dowd and is part of the Irish Voice/ Irish America media network. It calls Gript a far-right publication. It also calls McGuirk a Far-right commentator, but we're not using it to make that claim.
• The Beacon is an advocacy news outlet focusing on the far right, especially in Ireland. It calls Gript an alt-right website. The alt-right is part of the far-right, and The Beacon's own subheading is reporting on the far right.
• DCU Institute of Future Media, Democracy, and Society (FuJo) is a media research center with an impressive list of members and an equally impressive advisory board. In the section on "Manipulation tactics", the DCU writes In the US, far-right talking points have been popularised through an eco-system of influencers and partisan media outlets who relay the message in milder terms. In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean...Gript and The Burkean primarily produce opinion pieces while positioning themselves as an alternative to mainstream journalism. It also includes a screenshot of McGuirk tweeting a Gript article using the manipulation tactics that it just discussed. The article itself is titled "How the far-right incite hatred".
• The Belfast Telegraph ( Belfast Telegraph) is an Irish daily newspaper published by Independent News & Media. It calls Gript right-wing.
• The Times ( The Times) is a British daily newspaper, a subsidiary of News UK which is owned by News Corp. It calls Gript conservative.
• The Journal ( TheJournal.ie) is an Irish news site. It says that Gript has a typically right-wing and conservative approach to news and debate. I think that's close to calling Gript right-wing and conservative, but that typically seems to weaken their findings.
• There's also The Irish Examiner, which quotes an Irish Department of Health or Department of Education document that says Right-Wing opinion/news account Gript Media. That statement isn't made in the editorial voice of The Irish Examiner, and it's unclear whether it came from the Department of Health, Department of Education, or a third-party (because the Department of Health outsourced some of their analysis). Ultimately, I don't think there's enough information here to determine who the original source was or if they're at all reliable.

Which gives us 3 sources that say far-right, 1 source that says conservative, 1 source that says right-wing, and 1 source that weakly (in my mind) says right-wing and conservative. To me, this seems like a clear indication that far-right is an appropriate label, although some other description that also includes right-wing and conservative might be acceptable, though these labels are used fewer times.

There are also 5 sources ( The Independent, a second Journal article, a second Times article, a third Times article, and The Irish Times) that don't describe Gript's political leanings one way or the other. Perpetualgrasp has been arguing at Talk:John McGuirk#Far-right classification that we need to use the absence of a description in those sources as evidence that we shouldn't describe Gript on Wikipedia. I've explained that this would violate NPOV by balancing around claims that the sources don't make. Woodroar ( talk) 22:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar gives a generally fair overview of the sourcing, but to give some slight clarifications for others who may be reading. Firstly the DCU source does not call Gript far-right. It discusses how far right talking mights may get into the public discourse and says that certain far-right talking points are echoed in Gript. I would argue that is an important distinction. That moves us to 2 sources that say Gript are either far-right, or alt-right. The Beacon is of, in my view, questionable reliability and I currently have a query as to its status on the relevant noticeboard.

On Woodroar's point about my linking of material that does not refer to Gript as having any particular political affiliation. I shared that material, not because I think it negates the other sources, but rather to demonstrate that Gript, when talked about in the Irish MSM, is not generally classed as being far-right, and that that would not be the case if the Irish MSM had a consensus on Gript being far-right. I was unable to find a single instance of a reputable Irish mainstream publication calling Gript far-right. Given the impact of calling an organisation far-right, and that in this instance it is also going to reflect on a single living person, I simply thought that was important to demonstrate. Perpetualgrasp ( talk) 23:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

1) I never called Perpetualgrasp a "sap", I stated that theirs is a WP:SPA. Which it is. (Other editors should note there is currently a sock-puppet investigation open, as one other editor on that talk page has made no other edits except to that talk page and their user page; and one IP was active around the same time, making the same edits (that IP has now stopped, and agrees with the consensus to include 'far-right' as the description of Gript).

2) There is a consensus of 4 editors to one on the talk page that the description 'far-right' is accurate. Even without the IP address that changed its mind, that's still 3-1.

3) Above, Perpetualgrasp again mentions "Here are all these sources that don't mention Gript as being far-right." And they're right, some sources don't mention that Gript is far-right. But as has been pointed out at least twice already on that talk page, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If a newspaper article just describes Gript as a news site or magazine website, that does not mean that it isn't far-right. Perpetualgrasp just won't accept that.

4) Perpetualgrasp again mischaracterises the references used. As pointed out on 25 May on the talk page, The Beacon: Uses a subheading of "Far-right leaks?" when discussing Gript. Reference 2, the Future Media Journal from the DCU Institute of Future Media, Democracy and Society, in an article titled "How the far-right incite hatred", says "In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean." I mean, that's pretty clear.

5) Perpetualgrasp again disputes the validity of The Beacon as a source (after repeatedly doing so on the Talk page). They were first informed about RS/N (if they didn't already know about it, obviously) at 14:02 on 25 May, but only opened a RS/N discussion this evening? And are still asserting it isn't reliable, despite the fact that RS/N won't conclude anything for a couple of days?

6) There are five of us (currently/recently) on the talk page, not four.

7) Perpetualgrasp earlier changed "...editor of the far-right website Gript", to their own preferred version, "editor of the news and opinion website Gript, which has been described alternatively as conservative, right-wing, and alt-right" - completely omitting "far-right" in the process. Sanctions may be required. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page I had planned to hold off on bringing forward the Beacon to RS/N in order to give the sockpuppet investigation time to finish. You had said it was appropriate to bring it to RS/N if I had concerns about its reliability; I have now done so. You are correct about SPA instead of SPA, apologies I mistyped.

On far-right I changed it to alt-right as that is what the Beacon calls Gript. You can point to their subheading, or the site's tagline all you want, but what they are actually called in the body of the text is alt-right. If you want to switch it to "editor of the news and opinion website Gript, which has been described alternatively as conservative, right-wing, and far-right" and link to the Irish Central piece instead of the Beacon that would seem workable.

We have been going over this for days, and it's very clear we're, if left to our own devices, not going to agree on what should be done here, or what weight should be given to the Beacon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualgrasp ( talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a note, as Bastun asked editors to note it above, that the sock puppet investigation into me started by Bastun has ended with a finding that the accounts Bastun flagged are unrelated. Perpetualgrasp ( talk) 12:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Coming over from WP:RSN on this after diggin a little more—I'm not sure that describing Gript as "far-right" is the best move with regards to a wikivoice statement. I have significant questions regarding the editorial process and editorial control exherted by The Beacon, and I'm not seeing a WP:USEBYOTHERS that points towards it having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, either. Furthermore, the analysis on its bias based on excluding sources that don't mention a bias seems to be deficient... couldn't that be considered some form of marginal evidence to the website not having an extremist bias? Also, regarding The Journal, their other pieces (such as this one) reaffirm that the site has a generally generally right-wing, conservative perspective, and I think that we can say that the paper provides some evidence against a "far-right" designation. When taking a look at additional sources (such as The Busineess Post, which describes the source alternatively as "conservative" and "right-wing"), it's not clear to me that the analysis above is complete or that a complete analysis would result in us labeling the group as "far-right". "Right-wing" seems to be the median, though it's still not clear to me how to analyze the sources that don't mention a site bias. In the absence of a consensus among RS that the site is "far-right", I don't think labeling them as "far-right" is justified. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

As has been noted, the Beacon is not the only source using the "far-right" label, and at least one of the sources that does appears to be sufficiently reliable. And please let's not get into any outlandish "what the definition of 'is' is" style wikilawyering here. (i.e., "Well they don't actually say they are far right, just that they employ far right tactics and talking points" - seriously?). Now, my position on this and all similar matters having to do with the far right: being wishy washy with how we describe them, whitewashing, etc, can have consequences along the magnitude of, possibly, global security being jeopardised. We should not forget that the far right started World War II, and that one of the (many) factors that allowed them to come into power back then was lackadaisical complacency among the press, etc. Hitler et al were not taken seriously as a real threat by too many people. So, my motivation for my position here is not partisan or ideological - just the track record of who were the ones that caused the biggest manmade catastrophe in the history of the world. Firejuggler86 ( talk) 01:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The DCU source on the claim, clearly the most reliable of those used, has been amended to explicitely state that they do not classify Gript as a far-right outlet. The note has been added to the bottom of the piece. It would appear I wasn't engaged in "outlandish" wikilawyering, but rather was absolutely correct about what the source did, and did not, say. https://fujomedia.eu/far-right-disinformation-tactics-in-ireland/

Beyond that the rest of your comment only holds if we presuppose that Gript are in fact far-right. If they are not your points regarding the far-right are simply irrelevent. Perpetualgrasp ( talk) 18:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above SPA editor is pursuing this issue in three concurrent venues this evening: here, the article talk page, and, for good measure, the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

And you are participating in all of them, although on the talk page I merely made a note that the source had clarified and that I had previously said it was being read incorrectly by certain editors, and on the other we are debating if the Beacon is a reliable source, so I don't accept it is the same issue or forum shopping. You were wrong Bastun, just accept it and work to come to some constructive outcome. This is just undignified. Perpetualgrasp ( talk) 22:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely WP:FORUMSHOPPING, as has been pointed out by other editors here, not just me. There is no active NPOV dispute on the article, so why are you here? Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Bastun you know as well as I do that there was an NPOV dispute on the article, and this conversation has simply continued beyond the point it was active. I'm not in control of that, the conversation will last as long as other editors think there is something to discuss. Having said that, given that consensus was reached when the DCU source was being incorrectly used, I could now see an argument that we should again have an active NPOV dispute on the page.

I've tried to respond to your points fairly and with curtesy Bastun, even though I have noted I think you have been unceasingly uncivil towards me since we first crossed paths, but you now suddenly having all these issues, just after I point out you were wrong, seems to be a fairly transparent act of reprisal. Perpetualgrasp ( talk) 23:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• MPants at work, Firejuggler86, you may be interested in the discussion ongoing here. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Is this really a neutral term? I can tell you as someone who grew up in the faith (no longer practising but this ain't about me), when I hear the term it raises alarm bells. It is never used as a self-description, it's kind of like "Romanist", "Papist", "Romish" etc, emphasisizing the Pope rather than the catholic (universal) aspect. It came about from point scoring whereby the Church of England wanted to disallow the Catholic church's exclusive claim to the term "catholic", which stems from the Nicene Creed. Is it really such a huge imposition to use the term "Catholic" instead of "Roman Catholic", unless you're distinguishing from "Maronite Catholic", "Chaldean Catholic" etc? MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 09:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We have mutiple articles on this question: start at Roman Catholic (term). So the short answer is "it's complicated", and the slightly longer answer is "it depends on context". Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 10:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should establish a consensus on use of the term, which can be easily linked to by WP:ROMANCATHOLIC, cause the issue is going to come up again. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 10:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

wp:commonname, and as said, it all depends on context. But what term would you prefer? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We generally use Catholic piped to Catholic Church to refer to individuals, but it does get subtle in more technical articles. Which leaves me wondering, which article(s) trggered this question in the first place? Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 12:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Well for me it was specifically Ruy López de Segura (I'm a chesshead). in the context of 16th century Spain, "Roman Catholic" seemed very unnecessary to me. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 12:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

For that one I would have gone for "Catholic priest" piped to Priesthood in the Catholic Church. But a more interesting question is the categories Category:Spanish Roman Catholics and Category:16th-century Roman Catholic priests both of which are part of a massive tree structure beginning at Category:Roman Catholic priests. That led me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism, and from there I see that there's an RFC going on at the moment which looks like the place to continue this dicussion. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 13:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, that RFC is 8 months old and basically settled nothing for us. Elizium23 ( talk) 15:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

There's also an essay at Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic? which seems like a place to catch up rapidly on past discussions. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 13:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Typically, our usage on Wikipedia is to use "Roman Catholic" to mean " Latin Church Catholic". For example, in our category trees, you will see "Roman Catholic X" in parallel to "Syro-Malabar Catholic X" and "Chaldean Catholic X" and "Byzantine Catholic X". So we use "Roman" in the sense of "non-Eastern". It is a very common consensus and I see it quite often to describe people, organizations, buildings, etc. Anyone who wishes to break this consensus will need to attack our thousands upon thousands of diocesan articles, plus our firmly-entrenched category trees en masse.

Good luck with that! Elizium23 ( talk) 15:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

On the rare occasionas where it is necessary to make a distinction between a Maronite Catholic or Chaldean Catholic etc and a "Western" Catholic, the correct term is "Latin Rite Catholic", not "Roman Catholic". So basically I see no context where the term "Roman Catholic" is correct. Yes, it's my POV, but so is gratuitously introducing the term "Roman Catholic" into an article where simply "Catholic" will do the job. It seems many American Catholics have adopted the term and don't see any problem with it, but this is not the case for all. In Ireland, for example, where there is a long history of anti-Catholic laws and discrimination from the British rulers, use of the term will immediately get you on someone's bad side, just as calling Derry "Londonderry" will. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 05:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Funny thing about "Latin Rite". It's an ambiguous term. It's sometimes used officially such as in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (canon 1109). However, as we see in canon 1, the official name is the Latin Church. This is not to be confused with the Roman Rite.

For some decades now, the Churches have been working to distinguish "Rite" and "Church". A lot of old terminology is still out there. Elizium23 ( talk) 14:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

But anyway most Catholics are not Italian let alone Roman. As in, "I'm not a Roman Catholic, I'm an Irish Catholic!". MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 04:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a strawman. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2, it used used as a self-description. A LOT. Please consult WP:RS for the official, published WP:COMMONNAME of Catholic organizations. You will find that we have reappropriated the name, and nobody who is Catholic considers it derogatory anymore.

(Actually, if you call an Eastern Catholic "Roman", they may be flattered or they may be offended. You never know!) Elizium23 ( talk) 15:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said originally "it's complicated". I'm aware that the RFC didn't resolve anything, but that fact alone was worth knowing. And there was a post there today, so clearly some sort of discussion is still going on. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 15:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It is sometimes used as a self-description, but rather rarely, especially for people rather than institutions. Individual parishes and churches often so self-describe, to make their denomination clear. To say "nobody who is Catholic considers it derogatory anymore" is certainly wrong, although "derogatory" is not really the right word. It is certainly more othering than plain "Catholic". Johnbod ( talk) 19:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Growing up, I remember praying weekly (or more) for the "...one holy, Roman, catholic, and apostolic church..." I believe the church has changed the Creed since I left, but no parishioner I came across would have considered Roman "othering". We used it in self-reference literally almost every time we went in the building. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The Nicene Creed is used in the Catholic, Orthodox and many of the more traditional Protestant churches, and definitely makes no reference to "Roman", maybe you're misremembering it. It's a reference to the Four Marks of the Church. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 01:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• '...disallow the Catholic church's exclusive claim to the term "catholic"' - so your position is that Rome holds exclusive claim to the term "catholic"? That does not sound particularly neutral. yes, the Roman church is commonly called simply the "Catholic Church", and in contexts where this is completely unambiguous that is fine. In English contexts it is somewhat complicated, because the Church of England was part of the larger Roman Catholic Church for many centuries. When they split with Rome, they did not establish a new Church: they considered it to be the same church it had always been, with unbroken succession, and still retaining its "catholicness" while also adopting some reformed characteristics. So, that was one reason for specifying "Roman" - to disambiguate. As for emphasising "Popishness" - considering the Pope had declared the Church of England heretical and had issued a papal bull ordering all faithful Catholics to engage in efforts to violently overthrow the English government & monarch and install a Roman Catholic regime...can you really fault them for that? And meanwhile on the continent Europe was having one of its bloodiest wars in history because a number of countries had turned Protestant and the Pope didnt like it. Firejuggler86 ( talk) 06:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I will also make the point, though, that in the case of that Spanish chess player that prompted MaxBrowne2 to start this thread, just "Catholic priest" without the "Roman" epithet would have been just fine and/or preferable. Context matters, as has been said. Firejuggler86 ( talk) 06:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: VikingDrummer ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi ·  lta) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

In Far-right politics in Poland, Jan Żaryn, Lubusz Land, and maybe others there is a whitewash of the far right. Inconvenient associations and history are obliterated from view. Nulliq ( talk) 03:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This is, what, third? Fourth? New account with very few edits popping up on obscure articles to edit war? Yeah. Somethings going on here. Volunteer Marek 03:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, SPI time, methinks. You could also go to AE and request ECP protection on the talk page of any article that's getting it particularly bad. It worked for Race and intelligence.

I doubt anyone who's even vaguely familiar with your editing would take this seriously, but the diffs speak for themselves; there's no whitewashing here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Lot's of WP:DUCK sock quacking here indeed, but SPI, sigh, who's the master? Roll the dice... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The misrepresentation of that source by this brand new account (Nulliq) and another editor (Trasz) who initially re-entered that text into the article has been addressed on the article's talk page. [63] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC) :Not a misrepresentation, though inaccurate. The source has a few detail different on slogans than the text and "Critics" was replaced by "Western experts" which is different. User:Volunteer Marek's edit summary of "unsourced BLP vio" is more than inaccurate, it is dishonest. There is a cited source, and there is no BLP info there. VikingDrummer ( talk) 05:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user- GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

jfc, another brand new account barely a few months old. Anyway, the unsourced BLP edit summary was actually referring to this edit [64] where there’s a big old ^{citation needed} tag right after the attack text. Volunteer Marek 06:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

:::I watch this noticeboard. The edit summary was on a different edit, and is entirely untrue. There is a source, and it isn't BLP. VikingDrummer ( talk) 06:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user- GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

VikingDrummer - Thank you for watching this noticeboard. Since we are dealing with new accounts here, let me make clear that your account is also new, with an average editing cycle of few days per month (Jan. 4 and 30, Feb. 13, Mar. 2, 6, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 31, April 3, 17, 18, 21, 24, 28, 29, May 2, 11, 29 and June 3. You have been editing Wikipedia for a total of 22 days starting January 2021 [65], and you did run into a disagreement with VM before, reverting their edits here on April 21st [66] and posting this notice on VM's talk page [67] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I have discussed with Marek and User:Tino Cannst on Piast Canal where information on the mythological name was removed by Marek despite sources. VikingDrummer ( talk) 07:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user- GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

So not only do newcomers get bitten, they also get attacked and accused of operating in bad faith solely on the premise of their being new? smh. Firejuggler86 ( talk) 10:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

So basically, you've addressed this problem - which is definitely real - by dismissing arguments altogether because of their source. Good job, really. Trasz ( talk) 20:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)