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 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

An editor is insisting on calling DRASTIC "Internet activists" over other descriptions found in reliable sources has reverted my more accurate description, which would appear to be trivial, but is connected to a larger dispute over the Origins of COVID-19 and the COVID-19 lab leak theory. The editor withdrew an RfC they posted on this problem, leaving it unresolved, so I posted a closure request in Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Other_types_of_closing_requests, where Firefangledfeathers helpfully pointed me to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which pointed me here. This article can benefit from the input of more uninvolved editors mindful of WP:NPOV. 217.35.76.147 ( talk) 18:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

So you want to change " internet activists" to "scientists and amateur researchers", OK which scientists? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources referenced in this page describe several members as scientists. 217.35.76.147 ( talk) 18:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Are these people named? Can their qualifications be checked? And "amateur researcher" is too vague to be meaningful. Graham Beards ( talk) 19:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Many of them are anonymous, and among the ones who aren't there are very few with satisfactory education and, as far as I can tell, none with relevant scientific credentials. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Which is, of course, a good point, a physicist is not qualified to pass judgment on medical matters. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, are there any reliable sources that describe the group as not being qualified? Are there any reliable sources describing the group only as "internet activists" as our article does? 217.35.76.147 ( talk) 19:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

We do not need RS saying they are not qualified, we need RS saying they are. Here https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1232613.shtml. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Global Times is deprecated source, and therefore unusable and they are clearly biased. That said I do not think they are totally wrong in this instance. Drastic are massively unprofessional and some of them are arguably conspiracy theorists. [1]. If I had my way there wouldn't be an article covering them at all, the sourcing is inadequate to produce a neutral article on them, and they are only a minor part of the overall lab-leak covid origins controversy. When Nature covered the topic it didn't even mention the group by name, only as "a group that claims to independently investigate COVID-19" which shows how little regard the group is given by more credible scientific journalism. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Also can you (here, there are a lot of sources in the article) provide one RS that says some of their members are scientists? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed repeatedly. The article already describes the backgrounds of some of the members; describing them in the proposed way is unnecessary and misrepresents both the credentials and the actual activities of the group (which has made almost entirely non-scientific contributions). OP has also been pushing for a completely unsupported and non-NPOV description of the scientific consensus and reigniting other old disputes on the talk page. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree. It is the IP who is contravening WP:NPOV by attributing scientific expertise to an essentially anonymous group. "Activists" is a neutral term and should be preferred. Graham Beards ( talk) 20:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree too. Wikipedia shouldn't be over-egging the pudding for what is essentially a pretty fringey group. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

As the editor apparently implicated in this thread, I sure wish OP had alerted me to the discussion, as is required and described in big bold red letters at the top of this page. Thank you to @ Firefangledfeathers for doing so instead... As to the dispute in question, I reverted the OP's edits because they were editing against consensus. It's difficult to determine what the exact outcome of the RfC is, given that many many involved editors participated after the RfC was withdrawn, all going for an option that was not a part of the RfC. Even after that participation, though, consensus via compromise would seem to suggest that the most favored description does not include the word "scientists" (as a large share of participants were opposed to exactly this) but does include some form of "amateur" or "internet" to describe the ad-hoc and non-expert nature of the group. It deserves mention that, as far as I know, none of the DRASTIC members have any expertise in virology or epidemiology. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 20:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus to describe the group only as "internet activists", omitting other descriptions given in reliable sources. The RfC discussion seems to be more in line with "scientists and researchers" I added than "internet activists" you added. I am asking Paine Ellsworth to undo their close of the RfC so that I may reopen it to build real consensus on the matter. The BMJ refers to them as "online investigators", which would be a suitably neutral term for me. 217.35.76.147 ( talk) 19:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You have been asked here to provide those sources, please do so. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Some sources such as The BMJ describe them as "online investigators", and some like Vanity Fair describe some members as scientists, also describing them as "researchers". TheWeek has an article on Drs Monali Rahalkar and Rahul Bahulikar, and mentions other scientists, such as Dr Rossana Segreto, who describes herself as "former DRASTIC" on Twitter. The findings they have reported to have made don't require scientific credentials, and I don't necessarily care too much what we call them, so long as it is neutrally worded. "Internet activists" is not a neutral term and seeks to discredit them and their findings. You can find more sources in the RfC. 217.35.76.147 ( talk) 19:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

How is it not neutral? What do you think is not neutral about it? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Because it seeks to discredit their work, and was not the status quo text before the RfC, nor the consensus of the RfC. Sources do not describe the group as activists, but as "investigators" and "researchers" which I and other comments in the RfC say should be included too. 217.35.76.147 ( talk) 14:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

"Because it seeks to ..." ← huh? how can a phrase "seek" to do anything? Alexbrn ( talk) 14:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

In context of the other edits made by the same editors who prefer this descriptor, they obviously seek to discredit the group and their work. 217.35.76.147 ( talk) 14:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Err i just provided one that says they are activists. There is the crux of the problem, they are described in many different ways. But I am unsure how "activists" discredits them. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

So basically the IP is saying a bunch of editors are acting in bad faith. That's not much of an argument. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, I think there may be an issue here, as they are called many things. So what do we go with. I think an RFC is needed. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

TheWeek article you have linked is an opinion piece, not suitable for this sourcing purpose. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 22:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now launched the RFC [2]. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate more input on the issue of whether Jon Stewart's lab leak comments on his Colbert appearance should be included in the article. Please see the related discussion, thanks. SmolBrane ( talk) 17:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

A new discussion on the LGB Alliance Talk page, concerning POV, would benefit from new eyes/fresh participants. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Help from more editors to find due weight and NPOV in the article Killing of Lindani Myeni and the discussion on the article talk page would be deeply appreciated. ezlev ( user/ tlk/ ctrbs) 18:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) 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. -- Spekkios ( talk) 21:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Article: Cloudflare

The Controveries section of this article seems way too long to me and the section's inclusion seems to be mostly defended by one editor (Kving) who has a stated COI regarding other software companies. It's not uncommon for internet software companies to come under scrutiny for the misuses of it by bad actors, so this long section seems WP:UNDUE. Here is an unofficial RfC on the Talk Page and it has been suggested separately on the Talk Page here that the section could be spun out into a separate article, if necessary, as one potential solution.

Either way, I think this requires the attention of other editors. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 17:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Tensions run high at Talk:Éric Zemmour, with discussions involving several editors who are on the more inexperienced side of things. Eyeballs and input from experienced editors would be extremely welcome. JBchrch talk 19:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional input requested on above RFC concerning Etymology section on Yoruba people article, which seems to violate ( WP:NPOV) policy. The content was by Oluwatalisman and can be found through link provided here[ [3]]. A brief summary of discussions on the subject can be found through the link.[ [4]] Thanks Ppdallo ( talk) 11:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

There are way, way too many RfCs for that article right now. There should not be more than one RfC open at a time for the same article or from the same editor. If you want editors to comment, I recommend starting from scratch, as a Third Opinion (if this has only involved two editors so far), and plainly summarizing one issue in a way people can understand who aren't familiar with the content. And if needed, then it could be taken to RfC. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 16:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Pyrrho the Skeptic for your recommendation. Actually no other editor has so far commented despite my having posted the RFCs on other Noticeboards. Now i can see the reason why. I will notify the other editor i am in dispute with accordingly. Ppdallo ( talk) 18:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion here - Oluwatalisman ( talk) 11:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I came across Green Scare while browsing, and it seems to me like the article itself may be a WP:POVFORK off of Environmental_movement#Criticisms and/or Operation Backfire. I'm not sure quite how to address it; the article itself is written as if the "Green Scare" is very matter-of-fact, though its sourcing seems rather weak, and I don't think that there's a mainstream consensus among academics that opposition to the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front is akin to the red scare. I'm wondering if anybody with better knowledge than me of the environmental movement (and legal responses to it) would be willing to take a look at the article. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The lede seems fine to me. If it is a "term of art", Wikipedia can certainly mention that this is the thing that radical environmental activists have called the enforcement actions against them. I don't think WP is claiming that it is akin to the Red Scare in Wikipedia's voice... it looks sufficiently attributed to me. Whether it deserves a standalone article is a subject for a merge discussion, perhaps. jps ( talk) 02:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

On Australian Strategic Policy Institute there has been a dispute about the inclusion of content sourced to a MichaelWestMedia article written by Marcus Ruebenstein. The article is currently used to support the sentence, In August 2021, Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein wrote that " sockpuppet" accounts and accounts that appeared to be linked to ASPI had edited its Wikipedia article.

To give a history on the disputed content:

• The article and its reference were first inserted into the article on August 20, was removed from the article on August 21, was added back to the article by an IP, then removed removed, and then added back to the article on August 22, after which a tag for a better source being needed was added.
• On August 22, a discussion was opened on the article talk page. There has not been any closing summary of the discussion added yet, though based on my read through it, it didn't look like a consensus was achieved to include the disputed content.
• The page was protected by El C on August 22, leading to this back-and-forth stopping until the protection expired.
• After the protection expired, the content was removed and challenged per WP:DUE again on August 30, and then on the same day re-inserted, re-removed citing WP:BURDEN, and then incorporated into the article in a different form all by the end of the day.
• On September 1, the disputed content was cut-down and modified to include to the article being published on APAC News. This second reference was removed as redundant, but then restored by the same editor who inserted the second reference.
• On September 3, the disputed material was removed and then restored.
• On September 20, I challenged that the content was WP:DUE and removed it.
• On September 23, the disputed content was restored, with the comment "see talk".
• On September 24, the content was removed and then re-inserted.
• On September 25, the disputed content was removed and subsequently re-inserted, with the re-inserting editor arguing that the content "has been pretty stable" and citing WP:BRD.

I don't want to extend this reversion cycle any further, especially given that editors (including myself) seem to no longer have an agreement over what the stable version of the article was. Discussions on the article's talk page don't appear to have been able to reach consensus. So I'm appealing to this noticeboard to help resolve the dispute, via the RfC opened below. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?

Question: Is it WP:DUE to state in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article that In August 2021, Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein wrote that " sockpuppet" accounts and accounts that appeared to be linked to ASPI had edited its Wikipedia article, based off of the two references ( 1 2) present?

• Option 1: No, it is not due.
• Option 2: Yes, it is due.

— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?

• Not Due. In my understanding, it's atypical that a standalone opinion piece from a minor outlet would be due in an article, except when that opinion pieve is either referred to by a reliable secondary source or written by a relevant subject matter expert. In this case, the article was originally published by MichaelWestMedia and republished by APAC.news, so it might superficially appear that such a source exists. However, this isn't the case.

Certainly, APAC news's republication of a MichaelWestMedia can't contribute towards the reliability of the piece; after all, "APAC News" was created by Reubenstein in October of 2019 and is still run by him ( see footer), so it's totally non-independent of the article's author.

After looking into the sources a bit, I'm unsure of the extent to which, and the previous discussion on the reliability of the sources did not appear to gain a consensus on the extent of the reliability and independence from relevant parties. It appears that MichaelWestMedia might not clearly mark what are opinion pieces as opposed to what is straight reporting (see this example of an unlabeled opinion piece, or this one, or this one, etc.). Given the listing of the article as opinion on its "APAC News" (self-)republication, I would think it most reasonable to consider it so (especially since Reubenstein both wrote the piece and edits the website).

I'm also don't think that Reubenstein is an expert on the topic of Wikipedia sockpuppetry or internal functions, which is evidenced by the numerous errors in the article about how Wikipedia functions and most egregiously evidenced in verifiably inaccurate claim regarding the identity of the suspected sockmaster of Telsho. Additionally, according to an article in the South China Morning Post, Ruebenstein's articles about Australia-China economic ties have been republished by China’s state media, and he has made several appearances on state-run China Global Television Network. He appears to ( archive) have written content for China's state-run Xinhua News Agency as recently as June of 2020. The APAC news website footer ( archive) explicitly notes that the APAC News website is not blocked in Mainland China. Considering the current state of affairs regarding China and ASPI, I'm not sure that using an opinion piece written by a Xinhua writer and frequent CGTN commentator for facts in the article is a great idea, especially when there are clear factual errors present in the article.

All in all, I'm not convinced as to the reliability of the publisher and the author as a source for facts on this topic, I'm rather certain that the article is an opinion piece, and I believe that the inclusion of the website's claims is undue in the article. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is this on the NPOV noticeboard? This clearly belongs on the article talk page. Michael West Media is a relatively prominent source of news and current affairs reporting in Australia which meets our standards. The content in the article for which the Michael West Media article is a reference is easily verifiable by Wikipedia editors, and reflects a notable perspective on the article subject. This is clearly another desperate attempt to remove criticism from the article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 02:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems a case of both WP:STICK and forum shopping. Searching the Australian version of The Guardian for "Michael West" Australia returns a fair few stories where The Guardian has cited this news website, which indicates that it's a reliable and noteworthy source. The material here is one sentence, so it's not like it's excessive! Nick-D ( talk) 02:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

When there's a no local consensus after extensive discussions, the next step is to bring in outside opinions to try to work out a consensus. You're right, I should have raised the RfC on the talk page by that very same policy, and I would be happy to move it over to the article talk if there are no objections from you and the other editor who has commented thus far. That being said, this is literally the noticeboard to discuss neutral point of view, which is what WP:DUE falls under. To the best of my ability, I've informed every editor who made a related edit (in the talk or in the article itself) that this discussion was taking place here, and I've left a note on the article talk page. And, yes, one sentence given to a random opinion piece from a non-reliable author is one sentence too many. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Onetwothreeip: I have no issue with there being criticism in the article, and I've removed stuff from the article that seemed like advertorial puffery. The insinuation that I am desperately trying to remove criticism-quo-criticism is unfounded; my problem, as I've explained above, is with the particular source being an opinion article from a non-subject expert author. My own looking through sources doesn't appear to show that MichaelWestMedia is a relatively prominent source of news and current affairs reporting in Australia, and the very fact that there are basic errors that any real Wikipedian can verify shows doesn't indicate that the site places a premium on fact-checking. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You're not going to get anywhere with stating that the reference is an "opinion piece", as Wikipedia extensively uses opinion articles from reliable sources to support the inclusion of factual information. The content in the Wikipedia article is factual, not opinion. The error that you claim is in the Michael West Media article has nothing to do with the Wikipedia content that relies on it. Continuing to claim the source is not reliable is beating a dead horse, it's been shown that other reliable sources rely on Michael West Media, which is the easiest test of reliability. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

But Michael West Media is not a reliable source... Unless you can point to a consensus that says otherwise the horse is definitely not dead. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The article talk page, for a start. It has been explained multiple times that Michael West Media has been relied upon by The New Daily and Guardian Australia, both of which are already considered reliable sources. There's not a particularly high barrier for it. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the article talk page... If you really think otherwise please quote and/or link it. If you want to establish MWM as a WP:RS might I suggest you open a discussion at WP:RSN to do so instead of making that argument here? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no need to do that. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No you don’t need to do that, but if you don’t do that and continue to claim that there is consensus for reliability then you would continue to lie. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

No, the reliable sources noticeboard is not usually relevant to talk page consensus. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not due per WP:NOTNEWS. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 09:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if the question should be whether this is "due" or "not due", but this isn't new for Wikipedia – Saskatoon_freezing_deaths#Censorship_attempts and this Reuters report are some examples. Nevertheless, it definitely seems highly suspect that sockpuppets have tried to prowl the article of material that they found undesirable in their view. It may seem useful to keep the report based on the extraordinary circumstance. Otterslort ( talk) 19:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Otterslort: its not a report and the forensics (if one can even call them that) on it are sloppy to the point of being unusable... For instance the sockpupper Telsho is attributed to Waskertoon when they’re actually suspected of being a Ineedtostopforgetting sock. Those sock farms have completely different political outlooks which render’s the conclusion the author draws from their misattribution of Telsho mistaken (to be polite). What extraordinary circumstance would you be referring to? The author’s incompetence? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says nothing about which users are the sockpuppet accounts. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not due, unreliable source and unreliable/non-notable author... Also appears to have been published as an opinion piece on the author’s blog ("APAC News"). Note that the Author labels their own work as commentary (Section heading is “Comment, News") but Michael West Media doesn’t... Thats an issue. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Though they are practically the same piece, inclusion of the content relies upon the Michael West Media source (which is a sufficient source), not the APAC News source. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be relying on both sources not just MWM [5]. Did you not mean to use APAC as the source as well? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

We can use both but the Michael West Media source is required. I didn't add either source into the article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Huh, am I reading that diff wrong? Because I would swear that the diff is of you adding the info and *both* sources to the article. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Onetwothreeip is saying, for whatever it's worth, that they didn't originally add both sources. Onetwothreeip has repeatedly ensured that both blogs are used in the article when other editors have removed one. [6] Cjhard ( talk) 03:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I have ensured that the Michael West Media source is used. I don't have an opinion on whether to use the APAC News source. 21:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This story was also covered here on John Menadue's blog in a piece written by Ian Cunliffe. It is still just a rehashing of the Reubenstein article though and the blog is not the most reliable but does seem to have some editorial standards/oversight. Unfortunately, this story is probably not appropriate for inclusion without wider and more reliable coverage. I say unfortunately as I think the story is hilarious, probably true and is most certainly rife across WP. We have to stick to good sources though. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 06:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  One reliable source is enough for the majority of content that appears on Wikipedia, and the Michael West Media source is sufficient. This is a discussion for the article talk page though. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the way this has been brought to RfC is strange and, if I didn't assume good faith in all fellow editors, would appear to be an attempt to exclude people who were already discussing this on the talk page. This has still not been mentioned on the talk page and no one involved in the discussion was pinged. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 07:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging as yet uninvolved editors from the Talk page Burrobert Ultranova1337 Cjhard Vladimir.copic ( talk) 07:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Vladimir.copic: just FYI those are involved editors not uninvolved editors, not an issue just thought you should know. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Horse Eye's Back: thanks. I clearly mean they are as yet uninvolved in this RfC which took the discussion off the Talk page into a different forum. Otherwise I would have tagged every single other WP editor. Thanks again for your help. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 01:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Due. MWM is a popular but smaller outlet in Australia. It's more popular among younger, more informed Australians. Further, it's clear that some editors of the Wikipedia article (including some here, won't mention names) are potentially sinophobic, and favour articles that aren't neutral, and that hold biases against China. TLDR; Possible shills could be in our midst. Ultranova1337 ( talk) 08:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Noting that we should avoid assuming bad faith, I very much agree that this is the kind of topic that will draw out people who aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. With that in mind, has anyone here noticed that the editor who added the contentious content is a single-purpose account that has NEVER edited on anything else before or since? This is an embarrassing failure of administration. Cjhard ( talk) 04:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and so what? I've only committed a change once, everyone has a first time. Anyone can contribute to an open source project. Gatekeeping much? xD Ultranova1337 ( talk) 06:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: No, it is not due. These are blogs. Cjhard ( talk) 03:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: Not due. As per above, weak source(s) as obvious from the inaccuracies in the reportage about Wikipedia. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 20:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: Not due. This is not a significant enough opinion. -- Kathy262 ( talk) 19:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Just as an FYI to everyone here, since there are now editors making very brief comments here, there isn't an outcome of this discussion that would have any binding effect on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article. If you want your view to be represented in the content of that article, I encourage you to join discussion on the article talk page. Writing "due" or "not due" in bold on this page doesn't actually do anything. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Are you claiming that consensus achieved at a centralized noticeboard wouldn't be community consensus in any meaningful way? Am I reading this statement correctly?— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 03:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    • There is no community consensus matter here. This is about content on one specific article, and talk page discussion there takes precedence. Community consensus or global consensus is for broad principles that cover multiple articles. The community is invited to discuss the content of the article on the article talk page. Noticeboards aren't a way to appeal against article talk page consensus not going your way, which has now happened twice. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
      • It's highly atypical to absolutely ignore a noticeboard discussion in which there's been substantial community involvement. I don't think there's a basis for declaring that [j]ust as an FYI to everyone here... there isn't an outcome of this discussion that would have any binding effect on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article. That isn't how consensus-building works; when we are able to discern a consensus at a community level, then that consensus gets applied at a local level. This is something that happens all the time, especially on WP:RSN. And, the notion that I'm trying to appeal against article talk page consensus is bogus; there was (and remains) no consensus on the article talk page and I've explained my rationale above for why I made the RfC already and how editors were notified. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

        @ Mikehawk10: This is mostly just a repeat of arguments that have been made on the article talk page, not a reflection of the broader community. NPOV noticeboard isn't an appropriate place for an RfC, especially for a dispute that only applies to one article. If this was relevant to several articles it might belong on a noticeboard like this, but consensus on a noticeboard does not equate automatically to community consensus. You would be much better advised to do what was done in the preceding section, #Apple cider vinegar RfC, where the RfC is on the relevant article talk page and what is on this noticeboard is a link to it. Because a noticeboard isn't where consensus would be formed on this, editors who would provide their view on the article talk page wouldn't provide it here, and that can easily skew any apparent consensus. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 06:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

      • Yes, the idea that the talk page reached consensus is a very interesting reading of the discussion. Cjhard ( talk) 07:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

        The content in the article is stable after numerous changes. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 06:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

        • You say stable, others would say you edit-warred and stonewalled the article. Also the stability of the article says absolutely nothing about the existence of talk page consensus. Cjhard ( talk) 23:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I don't think the litany of changes described on this page and the lack of edits being made while an RfC is pending, taken together, show that the content is "stable". — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

          There isn't an RfC open that would impact the article, but no RfC would prevent edits being made on the article either. There were several changes that happened over two months, and this is not unusual, leading to a better version. Editors should raise issues they may have with content in the article talk page. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

          • This is taking WP:IDHT to new heights. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

            What I have said is directly relevant to claims made to who I am responding to. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

            

            Ultranova1337 ( talk) 13:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

            (1) I'm not sure this image is super productive towards discussion and (2) the image is distorting the section header below. Would you be willing to strike it? — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There’s been two separate debates involving a whole host of npov issues for the movie in question which can be found here [7] and [8]. Input especially from experienced editors would be welcome. Estnot ( talk) 04:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

There has been confirmed sockpuppetry (during 2016–2017) and then long-standing POV-pushing at People's Mujahedin of Iran, with spillover affecting other articles. This led to a recent Arbitration case (please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics) that topic-banned several users. I recently created an article about a well-known book on the subject ( Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin) using academic sources in hopes of nominating it as a GA, but I was wrong thinking that an article describing a book could be an exception.

I am now deeply disappointed that the dispute spread over this article and seek advice and intervention by the community, considering that the user I am in dispute with ( User:Ypatch) is not interested in constructive discussion (please see here). Considering that User:Ypatch was previously banned for edit warring and formerly topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics due to " treating Wikipedia as a political battleground", I have no way to think that the following examples in this article are different.

User:Ypatch asked me to provide where the source says "..."Islamist cornucopia" such as the MEK's ideology, which has been failed in delivering the utopia of the "true" Islam, will raise with another new version" and I quoted the part in the source. But then the user removed the sentence without further discussion.

Please see the other changes made, which I assume is tendentious editing:

Content removed	Altered version	Description	Pahlevun's Note
The asserted reason for them being politically unsuccessful, is that their ideology had no appeal among various social groups such as the working class, the peasantry, the bazaari and secular intellectuals among others.	During the Iranian revolution, the Mojahedin emerged as a viable and popular organization that played a crucial role in overthrowing the Shah’s government. Then Abrahamian describes the evolutionary nature of the Mojahedin’s ideology, and how its version of Shi’ism was either “too modernized, too leftist, or too religiously oriented in its political program”.	" Improved information from Bayat"	Is this removal because the source says they were politically unsuccessful and their ideology had no appeal to various social classes?
Thought the book, Abrahamian argues that the MEK has been transformed from a guerilla group established by middle-class intelligentsia (1965–1979) into a mass movement (1979–1981), and eventually evolved into an exiled politico–military sect and cult of personality around its leader, with little domestic support by 1987.	Thought the book, Abrahamian argues that the MEK had been established by middle-class intelligentsia and young people profoundly affected by the country's inequalities and oppression who played an important part in toppling the Pahlavi administration and winning the support and respect of many Iranians. Then, how after the Iranian revolution, the MEK quickly emerged as one of the biggest and better-organized parties in Iran, with their rallies drawing tens of thousands of participants. Abrahamian then explains how the Khomeini regime oppressed the MEK by executing and imprisoning thousands MEK members and sympathizers that rallied against the new regime.	" +info from the sources"	The summary of the book is completely removed. Apparently the part politico–military sect and cult of personality around its leader, with little domestic support by 1987 is what User:Ypatch tries to hide.
Abrahamian describes the evolutionary nature of the Mojahedin’s ideology, and how its version of Shi’ism was either “too modernized, too leftist, or too religiously oriented in its political program”.	Abrahamian describes the evolutionary nature of the Mojahedin’s ideology, which is considered one of the most important contributions of the book. Before and after the 1979 Iranian revolution, political opponents to the MEK often stigmatized it as “Marxist or Islamic Marxist” to the point that such pejorative denominations became common in stereotyping the organization in the media and academia. According to Abrahamian, the MEK’s influence is instead better understood through the analysis of its “conscious self-idenfication with Shi’a Islam”, which had origins in Iran’s urban and middle-class culture. The MEK did support and adapted Marxist social ideas (mainly about class struggle) to “fashion a materialistic interpretation of Islamic history”, but never described themselves as Marxist. According to Abrahamian, the MEK’s revolutionary version of Islam differed sharply from Ayatollah Khomeini’s new populist Islam.	" +info from the sources"	The part that was added by User:Ypatch as "Improved information", is now removed.
Anthony Hyman opined in International Affairs that "as an objective historian, the author does not seek to judge, but only to explain how the Mojahedin have since evolved into what is clearly more of a Messianic cult than a political party" and further calls the book "the most objective and comprehensive study available" on the MEK.	Anthony Hyman opined in International Affairs that “this is the most objective and comprehensive study available of this important Iranian movement from its origins to present”, where the author aims to remain objective without seeking to judge the group.	" Addressing some neutrality of Hyman's review"	Note that how the Mojahedin have since evolved into what is clearly more of a Messianic cult than a political party is removed, a part of the quote which User:Ypatch clearly doesn't like.
According to Menashri, the book is a "pioneering study" and a "unique contribution", in particular in Chapter 10 where it discusses social bases of the group, though he finds discussing MEK's worldview and ideological tension between Islam and Marxism in Chapter 3 the "most insightful". He also maintains that Abrahamian has overestimated strength of the MEK and its role in the Iranian Revolution and criticizes him for not extensively using Islamic literature to shed light on Islamic fundamentalism within the organization, and insufficient references to other radical Islamic groups.	According to Menashri, the book is a "pioneering study" and a "unique contribution", in particular the MEK’s social background in the context of political, social, ideological, economic, and international developments. He also maintains that despite the MEK’s importance, little had been written about them, and much of it had been ‘polemical, misleading and sometimes simply wrong’. Menashri says that the Abrahamian succeeded in answering the questions that the author set out to analyse: “the social background of the organization’s founders”; “the main feature of the ideology”; “how they managed to attract ‘a mass following’ but failed to gain political power”; and “and what the appeal of Mojahedin was and what groups in particular were drawn towards its ranks”.	" The main questions (and addressing some neutrality) of Menashri's review"	Is this because User:Ypatch doesn't like that the author says there were Islamic fundamentalism within the organization and it was a radical Islamic group? The main criticism asserted in the source is removed.
In 1994, the NCRI claimed that the Iranian government was in touch with some experts who had an "appeasing attitude", in an attempt to undermine the accusations against the MEK by the United States Department of State. The people who were named in the statement, including Abrahamian, then contacted the State Department and condemned the MEK.		" Irrelevant to Abrhamian's "Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin""	This part completely is removed for being "irrelevant" but is actually relevant to the book. I can quote the source naming the book.
Writing for the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post, Nissim Rejwan opined "Abrahamian's book is considerably more than an account of this movement, which is also known as "Islamic Marxist." It tells the story of the revolution from the inside, and offers useful insights into radical Islamic movements of our day."	Writing for the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post, Nissim Rejwan opined that Abrahamian's book offers useful insights on the MEK movement, telling "the story of the revolution from the inside".	" Paraphrase"	Again, the part of quote which User:Ypatch doesn't like is dropped.
He criticizes the book for omitting to compare the MEK, its activities and behavior with those of other revolutionary groups in different countries and also not analyzing its pro-Iraq involvement in war against Iranian forces as comprehensively as events in previous chapters.	He acknowledges that the book could have benefited from further analysis of the relationship between the MEK and Iraq or comparing the MEK’s activities with those of other revolutionary groups in different countries.	" Improved information from Leaman"	Apparently User:Ypatch wrote "the relationship between the MEK and Iraq" to hide unfavorable pro-Iraq involvement in war against Iranian forces
According to Farhand, the work "displays no grand theory of Islamist politics or Shi'i fundamentalism. Abrahamian does not impose labels on complex phenomena. He does not see political Islam per se as progressive or regressive; he neither romanticizes nor laments the Islamic tradition. Rather, he meticulously probes the anatomy of the Mojahedin and the course of its development in order to comprehend the causes behind the rise and fall of the organization".	According to Farhand, "Abrahamian does not impose labels on complex phenomena” but “meticulously probes the anatomy of the Mojahedin and the course of its development.	" Shortening long quotes"	Again, User:Ypatch is determined to delete everything about Shi'i fundamentalism or political Islam, the very same "anatomy of the Mojahedin" per the author. My typo (Farhand, instead of Farhang) is strangely left unchanged.

Please note that there are no reliability or verifiability problems with this article, and all these changes were made with zero discussion. There are other instances too, but this will suffice for judging. Please provide a solution. I am also notifying User:El_C and User:Vanamonde93.

— Pahlevun ( talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Pahlevun, from what I can see, it was you who didn't respond to Ypatch's comment from Oct 15 ( diff). How long are they expected to wait? And how does that align with your without further discussion claim? Otherwise, I didn't review your entire report and am unlikely to do so ( long). El_C 23:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@ El C: The diff you linked was not about the bulk of content removed from the article, its subject is not even mentioned in the table above (that undiscussed changes referred to examples above). I am really grateful that you took the time to even look at here, because this has got annoying (and frankly speaking, I feel the same). I notified you only because you have followed this for the last two years, in case it was still important to you. So I don't think you and Vanamonde are required to read or comment on this, though it would be appreciated if you do. Pahlevun ( talk) 00:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not have the time to investigate this situation at the moment, I'm sorry. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Given how this seems to be an editing dispute that has gone on for over a week, where the tensions risk escalating and you have gone to the effort of providing a clear analysis of the content issue, I think it's time to use the dispute resolution process, not a policy noticeboard. I recommend you cut and paste the above analysis to Talk:Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin, and list a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion; WP:3O has the requirement that talk has come to a standstill, so cite the failure to get help in this discussion as evidence that normal discussion on the talk page is not making progress. It's premature for the formality of WP:DRN. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at the Jim Garlow article? It doesn’t have a very encyclopedic tone—much of the article looks like it was written to preemptively defend the subject from criticism. Plus, some of paragraphs look like they might have been copied verbatim from somewhere else. The problem seems systemic and long-running (the article doesn’t normally get edited very frequently). It could definitely use a review. 2600:1014:B00B:AE90:91E8:5BD7:DB28:CE3F ( talk) 15:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some editors (myself included) are having a disagreement about the content of the lead and whether it's in line with WP:NPOV to describe the group as promoting conspiracy theories. Could probably use a set of fresh eyes if anyone is willing. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 10:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert and Kashmiri have already demonstrated that they are WP:PROFRINGE and pro-disinformation when it comes to the Syrian Civil War. The correct place to go is WP:ANI to get a topic ban for them, there is no point in reasoning with them. Hemiauchenia ( talk)

The phrase “wheelchair-bound” was changed to “wheelchair-using” [9] at Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (film). After a discussion at the talk page and at WT:MOS#"Wheelchair-bound", an RfC was launched at WT:MOS#RFC on wheelchair-based language.

The question is, can terms like "wheelchair-bound" be said to violate NPOV, and in that case would NPOV override consensus based on other arguments? Discussion at WT:MOS#NPOV vs Consensus. Comments are appreciated, thank you. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 15:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors. I'm coming to you with an unusual matter, but I believe it requires the attention of this board as well.

There is an ongoing controversy [10] about the reliability of the article written by one of the Haaretz journalists but based on the account of the banned Wikipedian, where Icewhiz (banned Wikipedian) states that inaccuracy in our article was written deliberately as a hoax. That claim has never been proven. An important thing to keep in mind is that the mentioned Wikipedian (Icewhiz) was banned from editing by ArbCom (among other things) for making the same claims. [11], [12]

Here is the link to the Haaretz article itself [13] and here is the description of the circumstances. [14] I especially would like to gather the viewpoints of uninvolved editors on the matter. Should we consider the story of banned Wikipedian as WP:RS?

Please provide your helpful opinions on the ongoing RfC here --> Talk:Warsaw concentration camp#RfC: Haaretz article on errors in WP article about the Warsaw concentration camp.

Thank you so much - GizzyCatBella 🍁 08:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The Project Veritas page is embarrassing to anyone who is unbiased and actually cares about the truth -- as are so many pages now on Wikipedia. Saxones288 added the words "far right" to describe PV with only opinion pieces as support. Is that good practice? Is that a neutral pov? Did the editor look for any sources that have a different view? No, of course not. Just a glance at the edits made by Saxones288 shows them to be highly politically biased and using Wikipedia as a tool of propaganda -- again, as so many editors are, not just on this page but across the website. Saxones288's access to Wikipedia should be blocked. This goes to the very heart of Wikipedia's current decline and the criticism coming from the website's own founder. Bigmaryhelen ( talk) 18:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, while there are some sources in there that I might question, saying "only opinion pieces as support" strikes me as an inaccurate description. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 18:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a vexatious report. The sources for far-right are clearly not only opinion pieces. Moreover, Saxones288 hasn't edited Project Veritas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)'s article since 26, 2021&oldid= . I also smell footware. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Grigory Zass ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Maxim Grigorievich Vlasov ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nikolay Yevdokimov ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Adigabrek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Adigabrek is personally invested in Circassian cause. He is pushing a certain POW by using questonable sources mostly from turkish media that claim mass child rapes and curious tortures by above soldiers: these actions are not mentioned in articles by other languages. Also labelling soldiers as war criminals without being convicted by a court of law is wrong. The articles above are not the only ones edited by Adigabrek that are questonable but the most glaring examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:A2:D2F5:16:3431:FC1A:5233 ( talk • contribs)

I checked one of the article, Nikolay Yevdokimov, and, indeed, the only purpose of the article is to state that the person played a role in the Circassian genocide. When we look at the russian version, this is not stated in the first paragraph. In my opinion, this should be brought to the attention of administrators. The articles created by the editor Adigabrek should perhaps be deleted, but I don't have enough experience to say. These soldiers might have some notoriety in Russia, only the articles seem completely POV. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 01:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It's probably best to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia to take a look at the Russian language sources to verify or refute the article claims. Any unverified claims can be deleted once checked. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 02:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Lenticel If the info from the IP is correct, it will not be verified and, even if it is verified, I can see that Nikolay Yevdokimov is not POV by looking at the Russian version and, if the IP is correct, it's the same thing for the other articles and there are more than only these three apparently. Who will complete the articles and try to make them POV? It's not going to happen. I agree anyway that we should first have this checked by Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia. I will do that. Note that I am just here to help a bit. I have no particular interest in this subject. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 02:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I read the Russian article (in translation) on Yevdokimov and I also read our article on the Circassian genocide both as it currently is and before Adigabrek started editing it in April of last year. Yevdokimov is clearly notable - I doubt that it should be deleted. The other thing I would say is it’s hard to tell whether it is our article that’s WP:UNDUE or the Russian one. Our article on the Circassian genocide makes it clear (with sourcing) that Yevdokimov played a very prominent role in the genocide of the 1860s and was responsible for the mass deportations - and it did so before Adigabrek started editing it. Certainly the English language sources I found (such as this) highlight his central role in it. The Russian article on him makes no mention of this - and presents only his role in the military defeat of the Circassians. Clearly there’s a lot more information about Yevdokimov in the Russian article and given the shortness of our article there’s a question of whether the Circassian genocide should have the prominence it has. It’s clear from the Russian article that his role in the Circassian conquest is his main claim to notability - even if it avoids covering his role in the subsequent deportations. However, I doubt the Russian article can be used as a yardstick for NPOV. From what I’ve seen on Yevdokimov, I don’t think we can take the IP’s claims at face value. DeCausa ( talk) 09:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, contrary to some other assessments, Russian article on the subject appears more mild. Generally, while English Wikipedia uses the word "genocide", Russian WP calls it " Circassian muhajirism", i.e. "deportations". While the notability of Zass, Vlasov and Yedvokimov is beyond doubt, I think more reliable English-language sources should be brought, if available, for third-party evidence. Brandmeister ^talk 10:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok perhaps the main issue can easily be corrected by some editing to make the articles less POV, like changing "genocide" with "deportation" if this is used in sources and ideally adding basic information about the person. It will be great if people in the Russia project can do that. If it was me, I would delete them, unless someone edit them soon, because I do not want to encourage people to quickly create POV articles and force people to work on these specific articles. So, if there is a genuine interest to keep and edit these articles, then great, otherwise we delete them. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 14:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the point is it’s questionable whether this is in fact “POV”. “Genocide” is the term used in the WP:RS, for instance. I strongly suspect the POV is the Russian version of the Yevdokimov article, for instance. In any event, as Brandmeister says, deletion is not an option as these individuals are clearly notable and meet WP:GNG. DeCausa ( talk) 14:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I admit that my feeling here was not based on rules, but on what I feel is common sense. It's also not based on my POV on the subject, because I don't have any. Sure, the rule that says that we should not delete articles that are notable, even if they are POV, make sense, but when articles seem to be created in series by one or two editors only to say that soldiers contributed to genocide and similar defaming statements, nothing else at all, which is POV even if it is verifiable and that the term genocide is used, then there should be an exception to this rule. Otherwise, we encourage POV pushing and, despite the validity in general of the rule, the final result is a bunch of non edited POV articles. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 14:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn’t suggesting you had a POV. But it’s rash to assume this is about POV. In the case of Yevdokimov, for instance, one of the most notable things about him, from what I’ve read so far, appears to be his role in the Genocide. There isn’t yet evidence indicating that what’s been said is in fact defamatory. DeCausa ( talk) 15:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is defamatory. We are not in a legal court where truth can be a defence against defamation. Also, again, even if he is often mentioned in sources for his role in a genocide, this is not sufficient to justify an article about the soldier that only mentions that. We need to consider what sources about the soldier say and present all significant content in proper proportion. If there aren't any articles about the soldier and he is only mentioned in articles about genocide, then his notability is questionable. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 15:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, my first impression was pretty much in line with other views expressed here, but then I asked myself if there were not other more global aspects to consider. Here we focus on one article at a time, but I am concerned that there might be a global issue . Dominic Mayers ( talk) 15:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said, it is a question of WP:UNDUE, and that needs to be got right. But my point on Yevdokimov is that the sources do make his role a major point on his notability and therefore to omit it per Russian Wikipedia is a bigger NPOV/UNDUE problem. I’d also challenge your comment that if he is only mentioned in the context of Genocide then his notability is questionable. Notability is notability - hence we have Rudolf Höss, which is all about Genocide. I also truly don’t understand your comment about truth/defamatory. If the RS report it (aka “true”), it’s not defamatory QED. DeCausa ( talk) 15:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I maintain that we should not lose the global perspective when we consider each article, but, yes, we must get WP:DUE right for each article. I maintain that if there is no article about a soldier and he is only mentioned in articles about genocide, then this is not sufficient to justify an article about the soldier. It only justifies to mention him in Wikipedia articles about genocide. Why should we do different than in reliable sources? Regarding defamatory, just look at the common usage definition in dictionaries and, if you insist for the legal definition, "Federal Court: Truth Is Not a Complete Defense for Private Libel Lawsuits". At this point, it seems that we just repeating ourselves. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 16:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is getting rather circular. (I thought we weren’t talking about a legal definition! The dead can’t be defamed anyway!) DeCausa ( talk) 16:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought that maybe you had in mind a legally oriented definition, because in the common usage a defamation is anything that destroys a reputation. Legally, you can defend yourself when you are accused of defamation by arguing it was the truth, but it does not always work. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 20:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Rarely. With minor exceptions in some jurisdictions, defamation is normally associated with falsehood that is detrimental to reputation. “Common usage” and legal meaning are broadly the same - both imply falsehood - see Merriam-Webster for instance. But it’s completely the wrong concept for this discussion anyway. DeCausa ( talk) 21:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What is irrelevant is whether "defamation" was the correct term to use. In the dictionaries that I looked up, it meant what I intended to say: something that creates a bad reputation, irrespective of its truth or falsity. I did not look in your choice of dictionary. I am not going to fight on a definition. The key point is that we need to be way more careful when the reputation is at stake or when it is polemic in any other way. So, the fact that systematically all these articles "defame" a soldier and do only that is a big concern. This is also why I say that we must not lose the big picture.   Dominic Mayers ( talk) 21:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we’ll just agre to disagree and leave it at that. DeCausa ( talk) 22:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I will reexplain myself if I am misunderstood, because I hate when I am misunderstood, but I am also not interested to pursue this discussion. I informed one person from the Russia project. I have no idea how to inform more people in this project, because I have not seen the proper venue to do that. I only want to state that it seems common sense to me that a bunch of recent articles edited recently by a same editor and that only "defame" a soldier and do absolutely nothing else, no other information at all about the soldier, is not encyclopedic. It indicates that it is very likely that the agenda is not to create good encyclopedic articles. This and the fact that the existence of sources about these soldiers to show their notability for the purpose of articles specifically about them was not established is all what I want to say. The rest is not in my hand. I leave it to others. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 22:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s perfectly clear what you were trying to say. There’s no misunderstanding of your point of view. DeCausa ( talk) 22:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no way to infer that, but there is no explicit sign of a gross misunderstanding (that would justify that I reexplain myself) either. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 22:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It is certainly necessary to rewrite these articles, supplementing them with more neutral information. You can also pay attention to the Russian-Circassian War where Adigabrek put footnotes on participation in the genocide for every Russian general. This approach is purely a nationalist POV, and Adigabrek himself blames others for the same. It seems necessary to generally double-check the contribution of this user. Каракорум ( talk) 17:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

At critical race theory, editor Newimpartial persists in trying to remove any mention in the lead of critical race theory's academic criticism. [15] [16] This material is long-standing. This is against WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and the beginning of WP:LEAD where it says, It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

They also reverted material cited to Encyclopedia Britannica.

They have no consensus or support in the talk page discussion for these removals. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS point 1 states, Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors. Their claims were addressed on the talk page, where it was explained how they have moved the goalposts and make extraordinary demands of critical material but not of material by proponents. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I would encourage editors to review the discussion on the article and talk pages at Critical race theory and offer policy-compliant views. Crossroads is currently ! warring to include a lead section mention based on a single 1997 PRIMARY source. This does not follow RS policy - which calls for recent, reliable sources - nor does it follow LEADFOLLOWSBODY principles by cherry-picking a single paper to use in the lead, without secondary support in lead or body of the article. This issue has been under discussion at Talk throughout the period that Crossroads had been revert-warring it back in.

As far as the Britannica is concerned, that was a removal per ONUS as there is clearly no consensus on Talk for the inclusion the long, sloppy quotations Crossroads added from this source. Whatever disruptive editing may have taken place at Critical race theory, my removals were entirely according to policy. I have no problem with criticism of CRT appearing in the lead section, either, but it needs to be DUE and follow the recent reliable sources. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The lead material was not based on a single paper at all, but a book, a paper, and then also a secondary 2018 paper citing the book, and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Pure distortions. And the Farber & Sherry and Pyle sources are not "primary". They are secondary sources about CRT, per WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Yet, bizarrely, it is these sorts of sources that people are demanding lengthy citation and discussion of by third parties before they can be used, while sources by CRT proponents themselves are fine to cite freely. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever why Wikipedia should need to cite a generalist tertiary source like the Encyclopedia Britannica. There is more than sufficient recent coverage of the topic to be found in appropriate academic sources written by experts in the subject matter. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree, citing a general encyclopedia as a source for another general encyclopedia is a bit circular, don't you think? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not really, since WP:TERTIARY sources are good, and we should be imitating high quality encyclopedias because we are "anyone can edit" rather than going off of credentials. The main reason those are being used is because secondary sources were being dismissed. I'm not sure if AndyTheGrump means that we should have been able to use the Farber & Sherry and Pyle sources instead, or what. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should be imitating what other high quality general-reference encyclopedias do, not citing them, which is totally different. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be circular, if that was all that was going on. Having looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica article, it seems self-evident that it has been blatantly cherry-picked too. Not an honest representation of what the Encyclopedia has to say on the subject matter. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, the other points made there are already in the article and cited to other sources. We don't need to cite every part of the EB article, of course. Generally the term "circular" is reserved for citing Wikipedia; it is odd to see citing actual encyclopedias described this way. Non-crowdsourced encyclopedias are much more reliable than us. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

But that rationale starts from the premise of "we need to have criticism of CRT in the lead", which is WP:FALSEBALANCE. If few other sources cover such criticism, and Britannica mentions it only in passing, then that indicates that it is not WP:DUE - it doesn't mean that we can pull parts of Britannica out of context and give them excessive weight. Our article should reflect the overall balance of coverage across all high-quality sources, summarizing them in accordance to the relative weight they put on different aspects themselves. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the lead is governed by WP:LEAD, including WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. One sentence of academic criticism is hardly equivalent to the crank fringe theories discussed at WP:FALSEBALANCE. It is not presenting a "minority view or extraordinary claim...with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity". Both things are part of mainstream scholarship. Britannica does not mention it only in passing; it has a whole section on criticism, both academic and political, much like our article. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Cherry-picking the EB to extract a quotation on a specific point gives an entirely false impression regarding what it has to say on critical race theory. It is dishonest. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The EB can be and is cited for other things. You seem to be saying that we can't cite a source unless we repeat every point made in that source. The text in no way implies that the EB has an editorial position against CRT. We quote sources all the time. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Does this selective quotation accurately reflect the EB's position on the subject of critical race theory "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias"? Of course not. It gives an intentionally-misleading impression. It is cherry-picked. It is a dishonest appeal to authority. It misrepresents the EB as holding one specific position on the subject. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for making sure readers get all the nuances of a single specific source like the EB, we write so readers can find about the topic fairly, proportinately, and so on. Like we need to now check every single other source in the article and make sure every single point they each make is relayed and attributed. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:NPOV doesn't accord with mine. I was under the impression we attempt to represent cited sources for what they have to say, rather than just for what we'd like them to say. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how we can represent the views of reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias without fairly representing the nuances of specific, individual sources. Is there a secret way of knowing about the topic other than looking at what sources say? -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

In context, it's clear that we don't need readers to know that EB, specifically, made certain points if those points are in our article. The article is about CRT, not EB's coverage of CRT. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, you are referring to a 1997 book by two nonspecialists, a 1999 paper, and a 2018 paper that doesn't mention the '99 paper and that - as I show on Talk - barely touched on the 1997 book. I invite other editors to examine the discussion on this on Talk, rather than accepting Crossroads' tortured self-justifications at face value. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The book is by legal experts. "Nonspecialists" is a way of dismissing anyone who isn't already a proponent of the CRT school of thought. There are also more sources that cite these - haven't gotten into those yet, but I see no need to keep running after a moving goalpost. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No goalposts are moving. Weight is accrued by attributions of significance in recent, reliable sources. You have provided none, as I have shown on Talk.

By now, there are plenty of well-informed critical pieces on CRT. The 1997 book you are relying on just doesn't happen to be among them. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Having read the above, as well as the discussion section on the article talk page, the only editor who seems to be engaging in tendentious editing is Crossroads. What Crossroads is saying does not have the support of any of the other involved editors on that talk page. Though a humorous essay and not policy, I would still gently encourage Crossroads to drop the stick in this instance. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This editor obviously followed me from the dispute at Talk:Kathleen Stock and has never expressed interest in this topic before. Read WP:HOUND. And another editor did trim but keep the lead material. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I would also remind Crossroads of WP:GOODFAITH and that this discussion is on the neutral point of view noticeboard. I am not WP:HOUNDING by replying to a dispute I saw on the noticeboard. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

(e-c) Check yourself, Crossroads. The editor in question is just as likely to have been following me. You have made that mistake before, in an instance where I was following (as I recall) Aquillion. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me this would be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Without getting into any specific edit to the leed, the leed follows body concern looks legitimate. By length the criticism section is a significant part of the total article body. Removing all criticism from the leed certainly looks like a NPOV issue. Springee ( talk) 00:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • In the current article version, the element of criticism has been restored to the lead using secondary and tertiary sources, so this NPOV concern appears to have been largely addressed. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I am also good with the current version. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion at Talk:Islam in Finland as to how much space the article, which is about Muslims in Finland, should give to Islamic terrorism in Finland. The current version gives 25% of prose to terrorism. @ WikiDan61:, @ Dominic Mayers: and myself believe the article currently gives too much WP:WEIGHT to terrorism. WikiDan61 pointed out that Christianity in the United States doesn't give any weight to Christian terrorism in America. I added a survey of sources that treat Finnish Muslims broadly and determined the amount of space they give to terrorism. This approach is something I've discussed with Someguy1221 [17], Vanamonde93 [18] and Levivich [19]. However, @ Bookku: and @ 1Kwords: seem to disagree with my approach. VR _talk 21:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Those who are used to much longer academic texts need not complain length of responses, but still underlining main main points for quick read

Background: There was a recently (lapsed) RfC seeking removal of section " Terrorism and radicalisation" from the article. The RfC discussion could attract only limited user participation. The User:WikiDan61 who started RfC was seemed unaware of usage and dictionary meaning of word "Islamist" and was confusing the same with "Islamic", might have been one of the reason in opposing the section.

Following kind of arguments are being presented either to remove section itself or restrict the sourced content:

A) The User:WikiDan61) who started RfC says "..While the facts presented are not in dispute, their inclusion here is..." to the user moving section into the article Islamic terrorism is okay but having section in the article Islam in Finland can not be neutral!

Obviously section is about radicalisation and terrorism particularly in Finland. October 6, 2020, roughly year back, Five nordic countries namely Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden jointly and officially expressed their concern against terrorism at UN General assembly ( Way back machine link). 'Evolution of Jihadism in Finland' is (May 2021) research paper based on a study instituted by Finland's Ministry of the Interior.

Whether one gives weightage to include Governmental instituted studies and statements in UNGA in WP article as refs or not; the fact that those underlined concerns seem to be for real and you do not want mention in the article in spite of availability other independent reliable sources. And inclusion of sourced content would amount to be totally unrelated, non–neutral PoV ? How? Does neutrality means blanking or white washing information? Pl. can some one convince us more with arguments turning up side down by finding better excuses? ;)

B) User:Dominic Mayers says ".. Logical relevance is not sufficient.." it almost sounds intending ...Logical relevance will not be considered.... Their argument further goes like title of the article is Islam in Finland so content should only be sourced only from sources speaking on the side of 'Islam in Finland' as if article speaks of Islamic philosophy Finland is original bastion of Islamic philosophy! and not from sources quoting fundamentalism, radicalization, extremism and and terrorism in Finland even if found to be reliable!

We pointed out in spite of title 'Islam in Finland' the article is about Muslims in Finland and title Muslims in Finland is redirected there. And the section does not target all Muslims nor generalizes entire Islam only religiously indoctrinated fanatically radicalized Islamist the section on terrorism speaks about

We also pointed out some of the sources, whether Government instituted studies or other reliable media and academic sources including like 'Evolution of Jihadism in Finland' (May 2021) research paper which are specialized will be focused on links to terrorism should not be avoided just because they might not be covering entire Muslim population or entire Islam in Finland. (Pl. read again)

C) 'Weightage in percentage': No one would have any dispute while saying 'Give due Weightage (imporatance) but avoid according undue weightage'. User:Vice regent (VR) first of all wishes content on radicalisation be not there in the article at all.

If at all content on radicalization going to remain, First they wish to count Weightage in some fix percentage only based on percentage of terrorism mentioned in academic sources on Islam in Finland and seem not taking into account reliable sources focused on radicalization and terrorism side.

Second they wish Wikipedia article mandatorily follow same percentage as in aggregated academic sources. We pointed out unfairness and limitations of this argument, focus of research in academic sources might be different than that of radicalisation or terrorism and percentage of hence percentage of Weightage in academic sources may differ than that of encyclopedia articles because both platform may differ in research and coverage priorities.

Third argument of theirs is cut down percentage of sourced content on terrorism simply because presumably article has not been updated enough for percentage of non radicalization other general content on Muslims in Finland. Wikipedia is a free platform rather than spending time on creating impediments in path of sourced content, one is very well free to include other kind of relevant sourced content. Wikipedia is free for others too decide which kind of sourced and relevant content they preferred to add. For a while it may sound that content on terrorism has more percentage but what kind of rational it is expecting cutting down the content simply because other kind of content is yet to be written. Can we generalize such condition of proportionate percentages for all the Wikipedia articles? At the most one can put a head note template that article is incomplete for other aspects.

D)' Whataboutism': Wikipedia for neutrality sake suggests limitations and criticism be put line after line preferably even than that of of separate section. But some users rephrase I don't like arguments with strange Last but not least take recourse to argument of Whataboutery.

I already explained in article talk page I have no issues in having consistency in inclusion of sourced criticism and limitations every where in all Wikipedia articles whether be on religion or atheist or secular ones wherever due weightage is expected. We also gave example that how the article Catholic Church includes criticism part in lead itself including its handling of sexual abuse cases involving clergy. The other user pointed out towards existence of Islam in France#Terrorist attacks in France and the same user updated section Catholic Church in France#Sexual abuse for sake of consistency.

Then did we stop any user from taking note of Christian terrorism in the article Christianity in the United States or for that matter XYZ terrorism in XYZ religion or XYZ terrorism of XYZ atheist or communists if due encyclopedic weight exists, not at all. We are consistent, go ahead to fill and update wherever you have sources and any information gap exists and avoid giving excuses of ' Whataboutism'.

I consistently believe blanking or whitewashing can only be of temporary satisfaction , if one wants better image for any thing, do positive constructive good and present sourced positive constructive good; strange deletions and soft censoring of sourced information and knowledge is solution to nothing so I believe. Thanks.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 03:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The point that Bookku backs up with sources is that the section about radicalization is indeed relevant to the subject. Finland's security agency writes about it so it's a topic at the national level and the UN assembly statement indicates it's also a topic at the international level. Imho, editors that consider due weight a serious issue could resolve it by expanding the rest of the article - as for myself, I simply haven't gotten around to it yet. Bookku's and Vice regent's research are excellent starting points. A Thousand Words ( talk) 05:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

My point in opening the RFC at Talk:Islam in Finland was to raise the point that the presence of the "Terrorism and radicalization" section in the article carries the implication that wherever we talk about Islam, we must talk about terrorism and radicalization, which I feel violates Wikipedia's neutrality. Within the discussion, I found a few allies, and a few very vocal opponents. Clearly opinions run hot on this topic. I've said what I intended to say on the topic; I leave it to others to decide the outcome. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 13:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Whenever we speak of USA we speak of Atlantic slave trade and racism; Whenever we talk about Europe we talk about colonialism; Whenever we talk of Soviet Union we speak of lack of multiparty democracy; whenever we speak of Christianity we speak of inquisitions, differential treatment to LGBT; Whenever we speak of Israel.., whenever we speak of Germany.., Whenever we speak of Japan.., and so on (The list can be truly long) which we ought to feel violates Wikipedia's neutrality!?

• What is neutrality a complete picture or an incomplete picture?
• Whether the article Trade should hide examples of illicit trade? This is a very neutral question to which I expect sincere answer
• Whether hiding of information helps the image or corrective actions help the image ?
• Last but not least, which are all religions approve of hiding truth? (read again)
• Whether encyclopedias are for hiding the truth or sweeping the facts under the carpet? 'We swept the facts under carpet and now our encyclopedia looks more neutral!'? This kind of neutrality that what do we expect of an encyclopedia? (read again)

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 16:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Bookku: Perhaps whenever you speak of the United States, you speak of slave trade and racism, or whenever you speak of Europe you speak of colonialism. I do not think that is a global phenomenon. I can often think of Europe without thinking of colonialism. I can think about the colonialism of Europe, and I often do think about the racism of the United States (being a resident), but the linkages are not global, nor should they be whenever we speak of Islam. Your very statement indicates that you are not approaching this topic (nor many others, apparently) neutrally. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 16:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Who says persecution of LGBT from religious conservatives is not example of global phenomenon? So if it is global phenomenon to criticize religions for persecution of LGBT it should not be covered by Wikipedia articles on religious communities ? In UK there are communities which do not allow LGBT related education to their wards, now in spite of availability of references you will ask not to include information and put under the carpet? is it not discriminatory to LGBT communities? Similarly putting terrorism under carpet is not discriminatory to the families of dead individuals? There are communities involved in FGM you will not allow mention of FGM since it is allegedly global phenomenon? What about individuals who suffer FGM? Whether you will ask all Wikipedia Islam in ABCD country articles to be silent on why Afghan communities came there? I do not get this logic Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 17:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, do you realize that your first paragraph is consistent, actually illustrates, the objective rule that we must look at what centred sources say? I mean if whenever subject A is mentioned, subject B is also mentioned, then subject B must be mentioned in sources centred on A. So, let's look at the actual sources (books chapter, etc.) that are about Islam in Finland. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 16:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This argument conveniently ignores other set of reliable sources. I have already argued in detail against it. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 17:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Bookku: You wrote Who says persecution of LGBT from religious conservatives is not example of global phenomenon? You mistook the meaning of my argument. Your initial point was expressed as Whenever we speak of USA we speak of Atlantic slave trade and racism. I refuted that point: not every conversation about the United States centers on its slave trade history or racism. In the same manner, not every article on Islam should focus on terrorism. To be sure, there are Islamic (or Islamist) terrorists, but there are also Christian terrorists and Jewish terrorists and Zoroastrian terrorists for all I know, but we don't automatically assume that an article on Christianity must also focus on terrorism performed in the name of Christianity. We can have an article that specifically covers the topic of Christian terrorism, so that the availability of sources on that topic can properly be reflected in Wikipedia, but we do not need to mention terrorism in every article about Christianity. Or Islam. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 18:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Bookku: Verifiability is not sufficient for inclusion. The question is what objective criterion in term of sources and beyond verifiability should we use to establish relevance. Logical relevance would be way too inclusive. One out of six women is victim of rape in the United States is certainly logically relevant to the subject of the United States and verifiable in official statistics. Subjectively, I feel that it should be included in the United States article for a legitimate educative purpose. I deliberately picked this example, because it could easily create a controversy. Let say editors decide to include it on the basis of logical relevance. If someone else comes with the verifiable fact that one in three black women are victims of intimate partner violence in the United States, it would have to be included as well by the same logic. This could also be seen as perfectly fine, for the same educative purpose. The problem is that, based on logical relevance, the entire subject of rape should be covered in details in the United States article. Where do we stop, assuming that we should start at all? What criterion do we use? The criterion cannot be logical relevance. We need some other objective criterion to decide what weight should be given to the subject of women rape in the United States article. It is a very simple question that we ask here. We are not asking for mere opinions. Everyone, including experts in WP:NPOV, has his own personal opinion about the relevance of the rape subject in the United States article. What is needed is some objective criterion that can help us achieve a consensus. Is this criterion the importance of rape as a subject in itself? If that was the criterion, then it should be covered in details in the United State article, because it is perhaps more covered than the large subject United States. When I picked this example, I did not know how much rape was actually covered in the United State article. It's not important. It's the principle that is important. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 18:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I wish to be continue to be consistent, as a reader of an encyclopedia I would expect from every encyclopedic article as much complete picture as possible not hiding of facts. As many wars are covered where credible information is available on either civilian casualties or sexual assaults during warfare be included. Same principle I would apply elsewhere, article on France boasts of status of women in France but skips intimate partner violence and so on, so include our boasting but don't include criticism is dubious policy I have seen across on Wikipedia which I find not possible to agree with. @ Article religion and COVID present status I don't know, used to boast of religious contribution in article lead but did not include criticism part in lead as I remember last I discussed there on that talk page. I have more logic and examples to write but main points are covered from my side, many of the points have not been answered, but leave as of now as the status is.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 03:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that what you would like to see as a rule is: Logical relevance + WP:Verifiability + any reliable source + WP:Summary style. In other words, every thing that is logically relevant and verifiable in any reliable source should be included (perhaps indirectly through WP:summary style). The question is whether we can really use any reliable sources to determine the relevance or the weight of a content? Should instead the sources (used for that purpose) broadly cover the subject? Unfortunately, you don't ask these questions. Instead, you restate that we must provide the complete picture, not hide facts, etc., which assume that hiding facts, etc. is the purpose of others. We keep telling you that it is not at all that we want to hide facts, etc. We simply want to follow an objective criterion so that we can work together harmoniously toward the goal of Wikipedia. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 14:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sharing a healthy smiley :)) I am in just in a light-hearted mood, pl. take it easy, do not take personally following drawn 'imperfect' answer.

We simply want to follow an objective criterion so that we can work together harmoniously toward the goal of Wikipedia.

Personally I have not edited article Islam in Finland and I believe it is low profile article. If some section is not there in the Wikipedia article it will not make or break Finland or nordic countries for that matter :).

If the similar kind of excuses would be consistently extended for other WP articles too, then I would naturally feel concerned about 'real' freedom of expression and likely hood of systemic biases against women.

Thanks for bearing with a lighthearted reply. :)

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 16:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

We can ask the fundamental question of whether Wikipedia should avoid biases toward women, not hide facts, etc. or simply reflect what reliable sources say. If sources "hide" facts about terrorism, should Wikipedia also hide these facts? Accepting all reliable sources to measure the weight of a content seems to be a compromise. Because, even if reliable sources about Islam in Finland do not mention or mention very little and with a different tone terrorism, Wikipedia could do differently by referring directly to sources on terrorism. It will be kind of building a ne:w thesis, because we create a content by combining sources in a way that is not found in any reliable source. It's also going to be more complicated, because we cannot simply refer to sources that are centred on the subject. Instead, we would have to consider all possible reliable sources. I would not mind at all that Wikipedia does it this way, but it should be a decision taken by the community. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 17:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Just trying to understand your position better 'do you believe that an encyclopedic article on industrialization should only refer to sources on industrialization and should not refer to sources on environmental sciences though they talk about pollution being emanated from industrialization ?

Are you suggesting present community consensus is against to keep topics like industrialization and pollution strictly independent without referring to logical relevance ? ^Humor ahead: My uncle 'Donald' will be too happy to know this :)) Doctors say, just keep laughing in between serious discussions, some times smiles are healthy :))

My uncle 'Omar' might feel much happier if Wikipedians pass a resolution saying it would not be neutral to write about pollution on article related to industrialization, because industrialists are targeted globally. Whenever one talks of industry talking about environmental issues in same article is wrong. Yes dear fellow Wikipedians pl. pass the resolution, my industrious uncle Omar needs your support, to make Wikipedia more neutral. ;)

If you do not agree to favorite positions of by Uncle Donald and uncle Omar then please do as my uncle Harrison suggests, only refer to sources on industrialization and take fix percentage related to pollution from sources on industrialization without referring to sources on pollution. If some Wikipedia editor writes about pollution before writing on industry then delete!, delete!!, delete!!! Not a bad idea isn't it :))

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 01:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Bookku: Who are "Uncle Omar", "Uncle Donald" and "Uncle Harrison"? If you cannot speak clearly and to the point, your arguments will not be understood by others. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 02:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Bookku: I agree with WikiDan61 that you should avoid sentences and words that seems to be about a different subject. It is not helpful. Back to our issue, you argue as if the articles on Industrialisation do not themselves make reference to sources on environmental sciences. With this kind of weird assumptions, it's not surprising that you arrive at weird conclusions. In practice, the Industralisation subject uses environmental science and WP:due only asks to rely on articles on the subject (Industrialisation) to best see how to refer to environmental sciences in due proportion. As long as it respects due proportion (as determined with the help of sources on the subject), we can directly use sources in environmental sciences. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 03:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, I return a similar question to you. Should we have a section on Climate change in the Finland article? To be consistent with your agenda, you might answer yes we need a dedicated section. Ok, but I continue. Should we have a section on LGBT rights in the Finland article? I suspect the list can go on and on because so many subjects is relevant to Finland (as much as to any other country). Should we include a dedicated section on all subjects on the basis of logical relevance? It seems excessive. So, the real question is what other objective criterion do we use when it's controversial? Dominic Mayers ( talk) 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I fear that bring the matter to this noticeboard was a pointless effort. No new editors outside the few who commented on the original RFC at Talk:Islam in Finland have weighed in here, and we have stalled at the same intransigent difference of opinions. Very disappointing. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 12:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It may still happen, but this long discussion does not help. It might scare people away. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 17:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a dispute about the neutrality of the biography about Sarah-Lee Heinrich that led to full-protection of the page and a discussion at ANI ( permanent link). You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sarah-Lee Heinrich. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 11:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The information being continually added to this article is being cherry-picked to fit one group's POV. For example: now the "18.5% voter turnout" claim is being cited as if it's the official turnout. This claim was made by an unofficial group "Urnas Abiertas" (open ballot boxes) that didn't exist until May 2021 and has no published methodologies to explain how their turnout differs so much from prior elections (where Organization of American States verified nearly identical results claimed for 2021).

For comparison, here are the voter turnouts for prior years where outside international vote monitoring organizations were monitoring:

-2001: 73.19% turnout, PLC wins with 56.31% (FSLN lost with 42.28%)

-2006: 61.23% turnout, FSLN wins with 38.07% (two other candidates split the remainder)

-2011: 73.9% turnout, FSLN wins with 62.46%

-2016: 68.2% turnout, FSLN wins with 72.44%

For this year:

- 2021: 65.3% turnout, FSLN wins with 75.87%

So what sort of logic is there in saying actually 2021 was only 18.5% turnout, according to new org Urnas Abiertas citing "1,450 anonymous poll observers" (when their own Twitter account doesn't even have that many followers). When I tried to add information that shows Urnas Abiertas' association with the US Government (via Wilson Center, a US government-funded think tank) these citations were removed even though they exist in the same citations used to show the alleged "18.5% turnout." This is a blatant NPOV violation.

When I attempted to add data showing why fringe right-wing individuals (who were never candidates) were arrested in the months and weeks before the election (money laundering, fraud, ties to terrorist orgs, treason, and calls for a repeat of the attempted coup in 2018), these details removed, again, even though this information exists in the articles being cited to show that they were indeed arrested. Instead, users inserted uncited claims that these individuals were arrested "by the government" and "so that Ortega could win" and other such dubious claims. This is a blatant NPOV violation.

In the Reactions section, the alleged reactions of countries and individuals across the world are listed. However, many reactions that were favorable to Nicaragua's official election results were removed. This is a blatant NPOV violation.

I have started discussions on the talk page with very little input from the users who continue to add their personal POV to the article and remove any POV that differs from their own. These users include NoonIcarus and Bill_Williams, with the latter being the worst offender. Bill recently attempted to blank out ALL DISCUSSION occurring on the talk page without reason (citing my "rants"). This user also accused me of being an "Ortega defender" and someone pushing "communist propaganda" and "defending authoritarian regimes" even though I was the user who added the disputed vote turnout to the article in the first place. Bill falsely accused me of "vandalizing" the article and revealed my real life identity and geographic location in numerous noticeboards after ignoring my repeated attempts to have a good faith discussion and come to consensus. Wikipedia admin Nil_Einne has warned Bill multiple times to stop falsely accusing me of vandalism when my edits are 100% in good faith. Bill has been banned from editing all American political articles in the past for nearly identical behavior. I am concerned that this bullying is going unchecked and resulting in a bad article that will ultimately harm the neutral reputation and trustworthiness of Wikipedia.

I am requesting help on this article from both experienced neutral editors as well as any admins. I have given up all hope of being able to add good contributions on this site, as the bullying and harassment from users who are bent on using Wikipedia to push their own narrative has made me feel both completely unwelcome and personally threatened. Asaturn ( talk) 08:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm busy trying to edit American politics (right now Arizona State Legislature maps) since I am NOT banned from it, while you are bringing up a discussion that I consider to have already ended. You have no consensus and every single editor is opposed to your removal of sourced information. Bill Williams 08:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, Nil Einne is not an admin, and I did not attempt to blank the talk page but instead archive it so we could move on from past discussions. My mistake for thinking you were past arguing about sourced information that everyone else agrees with. Bill Williams 08:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Everything you have ranted about is irrelevant because what I have added is SOURCED information. You added a blog post and YouTube video as evidence that the election observer is "associated with the U.S. government," which was original research considering no RELIABLE source connected Open Ballot Boxes to the U.S. government. Bill Williams 08:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The blog post is from the organization you are citing as a source. Are you claiming that the org you are citing is not a trustworthy source only when their own website admits they are backed by the US Government??? https://urnasabiertas.com/blog/ This is exactly the NPOV issue I am talking about. You need to step away from editing articles related to Nicaragua since you clearly have a bias. Asaturn ( talk) 09:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, your blog post does not state that Open Ballot Boxes is affiliated with the Wilson Center or U.S. Government... Bill Williams 09:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Our disagreements were closed on AN, and COI, why did you deem it necessary to open a third rant section? Bill Williams 09:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Wilson Center is clearly listed as a partner on the most recent post on https://urnasabiertas.com/blog/ and Wilson Center is part of the US Government. They also list International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Are you claiming that these two organizations aren't listed on https://urnasabiertas.com/blog/? The "disagreements" were never addressed by a 3rd party. You simply accused me of vandalism and were told to stop falsely accusing me (but continued to insert your POV into the article). Now you and NoonIcarus are editing articles for past Nicaraguan elections as well. This is inexcusable behavior. Asaturn ( talk) 09:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Send a single quote stating that the election observer is "affiliated" with the Wilson center or "the US Government" or that "Wilson Center is part of the US Government." All three have interacted before but are independent, unless you can source otherwise. Bill Williams 09:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, neither NoonIcarus nor I have made a SINGLE edit to another Nicaraguan election since you started arguing with us, so I don't know where you got that from. Bill Williams 09:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your respective edits are very clearly cited on the talk page of the articles. I'm not going to play this game. Anyone else who wishes to intervene in this blatant NPOV issue please do so. Thanks! Asaturn ( talk) 09:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, the Wilson Center is part of the Smithsonian, which is partly controlled by the U.S. government, but your claim that Open Ballot Boxes is U.S. government affiliated is still false. " the "18.5% voter turnout" claim is being cited as if it's the official turnout," no, it literally states that it is a number from an election observer and the official number is stated directly above it. "This claim was made by an unofficial group "Urnas Abiertas" (open ballot boxes) that didn't exist until May 2021 and has no published methodologies to explain how their turnout differs so much from prior elections (where Organization of American States verified nearly identical results claimed for 2021)" the OAS was blocked from sending proper election observers in 2021 and condemned the election [20] and the fact that Open Ballot Boxes is new does not tarnish the fact that it is cited by multiple reliable sources. Bill Williams 09:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I have provided a myriad of reliable sources condemning the election as a sham, rigged, biased towards Ortega, exaggerating voter turnout etc. and you have provided none to dispute this. Please stop pointlessly arguing with me over reliably sourced information. ^{[1] [2] [3]} I am not pushing a POV, just the reliably sourced information. Bill Williams 09:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Asaturn has continued to create unsourced, original research based wording [21] with a new article that (before I made it NPOV) read as an article attacking Open Ballot Boxes' credibility without any reliable sources claiming they are uncredible. Bill Williams 09:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Asaturn has now vandalized the article he created by reverting my edits twice and readding unsourced, highly biased, original research information:

Comment some examples of repeated insults and conspiracy theories he has just left on my talk page to claim that I push an agenda and blanked a page when I simply made it NPOV with reliable sources [22] [23] [24] [25] showing that he is incapable of NPOV. He has repeatedly used random social media and website about pages and ignoring everything they say to push propaganda, making literal conspiracy theories by connecting the nonexistent dots between various people and organizations to claim the election observer supported a coup in Venezuela, is linked to the U.S. government, is not who they claim they are, and has an anti-communist agenda (all shown in his article rewrite edits above). Bill Williams 10:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment insulting personal attacks and harassment "You are unhinged and need to be banned from all of Wikipedia" and "Unhinged article vandalizer and formerly banned user who used to go by the name Bill Williams and has some beef with Nicaragua" [26] [27] which is in addition to multiple other edits, after I asked him three times to stop spamming my talk page with nonsense.

Asaturn continues to harass me with complete POV statements, referring to people who work for the election obserer as "both partisan right-wing activists.[6] Pedro Salvador Fonseca Herrera is an anti-Sandinista National Liberation Front activist" with his only "sources" being [28] [29] [30] which all say absolutely nothing about "right-wing" or "anti-sardanista" and regardless this is irrelevant original research because not a single reliable source published anything about it. Bill Williams 11:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article but have found in the past that there are some editors who hold strong opinions on Latin America politics. For some reason, this is especially the case for countries that have governments that don't conform to US interests. Regarding one point raised here, the claim of an 18% turnout is clearly absurd if we accept the tally of votes lodged. There are 4.4 million registered voters and 2.9 million votes were received. The 18% estimate equates to only 790,000 votes throughout the country. As pointed out above the 65% turnout is consistent with turnout in previous elections. Perhaps someone who knows about "Fringe theories" could comment on whether this fits into that category. Burrobert ( talk) 12:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"Fringe" is clearly what you are posting, because all reliable sources cited the 18% as more accurate than the 65% ^{[13] [14] [15]}. As the article clearly states, you cannot just "accept the tally of votes lodged" because, to quote reliable sources, the election was "pantomime" [31], a "parody" [32], "rigged" and "sham" [33]. The government produced data is not reliable, which is why it is said to be unreliable according to our sources. Bill Williams 12:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The three sources attribute the claim about an 18% turnout to Urnas Abiertas. Which of these statements are fringe?

• The claim of an 18% turnout is clearly absurd if we accept the tally of votes lodged.
• There are 4.4 million registered voters and 2.9 million votes were received. The 18% estimate equates to only 790,000 votes throughout the country.
• The 65% turnout is consistent with turnout in previous elections.

Burrobert ( talk) 13:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you read any of my sources? Every reliable source says that the vote tally is a scam, not accurate at all. Just click on any of the sources for "rigged" or "sham" etc. You cannot just "accept the tally of votes lodged." Bill Williams 13:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

My question was which of these statements are fringe?

• The claim of an 18% turnout is clearly absurd if we accept the tally of votes lodged.
• There are 4.4 million registered voters and 2.9 million votes were received. The 18% estimate equates to only 790,000 votes throughout the country.
• The 65% turnout is consistent with turnout in previous elections.

Burrobert ( talk) 13:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from the three sources provided:

• Fewer than one in five registered voters cast a ballot, according to Urnas Abiertas, a local electoral watchdog.
• But most surprising was its estimate that only 18.5% of eligible Nicaraguans had voted — far below the official turnout of 65%.
• The group’s turnout estimate of 18.5% was based on voter counts at about a fifth of the country’s polling stations.
• [M]ore than 1,450 Nicaraguans in a group called Open Ballot Boxes ... estimated the average turnout was about 18%, not 65%, for the country’s 4.4 million registered voters.

Burrobert ( talk) 13:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't see you asked a question. The 18% turnout was not based on the official vote tally but a separate election monitor cited by reliable sources. The 2.9 votes received was denounced by the media as made up, and the 65% turnout was falsified as well, according to all available reliable sources (as I have linked). Bill Williams 13:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Asaturn has been blocked for a week for repeated personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fatbatsat ( talk · contribs)
• 69.178.53.217 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Akinaur ( talk · contribs)

There is controversy surrounding the lead of the Eskimo article. The term "Eskimo" covers both the related Inuit and Yupik peoples. Many Inuit and Yupik peoples find the term "Eskimo" to be offensive. ^[1] The lead paragraph was originally:

Eskimo ( /ˈɛskɪmoʊ/ ESS-kih-moh) or Eskimos are the indigenous circumpolar peoples who have traditionally inhabited the northern circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia) to Alaska (United States), Northern Canada, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and Greenland. ^{[2] [3]}

The two main peoples known as Eskimo are the Inuit (including the Alaskan Iñupiat, the Greenlandic Inuit, and the Inuit peoples of Canada) and the Yupik (or "Yuit") of eastern Siberia ^[4] and Alaska. A third group, the Aleut, which inhabit the Aleutian Islands are closely related to both, but are generally excluded from the definition of Eskimo. The three groups share a relatively recent common ancestor, and speak related languages belonging to the Eskimo–Aleut language family.

I changed it to

Eskimo ( /ˈɛskɪmoʊ/ ESS-kih-moh) or Eskimos is a term used to refer to two closely related Indigenous peoples: The Inuit (including the Alaskan Iñupiat, the Greenlandic Inuit, and the Canadian Inuit) and the Yupik (or Yuit) of eastern Siberia ^[5] and Alaska. A third group, the Aleut, which inhabit the Aleutian Islands, are closely related to both, but are generally excluded from the definition of Eskimo. The three groups share a relatively recent common ancestor, and speak related languages belonging to the Eskimo–Aleut language family.

These circumpolar peoples have traditionally inhabited the Arctic and subarctic regions from eastern Siberia (Russia) to Alaska (United States), Northern Canada, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and Greenland. ^{[2] [3]}

Given that the people under the umbrella "Eskimo" find the term offensive, I'd rather we didn't use it in wikivoice in the opening sentence. I also think it should be made immediately clear how the term "Eskimo" is different from the term "Inuit". Since I changed the lead, there has been persistent reversion by Fatbatsat, a WP:SPA with less than 70 edits over two years. Recently a brand new account Akinaur (which means "to take revenge; to retaliate; to pay back" in Yupik, see [34]) has continued their edit warring. I suspect that it might be a sock of someone. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Has this been discussed on the Eskimo talk page yet I can't find it? Dushan Jugum ( talk) 04:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been a long-running theme of discussion over the last year or so, see Talk:Eskimo/Archive_4#Racial_slur? for a previous major discussion around a year ago. This clearly remains unresolved. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Question Can you check if I am up to speed: We are indifferent to peoples offense, see images on the Muhammad page. However, it seems Eskimo is no longer the common name (see Ngram), although it still seems strong in academia. Inuit seems to have taken over. However, Inuit only technically refers to one of the groups of the people who make up Eskimos. We have no name for this group of peoples other than Eskimo or Inuit, one is going out of fashion, the other is incorrect. What did I miss? Dushan Jugum ( talk) 05:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Are we really indifferent to people's offense? That's certainty not true when it comes to transgender topics like deadnaming. The point is, that we already have two articles on the two groups that are covered by the term "Eskimo", so the scope of the "Eskimo" article is unclear. Should it cover the usage of the term itself, like negro? Should it compare and contrast the Yupik and Inuit? What is the purpose of the article? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned about the ignoring of WP:NOTCENSORED, I can only justify to myself deeply upsetting so many of the people of the world by the belief that we at least try to do it without favour. I see dead naming as a red herring. That is best explained through biographies of living people and common name. If the majority of contemporary reliable references dead named people then we should use that name. However, this is off topic, if we are breaking NOTCENSORED on one topic that does not mean we get rid of the rule. Dushan Jugum ( talk) 09:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: how have sources typically characterized “Eskimo”? The above seems like an argument over the offensiveness of the term. There may in fact be groups that prefer to be called “Eskimo”, from what I can recall. In that case, we’d bridge into WP:NOTCENSORED territory. There are plenty of historical images of Muhammad on the Muhammad page, for example, despite offense caused to some modern Muslim sects. I’d wonder, though, if “term that refers to” is more commonly the expressed sentiment among RS rather than “is”. If it were, then the change in the lead would make sense. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 15:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would propose renaming the article to "Inuit-Yupik peoples," and then in the article mention that the term *Eskimo* has historically been used to collectively refer to the Inuit-Yupik peoples, but that its use is in decline and that the term is considered offensive by some. Dowobeha ( talk) 21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I assume that this page wouldn't exist if Eskimo referred exclusively to one or other group, it only exists because the term encompasses both. But that doesn't mean it needs an article. It should either redirect to Inuit, with a hatnote there for the alternative Yupik meaning, or it should be a disambiguation page listing the two options with no other prose necessary.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 21:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it's still a widely used word in the English language, which has a pretty clear meaning, and it doesn't have a synonym. If you think about what this means, basically you can go anywhere in the world where people speak a smattering of English and they will know what you mean by the word "Eskimo". "Inuit" not so much, let alone "Inuit-Yupik", which isn't actually in the dictionary, per se, though these days Inuit-Yupik-Unangan is a defined language group (synonymous with Eskimo-Aleut) [and to mention Unangan actually brings up another issue with the recent edits which were made by Hemiauchenia but have not in any way been justified, but I digress]. Or, folks might know what you mean by "Inuit", or think they do, but have no sense that some people have this idea that it should refer to people who are technically not "Inuit" (ancient word, not English, very specific meaning), which, I'm sure you'll agree, is kind of confusing. So what you're talking about doing is basically trying to edit reality, not editing an encyclopedia. But this question has been hashed out over and over again on the article talk page, many many archives, so I don't think we're going to come to an efficient resolution here that is also a valid one, hence the repeated request for dialogue through the usual and proper channels. Fatbatsat ( talk) 05:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Eskimo is a real term in modern academic and public usage it needs either a page or if it is no longer the common name a redirect. As Eskimo describes a group of peoples that have no other name it must be the common name. As an aside here are the google scholar hits since 2017, does not “prove” anything just part of the mix. Eskimo 15,100, Inuit 19,700 and Yupik 2,220. Romani 45,000 and Gypsy 18,000. Dushan Jugum ( talk) 09:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I really don't see the need for this one-man pissing match, if you'll pardon the turn of phrase. No one denies there is a fair bit of controversy spinning around, and it's quite healthy to debate and discuss and change where appropriate. All that's been really asked of Hemiauchenia is that they justify their edits by reasoned discussion, use the article Talk page, which Hemiauchenia has not been doing. I'm still not sure that the particular edits in question are correct, because there are plenty of reasons (some expressed above) why the article is in it's current consensus form, and not otherwise. Thanks everyone for your input though, including you, Hemiauchenia. I appreciate what you're trying to do, I just question the way you're going about it, and I think you might not be quite as well informed on this particular topic as you think that you are. Fatbatsat ( talk) 05:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not a one-man pissing match, but a two man pissing match. At the end of the day, we are the only two people who strongly care about the lead. Nobody else has expressed a strong opinion in favour of either version of the lead. The idea that if content is "long standing " it has consensus is bogus, at the end of the day, you are the only one (outside the brand new account, who's opinion I am discounting) who is objecting to my new rewording. That said, there isn't any strong support for my position either. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

>>>"This is not a one-man pissing match, but a two man pissing match."<<<

Look, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I don't think it really matters. I realize that I didn't attempt to engage with you positively as much as I could have (just busy with other things, not an intentional snub/oversight), but you also made no real justification of your edits, and, again, some of your original edits were categorically wrong.

But here is the meat of it: >>>The idea that if content is "long standing " it has consensus is bogus<<<

I mean, that simply isn't true. The lead of the article has been that way for many years, through, what, the work of a hundred or more editors? I do not know what you mean when you say consensus, but if you are an experienced Wikipedia editor, it defies belief that you do not understand that I mean this: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Consensus. All other things being equal, if you make controversial edits to a Wikipedia article, it makes sense to justify them, because you can be going against the work of a lot of people, over a lot of time, without even meaning to! You are one person, I agree. But I am simply trying to make sure the article content (work of many people, *not* one person) is not changed without just cause, which, again, you haven't given any cause, really, just or otherwise. And instead of engaging on the article Talk page, as I have requested, and has been encouraged/requested by CambridgeBayWeather on the Talk page, you choose to create this adversarial conflict-- and yes, it is a one man conflict, because I have no beef with you, except maybe that you were refusing engage in dialogue about the actual subject on the article Talk page, and yet persisting in changing the article. You may have read through the top layer of the Talk page, but I very much doubt you've gone through the archives, as I have. There's plenty to discuss, and it is not a one-side-or-the-other issue; it's a lot more complicated than that. Talking about it here is actually a step in the right direction, but since you're not starting from an assumption of Good Faith, I'm not going to engage here further, and I hope you'll understand that. If you are seriously interested in working on the article in a productive way, let's please continue the discussion *of the article*, without ad hominem, on the Talk page. Thanks! Fatbatsat ( talk) 06:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not interested in reaching a consensus with you. I am interested in reaching a concensus of the broader Wikipedia community. If you have no desire to make your case further then that's fine. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 06:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hemiauchenia's new version, to me, represents a better compromise between the various sources and better describes the controversy. We don't care about what's offensive or not, we care about summarizing the sources faithfully. And nobody cares if this was a one-man pissing contest or a two-man pissing contest, just stop pissing and act right towards each other. MarshallKe ( talk) 18:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. My issue is that Fatbatsat presents their opinion as if it has consensus when it does not. I have looked through the archives, contrary to Fatbatsat's claims, and there does not seem to be a strong consensus for the article in its current form, more like apathy to change it. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

See the joke in big quotation marks at the top of my user page. I think generally if you find yourself reverting someone's edits repeatedly in defense of some presumed consensus of past editors, you are actually edit warring (and so is the other user). Ultimately as you progress through the consensus process to WP:RFC, consensus is determined by whoever is willing to show up and actually deliberate with other editors. MarshallKe ( talk) 20:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• For what it is worth: I once asked the staff a question at a museum in Victoria BC about “Eskimo art” and they were horrified. I explained that wasn’t clear to me whether the art was Inuit or Dene and was emphatically informed that it would be much better to say “indigenous,” so there is no question in my mind that the term is offensive and deprecated in at least Canadian academia. Elinruby ( talk) 08:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• The term Eskimo has long been seen as derogatory in Canada and more recently is becoming so in the U.S. [35] TFD ( talk) 15:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Future directions

After the initial round of conversation, I think there are several actions that could be taken.

• An RfC on the lead
• An RfC on the scope of the article

Other suggestions welcome. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea of a little focus. I think as this began as a conversation about the lead we should start there. It feels there is a better chance for a useful compromise on the lesser issue. But I am happy with either. Dushan Jugum ( talk) 04:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have opened up a RfC on the lead, see Talk:Eskimo#RfC:_The_lead. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There is some dispute on the chiropractic talk page about the removal of stroke/vertebral dissection as risks in the article's infobox. Presently, this discussion is hinging partially on the reliability/neutrality of a source. The source is a MEDRS compliant source with in-universe authors, but published by an out of universe journal. I contend that the peer review process of the medical journal neutralizes much of the risk of bias due to an all-medical review board and that it should be included because it is MEDRS compliant. The opposing contention is that the article is unreliable because it is written by in-universe authors.

Study in question: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07853890.2019.1590627

Talk page link: /info/en/?search=Talk:Chiropractic#Risks:_Stroke,_Death Jmg873 ( talk) 20:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you create an actual Request for Comment for this. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 01:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Jmg873 ( talk) 03:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you realize that, while reliability is certainly a legitimate question to ask, neither our sources nor content must be neutral? It is editors who must edit neutrally. Read my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean ( talk) 03:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• The clinical training of a full time researcher who is an author on the source is not listed within MEDRS as a criteria for exclusion. Moreover, the information contained in the secondary source under question is consistent with all the other secondary sources published within the past 10 years on the topic (i.e.: [36] & [37]. I cannot think of any good reason for excluding a secondary source that is MEDRS compliant and consistent with all other recent secondary sources on the topic. 2001:56A:70E6:DB00:D11A:9841:610E:7F0D ( talk) 04:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Source pretty clearly meets MEDRS requirements and the identity of the researchers is not a valid reason to exclude it, and it amounts to insulting the intelligence of the non-chiropractic scientists who peer-reviewed the paper. MarshallKe ( talk) 13:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Concur with the above support for inclusion; the anon 2001:...:7F0D nailed it.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• So this isn't exactly responding about the contention, but the journal article by Chaibi and Russell is a comprehensive review (i.e. literature review or evidence syntheses), whereas the articles currently in Chiropractic#Risk-benefit (and for most of this WP article) are generally systematic reviews or tertiary sources. Within the secondary source category, systematic reviews are considered more reliable than comprehensive reviews, which is reflected in the images under WP:MEDASSESS. I would also like to point out that Chaibi is not a full-time researcher, he does work in private practise as a chiro. I don't actually think that's enough to say he can't write any research about his field of expertise. However - given that the field of expertise of the other author is actually in chronic and medication-overuse headaches, one may note that it's strange that he's writing an article about how to reduce the amount of strokes caused by chiro. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 05:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC) // Edited this to strike through the last sentence. It's an unwarranted point on my part. Xurizuri ( talk) 05:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• If a respected medical journal publishes a review paper, one would expect it to be neutral. In other words, it should provide due weight to the various papers and findings that have been published in accordance with their acceptance in the body of literature. If editors disagree with the weight the study provides, they need to find similar sources that disagree and then discuss which is correct. But the credentials of the author should not concern us. The publisher is what is important. In some academic journals, the editors are not even aware of the authors' credentials before accepting their papers. TFD ( talk) 09:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  That not necessarily true. A narrative review can be nothing more than a cherry-picked survey in support of a POV, which is why methodologically sound systematic reviews are more valued. There are certainly some authors (e.g. MJ Middelveen on Morgellons syndrome) who are so bound up with suspect views that even if their work was published in a notionally respectable venue, it would be unlikely to be accepted as RS for its assertions. Wikipedia editors are not robots applying RS guidelines dumbly. (I would also add that the question here about the "neutrality" of a source is weird; the question is whether it's reliable for some specific statement. But what?) Alexbrn ( talk) 11:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's not Wikipedia's place to use or exclude sources based on whether we like their conclusions or not. To determine reliability based on our personal views is wrong. Don't link me to Guy Macon's bad essay for the hundredth time. Wikipedia:No. Wikipedia is NOT biased MarshallKe ( talk) 20:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's not Wikipedia's place to use or exclude sources based on whether we like their conclusions or not ← good job nobody's proposing that then. But when sources have problems documented in RS, that matters. As in the case of Middelveen above, or Chinese research into TCM, etc. Not sure what's triggered you about some retired user's essay, but I don't see the relevance to this thread. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  • • @ Alexbrn: from reading the discussion, its ostensibly about the infobox saying that stroke and death are risks of the treatment. One side says "we have evidence saying it is" and the other side says "we have evidence saying its not". As far as I can tell, everyone's right - there is good quality evidence to say both. Like I said in my earlier comment, I think this specific journal article is of a slightly lower quality than other ones in the WP article, but e.g. the WHO has released a paper saying "look its probably fine" (it's an old paper now, but still, the WHO) so I'm just also not entirely sure why this specific journal article became the deciding factor. I don't really love having the summary of risks or benefits in an infobox for a treatment where one or both is not solidly established, because it runs a high risk of undue weight. But if we have to have them in there, I'd love if we didn't rely on non-systematic reviews. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 02:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  This study is not the only thing this decision is hinging on. I apologize if I was unclear. I brought this here because whether or not this was considered a RS was the point in the discussion that we were stuck on. Jmg873 ( talk) 03:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of a source refers to the accuracy of the facts it contains, not the opinions expressed by its author. The assumption in policy is that papers published in respected academic sources are reliable. Obviously errors can occur and in those cases we can resolve the issue by looking at other reliable sources. If you think the journal was wrong to publish this paper, then write to them and get it withdrawn. In the meantime, I put getter faith in the journal's editors than in Wikipedia editors. TFD ( talk) 15:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• The source is still relatively new and so its reliability is suspect until other sources indicate that its conclusions are warranted. Peer review is great, but it sometimes takes many years before we know whether a particular article is reliable or not. The article seems to have generated a little buzz so far, so hopefully some citations to it will indicate its reliability, but the few so far are not particularly encouraging [38], [39], [40], [41]. I also have a concern that T&F OA journals have had issues with uneven editorial control in the past. See Taylor & Francis#Controversies. But, even as a general principle, it's best to proceed with caution with any paper that is new. jps ( talk) 03:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  @ ජපස: Peer reviewed secondary sources in a reliable journal is Wikipedia's standard for high reliability. What you are proposing here is that lower-reliability sources (the links you listed) can be used to discredit a higher-reliability source. If I could edit Wikipedia based on that upside-down principle, oh, the edits I could make, you have no idea. MarshallKe ( talk) 19:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  The sources I listed are not lower-reliability. Odd that you would think that this is the case. jps ( talk) 19:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, are they also comprehensive reviews like the source in question? MarshallKe ( talk) 19:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Each source, written by experts in the subject, offers either direct or indirect critique of the claimed "comprehensive review" and that serves to point out how the paper may be problematic. Obviously a comprehensive review is only reliable if it is done correctly. jps ( talk) 19:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's standard for whether a secondary source was "done correctly" is WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDPRI explicitly states primary sources should not be used to counter conclusions by secondary sources. You don't get to define a secondary source as less reliable except with sources Wikipedia deems to be of higher reliability, per WP:MEDASSESS. MarshallKe ( talk) 20:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  These aren't primary sources since they assess the other source. jps ( talk) 20:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry I'm not being clear here. My point is that you're using evidence that is considered lower quality per WP:MEDASSESS to contradict evidence that is considered higher quality. I just don't see this as anything other than calling a study bad because you feel like it's bad and therefore everything that contradicts it is good. We have standards for a reason. MarshallKe ( talk) 15:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  You are incorrect. WP:MEDASSESS does not consider these sources to be lower quality. jps ( talk) 17:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, now that's a bold claim. I'm definitely interested in a more generalized centralized discussion on that. That's going to have wide-reaching site-wide consequences. MarshallKe ( talk) 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  My claim is that competence is required and you don't seem to have enough of it to understand what I'm saying. At least, that's my good faith interpretation of what's going on. This isn't the first time you've had problems evaluating sources. Probably won't be the last. jps ( talk) 17:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Are you prepared to back that up with diffs? MarshallKe ( talk) 17:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

All in good time. You've already been warned about discretionary sanctions. I can see from your actions here that you have taken on the mantle of WP:ADVOCACY that is straying into WP:SPA and WP:POVPUSH. We may see you at WP:AE sooner or later. Take care! jps ( talk) 18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If you're not going to do anything about it, why even bring it up? I am here. I'm not going away just because some rando on the internet called me dumb and biased. Regardless, can we get back to the explanation of how the publications you've linked are on the same level as a literature review? Seems like an easy explanation, but you'd rather type accusations at me than spend one sentence explaining yourself. MarshallKe ( talk) 18:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have written plenty more than one sentence to explain this. I'm not going to waste more time if you cannot or refuse to understand them. jps ( talk) 20:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• I do not see any issue with the source (2 years old already). The background of a researcher is not a criteria for exclusion or inclusion automatically, it is the amount of oversight of the source (in this case a journal) that carries a little more weight. Perhaps attribution and light wording would resolve the issue. The specific statement that the source is being used for by the editor matters too. Ramos1990 ( talk) 19:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Similar to the talk page, I wanted to make a summary of what has been presented thus far. Especially to (at least somewhat) separate the two discussions and keep them focused. Please add anything I missed. Jmg873 ( talk) 15:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Current arguments against inclusion of Chaibi & Russel 2019

• The authors are chiropractors
• The source is too new and must be confirmed by other sources
• The source has too few cross-references
• it is a whitewashing study
• T&F journals have had controversy so the source is suspect

Current arguments in support of Chaibi & Russel 2019

• It is MEDRS Compliant
• The author should not be a relevant because it is peer-reviewed by a reliable journal
• not including it because of the author suggests the peer-reviewers are unreliable.
• the source's conclusion agrees with two other recent MEDRS compliant secondary published

Editors in against inclusion of source: jps

Editors in support of inclusion of source: jmg873, TFD, SMcCandlish, IP User 7F0D, MarshallKe

Editors whose position I am unsure of: Xurizuri, Alexbrn, Valjean

Jmg873 ( talk) 15:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That seems a biased summary. One of the reasons my position might seem uncertain is that, despite asking, it's unclear what specific statement is in question for which this source might or might not be reliable. Or is the OP seeking a carte blanche to use it for anything at all? Alexbrn ( talk) 15:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not good practice to promote a false binary like this because part of evaluation of a reliable source is the context in which it is used. These aren't arguments against or in support of the source. These are editorial considerations that depend on context. jps ( talk) 15:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, As Xurizuri said to you above, it is being referenced specifically to be used as a source on the risk of stroke/death in the infobox; that is why the talk page is linked. Please point out what you think was biased there and I will modify it. Jmg873 ( talk) 16:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@jps, my intent was not to create a false binary. Perhaps it would have been better phrased as "users who consider/do not consider it a reliable source". If you feel there is better verbiage, I welcome it. Jmg873 ( talk) 16:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that a summary of this style is useful/necessary. It tends to stifle discussion and may end up hindering WP:CONSENSUS formation. The better thing to do is let discussions run their course. An uninvolved closer can come through and summarize. jps ( talk) 17:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to create a summary of the central ideas here and relocate this to the RS:Noticeboard where it would be more appropriate to continue this discussion. Please let me know what changes you would like to see before I post it there or if you have a better way for me to concisely convey the ideas presented here for the discussion to continue there. If you think it would be more appropriate for me to post at the RS noticeboard without referencing this discussion I can do that too, but I didn't want it to appear that I was "noticeboard shopping" or going behind anyone's back. Thank you. Jmg873 ( talk) 16:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think relocation is necessary. There are overlapping considerations. A link at WP:RSN would be fine. jps ( talk) 17:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now made a link there, sorry for the error in posting it here rather than there first. Jmg873 ( talk) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the reasons I haven't participated in any depth here is that this is the NPOV/N, not RS/N. We're at the wrong board. It should be an RfC entitled "Reliability of a secondary research paper written by a chiropractor, but published in a medical journal." Neutrality is not an issue here, unless dealing with non-neutral editing by an editor, and that is not an issue for these noticeboards. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Same. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 18:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I also have problems with the risks being mentioned in the infobox. That type of infobox content would be more suitable for the Vertebral subluxation article, definitely not the Chiropractic article. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I am leaning against inclusion. Had the journal been nejm, lancet, nature, annals of thoracic surgery, Cell, cancer, JACC or another journal at the top of its field, I would be sure, hands down, for inclusion. But for annals of Medicine? Nope unless all other criteria are emphatically met. Cinadon 36 18:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus that Annals of Medicine is unreliable, so this smacks of WP:CHERRYPICKING. The obvious problem with this sort of argument is that your criteria are subjective, personal, arbitrary, and opaque. If this has been in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, then your comment just as easily could have read "Had the journal been NEJM, Lancet, Nature, Cell, Cancer, JACC ..." omitting Annals of Thoracic Surgery.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

While it may feel arbitrary to you, the argument is at least well-ordered. Annals of Medicine has the lowest h-index of all these journals... by far. jps ( talk) 02:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean h-index or impact factor? Jmg873 ( talk) 14:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

H-index at the journal level. [42]. jps ( talk) 23:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, Do you have any evidence that lesser known medical journals are less reliable? It seems to me that the main difference is that better known journals are able to get more interesting articles and better known writers, not that they have a better record of fact-checking. Why should we assume that lesser known journals are riddled with errors of facts? Lesser known journals may also be more specialist, which makes them less popular.

The discussion suggests that in addition to determining if a publication is peer-reviewed by experts, we should also examine its impact and the credentials of writers.

TFD ( talk) 14:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is reputation… the better know journals have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that less well known journals do not have. This does NOT mean the less well know journals are bad - or even that they have a BAD reputation - since it could be that it has no real reputation one way or the other. It does mean that the well known journals are considered better sources… and in a conflict we favor the better sources (well known journals). Blueboar ( talk) 14:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree that top-tier journals are more reliable. However, in this specific case that isn't what we should be comparing to for this. The journal used for the existing information, the International Journal of Clinical Practice, has an objectively lower reputation than the Annals of Medicine. If we are using reputation as a consideration, it doesn't support the argument being put forth. Jmg873 ( talk) 17:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The 2 Ernst articles were both published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice which has an Impact Factor of 2.503 ^[1] and an H-index of 98 ^[2].

The Chaibi article is published in the Annals of Medicine which has an Impact Factor of 4.709 ^[3] and an H-index of 112 ^[4].

If we are going to use reputation as one of the determiners, it is disingenuous to compare this source's reputation to NEJM, lancet, etc. considering the journals that are currently being used in the article. Jmg873 ( talk) 17:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @ The Four Deuces: for your question. I have to clarify. I wont ditch Annals of Medicine coz they are not as known (or have less Impact Factor) than mainstream Journals. It is that, how to put it...oh, I will use a table.

	Journal	author	overall evidence
Source 1	weak	weak	weak
Source 2	weak	moderate	weak to moderate
Source 3	strong	weak	moderate

	Strong Claim	Moderate Claim	Weak Claim
evidence needed	Strong	Moderate	Weak

So, in this case, since the context in question is on Risk/benefit, it needs a strong evidence. So, journal is weak, author is weak, overall evidence is weak, evidence needed must be strong, so it fails. This is how I think of it. I consider journal is week, coz, as it was said above, "Lesser known journals may also be more specialist, which makes them less popular". Annals of Medicine have a board spectrum. They do not have the reputation of being a reliable journal. It s reliability must be proven. It has not. Thanks everybody of the interesting discussion. Cinadon 36 17:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The claim this source is being used for is risk, not risk/benefit. How does the requirement for strong evidence reconcile with the fact that the existing evidence used for the claim is at the same level or weaker than the evidence being disputed? (see my comment above for further explanation) Jmg873 ( talk) 18:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36,I think you are conflating reliability with weight. Whether or not to report a claim is solely determined by weight. IOW we would only include claims that had received considerable attention in other sources and we would be able to determine its degree of acceptance.

When you say weak evidence, I assume you mean it is inadequate to prove the claim, rather than that it is fabricated. So for example the Wow! signal is weak evidence for extra-terrestrial life, but the signal itself was not fabricated. This is in contrast to conspiracy theory texts, which routinely include false facts or faulty syllogisms. (Example: In Israeli, most people infected with covid are vaccinated, therefore vaccination does not reduce the risk of infection.)

TFD ( talk) 18:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, I concur with Jmg873. How do you reconcile your argument against inclusion based on the reputation of the Annals of Medicine and not also argue for the removal of existing content in the article sourced from International Journal of Clinical Practice, which is of lower reputation than Annals of Medicine? MarshallKe ( talk) 19:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Well @ MarshallKe:, I dont. I offered my opinion just for the specific source. I did not compare it with other sources at the same article or other articles (doing so leads to an endless whataboutism). But since you ask, it depends on the claim, the journal, the author, the institution of the author, and the reception from the academia. Anyway, since it is obvious I am not convincing you all for not inclusion, what about attributing it? like "According to chiropract Name Surname, writing at Journal X, the risk of .....[source]" That would be a fair way out. What do you think? @ The Four Deuces:, no, I was talking about reliability. When I say "weak evindence" I mean that the source is not an established authority that its opinion could become WP Voice. @ Jmg873: See my reply to MarshallKe. Cinadon 36 04:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I find that dismissing an argument as "whataboutism" is often used by those who don't want to accept that their reasoning is invalid and their purported standards are pure manipulation rather than actual standards. As for attributing it, I don't support "according to chiropractor". Might as well replace "chiropractor" with "liar and quack" because that's what you're really trying to do; downplay the fact that this is a peer-reviewed literature review in a reputable journal that meets all of Wikipedia's standards for inclusion except that it doesn't come to the "right" conclusions so we have to ad hominem it. MarshallKe ( talk) 15:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I support the wording "A YEAR literature review found CLAIM". Anything additional is a MOS:LABEL violation. If we're going to start witch-hunting the entire scientific community, we've got a lot of work to do. MarshallKe ( talk) 15:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Jmg873 ( talk) 20:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the goal here is to highlight one source which has, even as it has been cited, received mixed reception. To pretend that this is the pinnacle of sourcing on Wikipedia (which seems to be the argument here, but correct me if that's not it) is a pretty ludicrous argument. I don't have a particular objection to the source in question, but I don't think it rises to the level of most reliable source ever and better than all others that came before or after it. That seems to be the implication of some of the arguments being leveled here. jps ( talk) 01:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Can't speak for the editor who authored this RfC, but I do not want to erase the risks section and replace it with whatever this particular study concluded, and I don't think a reasonable editor would want such a thing. Let's summarize this study, and let's summarize the studies you've linked, as well. What's the problem? MarshallKe ( talk) 16:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The question at issue is whether the study itself is reliable. The question was not whether it is possible to summarize it. jps ( talk) 17:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

If you don't have any particular objections to the source in question, and you don't think that it's the "most reliable source ever and better than all the others that came before of after it", then we are in agreement and are ready to put the source in its editorial context, as you have advocated for 8 days ago. MarshallKe ( talk) 17:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

As long as you do that outside of the article text, that's fine with me. jps ( talk) 17:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@ jps I am the RfC author and I never suggested that the existing studies should be replaced by this study or removed. I was arguing for its inclusion. I looked through the commentary here and did not see any suggestion here that the goal is to "highlight this source above others". The only thing I could see construed as that was the discussion of the two Ernst sources (if I missed something, please let me know). My comparison of the other sources was not to suggest that they should be removed, but as a response to the argument that reputation is a reason to exclude this source. I believe those other two sources should be included in the article, as I believe this one should. Jmg873 ( talk) 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that "arguing for inclusion" can take many forms. There are thousands of papers that we could include that are relevant to the article in question. We obviously don't want to include all of them even as citations! But it is perfectly fine to consider them in composing article text. That is what I don't have objection to. What I don't think we have here is a necessary right of reply, for example. jps ( talk) 17:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I find myself unsure what point you were trying to make. Yes, arguing for inclusion can take many forms; We are specifically discussing the source in the context provided at the outset, not every possible form of inclusion. In the statement "thousands of papers relevant to the article" is 'the article' referencing the paper in question or the Wikipedia article on chiropractic? I originally went to paraphrase your comment to make sure I understood it correctly, but the more I read it, the more it confused me. Can you clarify the point your comment was designed to make? Additionally, what do you mean by saying that you don't feel there is a 'necessary right of reply'? Thank you. Jmg873 ( talk) 22:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Not to put words in jps's mouth, but it reads to me as "because there are lots of scientific publishings related to chiropractic, we can't just pick the first ones we stumble upon to base the article off of", and I don't know what he means by "necessary right of reply", either. MarshallKe ( talk) 22:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair reading re: scientific publishings. My issue with "inclusion" is that, in the past, some editors have taken my statement of, "yeah, we can consider that source" to be almost a carte blanche to include a full accounting of the source in article text. This is not something I want to see happen again. My point about "right of reply" is general. There is currently text in the article that posits (A). The source you are asking about posits not(A). Just because it posits not(A) does not mean we must include it in article text. Perhaps you find that obvious, but I, again, am the victim of circumstance as there were situations in the past where this was a dispute. jps ( talk) 01:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

If I understood your point, you are saying that you are potentially alright with its inclusion in a particular way, but not in "any way". If so, I am in agreement. Would an inclusion in the format MarshallKe suggested, "A YEAR literature review found CLAIM", be acceptable? To be specific, what about "A 2019 literature review found that there is no strong evidence in the literature that manual therapy provokes CAD or stroke"? Jmg873 ( talk) 18:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that is the best summary of all the available reliable sources we've been considering in this discussion. There are a number of sources which cite this review specifically which take issue with it in part or in whole either explicitly or implicitly. There are also some rejoinders to the rejoinders which are of varying levels of quality. To wit, it's not as simple as saying that this was just a literature review that uncontroversially found some result. This isn't a cut-and-dry scenario where I think we are justified in simply reporting this claim without letting the reader know about the wider context. However, I'm not sure how to write about this wider context yet or whether it is, for example, WP:DUE to go on about this. There are two options: 1) try to come up with a brief and neutral summary of a variety of sources that doesn't fall into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH but also doesn't end up WP:COAT or WP:SOAP or 2) keep this noise out of the article entirely. I have a feeling that there is a bit of concern here that this source is somehow rising above the other sources already in the article, but the wider consideration of the context around this source does not lead me to believe this is the case. In short, I don't think inclusion of the sort you are describing is the best thing here. I am not convinced that inclusion is the best thing at all. jps ( talk) 18:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I won't pretend to know the best way to include it, and I think it warrants further discussion. However, I feel we are getting away from the point of this initial post and RfC. It seems we agree that it is a reliable source, but the dispute now is how it can be appropriately used in the article, if at all. To be clear and quell your previous concerns: by saying you agree that it meets MEDRS I'm not suggesting that we have "carte blanche" to apply it in the article. If you agree that it meets MEDRS, I would like to close this RfC and continue the discussion on if/how to include it on the talk page. Let me know your thoughts on that. Jmg873 ( talk) 14:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the agreement that a particular source is "reliable" is typically not a very useful determination since the relevant policy makes it clear that the question of what determines that a source is "reliable" is entirely dependent on the context. What is this a reliable source for? Is it a reliable source to indicate the position of the authors? I would definitely agree to that. Is there a situation in article text where this source is needed so that the opinions of the authors can be cited? I'm not convinced necessarily, but that is certainly a fine topic of conversation. Does it meet WP:MEDRS? Again, the question is in what context? In the context of saying something in Wikipedia's voice? I would say, unequivocally "no" inasmuch as there is controversy swirling around the context in the sources. So, no, I'm not in favor of giving any sort of golden ticket or get-out-of-jail-free card for this situation. There may be situations where this source can be used responsibly, but it would be irresponsible for us to pretend that it would be impossible to misuse a "RELIABLE SOURCE DETERMINATION". That's my concern. jps ( talk) 15:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

When we talk about a source being reliable in context, it generally refers to the source's origin. For example, a peer reviewed journal on astronomy should not generally be used for medical claims. In this case, the context is, a comprehensive review about a medical treatment, specifically screening prior to administering that treatment, published in a peer reviewed medical journal. If you mean chronological context, two other secondary studies published in the preceding few years found similar conclusions. If you mean usage context, I am happy to find a place to meet on that. Perhaps just adding it to an already existing statement. Would you accept adding it as a citation for the already existing statement: There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of stroke from cervical manipulation. ? Jmg873 ( talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

When we talk about a source being reliable in context, we also have to consider how a source is received, not just the venue of publication. I found a number of sources that I linked to which cite the source and serve to cast at least some doubt on the findings of this particular review. I would not accept your newly proposed statement as being properly sourced since no "controversy" is identified in any of the sources. It strikes me as WP:SYNTH to claim there is any "controversy". As I said, getting this right is difficult. jps ( talk) 19:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Which sources are you referring to that cast doubt? If you are referencing the criticism and cross-links you linked earlier, they all seem to support the statement that the source is being used for.

The first ^[5] criticized them for aspects of the recommendations they made, but affirmed what the chaibi article was being referenced for here by referencing another article. They said Church et al. [3] and Biller et al (on behalf of the American Heart Association Stroke Council and the American Stroke Association) [2] provide important analyses of the current state of our understanding of the association between manual adjustment of the neck and CAD. There is an association between manual adjustment and VAD but no causative relationship has been established. It is more likely that pain from VAD leads to neck manipulation than that neck manipulation leads to VAD.

The second ^[6] cited the Chaibi article for the following statement: a 2019 comprehensive review in Annals of Medicine discussed risk-benefit assessment while emphasizing the difficulty in demonstrating a causal relationship.

The third ^[7] references the chaibi article for its risk factors it identified, which were: Other variables thought to predispose to CAD including recent infection, hyperhomocysteinemia, low body mass index, vitamin deficiencies. However, it does support what the chaibi article was being used to reference: In the investigation of SMT-associated CADs, biomechanical research has failed to provide evidence of a causal relationship. Data provided by animal [12] and cadaver [13] studies suggest inadequate force is produced to generate dissection in healthy arteries. CAD is also unlikely induced by the anatomic displacements that occur during SMT, as the resultant facet joint movements have not been shown to endanger the nearby vertebral arteries [14]. Furthermore, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis was unable to establish a causal link between SMT and CAD and could only report a small association [15]. However, such an association has been consistently supported by anecdotal experiences within medical practice

In the fourth ^[8] it doesn't list the chaibi article at all, but instead references a different article he wrote regarding migraines. Interestingly enough however, it later supports what the article in question was going to be used for:

Although evidence is thin, no causal relationship seems to exist between CSM and CAD.(Church et al., 2016). Therefore, an inventory with indications of possible causations would be unreliable, as it would be based on assumptions by judgement, and not founded with criteria of causation. Therefore, this review does not contain any description or suggestions of causation related to the artery dissections

Did I miss something? You linked these and said they "cast doubt" on the findings of the article, but they all seem to affirm what the article was being referenced for. I don't understand how these do anything but support inclusion of the article for exactly what I was suggesting.

All that said, my most recent suggestion does not add a new statement to the chiropractic article. The statement you are contesting is already in the chiropractic article, and is sourced. I was suggested adding this citation to that to strengthen the existing statement. It adds nothing new to the article except additional evidence. This is the lowest possible form of inclusion. Given the above, if you are against inclusion in the way I have suggested, then it leads me to believe that you oppose inclusion of the article in any context. It also causes me to have some doubt that your arguments are in good-faith. Jmg873 ( talk) 01:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I am sorta against the way a lot of this is being discussed in the article as is. A larger discussion as you are initiating would be fair, but I note that your interpretation of the implications of these sources is at odds with my interpretations -- almost to the extent that I question whether you read the articles at all. We are pretty far afield right now. You asked for my opinion and I gave it. You showed that a larger conversation is possible, so that's definitely what I support. But not here, at the talkpage. jps ( talk) 12:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, I have trouble understanding your statement, "When I say "weak evidence" I mean that the source is not an established authority that its opinion could become WP Voice." We don't report opinions as facts no matter whose they are with the exception of opinions so widely accepted that they are treated as facts in science textbooks. We may not even mention such opinions unless we can establish their weight in the body of the literature.

Reliability is entirely about factual accuracy. Would we expect an article written by a chiropractor, fact-checked by medical academics and published in a respected medical journal, which is an established authority, to have serious errors of fact? Presumably if the paper said that the liver was located in the right foot, peer review would have corrected it or even rejected the paper.

TFD ( talk) 15:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Our best practice around sourcing holds four possible attitudes we can have regarding inclusion of a claim from a given source that determine how we should treat the claim:

1. Inclusion as an uncontroversial claim that can be reliably (in this case, MEDRS-compliant) sourced: we share the claim in wikivoice
2. Inclusion as a controversial claim that can be reliably sourced: we share the claim backed by its supporting sources with clear attribution and with documentation of the controversy
3. Inclusion as a controversial claim that cannot be reliably sourced but where the controversy is encyclopediac and the claim is explicitly contested by reliable sources: we document the claim backed only by reliable sources and we do not refer to any unreliable sources in a way that is misleading about their quality. Note that it's quite possible for a source to satisfy the technical MEDRS criterion regarding publication without us considering it to be a reliable source for that particular claim; it's a recurrent theme on WP:RS/N that an article might be published in a prestigious venue and still not count as a reliable source for some particular claim.
4. Exclusion as unverifiable: if we can't fit one of the above three cases, verifiability means we should not treat the claim at all

Jmg873's !vote analysis (15:04, 15 October) has got pushback I think because it is seeking a simple yea or nae on the source when the issue at stake really needs a resolution of which of the above attitudes we should take. I haven't looked in detail at this particular claim, but from looking over the comments, it looks we are headed for one of the middle two options. If we go for the third option, which I am leaning to following Xurizuri (05:26, 13 October)'s weighing of the kind of contribution made by the article, we probably should not include the source before we find MEDRS-quality articles that cite the article (cf. jps 03:20, 14 October). There's plenty of unretracted crap been published in The Lancet, for example, so I think fine discussion of journal reputation is a distraction. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That sounds about right - we're in danger of losing the bigger picture here. It's accepted knowledge that neck-cracking infants is a pseudoscientific endeavour, useless at best, and outright health fraud at worst. A number of appropriately-qualified commentators have also said that is poses risks, maybe as severe as causing death. Then one of the vendors of this woo writes and gets published a narrative review downplaying the risks. At the very least, Wikipedia needs to frame this with caution. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Basically in agreement with this assessment as well. I think a fair option would be to return to the talkpage and try to make a more complete evaluation of all these questions rather than singling out one source for discussion. jps ( talk) 12:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that User:Joshua Jonathan may be acting against NPOV and have a conflict of interest in articles regarding Hinduism, specifically Advaita Vedanta. I have examples of this user being uncomprimising regarding these matters. It worth pointing out this users main interest is Buddhism per his user page [43].

This user seems to think because this user has a understanding of both Buddhism and Hinduism he can make comparative edits, that only seem for example to affect "Hindu" topics. For example, I have had drawn out discussions with this user on the Talk page about Hindu icon Adi Shankara [44], [45] [46] after this user blocked this user permanently [47]. After blocking this user, Joshua Jonathan must of thought he could act unimpeded but I was there to address it, which only then it was subsequently changed. This user, for someone that is supposed to be acting in neutrality and in sensitive matters per wiki rules, changed Adi Shankaras religon to "Shaivism" [48] which shows the unawareness and lack of sensivity when dealing with anothers religon. (for the record Adi Shankara is most definitley not a Shaivite.) Almost whenever this user works on a article within the scope of Advaita, the user makes comparions to Buddhism. Its worth noting this user has no interest in promoting articles to GA status [49], so why is this is so invested in topics like these, if not to improve it to wikipedia standard? The reason why I am finally reporting this user is because of the article Advaita Vedanta where this user is acting in a WP:OWN way, against Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and against Wikipedia:Good lede trying to making the lead confusing. This user does good work on other topics, but his lack of senstivity and unawareness makes me think this user is acting in a more meticulous, cunning way. I personally believe this user is a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim by insuating that Advaita and Hinduism by proxy is "influenced" or takes "influence" from Buddhism. Both religons strongly dispute this. What this user will do in rebuttal is confuse with excess amount of information that the user with a problem will be discouraged and dissuaded. This user abuses wikipedia warning templates in almost dogmatic way, making sure this user can act unimpeded. I received my first block (albeit a ban from the Adi Shankara page for a day) and my only goal is to improve wikipedia by elevating article to GA status. This user may be great dealing with ips on other Indian topics like hindu/buddhist empires, but when it comes to religon and philosophy, its hard NOT to see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view being breached. Like I said from the start, this users main interest is Buddhism. I suggest a topic ban or article ban so people can actually edit the article without being reverted. JJNito197 ( talk) 14:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Forum shopping and you won't get a topic ban against anyone at WP:NPOV/N see this thread at WP:AN/I for discussion. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Per reliable sources guidelines, articles on Wikipedia should be based onreliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views are included. A lot of contents are directly based on self-publications by homelessness related professional corporations and primary source government publications. Just to name a few:

• Urban Institute. 1996.
• United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (2017). Ending chronic homelessness in 2017. Retrieved from "Housing first implementation brief" US Veterans Affairs
• https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2017-AHAR-Part-1.pdf

I believe we should at least be bouncing things off of secondary sources in choosing what is included for due weight consideration. Writing based on sources like above seems to be too primary source based and possibly original research. Something unique about this subject matter is the unusual number of institutes, foundations, policy centers, coalitions and other think tanks and advocacy groups and writing directly from these sources would bring in bias in favor of the homelessness service industry in my opinion. Can we discuss on suitability of significant dependence on sources of these type on this subject matter? Graywalls ( talk) 19:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The Urban Institute is not a primary source; it's a think tank which provides secondary sources. Similarly, a federal agency's publication of an overview of a policy topic is certainly not a primary source. If you find *better* sources, sure, you can include them. But money focused on this topic will largely come from either (1) the government, in some form, or (2) charitable philanthropy, as is the case for many fields, except that many areas of study also are driven largely by (3), business profits. "Homelessness services industry" sounds like an exaggeration (one loaded with POV) given that homeless shelters are not investor-driven and largely driven by local charities. It's more important that an article on homelessness describes the literature on homelessness than that it suppresses the philanthropic research to drive some sort of personal point of view that homelessness is not a problem or that its existence is somehow exaggerated by an "industry". I think the sort of conspiracy to promote homelessness which you present is a minority perspective and you're welcome to try to document it but it shouldn't receive the dominant weight.

I'm not saying all think tank articles or government overview publications are reliable sources (I am saying they are not **primary** sources); specific publications can be discussed at WP:RS/N. CC: @ Ruthgrace and Pathawi: II | ( t - c) 07:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Z1720 and Possibly: as they have participated on articles on this subject matter that I've also edited on in the past. Reliable vs due weight are completely different matters though. However, you're right not everything I mentioned are primary. The decision to include, thus making the determination that it is inclusion worthy to build contents based on government and court rulings certainly fall under NPOV when these have not been discussed as matters of importance in reliable sources that are not advocacy groups. If the page was on soup, writing favorably on plastic containers and disadvantages of metal containers and citing a bunch of plastic industry related publications and plastic related institutes would be NPOV issue as it would be overrepresentation of one industry. If New York Times mentions a report they've done, then adding that report as an add-on source would be reasonable, but not to go build contents based on those contents in far greater depth than discussed in the NYT article. Extensively citing think tank and advocacy groups far beyond the interest expressed in them by mainstream media would be similar issues. Graywalls ( talk) 09:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't done a check, but I imagine that there is a significant amount of academic literature on this topic from secondary sources. Per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources. If editors want to improve upon this article, I encourage them to first go to WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or search academic databases that are provided by their local library systems. Peer-reviewed high-quality sources should be exhausted before lower-quality secondary sources and primary sources are used. Z1720 ( talk) 13:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I've been tagged: I used to work (a while ago) at a homeless people's organisation, and for some time I ran a shelter for homeless youth. I think I created two pages on this topic perhaps fifteen years ago (I haven't checked)—long before the current COI policy—but I don't think I've edited content pages on the topic of homelessness in over a decade precisely because I don't think I can be neutral on the issue. I still watch the pages, but I don't edit them, & I try to stay out of the debates except when I think there's bullying going on. So I think I'm going to limit my participation here to one comment, & then I'm out: The notion of a united "homeless services industry" with one unified perspective is fringe POV nonsense, & that fringe point of view has clearly driven the suppression of sources for homelessness-related pages in an effort which, contra WP:RS, attempts to remove a 'significant minority view' on a topic.

It seems to me that from a practical standpoint this should be a non-issue. For example:

• There are plenty of critiques of HUD's numbers on homelessness (I've written & published several), but if you exclude HUD data as non-neutral because it's a government agency, there is no possibility of providing any sort of estimate of the number of homeless people in the United States. No one else is counting. If you kick HUD documents out because HUD's a primary source, you've misunderstood the role of primary sources in Wikipedia ( WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). Homelessness in the United States is clearly a topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopædia, & it seems obvious that this sort of statistic is the kind of information to which readers should have access. Ideally, the Statistics and demographics section would look something like: 'HUD says there were n people homeless on a given night in 2020. [source] Some researchers and advocates have disputed HUD's count methods, claiming A, B, & C. [sources].' But even just the first sentence would be preferable to silence. It is misguided to think that it would be preferable to seek a secondary source that just repeats the US government's statistic because it's (allegedly) more neutral than that government. Compare what we do with censuses: We don't eschew census data on populations because they come from government sources, & we don't rely on secondary sources to repeat what census bureaux have published.
• The USICH is similarly a government body. It's perhaps a better candidate as a reliable source than HUD because of its composition: 'In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.' ( WP:RSCONTEXT) But on that topic of context: The document in question is a policy statement: How should we end "chronic" homelessness, & what progress has the government made in that regard? The document is manifestly political in that it's a statement about a particular presidential administration's budget. It seems to me that such a document is a perfectly reliable primary source for what government policy is at a given point of time (again, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), but not a reliable statement of what the world is like. For that, a secondary source would be more reliable. Check out WP:BIASED.
• It's not at all clear to me why the Urban Institute would be considered a primary source different from a research institute on a university campus. Its papers don't meet the gold standard of being peer-reviewed, but peer review in a mainstream journal is one end of a spectrum of reliability: not the sine qua non. For the particular paper in question, three government agencies & a gaggle of academics worked out a method for surveying homeless service providers & homeless clients of those services. The paper provides the survey instruments & details the method. That's better than most of what gets published in psychology journals. If you take a glance at the citing papers on Google Scholar, you'll see that it's been cited fairly extensively as a reliable source by peer-reviewed papers. (Several hundred citations. I've only gone thru a few, selected at random. All of them cited the survey's data directly, sans caveat.)

In the first case, I don't see that there's any reason to prefer a secondary source, as the secondary source would simply repeat the primary source's numbers. It would be beneficial to have citation of critics of the methodology, ideally from secondary sources. In the second, I think you've got a paper that is clearly reliable as a statement of policy (which is significant in itself), but that as a description of what homelessness or chronic homelessness is like, you'd want a secondary source. In the third, if you could choose between this paper & a similar paper that were published in a peer-reviewed journal, the latter would be preferable. But you can't: The latter doesn't exist. The fact that an imaginary source could be better doesn't mean that this one is trash. There is a modicum of nuance required in dealing with these kinds of sources, but it's not a nuance that is difficult to manage if one isn't guided by trying to advance or silence a particular viewpoint.

In relation to the general principle: These articles (like most!) would certainly be improved by an increased reliance on academic scholarship. But that means bringing in new sources by doing real research: Not trying to remove information in a campaign to suppress a supposed bias that is arguably not even expressed by these sources. (Was Ben Carson's HUD under President Donald Trump biased in favor of the "homeless services industry"? Did any homeless services think they were beneficiaries of such a bias?) I probably don't (I hope I don't!) have any more to say than this. Pathawi ( talk) 13:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

For one reason or another, these homeless topics appear to have unusual concentration of sourcing from various advocacy groups as well as government sources. With sources like USICH, it isn't so much about reliability. Sourcing from various homelessness advocacy groups would be like writing contents into pages about meat from PETA. There are a lot of government publications, proceedings as well as case laws. When those things however have not been picked up in the general audience media, the editorial discretion to include contents based on these primary sources would be issues of biased/undue. Graywalls ( talk) 09:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That is just restating your original complaint which has already been addressed (in detail) by Pathawi. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Graywalls:, the argument you are making, as I get it, concerns RS, not POV. A sound NPOV argument would be: "Article says P but most Rel Sources say Q". Cinadon 36 18:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

There might be some overlap, but it primarily concerns NPOV and inclusion worthiness WP:DUE weight. In the lead it says "Homelessness in the United States refers to the issue of homelessness, a condition wherein people lack "a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence" as defined by The McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act." But whether this definition is the prevailing definition or not should have a source other than advocacy groups or government documents. A quick Google search comes up as "A coalition is a group of like-minded organizations or individuals who unite to create policy change." So a coalition against carbon emissions may have the correct factual info on something, but including a statement about vehicle emissions and their negative impact citing that coalition would not undue and possibly POV advocacy. Graywalls ( talk) 22:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Graywalls: I get what you are saying. Usually, these kind of sources are creating more trouble than good. But, you need to have a source saying otherwise, in order to prove there is a NPOV issue. Until then, all we can have is a reasonable suspicion. Cinadon 36 06:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I've got no problem with the idea that there might be a better lead sentence description for 'homelessness in the United States' than a legal definition from a Federal act. I should note, by the way, that there's no open dispute about this: Graywalls hasn't proposed a change in that lead ¶, or made an edit that someone else reverted. I actually don't think that there's a reasonable suspicion that there's an NPOV issue: People in the United States tend to think of homelessness as a policy issue, so it's not surprising to me that a US editor would read that definition in the primary Federal funding law for homeless services & think that it would do the trick. Homeless service providers generally hate the McKinney-Vento Act for a number of reasons. So if this is POV editing or advocacy, whose POV? Advocacy for whom? The sentence was added on 10 September 2016 by Jumplike23, who made a great many edits to the page on that date; I can't see any indication that there was a motive of advocacy of any kind, or what cause Jumplike23 would have been advocating. If you think they were editing to advocate a POV, you should probably ping them so that they can participate in the conversation. To me it just looks like a good-faith edit. (Actually, reviewing their edits, this person seems like a really good editor: Lots of clean-up, but also a lot of contributions from reading of reliable sources.) So, contra Cinadon36, I don't think that there is a reasonable suspicion here. & again—as I said at the beginning—neither is there a conflict.

(By the way, I'm also unclear on what coalitions have to do with the McKinney-Vento Act definition: The Federal government is not usually described as a coalition, nor is the Republican Party [Stewart McKinney's party]; the GOP & the Minnesota DFL Party [Bruce Vento's] certainly haven't tended to act as any kind of standing coalition. I don't know in what sense the individual Jumplike23 might be considered a coalition—not the kind of ontological question one generally has to consider while editing Wikipedia.)

Like many primary sources, the McKinney-Vento Act may be reliable for certain purposes; it might not be a good source for a definition of US homelessness for the lead sentence because it is a statement of policy. What you ought to do here is go find some good, reliable, scholarly source on homelessness in the United States, identify a good description therein, & pitch that as the description for the lead sentence. You'd probably find, however, that social scientists are inclined to use a much more expansive definition of homelessness than is the Federal government. For example, I just looked up 'homelessness' tout court in Google Scholar. The first article was from the Canadian Medical Association Journal, so I ignored it (not homelessness in the US), but the second was from a 2010 article entitled 'The New Homelessness Revisited' from the Annual Review of Sociology. ( Annual Review articles are nice, 'cause they give you such a useful overview of what's going on in a field of scholarly research.) There's a five-paragraph section on definitions, most of which emphasises aspects of homelessness that would go well beyond the McKinney-Vento Act definition. In fact—& I didn't go looking for this—much of the section focuses on ways in which the Act's definition doesn't go far enough. (If you want to look this up, it's written by Barrett A. Lee, Kimberly A. Tyler, and James D. Wright. It appears in volume 36, pages 501–521.) I went thru all of the top ten Google Scholar hits for 'homelessness': Four of them dealt with Canada or the UK specifically; several had significant sections on how to go about defining homelessness. In fact, after this search, I think that there could be an interesting conversation on the Talk page of either Homelessness or Homelessness in the United States about how to give the breadth of these definitions their due in the lead ¶ & in a definitions section—tho I wouldn't participate, the idea kind of excites me: This is the sort of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia fun! But such a discussion could only be carried out by editors operating in good faith who were committed to adequate representation of the range of significant points of view.

To the principle issue: The government source is not inherently a non-NPOV source, nor is it inherently & without qualification an unreliable source, nor is there any reason at all to think that it was introduced with the intention of advocacy. Primary sources have appropriate & inappropriate uses in Wikipedia. Their presence on a page is not, in itself, a problem. Rather than removing them indiscriminately, the productive route is to recognise that they're useful for what they're useful for, & to seek reliable secondary sources to build the article up. Pathawi ( talk) 13:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, it's not my intention to say that that specific Annual Review of Sociology article is the article that one should go to for characterising homelessness in general or homelessness in the United States: It's just the handiest, top-of-the-list, Googling example for my point. If one wanted to reword that introductory ¶ from secondary sources, they should draw on more than just that one article (& of course the set of reliable secondary sources that they drew on would not even necessarily have to include that article). Pathawi ( talk) 13:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The question blurs the distinction between reliability and neutrality. Per neutrality, articles must provide due weight to different opinions on homelessness. That does not mean that the sources used for facts need to be vetted for the opinions of their authors. Pat Moynihan's admonition is worth repeating: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts." Saying a source is reliable means that we have confidence in its factual accuracy regardless of the opinions of its authors. What may confuse matters is that some biased sources fabricate information. But that is a matter for RSN, not NPOVN. TFD ( talk) 13:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you were to place "In California USA, it shall be a misdemeanor for any owner or manager of an elephant to engage in abusive behavior towards the elephant, which behavior shall include the discipline of the elephant by any of the following methods: (a) Deprivation of food, water, or rest. (b) Use of electricity." into elephant, or California and cite https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=596.5 I don't see a reliability issue. However, if the inclusion is based on the penal code, or animal rights advocacy group, then while there is little doubt about the accuracy, but I would say the editorial discretion to include it into an article is undue. The decision to include such thing would potentially be a neutrality issue. If a balanced mainstream source brings this matter up, then I believe that creates a cause of inclusion worthiness. In this case, including the link to advocacy group, and the penal code discussed in the news article alongside would be reasonable. Graywalls ( talk) 07:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) and review accompanying recent edits at Mass killings under communist regimes. Levivich 03:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a really bad look for the neutrality of Wikipedia and is the most embarrassing and disgraceful event that has happened on this website in 2021, aside from maybe the mainland china incident. X-Editor ( talk) 05:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are looking at all the canvassing and bad faith keep votes, then I agree. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Following the generalization up the cat tree, only fascists and communists engage in Category:Mass killings by ideology, the democracies only do its parent Category:Mass murder. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And any time anyone tries to conpare the total numbers of killings between communists and fascists, in order to imply that fascism is really "the lesser of the two evils" or whatever - ASIDE from what deaths get included (e.g., I think the Memorial for the Victims of Communism includes Covid-19 deaths as "mass killings by communist regimes") - they always fail to consider that the Nazis and the fascists LOST World War II! Had the nazis accomplished their mission, their genocide count would have been been dozens of times larger than it was! (And as terrible as Stalin was in his own right, he was still a critical player in defeating Hitler, thus preventing those would-be mass exterminations. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:F14A:CD95:FAAA:9671 ( talk) 10:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I may have voted strong keep in the discussion, but I am completely against all the canvassing and disruptions to the vote and discussion. The result is probably going to be no consensus. X-Editor ( talk) 20:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Folks… there is no need to comment here. The place to comment is at the linked AFD. Blueboar ( talk) 13:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)