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 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | → | Archive 100 |
There is a discussion related to the neutrality of the Wall Street Journal lead. Please see the discussion here Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal#Should_editorial_opinions_be_posted_in_the_lede_summary. Springee ( talk) 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment: There is not a standard format for writing articles on Newspapers. Lead content depends on what is mentioned at the main body. Hence, the argument: "other major newspapers all have no mention of their supposed editorial opinions in the lead, meaning the specific targeting of the WSJ is not a NPOV"
is invalid.
Cinadon
36 17:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to plug my edit here: < https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Wall_Street_Journal&action=history> because I think the debate here misses the point. It was a really bad sentence for a lead, because it was a list that was basically repeated in the body of the article. It was more of a restatement than a summary (per WP:LEAD, a lead should SUMMARIZE). I don't even like having that sentence about the editorial stuff in the lead, but it concerns me far less when it's actually a summary rather than a list, or a restatement. My edit was reverted by someone on unknown grounds, and I didn't even change any of the stuff being debated here, I just made it more of a summary than it had been. We're here to write a good encyclopedia, and some more objective things, like my edit, should be allowed to happen, even while debates like this (which are also part of the process) happen. Some of us want whatever the hell is communicated here to be done well. 2600:1012:B068:D777:3172:6FCB:3354:9A46 ( talk) 02:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am attempting to make an edit to the page Assault Weapon which is presently under dispute. I believe the article as it stands suffers from a failure of neutrality, as a small but committed group of users who believe they "own" the page have attempted to stifle discussion and omit mention of opposing viewpoints in the article. Most importantly the article fails to discuss the reasons why some individuals and organizations support restrictions on assault weapons. I have created a discussion at the article talk page regarding my concerns on the page's neutrality, and would like to invite others to contribute to the discussion at Talk: Assault weapon.
The edit in question ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assault_weapon&oldid=1057437485) is as follows: "Many groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, support bans on assault weapons, stating "Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time." [1] Other groups are opposed to restrictions on the use of assault weapons, arguing that ""the term 'assault weapon'... is a media invention."[2]. After the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, many news organizations ran stories about assault weapons, explaining their varying definitions and presenting varying opinions about whether they should be banned again at the federal level.[3][4][5]"
Some opposing editors would like to omit the 1st sentence (and the edit was reverted citing WP:ONUS.) However, I believe that doing so violates Wikipedia neutrality policies, including the requirement to discuss all significant controversies regarding a topic in the lead, as well as the necessity of citing multiple points of view on a topic, not solely one side's position in a debate. I have also attempted to begin a discussion at the article talk page regarding concerns of neutrality in the article page. 108.30.187.155 ( talk) 19:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead
I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.
Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single socio-political viewpointsuggests major blind spots on the part of the poster.
Hi, albeit that this article states many times that he was a dictator and that it provides sources to prove that, the first paragraph is very enthusiastic and completely omits that. There's support within the talk page to include that he was a dictator in the first paragraph and it seems that most of the issue surrounding that is if he was a fascist dictator or an authoritarian dictator but the dictator part is always firmly secured anyways so I can't see how this article can maintain it's neutrality if it doesn't state that in the first paragraph. I know relying on other wiki pages is usually not that strong of an argument but the truth is that the Portuguese one does state that right away. Shexantidote ( talk) 23:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. I noticed that this page may not comply with the Wikipedia policy of neutrality as the Russian challenger doesn't have a Russian flag next to his name in the Infobox and some other places in the article. It is well understood that WADA imposed sanctions on the Russia's sports events but it is not clear how it has any impact on Wikipedia's guidelines. The only rationale behind not showing the flag could be sources but in the case of this particular sport even I found plenty of sources that speak of the Russian chess player Ian Nepomniachtchi representing Russia. Please check this section I initiated:
/info/en/?search=World_Chess_Championship_2021
P/S: For at least, there is no consensus in the sources as many of them talk about Nepomniachtchi as representing Russia. It is not clear why the editors of the "World Chess Championship 2021" decided to take one side. I'd like to hear from more editors and reach a more clear consensus here regarding the Wikipedia's policy.
-- 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:A056:F425:465E:703F ( talk) 06:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Nableezy is censoring all criticism of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Though his justifications for doing so keep shifting:
As for what's being deleted, here's the diff
Paragraph #1: This is a verbatim quote from one of the co-founders of the group, speaking about the group, as published in a RS. It can be up to the reader to determine what he meant exactly.
Paragraph #2: This is from an opinion piece in a RS, that is written in the article as an opinion. Seems 100% appropriate for the criticism section.
Paragraph #3: An 80 page report was written about the group, and it's the focus of an article by a RS. It boggles my mind that this is being excluded from the criticism section. Is the publication possibly biased? Sure, but that is why it's included as their opinion in the criticism section.
- Bob drobbs ( talk) 00:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
There are several issues here. The first is Collier, a non-notable blogger who routinely makes less than plausible claims about any number of people (including calling a number of Wikipedia editors "terrorists"). One biased source picked up a "report" he made. That report is not a RS, Collier has no expertise in the matter, but yes one source covered him calling an organization antisemitic. As far as I can tell, nobody else gave half a crap. That does not meet anything close to the lowest bar to be dedicated even a sentence in the article on that organization. Second, the piece on Greenstein is not criticizing PSC. It is criticizing Lauren Booth for criticizing PSC. Third, the op-ed in Haaretz makes one claim about one meeting of one chapter of PSC. Even if it were the work of an established expert, which it is not, that would still not merit mention in the article on the organization. I am totally fine including actual reliably sourced criticism about this or any other topic so long as it meets WP:DUE. But that is not what has been offered. nableezy - 01:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The nature of the problem can be clearly seen from the first paragraph, which I'll quote:
Tony Greenstein, who is one of the co-founders of Palestinian Solidarity Campaign wrote: "PSC needs to take decisive action to root out, once and for all, those who evince sympathy for racism - of whatever description. Gilad Atzmon is deeply antisemitic. He subscribes to every myth and libel that has ever been written about Jews, from the world Jewish conspiracy theory, to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the Holocaust itself." ( Lauren Booth's attack points up new split in PSC)
However, the source begins "Pro-Palestinian activist Lauren Booth has launched a vitriolic attack on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign for dissociating itself from antisemitic musician Gilad Atzmon
" (my emphasis). By omitting the dissociation, Bob drobbs constructed a paragraph that invites readers to assign Atzmon's views to PSC. It is the opposite of what the source says. Does Bob drobbs think that this misrepresentation of a source is so precious that someone who removes it should be brought to a noticeboard?
The third paragraph gives a forum to an unqualified activist-blogger who writes like half the world is antisemitic (including multiple Wikipedia editors). Anyone can write a "report"; that doesn't mean we have to cite it. The source for the second paragraph is the only one that should be considered seriously; my opinion matches those who argue for its omission since it is hard to extract anything from it that is both meaningful and representative.
Zero
talk 01:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
"The comments were made during a “periodic review” of Ireland’s human rights record before the Geneva-based commission, and come in the wake of a highly critical report last month on anti-Semitism in Ireland by researcher David Collier." [11]
"'Palestinianism' is a disease that is anathema to freedom, to debate, to openness and to human rights," Collier blogged. "It will infect those who catch the disease with anti-Semitism just as it provides them with a denial mechanism to protest their innocence." This highlights an issue that many of the charges of anti-Semitism against Palestine solidarity activists are coming from partisan political opponents rather than objective racism monitors. Collier is a longstanding Israel advocate and critic of Palestinian activism who has described his mission as "showing everybody how toxic our enemies are".Kieron Monks, Labour’s anti-Semitism scandal has spilled over into attacks on Palestine solidarity Middle East Eye 17 July 2018
The Zionist Federation UK Facebook page contains comments referring to Palestinians as "subhumans" and "evil made up people", with one post reading "Fakestinians...would slaughter their own mother if they had one." The StandWithUs page contains numerous references to Palestinians as "animals" and "savages". One popular comment suggested "Napalm Gaza" and another taunts a victim of the Gaza fence shootings - "one leg will suit you buddy". A 2017 report on social media in Israel found that messages of anti-Arab racism were posted at a rate of just over one per minute, with frequent incitements to violence. There has been no parallel scrutiny of hate speech in Israel advocacy, far less any suggestion that the field is discredited as a result, whereas pro-Palestinian activism is now suffering a crisis of legitimacy.' Nishidani ( talk) 10:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
A redirect proposal based partially on NPOV concerns is taking place at Talk:Race and crime § Propose redirect to Race and crime in the United States. –– FormalDude talk 05:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
At 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, an article on a Palestinian stabbing to death an armed Israeli settler in the West Bank, the unattributed view that this was a terror attack is offered in Wikipedia's voice. The justification for inclusion is a number of Israeli news sources ( Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ynet) called it a terror attack. The reason others (waves hand) have offered to remove it is that third party uninvolved sources such as the BBC, AP, Financial Times do not use that language in their own voice, and in the case of the AP explicitly attributes it to an Israeli police spokesperson. WP:WTA seems pretty clear to me, but an editor has claimed that an RFC is needed to show that there is not consensus for the inclusion of this value laden label in Wikipedia's voice, and that's just silly so here I am. Should Wikipedia call something a terrorist attack when sources outside of the area of conflict do not do so? nableezy - 21:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
A misleading presentation of the way the term is used. Non-Israeli, independent and reliable sources describe it a "terrorism", e.g - Mickolus, Edward (2016-08-08). Terrorism, 2013-2015: A Worldwide Chronology. McFarland. ISBN 9781476664378, and the OP knows this because it is (a) used as a reference in the article, and (b) discussed on the talk page. There are many others- Evyatar Borowski, 14, who was killed in a terrorist attack at Tapuach Junction in 2013.; Terror Stabbing Victim Laid to Rest, etc... If the redirect link is a problem, we can remove it Inf-in MD ( talk) 22:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
It is absolutely essential that we don't adopt the language of one side of a conflict. This is pretty basic NPOV territory. In Israel, it is commonplace for everyone from a kid throwing a stone to a regular soldier of an enemy country to be called a "terrorist". We can use it with attribution, but it is not a neutral term. As pointed out, reliability is irrelevant; this is not an issue of fact but an issue of label. Using "terrorist" without attribution would be the same as using "shahid" (martyr) without attribution. Zero talk 04:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
There is an active disagreement as to how the opening sentence (and opening paragraph) of the Gary Glitter article should read - the discussion is at Talk:Gary Glitter#Page Emphasis. For context, Gary Glitter was formerly a highly successful musician in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s. From the late 90s to the present day he has been convicted of various sexual offences involving children in both the UK and Vietnam, and is currently imprisoned in the UK for a lengthy prison term. He is therefore one of the most infamous people in the UK today.
My concern about the article is that I feel the opening paragraph places undue weight on his prominence as a musician by burying the lead on his current fame as a convicted sex offender, which is primarily what he is known for in the present day. Absolutely no mention of this is made until the fourth sentence of the article, which has the effect of making his convictions appear to be of secondary importance. My issues with this are:
I would propose changing the first sentence to describe Glitter as a "former glam rock singer and convicted sex offender" (or the other way around), in the same fashion as Ian Watkins. This allows the reader to anticipate the elaboration in the fourth sentence, and prevents the (somewhat lengthy) detail on Glitter's achievements from obscuring his current status.
However, there has been pushback against this on the basis that he is only notable as a sex offender because of his notability as a musician. My response to this is that notability is not assessed chronologically but by degree, and no sources since around 2006 have shown any interest in anything other than Glitter's fame for his sex offences. We are past the point of
recentism being an issue. I should also note that the reason he is a famous sex offender is because he was already a famous person, and has nothing to do with why he was a famous person. It is therefore incorrect to say that his fame for sexual offences is secondary to his fame as a musician, as knowledge of both is necessary to get a full picture of why he is famous today.
—
Theknightwho (
talk) 20:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The details about his singles chart hits, the critic's comments and the reference to TOTP should then be added in to the second and third paragraphs. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944), known professionally as Gary Glitter, is an English former glam rock singer who achieved considerable chart success in the 1970s and 1980s. Known for his extreme glam image and his energetic live performances, his career ended after he was imprisoned for downloading child pornography in 1999, and child sexual abuse and attempted rape in 2006 and 2015.
"In an interview with BBC News in May 2006, Glitter denied that he was a paedophile, and claimed not to have knowingly had sex with anyone under 18."Come on. Play nice. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the proposed revision by Ghmyrtle is reasonable. Glitter is notable for two reasons and we shouldn't bury the lead. I think we can trust people to read two sentences in sequence. Compare Kevin Spacey, which is a more complicated example because although his career has (effectively) ended, he hasn't been convicted of any crimes. Mackensen (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I've now modified the lead, per what appears to be a consensus here, and Ritchie333's suggested wording. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I came across the article because it had a cite error. I've corrected that now, but some of the claims that have been added (in particular by this edit) seem over the top. e.g. "Porras' tenure has been criticized by the left for what they consider a backsliding in the fight against corruption." and "Charges are based on ideological motivation and lack legal basis." (additions in italics). I've added some citation needed tags, but could someone with some idea of Guatemalan politics have a look? ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 19:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Transluded from SpaceX Starship's talk page:
This essay might be useful: Wikipedia:Criticism Cinadon 36 16:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
FMSky is reverting my additons to the lead of the Jean-Marie Le Pen article. Which include describing him as "far right", which is commonly used by sources eg [16], [17], [18] as well adding mention of his conviction for holocaust denial, which is mentioned in the body. FMSky contends that these additions are undue. Unlike the French language version, the lead currently lacks mention of his convictions for racial hatred, which I think should be mentioned. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads -talk- 07:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems like the article's been turned into a massively promotional article. The article also has numerous other problems on top of that. Invalid OS talk 13:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Where are my edits on . They are not even in the history What is going on. I've been on wikipedia with good faith for some 20 years, and this never happened. I wrote what I thought should be an intuitive and clearer description of Vacuous truth, and it has been erased, with no trace. No mention on my talk page. No mention here? What is going on?
I also answered a false-truth page request on the talkpage (which had an answer that it was not needed), and pointed out that the Israeli court allowed a fallacy to be broadcast on TV even though the court agreed it was a fallacy, as long as the show was saying what was known to them as the truth, without the intention of lying. So, in some settings, truth can also be somewhere along a continuum and not as implied in the Greek philosophy's term of Logical Truth only true or false. I suppose someone read that wrong and thought I was bringing up something controversial or political. I was not. There is no one as far as I know who contested that decision about the SECOND court case against the TV station for slandering the officer, in which he lost. (The first court case about the shooting and killing itself has been heavily criticised.) My post was discussing the question and answer given on the talk page and only secondarily referring to the topic of Vacuous truth, so I would leave that revert be (and perhaps would even erase it myself after second thoughts of how it may be percieved.)
But why was my suggested edit to the article completely deleted? And why was there no-one informing me in any way that the edits in the talk page have been reverted. I do not see it in my alerts.
Reading user:MagneticInk about hostility on that talk page, I hope I didn't put myself in the line of fire. I had no idea about the previous arguments on that talk page and was just trying to use Wikipedia to understand what started off for me as an extremely convoluted philosophical paper by Eugene Mills. Once I spelled out what I understood by reading all the technical terms of logic and translated Vacuous truth into plain English, Eugene's sentence became clear to me, and I thought it would be of use to bring down my explanation and discuss it, before putting it up on the page itself. That (discussion) of course cannot happen if what I wrote has been deleted without a trace! פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 17:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
OK Thank you! Sorry for the trouble I caused. I don't know why the edits didn't show up in the app or web. Perhaps it was while it was being updated... פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 18:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just moved China COVID-19 cover-up allegations from its previous title China COVID-19 cover-up. Can someone more experienced assess the neutrality dispute on the article? My specific problem is with the second section that seemingly use original research to conclude cover-up, based on reports that the Chinese government isn't cooperative on certain international investigations into COVID-19's originals.-- GeneralBay ( talk) 21:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Harry Sassounian was an American citizen of Armenian descent who was part of Armenian militants who killed Turkish diplomats for their denial of the Armenian genocide in the 1980s. A user called Grandmaster is accusing me of murder apologism because I:
1. called Sassounian an "American citizen" rather than labeling him as specifically Armenian,
2. mention Arikan's genocide denial (with a source) as the motivation for the killing which it clearly was.
Though the event was inherently political ( genocide vs. its denial), Grandmaster reverts my edits and not only leaves out said information but also includes factual errors like double names, grammatical mistakes and a differentiation between the Armenian and Western Armenian languages, which does not technically exist. I would appreciate some third source looking into this instead of Grandmaster intimidating me by threatening to "report me" 217.149.166.11 ( talk) 20:00, 17 December 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 [20].
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 [21], [22] [23] after this user blocked this user permanently [24]. 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" [25] 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 [26], 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. JJNito197 ( talk) 14:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I personally believe this user is a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim. – Austronesier ( talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I did, in fact, review the diff containing the majority of JJ's edits on the article you linked to. They were a combination of minor edits, changes to wording that improved flow, and explicitly cited changes. In aggregate they represented a mechanical improvement to the article. If there's issues with neutrality I would suggest you'd be well advised to address either specific sources JJ used or specific sources you feel would better represent a neutral article here. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
this is beginning to look like a retaliatory action and lest you pull a WP:BOOMERANG I'd strongly suggest you should drop this line of approach. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I've already responded twice; twice my respons was not published due to the fast Forum-shifting. Quite annoying. But here's the response I intended to give:
[Brahman], which is self-aware (svayam prakāśa)
[Sources: <ref name="Ganeri"/><ref name="IEP"/>{{sfn|Dasgupta|1975|p=148-149}}{{refn|group=note|name=self-luminous}}<br> pure Awareness or Consciousness.<br>[Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [note 1]</nowiki>
It's quite disruptive that an editor mass-reverts a large amount of edits because they oppose the inclusion of relevant info in the lead, info which describes two core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. Not of Buddhism, But of Advaita Vedanta. To quote Shankara, as quoted repeatedly in Advaita Vedanta:
I am other than name, form and action.
My nature is ever free!
I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.
I am pure Awareness, always non-dual.— Adi Shankara, Upadesasahasri 11.7, [Source: {{sfn|Comans|2000|p=183}}]
Adi Shankara, 20th verse of Brahmajnanavalimala:
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या
जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरःBrahman is real, the world is an illusion
Brahman and Jiva are not different.Brahmajnanavalimala 1.20 [7]
References
aramb
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).IEP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ganeri
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).For "self-luminous," c.q. "self-aware [awareness]", see Advaita Vedanta#Three states of consciousness and Turiya.
In response to JJNito's accusations:
1, why is Joshua reverting edits on that page, making it more confusing.- confusing to you? See the core tenets above.
2. Why is that user oversourcing the article with no added textual reference so we can source the content and confirm the authenticity.- because someone keeps reverting well-sourced edits pwhich present core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. See also WP:VERIFIABILITY: if you're unwilling to check the sources, then indeed mass-revert is the easy way to push ypur point - but not the accepted way.
3. Why is Joshua adding dubious Buddhist terminology to explain Hindu oriented topics- where exactly? Regarding the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta, that's an established fact in the academics; excluding this info would be a groos breah of NPOV. If you don't like that, see Talk:Muhammad/images.
and 4. Why is WP:OWN'ing the article so others and myself cannot edit the article.- because you're unwilling to accept WP:RS.
Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
PS: my username is Joshua Jonathan, not "Joshua Johnson." Not reading anything? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
1, confusing to you? See the core tenets above.- Its confusing (was further confusing) per the ambigious terms "pure Awareness" or "Consciousness" which does not adequetly summarize what Brahman is per Hinduism. Satchitananda is widley regarded as the most adequate summary. A
2. because someone keeps reverting well-sourced edits pwhich present core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. See also WP:VERIFIABILITY: if you're unwilling to check the sources, then indeed mass-revert is the easy way to push ypur point - but not the accepted way.- How does one check the sources without having access to a compendium of books - having a note to explain it in the sentence like you have done, albeit not consistently, is what you should do. Especially about that cite you added to the Buddhist "two truths doctrine" that I cant read. Have you not heard of Parabrahman or Nirgna and Saguna Brahman?
3. here exactly? Regarding the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta, that's an established fact in the academics; excluding this info would be a groos breah of NPOV. If you don't like that, see Talk:Muhammad/images.- Disengenious, the Advaita talk page is literally a back and forth with a self proclaimed Buddhist about a Buddhist word ' Svasaṃvedana' that you inserted in the lede.
and 4. because you're unwilling to accept WP:RS- I am interested in bringing articles to GA status, you are not. I fully value RS but your RS seem to be sporadic at best.
Regarding that 'PS: my username is Joshua Jonathan, not "Joshua Johnson." Not reading anything?' I could possibly be going blind for all you know. Best JJNito197 ( talk) 17:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I think this needs to be closed, as it is going nowhere,faxt. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
your RS seem to be sporadic at best- get real; what sources do you know of? Some of my sources:
NB: Koller and Meno were alredy used in the lead, but misrepresented. See also
User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources for the kind of sources that I use.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk! 18:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
PS:
diff.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk! 18:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim. I also found JJ to be approachable when it comes to consensus if your arguments and sources that you cite in support of that are of eminence. Thanks, WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk) 20:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
overly scholarly & obfuscatory: Please have a look at WP:OVERSIMPLIFY -
[articles should not give] readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't.And, this is precisely suitable for Advaita Vedanta article given the subject it deals with. WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk) 01:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Update I no longer have an issue with Joshua Jonathan's edits. I understand now it is in good faith and Joshua Jonathan is not at fault for expanding and giving definitions that the user is familiar with, understandably, translating terminology that would otherwise be unknown to the wider public. I agree with that user that translating words from Sanskrit (and translating concepts regardless) is problematic in itself, given the multiple defintions for multiple things. I also know that we do disagree on certain things but we can resolve them in the talk page in a forthright, non-hostile, academic manner. I advise if anybody has a problem with any edits to go to the talk page and bring up the topic for discussion. JJNito197 ( talk) 01:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation article is neutral in the way it presents what it does. A COI editor and one other editor have a longstanding back and forth.
The question is, should a hisotrical preservation group be presented as an org that preserves an area, or as an org that obstructs development, or both? And if both, is the "History" section non-neutral in its presentation of the "obstructing" angle? The RS used to make the case aren't particularly clear, from what I can see.
Right now, the lead is written as a compromise, but the COI editor still believes it is too heavy on the criticism.
It would be great if other editors could take a look. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 17:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm a regular user of Wikipedia and have also made donations over the years in order to support this "source of information".
Today, I decided for the first time to take a look at the Wikipedia page for Professor Michael Yeadon and I was appalled by the totally biased and inflammatory tone of the content of that page. And it now makes me doubt the "facts" which I have read on other Wikipedia pages.
I am beyond confused why Wikipedia has chosen to completely discredit and print false information about Prof Yeadon, just because his views on Covid currently differ from some other scientist's views regarding this virus.
Firstly, Prof Yeadon is NOT an anti-vaxxer. If you actually took the time to listen to his reports, read his papers, etc., he very clearly states that he is NOT anti-vaccinations and never has been. And having worked for Pfizer in the past (a creator of a range of vaccinations) Prof Yeadon was very much in favour of the creation and roll out of vaccinations. So, you have printed a complete falsehood quoting him to be an anti-vaxxer and I would be very careful about continuing to state that piece of information on Prof Yeadon's page.
Prof Yeadon is however, critical of the current Covid vaccination roll out, and again he has very clearly explained and reported why he feels critical of it - he makes sure his views and opinions and reports are all backed with scientific data (which you clearly have chosen not to research, read, listen to, or publish).
Whether you like his views or fact based opinions or not, that does not allow Wikipedia to publish blatantly biased information about a person which completely discredits their wealth of knowledge, experience in the relevant field, expertise and decades of relevant research into viruses and respiratory diseases. It astounds me that Wikipedia believes that to be acceptable.
If you're not aware of the fact, uptake of any vaccinations (including the Covid vax) is entirely voluntary in the UK. It is a personal health/medical choice - whether Wikipedia or anyone else likes that fact or not. It does NOT automatically make someone an anti-vaxxer if they choose not to receive a Covid vaccination. It is exercising a personal right regarding their health, a choice which we all currently have in this country. If the Govt feels that situation should change, then no doubt it will make the change. Until that happens, we all have a right to make choices about personal medical intervention.....or not and NOT to be judged or criticised on exercising those rights.
There are many other incorrect "facts" in your Wikipedia page regarding Prof Yeadon, which I simply don't have the time to bring to your attention. It's YOUR job (as it is for any journalist worth his/her salt) to ensure the information you print in your pages are factual and unbiased, not mine!
Safe to say, I will never be donating to Wikipedia again if this genuinely is that standard of "real" facts that you aspire to.
Very disappointed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.151.230.178 ( talk) 15:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour, regarding edits made at this article. Thank you. starship .paint ( exalt) 13:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Following a request at WP:RFPP, I semi-protected the above on seeing long-term edit warring and promotional content. Some checking of what would be appropriate content would be appreciated. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I am referring the entry on Craig Murray as per the discussion on the talk page: User:NSH001 refuses to accept that his version of the text about Murray is biased, goes beyond the facts and indulges in obvious speculation. Mark Hamid ( talk) 18:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Everything I wrote is fact-based, with one possible proviso. I referred to the fact that the case was heard without a jury (and that's still a fact), the implication being that no jury would convict on the evidence presented; thus in effect the case was rigged to get the desired verdict. It remains my view that the case was rigged – and not just the absence of a jury. However, I am willing to consider taking that part out for now, as it could be regarded as OR. I also note that the ECHR, when it eventually gets round to hearing the appeal, is quite likely to comment on the absence of a jury, and the numerous other judicial anomalies involved. -- NSH001 ( talk) 19:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It's best to keep discussions all in one place, so I have moved the folowing from Talk:HM Prison Edinburgh. -- NSH001 ( talk) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Why not just stick to simple facts? "Found guilty of contempt of court for publishing information about the Alex Salmond trial." Schazjmd (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It remains my view that the case was rigged. Nobody cares what your opinion is on this case. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your comment that "Found guilty of contempt of court
, I wonder if it is proper to link to the BLP of Salmond when he is know for far more than this trial, and whether a better / more appropriate wikilink might be
HM Advocate v Salmond? Perhaps as
for publishing information about in connection with the
Alex Salmond trial" suffices
@ Schazjmd: Thoughts? 172.195.96.244 ( talk) 06:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The wording as just amended reads: "A former ambassador to Uzbekistan found guilty of contempt of court in connection with HM Advocate v Salmond." This is inadequate in a number of ways:
← ZScarpia 15:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
See Talk:GitHub/Archive 1#Inclusion_of_controversial_issues_related_to_conduct_of_users and please weigh in. Also the user who reverted my removal advised me to post here, so I guess no need to spam them with {{ NPOVN-notice}}. 🙏 -- Champs65 ( talk) 04:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Long quotes, beliefs, and random details have been recently inserted into Hong Kong government biographies. It is not due weight to include selective quotes of what politicians say in press conferences, right? Or to add random details mentioned in half a sentence in a news article?
The later parts of the Carrie Lam biography are basically only quotes. For example: "Lam also stated that "So if you asked me today about what I said in 2017, 2018, 2019 as chief executive, I can tell you it's meaningless."" Or, "Lam retorted that "There's no definition of what a lavish dinner is. There's no definition of what is being unreasonable. At the end of the day, it's a matter of judgement."" Is this really notable?
Entire paragraphs of Chris Tang are quotes. Especially under "Controversies and views" (isn't that a weird grouping, so views to automatically be controversies?).
Tan Yueheng and Dong Sun has random stuff like "In January 2022, Tan was one of three people, out of 90 legislative council members, who took his oath using Mandarin rather than the local dialect of Cantonese", even though this random detail isn't the focus of any major newspaper articles or other media attention.
Take Gary Chan, which has stuff like "In January 2022, Chan did not raise his right hand when taking the oath while being sworn in as a legislative councillor."
Maybe someone trying to paint a picture that is not even given by the media for people who already have a (deserved) negative light, I don't know. But this trivia distracts from the substance of what these people have done. Shouldn't these be cut down to what newspapers and books actually summarize? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.9.110.8 (
talk) 04:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! So while taking a look at the article Chevy Equinox to see if there's been any information added regarding an electric version of the vehicle (since Chevy recently announced an electric version of it and 2 other of it's vehicles) and I saw that there has been some discussion of the articles state as being neutral. The discussion is years old, however the issue may not have been addressed still as there are still tags on the article, one regarding the neutrality, and the other regarding it possibly being read like an ad. I would like some assistance in determining if these tags are still valid or if they've been addressed but not removed. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
A flag is used as an ethnic flag of the Kurds. However, there are no sources proving it's ethnic flag of the Kurds. Additionally, the flag belong to the Iraqi Kurdistan. Requesting someone with NPOV to inspect the case which I believe is clearly against the Wikipedia rules. If the source doesn't say it's ethnic flag of the Kurds, adopted by all Kurds, then it's not. SkyEditor85 ( talk) 10:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
A glance over the sources at Flag of Kurdistan seem to *hint* that the flag represents Kurdish people but I did not find any explicit statements saying so.— That is to say, the article's opening statement,
The Flag of Kurdistan [...] is the flag of Kurds, appears to be unsupported by its citations? (I am ignorant in this matter as well.) — 2d37 ( talk) 03:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I came across this article while watching recent changes and it seems to have some serious NPOV and COI problems. It has a lot of promotional sounding wording, and one recent edit added content copied directly from the WRC website. I almost exclusively do simple vandalism cleanup here, and I'm not really comfortable tackling an article that looks to me like it probably needs a substantial rewrite. Anyone feel like taking a look? Squeakachu ( talk) 19:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Multiple parts of the lead of the Sri Lankan Tamils specially the final paragraph contain opinion pieces (Eg- 1 2 and other less-reliable/biased sources which appears to have been added as to promote the specific viewpoint of an editor. I Think the entire final para is big statement of an editor and the poor sourcing mean it should be removed. - 175.157.116.205 ( talk) 21:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
It is a very unusual request, but I want to know if the article has derailed way out of course or not. I am a main editor at the article, and I just want to make sure that I haven't done anything too biased, and there isn't any content dispute on the article right now. Another reason is the divisiveness of the article: Starship is considered from scams to game-changing by multiple reliable sources, and you know how it goes with things related to Elon Musk. Thanks User:Giraffer for pointing this out. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 06:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I'm looking at, but an article beginning with the following words doesn't read neutral to me:
"White demographic decline, also known as White decline, is the persistent and pervasive fall and displacement of White people [...]"
Yes, the sentence continues with "as a percentage" et cetera, but this can surely be written differently, so that it doesn't look as weirdly biased as quoted above. The article is from 2021-12-12, just a month old now, and probably needs attention if even the first sentence is written so badly. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion between me and @ Thewolfchild: about this at Talk:National Security Agency#Removal of Content from Main Article is not going anywhere, so I'd welcome input from others, especially from experienced editors. Until a few days ago the main page for the NSA included extensive information about controversies, and the TOC listed 13 of them, so that any interested reader would quickly find what they wanted. Now there's nothing more than a link to a newly created "List" article that contains that information. I later noticed that a while ago the same editor had done the same on the main pages for the CIA and the FBI. In all cases, coverage of these controversies in the news media and other sources has been extensive, and there's been a lot of public interest. My concern is that a reader could easily get the impression that the main page has been sanitized by relegating criticism to a subsidiary page. I assume good faith, am not claiming that there was any intent of bias, and take Thewolfchild at their word that their only reason for doing this was to shorten the rather long main page. But it seems odd that, if it's really necessary to shorten these articles, sections weren't removed that are much less likely to be of interest to readers, such as NSA#Facilities for example. NealKoblitz ( talk) 13:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I normally say that "controversy" sections should not exist; they just lower the bar for putting heckling and POV crap into the article. But in this case, these contain a huge amount of central and important content; IMO they should not be removed. North8000 ( talk) 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I answered (and received responses) in two places. Briefly, I am more more focused on the informativeness of the article (which POV can affect) than the higher goal of NPOV. Either way, to avoid duplication, I'll move to just the talk page of the article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This article has been overtaken by two very zealous pro-Siddiqui viewpoint editors since the Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis happened a couple days ago, and I don't personally have the energy to try to stem the tide anymore. But if some neutral editors would like to look at and attempt to repair the article a bit (particularly the lede) until it satisfactorily covers a neutral viewpoint, that'd be great. She's a heroine in Pakistan but also a convicted felon with (alleged, both by U.S. intelligence and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad) terrorist ties. For reference, this was the version before the hostage crisis was undertaken in her name which seemed to ignite (at least two of) her Wikipedia-editing supporters. Well-cited quotes such as she being estimated as "one of the few alleged Al Qaeda associates with the ability to move about the United States undetected, and the scientific expertise to carry out a sophisticated attack" have mostly been removed in the past 24 to 48 hours, under the guise of "copyright violations." Thank you for taking a look if anyone has the time. Omnibus ( talk) 18:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section 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) 08:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Starting with Paul Bracken, his page has one citation for about 20 paragraphs. Everything about the page is puff piece, singing Bracken's praises. Looking at the history, an unregistered user in February 2018 wrote most of the article, and then the next day the user "Bracken7" registered and edited the page (mostly minor stuff) before never editing again. I think we can guess what happened.
Given only a single line is cited properly and does not read like an advert, I'm tempted to suggest the whole page be deleted.
Which leads to the next part: Proud Prophet.
About half of the citations are for Paul Bracken's book "The Second Nuclear Age: Strategy, Danger, and the New Power Politics". Examining the other citations, a lot are for "War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink", a book by a different author with a smattering of others. However, looking closely, those citations are not for the main topic of the article, but for the background events to Proud Prophet. So, the the central point of the article is based on Paul Bracken's book.
Looking at the history of the page, the bulk of the edits (by word count) have been done by a string of users who are newly registered, do loads of work on the Proud Prophet article, and then vanish.
To be blunt, I am alleging that like his BLP page, the article is a puff piece, mostly to sell his books. I am uncertain what needs to be done. I have already tagged his biography with "is written like a résumé". Before proposing it be deleted, I'm happy to hear some other suggestions about what to do. I'm not sure what to do with Proud Prophet however. Kylesenior ( talk) 06:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
There is considerable discpute on the article's talk page about whether the site is anti-Muslim or neutral on religion. See the major changes made by a new editor here. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
unduly self-serving(at which point we can't cite them at all per WP:ABOUTSELF.) There are lots of reasons a website might not be the best source for discussing its policies - for example, they might say things that differ from what they actually do; or the practical enforcement of their policies might have nuances that require interpretation from a secondary source in order to discuss; or they might have policies on their website that are of no significance and are never actually enforced as written. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality issues have been raised in an RFC proposing to frame the content of peer-reviewed journal articles using the phrase "Various academics have suggested". Cambial — foliar❧ 18:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I was proposing to put the following statement into United States diplomatic cables leak
References
The addition was objected to by @ SPECIFICO: with comments
Before I finally got a response at the talk page discussion I had set up afer the first revert at Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak#Cryptome publication of unredacted cables
'Has been told' does not sound like 'so and so said' to me and I believe The Guardian are careful about that. Never mind the US government in the case did not dispute the sworn statement to that effect by John Young the owner and administrator of Cryptome. Should this be attribute to John Young or stated as fact? The policy says Avoid stating facts as opinions. NadVolum ( talk) 00:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
In a short statement submitted by Assange’s team at the Old Bailey, John Young said he had published unredacted diplomatic cables on 1 September 2011 after obtaining an encrypted file, and that they remained online.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
In the statement:
...the part highlighted in yellow is the fact that is being reported by an RS (the Guardian). The fact is that his extradition hearing has been told something. The part highlighted in blue is describing what the extradiction hearing has been told, but the Guardian is not saying that the blue part is true. The Guardian is saying the yellow part is true. We can say, in Wikivoice, the fact--the yellow part--that his extradition hearing was told something. We cannot state, in Wikivoice, the blue part, because no RS is saying the blue part is true. The yellow meets WP:V; the blue does not. Levivich 02:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it is well established at WP that court testimony is not RS for factsdoes not support your position on that discussion. I'll let Levivich or someone else clarify further on the source's language. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:SPA @ HiRachel420: insists upon adding WP:UNDUE topics to the subsection Elevations RTC#Breaking Code Silence and UnSilenced Now Movement even after it has been repeatedly pointed out that these would be better off elsewhere, assuming this info belongs on Wikipedia at all. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 14:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@ HiRachel420: keeps adding nonsensical and unsourced and unverifiable information to the ElevationsRTC page. It appears they have a conflict of interest. Perhaps are a student. Please block this person. They are not being civil and refuse to discuss the issue on the talk page. -- Farr4h2004 ( talk) 18:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I believe this page has very serious problems with POV and OR. Large portions of the article are completely unsourced, others are cited to sources that do not appear to me to support the material. Some examples:
"Gender feminists were playing the role of psychoanalysts yet did not have the professional qualifications, and opted to abandon academic rigour in favour of presenting pseudo assertions as fact. While Canadian feminist authorities and academics were never able to provide objective evidence that Canadian girls who played ringette instead of ice hockey were mentally inferior or deficient in any way, or that their participation in ringette served as evidence of a hidden group of Canadian victims of patriarchy who were suffering from a psycho-social handicap, their methodology, which included the use of leading questions, nevertheless remained unchallenged. As a result, these claims were never seriously investigated, became unquestioningly accepted within a number of academic institutions, and eventually became an accepted part of wider Canadian public discourse and cultural narratives around the subject of female participation in the sport of ringette, which has remained unquestioned in Canada."
The above is unsourced.
"The manner in which they are written or presented often includes ideological spin doctoring using statements that frame the ringette community as exhibiting a sexist form discrimination against males (reverse sexism) and by effect avoid highlighting the reality that all team sports are dominated by male players except in a handful of rare, exceptional cases, of which the sport of ringette is one. These stories often repeat common misconceptions about the origin and history of ringette and are usually contextualized in a manner amplifying ideological oppression narratives while portraying boys as a disadvantaged class rather than girls. At times the word "stigma" is used when making claims of reverse sexism against males by the sport of ringette in order to avoid using the politically charged term, "reverse sexism"."
Again, unsourced.
"As a result, all elite ringette players in the sport are female athletes rather than male, both nationally and internationally. This approach towards the sport's development has the added benefit of avoiding male-female comparisons and allows it to give female athletes the spotlight by preventing male athletes from dominating the sport due to their biological advantages"
Sourced to this article, which appears to be an opinion piece and does not mention ringette.
"Despite popular belief, though ice hockey had some influence in the early development of ringette, the sport was neither created to be, nor qualifies as an ice hockey variant as is popularly reported by media.[54] "
Sourced to this article. The source explicitly describes ringette as a "variation of ice hockey"
The article is riddled with stuff like this. Please help. Squeakachu ( talk) 08:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Pretty self-explainatory, as the news about him are becoming way more polarized. What do you think about the article? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
RepresentUs was recently brought to COIN, which put it on my radar.
Looking at the article, it is extremely well-sourced, but as you dig through the sources, it seems to be mostly WP:ABOUTSELF laundered through reliable sources.
I don't think diffs are particularly useful because the entire article looks to have this problem.
The organization has obvious celebrity power behind it, so getting press coverage for anything they want to say is easy, I just question whether WP:DUE or WP:NPOV requires a significant restructuring of the article or at least, heavy use of attribution. Slywriter ( talk) 14:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Several subproposals have been added to the NSPORT RfC that would welcome input from the community.
Subproposal 1: "All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD". Potential exceptions/clarifications/amendments are also offered.
Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria given (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left."
Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in "one" game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to "three" games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
Subproposal 5: "All sports biographies and team/season articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 5 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice?"
Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG. Replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist"."
Subproposal 9: "Rewrite the lead of WP:NSPORTS to ... cut the confusing sentence in the middle which is at odds with the rest of the guideline and which leaves itself open to lots of wiki-lawyering." JoelleJay ( talk) 18:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Lately some controversy has developed over Erwin Schrödinger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In particular, a story in The Irish Times was published that revisited a number of instances where Schrödinger was implicated in what that paper has described as sexual abuse of children. There has been some work by a number of editors to try to contextualize, attribute allegations, and so forth and there has been some controversy at the German Wikipedia over how or whether to include this in their biography. We have on editor, @ HPfan4: who objects to including the stories as they claim it is not well documented that the instances really are "abuse" or that there were "victims" or that the word "paedophile" should be used (n.b. in the removed section, the word "padeophile" was attributed to The Irish Times rather than said in Wikipedia's voice). In any case, this is complex enough, I thought I would post here to see if others can help resolve the dispute. There are at least five sources now which have been identified as being relevant to this topic including three well-reviewed biographies and a piece in Der Standard which, while criticizing some of the biographies and The Irish Times piece for certain interpretations, still identifies a number of uncontested facts which have now been removed from our article.
Input here or at the talkpage greatly appreciated. Especially help in workshopping the removed section for reincluding in the biography.
Talk:Erwin_Schrödinger#How_Erwin_Schrödinger_indulged_his_‘Lolita_complex’_in_Ireland
jps ( talk) 12:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
2022 hijab row in Karnataka ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This has been discussed on the talk page at Talk:2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka#Background
Disputed content:
“ | The row intensified before the state legislative assembly elections in 5 states. [8] Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election are expected to be held a year later in 2023. In late 2021, several prominent Muslim women were victimized in the Bulli Bai case. [1] | ” |
References
First an NPOV maintenance template was added to the article section at 2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka#Background and then Another guy removed all the content from the background section. These references from reputed newspapers clearly mention the ongoing elections show the relevance and link between the ongoing elections and this sectarian dispute. Please review the refs and help us resolve if this is NPOV violation and how to balance it. Venkat TL ( talk) 20:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I've seen a general problem with images of articles about Afghanistan topics being illustrated with images of the military, mostly US soldiers. In a lot of cases, it's done even when there are images without military personnel in them to choose form at Commons.
It doesn't seem too bad in articles about the larger cities, but when it comes to provinicial or rural areas, the lead or infobox image is often a photo of soldiers or military equipment with the place itself serving only as a backdrop. If not the top image, the military images are also used to illustrated civilian topics, like transporation or education. Captions also consistently focus on the military aspects and there's often a completely gratuitous image gallery that looks like it could've been put there by the US Army's PR department.
A good set of example articles are the provinces of Afghanistan where something like half the articles are heavy on military images. In some cases, all of the photos (maps and infobox images excluded). Here are some of the worst examples:
Having this much military presence in illustrating non-military articles is not neutral. It makes sense to include military images to illustrate the recent history of an Afghanistan topic, but not otherwise. And there's been a lot of history of Afghanistan that occured before the US forces arrived in 2001.
Peter Isotalo 13:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.I see no such link or attempted prior discussion. Also:
Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.I have provided the context that availability of high-quality copyright-free images favors those you object to. I f you can find high-quality copyright-free images, there's nothing stopping you from putting those in. You have yet to articulate, however, how those images or the ones you are replacing are an actual POV issue. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
...Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.(emphasis added) To the extent that pictorial record of Afghanistan is skewed in a direction to which you object, it is because that is the record that has been published in reliable sources . That does not violate NPOV. There are no policy-based reasons that NPOV is implicated by your objections. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump
As an independent with neither political party I find this page has become severally biased and would like to see if it could be a bit better all around.
Things like 'Trump made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency'. Which is straight out calling him a liar.
and 'and took measures to hinder the ACA's functioning.'. As the ACA had become bankrupt and any President that took over would have to have made changes. To say he hindered is a bias statement and opinion.
I am not as editor. and I do not wish to get into a war. And the page is'blocked From editing. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert A Bauer ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
There are significant POV issues at the article Christ myth theory. Though it is obvious that the poorly named 'theory' that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure at all is indeed a fringe view (though there are mainstream scholarly views that he was not 'Christ'), the article inappropriately conflates various views as 'mythicism'—including views about Jesus not being 'Christ'—that actually agree with mainstream scholarship or that otherwise do not claim that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure.
In particular, an early (modern) proponent of the 'theory' was George Albert Wells, but he changed his position in the mid-1990s, explicitly stating that from then onwards he did consider Jesus to be an actual historical figure:
[F]rom the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century … This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these—The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth—may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus. These titles were chosen because I regarded (and still do regard) the virgin birth, much in the Galilean ministry, the crucifixion around A.D. 30 under Pilate, and the resurrection as legendary.
— Wells, George Albert (2009). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9656-1.
Mainstream scholar Van Voorst also confirms Wells' changed position, stating:
A final argument against the nonexistence hypothesis comes from Wells himself. In his most recent book, The Jesus Myth (1999), Wells has moved away from the hypothesis. He now accepts that there is some historical basis for the existence of Jesus, derived from the lost early "gospel" "Q" (the hypothetical sourced used by Matthew and Luke). Wells believes that it is early and reliable enough to show that Jesus probably did exist, although this Jesus was not the Christ that the later canonical Gospels portray. It remains to be seen what impact Well's about-face will have on debate over the nonexistence hypothesis in popular circles.
— Van Voorst, Robert E. (2003). "Nonexistence Hypothesis". In James Leslie Houlden (ed.). Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 2: K–Z. ABC-CLIO. pp. 658–660. ISBN 978-1-57607-856-3.
I initially provided a quite broad (admittedly, too broad) examination of issues with the article at Talk (see Talk:Christ myth theory#Article balance), but soon found that the main problem with the article is the misrepresentation of Wells' later views. The article presents many points as the views of 'mythicists' for which it cites Wells' later works (from 1996 onwards). As such, Wells' later views are being misrepresented as 'mythicism'. Editors at Talk and in the article also characterise Wells' later view of Jesus as "minimally historical" in Wikipedia's voice (also using the related term "minimal historicist" at Talk), though no source has been provided for that label, despite numerous requests, [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47], and the so-far unsourced insertion of 'minimal' (and related word forms) misrepresents the fact that Wells' later view of Jesus as a Galilean preacher who was executed by the Romans is actually consistent with the broad consensus of what is actually known about Jesus' life. (The use of Wells' pre-1996 works as sources for mythicist views is not contested.)
It has been difficult to engage with the limited number of active editors on the subject, who seem to dismiss as 'mythicists' other editors who do not agree with them. [48] [49]
Ramos1990 ( talk · contribs) has claimed at Talk that 'we must go with what sources say', but supports the misuse of Wells' later works throughout the article. The same editor also asserts that even putting views that mythicists and some mainstream scholars share in common (such as details about supernatural beliefs about Jesus) in the same paragraph would be 'original research and synthesis'. [50] [51]
Engaging with 2db ( talk · contribs) has also been generally unproductive, as the editor's responses are often entirely tangential. For example, see Talk section Talk:Christ myth theory#"Lives_of_Jesus". Another editor ( Jeppiz ( talk · contribs)) suggested that such has been long term behaviour of 2db. [52] After repeated requests for relevant discussion, 2db suggested a POV fork (see Talk:Christ myth theory#Article split).
Trying to work with Joshua Jonathan ( talk · contribs) has been similarly unproductive. A number of times, he has dismissively misrepresented what I have suggested, [53] [54] [55] [56] and seems ambivalent to the explicit misuse of Wells' later views, suggesting that broad edits should be restricted only to vandalism. [57] He notes that the article does say Wells changed his views, [58] but seems to see no contradiction with that fact and the presentation of those same later views as those of mythicists. (He also suggested "imcremental improvements" [sic], but the nature of the misuse of Wells' later works throughout the article is non-trivial and an explicit misrepresentation of Wells' position.) His comments in the section Talk:Christ myth theory#"Lives_of_Jesus" were also particularly confusing.
After I provided an initial very broad examination of POV issues, Jeppiz (mentioned earlier) suggested that perceived issues might include my own interpretations, but agreed that statements that go against what sources actually say should be modified, [59] but has not commented on the misuse of Wells since.
Wdford ( talk · contribs) has also expressed that there are POV issues present in the article, including the misrepresentation of views that are actually shared with mainstream views. [60] [61]
I advised a few days ago that when I have time I would go through the article to remove misuse of Wells, [62] which was essentially ignored with no direct response. However, the two editors who had been most involved at Talk (Ramos1990 and 2db) had both explicitly acknowledged that Wells stated unambiguously that he was not a mythicist from 1996 onwards. Based on that, I made a bold edit today to remove statements that misrepresent Wells' later works as the views of mythicists. [63] However, this was immediately reverted by Joshua Jonathan.
Please see Talk:Christ myth theory#Article balance for much of the discussion, but all of the sections from Talk:Christ myth theory#"Virtually all" onwards are relevant to the POV issues.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 12:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Editors at Talk have also misrepresented sources that refer to Wells' earlier works, mischaracterising them as Wells' later views. See here, and my response indicating the misuse of sources. In response, rather than acknowledge that the citations in Ehrman's book clearly refer to Wells' previous views from the 1980s, Joshua Jonathan ( talk · contribs) has hidden the comments about the misrepresentation of Ehrman's citation of Wells' earlier works, claiming it is "off topic" [64], whereas the misrepresentation of Wells' view is very much the main issue with the article.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
What we have in the gospels is surely a fusion of two originally quite independent streams of tradition, ...the Galilean preacher of the early first century who had met with rejection, and the supernatural personage of the early epistles, [the Jesus of Paul] who sojourned briefly on Earth and then, rejected, returned to heaven—have been condensed into one. The [human] preacher has been given a [mythical] salvific death and resurrection, and these have been set not in an unspecified past (as in the early epistles) but in a historical context consonant with the Galilean preaching. The fusion of the two figures will have been facilitated by the fact that both owe quite a lot of their substance in the documents—to ideas very important in the Jewish Wisdom literature. (Cutting Jesus Down to Size, 2009, p. 16)
I'm a religion-friendly atheist. We could into dissecting everything that is religious, faith-based and all spiritual beliefs as having no scientific basis as being myths. Doubly so by exploiting the tactic that there is a rare secondary more-inclusive meaning of "myth" which conflicts the massively-common meaning of "myth" which means "false". There is no reason to go down that road. North8000 ( talk) 14:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan is continuing to insist on misusing sources, and has restored
[66] an attempt to remove the misuse of sources. For example, I removed an assertion that Wells "believed Jesus lived far earlier [than the first century]", which dishonestly cites Wells (Can We Trust the New Testament?, 2003). The claim that "Jesus lived far earlier" is not supported by the cited source, which instead says My view is that Paul knew next to nothing of the earthly life of Jesus, and did not have in mind any definite historical moment for his crucifixion. As we saw, holy Jews had been crucified alive in the first and second centuries B.C., but traditions about these events, and about the persecuted Teacher of Righteousness, could well have reached Paul without reference to times and places, and he need not have regarded their occurrences as anything like as remote in time as they in fact were.
Wells says Paul based his stories about Jesus on old "traditions about these events", with no specific time period or individual in mind, and Wells stated that view at a time that he had explicitly accepted that Jesus lived during the first century. Wells (Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and where it Leaves Christianity, 2009) stated, But from the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century
. So there is no basis in the source for ascribing the view to Wells that Paul's "Jesus lived far earlier", nor for similar misrepresentations of Wells's views from 1996 onwards. He also falsely claimed in his edit summary for that revert that my edit 'broke up the structure of the article', which is clearly false because the edit in question only modified one paragraph.--
Jeffro77 (
talk) 12:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
(There has since been considerable improvement. If the article remains stable regarding these concerns, this section can be archived.)-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 06:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
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 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | → | Archive 100 |
There is a discussion related to the neutrality of the Wall Street Journal lead. Please see the discussion here Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal#Should_editorial_opinions_be_posted_in_the_lede_summary. Springee ( talk) 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment: There is not a standard format for writing articles on Newspapers. Lead content depends on what is mentioned at the main body. Hence, the argument: "other major newspapers all have no mention of their supposed editorial opinions in the lead, meaning the specific targeting of the WSJ is not a NPOV"
is invalid.
Cinadon
36 17:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to plug my edit here: < https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Wall_Street_Journal&action=history> because I think the debate here misses the point. It was a really bad sentence for a lead, because it was a list that was basically repeated in the body of the article. It was more of a restatement than a summary (per WP:LEAD, a lead should SUMMARIZE). I don't even like having that sentence about the editorial stuff in the lead, but it concerns me far less when it's actually a summary rather than a list, or a restatement. My edit was reverted by someone on unknown grounds, and I didn't even change any of the stuff being debated here, I just made it more of a summary than it had been. We're here to write a good encyclopedia, and some more objective things, like my edit, should be allowed to happen, even while debates like this (which are also part of the process) happen. Some of us want whatever the hell is communicated here to be done well. 2600:1012:B068:D777:3172:6FCB:3354:9A46 ( talk) 02:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am attempting to make an edit to the page Assault Weapon which is presently under dispute. I believe the article as it stands suffers from a failure of neutrality, as a small but committed group of users who believe they "own" the page have attempted to stifle discussion and omit mention of opposing viewpoints in the article. Most importantly the article fails to discuss the reasons why some individuals and organizations support restrictions on assault weapons. I have created a discussion at the article talk page regarding my concerns on the page's neutrality, and would like to invite others to contribute to the discussion at Talk: Assault weapon.
The edit in question ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assault_weapon&oldid=1057437485) is as follows: "Many groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, support bans on assault weapons, stating "Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time." [1] Other groups are opposed to restrictions on the use of assault weapons, arguing that ""the term 'assault weapon'... is a media invention."[2]. After the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, many news organizations ran stories about assault weapons, explaining their varying definitions and presenting varying opinions about whether they should be banned again at the federal level.[3][4][5]"
Some opposing editors would like to omit the 1st sentence (and the edit was reverted citing WP:ONUS.) However, I believe that doing so violates Wikipedia neutrality policies, including the requirement to discuss all significant controversies regarding a topic in the lead, as well as the necessity of citing multiple points of view on a topic, not solely one side's position in a debate. I have also attempted to begin a discussion at the article talk page regarding concerns of neutrality in the article page. 108.30.187.155 ( talk) 19:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead
I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.
Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single socio-political viewpointsuggests major blind spots on the part of the poster.
Hi, albeit that this article states many times that he was a dictator and that it provides sources to prove that, the first paragraph is very enthusiastic and completely omits that. There's support within the talk page to include that he was a dictator in the first paragraph and it seems that most of the issue surrounding that is if he was a fascist dictator or an authoritarian dictator but the dictator part is always firmly secured anyways so I can't see how this article can maintain it's neutrality if it doesn't state that in the first paragraph. I know relying on other wiki pages is usually not that strong of an argument but the truth is that the Portuguese one does state that right away. Shexantidote ( talk) 23:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. I noticed that this page may not comply with the Wikipedia policy of neutrality as the Russian challenger doesn't have a Russian flag next to his name in the Infobox and some other places in the article. It is well understood that WADA imposed sanctions on the Russia's sports events but it is not clear how it has any impact on Wikipedia's guidelines. The only rationale behind not showing the flag could be sources but in the case of this particular sport even I found plenty of sources that speak of the Russian chess player Ian Nepomniachtchi representing Russia. Please check this section I initiated:
/info/en/?search=World_Chess_Championship_2021
P/S: For at least, there is no consensus in the sources as many of them talk about Nepomniachtchi as representing Russia. It is not clear why the editors of the "World Chess Championship 2021" decided to take one side. I'd like to hear from more editors and reach a more clear consensus here regarding the Wikipedia's policy.
-- 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:A056:F425:465E:703F ( talk) 06:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Nableezy is censoring all criticism of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Though his justifications for doing so keep shifting:
As for what's being deleted, here's the diff
Paragraph #1: This is a verbatim quote from one of the co-founders of the group, speaking about the group, as published in a RS. It can be up to the reader to determine what he meant exactly.
Paragraph #2: This is from an opinion piece in a RS, that is written in the article as an opinion. Seems 100% appropriate for the criticism section.
Paragraph #3: An 80 page report was written about the group, and it's the focus of an article by a RS. It boggles my mind that this is being excluded from the criticism section. Is the publication possibly biased? Sure, but that is why it's included as their opinion in the criticism section.
- Bob drobbs ( talk) 00:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
There are several issues here. The first is Collier, a non-notable blogger who routinely makes less than plausible claims about any number of people (including calling a number of Wikipedia editors "terrorists"). One biased source picked up a "report" he made. That report is not a RS, Collier has no expertise in the matter, but yes one source covered him calling an organization antisemitic. As far as I can tell, nobody else gave half a crap. That does not meet anything close to the lowest bar to be dedicated even a sentence in the article on that organization. Second, the piece on Greenstein is not criticizing PSC. It is criticizing Lauren Booth for criticizing PSC. Third, the op-ed in Haaretz makes one claim about one meeting of one chapter of PSC. Even if it were the work of an established expert, which it is not, that would still not merit mention in the article on the organization. I am totally fine including actual reliably sourced criticism about this or any other topic so long as it meets WP:DUE. But that is not what has been offered. nableezy - 01:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The nature of the problem can be clearly seen from the first paragraph, which I'll quote:
Tony Greenstein, who is one of the co-founders of Palestinian Solidarity Campaign wrote: "PSC needs to take decisive action to root out, once and for all, those who evince sympathy for racism - of whatever description. Gilad Atzmon is deeply antisemitic. He subscribes to every myth and libel that has ever been written about Jews, from the world Jewish conspiracy theory, to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the Holocaust itself." ( Lauren Booth's attack points up new split in PSC)
However, the source begins "Pro-Palestinian activist Lauren Booth has launched a vitriolic attack on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign for dissociating itself from antisemitic musician Gilad Atzmon
" (my emphasis). By omitting the dissociation, Bob drobbs constructed a paragraph that invites readers to assign Atzmon's views to PSC. It is the opposite of what the source says. Does Bob drobbs think that this misrepresentation of a source is so precious that someone who removes it should be brought to a noticeboard?
The third paragraph gives a forum to an unqualified activist-blogger who writes like half the world is antisemitic (including multiple Wikipedia editors). Anyone can write a "report"; that doesn't mean we have to cite it. The source for the second paragraph is the only one that should be considered seriously; my opinion matches those who argue for its omission since it is hard to extract anything from it that is both meaningful and representative.
Zero
talk 01:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
"The comments were made during a “periodic review” of Ireland’s human rights record before the Geneva-based commission, and come in the wake of a highly critical report last month on anti-Semitism in Ireland by researcher David Collier." [11]
"'Palestinianism' is a disease that is anathema to freedom, to debate, to openness and to human rights," Collier blogged. "It will infect those who catch the disease with anti-Semitism just as it provides them with a denial mechanism to protest their innocence." This highlights an issue that many of the charges of anti-Semitism against Palestine solidarity activists are coming from partisan political opponents rather than objective racism monitors. Collier is a longstanding Israel advocate and critic of Palestinian activism who has described his mission as "showing everybody how toxic our enemies are".Kieron Monks, Labour’s anti-Semitism scandal has spilled over into attacks on Palestine solidarity Middle East Eye 17 July 2018
The Zionist Federation UK Facebook page contains comments referring to Palestinians as "subhumans" and "evil made up people", with one post reading "Fakestinians...would slaughter their own mother if they had one." The StandWithUs page contains numerous references to Palestinians as "animals" and "savages". One popular comment suggested "Napalm Gaza" and another taunts a victim of the Gaza fence shootings - "one leg will suit you buddy". A 2017 report on social media in Israel found that messages of anti-Arab racism were posted at a rate of just over one per minute, with frequent incitements to violence. There has been no parallel scrutiny of hate speech in Israel advocacy, far less any suggestion that the field is discredited as a result, whereas pro-Palestinian activism is now suffering a crisis of legitimacy.' Nishidani ( talk) 10:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
A redirect proposal based partially on NPOV concerns is taking place at Talk:Race and crime § Propose redirect to Race and crime in the United States. –– FormalDude talk 05:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
At 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, an article on a Palestinian stabbing to death an armed Israeli settler in the West Bank, the unattributed view that this was a terror attack is offered in Wikipedia's voice. The justification for inclusion is a number of Israeli news sources ( Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ynet) called it a terror attack. The reason others (waves hand) have offered to remove it is that third party uninvolved sources such as the BBC, AP, Financial Times do not use that language in their own voice, and in the case of the AP explicitly attributes it to an Israeli police spokesperson. WP:WTA seems pretty clear to me, but an editor has claimed that an RFC is needed to show that there is not consensus for the inclusion of this value laden label in Wikipedia's voice, and that's just silly so here I am. Should Wikipedia call something a terrorist attack when sources outside of the area of conflict do not do so? nableezy - 21:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
A misleading presentation of the way the term is used. Non-Israeli, independent and reliable sources describe it a "terrorism", e.g - Mickolus, Edward (2016-08-08). Terrorism, 2013-2015: A Worldwide Chronology. McFarland. ISBN 9781476664378, and the OP knows this because it is (a) used as a reference in the article, and (b) discussed on the talk page. There are many others- Evyatar Borowski, 14, who was killed in a terrorist attack at Tapuach Junction in 2013.; Terror Stabbing Victim Laid to Rest, etc... If the redirect link is a problem, we can remove it Inf-in MD ( talk) 22:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
It is absolutely essential that we don't adopt the language of one side of a conflict. This is pretty basic NPOV territory. In Israel, it is commonplace for everyone from a kid throwing a stone to a regular soldier of an enemy country to be called a "terrorist". We can use it with attribution, but it is not a neutral term. As pointed out, reliability is irrelevant; this is not an issue of fact but an issue of label. Using "terrorist" without attribution would be the same as using "shahid" (martyr) without attribution. Zero talk 04:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
There is an active disagreement as to how the opening sentence (and opening paragraph) of the Gary Glitter article should read - the discussion is at Talk:Gary Glitter#Page Emphasis. For context, Gary Glitter was formerly a highly successful musician in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s. From the late 90s to the present day he has been convicted of various sexual offences involving children in both the UK and Vietnam, and is currently imprisoned in the UK for a lengthy prison term. He is therefore one of the most infamous people in the UK today.
My concern about the article is that I feel the opening paragraph places undue weight on his prominence as a musician by burying the lead on his current fame as a convicted sex offender, which is primarily what he is known for in the present day. Absolutely no mention of this is made until the fourth sentence of the article, which has the effect of making his convictions appear to be of secondary importance. My issues with this are:
I would propose changing the first sentence to describe Glitter as a "former glam rock singer and convicted sex offender" (or the other way around), in the same fashion as Ian Watkins. This allows the reader to anticipate the elaboration in the fourth sentence, and prevents the (somewhat lengthy) detail on Glitter's achievements from obscuring his current status.
However, there has been pushback against this on the basis that he is only notable as a sex offender because of his notability as a musician. My response to this is that notability is not assessed chronologically but by degree, and no sources since around 2006 have shown any interest in anything other than Glitter's fame for his sex offences. We are past the point of
recentism being an issue. I should also note that the reason he is a famous sex offender is because he was already a famous person, and has nothing to do with why he was a famous person. It is therefore incorrect to say that his fame for sexual offences is secondary to his fame as a musician, as knowledge of both is necessary to get a full picture of why he is famous today.
—
Theknightwho (
talk) 20:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The details about his singles chart hits, the critic's comments and the reference to TOTP should then be added in to the second and third paragraphs. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944), known professionally as Gary Glitter, is an English former glam rock singer who achieved considerable chart success in the 1970s and 1980s. Known for his extreme glam image and his energetic live performances, his career ended after he was imprisoned for downloading child pornography in 1999, and child sexual abuse and attempted rape in 2006 and 2015.
"In an interview with BBC News in May 2006, Glitter denied that he was a paedophile, and claimed not to have knowingly had sex with anyone under 18."Come on. Play nice. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the proposed revision by Ghmyrtle is reasonable. Glitter is notable for two reasons and we shouldn't bury the lead. I think we can trust people to read two sentences in sequence. Compare Kevin Spacey, which is a more complicated example because although his career has (effectively) ended, he hasn't been convicted of any crimes. Mackensen (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I've now modified the lead, per what appears to be a consensus here, and Ritchie333's suggested wording. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I came across the article because it had a cite error. I've corrected that now, but some of the claims that have been added (in particular by this edit) seem over the top. e.g. "Porras' tenure has been criticized by the left for what they consider a backsliding in the fight against corruption." and "Charges are based on ideological motivation and lack legal basis." (additions in italics). I've added some citation needed tags, but could someone with some idea of Guatemalan politics have a look? ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 19:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Transluded from SpaceX Starship's talk page:
This essay might be useful: Wikipedia:Criticism Cinadon 36 16:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
FMSky is reverting my additons to the lead of the Jean-Marie Le Pen article. Which include describing him as "far right", which is commonly used by sources eg [16], [17], [18] as well adding mention of his conviction for holocaust denial, which is mentioned in the body. FMSky contends that these additions are undue. Unlike the French language version, the lead currently lacks mention of his convictions for racial hatred, which I think should be mentioned. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads -talk- 07:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems like the article's been turned into a massively promotional article. The article also has numerous other problems on top of that. Invalid OS talk 13:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Where are my edits on . They are not even in the history What is going on. I've been on wikipedia with good faith for some 20 years, and this never happened. I wrote what I thought should be an intuitive and clearer description of Vacuous truth, and it has been erased, with no trace. No mention on my talk page. No mention here? What is going on?
I also answered a false-truth page request on the talkpage (which had an answer that it was not needed), and pointed out that the Israeli court allowed a fallacy to be broadcast on TV even though the court agreed it was a fallacy, as long as the show was saying what was known to them as the truth, without the intention of lying. So, in some settings, truth can also be somewhere along a continuum and not as implied in the Greek philosophy's term of Logical Truth only true or false. I suppose someone read that wrong and thought I was bringing up something controversial or political. I was not. There is no one as far as I know who contested that decision about the SECOND court case against the TV station for slandering the officer, in which he lost. (The first court case about the shooting and killing itself has been heavily criticised.) My post was discussing the question and answer given on the talk page and only secondarily referring to the topic of Vacuous truth, so I would leave that revert be (and perhaps would even erase it myself after second thoughts of how it may be percieved.)
But why was my suggested edit to the article completely deleted? And why was there no-one informing me in any way that the edits in the talk page have been reverted. I do not see it in my alerts.
Reading user:MagneticInk about hostility on that talk page, I hope I didn't put myself in the line of fire. I had no idea about the previous arguments on that talk page and was just trying to use Wikipedia to understand what started off for me as an extremely convoluted philosophical paper by Eugene Mills. Once I spelled out what I understood by reading all the technical terms of logic and translated Vacuous truth into plain English, Eugene's sentence became clear to me, and I thought it would be of use to bring down my explanation and discuss it, before putting it up on the page itself. That (discussion) of course cannot happen if what I wrote has been deleted without a trace! פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 17:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
OK Thank you! Sorry for the trouble I caused. I don't know why the edits didn't show up in the app or web. Perhaps it was while it was being updated... פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 18:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just moved China COVID-19 cover-up allegations from its previous title China COVID-19 cover-up. Can someone more experienced assess the neutrality dispute on the article? My specific problem is with the second section that seemingly use original research to conclude cover-up, based on reports that the Chinese government isn't cooperative on certain international investigations into COVID-19's originals.-- GeneralBay ( talk) 21:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Harry Sassounian was an American citizen of Armenian descent who was part of Armenian militants who killed Turkish diplomats for their denial of the Armenian genocide in the 1980s. A user called Grandmaster is accusing me of murder apologism because I:
1. called Sassounian an "American citizen" rather than labeling him as specifically Armenian,
2. mention Arikan's genocide denial (with a source) as the motivation for the killing which it clearly was.
Though the event was inherently political ( genocide vs. its denial), Grandmaster reverts my edits and not only leaves out said information but also includes factual errors like double names, grammatical mistakes and a differentiation between the Armenian and Western Armenian languages, which does not technically exist. I would appreciate some third source looking into this instead of Grandmaster intimidating me by threatening to "report me" 217.149.166.11 ( talk) 20:00, 17 December 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 [20].
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 [21], [22] [23] after this user blocked this user permanently [24]. 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" [25] 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 [26], 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. JJNito197 ( talk) 14:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I personally believe this user is a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim. – Austronesier ( talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I did, in fact, review the diff containing the majority of JJ's edits on the article you linked to. They were a combination of minor edits, changes to wording that improved flow, and explicitly cited changes. In aggregate they represented a mechanical improvement to the article. If there's issues with neutrality I would suggest you'd be well advised to address either specific sources JJ used or specific sources you feel would better represent a neutral article here. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
this is beginning to look like a retaliatory action and lest you pull a WP:BOOMERANG I'd strongly suggest you should drop this line of approach. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I've already responded twice; twice my respons was not published due to the fast Forum-shifting. Quite annoying. But here's the response I intended to give:
[Brahman], which is self-aware (svayam prakāśa)
[Sources: <ref name="Ganeri"/><ref name="IEP"/>{{sfn|Dasgupta|1975|p=148-149}}{{refn|group=note|name=self-luminous}}<br> pure Awareness or Consciousness.<br>[Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [note 1]</nowiki>
It's quite disruptive that an editor mass-reverts a large amount of edits because they oppose the inclusion of relevant info in the lead, info which describes two core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. Not of Buddhism, But of Advaita Vedanta. To quote Shankara, as quoted repeatedly in Advaita Vedanta:
I am other than name, form and action.
My nature is ever free!
I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.
I am pure Awareness, always non-dual.— Adi Shankara, Upadesasahasri 11.7, [Source: {{sfn|Comans|2000|p=183}}]
Adi Shankara, 20th verse of Brahmajnanavalimala:
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या
जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरःBrahman is real, the world is an illusion
Brahman and Jiva are not different.Brahmajnanavalimala 1.20 [7]
References
aramb
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).IEP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ganeri
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).For "self-luminous," c.q. "self-aware [awareness]", see Advaita Vedanta#Three states of consciousness and Turiya.
In response to JJNito's accusations:
1, why is Joshua reverting edits on that page, making it more confusing.- confusing to you? See the core tenets above.
2. Why is that user oversourcing the article with no added textual reference so we can source the content and confirm the authenticity.- because someone keeps reverting well-sourced edits pwhich present core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. See also WP:VERIFIABILITY: if you're unwilling to check the sources, then indeed mass-revert is the easy way to push ypur point - but not the accepted way.
3. Why is Joshua adding dubious Buddhist terminology to explain Hindu oriented topics- where exactly? Regarding the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta, that's an established fact in the academics; excluding this info would be a groos breah of NPOV. If you don't like that, see Talk:Muhammad/images.
and 4. Why is WP:OWN'ing the article so others and myself cannot edit the article.- because you're unwilling to accept WP:RS.
Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
PS: my username is Joshua Jonathan, not "Joshua Johnson." Not reading anything? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
1, confusing to you? See the core tenets above.- Its confusing (was further confusing) per the ambigious terms "pure Awareness" or "Consciousness" which does not adequetly summarize what Brahman is per Hinduism. Satchitananda is widley regarded as the most adequate summary. A
2. because someone keeps reverting well-sourced edits pwhich present core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. See also WP:VERIFIABILITY: if you're unwilling to check the sources, then indeed mass-revert is the easy way to push ypur point - but not the accepted way.- How does one check the sources without having access to a compendium of books - having a note to explain it in the sentence like you have done, albeit not consistently, is what you should do. Especially about that cite you added to the Buddhist "two truths doctrine" that I cant read. Have you not heard of Parabrahman or Nirgna and Saguna Brahman?
3. here exactly? Regarding the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta, that's an established fact in the academics; excluding this info would be a groos breah of NPOV. If you don't like that, see Talk:Muhammad/images.- Disengenious, the Advaita talk page is literally a back and forth with a self proclaimed Buddhist about a Buddhist word ' Svasaṃvedana' that you inserted in the lede.
and 4. because you're unwilling to accept WP:RS- I am interested in bringing articles to GA status, you are not. I fully value RS but your RS seem to be sporadic at best.
Regarding that 'PS: my username is Joshua Jonathan, not "Joshua Johnson." Not reading anything?' I could possibly be going blind for all you know. Best JJNito197 ( talk) 17:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I think this needs to be closed, as it is going nowhere,faxt. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
your RS seem to be sporadic at best- get real; what sources do you know of? Some of my sources:
NB: Koller and Meno were alredy used in the lead, but misrepresented. See also
User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources for the kind of sources that I use.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk! 18:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
PS:
diff.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk! 18:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim. I also found JJ to be approachable when it comes to consensus if your arguments and sources that you cite in support of that are of eminence. Thanks, WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk) 20:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
overly scholarly & obfuscatory: Please have a look at WP:OVERSIMPLIFY -
[articles should not give] readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't.And, this is precisely suitable for Advaita Vedanta article given the subject it deals with. WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk) 01:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Update I no longer have an issue with Joshua Jonathan's edits. I understand now it is in good faith and Joshua Jonathan is not at fault for expanding and giving definitions that the user is familiar with, understandably, translating terminology that would otherwise be unknown to the wider public. I agree with that user that translating words from Sanskrit (and translating concepts regardless) is problematic in itself, given the multiple defintions for multiple things. I also know that we do disagree on certain things but we can resolve them in the talk page in a forthright, non-hostile, academic manner. I advise if anybody has a problem with any edits to go to the talk page and bring up the topic for discussion. JJNito197 ( talk) 01:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation article is neutral in the way it presents what it does. A COI editor and one other editor have a longstanding back and forth.
The question is, should a hisotrical preservation group be presented as an org that preserves an area, or as an org that obstructs development, or both? And if both, is the "History" section non-neutral in its presentation of the "obstructing" angle? The RS used to make the case aren't particularly clear, from what I can see.
Right now, the lead is written as a compromise, but the COI editor still believes it is too heavy on the criticism.
It would be great if other editors could take a look. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 17:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm a regular user of Wikipedia and have also made donations over the years in order to support this "source of information".
Today, I decided for the first time to take a look at the Wikipedia page for Professor Michael Yeadon and I was appalled by the totally biased and inflammatory tone of the content of that page. And it now makes me doubt the "facts" which I have read on other Wikipedia pages.
I am beyond confused why Wikipedia has chosen to completely discredit and print false information about Prof Yeadon, just because his views on Covid currently differ from some other scientist's views regarding this virus.
Firstly, Prof Yeadon is NOT an anti-vaxxer. If you actually took the time to listen to his reports, read his papers, etc., he very clearly states that he is NOT anti-vaccinations and never has been. And having worked for Pfizer in the past (a creator of a range of vaccinations) Prof Yeadon was very much in favour of the creation and roll out of vaccinations. So, you have printed a complete falsehood quoting him to be an anti-vaxxer and I would be very careful about continuing to state that piece of information on Prof Yeadon's page.
Prof Yeadon is however, critical of the current Covid vaccination roll out, and again he has very clearly explained and reported why he feels critical of it - he makes sure his views and opinions and reports are all backed with scientific data (which you clearly have chosen not to research, read, listen to, or publish).
Whether you like his views or fact based opinions or not, that does not allow Wikipedia to publish blatantly biased information about a person which completely discredits their wealth of knowledge, experience in the relevant field, expertise and decades of relevant research into viruses and respiratory diseases. It astounds me that Wikipedia believes that to be acceptable.
If you're not aware of the fact, uptake of any vaccinations (including the Covid vax) is entirely voluntary in the UK. It is a personal health/medical choice - whether Wikipedia or anyone else likes that fact or not. It does NOT automatically make someone an anti-vaxxer if they choose not to receive a Covid vaccination. It is exercising a personal right regarding their health, a choice which we all currently have in this country. If the Govt feels that situation should change, then no doubt it will make the change. Until that happens, we all have a right to make choices about personal medical intervention.....or not and NOT to be judged or criticised on exercising those rights.
There are many other incorrect "facts" in your Wikipedia page regarding Prof Yeadon, which I simply don't have the time to bring to your attention. It's YOUR job (as it is for any journalist worth his/her salt) to ensure the information you print in your pages are factual and unbiased, not mine!
Safe to say, I will never be donating to Wikipedia again if this genuinely is that standard of "real" facts that you aspire to.
Very disappointed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.151.230.178 ( talk) 15:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour, regarding edits made at this article. Thank you. starship .paint ( exalt) 13:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Following a request at WP:RFPP, I semi-protected the above on seeing long-term edit warring and promotional content. Some checking of what would be appropriate content would be appreciated. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I am referring the entry on Craig Murray as per the discussion on the talk page: User:NSH001 refuses to accept that his version of the text about Murray is biased, goes beyond the facts and indulges in obvious speculation. Mark Hamid ( talk) 18:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Everything I wrote is fact-based, with one possible proviso. I referred to the fact that the case was heard without a jury (and that's still a fact), the implication being that no jury would convict on the evidence presented; thus in effect the case was rigged to get the desired verdict. It remains my view that the case was rigged – and not just the absence of a jury. However, I am willing to consider taking that part out for now, as it could be regarded as OR. I also note that the ECHR, when it eventually gets round to hearing the appeal, is quite likely to comment on the absence of a jury, and the numerous other judicial anomalies involved. -- NSH001 ( talk) 19:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It's best to keep discussions all in one place, so I have moved the folowing from Talk:HM Prison Edinburgh. -- NSH001 ( talk) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Why not just stick to simple facts? "Found guilty of contempt of court for publishing information about the Alex Salmond trial." Schazjmd (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It remains my view that the case was rigged. Nobody cares what your opinion is on this case. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your comment that "Found guilty of contempt of court
, I wonder if it is proper to link to the BLP of Salmond when he is know for far more than this trial, and whether a better / more appropriate wikilink might be
HM Advocate v Salmond? Perhaps as
for publishing information about in connection with the
Alex Salmond trial" suffices
@ Schazjmd: Thoughts? 172.195.96.244 ( talk) 06:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The wording as just amended reads: "A former ambassador to Uzbekistan found guilty of contempt of court in connection with HM Advocate v Salmond." This is inadequate in a number of ways:
← ZScarpia 15:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
See Talk:GitHub/Archive 1#Inclusion_of_controversial_issues_related_to_conduct_of_users and please weigh in. Also the user who reverted my removal advised me to post here, so I guess no need to spam them with {{ NPOVN-notice}}. 🙏 -- Champs65 ( talk) 04:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Long quotes, beliefs, and random details have been recently inserted into Hong Kong government biographies. It is not due weight to include selective quotes of what politicians say in press conferences, right? Or to add random details mentioned in half a sentence in a news article?
The later parts of the Carrie Lam biography are basically only quotes. For example: "Lam also stated that "So if you asked me today about what I said in 2017, 2018, 2019 as chief executive, I can tell you it's meaningless."" Or, "Lam retorted that "There's no definition of what a lavish dinner is. There's no definition of what is being unreasonable. At the end of the day, it's a matter of judgement."" Is this really notable?
Entire paragraphs of Chris Tang are quotes. Especially under "Controversies and views" (isn't that a weird grouping, so views to automatically be controversies?).
Tan Yueheng and Dong Sun has random stuff like "In January 2022, Tan was one of three people, out of 90 legislative council members, who took his oath using Mandarin rather than the local dialect of Cantonese", even though this random detail isn't the focus of any major newspaper articles or other media attention.
Take Gary Chan, which has stuff like "In January 2022, Chan did not raise his right hand when taking the oath while being sworn in as a legislative councillor."
Maybe someone trying to paint a picture that is not even given by the media for people who already have a (deserved) negative light, I don't know. But this trivia distracts from the substance of what these people have done. Shouldn't these be cut down to what newspapers and books actually summarize? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.9.110.8 (
talk) 04:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! So while taking a look at the article Chevy Equinox to see if there's been any information added regarding an electric version of the vehicle (since Chevy recently announced an electric version of it and 2 other of it's vehicles) and I saw that there has been some discussion of the articles state as being neutral. The discussion is years old, however the issue may not have been addressed still as there are still tags on the article, one regarding the neutrality, and the other regarding it possibly being read like an ad. I would like some assistance in determining if these tags are still valid or if they've been addressed but not removed. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
A flag is used as an ethnic flag of the Kurds. However, there are no sources proving it's ethnic flag of the Kurds. Additionally, the flag belong to the Iraqi Kurdistan. Requesting someone with NPOV to inspect the case which I believe is clearly against the Wikipedia rules. If the source doesn't say it's ethnic flag of the Kurds, adopted by all Kurds, then it's not. SkyEditor85 ( talk) 10:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
A glance over the sources at Flag of Kurdistan seem to *hint* that the flag represents Kurdish people but I did not find any explicit statements saying so.— That is to say, the article's opening statement,
The Flag of Kurdistan [...] is the flag of Kurds, appears to be unsupported by its citations? (I am ignorant in this matter as well.) — 2d37 ( talk) 03:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I came across this article while watching recent changes and it seems to have some serious NPOV and COI problems. It has a lot of promotional sounding wording, and one recent edit added content copied directly from the WRC website. I almost exclusively do simple vandalism cleanup here, and I'm not really comfortable tackling an article that looks to me like it probably needs a substantial rewrite. Anyone feel like taking a look? Squeakachu ( talk) 19:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Multiple parts of the lead of the Sri Lankan Tamils specially the final paragraph contain opinion pieces (Eg- 1 2 and other less-reliable/biased sources which appears to have been added as to promote the specific viewpoint of an editor. I Think the entire final para is big statement of an editor and the poor sourcing mean it should be removed. - 175.157.116.205 ( talk) 21:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
It is a very unusual request, but I want to know if the article has derailed way out of course or not. I am a main editor at the article, and I just want to make sure that I haven't done anything too biased, and there isn't any content dispute on the article right now. Another reason is the divisiveness of the article: Starship is considered from scams to game-changing by multiple reliable sources, and you know how it goes with things related to Elon Musk. Thanks User:Giraffer for pointing this out. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 06:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I'm looking at, but an article beginning with the following words doesn't read neutral to me:
"White demographic decline, also known as White decline, is the persistent and pervasive fall and displacement of White people [...]"
Yes, the sentence continues with "as a percentage" et cetera, but this can surely be written differently, so that it doesn't look as weirdly biased as quoted above. The article is from 2021-12-12, just a month old now, and probably needs attention if even the first sentence is written so badly. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion between me and @ Thewolfchild: about this at Talk:National Security Agency#Removal of Content from Main Article is not going anywhere, so I'd welcome input from others, especially from experienced editors. Until a few days ago the main page for the NSA included extensive information about controversies, and the TOC listed 13 of them, so that any interested reader would quickly find what they wanted. Now there's nothing more than a link to a newly created "List" article that contains that information. I later noticed that a while ago the same editor had done the same on the main pages for the CIA and the FBI. In all cases, coverage of these controversies in the news media and other sources has been extensive, and there's been a lot of public interest. My concern is that a reader could easily get the impression that the main page has been sanitized by relegating criticism to a subsidiary page. I assume good faith, am not claiming that there was any intent of bias, and take Thewolfchild at their word that their only reason for doing this was to shorten the rather long main page. But it seems odd that, if it's really necessary to shorten these articles, sections weren't removed that are much less likely to be of interest to readers, such as NSA#Facilities for example. NealKoblitz ( talk) 13:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I normally say that "controversy" sections should not exist; they just lower the bar for putting heckling and POV crap into the article. But in this case, these contain a huge amount of central and important content; IMO they should not be removed. North8000 ( talk) 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I answered (and received responses) in two places. Briefly, I am more more focused on the informativeness of the article (which POV can affect) than the higher goal of NPOV. Either way, to avoid duplication, I'll move to just the talk page of the article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This article has been overtaken by two very zealous pro-Siddiqui viewpoint editors since the Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis happened a couple days ago, and I don't personally have the energy to try to stem the tide anymore. But if some neutral editors would like to look at and attempt to repair the article a bit (particularly the lede) until it satisfactorily covers a neutral viewpoint, that'd be great. She's a heroine in Pakistan but also a convicted felon with (alleged, both by U.S. intelligence and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad) terrorist ties. For reference, this was the version before the hostage crisis was undertaken in her name which seemed to ignite (at least two of) her Wikipedia-editing supporters. Well-cited quotes such as she being estimated as "one of the few alleged Al Qaeda associates with the ability to move about the United States undetected, and the scientific expertise to carry out a sophisticated attack" have mostly been removed in the past 24 to 48 hours, under the guise of "copyright violations." Thank you for taking a look if anyone has the time. Omnibus ( talk) 18:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section 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) 08:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Starting with Paul Bracken, his page has one citation for about 20 paragraphs. Everything about the page is puff piece, singing Bracken's praises. Looking at the history, an unregistered user in February 2018 wrote most of the article, and then the next day the user "Bracken7" registered and edited the page (mostly minor stuff) before never editing again. I think we can guess what happened.
Given only a single line is cited properly and does not read like an advert, I'm tempted to suggest the whole page be deleted.
Which leads to the next part: Proud Prophet.
About half of the citations are for Paul Bracken's book "The Second Nuclear Age: Strategy, Danger, and the New Power Politics". Examining the other citations, a lot are for "War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink", a book by a different author with a smattering of others. However, looking closely, those citations are not for the main topic of the article, but for the background events to Proud Prophet. So, the the central point of the article is based on Paul Bracken's book.
Looking at the history of the page, the bulk of the edits (by word count) have been done by a string of users who are newly registered, do loads of work on the Proud Prophet article, and then vanish.
To be blunt, I am alleging that like his BLP page, the article is a puff piece, mostly to sell his books. I am uncertain what needs to be done. I have already tagged his biography with "is written like a résumé". Before proposing it be deleted, I'm happy to hear some other suggestions about what to do. I'm not sure what to do with Proud Prophet however. Kylesenior ( talk) 06:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
There is considerable discpute on the article's talk page about whether the site is anti-Muslim or neutral on religion. See the major changes made by a new editor here. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
unduly self-serving(at which point we can't cite them at all per WP:ABOUTSELF.) There are lots of reasons a website might not be the best source for discussing its policies - for example, they might say things that differ from what they actually do; or the practical enforcement of their policies might have nuances that require interpretation from a secondary source in order to discuss; or they might have policies on their website that are of no significance and are never actually enforced as written. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality issues have been raised in an RFC proposing to frame the content of peer-reviewed journal articles using the phrase "Various academics have suggested". Cambial — foliar❧ 18:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I was proposing to put the following statement into United States diplomatic cables leak
References
The addition was objected to by @ SPECIFICO: with comments
Before I finally got a response at the talk page discussion I had set up afer the first revert at Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak#Cryptome publication of unredacted cables
'Has been told' does not sound like 'so and so said' to me and I believe The Guardian are careful about that. Never mind the US government in the case did not dispute the sworn statement to that effect by John Young the owner and administrator of Cryptome. Should this be attribute to John Young or stated as fact? The policy says Avoid stating facts as opinions. NadVolum ( talk) 00:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
In a short statement submitted by Assange’s team at the Old Bailey, John Young said he had published unredacted diplomatic cables on 1 September 2011 after obtaining an encrypted file, and that they remained online.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
In the statement:
...the part highlighted in yellow is the fact that is being reported by an RS (the Guardian). The fact is that his extradition hearing has been told something. The part highlighted in blue is describing what the extradiction hearing has been told, but the Guardian is not saying that the blue part is true. The Guardian is saying the yellow part is true. We can say, in Wikivoice, the fact--the yellow part--that his extradition hearing was told something. We cannot state, in Wikivoice, the blue part, because no RS is saying the blue part is true. The yellow meets WP:V; the blue does not. Levivich 02:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it is well established at WP that court testimony is not RS for factsdoes not support your position on that discussion. I'll let Levivich or someone else clarify further on the source's language. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:SPA @ HiRachel420: insists upon adding WP:UNDUE topics to the subsection Elevations RTC#Breaking Code Silence and UnSilenced Now Movement even after it has been repeatedly pointed out that these would be better off elsewhere, assuming this info belongs on Wikipedia at all. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 14:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@ HiRachel420: keeps adding nonsensical and unsourced and unverifiable information to the ElevationsRTC page. It appears they have a conflict of interest. Perhaps are a student. Please block this person. They are not being civil and refuse to discuss the issue on the talk page. -- Farr4h2004 ( talk) 18:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I believe this page has very serious problems with POV and OR. Large portions of the article are completely unsourced, others are cited to sources that do not appear to me to support the material. Some examples:
"Gender feminists were playing the role of psychoanalysts yet did not have the professional qualifications, and opted to abandon academic rigour in favour of presenting pseudo assertions as fact. While Canadian feminist authorities and academics were never able to provide objective evidence that Canadian girls who played ringette instead of ice hockey were mentally inferior or deficient in any way, or that their participation in ringette served as evidence of a hidden group of Canadian victims of patriarchy who were suffering from a psycho-social handicap, their methodology, which included the use of leading questions, nevertheless remained unchallenged. As a result, these claims were never seriously investigated, became unquestioningly accepted within a number of academic institutions, and eventually became an accepted part of wider Canadian public discourse and cultural narratives around the subject of female participation in the sport of ringette, which has remained unquestioned in Canada."
The above is unsourced.
"The manner in which they are written or presented often includes ideological spin doctoring using statements that frame the ringette community as exhibiting a sexist form discrimination against males (reverse sexism) and by effect avoid highlighting the reality that all team sports are dominated by male players except in a handful of rare, exceptional cases, of which the sport of ringette is one. These stories often repeat common misconceptions about the origin and history of ringette and are usually contextualized in a manner amplifying ideological oppression narratives while portraying boys as a disadvantaged class rather than girls. At times the word "stigma" is used when making claims of reverse sexism against males by the sport of ringette in order to avoid using the politically charged term, "reverse sexism"."
Again, unsourced.
"As a result, all elite ringette players in the sport are female athletes rather than male, both nationally and internationally. This approach towards the sport's development has the added benefit of avoiding male-female comparisons and allows it to give female athletes the spotlight by preventing male athletes from dominating the sport due to their biological advantages"
Sourced to this article, which appears to be an opinion piece and does not mention ringette.
"Despite popular belief, though ice hockey had some influence in the early development of ringette, the sport was neither created to be, nor qualifies as an ice hockey variant as is popularly reported by media.[54] "
Sourced to this article. The source explicitly describes ringette as a "variation of ice hockey"
The article is riddled with stuff like this. Please help. Squeakachu ( talk) 08:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Pretty self-explainatory, as the news about him are becoming way more polarized. What do you think about the article? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
RepresentUs was recently brought to COIN, which put it on my radar.
Looking at the article, it is extremely well-sourced, but as you dig through the sources, it seems to be mostly WP:ABOUTSELF laundered through reliable sources.
I don't think diffs are particularly useful because the entire article looks to have this problem.
The organization has obvious celebrity power behind it, so getting press coverage for anything they want to say is easy, I just question whether WP:DUE or WP:NPOV requires a significant restructuring of the article or at least, heavy use of attribution. Slywriter ( talk) 14:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Several subproposals have been added to the NSPORT RfC that would welcome input from the community.
Subproposal 1: "All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD". Potential exceptions/clarifications/amendments are also offered.
Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria given (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left."
Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in "one" game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to "three" games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
Subproposal 5: "All sports biographies and team/season articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 5 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice?"
Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG. Replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist"."
Subproposal 9: "Rewrite the lead of WP:NSPORTS to ... cut the confusing sentence in the middle which is at odds with the rest of the guideline and which leaves itself open to lots of wiki-lawyering." JoelleJay ( talk) 18:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Lately some controversy has developed over Erwin Schrödinger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In particular, a story in The Irish Times was published that revisited a number of instances where Schrödinger was implicated in what that paper has described as sexual abuse of children. There has been some work by a number of editors to try to contextualize, attribute allegations, and so forth and there has been some controversy at the German Wikipedia over how or whether to include this in their biography. We have on editor, @ HPfan4: who objects to including the stories as they claim it is not well documented that the instances really are "abuse" or that there were "victims" or that the word "paedophile" should be used (n.b. in the removed section, the word "padeophile" was attributed to The Irish Times rather than said in Wikipedia's voice). In any case, this is complex enough, I thought I would post here to see if others can help resolve the dispute. There are at least five sources now which have been identified as being relevant to this topic including three well-reviewed biographies and a piece in Der Standard which, while criticizing some of the biographies and The Irish Times piece for certain interpretations, still identifies a number of uncontested facts which have now been removed from our article.
Input here or at the talkpage greatly appreciated. Especially help in workshopping the removed section for reincluding in the biography.
Talk:Erwin_Schrödinger#How_Erwin_Schrödinger_indulged_his_‘Lolita_complex’_in_Ireland
jps ( talk) 12:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
2022 hijab row in Karnataka ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This has been discussed on the talk page at Talk:2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka#Background
Disputed content:
“ | The row intensified before the state legislative assembly elections in 5 states. [8] Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election are expected to be held a year later in 2023. In late 2021, several prominent Muslim women were victimized in the Bulli Bai case. [1] | ” |
References
First an NPOV maintenance template was added to the article section at 2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka#Background and then Another guy removed all the content from the background section. These references from reputed newspapers clearly mention the ongoing elections show the relevance and link between the ongoing elections and this sectarian dispute. Please review the refs and help us resolve if this is NPOV violation and how to balance it. Venkat TL ( talk) 20:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I've seen a general problem with images of articles about Afghanistan topics being illustrated with images of the military, mostly US soldiers. In a lot of cases, it's done even when there are images without military personnel in them to choose form at Commons.
It doesn't seem too bad in articles about the larger cities, but when it comes to provinicial or rural areas, the lead or infobox image is often a photo of soldiers or military equipment with the place itself serving only as a backdrop. If not the top image, the military images are also used to illustrated civilian topics, like transporation or education. Captions also consistently focus on the military aspects and there's often a completely gratuitous image gallery that looks like it could've been put there by the US Army's PR department.
A good set of example articles are the provinces of Afghanistan where something like half the articles are heavy on military images. In some cases, all of the photos (maps and infobox images excluded). Here are some of the worst examples:
Having this much military presence in illustrating non-military articles is not neutral. It makes sense to include military images to illustrate the recent history of an Afghanistan topic, but not otherwise. And there's been a lot of history of Afghanistan that occured before the US forces arrived in 2001.
Peter Isotalo 13:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.I see no such link or attempted prior discussion. Also:
Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.I have provided the context that availability of high-quality copyright-free images favors those you object to. I f you can find high-quality copyright-free images, there's nothing stopping you from putting those in. You have yet to articulate, however, how those images or the ones you are replacing are an actual POV issue. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
...Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.(emphasis added) To the extent that pictorial record of Afghanistan is skewed in a direction to which you object, it is because that is the record that has been published in reliable sources . That does not violate NPOV. There are no policy-based reasons that NPOV is implicated by your objections. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump
As an independent with neither political party I find this page has become severally biased and would like to see if it could be a bit better all around.
Things like 'Trump made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency'. Which is straight out calling him a liar.
and 'and took measures to hinder the ACA's functioning.'. As the ACA had become bankrupt and any President that took over would have to have made changes. To say he hindered is a bias statement and opinion.
I am not as editor. and I do not wish to get into a war. And the page is'blocked From editing. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert A Bauer ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
There are significant POV issues at the article Christ myth theory. Though it is obvious that the poorly named 'theory' that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure at all is indeed a fringe view (though there are mainstream scholarly views that he was not 'Christ'), the article inappropriately conflates various views as 'mythicism'—including views about Jesus not being 'Christ'—that actually agree with mainstream scholarship or that otherwise do not claim that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure.
In particular, an early (modern) proponent of the 'theory' was George Albert Wells, but he changed his position in the mid-1990s, explicitly stating that from then onwards he did consider Jesus to be an actual historical figure:
[F]rom the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century … This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these—The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth—may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus. These titles were chosen because I regarded (and still do regard) the virgin birth, much in the Galilean ministry, the crucifixion around A.D. 30 under Pilate, and the resurrection as legendary.
— Wells, George Albert (2009). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9656-1.
Mainstream scholar Van Voorst also confirms Wells' changed position, stating:
A final argument against the nonexistence hypothesis comes from Wells himself. In his most recent book, The Jesus Myth (1999), Wells has moved away from the hypothesis. He now accepts that there is some historical basis for the existence of Jesus, derived from the lost early "gospel" "Q" (the hypothetical sourced used by Matthew and Luke). Wells believes that it is early and reliable enough to show that Jesus probably did exist, although this Jesus was not the Christ that the later canonical Gospels portray. It remains to be seen what impact Well's about-face will have on debate over the nonexistence hypothesis in popular circles.
— Van Voorst, Robert E. (2003). "Nonexistence Hypothesis". In James Leslie Houlden (ed.). Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 2: K–Z. ABC-CLIO. pp. 658–660. ISBN 978-1-57607-856-3.
I initially provided a quite broad (admittedly, too broad) examination of issues with the article at Talk (see Talk:Christ myth theory#Article balance), but soon found that the main problem with the article is the misrepresentation of Wells' later views. The article presents many points as the views of 'mythicists' for which it cites Wells' later works (from 1996 onwards). As such, Wells' later views are being misrepresented as 'mythicism'. Editors at Talk and in the article also characterise Wells' later view of Jesus as "minimally historical" in Wikipedia's voice (also using the related term "minimal historicist" at Talk), though no source has been provided for that label, despite numerous requests, [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47], and the so-far unsourced insertion of 'minimal' (and related word forms) misrepresents the fact that Wells' later view of Jesus as a Galilean preacher who was executed by the Romans is actually consistent with the broad consensus of what is actually known about Jesus' life. (The use of Wells' pre-1996 works as sources for mythicist views is not contested.)
It has been difficult to engage with the limited number of active editors on the subject, who seem to dismiss as 'mythicists' other editors who do not agree with them. [48] [49]
Ramos1990 ( talk · contribs) has claimed at Talk that 'we must go with what sources say', but supports the misuse of Wells' later works throughout the article. The same editor also asserts that even putting views that mythicists and some mainstream scholars share in common (such as details about supernatural beliefs about Jesus) in the same paragraph would be 'original research and synthesis'. [50] [51]
Engaging with 2db ( talk · contribs) has also been generally unproductive, as the editor's responses are often entirely tangential. For example, see Talk section Talk:Christ myth theory#"Lives_of_Jesus". Another editor ( Jeppiz ( talk · contribs)) suggested that such has been long term behaviour of 2db. [52] After repeated requests for relevant discussion, 2db suggested a POV fork (see Talk:Christ myth theory#Article split).
Trying to work with Joshua Jonathan ( talk · contribs) has been similarly unproductive. A number of times, he has dismissively misrepresented what I have suggested, [53] [54] [55] [56] and seems ambivalent to the explicit misuse of Wells' later views, suggesting that broad edits should be restricted only to vandalism. [57] He notes that the article does say Wells changed his views, [58] but seems to see no contradiction with that fact and the presentation of those same later views as those of mythicists. (He also suggested "imcremental improvements" [sic], but the nature of the misuse of Wells' later works throughout the article is non-trivial and an explicit misrepresentation of Wells' position.) His comments in the section Talk:Christ myth theory#"Lives_of_Jesus" were also particularly confusing.
After I provided an initial very broad examination of POV issues, Jeppiz (mentioned earlier) suggested that perceived issues might include my own interpretations, but agreed that statements that go against what sources actually say should be modified, [59] but has not commented on the misuse of Wells since.
Wdford ( talk · contribs) has also expressed that there are POV issues present in the article, including the misrepresentation of views that are actually shared with mainstream views. [60] [61]
I advised a few days ago that when I have time I would go through the article to remove misuse of Wells, [62] which was essentially ignored with no direct response. However, the two editors who had been most involved at Talk (Ramos1990 and 2db) had both explicitly acknowledged that Wells stated unambiguously that he was not a mythicist from 1996 onwards. Based on that, I made a bold edit today to remove statements that misrepresent Wells' later works as the views of mythicists. [63] However, this was immediately reverted by Joshua Jonathan.
Please see Talk:Christ myth theory#Article balance for much of the discussion, but all of the sections from Talk:Christ myth theory#"Virtually all" onwards are relevant to the POV issues.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 12:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Editors at Talk have also misrepresented sources that refer to Wells' earlier works, mischaracterising them as Wells' later views. See here, and my response indicating the misuse of sources. In response, rather than acknowledge that the citations in Ehrman's book clearly refer to Wells' previous views from the 1980s, Joshua Jonathan ( talk · contribs) has hidden the comments about the misrepresentation of Ehrman's citation of Wells' earlier works, claiming it is "off topic" [64], whereas the misrepresentation of Wells' view is very much the main issue with the article.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
What we have in the gospels is surely a fusion of two originally quite independent streams of tradition, ...the Galilean preacher of the early first century who had met with rejection, and the supernatural personage of the early epistles, [the Jesus of Paul] who sojourned briefly on Earth and then, rejected, returned to heaven—have been condensed into one. The [human] preacher has been given a [mythical] salvific death and resurrection, and these have been set not in an unspecified past (as in the early epistles) but in a historical context consonant with the Galilean preaching. The fusion of the two figures will have been facilitated by the fact that both owe quite a lot of their substance in the documents—to ideas very important in the Jewish Wisdom literature. (Cutting Jesus Down to Size, 2009, p. 16)
I'm a religion-friendly atheist. We could into dissecting everything that is religious, faith-based and all spiritual beliefs as having no scientific basis as being myths. Doubly so by exploiting the tactic that there is a rare secondary more-inclusive meaning of "myth" which conflicts the massively-common meaning of "myth" which means "false". There is no reason to go down that road. North8000 ( talk) 14:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan is continuing to insist on misusing sources, and has restored
[66] an attempt to remove the misuse of sources. For example, I removed an assertion that Wells "believed Jesus lived far earlier [than the first century]", which dishonestly cites Wells (Can We Trust the New Testament?, 2003). The claim that "Jesus lived far earlier" is not supported by the cited source, which instead says My view is that Paul knew next to nothing of the earthly life of Jesus, and did not have in mind any definite historical moment for his crucifixion. As we saw, holy Jews had been crucified alive in the first and second centuries B.C., but traditions about these events, and about the persecuted Teacher of Righteousness, could well have reached Paul without reference to times and places, and he need not have regarded their occurrences as anything like as remote in time as they in fact were.
Wells says Paul based his stories about Jesus on old "traditions about these events", with no specific time period or individual in mind, and Wells stated that view at a time that he had explicitly accepted that Jesus lived during the first century. Wells (Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and where it Leaves Christianity, 2009) stated, But from the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century
. So there is no basis in the source for ascribing the view to Wells that Paul's "Jesus lived far earlier", nor for similar misrepresentations of Wells's views from 1996 onwards. He also falsely claimed in his edit summary for that revert that my edit 'broke up the structure of the article', which is clearly false because the edit in question only modified one paragraph.--
Jeffro77 (
talk) 12:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
(There has since been considerable improvement. If the article remains stable regarding these concerns, this section can be archived.)-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 06:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)