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 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

→

Archive 100

Rand Paul (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a sentence on Rand Paul's Wikipedia page that should be changed, due to obvious bias. The sentence currently reads:

"In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective".

I think it should read: "In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which (according to YouTube) falsely claims that masks are not effective."

If this sentence isn't changed, it demonstates a clear bias by Wikipedia about masks in general, as well as about the YouTube video being referenced. Neutral reporting demands that no judgement is made by the reporting entity. They can report that another entity has made a certain judgement, but they are not supposed to make one themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:C801:2390:B034:A59C:E7AB:8DFE ( talk) 23:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, Wikipedia follows the reliable sources, and we say what they say. "Neutral" is perhaps poor phrasing, but the line in question seems appropriate to me. If you have sources which say something else, by all means present them on the article's talk page. Cheers, and Happy Holidays. Dumuzid ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

In this case, I think the IP is correct that we should be attributing YouTube for the reason they suspended him, if that is actually what they said (which is the case, per the cited NYTimes article). It removes the issue that the reason for removal being speculation from other sources. That said, the phrasing could "In August 2021, YouTube suspended Paul's account for a week, stating that a video he had published, claiming that masks were not effective against COVID, violated the site's misinformation policy." It is minor change but takes a few things out of wikivoice to be more neutral in writing but keeps it to following the sources. Otherwise, the current line puts the rationale in Wikivoice, which is not really the right voice to state that. -- Masem ( t) 00:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP is not correct. Neutrality does not imply that we give equal voice to fringe theories regarding the effectiveness of masks, which is what the essence of the IP's complaint boils down to. AlexEng^{( TALK)} 01:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying the IP is correct about, only that we should be attributing YouTube for the reasons why they blocked. They made the choice to banned, and thus their statement (or paraphrase of it) is what we should be saying without Wikivoice itself criticizing fringe view. (Clearly the "masks don't work" is fringe per WP standards, but we don't need to call it out every time it is mentioned in any context, which is what the present text in Paul's page says. The IP's suggested claim is not appropriate, but switching to make sure that we attribute YouTube itself for why they blocked is appropriate. -- Masem ( t) 01:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I'm not sure I follow, Masem. Which part of the following sentence do you disagree with? "In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective". The sentence does not state any rationale in Wikipedia's voice. The sentence says three (maybe four) things:

1. Paul was suspended for a week from Youtube in August 2021. → "YouTube on Tuesday ... suspended him from publishing for a week"
2. This happened due to the company's misinformation policy. → "A YouTube representative said the Republican senator’s claims in the three-minute video had violated the company’s policy on Covid-19 medical misinformation."
3. This happened after Paul posted a video that claimed that masks were not effective. → "... after he posted a video that disputed the effectiveness of wearing masks to limit the spread of the coronavirus"
4. The claim that masks were not effective is false. → "In fact, masks do work, according to the near-unanimous recommendations of public health experts."

All of these points are directly supported by the source. We don't need to attribute them, as they are not not opinions (see: WP:VOICE). What is the issue? AlexEng^{( TALK)} 02:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

In your list, it is #3 being said in Wikivoice, as well as a bit of unnecessary pushing on point #4. YouTube said that Paul's video about masks being ineffective violated its policy and thus blocked him. It's clear from the source that was the reason, but that's in YT's words, so the way its stated is putting that language in Wikivoice. Furthering that, once you put #3 into attribution to YouTube, there's no need to reiterate "false claims that masks are ineffective" since its still the point that YouTube considered that misinformation. It is correct that the video's message of "masks aren't effective" is a false claim, but there's no need on a BLP to hammer that point when we can simply call it misinformation per YouTube's assessment. It's a rather subtle but key point about the passage's tone in Wikivoice. -- Masem ( t) 04:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Some points are so subtle as to be meaningless. Nothing you have proposed is "key." Your version gives the impression that there was some sort of equivalence between the claims of Paul and YouTube. Dumuzid ( talk) 05:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Why do you need to attribute YouTube's assessment of whether or not Paul broke YouTube's policy to YouTube? Who else is the arbiter of when someone breaks YouTube's policy? This position has been reported by a reliable secondary source, not in an opinion piece, and is suitable for inclusion without attribution. If it had come from YouTube's website, blog, or social media, I might even agree with you, but that is not the case. BLP policy does not exclude us from posting verifiable, neutrally worded facts on a BLP, so I don't see any reason not to describe the claim as false either. AlexEng^{( TALK)} 05:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The way the sentence is currently given, it is given as a factual claim in Wikivoice for the reason for removal. There are times that a social media site may take action to block a person, but is not clear about the reasons, but the RSes covering it make their speculative guesses for the reasons why; in such a case, we absolutely should attribute the guesses why to the sources reporting them. This is not one of those cases, but as to be clear that it is not such a case, we should be very clear in attributing the reasons why to YouTube, and out of Wikivoice. -- Masem ( t) 14:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It is the factual reason for removal according to the New York Times. Even if you, personally, have a gut hunch that this is just "speculative", that has no bearing on article content; including your gut feelings on the matter in the article voice (by framing that undisputed fact as mere opinion, and making it sound like it is only YouTube's opinion, at that) would be a gross NPOV violation. Again, if you feel that the NYT is unreliable, you can take it to WP:RSN; but it feels like you're bringing a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS approach to this where you want to "fix" what your gut instinct tells you is the NYT's "speculation." That is not how writing Wikipedia articles works - if you want to argue that this is a seriously-disputed assertion and should be treated as such, you need to present sources of comparable weight to the NYT actually disputing it, not your gut feelings and personal opinions. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

There are two issues: First, did Paul's video claim that masks are not effective? If there is reasonable doubt about whether the video made that claim then an attribution regarding whether the claim was made would be suitable. The second issue concerns whether "masks are effective". I would have thought that issue was well settled by reliable sources and an attribution should not be made because to do so would suggest there was some doubt. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There is not reasonable doubt regarding the first point. Here's the direct quote from NYT:

In the video, Mr. Paul says: “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” Later in the video, he adds, “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science, which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.”

If there is doubt regarding whether or not he claimed that masks are not effective, it is not reasonable. AlexEng^{( TALK)} 02:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with AlexEng. Masks are known to be effective, and the sentence in question clearly states that it's YouTube's misinformation policy that Paul violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muboshgu ( talk • contribs) 03:37, December 23, 2021 (UTC)

• I have to ask… is the fact that Paul was suspended from YouTube (for a week) really significant enough to mention in the first place? Was there any lasting effect? WP:RECENTISM? Blueboar ( talk) 13:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is encyclopaedic to preserve (and not hide from readers) the actions of the large private corporations, with regard to Senators elected by the people. Or are we now into the business of not seeing, not hearing, and not talking about what the mega-corporations do? XavierItzm ( talk) 18:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Agree that the correct text ought to be "In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which (according to YouTube) falsely claims that masks are not effective." The original sentence said in Wikipedia's voice that Paul's statement was false. Whether Paul's statement is false or not is irrelevant: what is relevant is that Wikipedia in its own voice becomes judge and executor regarding politician's opinions. XavierItzm ( talk) 18:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If we say "according to Youtube," we are giving parity with a proven scientific fact and Paul's statement, which is a violation of neutrality. Paul said, "Most of the masks you get over the counter don't work. They don't prevent infection." While that statement is false, he leaves open the possibility that other masks might work. Paul later changed his statement to "cloth masks don't work." While that statement may actually be true, the 3-ply masks more people wear do work. [1]

Maybe we could change the text to "Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy for making a false claim about the effectiveness of masks in preventing the spread of covid-19."

TFD ( talk) 20:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding that Paul's mask statement contradicts scientific fact (which is does) outside of YouTube's rationale is basically coatracking that it is a fringe view atop discussion of YouTube's ban. What is appropriate is to discuss, in a "Views" section, that Paul's claims on masks in general beyond YouTube have been criticized as fringe and against science with RSes separate from YouTube (see for example [2] as a source) and then add that YouTube blocked him for his mask video as misinformation. That still covers that issue about his views but separates it from YouTube's reason to block. -- Masem ( t) 22:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@ Masem: with respect, and there is lots of it, this argument is almost exhaustingly trivial in nature. We have an RS saying that he was banned for violating the mask policy. The OP has an obvious POV on the subject and looks like they're righting great wrongs, particularly about mask effectiveness in general. We don't need to pick apart sentences word by word to come to the conclusion that what the NYT said and what the article says are the same thing. Please be reasonable here. It's plainly against WP:FALSEBALANCE to hedge statements with fringe beliefs that no reasonable person would dispute. Surely you can agree with that? AlexEng^{( TALK)} 06:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is small things like that have been building up across numerous articles as a larger trend that WP seems to promote incorporating as many negative things just because media sources have said that. Its on the more subtle but still key parts of NPOV that our tone of writing needs to remain impartial and dispassionate regardless of what sources say. That Paul has a fringe view of masks is something we should say and can be backed by sources where it can be (like the WaPost one I give). That he was blocked from YouTube for his mask video that went against their misinformation policy is absolutely fact but the reasoning should be stated in their words. While the reasoning very much overlaps with the previous aspects that his mask theories are fringe, we have to be very careful about mixing that up and creating synthesis of ideas in Wikivoice, a step that is very easy to fall into in the current ideological environment. As a hypothetical example where this type of approach can be a problem, imagine a person that has a well-established anti-LGBT stance (supported by numerous sources). If they posted a video expressing their thoughts that "marriage can only be between a man and a woman" without mentioning anything about sexuality or the like and there was a reason to talk about that video, it would be absolutely wrong for us to say "he posted a homophobic video" based on what we already knew about him and the lack of anything that specifically calls that out in the video. That's synthesis. We can include attributed statements if others called it a homophobic videos, but its not WP's place to be the ones to call it that. -- Masem ( t) 13:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand your points. I really do. But this isn't synth. Both aspects of this are from the same article in the same source, and they are not cherry picked out of context to mislead the reader. We're saying what NYT said in Wikivoice, which is appropriate, because we summarize consensus views based on RS. It feels like a slippery slope to me. Do we also have to attribute statements on the curvature of the Earth to NASA? AlexEng^{( TALK)} 13:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That we're saying in Wikivoice is the problem. It's still synthesis on a BLP page. The way it is currently writing is Wikivoice making an interpretation of the video contents - even if that interpretation seems consistent with the same ideas that are already out there in RSes. I'm looking at the "Disease control" section of Paul's and that we don't touch on his mask ideas before the video is a problem and makes this statement stand out even more. As I've said, just as that section started with the sourced statement "Paul has spread false claims about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.", there should also be a paragraph that leads into the YouTube one , based minimally off the WaPost source above, that says something like "Paul has also made false claims related to mask-wearing. <more stuff here about his mask stance> YouTube suspended Paul for one week after he posted a video related to his stance on masks as misinformation." Now that's all 100% kosher in Wikivoice without any bit of interpretation and makes sure that we've identified his stance on masks not being effective as also false in the same paragraph. This isn't challenging the veracity of masks being effective, simply avoiding interpretation of the video and why YouTube blocked him in a direct statement made in Wikivoice without attribution. -- Masem ( t) 14:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's concerns here. Personally my concern is that in some context what Paul said appears to be true. This is one of the big issues with fact checks in general. Sometimes the context of a statement is lost. "A bike helmet won't protect you" is a statement that I would generally view as false. However, if the context was a discussion of related to a type of crash that hurts the legs vs the head, yes, a bike helmet won't protect you becomes true. If someone says my original statement is false but leaves out the specific context then we have an accuracy problem. To avoid that we attribute. Back to Paul's claim, my understanding of masks is almost all types help reduce the risk of a sick person transmitting to healthy people. The other way around is less clear. Among many factors it is dependent on the type of mask and if the wearer uses the mask correctly. So depending on Paul's intended context his statement may not have been false. However, if he didn't include that context then it may be reasonable to read it as a broader statement rather than a narrowed statement (even if that wasn't Paul's intent). If we are going to say Paul was wrong then we need to make sure his context and intended scope of the claim is clear. If we don't have that then we should stick with Youtube's statements as we can cite them without risk of false context. If nothing else we should always err on the side of attributing since it's the "do no harm" path. Springee ( talk) 14:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple statements buried in that sentence (and keeping in mind that masks have only partial and variable effectiveness which means that such can be in context be termed both effective and ineffective)

1. That Rand Paul flatly claimed that masks are ineffective
2. That such a claim is clearly false
3. By combination of the above, that Rand Paul made a clearly false claim

The above are all extraordinary claims. Without even getting into NPOV, Both under WP:Verifiability and especially WP:BLP these would need very strong sourcing (which they don't have) to be in Wikipedia. Further, burying additional "slam" statements (via adjectives) in a sentence which is informing about a YouTube suspension is also bad practice and not informative. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that these claims are, in fact, supported - both by the source cited and by the mass of other available sources - I don't see how any of them are EXTRAORDINARY except in your imagination. In particular, to refer to the statement that masks are effective in the context of Covid-19 as EXTRAORDINARY sounds rather like fringe POV, to me. And the idea that a conservative politician in the US making a clearly false claim is EXTRAORDINARY hasn't been plausible for, well, some time now. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In broad terms, if we have a source that says "Person X believes <claim>" and another source "<claim> has been proven false" but does not mention Person X in any manner, then it is synthesis and a violation of NPOV (particularly in light of BLP) to say "Person X believes in false claim <claim>." That said, I would find it hard to believe that no source that can be used for "Person X believes <claim>" doesn't also say within it about that being a falsely proven claim, but I wouldn't say that as an absolute. This is where we have to be careful to reflect precision of language. eg: if some academic states in source that "this global warming we're seeing is part of a solar cycle" but that source doesn't tie that person directly to being a climate change skeptic/denier, it would be absolutely wrong to label the person that way, interpreting their stance as a skeptic/denier in violation of NOR. -- Masem ( t) 15:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What? The NYT source says all three things: that Paul was suspended from YouTube for medical misinformation, that Paul dusputed the effectiveness of masks in the YouTube video in question, and that the scientific and medical consensus is that masks in fact work. You are getting into hypothetical that have nothing to do with the case at issue. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NewImpartial, you are not addressing the specifically noted claims and are transforming my statement into an incorrect straw man version of it. And what would the fact that conservative politicians elsewhere have made clearly false claims possibly have to do with the specifics here? North8000 ( talk) 15:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You have posed three claims as EXTRAORDINARY: that Rand Paul claimed...masks are ineffective, that such a claim is false, and that...Rand Paul made a clearly false claim. I do not see why any of these three claims would in fact be extraordinary (and in the case of the second claim, it seems FRINGE to me to even propose that it is extraordinary). The NYT article clearly makes all three statements, and I see no reason that would not be sufficient verification for all three. Rand Paul was suspended from YouTube for making misleading medical claims, and WP should plainly follow the sources that sat this. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

( edit conflict) What on Earth is even happening here? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Nothing you said is even remotely true.

1. Rand Paul claimed that masks are ineffective. NYT: ... the senator said that “there’s no value” in wearing masks.
2. Such a claim is clearly false. NYT: In fact, masks do work, according to the near-unanimous recommendations of public health experts.
3. Rand Paul made a false claim. NYT: In the video, Mr. Paul says: “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” Later in the video, he adds, “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science, which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.” In fact, masks do work, according to the near-unanimous recommendations of public health experts. That's what "in fact" means. It's a prepositional phrase establishing contrast with the previous statement, and it's often used to rebut claims in journalism. I'm flabbergasted that we apparently need to have a discussion on basic grammar to step through what is plainly written in the source.
4. These "claims" are not particularly "extraordinary" (that's your personal interpretation) and they are cited in line to a reliable source, making both your first and second sentence provably false. There is no additional "slam" statement (whatever that means) in correctly describing a false claim as false based on its description as such in a reliable source. That provides needed context. Without it, we are implying that Paul was somehow treated unfairly or that the policy was misapplied. None of that is implied in in the source. You, North8000, are not, in fact, a reliable source. The New York Times is. I think we should probably go with that.
5. If you actually think any of the above three "claims" are in doubt, then I would expect you to do even a modicum of research to either A) find a contrary view in a reliable source or B) determine that no other sources make that assertion. You know how I know you didn't do that? Because a five second Google search for "Rand Paul" "masks" yields the following:
   1. NBC News: Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection," adding that “cloth masks don’t work."
   2. Detailed WaPo fact check on Paul's claims regarding mask effectiveness: Rand Paul’s false claim that masks don’t work
   3. AP News: In the three-minute video Paul disputed the effectiveness of masks, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and medical experts around the world have recommended to limit the spread of the coronavirus. as well as YouTube suspended U.S. Sen. Rand Paul for seven days on Tuesday and removed a video posted by the Kentucky Republican that claimed cloth masks don’t prevent infection, saying it violated policies on COVID-19 misinformation.
   4. Politico: In the video, Paul, whose background is in ophthalmology, criticized the effectiveness of “over the counter” and cloth-based masks. “They don’t prevent infection,” he said at one point in the roughly three-minute video. “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science, which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.”
   5. ABC affiliate with contribution by the AP: The New York Times reports that Paul false claimed, “most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection” in the video. Later in the video he claimed again that cloth masks don't work. and also However, masks do work, according to health officials and scientists. The World Health Organization's policy says that fabric, non-medical masks can be used by the general public under the age of 60 and who do not have underlying health conditions. (Note the use of preposition to rebut a claim once again)
   6. ABC News: YouTube has suspended Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky from uploading content for one week after he posted a video claiming most masks are ineffective in combatting COVID-19 and also Public health experts have said masks, even cloth masks, which Paul took particular issue with, offer protection against COVID-19 transmission, which in turn prevents infection. But Paul claimed in the video, "cloth masks don’t work," and that most over-the-counter masks “don’t prevent infection,” according to YouTube, which it said violated its policies against spreading COVID-19 medical misinformation.

That's just the first page of Google. On the next page, you would have found essentially the same support from The Guardian, Business Insider, Politifact, Newsweek, The Hill, and a Fox affiliate, but I'm frankly tired of pasting links and quotes. Now if you actually want to talk about Verifiability and NPOV, then I'd like you to retract your previous objection and admit that previously discussed wording is neutral and verifiably correct. Thanks. AlexEng^{( TALK)} 18:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is your step #3 - that is an interpretation of the video content in Wikivoice which violates NOR and NPOV on a BLP page. This the key point. You can establish that Paul's comments on masks prior to the video have been assigned as false from other sources But you can't claim video's contents have false claims in Wikivoice. You can say YouTube booted him for a week for the video carrying misinformation (which is not always going to be false/disproven theories, there's other types of misinformation), attributed to YouTube, but unless you have a source that specifically says the content of his video was a false claim, you cannot connect those in Wikivoice in the way the article presently does it. This may be super subtle but these types of leaps of logic bloom into worse problems that remove Wikipedia from its neutral and dispassionate tone that is required by NPOV. This isn't about disputing that Paul's overall stance on masks has been deemed false, or that the general advice about masks being effective should be disputed; it is simply using attribution to avoid inappropriate interpretation of a video. -- Masem ( t) 18:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Masem: this is getting ridiculous. I assume good faith, but I feel that my time is being wasted here. I need you produce a policy-based requirement for attribution for a fact that is sourced to multiple reliable sources and disputed by zero reliable sources, if we're going to continue this discussion productively. AlexEng^{( TALK)} 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is the policy atop BLP. You cannot take fact A from once source (let's say that's YouTube's week-long ban due to misinformation in a video speaking about masks) and fact B from another source (WaPost's story about Paul's mask stance which is considered false) to come up with a novel conclusion that sounds like both but is not said by either source (that Paul's YouTube video promoted a false theory). I recognize that there's an Occum's Razor aspect of why YouTube called it misinformation and the seemingly obvious conclusion is that his video continued to promote his false theories, but we have to be super careful on this around a BLP and taking the Occums Razor conclusion is synthesis. Mind you, you can state both points separately (as I've demonstrated) and the reader will likely come to a similar conclusion, but we shouldn't be putting that in Wikivoice for them otherwise that is SYNTH on a BLP's page which is absolutely a no-go. -- Masem ( t) 20:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

To what novel conclusion do you refer? I don't see anything stated in the current article text that goes beyond the (NYT) source provided. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The NYTimes piece does not specifically call out that the video "falsely claims", though it does counterargue that masks are considered effective by several agencies. But because no attribution is given, the claim of what's in the video is put in Wikivoice, which still is interprtation of its content (remember that YouTube did not speak exactly what was misinformation) It could be fixed by saying "In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which, according to the NYTimes, falsely claims that masks are not effective." Of course, as I've said before, it would be better to start a paragraph about his mask claims in general which have been considered false claims, and then can end about talking about the YouTube ban. The key point here is that the language currently use makes Wikivoice interpreting and critical of Rand, which it can't be. It is a very subtle point, I agree, but this is the type of issue that compounds easily into problems. -- Masem ( t) 21:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Masem, that you are simply wrong about this. Unless the statement that Paul falsely claims that masks are not effective is disputed by some RS, it would be a violation of NPOV to attribute it to the New York Times. We don't attribute statements unless there is disagreement among reliable sources, or unless they employ value-laden LABELS (and prior discussions have not established that "falsely" is a value-laden label, in terms of policy). Newimpartial ( talk) 19:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how issues around interpretation and synthesis works. just because the synthesis may seem close to what's stated and there are no sources to deny it doesn't make the synthesis correct. The disputed factor here is that YouTube banned Paul because his video had false claims on masks; that's not why YouTube blocked him, they just said "misinformation", it is synthesis to assume it was for a false claim even though this is the most logical result, and aligns with broader statements on Paul's general take on masks. -- Masem ( t) 19:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The NYT says that he was suspended for claims he made in the video and that those claims were false. You are splitting hairs, here, and calling something SYNTH that is actually just summary. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The NYTimes article never uses the word "false". It states what the video was about, and that YT banned him for misinformation, and then goes on to say that masks are effective. It never specifically counters the content of the video as being false. Combining all those in wikivoice is not at all appropriate. It is very easy to see that interpretation, but we cannot do interpretion in Wikivoice. And while this may seem trivial, this is a core issue around writing neutrally on BLP to avoid Wikivoice from taking a roll in controverise And again, I've posed an option that uses additional sourcing that establishes outside the video that Paul's stance on mask ineffectiveness are false, but the only thing we can say about the video directly is that YouTube considered it misinformation. -- Masem ( t) 19:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The NY Times first quotes Paul: "Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection." in the next paragraph, the Times writes: "In fact, masks do work, according to the near-unanimous recommendations of public health experts.". The text already in the article is a reasonable summary of the content of the NY Times article. - MrOllie ( talk) 19:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

NBC, the Seattle Times and Politifact all use "false". I really don't see the problem with "false" - it clearly isn't WP:OR. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The only agency that knows 100% why Paul was banned is YouTube and the only statement they gave is for "misinformation". Everyone else is supposing what the reason was, which we shouldn't be doing nor should be putting their words in YouTube's mouth without atttribution. But as a whole different solution, we can use articles to broadly discuss Paul's mask stance (not just in that video but in prior interviews) and state those views are false (this stuff presently is not in the article, surprisely), and then in the same paragraph, present that Paul's mask video was considered misinformation by YouTube and led to his week ban. While we aren't calling the video's claims as false, this structure neutrally guides the reader to understand conclusion. Its far more impartial and dispassionate in tone in writing about that Paul's mask stance makes false claims and still properly reflecting RSes without needed further in-line attribution. -- Masem ( t) 20:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You see, Masem: this is where you get over your skis, policy-wise. WP:V (and WP:BLP) do not require that WP use sources that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt everything we state in wikivoice - they need only represent the preponderance of facts according to the reliable sources available. Your issue with how the RS have reported this incident is an issue between you and wikipedia's sources, and is not a policy-relevant consideration in how we write our articles (might as you might wish otherwise). Newimpartial ( talk) 20:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The "fact" that is still a problem is that YouTube banned Paul for a week on "false claims", which is nothing what they said. This is what others may have claimed, but not YouTube, so it is factually wrong to state that without attribution in Wikivoice. And this is the problem when editors are in the mode of "we have to be as critical as possible of a topic that is criticized by media" and want to ignore subt built into NPOV. We are supposed to be dispassionate and not be taking sides, and from this view it is clear that that statement is a problem but there's ways to fix it that I've suggested. But even as small as this might be, waving our hands and saying is okay is what leads to larges problems with NPOV writing and what Wikivoice's tone should be. -- Masem ( t) 20:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. NBC unambiguously states that YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul's account on Tuesday for posting a video claiming cloth face masks are ineffective against the coronavirus. ... Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection," adding that “cloth masks don’t work." [3] What you are suggesting is that we ignore that because you, personally, believe that the media is being too critical and want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by correcting that here. Even if you don't recognize it, that suggestion blatantly misrepresents the source for the purposes of inserting your personal POV into the article. The primary reason we have problems with NPOV writing on these articles is precisely because of errors like the one you are making here - editors who are unable to separate "what they believe the sources should say" from "what the sources say" and who therefore argue stridently that their POV language is required for NPOV. NBC and the NYT's wording is not critical - Paul is not being "criticized by the media" in the vague boogieman sense you are using here, and the fact that you felt the need to imply otherwise undermines your point by diving headfirst into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory. The sources for this are objectively summarizing the broadly-accepted facts in and impartial neutral tone. Your suggestion, on the other hand, would crudely insert your POV into the article based solely on your personal gut disagreement with or distrust for those sources. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That's wrong again, and this is representative of too many problems we have with people and entities like this. The only factual reason the ban was placed was that YouTube said the video was misinformation. What the NYtimes and others said is what they say the video was about and (at least in the case of the NBC) that it presnted false claims, but we do not know if that's how YouTube framed it. Instead, the current wording puts the claim that YouTube removed the video due to being false claims in Wikivoice, which is not something we know is true; we can't put words in YouTube's mouth at all. Either we can attribute the video had false claims to sources like NBC, or insert ahead of that more broader statements about Paul's false claims in general (which we have sources for) without the need for attribution, and not worry about trying to reassert that the video had false claims again in talking about YouTube's action. The latter solution would be far more appropriate as it expands on how the media has framed Paul's claims, retaining their stance and proving more sources to support it. -- Masem ( t) 21:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: which is not something we know is true - this seems to me to raise the key point; WP is WP:NOTTRUTH, much as you would like for it to be so. We cannot put words in YouTube's mouth, but if reliable sources have done so (and none have not done so), we have no choice but to follow them. Any alternative would be a novel interpretation of the primary sources, which is what you gave offered above. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

One side note. Since masks do help, but don't absolutely prevent infection if someone changes "don't prevent infection" (a true statement) into them saying that they are "of no value" (a false statement) unless the latter is a direct quote from Paul (not modified by removal from context)) such is at best creating an extraordinary claim. North8000 ( talk) 18:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The current arricle text, are not effective, appears to be both accurate and well-sourced. Let's not wander into the weeds for no reason. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• The NYT source we're using as the citation for that says, in the context of Paul's comments, that In fact, masks do work, according to the near-unanimous recommendations of public health experts. NBC says that YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul's account on Tuesday for posting a video claiming cloth face masks are ineffective against the coronavirus. ... Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection," adding that “cloth masks don’t work." [4] Politifact says that YouTube and Twitter on Aug. 10 temporarily suspended accounts belonging to Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on grounds they violated the platforms’ policies against spreading COVID-19 misinformation. [5]. Many other sources say similar things. Without a source contradicting this it would be a clear WP:NPOV violation to frame it as YouTube's opinion (it would be representing an essentially uncontested fact as opinion), and it would be grossly misrepresenting the source (presenting this as merely YouTube's opinion when the source flatly says otherwise.) Suggesting that we could add (according to YouTube) using that source is suggesting a shocking violation of WP:NPOV and WP:TONE. - Aquillion ( talk) 20:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Using what NYTimes and others claim that YouTube banned Paul for (in that it was removed for false claims) as fact is the violation of NOR and NPOV. Period. Unless they said they spoke to YouTube to get more clarification, NYtimes et al cannot know any more than what YouTube published (which was "misinformation"). -- Masem ( t) 21:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding you? Did you mean to say that reporting what the NYTimes says is original research? That seems a bit backward. As to your other point, we have no way of knowing who the NY Times spoke to, and since we're not in the business of second guessing reliable sources we're shouldn't be trying to reconstruct what the Times can or cannot know. MrOllie ( talk) 21:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

We have no idea from the NYtimes (or any other story I've seen so far) that they made any contact with YouTube about the ban, so we cannot make any assumption that their reporting is based on a conservation with a YouTube rep. That could be the case, but there's no explicit mention of that (and nearly any time the Times does talk to an involved party, they will usually state about this contact) As such, we have to take what NYTimes and others said as what they assessed the reason for the ban, but they are not YouTube ,and so we can't take what they said as YouTube's reasons as fact. -- Masem ( t) 21:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the New York Times is a RS. We must take what they state about the reasons for a ban as fact unless we have another source stating otherwise. Your personal gut feelings are not a valid reason that would allow us to cast doubt on the NYT's conclusions in the article voice by framing them as opinion; and suggesting that we could do so is a NPOV violation. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times is a high-quality WP:RS; what they say in their articles as fact can (and, when there is no indication of any dispute, must) be reported in Wikipedia as fact. Your personal gut feelings and speculation that maybe in this particular case they didn't do all the fact-checking an RS requires is absolutely not something we can put in the article voice in the way you are suggesting here. They said it, and as an RS we presume they verified it concretely, therefore we must WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. If you believe the NYT is not trustworthy as a source for such facts, by all means take it to WP:RSP, but you can't just arbitrarily substitute your judgment for theirs. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think the problem is that Rand Paul didn't say masks don't work, he said most masks don't work. The current sentence oversimplifies what Rand Paul was inaccurately claiming. There's an easy fix here, in my view: "In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video in which he falsely claimed that most masks are not effective". Losing precision/context can have the result of appearing as editorial bias/selective use of information, which does end up entering into NPOV-violating territory. However, once this is rectified I don't think it's necessary to attribute "falsely claimed" to YouTube, as there's a strong weight of RS which say his claim that most masks don't work is scientifically false. Jr8825 • Talk 21:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • To be clear, YouTube only said "misinformation" in their public release of the reason for the ban and not "false claims", which is also part of the complexing issues. -- Masem ( t) 21:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

    @ Masem: I think my suggestion helps to resolve that issue as well. By being clear about what Rand Paul claimed (that most, not all, masks are ineffective) and stating this is false (attribution unnecessary per weight of RS), we avoid inaccurately accusing Rand Paul of saying something he didn't while also showing to the reader why what he said was misleading/misinformation. Jr8825 • Talk 21:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

    • That helps, but as I've suggested, we can also talk in broader terms that Paul's general views on marks (not just what the video presents) are false claims, using the WaPost source and some of the other ones identified above and not requiring attribution on calling it "false claims". Here we can talk to what RSes summarize Paul's stance (which I read from those being as you say, not all masks are effective, rather than no mask is effective/masks are ineffective), so that we don't have to worry about the video's contents short of that YouTube banned Paul as they considered it misinformation. -- Masem ( t) 21:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

      To be clear this would be a paragraph like Paul has also promoted false claims about mask effectivness. Paul had misinterpreted results from a 2020 Annals of Internal Medicine study in Denmark, as well as the lack of mask use in Sweden, to claim masks were not effective nor necessary to prevent the spread of COVID. [6] (probably one or two more things here). Paul had introduced legislation to repeal the federal mandate requiring masks for public transportation, saying "In a free county people will evaluate their personal risk factors and are smart enough to ultimately make medical decisions like wearing a mask themselves." [7] Paul was banned for a week on YouTube in August 2021 for a video about his stance on masks which YouTube said violated their misinformation policy.(NYTIimes current source). And there's probably a few more things that could be added but that expands out more on the mask issue while staying true to what RSes have said about his theories, and not havign to worry about interpreting YouTube's ban reason. -- Masem ( t) 22:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

      ( edit conflict) A more detailed section on his mask views sounds like a good idea, but I don't think that's directly relevant to this discussion: I'm only looking at the sentence that's been brought up here, which I believe is problematic, regardless of the apparent bias of the reporting editor and the stance of most thread participants. I understand you're concerned about being too quick to state "false" in wikivoice, and I'm sympathetic to this, but the YouTube ban is notable in itself (so deserves a dedicated sentence), and I don't think "false" is the main problem with the sentence. I'd personally prefer the phrasing "inaccurately claimed" to "falsely claimed", as I think it's more explicitly non-judgemental ("false" is correct and appropriate, but I do think "falsely claim" carries a subtly judgemental tone, and infers intent to mislead); "inaccurate" may also be more precise (his statement wasn't an obvious in-your-face lie, it was misleading as it leans into genuine scientific concerns about cloth masks). Nonetheless, both wordings are factually correct, and I consider this a comparatively unimportant phrasing issue. There's clearly strong resistance to removing "false" (as can be seen above), so I'd rather focus on fixing the main issue as I see it: that we're characterising Rand Paul's comments with too broad a brush, and 1 extra word can fix it. This isn't mutually exclusive with adding a more detailed look at his views on masks, and looking at the article it would logically follow the paragraph about his false claims regarding vaccines, which is ideal as this closely precedes the sentence on the YT ban, so would provide extra context for this sentence. Jr8825 • Talk 22:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

      Looking at your proposed text more closely (because of the edit conflict), I agree the extra information is helpful. I suggest going ahead and adding the new sentences only. I still think it's unnecessary to say that YouTube "considered" it misinformation, it adds unnecessary doubt over factual information contained in the supporting cites. I'm sure you're going to face opposition to that wording, so better to separate it from your new additions, which are a definite improvement. Jr8825 • Talk 22:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am surprised to see this volume of discussion over what appears to be a well-sourced fact. I would prefer not to add much to the an already overlong discussion, but I'll add my voice to those who see no NPOV issues here, and believe that the status quo version is solid. Firefangledfeathers 22:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you read my concerns about oversimplifying what Paul was inaccurately claiming? He was undermining mask science while also suggesting that a few masks do/might work, and I think it's important to chronicle misinformation accurately. Jr8825 • Talk 22:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I did. I don't believe there's a need to go too in-depth on the point, but if it's possible to improve the statement without making it overlong, I'm supportive. I don't think adding "some" accomplishes this. Minor wording tweaks would, I think, be better discussed at the article talk page. For this noticeboard, I hope only that we quickly reach consensus that no NPOV issues are present. Firefangledfeathers 22:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a potential NPOV issue, though. Saying "Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, "Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection," adding that "cloth masks don’t work"" ( NBC), is not the same as saying "Paul falsely claimed masks don't work". This kind of inaccuracy matters when fighting the spread of misinformation, we want to ensure readers trust our content. Jr8825 • Talk 22:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you even need the word falsely in there? Why not just say YouTube suspended Paul for claiming that masks don't work which violates their policies on COVID misinformation, the end. You dont need to attribute to YouTube what other expert sources say is true, and who YouTube relies on in determining their misinformation policy. But you also dont need to push in "falsely" either, it is just not necessary there. nableezy - 22:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Because several sources emphasize it, and because WP:FRINGELEVEL requires that we note the status of fringe theories whenever we discuss them. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The big issue is that we're putting words in YouTube's mouth in Wikivoice in the current text version. YouTube said nothing of "false claims", only "misinformation", while other sources characterized the video as promoting false claims, but not YouTube. That's misquoting as NOR and NPOV. But you can easily, as I've pointed out, talk prior to the YouTube part about Paul's mask statements considered to be false by many sources, and that still meets the issue of making sure his fringe views are pointed out without misquoting YouTube or the like. -- Masem ( t) 01:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but YouTube suspended Paul for claiming that masks don't work which violates their policies on COVID misinformation says that masks don't work is COVID misinformation. Why do you need to say it twice in the same sentence? nableezy - 01:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying there's at least 3-4+ more sentences we can write before the YouTube aspect to discuss Paul's mask statements and that they are false claims (see the green text I proposed 8 Jan). Then you can say that YouTube blocked him for misinformation for a video that discussed his view on masks, leaving at that but predicated by the fact that we've got sources that describe his mask claims as false already that the reader can make the connection but we aren't miscontruing YouTube's statement. Again, the stress here is trying to interpret YouTube's statement in Wikivoice beyond being misinformation. -- Masem ( t) 02:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support current wording - I understand the hangup here: We can't use YouTube's determination that someone violated their COVID-19 misinformation policy to say that misinformation actually took place in Wiki voice. However, the three reliable sources currently cited (who are well aware of this caveat) do say so unambiguously in their own voice:
  • NBC News - "Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, 'Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection,' adding that 'cloth masks don’t work.'"
  • The New York Times - "In fact, masks do work, according to the near-unanimous recommendations of public health experts."
  • PolitiFact - "The Republican lawmakers responded by criticizing the platforms for taking action against their posts, with Paul calling his ban a 'badge of honor.' But public health experts told PolitiFact that the claims that earned them their respective suspensions strayed far from the truth." (This source goes on to address Paul's specific claims in detail)

We do not use an "According to YouTube..." caveat when a fact is supported by multiple reliable sources. It is correct and unbiased to call it "misinformation" in Wiki voice. – dlthewave ☎ 13:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, the current wording puts "false claims" as what YouTube said, in Wikivoice. YouTube specifically said "misinformation", the other sources are saying the video has false claims, but those are not exactly the same terms or meaning. That's basically the same as changing the contents of a quote. -- Masem ( t) 13:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Masem is correct on this point. If YT didn't say more than misinformation and sources like the NYT are putting 2 and 2 together themselves then we need to attribute such claims to the NYT et al. These differences are often lost on readers but this is exactly the sort of detail we should strive to get right. Springee ( talk) 18:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Masem is not correct, Springee. "False claims" is a subset of "misinformation", not a mutually exclusive category, and the NYT - along with all the other RS presented to date - have concluded that the form of misinformation for which Paul was suspended was false claims. You two can hold whatever OR POV on this that you like (that "the sources are wrong!" for example), but the conclusion to be drawn from the available RS is clear. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Masem is correct. We go to what YT actually said. If they say, "the video violated our guidelines" but didn't say specifically what then we can not claim "YT did X because of Y" even if the NYT claims as much. We can say "YT did X. The NYT said the video contained this misinformation...". As you just said, "NYT - along with all the other RS presented to date - have concluded...". That is not "YT said" thus we need to make the attribution. Springee ( talk) 19:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you recently read WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:NOTTRUTH? You are literally saying that your reading of the primary source trumps the reliable, secondary sources, and you are also saying that we have to provide in-text attribution for undisputed factual statements documented by multiple RS rather than presenting them in wikivoice. I'm not sure what volunteer-edited encyclopedia's community norms you think you are channeling here, but they aren't Wikipedia's. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No primary sourced are being used. Virtually every article on the ban include the quoted reason of "misinformation" from YT, and separately describe the video as having false claims. They do not say directly that YT removed the video for false claims, and they did, that is tantamount to altering published quotes, whuch wouldnt allow per core policies. -- Masem ( t) 19:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Your description of the content of these sources does not correspond to the sources actually presented in this discussion. Also, paraphrase is not tantamount to altering published quotes - the whole project of this encyclopaedia depends on RS that paraphrase and even summarize the content of primary sources. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have read those linked and others and they all are clearly distinct that they video had false claims, but separately quote YT reason to block for violating "misinformation". That is two different pieces of information that is currently being synthezed inappropriately. And when we have quoted information on sources, we have to be extremely careful with any paraphrasing to not include OR, or otherwise we quote the needed phrase directly. It would be fully against OR to misquote YT's quoted reason as "false claims". -- Masem ( t) 19:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think is going wrong, so here e.g. is NBC's discussion of YouTube's reasoning: "We removed content from Senator Paul’s channel for including claims that masks are ineffective in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19, in accordance with our COVID-19 medical misinformation policies," NBC specifically describes the claims in question thus, Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection," adding that “cloth masks don’t work." The current version of our article reads, In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective. I don't see any WP:SYNTH there whatsoever. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I read the current text as putting the description of the video as part of YT's reasoning, which is not true. As I've said a far better solution is to start with the general assessment that Paul's mask ideas are false claims, and several points related to that, and then conclude with the YT ban without having to state anything about false claims, just misinformation. You can get more of a picture of the situation, and avoid the misattribution aspect. -- Masem ( t) 20:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:Ver and wp:nor establish a sourcing / sourcability requirement for inclusion, not a mandate or force for inclusion. Just because a source is generally OK does not mandate including what they wrote. For example, if they say that youtube said something that they didn't say. Or, if due to such reasons or others, such does not meet the even higher standards of WP:BLP. Saying that YouTube made a damning statement about Paul, and a statement that YouTube never made certainly is an extraordinary claim. North8000 ( talk) 20:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

If you feel that this content is a BLP violation, why don't you remove it immediately? – dlthewave ☎ 20:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually I would recommend just to modify / limit it to what YouTube actually said. But the answer to your question is because it would be out of process because there is a significant discussion about it going on here. North8000 ( talk) 20:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

North8000, I fear you are misreading our article. The current text reads, In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective. The reliable sources establish a sequence: Paul makes statements on YouTube which the RS document to be false; Paul is then suspended by YouTube under its misinformation policy. Our article text doesn't suggest that YouTube made any particular statement about the matter, so you seem to be making up a claim and then interpreting it as EXTRAORDINARY. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, this is with regards to the latter part of the material which you just referenced. North8000 ( talk) 20:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective? That statement has been supported by multiple RS in this discussion, and contradicted by none. Newimpartial ( talk)

I also agree with Masem's rationale even though they are focusing on a different area than me. I think that Masem's main point is that the questioned statement blends both:

• the YT event and
• somebody else's assessment of Paul's statement

into the same sentence and in a way that implies that the "somebody else's assessment" was the reason given by YT for the 1 week suspension. And the a wiki editor doing such is synthesis/OR.

My different aspect is this. If you ask an expert "will this mask certainly prevent transmission of Covid", they will say "no" because it is only partially effective at that. So there are variable meanings of "effective" and under some of those saying "not effective" can be true. Which means that saying "not effective" is an arguable statement rather than a categorically false one. So Paul made an arguable statement, not a flatly false one. So a statement that he made a false statement is at best an extraordinary claim and under WP:BLP would need very strong sourcing (that it was a false statement). North8000 ( talk) 18:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

North8000, please stop. This is beginning to get disruptive. I personally don't care that you think Paul made an "arguable statement" and frankly Wikipedia doesn't either. We go by what reliable sources say, and they all say that it was false. Time to drop the stick. – dlthewave ☎ 19:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Dlthewave: Quit the crap of mis-characterizing what I wrote.North8000 ( talk) 20:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why can't the sentence be turned around, to avoid the potential inference that YouTube made a declaration as to the falsity of Paul's claim? That is, change:

In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective.

to something like:

In August 2021, Paul published a video in which he falsely claimed that masks are not effective, after which he was suspended from YouTube for a week under their misinformation policy.

Does this address the concerns? 172.195.96.244 ( talk) 11:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That works considerably better imo, but change after which to for which. nableezy - 20:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

My interest is to rough out and encourage a more structural analysis of that type of thing in the context of policies and guidelines rather than in how that particular article ends up. I think that your idea resolves the issue that Masem is focusing on / describing (?) which is an improvement. North8000 ( talk) 20:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it is seen as an improvement... Masem, does this address your concern? Newimpartial, what do you think?

North8000, I understand that there is a big picture here, but it is also made up of little pictures and perhaps addressing enough of the little pictures will make clearer some general approaches? Certainly, if Masem is in favour of this change, it would illustrate how tweaks that collaboratively trying to address concerns can be achieved without compromising core policies like WP:RS and WP:NPOV. The interpretation that you raise, however, would violate core policies as there are RS that report on the falsity of Paul's claim... and the interpretation that you present on an "arguable claim" would be prohibited WP:OR in article space unless you can cite it in RS and in such prominence as to make it WP:DUE for inclusion.

Nableezy, I think that changing "after which" to "for which" alters the presentation of sequence into a presentation of causation. According to YouTube's statement, the cause of the suspension was violation of their policy on misinformation. Without a definitive statement from YouTube, to conclude that the falsity of the statement on masks (about which we have RS) was the policy violation on which they acted is an WP:OR / WP:SYNTH violation. It is likely true, or at least a factor, but WP policy forbids declaring that there is a causative connection. (This is, as I understand it, Masem's point.) There is, however, unquestionable evidence of a sequence of events and facts, including:

1. Paul posted the video in question
2. The video contains falsehoods according to RS
3. The video was removed and YouTube issued a suspension for a misinformation policy violation

My proposed text covers this sequence (except for stating that the video was taken down, which could be added – I don't recall if YouTube made any comment on that. It is true that some readers will likely think post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which is a logical fallacy though it is likely true that the suspension was propter hoc in this case. 172.195.96.244 ( talk) 02:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I considered the causality part, but I would read the for which to be in reference to the video. And he was banned for the video. nableezy - 02:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer "subsequently" (but not "consequently"), rather than "after which", but that is a matter of prose style more than anything else. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Just looking at this AP News source that quotes

“We removed content from Senator Paul’s channel for including claims that masks are ineffective in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19, in accordance with our COVID-19 medical misinformation policies,” YouTube said in a statement. “We apply our policies consistently across the platform, regardless of speaker or political views.”

So, YouTube did take the video down and stated that "including claims that masks are ineffective in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19" in the video was inconsistent with their "COVID-19 medical misinformation policies." And, I take your point that the video being the reason "for which" the suspension was imposed is supported by this RS. Maybe something like:

In August 2021, Paul published a YouTube video that falsely claimed "that masks are ineffective in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19."[r1][r2][r3+] YouTube took down the video and suspended Paul for a week under their COVID-19 misinformation policy.[r1][r3+]

[r1] = the AP source

[r2] = a Washington Post fact check on Paul's mask claims but does not address the YouTube video specifically

[r3+] = a bunch of sources that cover the ban and the claim, perhaps including the NYT, The Guardian, NBC News, PBS, Forbes, etc...

Given the strength of the YouTube statement, I am struggling now to NPOV and RS concerns that exist here. 172.195.96.244 ( talk) 02:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That's better -- but I think a better solution is what I've noted above in that outside of the YouTube video , there is more sourcing that can be used to discuss Paul's mask claims in general and they are considered false claims and other aspects related to what Paul (as a lawmaker) had gone out to do related to that. Then there's no reason to force the "false claims" bit in discussion of the YouTube ban since that would already be established. But I would not be opposed to this version as it does what I was concerned with, the mixing of the video's description with YouTube's specific reasoning. -- Masem ( t) 13:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

My point in saying I was more interested in the generalities was just to say "don't worry about me" if people want to edit the article because I'm not particularly worried about that sentence in that article. And my point was not to insert "arguably true/false", it was to say that escalating that reality into saying that he made a categorically false statement is an extradordinary claim and thus needs stronger-than-usual sourcing under WP:BLP. Or possibly including more of the context/qualifying wording that the more careful sources presumably included.North8000 ( talk) 13:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose current and proposed wording. The crutch of the discussion revolves around two questions: (1) Did Rand Paul say masks are ineffective? and (2) is it false to say that masks are ineffective. It seems to be pretty well established in WP:RS that masks are indeed effective. So question 2 answered. Question 1 is a bit more complicated, but I would like to explain why I oppose the addition of (according to YouTube). This addition is not acceptable because RS does not emphasize YouTubes viewpoint, they explain the RS truth, not YouTube truth. While I could go back and forth in my head to decide whether or not I though Pauls comments arose to the level of saying "mask are ineffective", but that would be WP:OR. So I'm obligated to make this decision purely on whether or not RS said that Paul claimed masks as being ineffective. WaPo said this: Rand Paul’s false claim that masks don’t work. ABC said this: he posted a video claiming most masks are ineffective in combatting COVID-19. Politico said this:In the video, Paul, whose background is in ophthalmology, criticized the effectiveness of “over the counter” and cloth-based masks. “They don’t prevent infection,” he said at one point in the roughly three-minute video. “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science, which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.” Some sources say strictly that Paul thinks masks are ineffective, but some others elaborate on how he said "most masks" or specified he was talking about over the counter masks and cloth ones. I think Wikipedia should follow suit. The sentence should read: In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that most "over the counter" and cloth masks are not effective. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• It needs to be fixed - this is exactly why WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS should apply. Proposed new wording (which clearly needs some tweaking): Citing their misinformation policy, YouTube suspended Paul for a week after he published a video wherein he said “Most of the masks you get over-the-counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” He later changed his statement to “cloth masks don’t work.” In January 2022, The New York Times reported that the CDC clarified its stance on various kinds of masks, acknowledging that the cloth masks frequently worn by Americans do not offer as much protection as surgical masks or respirators. In the CDC’s list of key messages, with updates as of 28 January 2022, they state: “While all masks and respirators provide some level of protection, properly fitting respirators provide the highest level of protection.” "Some level of protection" is not "prevention". Isn't Rand Paul a medical prof? Maybe he knows a little something about masks because it appears the CDC agrees with him. Atsme 💬 📧 03:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What counts as DUE when discussing how a politician voted to various legislation? I'm asking in context to a range of good faith edits made by Fenetrejones. The edits typically are in the form of person voted for/against a particular law and often cite sources that contain roll calls of votes like house.gov, govtrack.us, RollCall etc. They are also typically mass added thus most/everyone who voted for/against the bill in question had an edit (examples [8] [9] [10] [11]). Note that I don't question the accuracy of this information, only it's weight. How do we decide if it's UNDUE to list how a politician voted on an issue?

I would argue that at minimum we need a RS discussing the bill and discussing how the politician in question was significant in it's passage/non-passage. If an article concludes by saying "the following senators voted for/against this bill" then I would say that doesn't establish weight for inclusion in the senator/politician's BLP even if it might be due in an article about the bill. My view, backed by various RfCs, is that WEIGHT doesn't have reciprocity. That A is DUE in an article about B doesn't mean B is DUE in an article about A. As edited there appears to be no selection criteria why these specific bills were picked to be included in the various BLPs which means they may just be ones an editor is interested in. What standards should nominally apply? I think it is an important question in cases where there are mass additions since reverting many edits can look like hounding whereas reverting a single edit often is seen as simple, good faith editorial disagreement. Springee ( talk) 14:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Vote positions should be included if the specific lawmakers vote is the subject of commentary by multiple sources. Include a vote position based on first party sources - without any reasoning given - is akin to OR or POV pushing on a BLP page. Even one third party or secondary RS may be too much POV. Only when such a vote has multiple points of commentary should we include. -- Masem ( t) 15:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Votes that can be cited only to primary sources are not NPOV and should not be placed standalone in a BLP. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• There is no “right answer” to this… but the key here is to avoid RECENTISM. Remember that a bio article should take a long term, historical tone. The focus should be on the politician’s career/life as a whole. It takes time to determine whether a politician’s vote on a particular bill has any significance to that politician’s career/life. It might, but then again it might not. For example, did the specific vote have an impact on subsequent runs for office? If so, then it is DUE to mention it on his/her bio. If not, then it may well be UNDUE to mention it. We need some passage of time to know what the significance actually is.

That said… Wikipedia does not need to ignore recent votes… if (for example) the individual politician’s vote determined whether the bill passed or not, it would definitely be DUE to mention that vote in an article about the bill. The RECENTISM issues are much shorter in that context. Blueboar ( talk) 16:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem and SPECIFICO that we would need secondary sourcing. Lawmakers vote on many bills, some of which have tons of unrelated amendments thrown on, and then their next opponent tries to make a campaign ad based on those votes without context. We need to be better than that. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I agree that secondary sources are required and they need to be more than a passing reference. In the U.S., many pieces of legislation are developed through compromise. So legislators may vote for bills that contain things they oppose. In parliamentary systems, legislators may vote with their party if there is there is a whip, after having opposed the legislation in party caucus. TFD ( talk) 16:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• That is fair. Fenetrejones ( talk) 16:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Secondary sources are definitely needed. User:The Four Deuces also makes a very important point about American politics. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Secondary sources are absolutely required for votes by politicians. Many votes are for procedural reasons or have vital context that primary sources miss (eg. a politician might vote against the "give everyone one pony" bill because they support the "give everyone two ponies" bill instead.) Since it's lawmaking, it's part of the legal field, where interpretation and analysis that only a secondary source can provide are necessary to even start discussing it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Again, even with secondary sourcing, discussing how a specific politician voted may be DUE in an article about the bill/law (where that vote may have influenced whether or not the bill passed into law)… and yet UNDUE in a bio article about the politician (where that vote is but one of many in his/her career). Blueboar ( talk) 14:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Not voting, just commenting. I ran into an issue about this recently where I noticed copy/paste paragraphs being inserted into loads of political BLPs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and many more. In this case, the content in question was sourced with sources that did not mention the respective subjects at all (no lists or anything). My edits were systematically undone, and a discussion started on my talk page... TLDR, that user added one of these "list" sources (that only mention the subject in list format) to justify keeping the content. This copy/paste style of editing is just horrible lazy and I pretty much agree with all that's been said above: if there is no substantive info on why the subject voted for X or Y (in a secondary source or wherever), then it's just purely recentism and undue. So how should I proceed when I see these copy/paste vote sections/sentences/paragraphs? Any tips? -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 01:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that many RSs covered the event/law/etc means the event/law/etc is likely NOTABLE in it's own right. However, that doesn't mean it's support by an individual is DUE in the individual's BLP unless those RSs say the individual was important/significant etc to the event/law/etc. Being mentioned as "one of X number of senators who supported..." is the sort of passing mention that was discussed above. Consider a case where a RS said Senator Doe drafted the legislation and used the following tricks to keep it alive. [more detail about Doe's efforts]... The following Senators supported it [list]". The legislation would likely be DUE in Senator Doe's article but not in the BLPs of the senators on the [list]. This is because Doe was mentioned as a major player in the legislation while the others were just mentioned in passing. Do note that if we were talking about someone like say Ted Kennedy who had a very long legislative history we would then have to decide if this is DUE within the scope of his long history. If Senator Doe is a jr member with limited history then it's easier to say this is significant in context of their BLP. Springee ( talk) 12:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on recent events I have observed, I have reasonable cause to wonder about the true rationale for this topic, as well concerns about efforts of some to preemptively wave it around to suggest it is established policy when it is not. This includes, but is not limited to, objecting to a primary source to justify removal of content, then when a valid secondary source is provided, objecting to that as well to remove the content again. soibangla ( talk) 17:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you think is the "true rationale" for this topic? Are you suggesting a motive beyond what I original asked about? Can you provide an example that we can discuss? At least in terms of examples I think you are referring to this discussion [12]. In that case a Vox article was provided as a RS. The objection raised was that the Vox sources basically was an article saying, 'Here is a bill. This is a list of those who voted against it'. That example occurred after I started this topic but it is the sort of content that fits nicely into the question being asked. Based on the discussion the Vox source doesn't provide WEIGHT for inclusion in any particular BLP. Springee ( talk) 18:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Blueboar and whoever else said specifically to avoid RECENTISM, and that BLPs should take a long term, historical tone. WP should not be acting like a polling source or a voting scorecard. Atsme 💬 📧 03:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Israel has been accused by three notable human rights organizations of committing the crime of apartheid in its treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, those being B'tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. We have an article Israel and the apartheid analogy which discusses this and other accusations directed against Israel regarding the crime of apartheid, but just regarding the three human rights groups, their accusations have been widely covered in reliable sources. For example:

• Amnesty's report on Israeli actions constituting apartheid were widely covered around the world, eg: Washington Post, BBC, Haaretz, NPR, Al-Jazeera, Reuters, The Forward, The Guardian's editorial board devoted space to it.
• Human Rights Watch report on Israeli actions constituting apartheid were widely covered around the world, eg: The Forward, NPR, The Nation, Al-Jazeera, BBC, The Guardian, NYTimes, The Independent, Reuters, CNN, Deutsche Welle

Several users have claimed the any mention of this material in the Israel article under the section on the occupied territories is a NPOV violation and WP:UNDUE. At issue is the material removed in this diff which includes a user oddly placing a serious of {{ POV statement}} tags within a direct quote. Do the source above establish weight to include this material quoted here?

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians within the occupied territories has drawn accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid by human rights groups such as B'tselem, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, with the criticism extending in to its treatment of Palestinians within Israel as well. Israel rejects that it is guilty of the crime against humanity, saying that the claim peddles "lies, inconsistencies, and unfounded assertions that originate from well-known anti-Israeli hate organisations" while the Palestinians called the report a "detailed affirmation of the cruel reality of entrenched racism, exclusion, oppression, colonialism, apartheid, and attempted erasure that the Palestinian people have endured".

Does the removed material include appropriately the accusations and relevant responses? Or do these source not demonstrate that the accusations have sufficient weight to be included in our article? nableezy - 20:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems both appropriate and balanced and concise enough to be included. Doesn't say in wikivoice that Israel was complicit, just that reports made the claim. -- Masem ( t) 20:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I certainly reject the UNDUE, it is talked about enough in reliable sources! As to NPOV the various points of view seem to me to be be well covered. Anyway the proper way to deal with a NPOV issue is not to delete stuff and shove it under a carpet, it is to research the sources better and make sure it is dealt with properly covering the various points of view according to weight in reliable souyrces. NadVolum ( talk) 12:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This article has been edited by admirers and critics of the 2nd Marquess of Sligo, who was (depending on which paragraph of the article you read) was either a champion of freedom or a greedy slave-owning barstard. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Or… perhaps… he was a champion of freedom who was also a greedy slave-owning bastard. Real life is rarely “all or nothing”… and historical figures were flawed (just as we are today). We can praise the good historical figures did - while at the same time condemning their flaws. Neither should be hidden. Blueboar ( talk) 17:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I've found that there are many Yazidi articles on enwiki that have fallen victim to Kurdish POV. The articles are about Yazidis who were born in Armenia. And Armenian Yazidis generally consider themselves a separate ethnic group. In Armenia, the Yazidis have been recognized as an independent ethnic group since 2002. Furthermore, their language is officially registered there with the name "Ezdiki" (Yazidi language). Yezidis are not Kurds ( talk) 20:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The user above is duck sockpuppet [ [13]] Shadow4dark ( talk) 21:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear, thank you @ Shadow4dark. I didn't even realize. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 21:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I opened a case an hour ago [14]. -- Semsûrî ( talk) 21:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't regularly check. Thank you! Philipnelson99 ( talk) 21:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not a reason to ignore the POV issues in the Yazidi related articles. It is always Kurdish vandalism in this articles. Yazidis are an ethnoreligious group and don’t belong to the Kurdish ethnicity. regards 109.129.39.53 ( talk) 11:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

New sockpuppet account here. [15] -- Semsûrî ( talk) 18:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Would some others mind taking a look at New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal as well as the related New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Freedom of Information releases), Issues relating to the use of drug detection dogs in New South Wales and New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission investigations)? They're all covering the same subject and have been created by essentially the same person. The articles seem to rely heavily on primary sources as well as some user-generated sources like social media posts, etc., but there also does seem enough secondary coverage to perhaps justify at least a main article about the matter. One of my main concerns is whether the use of the word "scandal" may be undue since it's not clear whether that's how it's being reported by main media sources. There seems to lots of issues at play here so it might be a "scandal" in some sense, but not sure Wikipedia's voice should be used in this way. I'm bringing this up here for discussion because it involves multiple articles and I thought would be easier to discuss in one place, then on multiple article talk pages. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Going through the list of source for the first article, I counted only one primary source from Twitter. If you stretch the definition, an official statement from NSWPOL on their Facebook page is also cited. That's out of 180 citations. For the drug dog article I counted three Facebook posts out of 58 citations and on the third. The other two pages have been deleted, probably wrongfully as I don't see a link to a discussion page for it. But looking at their histories, I again don't see anything notable. Kylesenior ( talk) 07:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually looking at the history of the first article, I see some things were removed. Some is justified, some is not. Removing official statements from NSWPOL or from news organisations just because they came from Facebook isn't appropriate. Kylesenior ( talk) 08:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Kylesenior: we shouldn't generally be citing official police statements directly wherever they appear. At best perhaps as additional sources when the police statement has received attention on secondary sources. Ditto for news organisation, actually even stronger. I'm not even sure why news organisations are making official statements but whatever they did that makes them issue an official statement we should only cover it if it receives attention on secondary sources. The focus of these articles is what the NSW Police have allegedly done after all, not what the media have done. Putting aside official statements we should also take great care with media coverage from social media. As discussed at WP:RSN, media coverage that is exclusively on social media seems to often be of poorer quality than that on their websites or in paper/broadcasts. Nil Einne ( talk) 06:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC_-_Should_NATO_be_displayed_in_the_infobox_as_a_support_belligerent_providing_indirect_military_aid%3F

Maxorazon ( talk) 09:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In this article flag of malaysia. In the designer section in flag of malaysia wikipedia page. at this wikipedia page. Malaysia flag is design by mohammad hamzah which is inspired and borrow 2 major design from johor flag and east india company flag. But this section say that malaysia flag design which is red and white stripes is from majapahit kingdom. Red and white stripes is from east india company flag. Because before malaysia indepence east india company flag is use in malaysia teritory under british rule. this section say east india company flag is from majapahit flag . I think this is not true. And this source for this section https://www.republika.co.id/berita/pw1udm385/getahgetih-majapahit-dwi-warna-hingga-bendera-malaysia this section source is from news web in indonesia language i think. I dont think we can use news web to become source. Is not book or international journal is news page. And I dont know how to read indonesian . But this wikipedia page is in english. So better use source in english language so the other editor can read too. And when i add in talk discussion my discussion is deleted and no one respond. I need third party editor to end this dispute. If can i need editor from england or united kingdom who know history about malaysia and east india company. This is the section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tota negi ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: The OP has been blocked for WP:SOCK and I've restored the content they removed per WP:EVADE. Non-English sources are acceptable per WP:NONENG as long as they meet the definition of WP:RS. The source in question does have an English language website and maybe there's an English version of the same article. If there are concerns that the source isn't reliable, then the perhaps the best thing to do would be to discuss it on the article's talk page. The OP did start Talk:Flag of Malaysia#Flag of malaysia design source, but only about 15 minutes before posting here at NPOVN. Article talk page posts are always responded to immediataly and you sometimes just have to more patient than 15 minutes. It might be a good idea to seek input from the members of WP:MALAYSIA and WP:INDONESIA since that's where you're likely to find editors knowlegeable of both the source that's being cited and the content it's intended to support. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

An editor has repeatedly added a liink at the top of the Critique of work article to associate that page with the recent subreddit called R/antiwork, on which we have a separate article here. The "Critique of work" is a body of work that dates back to the Marxist writer Paul Lafargue over 100 years ago. The current subreddit is a separate and distinct topic that has recently been added to the Critique of work lead here]. The entire Critique of work page has been written by a single editor as a separate page rather than as part of the R/antiwork page.

How do others suggest sorting this out to avoid conflating the current online subreddit with the historical scholarship and polemic ? SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The article for Rheinmetall, Germany's largest defense contractor, has been sourced entirely to the firm's corporate website. User:RandomCanadian blanked most of the prose two weeks ago. I would like to put in some work this weekend to try to get it up to snuff. I think the content should be restored for the time being. Tagging Wikipedia:Nazi affiliation task force User:Shushugah, User:Ermenrich, User:asilvering, User:Ploni, User:buidhe. Schierbecker ( talk) 03:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've found instances of content critical of Rheinmetall being scrubbed: criticism section deleted, "Nazi" deleted. An editor who claimed to be a Rheinmetall spox also made several content additions. Another editor apparently straight up copied a Rheinmetall press release. Schierbecker ( talk) 03:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I may not be able to help much in the coming days, but thank you for bringing this to the NPOV noticeboard and pinging the task force. From the Nazi-affiliation side of things, the fact that even the last good version leaves a gap in the company's history between 1938 and 1956 definitely needs to be addressed. (See e.g. [16], [17]. Heck, even the corporate website mentions their use of slave labour during the War.) – Ploni ( talk) 04:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Gosh, what a mess. I tried the de-wiki article and it's got similar problems - mostly all "company website" or "critical news articles". I'll start a talk page thread for collecting sources, since none of this is useful to expand the article at this stage. -- asilvering ( talk) 05:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of principle, I don't think there's any reason why we would want to keep the article in its current state, even as a temporary stopgap. It is full of corporate jargon and reads pretty much like a PR release [I might have purged some of the more egregious bits earlier], even the lead is total bollocks, and every single source is from the corporate website (a big no on multiple grounds, including not just NPOV but the basic fact that the company's website is a primary source and encyclopedias should most definitively not be based entirely on primary sources, less so when they are clearly likely to distort some important historical elements, even on a temporary basis). Having little, but correct, information, is better than having much, but mostly hogwash, of the same. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It's possible to find some sources about the company on JSTOR ( [18]); and looking for specific periods in time (ex. WW2) also yields results. So it should be possible to rewrite this, WP:TNT-style, without having to base this extensively (or, ideally, without a trace of it) on the company's website... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a merge request at Talk:Autism spectrum#Merger proposal; Outdated terminology/taxonomy. I'm not entirely sure if this is the best place for the request but it does have to do with a certain point of view and its incompatibility with WP:MEDRS. (I also recommend seeing: User talk:Wretchskull#'Stop edit warring and achieve consensus' (re: autism spectrum)). Thank you - Wretchskull ( talk) 20:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wretchskull please replace your non-neutral wording here with a neutral notice, such as {{ Discussion notice}}. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope it's better now. Thank you - Wretchskull ( talk) 20:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd remove the link to your talk page, but this is already much better. Thanks :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There is also a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC on sources justifying a merge of "autism" and "autism spectrum". -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The page Qatar and State Sponsored Terrorism looks very well sourced on the face value, but a careful examination of all statements and sources used to back them would reveal that this article is standing largely on falsified sources. It might have been started as a political attack and propaganda against the subject. The tone is largely tilted against the subject with several unsupported allegations.

It was started in 2015 with 24 sources, but all 24 sources were unverifiable as they all lead to dead end. The sources used to start the article contained single words while some were phrases as title of the sources but provided no further details such as the name of the publisher, date of publication, page number(s) (for printed or offline sources), the authors of the sources, and links (for online sources), ISSN or ISBN etc. For example, the sources only contained words such “Mendick” used 7 times, “Pecquet” used 4 times, “Dettmer” used 3 times in the article. Please see the first version of the article here ^[1] and scroll down to the references section for proper examination of the sources. The sources were completely unverifiable against the statements contained in the article, but how this article escaped proper vetting to emerge in public space and remained since 2015 is difficult to understand.

In all sections of the article, sources cited do not relate to the statements in the article. I am not a Wikipedia editor but I have often used Wikipedia as a starting point of my research due to quality sources it provides which serve as lead. But in this particular article the sources cited are largely misleading. What the creator and those who extensively edited this article did was taking random links, change the titles of the sources to reflect the statement it claims to support. A casual look at the citations would make readers believe that the sources cited are relevant to the article due to falsified titles (headlines) but when the source is visited, one only finds completely different titles and contents that are miles apart from the article’s focus.

Now look at the following statements in the article and the sources cited in the following section and subsections:

Activities of various groups in Qatar

ISIL

Almost or all sources cited in this subsection are non existent. Have a look at the paragraphs below and the sources cited:

“Abd al Rahman al Nuaymi, a Qatari citizen, worked as a go-between of ISIS's predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), with donors to AQI from Qatar. “More rumors about Qatar's alleged cooperation with ISIS affiliates surfaced in early 2015. On February 11, 2015 Sudan Tribune reported controversial statements by Yahia Sadam, an official of the Minni Minnawi Sudanese liberation movement who accused Qatar of endorsing the genocide perpetrated by Sudanese militiamen in Darfur by funneling money though the Sudanese branch of Qatar Charity, active in Darfur since 2010. Sadam claimed that Qatar Charity, which has purportedly signed a cooperation agreement with the Sudanese troops, was "building housing complexes in remote and isolated areas to harbor and train extremist groups". Those camps are believed to be hosting ISIS fighters, a concern voiced by attendees from the intelligence community at a March 2015 event at the United States Institute for Peace”. Now see the sources cited here ^{[2] [3] [4]}

Al-Qaeda

In 2003, The New York Times wrote: "Private support from prominent Qataris to Al Qaeda is a sensitive issue that is said to infuriate George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence. After the Sept. 11 attacks, another senior Qaeda operative, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who may have been the principal planner of the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, was said by Saudi intelligence officials to have spent two weeks in late 2001 hiding in Qatar, with the help of prominent patrons, after he escaped from Kuwait."

Please check the source cited for the above statement in the article. It is not verifiable. And it leads nowhere. And gives no clue where the original source cited may be found.

Here is another one:

“Khalifa Muhammad Turki al-Subaiy and Abd al-Rahman bin Umayr al-Nuaymi are senior-level financiers of al-Qaeda. Al-Subaiy was a previous employee of the Qatar Central Bank. In 2014, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David Cohen, announced that the two men were living freely in Qatar. Both men were on a worldwide terrorist blacklist.[4] The two men were tried and acquitted due to Qatari intelligence being unable to demonstrate evidence without "compromising its intelligence gathering capabilities" In response to Cohen's announcement and the release of the U.S. intelligence report, reporters from The Telegraph contacted Qatari officials. According to the Telegraph, "Qatar has refused to answer"

For the statement above, check carefully the sources cited in the article here ^[5]

Below are three lengthy paragraphs in the article, read and examine the sources cited for these paragraphs:

“At one time, Al-Nuaymi was the president of the Qatar Football Association. The U.S. report said that he sent more than 1.25 million British pounds per month to Al-Qaeda jihadist fighters in Iraq. He sent hundreds of thousands of pounds to fighters in Syria. The United States designated Al-Nuaymi as a terrorist in 2013. Britain sanctioned him in 2014. Al-Nuaymi is knowingly associated with Abd al-Wahhab Muhammad 'Abd al-Rahman Al-Humayqani, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) whom the US Treasury sanctioned in 2013 for his role as fundraiser and executive for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The US Treasury claimed that in 2012 Al-Nuaymi supported financially a charity directed by Humayqani.[39] By exploiting his status in the charitable community, Humayqani allegedly raised funds and facilitated transfers from al-Qaeda supporters based in Saudi Arabia to Yemen.[39] Reportedly Humayqani had high level connections with al-Qaeda top operatives and often acted as an AQAP representative while meeting with Yemeni authorities. On behalf of AQAP, he allegedly recruited individuals for several murderous attacks in Yemen, and personally directed a "group of armed AQAP associates that intended to carry out attacks on Yemeni government facilities and institutions, including a Yemeni government building in al-Bayda Governorate". About ten months after being sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury, Nuaimi was also restrained from doing business in the UK.[38] Al-Subaiy and Al-Nuaymi have close ties to senior leaders in the Qatari government. Robert Medick, a reporter for The Telegraph's "Stop the Funding of Terror" campaign, wrote in 2014 that Qatar "turned a blind eye to terrorist financiers operating within their midst". According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Subayi also provided financial support to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Pakistani al-Qaeda senior officer purported to be one of the architects of the 9/11 attacks.” ^[6]

Now let’s look at this subsection:

Jabhat Al-Nusra

“Qatar has sponsored al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, the al-Nusra Front since 2013. The jihadist group, established within the framework of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's plans for an Islamic State in the Levant, has parted ways from ISIS in 2013 due to leadership conflicts.[49] The group was designated as terrorist entity by the UN, the EU, Canada, the U.S., Israel, Hong Kong, Switzerland, and Australia. Nonetheless, Qatar has continuously supported it through ransom payments and fundraising campaigns as a strategic ally in Syria, committed to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad”.

Here are some of the sources cited for the statement above ^{[7] [8] [9]}

Below is another paragraph with another weighty statement with the sources cited here

“In addition to ransom payments, the Qatar government as well as Qatari citizens have sponsored large-scale fundraising campaigns to solicit "support for the procurement of weapons, food and supplies for al-Nusra in Syria" which have often relied on social media.[51] "Madid Ahl al-Sham", a fundraising campaign launched in 2013 and shut down by Qatari authorities only in 2015, became "one of the preferred conduits for donations intended for the group" ^[10]

This page no doubt was created in bad faith and the intention was to attack the subject. 1600-1700s ( talk) 07:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement regarding the sources in the 2015 version being "unverifiable as they all lead to dead end" is utter nonsense. The citations, to “Mendick” etc, are single names, certainly - the names clearly being the authors of the material named in the bibliography.

As for problems with article content now, I'd certainly agree that there seem to be at least a few questionable sources cited, and the article would clearly benefit from input from uninvolved contributors familiar with Wikipedia policy (and with people willing fix the inconsistent citation formats used). I'd advise 1600-1700s to tone down the rhetoric, to look more carefully at citations etc before jumping to conclusions (note that e.g. the statement that the 2003 The New York Times citation "leads nowhere" is again due to not looking at the material in a 'bibliography' section, where 'Tyler' is the author of the NYT material cited [19]), and to at least attempt to discuss issues on the article talk page first. This is clearly a difficult subject, but wild rhetoric [20] followed by attempts to remove the article entirely [21] really isn't the best approach. If talk page discussions get nowhere, there are options available for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution which can be followed. If that doesn't work, then maybe the rhetoric could be justified. But convincing people it is justified will require doing the groundwork beforehand. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment but describing my statement that the sources in the first version of the article are unverifiable as “utter nonsense” only tells who you are but I would not go that low with you. I urge you to kindly take some moments to review the statements (allegations) and all sources cited in the article and be honest enough in your judgment.

All those sources are misleading. Do not just rely on the titles in the references but review the sources cited one-by-one and you would see that there are very dubious. The sources cited do not support the statements (allegations) they claim to back. If you can’t review the entire sources in the article, Please review few sources in the article I cited here as misleading.

I never knew anything about article’s talk page, but thank you for drawing my attention to it. But it seems to me that you too did not visit the talk page before attacking me. If you did, you would see the lengthy discussion that had taken place in the talk page and all concerns and issues raised against the biased nature of the article are consistent with the issues I have raised.

If all unsupported statements and fake sources are taken down from the article, the title of the page too would have to change.

And I would propose that the title should be “Terrorism Allegation Against Qatar”. I think that the proposed title is fair and objective than the current title.

Since everyone can edit Wikipedia I will possibly learn how to edit. But first, I will post the suggestion being made here on the talk page. 1600-1700s ( talk) 20:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@ 1600-1700s: I'm not going to review any of the sources. Whatever you want to call it, in the opening comment you made this comment

It was started in 2015 with 24 sources, but all 24 sources were unverifiable as they all lead to dead end. The sources used to start the article contained single words while some were phrases as title of the sources but provided no further details such as the name of the publisher, date of publication, page number(s) (for printed or offline sources), the authors of the sources, and links (for online sources), ISSN or ISBN etc.

Yet a quick review of the article [22] shows you are wrong. The full details for all those citations seem to be in the article as AndyTheGrump has already said. Frankly, even without reviewing, it was easy to guess you were probably wrong. The original article used some variant of WP:CITESHORT which is a valid albeit uncommon style on Wikipedia. Possibly the names of the sections and their locations should have been moved around, not sure but that's a minor issue. I'd note even if the article had used inline WP:Parenthetical referencing, while this is deprecated now, it wasn't then. More importantly even with the use of such a style, the further details are still provided (or should be for the style to be valid), it's just that we don't accept it on Wikipedia for various reasons. The citations are still as valid as they would be with an acceptable style, they just need to be modified to comply with our norms. And when you didn't notice the full details were in the article and so were spectacularly wrong about such a crucial detail I don't think it's surprising editors are reluctant to investigate your other claims further. Nil Einne ( talk) 06:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

On the off chance anyone cares, OP has been sock-blocked. CU has them related to a couple blocked socks in the page history, such as Mr J Stone and Jidano.. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I have limited experience with issues like this so please bear with me. It appears that there are divergent strategies emerging for the management of COVID, like the recent decisions by Sweden, Norway, and even in the UK, where the independent advisory committee still does not recommend vaccination in ages 5-11. Denmark has removed all mandates and restrictions including masks and booster shots. How this creates a problem is on articles like the Joe Rogan Experience, where Rogan's statements are described(by RSes, indeed) as misinformation or false, even though his opinions are comparable to the Scandinavian approaches—specifically on the subject of vaccinating children for COVID. I am certain there are many articles affected. I have not yet made additions on these pages(regarding the sources below); I think it would be better to front-run potential edit disputes with a discussion, and to have a harmonized discussion on the matter.

Sources that are divergent, just to list a select few:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-recommending-covid-vaccines-kids-aged-5-12-2022-01-27/
https://apnews.com/7d45f190a96e4d22e62c40345a1c39b3
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/denmark-covid-restrictions/621482/
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-pandemics-united-nations-ca046d38f7e78ad7150a0a8d95d81433
-- SmolBrane ( talk) 20:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Just because they're doing it, doesn't make it a good idea (or make his statements true). Sumanuil 02:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The decisions aren't based purely on how many people in total will be badly affected or die. A vaccine must be far better than the alternative, rather like self driving cars must be far better than human drivers. People seem to not be so worried if a person catches a disease and dies, but get worked up if it is a side effect of a measure supposed to help them - even if many fewer might die overall. Also covid vaccines can occasionally have bad side effects so there's a balance to be made. So different countries and governments can come to quite different conclusions. Decisions here are a bit like the trolley problem. Anyway the best Wikipedia can do is just document anything that seems to have become worth noting according to reliable sources. NadVolum ( talk) 15:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I probably should have used the phrase 'POV fork' in here, since that's really the issue at stake. I agree that there's 'a balance to be made', but RSes are happy to declare those alternative positions as false or misinformation. At least when stated by Rogan. If RSes are divergent, yet speak in certainties, it's our job to clarify that right? Perhaps the 'false' statements by Rogan could be appended with “some jurisdictions have hesitated to approve or recommend COVID-19 vaccination in children”, with appropriate sourcing. SmolBrane ( talk) 15:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@ SmolBrane: can you describe what part of the article you feel needs to change? Because AFAICT, neither Joe Rogan nor Joe Rogan Experience make any commentary on vaccinating children whether now or when you first posted [23] [24]. The only thing close is this part Rogan made false remarks about COVID-19 vaccines, in particular claiming that young, healthy people do not need to be vaccinated against the virus.' and 'Part of the criticism was that there have been notable cases affecting young, healthy people.' But it's clear from the cited sources that this is not referring to children. The example given by Rogan is "But if you’re like 21 years old, and you say to me, should I get vaccinated". This is even quoted in a footnote in Joe Rogan although weirdly not Joe Rogan Experience.

Perhaps we could also quote what Rogan said in a footnote in the Experience article to make it clear that Joe Rogan is not referring to children, personally I don't see any harm in that. Although IMO even without a quotation, "young, healthy people" doesn't suggest children, it's not the way you'd normally refer to children, especially not 5-11 year olds. Rogan himself (as per our sources) said "if you're a healthy person, and you're exercising all the time, and you're young, and you’re eating well, like, I don't think you need to worry about this." which even without him having specified 21, is the way you might talk to a 21 year old, or maybe an older teen, but probably not the way you'd talk to a 14 year old let alone a 5-11 year old.

Per our source Rogan also

suggested that COVID-19 is not “statistically dangerous for children.”
“I can tell you as someone who has — both my children got the virus. It was nothing,” he continued. “I mean, I hate to say that if someone’s children died from this. I’m very sorry that that happened. I’m not in any way diminishing that. But I'm saying the personal experience that my children had with COVID was nothing.”

but this is not something we comment on.

Nil Einne ( talk) 03:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way looking at sources that don't even halfway mention the topic i a good indication on Wikipedia that one is involved in WP:OR. The articles should be based on reliable sources that are pretty directly releant to the topic. NadVolum ( talk) 12:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The one thing I do wonder about is the amount of his article spent on this compared to his other views. Surely his views on this don't warrant so much coverage compared to everything else? NadVolum ( talk) 13:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, evidently I don't have the time to re-address this. SmolBrane ( talk) 17:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Update, herd immunity

This matter seems to be emerging more clearly on the matter of herd immunity, please see my edit here: Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 6#Herd immunity – Watch this space, POV. Pinging editors here:@ Sumanuil, NadVolum, and Nil Einne:. Please see my related edit here [25] that appears to generate the type of POV fork I'm concerned about. SmolBrane ( talk) 17:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused, is this about Joe Rogan Experience or what? If it's about Joe Rogan Experience, we would need a source which links what Iceland have done with the podcast. Again as it stands, it's unclear to me why such a link would exist, at least based on what we say in our articles. Iceland have said that they don't think vaccinations are sufficient, but they didn't recommend healthy 21 year olds don't get them. They have not recommend people take ivermectin. These are the sort of things our article says Joe Rogan Experience has been criticised over. I don't know what Joe Rogan's views over herd immunity are but it's not something we seem to criticise him over. I'd note that even if herd immunity does make sense for Iceland at this time, it doesn't mean it makes sense for the US at this time, or in the past or whatever so even with Iceland's approach it doesn't mean that Joe Rogan's views are in agreement with experts even on this matter since AFAIK, Joe Rogan tends to mostly speak about the US. That's one of the many reasons we need sources which can analyse what Joe Rogan has said and compared it to what experts have said etc rather than trying to OR something Iceland does with something Joe Rogan said. Nil Einne ( talk) 10:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

These are examples of a bigger problem—as per the section title. Emerging changes in COVID strategy. I suspect this issue will get worse so I'm hoping to have a centralized discussion on the matter. The Rogan vaccine matter is pretty nuanced so I'll concede there. I am concerned about POV forks emerging since RSes are now diverging. The Great Barrington Declaration article reads:

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, warned against the idea of letting the virus spread in order to achieve herd immunity at an 12 October 2020 press briefing, calling the notion "unethical". He said: "Herd immunity is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached … Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it."[9][12] Tedros said that trying to achieve herd immunity by letting the virus spread unchecked would be "scientifically and ethically problematic", especially given that the long-term effects of the disease are still not fully understood.[9][12] He said that though "there has been some discussion recently about the concept of reaching so-called 'herd immunity' by letting the virus spread", "never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic."[9][12][42]

And the COVID-19 pandemic in Iceland article reads:

On 23 February 2022, the Ministry of Health lifted all remaining COVID-19 restrictions, including gathering limits, restricted opening hours for bars, and border restrictions. Adopting a herd immunity approach,[120] the ministry stated that “widespread societal resistance to COVID-19 is the main route out of the epidemic,” and “to achieve this, as many people as possible need to be infected with the virus as the vaccines are not enough, even though they provide good protection against serious illness”.[121]

If this isn't a POV fork yet, it's heading there. This will be easier once RSes acknowledge the divergence no doubt. If more jurisdictions explicitly endorse this approach it will definitely make things easier. SmolBrane ( talk) 18:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How about waiting till "RSes acknowledge the divergence"? It's not Wikipedia's job to generate news. NadVolum ( talk)

Agree also IMO when such a thing happens it'll probably be better to start a new discussion. This discussion started off mostly about Joe Rogan Experience but now seems to be focused on other things which is confusing. Nil Einne ( talk) 06:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Please re-read my initial paragraph on this section; the intent was very holistic and the JRE example was only that--an example. Same with this matter of herd immunity. As far as waiting for RSes to acknowledge--this is not the strategy employed by our NPOV policy; if RSes diverge, we have to prevent POV forks. This is the closest to SYNTH and OR that wiki engages in, for good reason, but we cannot permit POV forks as per policy. POV forks are incoherent and regarded as non-collaborative as per the guideline("All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies"). I'm not in a hurry to resolve this as Iceland's policies still remain an outlier. Do you not identify a POV fork here? SmolBrane ( talk) 17:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't see any WP:Content forking here never mind a POV fork and I don't think there is any actual problem or contradiction in the cases you brought up. NadVolum ( talk) 21:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@ SmolBrane: Whatever your intent, your focus was entirely on Joe Rogan Experience. It was the only example give both in your first reply, and your second followup. You gave no other examples. Within Joe Rogan Experience, the example you gave wasn't something we even discussed as I pointed out. You latter followed up with two completely different articles with very different issues. Yet even then you failed to actually show any sources demonstrating this alleged contradiction. You've also alleged a POV fork when there's no evidence of that. Precisely what makes sense for Iceland in 2022 with all that has been learnt about COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 since then, including the development of new drugs and evidence for benefit of old ones, the development of vaccines etc; is very disconnected from a controversial proposal in 2020 and the negative reaction to it. If you have sources which make a connection between the two, then you need to present them and we can discuss how to implement these details if needed. Even if you do present such sources, that doesn't mean there is a PoV fork but simply articles which need to be updated as new sources emerge. Ultimately it's your choice where you want to discuss stuff but I stand by my assertation that it's unhelpful to discuss the addition of new sourced information about any divergence in strategies in different articles when the discussion started off more or less completely about Joe Rogan Experience without any sources making any link you wanted to make, and in relation to something we didn't even mention in the relevant articles. Nil Einne ( talk) 05:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, yes we are still disagreeing here. The general approach I am pursuing here was a little too general, and a bit too ambitious. No need to exclude objections on that basis though. I still see some content problems here but I don't have the time to address them, unfortunately. Updating articles with updated information is important to preventing POV forks or other issues of POV. SmolBrane ( talk) 15:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

There are few users who are making The Kashmir Files biased and despite many suggestions and request not adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnb07 ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

An RfC has just been closed at Uyghur genocide which has resulted in the first sentence of the article stating that China is committing genocide in wikivoice, when RS indicate this is a highly difficult determination to make, and a controversial claim. Closure review at WP:AN may be the best option, but my concern is less about whether the closer has reached an accurate reflection of the discussion's consensus (I'm not sure they have – but I also think it's clear there isn't a consensus among discussion participants), and more about what should be done when a plurality of editors are supportive for a sentence which other editors firmly believe violates NPOV and appropriate academic caution for a tertiary source such as an encyclopedia (I count myself among this group). I'd appreciate others' thoughts, and suggestions of where next to take this discussion. Jr8825 • Talk 21:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The PAG prescribe a very particular course of action here, when an editor believes a local consensus is not reflective of wiki-wide consensus. You have a very narrow set of options. I've always found WP:1AM helpful here, even if it is a bit flippant at times.

1) you can just go find another part of the wiki to edit, which would be what I would recommend, as I actually disagree and think the consensus was fairly accurately summarized. (Full disclosure, I also participated in the discussion and favor the conclusion)

2) You can bring it to a noticeboard for others to weigh in on (as you have done here). A rather firm consensus would need to be established here in order to overturn the RfC consensus, and I frankly don't really see that happening.

3) You can take it to closure review at WP:AN, as you have said you may do. But it's a pretty high bar to overturn a closure. No one will (or should) examine the actual arguments and their merits at such a review, and instead will examine whether a reasonable editor would agree that the closure was made in good faith and accurately summarizes the discussion. I think the closure is well within those boundaries. I do not foresee such a closure review being successful, but it is absolutely within your rights to open it.

I don't really see any other options, but I also may be missing something. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 22:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

( edit conflict)I agree with what Shibbolethink has said above. Additionally, I will say that it seems clear to me that editors participating in that RfC as well as the closer understood how serious it is to call something a genocide in wikivoice. I don't see a way for the RfC result to be overturned, personally, unless the community feels we cannot call things genocides in wikivoice as the RS analysis necessary to do that under current wiki modus operandi was done in the RfC. A wider analysis could be possible, but as is I don't suggest the discussion be taken as of now. Note: I did not (IIRC) participate in the RfC. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

( edit conflict) :Closure review at AN is the right route. Per WP:DISCARD opinions voiced which are contrary to NPOV shouldn’t be taken into account in determining consensus. If that is what has happened (and I’m not making any comment on that discussion as I haven’t looked at the discussion) then it was an incorrect close. DeCausa ( talk) 22:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a clear content violation. We cannot call something a genocide when there is no consensus in reliable sources. Unfortunately, when there are a large number of editors are willing to set aside policy in favor of a preferred outcome, administrators will side with them and their decisions will be upheld upon review.

The assumption is that RfCs will attract outside editors who will look at the arguments objectively. Unfortunately in many cases outside editors don't participate or may not consider all the arguments when responding, particularly if the question is poorly worded or there are walls of text.

I have seen many AfDs (which use a similar process), where lots of editors show up and say there are lots of sources for the topic, so it meets notability. But on examination there are few or no sources for the topic. But of course the closing administrator does not take that into consideration.

There should be a procedure where the facts presented in support of arguments is tested. Compare this with a trial. The judge determines the facts based on the evidence presented, as well as argument. But suppose the judge determined the facts by the number of witnesses repeating them. So if the state provides five eyewitnesses, the defense supplies ten of his or her friends. The judge decides that the accused is innocent because more witnesses support his or her version of events.

TFD ( talk) 01:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree - this is reflective of the type of problem that we have had on WP for several years being far too eager to rush to include the opinion and claims of mainstream news of current events when NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM say otherwise, particularly for such a case as serious as this (that is, claiming CCP is committing genocide in wikivoice). We've gotten far too complicit to take mainstream opinion as fact when we're still too close to such events, instead we should be far more distance and dispassionate. This RFC closure should definitely be reviewed at a larger scale -- Masem ( t) 02:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It's worse than that. In most cases it is taking claims reported in mainstream media as fact. TFD ( talk) 03:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The events around Uyghur people are still far too recent to describe a term like "genocide" in unattributed Wikivoice, no matter how many RSes claim it is. It's going to be a matter if any international bodies formally call out China's actions as such, or if in time (like decades from now) that is the general sentiment of academic sources reviewing the matter. -- Masem ( t) 04:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm the closer of this discussion, so I would like to make a comment. Firstly, the crux of discussion was, considering a wide range of WP policy (including WP:NPOV and WP:EXCEPTIONAL), whether or not this should be called genocide, and both sides understood the implications of calling this genocide. I saw no comment's that would account as WP:DISCARD and if I did I wouldn't have considered them in the analysis. I completely understand the concerns of The Four Deuces and Masem with some of the ways decisions are made on Wikipedia. I agree this consensus based system is not perfect, it has it's obvious flaws, but it's still the way we get things done around here. When I was closing this discussion I did not make a judgement on what I believed was right, that's not how closers should conduct themselves. I don't have the liberty to decide what we should and shouldn't be doing from the closing end. The community decided on its own will considering all the evidence, the policies, and sourcing that we should indeed call this genocide in wiki voice. That's the plurality, the overwhelming polarity. Over half of editors supported A out of the 6 choices. I personally would have chosen B if I had participated in the discussion, but it would have been grossly improper for me to interject my opinion into the consensus analysis. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that you made the correct decision based on how RfCs should be closed and as I said it would survive a review at AN.

In the first A vote, an editor argued, "factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." Other A voters made similar arguments.

While that may or may be a valid argument, its premise is false. According to a recent article in the official journal of the Smithsonian Institution, "over the past ten years, as documents have been leaked to the press and more Uyghur activists have escaped the country, a bleak picture has emerged, leading some observers—including the U.S.—to classify China’s ongoing human rights abuses as genocide." (Lorraine Boissoneault, "Is China Committing Genocide Against the Uyghurs?" Feb 2, 2022.) That is the type of phrasing routinely used in mainstream major Western media, which supports B. Whether or not the news reporting is reliable for this type of determination is of course another issue.

As long as there is political disagreement in the world, this type of problem will continually arise. But there is no mechanism to deal with it, although in some cases ARBCOM has stepped in.

TFD ( talk) 05:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To me, at least, this is where using NOT#NEWS or RECENTISM would be a solution, but we would also have to recognize that reporting today is not as objective as it was decades ago (see "accountability journalism"), particularly when we heavily rely on western sources to cover news about China. NPOV gets there, but I think more needs to be added to bring it up to date with newer trends and making sure WP doesn't take sides too early in any controversial topic. -- Masem ( t) 05:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your stance here and sympathise. The outcome is quite worrying. Although there is a slim chance of overturning, you should take this to WP:AN. It was quite a sloppy closure - I think this veered closer to no-consensus. This was a bad RFC too with the amount of options given, being so close to a previous RfC and certain options phrased badly. There is a growing difficulty with editing about China following NPOV without being accused of being an apologist. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 08:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that this discussion is largely procedural, but an issue that IMO has dogged the article and RFC discussion was ignoring the vast number of sources that did not/do not characterise the present repression of the Uyghur with ANY over-arching single 'legal' term (including the BBC and all major UK news sources that I know of), therefore the most commonly used 'accusatory' legal term was chosen by WP. As if we were obliged to choose between 'genocide' and 'crimes against humanity' or 'cultural/demographic genocide'. The possibility that we are all persuaded that bad things are happening in China, but the evidence does not yet exist as to how best to characterise those 'bad things' was not accepted. Nor was the proposition that "may be genocide" is light years away from "is genocide". The more neutral sources I spoke of simply reported attributed accusatory legal terms and specifics (mass detention, coercive contraception etc) and used general terms like 'abuses' or 'persecution'. I obviously don't speak for the BBC or other such sources, but they may well have decided that attempting to decide WHICH crime China is guilty of is entirely pointless when the 'crime scene' has not yet been visited, the 'accused' identified or interviewed and when there is not a cat-in-hell's-chance of any prosecution being brought against anyone in China in the foreseeable future. That would certainly be my own assessment.

I risk invoking Herr Godwin here, but WP has just decided to use its own voice to directly accuse the Chinese Communist leadership and party of perpetration of the crime of "genocide" . This is an accusation which it is not even able to directly make against Adolf Hitler! (Most historians accept that there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence that AH inspired, knew of, and directed the Holocaust, but they almost universally acknowledge that no "smoking gun" documentary evidence has ever been found to directly link him to its execution - WP records what we know, what we don't know and what most historians think, as we should). Pincrete ( talk) 12:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I had a look through the RfC and the dissent in reliable sources seems to me to be between the common definition of killing masses of the people and the UN definition as used in Wikipedia which includes things like mass sterilization or destroying a society as such or causing them servious harm rather than killing the people. Even though I agree with the UN definition I do not think the article should just say genocide without qualification, reliable sources have pointed out the problem of just saying genocide as a straightforward description but I think it could be put in with the qualification of following the UN definition and sayying it is not mass killing. Since genocide is in the title it needs definition in its use to distinguish between common use as under the Nazis and newer use in the UN. NadVolum ( talk) 12:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is important information that must be given to the reader if consensus here (and WP:AN) maintains the RfC closure. Playing loose with the definition of genocide when said so assertively can only attract trouble imo. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ NadVolum: I agree with the general thrust of your comment, but I just want to correct one thing you said: the UN definition actually does require mass killing, or other measures to physically exterminate a population. The UN definition has been seriously misrepresented in the discussions on Wikipedia, which has given rise to a general assumption that it differs significantly from the definition that lay people use. The UN definition is actually very close to the common definition. People who argue otherwise have seized on one line from the definition, which mentions "preventing births". They argue that preventing births is therefore genocide, while omitting the fact that the UN definition only considers "preventing births" to be genocide if it is part of a deliberate plan to physically annihilate a group of people (i.e., it must involve prevention of all births, in order to drive the population to zero). Nothing of the sort is even alleged in Xinjiang, where the Uyghur population continues to increase. What is alleged is that China is strictly enforcing its birth control policies (which apply to the Han population as well, and which now generally limit each family to three children) on the Uyghur population. By the UN definition, that is not genocide. But of course, the article doesn't really spell out what the genocide accusation consists of, so most readers will assume that China is carrying out mass executions, rather than enforcing a limit of three children per family. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 20:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point to something that says what you say. I am following Genocide Convention wehich very clearly and definitely does not require anybody to be killed for a genocide to happen. Which is quite different from what any dictionary I've looked at says. EIther I am very bad at reading the article or the article needs fixing if you are correct. For instance stopping a people speaking their language and practicing their culture is genocide according to that convention. Taking their children away and raising them in another culture so the previous culture dies out is also genocide. Having all the people have very bad conditions just because they are of a culture is also genocide. NadVolum ( talk)

It is 100% OR as Wikipedia editors to judge if something fits under a given definition, particularly around something this controversial. We can let other sources make that claim and we can report that claim, but we can't be factually making that as an original claim in WP voice. -- Masem ( t) 21:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Masem: I should have been more explicit, I was replying to @ Thucydides411: about their assertion that the UN genocide convention is like the dictionary definitions in requiring there to be mass deaths for a genocide to happen, and by article I meant the article on Genocide or the Genocide Convention one, not the one about the Uyghur genocide. NadVolum ( talk) 17:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@ NadVolum: Here's a UN page that explains the genocide convention: [27].

• does not require anybody to be killed for a genocide to happen: It requires an attempt to physically annihilate a group, which historically has always meant mass killing. The only exception that the Genocide Convention mentions is if extermination is carried out by completely preventing any births. Nothing of the sort has even been alleged against China.
• stopping a people speaking their language and practicing their culture is genocide according to that convention: No, it isn't. As the UN page on the convention explains, To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice (emphasis added).
• Taking their children away and raising them in another culture so the previous culture dies out is also genocide: Again, this is just incorrect. As the UN page explains, Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group (emphasis added).
• Having all the people have very bad conditions just because they are of a culture is also genocide. This has nothing to do with genocide as defined by the Genocide Convention, and if this were the definition, the word would lose all its meaning. Almost anything could then be argued to be genocide. One ethnic group has a lower life expectancy? Genocide. One ethnic group is treated unfairly by the justice system and has far higher rates of incarceration? Genocide. It's difficult to think of a major country that would not be guilty of genocide against several ethnic groups at once if this were the definition. But this isn't the definition. Again, genocide is defined by the convention to be a deliberate attempt to physically annihilate a group.

I don't know how it became conventional wisdom on Wikipedia that the Genocide Convention has some sort of extremely broad definition that is radically different from the dictionary definition. That just isn't the case (if the Wikipedia article on the Genocide Convention claims otherwise, then it's just plain wrong). Just read the UN's own explanation of the Genocide Convention. It directly refutes a lot of the claims being made by editors at Uyghur Genocide. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 23:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We were talking about what that page called the physical elements of genocide of which only one is killing members of the group. The mental element of "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" was not part of what I was talking about. Yes cultural destruction in itself does not constitute genocide if there is no intent, but if there is intent to destroy a group using that as a means then it certainly can constitute genocide according to that convention and that would not require anybody be killed. The convention realy does extend the normal definition of genocide quite a bit. NadVolum ( talk) 08:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

p.s. if you want to try and change this 'conventional wisdom on Wikipedia' that you disagree with I suggest starting at Genocide or Genocide Convention. NadVolum ( talk) 09:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A few simple questions. We have RS say it is a genocide, correct? Some say "it's called a genocide", true? do we have any RS that says it is not genocide? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't find too many sources that state negatives. For instance, there are no sources starting the NBA all star game was not a genocide. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

True, but then you can't find any RS that says it is. So the claim it's not is not a contested one. So for this to not be a fact (as RS have said it is) we would need RS to say it is not, other wise it is not a contested claim. We only need to think of NPOV where a claim is contested by RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What we should be looking for is not just sources that say it is a genocide or the lack of sources that contest that, but that in reviewing all sources across coverage of it, it is nearly agreed upon by all sources that it is a genocide as for us to be able to call it a genocide in Wikivoice w/o attribution. Otherwise, we fall into danger of cherry picking. And because this is still an ongoing event and one that hasn't been fully resolved, we are still dealing with officials and others trying to analyze the situation to come to a conclusion of what is acttually happening, so some simply aren't calling it a genocide or opposing it being called a genocide. Thus this is a situation we should be far more careful about. And contest claims should not require sources to be contested - just mere use of a highly contentious term like "genocide" should be taken as prior establishment that there is contested claims around it. -- Masem ( t) 14:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

But we can't view all sources, we must take a snap shot. So why not both sides look for and present your best (say 5) sources, and then we can judge whose sources are better? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Because we'd be grossly over-simplifying a very complex issue (imo), Slatersteven, by limiting ourselves to x number of "best" sources. How to qualify which are best would be a whole additional mess, too, so it's not practical either in my eyes. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Because it is all we can do. As to best sources, how about academic ones only, not media opinion? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We should actually use academic sources -- which will take several years to come out with disinterest opinions and analysis about the events. But as we are still in RECENTISM period here, most of the coverage is going to be mainstream media, and thus we should be careful about how they will take the topic. And "it is all we can do" is false, we absolutely have the ability to do deep source surveys to make sure a term is used across the board or not if we're going to want to state that in wikivoice without attribution. It may take much more time, but there's no deadline to make sure we get it right. Otherwise, we can always opt for the more conservative (middle ground) use of attribution. -- Masem ( t) 14:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned that we maybe falling into the trap of false NPOV in the name of NPOV. Hence why I would like to see each side present its best sources, so I can get a measure of who is saying what. for example france officially calls it a genocide [ [28]]. So then let's have a list of sources. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are news articles:

• ""Genocide" is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang". The Economist. 13 February 2021.

• By the common understanding of the word, it is not. ... By accusing it of genocide instead, in the absence of mass murder, America is diminishing the unique stigma of the term.

• Lynch, Colum (19 February 2021). "State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China". Foreign Policy.

• The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide

• Boissoneault, Lorraine (2 February 2022). "Is China Committing Genocide Against the Uyghurs?". Smithsonian.

• But over the past ten years, as documents have been leaked to the press and more Uyghur activists have escaped the country, a bleak picture has emerged, leading some observers—including the U.S.—to classify China’s ongoing human rights abuses as genocide. ... Clarke argues that cultural genocide is a more accurate description for China’s systematic campaign against the Uyghurs.

Here is an NGO:

• ""Break Their Lineage, Break Their Roots"". Human Rights Watch. 19 April 2021.

• Human Rights Watch has not documented the existence of the necessary genocidal intent at this time.

Here are scholars:

• Sachs, Jeffrey D.; Schabas, William (20 April 2021). "The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified". Project Syndicate.

• There are credible charges of human rights abuses against Uighurs, but those do not per se constitute genocide.

• Smith, Nicholas Ross; O'Brien, David (2021). "Responding to China's crimes against humanity in Xinjiang: why dialogue is the only pathway for the emerging "coalition of the willing"". Global Affairs. 7 (1): 79–86. doi: 10.1080/23340460.2021.1921605.

• Whether China’s actions against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang deserves the label genocide or not has garnered significant debate in recent years.

• Smith, Joanne Anne (2021). "Why Scholars and Activists Increasingly Fear a Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang". Journal of Genocide Research. 23 (3): 348–370. doi: 10.1080/14623528.2020.1848109.

• The new statistical evidence on forced sterilizations in Xinjiang [in June 2020] has led scholars, media commentators and international barristers to consider the possibility that a full genocide – rather than what had to date been cautiously described by most as a "cultural genocide" – might be taking place. ... Cultural genocide, however, was excluded from the UN Genocide Convention, and destruction of dignity is not considered genocide in international law, which requires the intended physical destruction of members of a group.

• Rossabi, Morris (15 January 2022). China and the Uyghurs: A Concise Introduction. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN  978-1-5381-6299-6.

• From 2017 on, many Western newspapers and magazines ... and the Communist-sponsored Global Times have devoted an extraordinary amount of space to Xinjiang. ... Loaded terminology such as “genocide,” “atrocities,” and “terrorists” frequently characterize these reports, and the sources are either not cited or not fully identified.

• Byler, Darren; Franceschini, Ivan; Loubere, Nicholas (25 January 2022). Xinjiang Year Zero. ANU Press. ISBN  978-1-76046-495-0.

• In compiling this book, we have been mindful of three key controversies that have held sway in debates about Xinjiang in recent years. The first is whether we should resort to the term ‘genocide’. While particular aspects and effects of the post-2017 system in Xinjiang do meet legal definitions of the term ... the system does not seem to be one of intentional mass death.

There are some good sources that argue that it is a genocide. There are many good sources that exercise more caution and avoid using the word directly. There are some good sources that openly contest that it is a genocide. 171.66.135.49 ( talk) 15:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, not its the other sides turn. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)—

@ Slatersteven: in all honesty, I don't think there's a need for more sources. Yes, there are sources arguing that it's genocide. But the mere existence of the sources above (a range of quality RS contesting or urging caution about the genocide label) is surely a clear indication that the term is seriously and legitimately contested by experts, and therefore it goes against NPOV ( WP:WIKIVOICE) to state in article voice, in the first sentence, that China is committing genocide. I completely understand the desire to avoid having Wikipedia defend or qualify the evil actions of the Chinese government against Uyghurs, but this does not stand up to the importance of editorial detachment and a clear-headed examination of sources. And if the above sources aren't enough, when you pick up a quality newspaper and read an article about China, do you find it typically refers to a "genocide" in Xinjiang, or to mass human rights abuses/repression? Jr8825 • Talk 16:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

( edit conflict)I'm really not looking forward to watching a tennis match in a noticeboard... I don't see how thinking of this matter as turns or a 5v5 pickup game will benefit our ability to cover the matter neutrally. Perhaps it should just be taken to AN for more experienced hands to handle because the way your comment makes it seem like we're just rehashing the RfC won't lead to a very stable solution to the problem. I do really appreciate IP's summary and hope those that feel the use of "genocide" is warranted also present plenty of sources so we are informed here, but let's try to keep the idea of teams or sides out of the noticeboard (imo). NPOVN does not have jurisdiction to my knowledge to overturn the results of an RfC nor should we act like it has. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback above. To move the discussion on in a productive way I will open a closure review request at AN, per the advice of several editors. Jr8825 • Talk 16:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

i would like to address the point that no reliable sources say it is not a genocide. it's not a binary choice between is/is not genocide, but saying there is insufficient evidence is also possible. We do not say for example that someone is guilty of a crime because they did not prove their innocence. We don't say that a new hypothesis in science is true just because no one has disproved it. In 2011 for example, CERN reported that they had observed neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light. ( Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly) Without extensive information about the observations, scientists lacked evidence to say the finding was false. But that did not mean it was true. (In fact, CERN later retracted.) TFD ( talk) 16:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ The Four Deuces: actually several of the sources linked above do say it's not a genocide. Although in my view, these analyses are generally weaker than those which outline the controversy in a more nuanced manner, explaining that there's evidence to suggest the abuses could amount to genocide, but that it's a notoriously difficult determination to make with authority. Jr8825 • Talk 16:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not seeing that. The Economist article for example says that the term genocide is misleading because most people think it means killing people. Also, are any of these writers experts? But it does bring up another issue. if we are going to use technical terms that most readers would not understand, in fact would probably misunderstand, we should follow WP:JARGON and explain what we mean. TFD ( talk) 18:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly my feeling. The Collins and Oxford dictionaries and Wiktionary all say it involves the killing of large numbers of people. What's happening is not that. The use of genocide is a technical meaning as in the UN Genocide Convention and described in the Wikipedia article Genocide. Just finding it in a reliable source doesn't mean it is used in the non-jargon sense. Comparing the use of word is like saying 'nothing' has the same meaning in 'a crust of bread is better than nothing' and 'nothing is better than a good meal' and trying to decide if one or the other is true. NadVolum ( talk) 20:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia has an article about the problem! Genocide definitions. NadVolum ( talk)

One thing I pointed out there but which I want to emphasize is that many people arguing for "genocide" in the article voice are citing sources that are careful to always say cultural genocide (a relatively new term which those sources are careful to define and establish as distinct from traditional definitions of genocide.) I feel that sources like that are an argument against using unqualified genocide in the article voice - after all, using them in a way that erases a distinction or qualification that they make is misusing them as a source. This ties into something else that was mentioned in terms of WP:RFCBEFORE not really being satisfied - this is basically just a rerun of the previous RFC; not many new sources were actually presented. If the people pushing for genocide in the article voice had taken it more slowly and compromised by eg. defining and using the term cultural genocide in the lead, things might be a bit different. But trying to crowbar in "genocide", unqualified, in the article voice as if it is uncontested fact that this meets the traditional definition of genocide simply does not reflect the sources as a whole. -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in and say that I disagree with the way the closing was handled largely due to the emphasis placed on what was essentially a vote tallying. I'd like the closer to remember WP:NOTVOTE for the sake of similar RfC's in the future. 50.24.63.63 ( talk) 02:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Whether a news article says its genocide or not is irrelevant. If the actions described in the article fall under the definition of genocide then we can say the article adds weight to the idea that genocide is being committed. The actions of the Chinese government, described by the vast majority of articles I've seen, fit the definition provided by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, signed by 152 nations. Netanyahuserious ( talk) 10:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

To determine if actions even meet an established definition is 100% original research; WP cannot state this in wikivoice in this fashion. -- Masem ( t) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No it's just rewording, as we are encouraged to do. They describe genocide. Netanyahuserious ( talk) 21:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You chose a particular definition of gnocide which is differen from what most dictionaries say and using that without explanation in the first sentence defiitely conflicts with MOS:LEADSENTENCE. NadVolum ( talk) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is the world's foremost authority on the subject. Sure, something about how these actions are in violation of the convention should be put in the lead. Netanyahuserious ( talk) 23:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the MOS says, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." The average person is not aware that genocides can be non-lethal or at least not involve mass killings. TFD ( talk) 00:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence is in plain English and there is further explanation later in the lead. I really don't see how to fit the UN definition into one sentence. Netanyahuserious ( talk) 01:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that we are working from various reports which, while unlikely to be falsefied, still haven't had full corroboration, then the suggesting that we turn these reports into factual statements and then subsequently use that within a definition of genesis is a massive OR problem. This is akin to naming a person guilty of a crime before a court of law does. We absolutely do not do that. -- Masem ( t) 04:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say this user's reasoning is not representative of the RfC participants. I disagree with their reasoning, but they come to the same conclusion as many others who relied on RSes. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 06:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

From a wiki-process standpoint, I think that all is proper. But wrong from a policy standpoint. So this probably shows a weakness in the process. Using an unneeded, value laden, contested characterization (in sources) in the voice of Wikipedia that doesn't add any info the the article. To put it more succinctly, a far reaching claim where sources substantially disagree, and one "side" is put in as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Despite statements and efforts to the contrary, some RFC's can turn out to be essentially mere opinion polls.North8000 ( talk) 17:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I'd prefer to use the word genocide for it, but with my wiki-hat on would weigh in against doing so. North8000 ( talk) 17:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a wearisome dispute with a persistent user that I'd like resolved quickly. As of now, I have three disruptive editor notices thanks to this person; at first, I had one for actively daring to reveal this user for their history of edit warrings and edit blocks for incredibly unprofessional and disruptive behaviors. Then, out of nowhere I received three as he'd evidently decided to skip notice two. I have wanted a third party opinion since this morning; I had stated that I would concede, assuming my edits were not found to be in good faith. Since everything in regard to links is available in this section, I will copy-paste it from the Ted Kaczynski talk page:

Evidently, it has come to my attention, thanks to user Mathsci that my edits are continually in violation of WP:NPOV. The assertion is that the "High school" section regarding subject's later confessions of never having a real friend or being singled out in gym class as an adolescent to his brother (in addition to several quotes of peers concerning subject's unkempt, immature condition) disrupts the tone of the overall article. However, if you view the previous section, titled "Childhood," there are several instances of quotes, reflections, and other such ruminations from various people in subject's environment at the time as well.

In fact, my edit seems to be entirely consistent with that of the previous section that discusses various thoughts of family members and his being bullied in contrast, with cited events such as subject being shoved into a locker and his being a misfit even amongst the "eggheads" at Evergreen High. According to this editor, this is not only an extremely biased edit, but highly disruptive with the tone of the WP:FA. He then went on to point out—with poor reasoning and spelling—my predominant edits concerning various serial killer articles on WP, as if that makes his decision in any way credible or valid according to policy. The absolute irony of pointing out my edits, however, is the fact that he consistently and recurrently runs into trouble regarding edit-warring—though it does not apply to WP:BLP articles—before actively removing any opposition in the form of confrontation, something I have never engaged in or had trouble with. Nevertheless, I responded with my arguments which are accessible here, and conveniently collapsed (something he has been known to do with other users before being blocked or cornered into submission) for any passersby. To quote Johnuniq:

"Mathsci is great on developing properly referenced, high quality encyclopedic content, and I have seen Mathsci interact well with other users, even when there is a disagreement. However, once a problem reaches a certain point, Mathsci can switch and adopt an inappropriate approach which involves total annihilation."

Nevertheless, I had made another edit omitting the well-documented opinions of those around subject, only to have them removed once more. Since I refuse to engage in WP:EDITCON, I have been forced to defer to this page to reach a general consensus as per WP:CON of whether or not said content is appropriate for the "High school" section of this article. If you look at my edits, there is nothing to suggest that I have added negatively to subject's reputation through these edits. In truth, there are obvious improvements reverted such as pointing out that subject's father worked at Kaczynski's Sausages, and his actual dealings with his peers at a young age.

If his "unkempt" condition is said to be an exaggeration, that could have been tweaked; in spite of this, the entire contribution is reverted, including the bit concerning Kaczynski's Sausages, edits of the "Childhood" section which are complete improvements and in tandem with the tone of the article content. These reverts are limitations which are at best pernicious and highly disruptive of contributory effort. It feels highly inappropriate and uncouth to confront a particular user like this, but the unreasonable measures taken are so brazen—and poorly written to note—so as to leave me with no choice. If I am wrong, I concede, but I feel that this information is pertinent to the life and crimes of subject.

I want to reach a consensus according to policy, as I am much newer than most to WP anyhow, and this will be tiresome and according to "inappropriate approach" otherwise.

-- Edd Wesson ( talk) 20:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The OP's edits show edit-warring on the WP:FA/ WP:BLP. I have edited the article Ted Kaczynski several times, mostly correcting vandalism, as it is subject to pending changes protection. [29] The OP has spammed the article talk page with a wall of text, repeated here. The article is on the watchlists of numerous editors, who have jointly collaborated to create a stable article, which changes rarely apart from small tweaks. The only recent significant changes have been when it was reported that 79-year-old Kaczynski had health problems and had been transferred to a hospital prison. Here are the OP's edits, all very recent:

• First set of edits not deemed up to standard for an WP:FA, so not approved by me. [30]
• Second set of cosmetic edits not deemed up to standard for an WP:FA, so not approved by me. [31]
• Third set of cosmetic edits not deemed up to standard, so not approved by User:Firefangledfeathers. [32]
• Fourth edit removing a comma, contrary to the grammatical rule of non-restrictive appositives.

The OP's edits have been to articles on serial killers (there's an associated WikiProject). I have edited the article on Adolf Hitler two days ago, [33] helping out User:Diannaa for a missing curly bracket—I was not consciously thinking about serial killers. Diannaa publicly thanked me for my edit. The OP also publicly thanked me twice. Mathsci ( talk) 01:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged to here and article talk. I responded at the latter because that is where discussion should start. The framing of the "wearisome dispute" above is not appropriate for this noticeboard. At NPOVN, there should be a diff showing text being added to or removed from an article, and a link to the article talk page showing where the discussion regarding that edit occurred. That should be followed with a brief statement concerning WP:NPOV and what question is being asked at this noticeboard. Do not complain about other editors on a noticeboard like this (use WP:ANI for that but don't go there until exhausting the procedures I outlined at article talk. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Johnuniq: I made only two edits (see the 2 diffs above) having seen several edits of EW. User:Firefangledfeathers then made one edit having seen edits of EW. All three sets of EW's edits were reverted because they did not improve the WP:FA. The sources (3 press reports from 1996) have not changed, nor has the stable version of the content, developed jointly by many editors through wp:consensus (it seems they tried to give a balanced picture avoiding anecdotes). The quality of writing in the article has enabled it to become a stable WP:FA. The pending changes restriction helps maintain the quality of the article. The statistics are available for the editors who helped to construct the article: [34] Over 3,300 users have edited the article and some of the top 20 are household names (SandyGeorgia, jpgordon, etc). Mathsci ( talk) 05:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I just read that article and I feel it pushes a mild anti-Czech narrative, especially in the Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia#Aftermath section. It is mostly small stuff (example: WP:OR in Slovakia has higher political stability than the Czech Republic. As of 2018, Slovaks have had only four prime ministers since 1998, but the Czechs have had ten.), though some passages are more egregious (example: (...) followed by a shaky centre-right cabinet, which (...) did not want to adopt the euro because of (...) the Civic Democrats' ideological stance.). (I also vaguely feel a pro-union / anti-dissolution bias, but I cannot really point to a given sentence.)

There are many "citation needed" tags and I could probably just remove large portions with an edit summary of "don’t revert unless you give a source" but that seems a tad brutal. On the whole, the article is not so bad. Someone with knowledge of the countries (i.e., not me) might be able to easily cut the fluff and source the rest. Tigraan ^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed that several new accounts have added promotional material to the China Horse Club article. I think the version I initially created should be returned to. The club is somewhat controversial in horse racing and there is plenty to add about it, but the current version is flat out promotion with mostly unreliable sources. Thriley ( talk) 03:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The article in question is Cancel culture.

I am asking anyone who is interested to please participate in this discussion: Talk:Cancel_culture#WP:SENSATION

This is the diff that is being debated: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cancel_culture&type=revision&diff=1077199312&oldid=1076998178

The section of the article that was removed was called "Examples of cancel culture as reported in the news."

This is the content that was removed. I support including the content. As of right now, everyone else in the discussion opposes including the content. I would like to hear the opinions of anyone else who might want to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Here is the content that was removed:

Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! ( talk) 18:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Would someone mind taking a look at the article on Karim Massimov and mentions of him in the 2022 Kazakh unrest article? The narrative is currently quite speculative in places, which is inappropriate and potentially dangerous given the charges of alleged treason against the individual. For the Massimov article in particular, as a Biography of a Living Person, it is important that the article presents a fair account of all narratives, especially because human rights activists are concerned about the welfare of those arrested in the protests. Ideally I’d prefer to discuss this via email but I do have a list of sources and possible text which might help to make the article more well-rounded; due to how sensitive the situation is I want to check with the Wikipedia community what would work best.

As a starting point a level of page protection would be helpful to ensure no misinformation can be added, but if anyone can assist with some editorial oversight and advice that would be helpful and appreciated. MSturgill ( talk) 11:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I am consistently troubled by user Zefr removing vital public information from the Moderna page. He and another user called Acroterion hound the page and always make vague allegations about the information's lack of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The 'tax dodging' section you keep trying to add is the subject of a pending RfC on the talk page (which you were invited to participate in but did not). Please stop edit warring your changes into the article and wait for the RfC to close. (disclosure: I participated in the RfC and have made edits to the page in question regarding the subject of the RfC.)

In addition, Acroterion has made a single substantive edit to the article in question this calendar year (aside from reverting vandalism a couple of months ago), which hardly qualifies as 'hounding the page'. Stop casting aspersions and use the article talk page. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 22:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking to you, you are corrupt.

I demand another admin. Surge Of Reason ( talk) 22:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks won't help your case. M.Bitton ( talk) 22:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The lack thereof sure as fuck isn't helping! Surge Of Reason ( talk) 22:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw your revert: the information is about the person of Slaoui, not about the company Moderna.

My advice: gain experience through ordinary edits, and only then approach highly disputed articles. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I know exactly what the problem is and I didn't write anything about Slaoui, who is a board member for crying out loud. Surge Of Reason ( talk) 11:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

wp:blp applies to any content that is about a living person, or what they are connected with. Also if there is an RFC running you do not edit until it is concluded. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The Zero COVID article relies heavily on primary sources, and some editors are opposed to covering the due criticism of and opposition to this policy, deleting the Opposition section I created [35], toning down the criticism, and removing POV, BCN and WHO tags appended (and also casting aspersions).

The majority of RS are heavily critical of this policy, in particular to its purported effectiveness as a public health policy, and there is very little scholarship on it. This policy was also cited to "settle the question" about China's alleged undercounting of cases, claiming that this policy works by those countries implementing it [36], which led to a discussion on RSN [37].

Here are a few recent articles questioning China's narrative about the policy and its effectiveness: [38] [39] [40]. My main concern is that critical sources are not being fairly and proportionately represented. Any assistance with this deadlock will be greatly appreciated. LondonIP ( talk) 00:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Yes any help with this editor would be great. A group of us have been trying for months to stop the disruptive tagging as seen at Talk:Zero-COVID#‎Disruptive tagging. Seems to be a spill over from an rfc not going their way on other articles (not involved in their other disputes). Wondering if a topic ban for meatpuppets is in order. Moxy- 01:02, 13 March 2022 (UT

Note the aspersions. LondonIP ( talk) 01:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Note the evidence that was previously brought up at this board. Moxy- 01:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I edited Alina Chan so I could be MEAT too, but I'm not. This noticeboard is for NPOV concerns, not airing your personal grievances about editors and imaginary cabals. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 07:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No clue what you edit or your POV on this. Think newer editors need to understand that most old timers have a Wikipedia:Academic bias. Moxy- 07:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

(involved, here before pinged).
@ LondonIP, when escalating issues to noticeboards, it is proper to provide a neutrally-worded representation of the dispute. I feel this post fails that requirement on several accounts:

1) You have failed to mention the academic review articles and government sources which do not support the narrative you've drawn, which demonstrate the prevailing view is that this policy has actually worked, and is now faltering most likely from influence of Omicron and that international sources of infection are difficult to avoid: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

2) You are helpfully describing attempts to continuously re-insert a "criticisms" section, which is advised against by NPOV's WP:POVNAMING, WP:STRUCTURE, and WP:PROPORTION sections.

3) You have failed to notify the affected page or any involved editors, as is heavily recommended in WP:CANVAS.

4) You have failed to describe the WP:DUE/ WP:UNDUE criticisms and lack of WP:SUMMARY style criticisms many editors have raised about your proposed changes.

5) You have not mentioned the discussions we have had on WP:RSN about this issue, or the result of that discussion.

Please make adjustments (with appropriate underlining and strikethrough) to bring this post to neutral-wording. Thanks. (edited 12:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC))

—  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 01:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Shibbolethink: you are hardly a neutral party here and the Opposition section LondonIP added, is entirely about Omicron and Zero COVID, so it appears you don't even understand this dispute. The seven sources you cite are from 2020 and mid 2021, so it is you who has failed to address the NPOV issue, which is exactly what this noticeboard is for. I would argue that WP:PROPORTION requires proportional coverage for the tremendous opposition and criticism this policy has received, especially in Hong Kong and Mainland China. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 07:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The above is a good example of the problem at the Zero-Covid article..... spill over chat from some other articles with no sources or recommendations for the article in-question. Moxy- 07:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the two subjects are connected. Novem Linguae said that China's successful implementation of this policy is proof that China never undercounted cases and deaths [48], as a justifcation for removing the well sourced allegations from the relevant pages. Shibbolethink supports deleting this content too [49]. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 07:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the problem at the article in question? What is being recommended for the article in question? Moxy- 08:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a terrible notice for the reasons said by Shibbole above. The various criticism has been summarised well, with plenty of citations, there is no need to repeatedly mention the same criticism or to attribute them to specific people, when as you have said, many people have criticised the policy. Xoltered ( talk) 02:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned by Moxy, LondonIP as well as few other editors have been repeatedly making disruptive edits, and I will note that it is not just this article but numerous other articles in which they have done so, typically edit warring to try to get their way. Perhaps as Moxy said, some action should be taken. Xoltered ( talk) 02:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• (Involved, pinged to discussion.) deleting the Opposition section I created The opposition section wasn't deleted, it was condensed by me. Before. After. The before version had problems with WP:QUOTEFARM. The after version fixed the issue with quotes and concisely summarized the points made by both supporters and opposers. To write the after section, I simply read and summarized the before section, reusing most of the existing citations. The after version was supported by multiple people and seems to have consensus, as documented at Talk:Zero-COVID#Delete section "Views on the zero-COVID strategy"?. If one checks the page history of zero-COVID, two editors in particular have added POV and "who" tags to this article multiple times over the course of months, over the objections of other editors. This is arguably a slow motion edit war. I find this to be a timesink, and WP:AE may be an option worth exploring. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• (Involved, pinged to discussion) I tried to participate in this discussion but it appears that some editors are employing the same tactics they used to suppress the COVID-19 lab leak theory from Wikipedia for over a year. This Zero COVID article does not represent all viewpoints as required by WP:NPOV and and Novem Linguae's rewrite of the criticism section has been weasled down to mere "views" without supporting attribution. Zero COVID as a policy is ill defined and has not been implemented anywhere to achieve its stated objective. It is part public health policy, part political slogan. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 07:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Opponents of the zero-COVID strategy argue that a vaccine would be required to end the pandemic, ^[1] that zero-COVID causes the economy to suffer, ^{[2] [3]} that before vaccinations were common, elimination strategies lowered herd immunity, ^[4] that zero-COVID is not sustainable, ^[5] and that newer variants such as the omicron variant are so transmissible that the zero-COVID strategy is no longer feasible. ^[6]

  Which view is missing, and what source do you recommend for it? If your suggested addition is reasonable, perhaps you can achieve a consensus for it. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Its not that views are missing, but that they are not represented fairly and proportionately, and are instead buried in a nondescript "views" section as if they are of little signficance. There should be a section with an appropriate title covering the opposition and criticism and explaining it in greater detail. The opposition and criticism itself should be properly attributed with quotes to explain the position of relevant experts, just like with other controversial topics. Examples are Immigration history of Australia#Opposition to immigration Nuclear power in the United States#Opposition to nuclear power and Great_Barrington Declaration#Counter memorandum. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 09:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV tells us that criticisms should not be afforded their own section, but instead contextualized with overall views. That other articles have failed to do this does not make it the right approach. We should do what our policies recommend. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 13:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION. So any sugestions? any sources any statment to move us forward? Moxy- 13:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink and Moxy, LondonIP's section title Opposition to the zero-COVID policy [50] fits well with what WP:POVNAMING lays out. My choice was Scientific Views on the zero-COVID strategy. [51] but I now think Opposition is better as criticism of the policy is not just about the science, but also the social and economic costs - as I explained in the discussion [52]. Any policy of importance will inevitably face some opposition and in the case of Zero COVID, most RS cover the opposition more than they do support. I can move us forward with sources and quotes, but this noticeboard discussion should focus on clarifying the problem and bringing in cooler heads. CutePeach ( talk) 14:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:POVNAMING says: "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X")."

  Indeed, this is not the most aptly applied part of that policy, given it is about entire articles rather than sections. But WP:STRUCTURE says, similarly:

  Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

  and WP:PROPORTION says: "a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". Similarly, WP:SUMMARY says "Do not put undue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts."

  LondonIP's suggestion is not advisable per these WP:PAGs. We should not create a POVCOATRACK of various people's negative opinions of the policy, but rather summarize the overall criticisms and praises in a views section in proportion to their coverage in our WP:BESTSOURCES. If anyone here disagrees about the current proportionality, that would be where we should move forwards in discussion, not in continually reverting against consensus and disruptively inserting disputed material to force it into the article. Suggest drafts which are, in your opinion, more proportional, and provide evidence of this proportionality. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 14:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Shibbolethink: neither WP:POVNAMING or WP:PROPORTION are a concern here as RS cover opposition more than support for the policy. The section title is not as serious a concern as the toned-down criticism, and I think it is better to allow uninvolved editors to move this forward instead of us rehashing the talk page discussion here. CutePeach ( talk) 14:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

as RS cover opposition more than support for the policy - Do you have a source review which has evidence for this? Including the fact that different qualities of sources (isolated news opinion articles (critical and low quality) vs academic review papers (laudatory and high quality)) do not recapitulate this trend? —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 14:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There should be a section with an appropriate title covering the opposition and criticism and explaining it in greater detail. WP:CSECTION is an essay, but it is common practice to follow it around here. Long before I edited in the COVID topic area, as a newer editor, I tried adding a criticism section to articles a couple times and got reverted. It is best practice to present positive and negative views side-by-side, not separately. Once this thread simmers down and an uninvolved person weighs in, I am confident they will arrive at the same conclusion. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I am involved in the related discussion on Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19#Alleged under-counting of cases and deaths. WP:CSECTION is not a policy and is very rarely wielded to tone down criticism when it is WP:DUE. When opposition rises to a certain level, such as Nord Stream 2#Opposition, it becomes due. I don't have a strong opinion on the title for criticism of this policy but I do think it should be properly attributed and covered in proportion to mentions in RS. There are many RS with qualified opinions from experts calling this policy nonsense and I can't think of a good reason not to include them and attribute them properly [53]. Even China National Health Commission's Liang Wannian now says it is "not sustainable", [54], while his government locks down Shenzhen [55]. Pious Brother ( talk) 04:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"not sustainable" is already covered. Seeing a different view between old timers and newer editors. Not sure why naming people and having a WP:Quotefarm over summary prose with with references naming the who that holds the view is not preferred. If we quote all the sources we're going to be regurgitating the same information just to name individual people. Quote MOS = "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style". Moxy- 05:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it attributed to Liang Wannian with in-text attribution? If not, it should be, and so should Guan Yi's criticism and comments about the efficacy of Chinese vaccines against new variants. The latest lockdowns in China will only increase opposition to this failed policy, and we should be covering it. CutePeach ( talk) 13:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your POV is very clear on that matter ...however we dont write from a dogma POV like that.. luckily people have been watching to make sure of that.-- Moxy- 04:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't be condescending. Attributing criticism is based on policy and not dogma. The criticism about the efficacy of Chinese vaccines [56] has also been covered by other sources [57] [58] [59], so it should not be toned down or elided. The latest outbreaks in China show this policy is not sustainable in the face of Omicron, so this should be the end of this dispute. LondonIP ( talk) 10:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is our problem at the article in question.. talking about problems not in the article coverage.. its not about the efficacy of Chinese vaccines.....no data about it in the article. Now just one Academic named over ALL others. Can people read our policies linked above.-- Moxy- 18:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

According to LondonIP's sources and these newer sources [60] [61] [62], the efficacy of Chinese vaccines has everything to do with it. Why are you so opposed to covering the opposition to this policy? Even International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War cover the opposition to it. Pious Brother ( talk) 02:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Not opposed to covering the opposition .....its all there already,,, I added some .....have a problem with junk sources and highlighting one persons opinion over all others after section consolidation. Moxy- 12:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Relevant discussion: How should we include allegations of China undercounting COVID-19 cases and deaths

 You are invited to join in at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 12:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The Kashmir Files is a film made on a real incident of the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus and two editors, namely Kautilya3 and TrangaBellam have made edits full of bias and not keeping aside their political bias about this film. A big violation of WP: NPOV

• They have used a Film companion quote which does not have a source. No source so how is it even included?
• They had removed the earlier positive reviews and have only highlighted the negative ones now. They even adopt "top critic" status of a critic on Rotten Tomatoes to decide whose views matter the most on Wikipedia. Nowhere used in Wikipedia film articles.
• The article gives UNDUE EIGHT to negative reviews and the positive reviews are restricted to 2 words but have WP: QUOTEFARM for the negative ones?
• The reception section does not talk about the cinematography, acting, writing but is full of only its perceived politics.
• They also use political opinion as reviews for one source to claim the film is "phobic" to one community. I guess Germans will claim the same about Schindler's List?
• They use two reviews from same publication group just because these are the only few of negative reviews the film has got.
• When I removed an unsourced claim in the article, and started a discussion to discuss the bias, the editor replies with Go to ANI or wherever - I do not care. - clearly accepting that their bias.
• The two editors clearly have problem of WP:IDon'tLikeIt and has no regard for WP: Concensus, despite two other editors pointing out their bias.
• Last but not the least, Kautilya3 adds stuff to the article by imagining things and draws conclusion on his own about a fictional university named in the film to be about an existing but but does not provide any sources, saying " Find a source that says it is not referring to JNU" , violation of [Wikipedia:No original research]].
• Most importantly these editors use threatening and condescending tone to shut down other editors.

Wikipedia administrators need to check into this highly open violations of not one but numerous violations of Wikipedia guidelines in this article. I hope strict action is taken against these users. Krish | Talk To Me 07:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

They have used a Film companion quote which does not have a source. - The link will be added pending a whitelist.

They had removed the earlier positive reviews - A single review from someone who is neither a film-critic nor has reviewed any other film before, was removed after discussion. The mere existence of a review does not bind us into carrying it.

highlighted the negative ones now - How?

They even adopt "top critic" status of a critic on Rotten Tomatoes to decide whose views matter the most on Wikipedia. - I don't think so. For example, Shubhra Gupta (the only RT Top Critic, who has reviewed the film) is mentioned in the second paragraph of the reception section, after four positive reviews in the first paragraph!

positive reviews are restricted to 2 words - Factually inaccurate; read the first paragraph of the reception section for yourself. How can any review be restricted to 2 words?

WP: QUOTEFARM for the negative ones - Factually inaccurate; read the second and third paragraph of the reception section for yourself.

reception section does not talk about the cinematography, acting, writing but is full of only its perceived politics. - Blame the reviewers. How can I help?

I guess Germans will claim the same about Schindler's List - Welcome to the alternate universe of Hindutva.

They use two reviews from same publication group. - Examples? Adding a disclaimer that Indian Express and New Indian Express are different entities.

When I removed an unsourced claim in the article. - That line did not need a source, as evident from a perusal of the well-sourced Reception section. TrangaBellam ( talk) 08:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You stand exposed here. None of your response makes sense. Calling me political names is not helping your case. Stop personal attack. This is your second personal attack. Here this user had threatened me earlier saying "they have there attention on me" like they "have marked me" or something. I don't feel safe on this site. This user is giving life threats to me here. Krish | Talk To Me 08:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The editor in question has misrepresented data from source given by himself. Dsnb07 ( talk) 01:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The editor in question did misinterpret data, but admitted to their mistake once it was pointed out and the problem was fixed. Nobody is perfect. X-Editor ( talk) 21:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

My name is Ashley and I work for a law firm called Hagens Berman. I have raised some concerns about the page at Talk:Hagens Berman regarding un-cited claims, citing an op-ed for criticisms, citing one source for half the page, etc. The main author of the page (@ Marquardtika:) said they wanted other editors to weigh in. My hope is an editor or two here might be willing to do so at Talk: Hagens Berman. Thank you in advance for any contributions to the discussion. AshleyK1990 ( talk) 19:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I was reading in the news about reports of Russians using white phosphorus munitions (ie. in bombs), and came here to read up on the topic. I was not at all surprised to see that the article had been updated with the reported usage in Ukraine; what was surprising is that the wording made it sound like an absolute occurrence (no use of quotes of reported use, etc.). Checking the sources reveals that one is a website with an extremely pro-Ukrainian/anti-Russian slant, and the second source appears to be someone's website space.

I am aware of the limited sources of news from within Ukraine, and that residents are reporting what they see through whatever means they can, but it doesn't seem like it belongs here in the article yet.

I've reverted the content out and initiated discussion on the talk page. I am thinking that this edit is another ripple of propaganda one way or the other, and we should probably stay out of it without the mightiest of reliable sources.

Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 00:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is probably a good topic for discussion at WP:NPOVN. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Should I move the section to there, or link to this section there? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 01:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So moved. Primefac ( talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Use in the current Ukraine conflict should be removed until it can be proven. There's already a lot of unintentional misinformation going on due to how information is coming about, and this would be a significant claim against Russia if true. It would be different if the claim were made from a more credible source (such as the U.S.). -- Masem ( t) 02:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Even with a bit more reliable reporting it should still be sttributed to who is saying it until some inspection or suchlike confirms that is really what has happened. NadVolum ( talk) 08:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Something about the tone of this one doesn’t sit right. That and the first source on the page being a dead link from a religious site. Hyperbolick ( talk) 12:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean. THe lead seems to be for another of those articles saying how great and enlightened protestants are compared to catholcs but the contents don't really bear that up to any great extent. NadVolum ( talk) 13:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

What a thoroughly dishonest article. No mention that 'spreading Christianity' was one of the justifications given for the Atlantic slave trade in the first place. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that the tone is off… and that it omits the role Christians played in the creation of the slave trade. However, it is factual that the abolitionist movement (at least in the UK and US) was an outgrowth of the Second Great Awakening, and heavily influenced by changes in Protestant religious sentiments of the era (especially the rise of Methodism). One can not discuss the growth of the Abolitionism without also discussing the changes that were happening in various Christian (and especially Protestant) denominations of the era. Blueboar ( talk) 14:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thing that bothers me most is the opening: "Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement." Suggests that Christianity writ large is inherently antislavery, not that it was a split issue within the religion. At the time of the antislavery movement, the faithful were divided, and the religion was as much of a proslavery tool as an anti one. And it conflates the dominant religious framework in society with society itself -- sort of like claiming that slavery was abolished because White males were antislavery, motivated to oppose it by their whiteness. Hyperbolick ( talk) 08:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • As the article mentions despite the tone of the lead, in 1741 Pope Benedict XIV condemned slavery generally. That was well before the Second Great Awakening. Practically everybody went in for slavery, not just white people. It was the slave trade across the Atlantic that was run by white people. In fact most slave trade especially in the last thousand years was of that sort - people enslaving and selling people who were different from themselves. The difference with the abolitionists was they wanted to get rid of it for everyone. As to being protestant, the main early abolitionists were Quakers and some of them don't even believe in God. Overall I don't see what thei article gives that Abolitionism dosn't. NadVolum ( talk) 15:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    • @ NadVolum: Was going to add that it's surplus to Christian views on slavery as well, but it only took a glance to see that one's a headscratcher as well. Mostly reads as though Christianity has always been against slavery and we don’t know what religion these people were who were doing all this enslaving people in America. Hyperbolick ( talk) 20:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
      • The article is definitely surplus to Christian views on slavery whatever one might feel about that article. I think it should be deleted. NadVolum ( talk) 08:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
        • @ NadVolum: Not sure I've ever done a deletion, but if you do I'll support it. Hyperbolick ( talk) 05:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

A third editor has recommended that we request help in resolving an issue with regards to the persecution of Harari people on the Haile Selassie Wikipedia page (section four on the talk page). I personally believe that context should be added as the Emperor is relentlessly slandered on the pretext of tribal and ethnic oppression for political reasons even to this day (see The Romantic Rewriting of Haile Selassie's Legacy Must Stop, Woyane rebellion and the Tigray War for example). Omission of crucial context in the opening paragraph is a subtle yet obvious ploy to promote a political narrative and goes against basic neutrality guidelines in my opinion. The sentence in question is: "During his rule the Harari people were persecuted and many left the Harari Region." ^[1]

I proposed the following edits which were all consequently rejected:

1. "During his rule the Harari people who aligned themselves with Islamic Somali nationalist political movements were persecuted and many left the Harari Region."
2. "During his rule Harari criminals were persecuted and many left the Harari Region."
3. "During his rule Harari secessionists who collaborated with the Italians during the war were persecuted and many left the Harari region."

I've notified the parties involved, any assistance with this deadlock will be greatly appreciated thanks for all you do. Czar Petar I ( talk) 13:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Czar Petar I: & @ Magherbin: It would be more conducive if both of you stick to one venue regarding Harari's instead of continue using the talkpage. Talkpage is arguably WP:BLUDGEON or WP:TEXTWALL and may discourage other editors engagement. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 03:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above proposals, source backs this. YonasJH ( talk) 12:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)