Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 21 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65

Fringe source in WWII bio article

I would appreciate third party input on the matter. A disagreement arose about a citation currently present in the Ernst Lindemann article; here's the diff.

The publication in question (Range, Clemens (1974). Die Ritterkreuzträger der Kriegsmarine (in German). Stuttgart, Germany: Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3-87943-355-0. ) has been described as neo-Nazi in this discussion: User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2016#Neo-Nazi publications.

The citations supports the subject's numerical position among all the other recipients, namely that he was 94th:

"Lindemann was the 94th recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in the Kriegsmarine.Range 1974, p. 116."

I consider the material to be trivial, while the source being used is highly questionable and unsuitable for a Featured Article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work. However, I'm unable to convince the other editor. The related discussion can be found here:

I have notified the other editor here: diff.K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This individual has tried to label all books published by this house as Neo-Nazi, without offering a shred of evidence the authors are engaged in this kind thing. This latest round is symptomatic of his behaviour. His attacks on the German-related articles, specifically related to World War II, looks like a crusade. I am pleased that a score of other editors have helped rebuff his attempts to project his own views on to these articles. The fact that he will dispute such a small (but not trivial) detail is typical of his unhelpful and destructive "contributions". Dapi89 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's not turn this discussion into personal attacks, shall we? (To report editor behaviour issues, pls see: WP:ANI).
As it happens, some articles on German WWII personnel contain indiscriminate amounts of information; ps see this recent discussion: Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel#Intricate details, where sections of the article are described by another editor as meticulous investigations of insignificant details.
In the case of the Lindemann article, such intricate detail is cited to a highly problematic source. I consider this information to be superfluous (along with editor Ian Rose who has commented on Talk), and I'm seeking third party input on the matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I see a couple of questions here, one is sourcing, and one is inclusion. A quick glance seems to indicate that the source is a published book, presumably not a self-published book, and probably meets wp:rs criteria. More to the point is whether the statement of receipt the award is wp:sourcable. It looks like a pretty straightforward statement and I don't see it's veracity being contested.

The next question is whether to include it in the article. One might interpret some guidance on this from WP: NPOV but I'm thinking not. So then it comes down to editorial discretion. In that area it is a matter of opinion, and mine is that a sentence on receipt of an award like that is appropriate for an article on that person. North8000 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Clarification -- the matter of the award presentation is cited to other sources. Range is used to cite that the subject was 94th such recipient in this branch of service. This is is not remarkable as he was neither the 1st nor 4th, for example. I clarified above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This is another strand of a larger problem with Coffmann: a very narrow view of what is and isn't notable. Would he care to venture a guess, as to how many captains were awarded the KC for the command of a capital ship in battle? Dapi89 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
How does this relate to the current discussion on the need for the article to include that the subject was 94th recipient? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Range, born 1955, is a former Bundeswehr officer turned journalist and well known for his far right political stand. His recent publications have been thrashed by historians for inaccuracy, bias and distortions of historical facts. Rainer Blasius alikened Range's "biographical dictionary" of former Wehrmacht officers in the Bundeswehr to the romancing attitude of Der Landser. [1] I do not think that his very early work was much better.--Assayer (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


"Part of a larger crusade"

I consider the information on the Rudel article that user K.e.coffman has considered "trivial" to be actually at least as important, if not more so, than the subject's WWII service. So if a recipient of an award was 94th, so what? If he was 10007, so what. As for including whether someone was the 94th or the 93rd, can you tell me why this is NOT relevant? We note that a person graduated 286 in a class of 500, is that any less relevant? This is part of a larger "crusade", I suspect, to discredit a series of articles about military personnel in WWII in Germany. The service of Germans in their country's war is a fact. The award of medals is a fact. This are not alternative facts, regardless of who publishes the information. The "romancing" of WWII German military personnel may itself be questionable, but this does not change the facts about their service. auntieruth (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Since we are back to the topic of who may or may not be campaigning, I would appreciate if editor Auntieruth55 would clarify the exchange below, as it could be perceived as a coordinated action in support of promoting a MilHist article to Featured status:
  • "We need to deal with this. Coffman is disrupting what I thought was a resolved issue, this time at the Featured level. will you email me please?".
We who? What was the outcome of this discussion? And did it have any impact on the voting at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)/archive1. Answers to these questions would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I've notified the editor here: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The outcome was that one person got some sleep and played cricket with his kids, and I graded some papers. No one has clarified for me what the outcome of the previous discussion was. I'm still wondering about that and why you are so anxious to discredit these previously approved articles! auntieruth (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I am interested in evidence as to the status of the publishing house and the author; I have not found any though this is sometimes difficult to track down with German publishing houses. I am troubled by a few things--User:Dapi89's accusation of a "crusade", a charge repeated by User:Auntieruth55, whose scare quotes do nothing to alleviate the lack of good faith. And I don't understand a few of the comments in this last section--"So if a recipient of an award was 94th, so what?" doesn't make a lot of sense after it was stated that the information is "at least as important" as the person's service. And that someone graduated 286 in a class of 500, I have never seen that noted in an article, though I grant that I don't MilHist much. Anyway, I've seen K.e.coffman's work, and I have never had a reason to doubt their good intentions; I would appreciate it if you all could drop the "crusade" language, since it only discredits the person using the term. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The 'so what' I believe is in reference to it being an uncontentious piece of information. The fact he is recipient of the award is not in doubt, Coffman however is saying the sourcing provided is not reliable to state the fact that he was the '94' recipient. Ultimately unless you are the first or last recipient of almost all awards, you are just a link in the chain of winners, so it really is not important if they were 94th, 95th, 105th etc. If the fact of the award is not disputed, I have not seen any evidence above the source is not reliable to say they were the 94th. If they are a right-wing publisher, then you can expect them to have done some research on right-wing figures. Its not beyond the realms of feasibility they might puff up subjects *where there is a benefit in doing so*. I cant see any reason it would be biased or romanticising to say "Subject X was the 94th recipient of award Y" over "Subject X was the recipient of award Y". Where is the motivation? If people are going to argue a source's political stance influences their reliability, you need to actually make a credible argument there is a *reason* for them to publish unreliable material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't dispute your statement, User:Only in death--and at any rate, the rank is not the most important matter. You are right in that a right-wing outfit can be trusted to do their homework, but that same outfit can also be trusted, probably, to skew the facts whenever appropriate, as I have found in many Nazi and neo-Nazi accounts of German history. The basic statement "person X got a medal", sure, I suppose. But I'm really more interested in the evidence for the supposed POV than the medal. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Drmies should be aware there a quite a number of editors that feel that way. Dapi89 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to tell her that, Dapi; no doubt Drmies will tell you that COIN is not the place to address this topic. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Then why did you bring it up? Dapi89 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't, Dapi89, you did. I'm only saying that those matters are not for here. Now kindly drop the attempt to blackball your opponent. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Drmies: The source (Range) is described above by editor Asssayer: Range, born 1955, is a former Bundeswehr officer turned journalist and well known for his far right political stand. His recent publications have been thrashed by historians for inaccuracy, bias and distortions of historical facts. Rainer Blasius alikened Range's "biographical dictionary" of former Wehrmacht officers in the Bundeswehr to the romancing attitude of Der Landser. [2] I do not think that his very early work was much better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • K.e.coffman, I read that article yesterday or the day before (I think it's linked from the German article on Range?), and it's not enough for me to make such a condemnation that the material would be unreliable, though it's clear that the tone of his writing is indeed ... fishy. A source to use with care, a source whose judgment calls should not be repeated in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Drmies....nah, I didn't. Dapi89 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand: That book by Range, published when he was only 19 years of age, is bad. It's biased to the extreme (Range uses peacock words to describe Lindemann in nearly every sentence: vorbildlich, besonnen, erfolgreich = exemplary, considerate, successful) and it does not contain much information anyway. I cannot imagine that a historian would refer to that work while writing about Lindemann. The same information, that he was the 94th recipient, could easily be referenced with Manfred Dörr (1996), Ritterkreuzträger der Überwasserstreitkräfte, vol. 2, already being used in the article. So, as was pointed out very early on, one question is sourcing, the other inclusion. The first could be resolved quickly, although I am not sure, if there isn't an interest to keep Range as a source anyway. The second touches upon WP:DUE. These kind of articles, i.e. articles dealing with Knight's Cross recipients, are stuffed with small details. Those details lend authenticity to a narrative which actually distracts from the violence of war. The article features a whole chapter on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, but skips over the fact that Lütjens and Lindemann, following Erich Raeder's order, were responsible for the hopeless final fight and thus for the death of most of their crew. (Holger Afflerbach: "Mit wehender Fahne untergehen". In: VfZ 49 (2001), p. 609.) Sure, that's the usual German military glory stuff of Wikipedia. But if "romancing" is to be critically discussed at some point, it has to include a discussion of how "facts" are selected and how they are presented. Such insight is completely missing with many of the MilHistProject.--Assayer (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
My original statement in the thread was: the material [is] trivial, while the source being used is highly questionable and unsuitable for a Featured Article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work.
The larger question is, should Wikipedia promote articles that contain a highly selective set of facts and are largely sourced to, let's say, specialised literature (militaria / phaleristics / WP:QS and / or fringe sources, up to & including neo-Nazi publications)? For a related discussion, please see: Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#Intricate_details & Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel#Sources (with the same editors, actually). Or, for a more humorous take, see:
K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Once again, scrapping at the bottom of the barrel. Words like "exemplary, considerate, successful" does not make the source biased. They are observations.
And what does Coffmann mean by "selective set of facts"? Are there any "alternative facts"? What does this 'Trumpist' speak mean? Are there conflicting sources?
I think it is obvious to any passing observer that these two individuals are intent on causing fights over the most trivial matters. K.e.Coffman seems to think that "anti-shipping" (maritime interdiction), "air raids", "sorties" and "missions" are also Nazi euphemisms. Now that is funny. Dapi89 (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

Not sure if this is the right place to discuss what will probably wind up being changing the text in a maintenance template, but anyway...

I was just looking at Jesus Christ, which transcludes Template:Redr and so includes the text Please do not replace these redirected links with a link directly to the target page unless expressly advised to do so below or elsewhere on this page.

But "Jesus Christ" is a non-NPOV theological title that shouldn't generally be used in Wikipedia's voice except in statements like Christians call him Jesus Christ. The neutral equivalent is Jesus of Nazareth. I can see why some editors might accidentally pipe-link the redirect because "Jesus" is ambiguous and they assume the article's title is not just Jesus. But places where someone actually wrote "Jesus Christ" in an article should generally be replaced with "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth" or the like, per NPOV.

Can anyone think of a reason not to change the template text to read Please do not replace these redirected links with a link directly to the target page without a good reason?

Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC

What's non-NPOV about saying Jesus Christ? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're requesting. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe the point is that the Christ in Jesus Christ is a faith statement and therefore not NPOV. If so, the point is correct. Antinoos69 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Our article seems to clear it up - "In postbiblical usage, Christ became viewed as a name—one part of "Jesus Christ"—but originally it was a title." In modern times it seems to simply be a name, not a title. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
And the cited sources make an obvious point: whether as a title or a "name" (a highly dubious claim, btw), Christ conveys and was meant to convey a theological point. Hence the NPOV problem. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Jesus Christ is a redirect. When people enter "Jesus Christ" into the search box, they should be brought directly to Jesus, because "Jesus Christ" is an incredibly common way to refer to "Jesus." The NPOV claim is hairsplitting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
All three of you are missing the point. My point was that the template explicitly tells editors that they are not supposed fix non-NPOV wording, apparently based on a overly generalized reading of WP:NOTBROKE. If someone still doesn't get why "Jesus Christ" is not NPOV, consider that "Christ" is a translation of the Hebrew term "messiah", and its appropriation by gentile Christians, and its being adapted to carry a different meaning, was an integral part of the Christian supercessionist view of Judaism. The messiah is in origin (and remains today, if we're being honest) a Jewish concept, and Jews don't consider Jesus to be the messiah. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to wonder if Hijiri has the same issue with our article on Gautama Buddha (since "Buddha" is also a title that has turned into a name)? Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri 88 should not be targeted for religious reasons, per WP:WIAPA. That said, the issue is not WP:NPOV because users are correctly redirected to our article Jesus after a search for the string ""Jesus Christ"" - so at present there's no NPOV issue at all. It's hard to understand why Hijiri 88 said there is one, it doesn't seem to bear on the change he wishes to make. I can't see a reason not to change the template text as Hijiri 88 requested, however; it's not a destructive change to the template. loupgarous (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
My apologies if my comment came across as an attack... I meant it as a question. I wanted to know if Hijiri's concern was just about our Jesus Christ article, or was it a broader concern... applying to other articles where a potentially religious title has become part of the subject's name? Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The off-topic nature of the comment in question aside (we don't have a redirect template specifically telling us that we are required to use the title "Buddha" to refer to Gautama Buddha), it is also a false equivalence: plenty of academic literature by non-Buddhists uses the title "Gautama Buddha", but most secular scholarship of Jesus does not call him Jesus. Gautama Buddha isn't even a redirect. I'd wonder, therefore, why Gautama Buddha specifically was gone to -- my user page doesn't mention Buddhism (as opposed to "Jewish history"). I do get a lot of people assuming, despite my user page, that I am ethnically Japanese, and therefore presumably identify culturally with Buddhism. But this too doesn't make sense, since no one in Japan calls him "Gautama Buddha" -- the name of the article translates to Shakyamuni Tathagata.
Vfrickey appears to have missed the point -- my concern is that the redirect page for Jesus Christ includes wording that inadvertently tells users not to change it to more neutral wording. The actual frequency of the non-NPOV wording is irrelevant, as I was proposing that the template wording be amended so as not to encourage the use of non-NPOV wording. If the non-piped link to Jesus Christ is not very common at the moment, that is likely because people have been ignoring the instruction in the template.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Just left a message to BD2412, the editor who placed the template in question over our article Jesus Christ out of courtesy to him, as well as the desire for an explanation of the reasoning behind the template as it stands. loupgarous (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
My edit was strictly for purposes of replacing the deprecated {{This is a redirect}} category shell with the new {{Redirect category shell}} category shell. I have no preference for what specific categories are listed therein. bd2412 T 04:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarifying the issue, BD2412. I'd like to consider our article Jesus Christ under the guidance of WP:RNPOV, which says " ...editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." An unbiased eye can see that NPOV cuts both ways here, but logically the issue's more profound than that.
This whole article's a POV fork under Neutral_point_of_view#Handling_neutrality_disputes. Its text ought to be deleted, since the whole issue of Jesus being the Christ (or not) is covered in our main article Christ. That overrides the objection I have to changing the template to remove POV issues or to changes to the article. No convicted Christian would turn to wikipedia for affirmation of his or her faith, anyway - that's not what we do here - families and pastors ought to be doing that, not us. loupgarous (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


The Amway article has been plagued by socks who remove the pyramid selling term. See e.g. [3]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As I explained on Talk, the term "pyramid selling" is a primary synonym of multi-level marketing according to the WP definition of the term. The repeated removal is disruptive and not NPOV (and the fact that multiple socks appear to be involved is suggestive of potential WP:COI). Page protection was just imposed so that should help with the WP:DE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
As explained in the Amway article, the FTC has determined that Amway does not fit the definition of a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes are illegal. I appreciate that some critics say it is in fact a pyramid scheme and others say it is similar or an unethical business model. By all means that belongs in the article but we cannot state as a fact they are a pyramid scheme when most reliable sources disagree. TFD (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Just because they have learned how to keep within the law doesn’t mean it is not a form of pyramid selling. The FTC is a huge slow-moving dinosaur that hasn’t realized it is extinct. The Better Business Bureau is also a business funded org so can in no way be assumed as a suitable RS. Why can't we call a spade a spade? And why are these edits being done by single purpose accounts? I would suggest first nuke the article and SALT it. Then if anyone then wants to recreate the article is has to go before many more eyes for approval. Much of the references are advertorials. Fresh eyes would not allow them to be added. Aspro (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I could relate horror stories about my and my wife's experience as Amway distributors, but that'd be WP:OR and unhelpful. Strictly speaking, Amway's not a Ponzi or pyramid scheme, in which no actual capital is acquired and grown for investors - any dividends paid come solely from other investors' money. Amway's a scheme in which potential earnings from direct sales are exaggerated, as are potential earnings from recruitment of the crowd of distributors you must recruit to "make the real money".
One possibly helpful RS is "Herbalife Deal Poses Challenges For The Industry", a 2016 article in Fortune, which describes the draconian settlement the multi-level marketer signed Herbalife signed with the Federal Trade Commission, agreeing to pay $200 million into a fund to reimburse their distributors who lost money, and to accept severe restrictions on their future business activity. Quoting from the Fortune article:

"But the part that should worry the industry isn't so much the fine—though it is one of the largest ever levied by the FTC in a consumer protection case. The more ominous part is the consent decree Herbalife signed as part of its deal to avoid litigation and put the matter behind them. As part of its settlement, the company agreed to provide proof going forward that its products are being sold to actual customers—something Ackman, CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, had been seeking since launching his assault on the company in December 2012. (In the decree Herbalife neither admits nor denies wrongdoing.)

While the decree's terms may be strong medicine even for Herbalife, they would likely cripple, if not kill off, many of its competitors in what's known as the direct selling, or multi-level marketing, industry. That category includes companies like USANA (USNA, +0.39%), Nu Skin (NUS, +0.31%), Amway, and Avon Products."

The article also gives good descriptions of what makes multi-level marketing operations so prone to abuse:

"Multi-level marketing (MLMs) companies use independent contractors to both sell their products and to recruit additional independent contractors to sell their products. They are paid commission fees based not only on their own wholesale purchases from the company—intended either for resale to retail customers or for personal consumption—but also on the purchases of their recruits and on the purchases of their recruits' recruits, and so on.

Most MLMs bear at least a superficial similarity to illegal pyramid schemes, where early joiners make out like bandits but later participants inevitably lose their money since, mathematically, there's no one left to recruit. In a pyramid scheme, distributors buy product from the company just to manipulate the compensation system, not because they really want to consume it or resell it. (For that reason, inventory may pile up in garages or be dumped for resale at a pittance on the internet.) In 1979, the FTC accepted the notion that MLMs were not categorically illegal, at least so long as they followed certain rules—known as the Amway rules, because of the case that established the precedent—that were supposed to ensure that when MLM distributors bought product from the company they were really consuming or reselling that inventory...

Over the years, however, both the FTC and the courts have grown skeptical that these rules—which nearly every MLM claims to follow—are really being enforced or that they are, in any case, sufficient to prevent an MLM from devolving into a pyramid scheme. The consent decree Herbalife signed Friday replaces the weak, difficult-to-enforce Amway rules with robust, verifiable proof that products are reaching good-faith consumers."

Hope this helps! loupgarous (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

Page: Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Edit: "In 2013, the SPLC named the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) as a "virulently anti-gay" organization. Professor Mike Adams criticized the SPLC because "Their reason for the characterization was simply that the ADF opposes efforts of the LGBT community to impose its agenda on those who disagree with them for religious reasons.["The War On Krishna", SPLC][ Mike Adams, "The Intellectual Poverty Law Center," Townhall][Revision as of 05:26, 2 May 2017]

Question: This edit is representative of a number of criticisms added to the SPLC page. Is the controversy presented in a fair manner? Is the criticism of sufficient weight that it should be added?

Comments: The edit fails to mention the full facts, including why they include the ADF and who Adams is. It provides a link to where the SPLC refers to the ADF anti-gay, but not their article where they explain why they consider it an anti-gay hate group, which can be found here. It supports the recriminalization of homosexuality abroad, says same sex marriage has lead to the "deification of deviant sexual practices," “The endgame of the homosexual legal agenda is unfettered sexual liberty and the silencing of all dissent,” and links LGBT people to pedophilia, and more.

While Adams is a professor, his views are controversial and he was writing as a columnist in a conservative magazine, rather than as a professor. For example, an article in Cosmopolitan, "UNC Professor Pens Racist, Homophobic Facebook Posts and Articles About Students," says Adams "has been posting hate speech against the LGBTQ community throughout his tenure at the college."

Certainly people who engage in hate speech as normally understood object to the attention the SPLC pays to them and we should mention that. But I think the way this is presented gives undue credence to a fringe view, and incorrectly presents the criticism as expert and unbiased. And this has been repeated for Islamophobic, racist and other types of groups.

I acknowledge that there are a few critics of the SPLC who do not promote hate speech, in particular the independent researcher and journalist Laird Wilcox and the founders of the left-wing magazine CounterPunch. but that is a separate issue.

TFD (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... A homophobe criticizing the SPLC for calling homophobes "homophobes" isn't notable. Delete it. (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Let's assume that either the SPLC's labeling of a group or the group reacting to the SPLC's labeling is covered by reliable sources, as a first measure for inclusion. (I'm sure there have been groups labeled by the SPLC with nary a mention in reliable sources, those should not be included). If inclusion is warranted, then I would definitely say that briefly summarizing (with short quotes) the reasoning that the SPLC listed the group (in this case, like the ADF) should be part of any of these to provide balance, as well as the counter-statement if such exists by the group listed. (In a controversy, laying out the stance of both sides without additional commentary is appropriate NPOV). The statement by Adams seems unnecessary, unless it is standing in for the lack of a statement by the ADF, but that begs again if this specific case is necessary.
But one might want to consider even more narrower inclusion metrics here: the SPLC labels a LOT of groups, but only a few of those labels have really caused significant discussion (not just coverage but secondary-source type analysis), so you might want to limit it to those cases, so you can go into more depth for those. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Masem concerning general criteria for inclusion, though that does not seem to be the consensus on the talk page of the article in question, as reliable sources have been dismissed on grounds of lack of popularity or other reasoning.Though consensus might be arising in the talk page section of the article regarding this and related edits Regarding the specific case being discussed here I think the same criteria can be applied. The only reference in the text quoted above for the listing is the SPLC itself, while the only reference to the reaction is an opinion column, though the provided link seems to be pointing to a text by John Horgan (journalist), which doesn't seem to mention the episode. Considering only the current sources I agree that this controversy has no place in the article, and I believe that was the conclusion on the talk page as well for this specific change. Saturnalia0 (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Greg Gianforte

Me and Snooganssnoogans are in a major dispute regarding content on Greg Gianforte. They revolve around two different topics.

First, Snooganssnoogans added a section detailing Gianforte's belief in Young Earth creationism. I removed it because I think it violates WP:UNDUE, because the article mentions Gianforte's contributions to the YEC museum three other times in the article; and that it violates WP:COATRACK, because the info he added describes the museum's beliefs, which has nothing to do with Gianforte.

Second, Snooganssnoogans added a section entitled "Social Security and retirement." I strongly disagree with this section because Gianforte is only talking about retirement and not about SS. He mentions SS only once to illustrate that the biblical figure Noah did not retire. This sentence has absolutely nothing to do with retirement, but the header misleads the reader into thinking the section regards Gianforte's position on retirement. These sections are in the "Political positions" section of the article, which I think is misleading because neither section has anything to do with politics (especially the retirement quote).

I am posting this here because Gianforte is a candidate in an upcoming special congressional election in less than a month. I am worried that this info and possibly other info is added because of the election. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Does it really matter?! WP is practically giving this guy free commercial space. Is this an actual article on WP? or a political campaign ad!? I am actually quite shocked to read such extensive content since there is so much scrutiny over personal promotion in other areas for subjects and companies that would be instantly submitted for an AfD citing "promotional in tone". Why on earth are politicians a special breed here? From your statements, it seems that you may be a pro-Gianforte fan who just doesn't want anything negative on the page going into the campaign. He's a politician, anything he says regarding the state of our country or its citizen's is considered "political", including the quote on retirement / SS; which is far more relevant to "Political positions" than the next section: "Young Earth creationism". IMO Maineartists (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Gianforte's statements on social security and retirement have been covered by reliable sources. They are notable and would belong on any politician's page. Gianforte's extensive financial backing of a creationist museum is also notable, and has unsurprisingly been extensively covered by reliable sources. The backing of the museum is notable because of the theories that the museum espouses to its visitors, it would therefore be inexplicable for the Wikipedia article not to mention what these theories are (this is something that reliable sources do - why shouldn't the WP article?). It's also disingenious to say that the Wikipedia article covers this three times: (i) one is in the lede; (ii) two is a brief mention about how his support for the creationist museum were the subject of protest; (iii) third was a brief mention under the activities that his charity runs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Since we don't have a transcript of his speech where he mentioned Noah, we do not know the context or what he meant. We know it was interpreted by some as opposing Social Security and we should mention that, but presenting their interpretation as a factual representation is wrong.
I don't know why young earth creationism belongs in the political positions section. I note it says, he "is a believer in Young Earth creationism, the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old." My understanding is that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God or his role in the creation of the universe, whether 6,000 years ago or 15 billion years ago. But that's something for discussion in articles about God and creation, and should not be spammed across every single article about people who happen to be religious. I note that Snooganssnoogans has never added to Hillary Clinton's article that she has "pseudo-scientific" beliefs; her religion has been documented in ThinkProgress[4] and FactCheck.[5] Since we mention Gianforte's beliefs already, this is just tendentious redundancy.
I would also like to point out that this type of propaganda is ineffective because it's too obvious. It's like far left pamphlets that call people running dogs of American imperialism. It only works for those who believe already.
TFD (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I've been told that YEC beliefs, along with anti-vaxxer beliefs, should be identified as pseudoscience or in conflict with the scientific consensus (see the talk page at 'Ark Encounter' for example). I'm not aware that religious beliefs in general merit that designation. Also, it's quite common that politicians' takes on scientific matters are featured in their pol positions subsections. The content could, however, be easily moved into a 'religion' subsection or be added under the subsection on his charity. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I've been told isn't a policy. If readers want to know about YEC they can go to the article. Can't you see how patronizing your prose is to readers? And notice that reliable sources, which are our guides, don't write that way either, so there's no reason for us to coatrack it in. I know you want to disparage the subject but that is not the purpose of the article and probably won't have the effect anyway. If you show hostility to a subject, readers will discount what you say about him. TFD (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
This is being discussed across about three different noticeboards. I've had the article watchlisted for a while and I'll take a look to see what needs to be fixed. In general, we write in a neutral tone and verify our content. Montanabw(talk) 05:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Follow up: I did a bit of wikignoming with hope that this revision can be status quo ante. My take is that the current version needs more MOS cleanup, and streamlining some redundant sections and over-quoting, but overall, it's adequate, NPOV and paints a fair picture. Montanabw(talk) 05:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Karate Master's Bio

A NPOV dispute has arisen on the Isshin-ryu karate page within the section "History," subsection "Tatsuo Shimabuku" (the founder of the style). Here are the relevant diffs.

Here is the lengthy discussion from the Talk page under lineage.

Essentially, undue weight seems to be placed upon a single, disputed secondary source from a magazine rather than presenting that source in the context of Shimabuku's widely accepted biography. For example, the section's language leads with the magazine article's alleged "controversy," placing it in the sentence immediately after Shimabuku's birth and death dates. A previous major edit 1) to expand the range of sources (secondary and tertiary), 2) to refocus on the topic (i.e. on the subject's biography rather than an alleged controversy), and 3) to contextualize the controversial source with other sources, was reverted and rewritten to highlight once again the single magazine article.

I do not object to including the sensational article's central claim that Shimabuku was a fraud who fabricated his lineage. As a non-representative or non-mainstream article, however, it probably should not dominate this brief biographical sketch in a subsection of the Isshin-ryu page.

Altogether, the neutrality issues involved seem to touch on WP:UNDUE WP:PROPORTION WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL.

Help please! Billyinthedarbies (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


I am "The Other Editor" on this matter who cited that article in question, and I am ONLY posting HERE to SUPPORT Billyinthedarbies's request. I am only interested in an accurate history. I just want to make clear that this is not about arbitrating a "fight/Edit War" between two individuals/editors. We just want to have a nice accurate history section. Some of us would also like a pony, but I will not reveal who.

TheDoctorX (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nehru College of Engineering and Research Centre

The article on this private college became the subject of some intense editing starting in January following the suicide of a student and the revelation of a number of other abuses at the school. Much material has been added on these controversies, but while this appears to be reasonably well-sourced, it has come to dominate the article. One editor in particular, User:Helpsavestudents, has been the primary contributor of verbiage highlighting the abuses. Others have tried to whitewash the article and/or have it deleted entirely. A few, including myself, have tried to make some severe cutbacks to restore some proportion--while I may have cut things back overmuch, these cutbacks have been reverted in their entirety.

I'm requesting a few more eyeballs to check out the article and assist with figuring out what the best balance is here. Thank you for your assistance. --Finngall talk 01:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


I would like to request a third opinion on the dispute currently ongoing at Douban. User:Whaterss initially blanked a section pertaining to censorship of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre on the grounds that it is "political content". He has subsequently justified this in edit summaries and on the article talk page by stating that the blanked content is "both unimportant and not neutral".

I responded on the talk page: "You are blanking an account of an event, reported in reputable news media, that has been presented here in a neutral tone. Why? WP:NPOV does not mean "censor anything that might reflect poorly on the article subject". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not censored. We report on notable aspects of the subject at hand. Notability is generally defined as something that is reflected in coverage by reliable secondary sources – for example, the content that you are blanking, which is cited to the BBC. Secondly it isn't your call to dictate whether something is "unimportant" or not – what matters is whether it has been covered by reliable secondary sources."

The blanked content is a brief, neutral summary of an aspect of the subject that has been reported on in a reliable secondary source. There is no basis in Wikipedia policy to censor it. Citobun (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Two things to point out: First, he called "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" a massacre. Clearly he have shown his political opinions while denying "I'm not promoting my political opinions" in Talk:History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002). Second, he proposed the notability guidelines so as to object my opinions. Actually according to WP:N, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article".Whaterss (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
"Tiananmen Square massacre" is the common English name for this event – see Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. My reply on the Douban talk page: "I never referred to WP:NNC. Per WP:DUE, it is appropriate to cover a breadth of viewpoints on the article subject presented by reliable secondary sources. Censoring this content on the grounds that it is "political" is violating this policy. The text is not biased – it is written neutrally. If being "political" was grounds for deletion a significant chunk of Wikipedia would disappear. You have no basis in Wikipedia policy for censoring this." Citobun (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of Walmart discussion

There has been a really great conversation at Talk:Criticism of Walmart and I'm looking for more editors to join the discussion. To summarize: Wikipedians have noticed and have begun attempts to fix the Criticism of Walmart article, which is full of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV content, and is far from encyclopedic in areas. Some editors have suggested throwing out the article and starting from scratch, while others have said the article would take a "massive" effort to clean up properly. The issue is no one knows where to start. I posted this same question to Wikipedia:Village pump, where George Ho recommended I seek input at this noticeboard. So here I am. Input and advice from additional editors could be a huge benefit to finding a way forward in cleaning up Criticism of Walmart. As one of Walmart's representatives on Wikipedia, I have a conflict of interest and I do not feel comfortable making suggestions as to whether the editors should try to correct the existing article or start over by reducing it to a stub, as has been suggested by others. I am, however, willing to help with whatever "grunt" work is necessary to assist other editors in fixing the page (providing references, assisting with identifying inaccuracies, etc.). Any insight is valuable and appreciated. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I spent a fair amount of time trying to fix this article, and finally gave up (sorry JLD). See my comments at the talk page, but it looks like someone went on a witch hunt some time in the past. Roughly half of the references I checked did not actually support what was said in the article. For the record, although I believe Walmart is the essence of evil and is destroying all that is good about the US, the Criticism of Walmart article is a hatchet job and reflects poorly on Wikipedia's reputation. I hope that some good people will step up and rectify this. For encouragement, I have found JLD to be one of the fairest, most helpful, and easiest to work with COI editors I have encountered, a pleasant change from the usual corporate shills. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

JLD and Kendall-K1, I think the entire article should be scrapped. I haven't touched the article since January I believe. Also, Kendall-K1, when I checked references, I had the same problem you did, the refs didn't didn't support what was claimed, or they were dead links. That's why I tried to remove the links. I wasn't trying to go against any Wikipedia policies when removing the links, my thinking (which was probably wrong) was that if the refs didn't support what was stated, they should be removed. I only did that because I read a lot of BLPs on Wikipedia, and on the talk pages for BLPs, you have to have a reference, or Wikipedia could get in legal trouble, so I figured the same would be true for an article about Walmart. I apologize if I caused you any trouble Kendall-K1, I did enjoy working with you on the article. I also think it's nice to work with someone like JDL. You're upfront and honest, and to echo what Kendall-K1 wrote, you don't act like a corporate shill. Paige Matheson (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism articles and sections are inherently POV. Criticism should be incorporated into the main article or articles in relevant sections or in some cases have stand alone articles. The main article for example should say what employees are paid, then commentary on it, rather than having it as part of a criticism section. TFD (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kendall-K1 and Paige Matheson: Thank you both for recognizing my efforts here. I hope editors are able to reach consensus on how to move forward to bring Criticism of Walmart in line with Wikipedia's standards. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Stating as an objective fact that God is the father of Jesus

Discussion is best continued at Talk:Jesus. The regulars at this noticeboard are certainly aware of the discussion at this point. VQuakr (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This concerns [6]. At least two editors want to state as an objective fact that God is the father of Jesus. Imho, that isn't an objective fact, but a subjective belief. Not being able to distinguish between objective facts and subjective beliefs is a matter of WP:CIR#Bias-based. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely correct - it should not be just listed like that in the infobox because it is so nuanced. What is said in the end of the first para of the lede does the job properly to stress this point (God being the father of Jesus) as a fundamental tenet of Christianity. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. There's an article on historical Jesus where one can say there is no historical evidence of that. But the Jesus article is not that and there was a note on the entry explaining it. We're happy to list the brothers of Loki or who was Krishna's mother so I think this can be treated them all like in-game Pokemon characters. Dmcq (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Except the consensus among historians is that Jesus has really existed, as a man of flesh and blood. And, even if we don't know if Joseph fathered Jesus, "God has fathered Jesus" is definitely no objective fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
In the article on Christ, I think it’s fine to state that God is the father as that article is specifically about the Christian theological concept of the Messiah. On the Jesus article, this doesn’t seem proper. Jesus is also a figure in the Quran, and if IIRC, he is considered a prophet and the result of a miraculous birth, but not the son of a god. The insistence on the talk page that it’s not relevant what Muslims think I find bothersome. Objective3000 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It is subjective, and is a belief (not a fact). By the same token (as long as it is clear) it is an "in universe" fact.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
And Joseph's paternity is an objective fact? Where did you get information about Joseph? From the Bible, right? But the Bible says he is the foster Father of Jesus! Then you must remove Joseph too, if you do not want to write about God the Father. Алессия (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Belinda Carlisle in "All God's Children" declares, "Right out from the start, I was taught to listen to my heart. So when I tell you 'this is real', I know I'm not mistaken." Yet Wikipedia says her father was a man named Howard, and her stepfather was Walt. Secular sources also don't share her conviction that Heaven is a place on Earth, so we know what that's worth. Same sort of poetic license here. Fair play for regular Jesus, but not for historical Jesus. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why Tgeorgescu opened a thread here. There's already a consensus in the talk page against the proposed change, and the mentioned edits have been reverted.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the problematic edits were made after the discussion in the talk page began, and another editor later reiterated his/her willingness to change the article to "God is the father of Jesus" in the infobox. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the consensus on the talk page is clear. Suggest re-opening discussion here if the talk page trends away from our core policies. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am the initiator of this discussion, thank you for your attention. My point of view: the information about Joseph is taken from the Bible. There are no other sources about Joseph. But the Bible says that the father of Jesus Christ is God the Father. What's the point? Do you believe the Bible that Joseph existed, but do not believe that he was a foster father? There are three normal ways: 1. Father is God the Father. 2. Write only about Virgin Mary. 3. Write about Joseph is the foster father. Алессия (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I had already answered such objection with "Historians make the call, not ordinary Bible readers. Historians critically analyze the Bible, they don't take it at face value. Not distinguishing between objective information and subjective claims is a matter of WP:CIR#Bias-based." E.g. Bart Ehrman noted that the Bible is inconsistent upon this issue and scribes have tried to erase verses which called Joseph "father of Jesus". Anyway, if it is not certain that Joseph is the father of Jesus, that's another matter than God being the father of Jesus. The existence of a human father of Jesus conforms to the criteria of historical objectivity (namely methodological naturalism[1][2]), while God as the father of Jesus cannot be objective knowledge. So, if you want erasing Joseph as father of Jesus, that's another matter than stating objectively that God is the father of Jesus. Such matters have to be discussed separately: one refers to the (lack of a) consensus of historians/Bible scholars, the other refers to stating myth as fact.
There are no other sources about Joseph. There exist numerous texts that mention Joseph, academic texts and ancient texts, The Quran for one. It is not a “fact” that Jesus is the son of God. It is a belief. Objective3000 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Quran? Funny. You are absolutely unaware. Muslims believe that Jesus did not have a biological father. The rest of your "sources" are the same. Алессия (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The Quran, IIRC, says that the birth was miraculous and Joseph was the foster father. It does NOT say Jesus is the son of god. Mohammed isn’t even a god according to the Quran. Objective3000 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you like to demonstrate ignorance? Maria was not married in Islam. Алессия (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please watch comments like You are absolutely unaware and Do you like to demonstrate ignorance. Such are not acceptable here. Objective3000 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
So, do you decide not to talk about Joseph in Islam? Good. Алессия (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by that. Objective3000 (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
????? You wrote: "The Quran, IIRC, says that the birth was miraculous and Joseph was the foster father." But there is no Joseph in the Koran. The Islamic Mary was not married.
There is a Joseph in the Quran; albeit the relationship to Mary is unclear. But, that is neither here nor there. Objective3000 (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ McGrew, Timothy, "Miracles", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
    Flew, Antony, 1966, God and Philosophy, London: Hutchinson.
    Ehrman, Bart D., 2003, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd ed., New York: Oxford University Press.
    Bradley, Francis Herbert, 1874, “The Presuppositions of Critical History,” in Collected Essays, vol. 1, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1935.
    Quote from McGrew: "Historians work with methodological naturalism, which precludes them from establishing miracles as objective historical facts (Flew 1966: 146; cf. Bradley 1874/1935; Ehrman 2003: 229).".
  2. ^ Ehrman, Bart; Craig, William Lane (March 28, 2006). "William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?"". College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts: Retrieved August 11, 2010. Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature of the canons of historical research, we can't claim historically that a miracle probably happened. By definition, it probably didn't. And history can only establish what probably did. 
Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please explain to me: why does the article "historical Jesus" exist? I read there: «The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods," in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith'). It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.»
In contrast, there should be an article about "the dogmatic Christ", right? So, the dogmatic Christ' father is God the Father. Алессия (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The "dogmatic Christ" article, I believe, is Christ (title) and various articles linked from that. The historical Jesus is about attempts to demonstrate that Jesus did actually exist from sources specifically outside of religious texts, only using things like the New Testament books to corroborate rather than validate. Since Jesus is trying to summarize many different possible records (the historical Jesus, the Christian Jesus, etc. etc.), it should only stick to facts for ideas that are shared universally by all views. In this case that Mary was his mother, who was married to Joseph at the time so regardless of his birth, Joseph served as the father-figure - that's all shared facts. Whereas Jesus being the Son of God is only an attribute of Christianity and should be limited as a tenet of that faith, and not fact. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
"In this case that Mary was his mother, who was married to Joseph at the time so regardless of his birth, Joseph served as the father-figure - that's all shared facts." And where did you get these facts from? From the Bible? There are no other sources about Joseph. Алессия (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
There are no other sources about Joseph. You need to stop saying this. It is demonstrably false. Objective3000 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Where's your proof? If you accuse me, prove it. Алессия (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not an argument. Because this apocrypha does not claim that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Besides, the apocrypha can not be considered more "objective" than the Bible. Алессия (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It is a response to what you wrote, we are not mind readers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You know what I mean. To use apocrypha is the same as using, for example, the writings of Arius or other heresiarchs. This can hardly be called a separate historical source. Алессия (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Christianity does not “own” Jesus. He is a major figure in most Abrahamic religions. Not all consider him son of a god. In fact, not all Christian sects hold that belief. Unitarians (as opposed to Trinitarians) believe Jesus was human. The article is about Jesus of Nazareth. It is not an article about Christian beliefs, and talks to other branches of religion. Objective3000 (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Other "Abrahamic religions" do not interest me. There is an article about Isa ibn Maryam Алессия (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Then you want Jesus in Christianity, where Jesus as the Son of God is a core tenet. But on Jesus which summarizes numerous different theories/beliefs about him, it has to be normalized to only state things universally agreed on by all groups and not assume one set of beliefs is right. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not true. This article is about Jesus Christ of Christianity. And a little "other views." Алессия (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
"Other "Abrahamic religions" do not interest me." Your personal, subjective views are of no interest for Wikipedia. We simply render scholarship, see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
"Your personal, subjective views are of no interest for Wikipedia" Your name is not "Wikipedia". Алессия (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
As stated on your talk page, Wikipedia does not care about the subjective beliefs of its editors, it cares about objective information and objective arguments. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You did not answer my last question. About the "historical" and "dogmatic" Jesus. Алессия (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The historical Jesus means the real human, of flesh and blood. The Christ of faith means a mythical being. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that there are other readers of Wikipedia. Objective3000 (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"The historical Jesus means the real human, of flesh and blood. The Christ of faith means a mythical being." You have confused - "objectively" does not mean "atheistically". Алессия (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Marcus Borg has suggested that "the details of Strauss's argument, his use of Hegelian philosophy, and even his definition of myth, have not had a lasting impact. Yet his basic claims—that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that 'myth' is not simply to be equated with 'falsehood'—have become part of mainstream scholarship. What was wildly controversial in Strauss's time has now become one of the standard tools of biblical scholars."<ref>[ Marcus Borg, David Friedrich Strauss:Miracles and Myth.]</ref>

— from David Strauss
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, this article does not reject the "myths", right? So why are you worried about "God the Father"? Алессия (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It was a reply to the insinuation of me having an atheist agenda. "Mythical" does not means "false", so "Christ is a mythical being" does not mean atheism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is written from a WP:NPOV. Objective3000 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I tend to become tired of his/her shenanigans. Does not seem able to get the point that we don't render subjective beliefs, we render scholarship aiming at establishing objective facts. As I said before, it seems a case of WP:CIR#Bias-based: he/she does not have intellectual maturity needed to comprehend Bible scholarship and the policy-based arguments made by established Wikipedia editors. He/she wastes our time with puerile arguments ([7]), subjective exhortations, discriminatory remarks (Jews don't matter, Muslims don't matter, Talmud cannot be speaking anything true), insinuations of atheist agenda (see above) and personal attacks (as warned above by others). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is that argument puerile? See No true Scotsman. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The exact relation of Jesus to the Abrahamic god has been the subject of intense and divisive discussion since long before the biblical canon had been established. "God the Father" is not a universal concept even among Christ-believers. This is certainly not suitable as an absolute claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Edits referring to apocrypha, or heresiarchs only applied when one’s own faith is perceived as under the gun. Edits suggesting an atheist agenda. Lack of care or interest about other religions. Only the Bible can be a source. If someone cannot get through the shell of their own beliefs, perhaps the editor is in the wrong place. In any case, this is the NPOV page, and they do not seem to understand the concept. Objective3000 (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hall Affair - orphan with NPOV problems, but worth salvaging

I happen to agree with the fairly explicit point of view of this article, but that doesn't excuse the violations. As written it's a mess, with not only NPOV problems but formatting and others as well. It's had an assortment of tags on it, apparently, for about five years now. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Redskin (slang)

After a long period of stability, User:Bromley86 began editing Redskin (slang) by removing content which had citations from good sources. POV editing of this article has been a common, if not a frequent problem, and my practice had become reversion without comment, which I did initially, but later responded on the talk page: Talk:Redskin_(slang)#Lead & scalping. I had thought there had been a restoration of stability, but the current state of the article is the result of removal of any content that addresses whether the term "redskins" has any relationship to the history of paying bounties for scalps, except to claim the relationship was debunked by one source, which I see as a misreading of that source.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Revision: I did not revert without comment until after my first two attempts to restore cited content were themselves reverted.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

If you read the rubric at the top, you'll see that you're meant to have made an attempt to resolve this on the talk page first. Had you done that, rather than reverting without edit summaries (which is an awful habit), then I rather suspect we'd have managed to deal with this. I suggest that you try that first, but if you'd rather deal with it here, that's fine with me. For the record, I am not an American, of any kind, and literally have no dog in this fight. Bromley86 (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I should mention that all of my changes were explained and, when you look at the cites, they now explicitly support the points that they're attached to. This was not the case before. For example, in the first para of the Body:
The origin of the term "redskin" in English is debated. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) had cited its earliest use in a 1699 letter from an English colonialist, Samuel Smith, living in Hadley, Massachusetts, which supposedly contains the following passage: "Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins." Based on this source, the OED suggests the term was specifically applied to the Delaware Indians and "referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint."[8]
That cite supported literally none of the points made. This is one of the issues I've addressed in my edits. Anyhoo, I'm dealing with the dispute on the Talk page and won't check back here unless pinged. Bromley86 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I made a choice not to engage further on the talk page after Bromley86 made an explicit statement that editors have the right to interpret sources based upon their own opinions rather than include all and note the discrepancies and controversies. Editors have to summarize and select, but dismissing the work of Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a PhD historian, by saying "There will be plenty of qualified people who have misrepresented things..." and saying it is biased is beyond the pale. Then there is the news report on a talk on "redskins" and bounties given by Michael Taylor in 2013, while he was a professor of anthropology at Colgate University.

Sudip Bhatttacharya (November 6, 2013). "'Redskin': A fun team name or racial epithet?". LNP MEDIA GROUP, Inc. Retrieved May 9, 2017. Michael Taylor, a Seneca Indian and an assistant professor at Colgate University: 'The term "redskin" comes from the Colonial era, when some Native Americans were killed in clashes with newly arrived settlers and others were hunted down for a bounty.' 

This has been repeated dubbed "irrelevant" and deleted (it is currently missing), apparently based upon a mistaken assumption about the topic of this article. It is not a dictionary entry closely tied to the etymology of the term, since as "slang" there is really no such thing. Non-standard words used by different groups may have radically different meanings, yet the recent edits have removed much of the content attempting to address these meanings from a NPOV. I would welcome actual collaboration to improve the "origins and meaning" section, but that would mean recognition that all of the previous content supported by reliable sources has validity.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
There is also the issue of whether a statement on the existence of the debate regarding redskins, bounties, and scalping belongs in the lead section. As one of the major points of public controversy, I think that it does.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
You what? What I actually said was that we should always evaluate sources. I did not say we should ignore her opinion, just that her opinion was not sufficient for inclusion in the Lead. Write the Body, summarise in the Lead, and it is not sufficiently important to be in the Lead. Mind you, the fact that you seem to be unable to recognise that she appears to not present a neutral POV on this subject is of concern, as is your willingness to believe statements made with no support. This is almost the very definition of POV pushing, and yet you accuse me of it. Priceless!
As to the Taylor reference, I'm not sure what your point is. Firstly, it's not clear from that article that he actually said that.[9] Secondly, the article gives no evidence to support the assertion. In the face of an article published by an expert in a journal that specifically says this etymology is made up,[10] we assume it's made up. Bromley86 (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

As there's now a NPOV tag added to the article by User:WriterArtistDC, I'd appreciate someone here reviewing my changes to confirm that, whatever else they might be, they're not violations of the NPOV policy, so we can remove the tag.diff Happy to answer why I don't believe my edits are POV-based (just ping me), although a quick review of my edit history should confirm that (my last foci were the Hollow Moon "hypothesis" and obscure African kings). I'd also point to the edit summary by WADC: "Extensive POV editing and OR". There's zero WP:OR in my version; if they're wrong on that count, it rather calls into question the accuracy of the POV accusation. Bromley86 (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That there is a fundamental difference requiring participation by additional editors is the reason for posting here. In my experience this may take a while, but the POV tag can remain, and there should be no further changes to the article until there is a resolution. I have begun a draft in my workspace to indicate the changes I would make. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
None of which addresses my point that your accusation of OR was as baseless as your accusation of POV editing after zero effort to discuss: that's resorting to ad hominem to try to get what you want. I offered to go down the WP:3O route, which was the correct resolution to a content dispute.
It's interesting to note that you appear to have had a similar view to mine a few years ago: This is not an article about scalping, but about the meaning of the slang term redskin, so scalping is barely mentioned since, as you say, scalping has only a tentative relationship to the term.[11] Not the words of someone who one would expect to disagree with the removal of the scalping suggested etymology from the Lead, an etymological claim that has been described as an "unfounded",[12] and "fictional",[13] by Goddard, and "revisionist history" in Indian Country Today.[14] Bromley86 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Again the confusion between rejecting "redskin only means scalp" and accepting that "Redskins" was the term most often used to refer to "Indians" by those collecting scalps for bounty. The latter is what Michael Taylor is saying (thus that ref's importance), and the 19th century newspaper stories are examples. However, isolated use of the term redskins for scalps becoming part of Native American oral history is likely within the context of collecting scalps for bounty. Did a bounty hunter never point to his collected scalps and say "I have a hundred redskins here."? Is oral history to be rejected entirely? Should a non-literate society be reduced to what is reported about them by their colonizers, including a scholar from the Smithsonian Institution, which has no clean record with regard to exploitation? The problem is attempting to establish any single entomology for a slang term. There are three groupings of early usage: pigment, skin color and scalp-hunting. Each has its validity and sources, and none refutes any of the others given the doubts voiced by scholars themselves regarding the certainty of any of their work (and to say they do is OR an POV). Any or all meanings may have been used by some groups, but none consistently. Nothing close to a standard meaning emerged until American culture had standardized the stereotypes of the Native American at the turn of the 20th century; a savage redskin when they attacked "peaceful" settlers, a Friendly Indian at other times.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, and one that is entirely due to your inability to understand a simple concept. Words come into being, and then their meaning changes over time. The origin of the word is important, and an encyclopaedia should discuss it. It should also discuss the meaning. Your talk of "early usage" is inaccurate: if we have written records of Indians using the term to describe themselves without prejudice that greatly predate the evidence you supply for its possible use in a scalping context, then the scalping suggestion cannot be the origin.
The suggestion that the Smithsonian should be ignored, but people who say something with no support should be believed is, frankly, insane. A non-literate society does present challenges when establishing what happened in the past, but there are ways of dealing with it. Academic review of the many interactions with literate societies, in multiple languages, is a good start (and we have Goddard's journal article to cover this). An academic review of oral histories would also be useful. What is not useful is revisionist oral histories put forward without support.
Again, the Taylor ref you supply is incredibly weak, and your insistence that it is not is concerning. You present it as if it's a quote of something he said: there is no indication of that. This is precisely what I was talking about when I said we should evaluate sources, rather than hope that they say what we want them to. And, anyway, even if we assume he said it, where is the research that he undertook to come to that conclusion?
In closing, would you care to tell me what is POV about my most recent version that you reverted. Note that I specifically say that I have not reviewed the Evolving meaning subsection, but I think the Origins subsection is entirely fair and balanced. Compare with the rambling mess that was there before. Bromley86 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting for third party participation, however that may be stimulated. I have no interest in further discussion with someone who, from my point of view as a social scientist, insists that their understanding of an issue is the only accurate one, and includes personal issues in the discussion. There may be underlying theoretical differences regarding language that is also preventing communications on this topic. As someone who understand language usage in terms of particular perspective on evolutionary and cognitive psychology, I can recognize when someone does not share this perspective, but I don't know how to bridge the gap in this case.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

PS. I reverted the last edits because, as I explained, the NPOV tag puts editing of the article on hold until there is some resolution. Perhaps this is not in the guidelines, but should be, since what is the point of submitting a dispute to arbitration if changes are still being made unilaterally?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My draft of a revised article is complete: User:WriterArtistDC/scratch --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Lisa Fritsch

Lisa Fritsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DMGUSA (talk · contribs)

This is apparently a friend of the subject's; subject had previously attempted to have an employee of hers "Improve" the article, but that one got blocked. The edits by DMGUSA are very favorable to the subject, and poorly sourced, if at all. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's List of Islamic extremist groups

This section provides a list of groups that are allegedly support Islamic extremist ideology, although the definition of "Islamic extremism" is ambiguous and often controversial. Can this list be re-written so that it describes these groups in more objective terms? Jarble (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with undeclared conflicts of interest and defamatory statements/links on bandpages

Since 2010 I have edited and added to a Wikipedia page concerning a UK based rock page (now relocated to another EU country).

I seek advice of how to deal with repeated edits to the band's page being made by a former member of one version of the band who believes he has been badly treated and has rights to trade under the band's name. He also adds links to his current projects (unconnected) and to defamatory information on the band's founder and current members posted on a similarly named webpage he owns (which IMO is an abusive registration). I don't want to get into edit wars but don't really know what else to do.

I have declared a interest as a friend of the band's founder but also declare truthfully that I have no financial interest in the band and am not in any way contracted to edit the wikipedia article. The subject of the page might fairly be described as having somewhat limited tech understanding and I edit the page as a favour to him. Until recently this has been an uncontroversial process merely adding new releases and changes to band personnel etc.

The band in question have existed in various forms since the early 1980s and all their material has been composed by the band's founder who is also the only person to have been in all incarnations of the band.

Following an acrimonious split from the band, a individual who was a touring member of the band for about a year has posted untrue and libellous statements on a website he has registered with the band's name (merely buying a domain with a different suffix). He now posts links to those statements on the band's Wikipedia page, in a way which suggests this is agreed by the band's founder and reverts any changes made. This person has not declared a conflict of interest though that is obvious. He also adds links to his websites in external links and promotes his current band which has no connection with the original band other than having two members who played briefly in the subject band and a very similar name to the original band. During his membership of the band, the band only performed material written by the founder. In fairness, this person (the former band member) did record and produce an album of old hits of the band and organised two tours of Spain in 2015 and 2016. His contribution during that period is not in dispute nor is his right to claim that he was unfairly treated by the band's founder and management (and lost money as a result) though of course that is disputed. However I do not believe that Wikipedia is the place to grind an axe particularly when it involves links to material of a personal and libellous nature including financial information.

As is often the case in the entertainments industry disagreements arose and the band split with the former member claiming he now owned the band and would continue without the founder member. It is fair to say that the band is almost entirely a vehicle for the founder member who not only wrote all the material but also sings it and has a distinctive style. Once promoters realised that the founder was no longer in the band attempting to tour under the original name, further engagements were cancelled.

The founder member recruited new band members (to join the three members of the previous band who remained) and continues to tour and has produced and released an album of new material. He is very well known in the EU country in which he now lives and enjoys much TV and Radio coverage.

Ideally someone neutral would edit the Wikipedia page but I don't know how one 'recruits' such a person. At very least I think that the person doing these edits should declare a COI and the links to his disputed version of events which led to the split - which are not verified by other neutral sources - should not have a place on the page.

I have not mentioned the name of the band here as I do not want to fan the flames further.

Any advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lleolyons (talkcontribs) 11:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

In truth neither of you should be editing the page without first asking for edits to be agrees with the community, COI edds should not make unilateral edits. As to how you recruit neutral edds, by posting link to problem pages and asking for help (such as here and at RSN). Could you please provide a link the the page in question?Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


An editor has twice changed the terminology at Mediumship to present the practice as an irrefutable fact (see [15] and [16]). I have tried to make the language a bit less judgemental (see [17]) but I see some words I have used (such as "purportedly") are discouraged by WP:WEASELWORDS. Has anyone got any suggestions? Basically the line science takes on it is that it is an "open line of inquiry" but it has never conclusively found evidence of psychic phenomena, and inevitably comes up against that old quandary that you cannot prove a negative. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm also not happy with the edits at Psychic by the same editor. Do they warrant a revert? Betty Logan (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please assess neutrality in this case

I have started an RFC here on the topic of how time should be given in article text. It is possible that a few involved editors are biased due to the way such things are written in their own countries and languages. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump time

This Timeline of scandals related to Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election and attempts to impeach Donald Trump needs goof look at, maybe even an AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely problematic presently since this assumes via OR that all these events are essential to the story around the interference. WP:RECENTISM is critical here. In a few years we may be able to have a timeline like this when the full story is known (particularly if impeachment hearings come into play), but right now, it cannot be written neither neutrally nor without engaging in original research. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Calling people, movements, and viewpoints "misogynistic"

Is it ever appropriate for Wikipedia to describe a person, movement, or viewpoint as "misogynistic"? This has cropped up in some articles pertaining to the manosphere (e.g. Robert Fisher (New Hampshire politician) which said, "In 2017, The Daily Beast claimed that Fisher was the founder and a moderator, under the alias pk_atheist, of the subreddit 'TheRedPill', known for its misogynistic views", and 2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Misogyny, which says, "Rodger frequented online forums such as PUAHate and /r/ForeverAlone where he and other men posted misogynistic statements about women"), with some editors saying it's an example of calling a spade a spade.

If advocating traditional sex roles is misogynistic, then there are quite a lot of historical figures (such as Paul the apostle) who would have to be regarded as misogynistic (rather than merely "sexist," as I've more commonly seen them described).

It's a bit jarring to see people throw the rather strong word "misogynistic" around so much these days, but maybe the meaning of the word has changed, or people have changed their standards of what kind of ideas count as misogynistic. It definitely seems like a pejorative term, as I've never heard of anyone who would describe himself as a misogynist. Compy book (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If we are talking a contemporary person/group that is currently living/active, such claims should always be with attribution and never as fact in WP's voice. This falls under WP:LABEL. Someone may be universally viewed as misogynistic, but that still remains a label and thus requires some type of attribution, even if it something like "John Q Smith is considered misogynistic by a large number of commentators.(list of sources here)"
Now if you start talking about deep historical figures, where there is well established studies and analysis, it might be the case that there is universal acceptance that a figure was misogynistic, which wouldn't require the same type of named attribution but of course should be still be sourced correctly. The idea here is that any controversy over this label has been lost due to the test of time and scholars that have reviewed the person's life to come to a common conclusion. But there at least that should be included only if that's a relatively universal fact that all scholars about the person come to conclude. You do have to watch for some modern critics that want to reversion history with a specific modern-day view that wasn't applicable when that person lived, which can be controversial, and that's why its best to make sure there's universal acceptance of that. If not, then attribution is still required. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this specific edit, I think "misogyny" fits better with the source than "sexist". It is clear that this is intended as an attributed claim to the investigative report, but the source-content integrity should be carefully restored. Here is the original report about the Red Pill in the Daily Beast, which in particular says this: "Yet further investigation by The Daily Beast suggests that Fisher may still be very much be an active contributor and chief moderator of The Red Pill, where an alias that appears to belong to him—under the username redpillschool—regularly champions misogynistic views." Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking around at various headlines, it seems like most of the time when people are described as "misogynists," it's either in an opinion piece, or it's in quotes, like in this article. Although here we have TRP described as a "misogynistic forum" without quotes. That just doesn't seem very objective to me, but apparently this is what major news outlets are doing. Compy book (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Like anything else like this, it's important that it be attributed. But once that is done, I think we should use "misogynist" as a fair and attributed representation of that source. I also believe that it is due weight to include it, but invite other community input on that point. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Considering that for Fisher that his discovered involvement with that Reddit thread led to him resigned, I see no problem with an attributed description of that reddit board so that people know (implicitly) why he likely resigned as a result of the discovery. The wording in his current article seems fairly neutral on this point and seems fine. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I like how we handled the "misogyny" issue at Roosh V. The lead says he has been accused of misogyny, and the article gives three or four examples of such accusations, always with attribution. We also have a statement from Roosh saying he is "pro-woman" which seems to add some balance. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Would someone like to make a bold edit at Robert Fisher (New Hampshire politician), to help us out with our BRD cycle? Grayfell seem to favor the status quo in which the article says that TRP is "known for its misogynistic views" and I've been trying to figure out a more neutral alternative that would implement the emerging consensus here, while at the same time not being too clunky or creating a bias in the other direction. Based on some of the talk page discussion, I'm starting to wonder if I adequately and accurately understand the nuances of how one assesses what is and isn't misogyny (since he's talking about "textbook" as opposed to "dictionary" misogyny, which implies there's a lot more to it), so some more eyes would be appreciated. Thanks, Compy book (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Functional Medicine

The article on Functional Medicine [[18]] is very biased and the bias is obvious in both tone and quality of cited sources. The talk page here [[19]] makes a clear point that even the definition of functional medicine, even when appropriately cited, is consistently removed from the article.

It appears after thoroughly reading the talk page that there IS a consensus, and that the consensus is that the article is biased, and yet attempts to fix it are consistently reverted. Hence, I am added the article to this list for 3rd party review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor Bullying / Condescending Remarks (Editor: Houn)

I have read quite a bit about editor bullying on Wikipedia, but had never once had imagined I would experience this myself. Moreover the comments by your Editor Houn are downright condescending!

I am an experinced University Professor (Tenured Full), the autor of two textbooks and the supervisor of over 50 dissertations. See my profile on:

Having been slapped with a POV tag, whichI believed was unnecessary I was confronted by two editors, the first of whom was quite polite, but the response from Houn is downright condescending: "I would expect that, as a university professor, you're well aware of what kinds of sources are reliable. Accepting their own website as the sole source for such claims as having "faithfully preserved" apostolic succession doesn't seem like academic rigor to me; is that the standard you'd apply when writing a paper for publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal? Other parts of the content you wrote cited no references at all but the Bible; the last time I read the KJV, it didn't have anything to say about the Evangelical Anglican Church In America. Thus to me it seems you were mostly summarizing what the EACA has to say about itself, not what independent sources have reported about it; that indeed is not the way to write a neutral encyclopedia article". Huon (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

First it is impossible to write an article describing a faith-based group without describing what they believe, and it is only they who can describe what they believe! It is not any encyclopedias responsibility to check the accuracy of belief-based material which is supplied by the the group. How do I or should I even find a third party collatoration in describing the validity of someones belief? That is absurd!

In particular the dispute revolved around the use of "faifully preserved" in describing the succession of a church. To put this in context, lets assume a couple marry promising to be faithful to each other. Assuming that one partner is able to provide a written record which "demonstrates" fidelity (if such was possible). What would be wrong with saying that the marital vows have been "faithfully kept" and referencing the written record? Scientific method has to do ultimately with dispute and how would anyone dispute this statement? If you can't dispute it you will have to take it on face-value.

Referencing your own article on "Theology", the tension between faith (which cannot be independently referenced) and the scientific method has been long established: "Much of the debate concerning theology's place in the university or within a general higher education curriculum centres on whether theology's methods are appropriately theoretical and (broadly speaking) scientific or, on the other hand, whether theology requires a pre-commitment of faith by its practitioners."

The comment "Thus to me it seems you were mostly summarizing what the EACA has to say about itself" is improper criticism, how else do you document a belief? Look for example at the Wikipedia article on the Roman Catholic church, at least 80% of the references cited come from the church itself. In describing faith, the scientific method cannot be appropriately applied, simply because faith, by its very nature, cannot be indepependently tested and verified.

The comments made by Editor Houn are simply disrespectful and I shall not be submitting further work to your site.

Prof. Ashley G. Frank, DCom, MBA — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyOil (talkcontribs) 08:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail

This RfC decided that the Daily Mail should not be used as a source in Wikipedia articles. This is problematic, because some writers for the Daily Mail have Wikipedia biographies. With this edit I used direct quotes from the Daily Mail, made by Katie Hopkins, on the Katie Hopkins Wikipedia article. My edits were reverted. I could understand prohibiting editorial content from the Daily Mail, but in this instance the Daily Mail is the only source for the quotes I used. Without permitting the subject of this BLP to state her opinion, the neutrality and fairness of the article is skewed. This undermines the integrity of WP:NPOV and WP:CRITS. Out of fairness to the subject of this BLP, an exception should be made to permit the use of the blacklisted source. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

A piece that Hopkins wrote herself published by the Daily Mail is one of those reasonable exceptions that is identified in the first bullet point of the RFC closure "The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects. This appears to have been adequately addressed by the support !voters: if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead." -the BLP's own words would be one of those cases that no better source would be found. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hopkins is mainly known in the UK for the controversies which regularly occur after she states her opinions. She is not known as a pundit with a reputation for serious comment, so the article you quoted from is frankly non-notable, quite apart from the issue of when it is appropriate to use the Mail website as a source. If there are any websites which praise her insights, they probably do not count as a reliable source. (In fact, Hopkins does not write for the newspaper itself, and is under contract to the associated website, see the sources when she moved from the rival Sun tabloid.) Philip Cross (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Given that there is a section in Hopkins' BLP about criticism of her views of the Manchester Arena bombing, including her own words from the DM is completely reasonable to cover that neutrally. Anywhere else on WP, absolutely not. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The RfC says the Mail should not be used, and if the quotation has any substance in a neutral article about Hopkins, it will be reprinted in another, more respectable, source. I managed to write Enemies of the People without citing the Daily Mail once. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is a unique case: there is noted criticism of her views in the BLP, so her original statement is necessary to reference as to be neutral. Other sources might reprint parts of Hopkins' statements from the DM article, but we would still want to include the DM article as the original source for material. DM is not banned fully, but it should only be used exceptionally, and this is one of those exceptions, and only for being used to provide the context for criticism of her views. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
And to point out that in the RFC, it was agreed that if DM's coverage of a topic was the center of a story, its use there was perfectly fine; I would think it is failing to not cite the DM for their original "Enemies of the People" headline in an article about that story, so that a researcher can go and review that original article for themselves.--MASEM (t) 15:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the RFC said we cannot use the DM, except in exceptional circumstances, so why is this exceptional? It is not our job to include critical materiel, but to report others criticizing it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
If we are documenting the criticism about someone's specific viewpoint they made in a statement, with the criticism being considered notable and from RSes, then for purposes of neutrality, it makes no sense to exclude a reference to that original statement so that we are documenting the controversy. If say Hopkins wrote the same statement in the Telegraph or Guardian, there'd be no question of its inclusion. The fact that it came from the DM should not be an issue here because we're not making any claims of fact from her own words, just providing the citation to what her own words are. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
No, we report what RS say about it. BY the way, this (as far as I can tell) is not a response to what was written about her tweets, so no there is no reason to include it in order to address NPOV issues. When RS comment on her article we can report is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
On the last point, when re-reading, I do agree, the criticism over the tweets, it seemed initially that the criticism included the statements in the DM article, but that's not the case, so no that DM article citation can't be included; we would need a separate RS to make critical note of that.
But to the first point, if someone's published statement is being criticized in a manner that is considered notable and appropriate for inclusion in an article, then the exclusion of a citation to the original statement, regardless if it is from an RS or not, is inappropriate as per WP:YESPOV. We're documenting what one side and another side has said, without judgment calls, so it is only reasonable to provide a citation to the original statement and the RSes that critique it so that the reader can make their own call. Again, no factual information is being supported by the non-RS outside that that person wrote or spoke those words as their view. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the section is entitled "Manchester Arena bombing", and in that section, information has been added regarding an inappropriate tweet Hopkins made regarding radical Islamics in Britain. It would certainly appear as if Wikipedia was attempting to maintain a positive and negative balance, per WP:CRITS, by including a more fulsome outline of her views on this subject. Keep in mind that Donald Trump thanked Hopkins in 2015 for her "powerful writing on the U.K.'s Muslim problems". If that "powerful writing", and her rebuttal to the current criticism, is only found in a blacklisted source, then that seems to warrant an exception. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
If you look at WP:DAILYMAIL you will see the reason why we do not allow it except under exceptional circumstances. The reason is that they deliberately fabricate direct quotes, deliberately publish doctored photos, etc. Read the evidence posted in the RfC. A Daily mail article under Hopkins byline can be reasonably presumed to contain the words of Hopkins; she would complain if they made stuff up and published it under his byline. That makes it one of the exceptional circumstances. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Per Guy Macon. Also a primary source will almost always be acceptable to reference the primary sources views. The fact it was published in the Daily Mail is irrelevant in this case. If Hopkins had published it in a blog, another paper, self-published on amazon, it would still be acceptable to use as a source on her opinion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA