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, 66, 67, 68

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)
Reading this thread was a headache. Everyone, please keep to the point. '94th' is only published in one book, that book is not a reliable source, and so '94' should not be included. There is no reason to discuss triviality or notability of the fact, or predisposition of editors. There is nothing in WP:RS that discusses pulling facts that are probably true from unreliable sources just because the unreliable source is unlikely to fabricate that particular point. WP:RS is clear, the source must be reliable for the fact to be verifiable. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Does this source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? If not, strike the 94, and move on. 2604:6000:7B0E:8C00:B91F:4407:3AF6:3B15 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for keeping/deleting:

  1. The manner in which the information was presented made inclusion as 94th recipient misleading because there are 5 grades.
  2. Misleading trivia does not belong in a FA.
  3. Accurate information about the medal can be made available to our readers via wikilinks that provide the ranking, the number of recipients in each ranking and his position as 94th recipient for that particular rank of medal.

Hope that helps to resolve this issue so this discussion can be closed. Atsme📞📧 13:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Tranny

How should we define the word Tranny (slang) in the article?

At the moment of writing, the term is described as a derogatory and offensive slang term in the Wikipedia-article, and uses the last two dictionary-definitions as a source. However, given the descriptions in the other five dictionaries, I believe this doesn’t give the complete consensus among the term. Thus, I wonder: can any expert in the POV-field shine a light on this? See also the Laci Green-article and the discussion over there, where I came aware of the Tranny (slang)-article. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I count two that do not say at all that it can be an insult.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Has anyone read the history section of the article? And why are we only paying attention to dictionaries and not the other sources given? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

RE: Laci Green: Green agreed with those who criticized her for using the word in 2012, and apologized for it. There was no dispute between Green and her critics over whether or not tranny is offensive. It was more to do with how women on YouTube can't cross anybody without being targeted with death threats, another issue entirely. This Wikipedia dispute is an effort to describe a controversy in a bio of Party A, on a point which Party B agrees with Party A. Apropos of nothing, a Wikipedia editor wants to insert the opinions of Party C, who wasn't involved with either A or B, to say that C thinks A and B are both wrong. We don't write BLPs in a way that sets them up for ambush and sniping by phantom critics: people who never criticized the the subject of the article, who may have never heard of the subject of the article, but whom Wikipedia editors have unearthed and brought into it for reasons of their own. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the definition at the top of the article is redundant. I think the words "derogatory and offensive" in the first line can be removed without softening the article or compromising clarity. Bradv 18:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleting the words is equivalent to Wikipedia taking one side over another in a disagreement over what mainstream standards are. It's a mistake to act as if that would be taking a neutral position. The article describes two points of view: one that the word is acceptable, or neutral in tone, and the other that says it is offensive, meaning not neutral but rather expressing contempt and disparagement for trans people. One side consists almost entirely of drag queens age 40+ who are on television, and the other side consists of several dictionaries, the NYT style guide, GLAAD, and the Facebook community standards. Wikipedia's policy is to accept as fact the consensus of mainstream, modern authorities on question like whether the world is flat or round, or climate change is real or a fake conspiracy made up by Al Gore. It's obvious from the history described in the article that the status of this word has changed over time, and certain dictionaries haven't been updated recently, and some individuals don't wish to change with the times. Which is understandable, but that's not how Wikipedia works. If anything, we devote too much space to the minority view that tranny is not offensive, but at least it is clear to the reader why precisely the meaning of the word has changed, and exactly when that happened. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Without the words "derogatory and offensive", the lede would read:
Tranny (or trannie) is a slang term for a transgender, transfeminine, transsexual, transvestite, or cross-dressing person. During the early 2010s, there was confusion and debate over whether the term was a pejorative, or was still considered acceptable, or even a reappropriated term of unity and pride. By 2017, the word was banned by several major media stylebooks and considered hate speech by Facebook.
You would read that as picking one side over another? I think that meets the very definition of neutral point of view. Bradv 20:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Removing those words would violate the third point at WP:WikiVoice, "Avoid stating facts as opinions." It would violate WP:UNDUE by treating a minority point of view as the consensus, creating a false equivalence between the overwhelming weight of highly respected, mainstream authorities that represent a broad community standard, and a relatively miniscule and atypical group. They can't even be called a representative cross section of all trans people; they are only celebrity drag queens above a certain age (who deserve respect, sure).--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I pointed out with the dictionaries that there is no "overwhelming weight of highly respected, mainstream authorities" to state as a fact that the word tranny is offensive. Unless you think that the majority of dictionaries is made by drag queens age 40+ who are on television, your point is invalid. WP:V states that: "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." The dictionaries I mentioned above are reliable sources. They disagree on the topic. Therefore, we should give each side its due weight. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The word is derogatory and offensive. If we have a Wikipedia article about it, then our article needs to say as much. If we fail to note the term's derogatory connotation, then we're being non-neutral; we're editorially suppressing an important aspect of the subject. MastCell Talk 20:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And concerning Laci Green: I already said there WP:NPOV tells us that a neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone. Thus, calling the disputed term "pejorative" and "offensive" is not impartial and should be removed. Moreover, as WP:PUBLICFIGURE says: BLPs should simply document what these sources say. In the Daily Dot-articles, which are the sources for this affair, the terms "pejorative" and "offensive" cannot be found. Thus, the only choice we have is to avoid use of those words and stick to the facts. And since WP:BLPSOURCE dictates that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion (emphasis not mine) we should remove the terms asap.Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • It's not contentious. There is solid agreement among English speakers today that the word is offensive. A non-fringe minority disagrees, and I think Kate Bornstein's reasoning is sound and she makes a compelling argument. But that argument didn't take. It's a fabrication to imply that the meaning of 'tranny' is controversial with regards to Green. Both Green and her critics in this instance agree that she should not have used the word. Why don't we just change the bio to say that she was criticized by trans activists who said the word is offensive, and Green agreed that it is offensive, and apologized. The Laci Green bio isn't about the topic of Tranny (slang), so we don't need to obsess over it. The only reason this incident is mentioned is the harassment and death threats she received from unidentified trolls. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Public figures

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
* Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
This is exactly what is the case here. And, as no reliable source in the article that links to the incident says it was meant to be pejorative or offensive, those words should stay out. I fail to grasp why it so important to keep on insisting she made an "offensive comment", while she states that she, at the time she used it, "had not the slightest inkling of how the word is used to dehumanize nor its place in the cycle of violence against transfolk." Maybe we should just insert her apology, as well as the "“Hi Laci. Why do you use the word ‘tranny’ in your video about Haters from 2009? … You really shouldn’t be using that word as a cis girl and it’s really disappointing for the people who look up to you.”-comment that started the fuzz. That would at least give a better view of the situation.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
"Please, tell me why WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV can be dismissed". This is a loaded question that contains unjustified assumptions. One of us is misreading these policies. You're equating Green's reputation with the reputation of the word tranny. That is absurd. It is a fact that tranny is offensive, and we are indeed sticking to facts. Nothing about this incident is even defamatory to Green because she handled it appropriately. Public figures apologize all the time for not getting the memo on changing social mores, and it's not a big deal. It's the people who harassed and threatened her who made this inot a big deal and that is not a reflection on Green.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I do believe it IS a reflection on Green. Now, the article says that Laci Green uses pejorative terms and makes offensive comments towards transsexuals, making her look like a transphobic, which violates the rules I've mentioned above, and is not a fact. Thus, I believe it is you who misreads the guidelines. I really hope some NPOV-expert will take a look at this. Then I will continue editing articles on 18th-century British clergymen, which do have less issues like this one.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • MastCell has it right. The term is derogatory and offensive. That is what our sources say. A number of editors seem to be deciding they can attribute viewpoints to sources because of what they don't say. This is original research. Sources may not mention this aspect of the term because it is either too obvious to mention or not an aspect they choose to cover. Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn, thanks for your input. However, your reasoning A number of editors seem to be deciding they can attribute viewpoints to sources because of what they don't say. This is original research is not a valid one.
After all, the first two dictionaries I quoted DO say it. The Cambridge Dictionary says the word is sometimes offensive, while Merriam-Webster calls it sometimes disparaging. Thus, your appeal on original research falls flat, and the wikipedia-article stating that the term “Tranny” is derogatory and offensive by definition is POV-pushing. After all, I do not know of any dictionary that says that the world is sometimes round. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment It seems like we should follow the structure of other entries for pejorative terms: say it is pejorative/offensive/derogatory or (generally considered pejorative, if that's acceptable), and then discuss the nuances of the issue further if necessary in later sentences. To the extent that there is a debate about this, it appears to involve whether its acceptable for use by people within the LGBTQ community, which isn't the same as debating whether it is generally offensive for everyday speech. That's a debate that exists for lots of pejorative terms (ex), but it doesn't stop us from calling those words pejorative in Wikipedia entries. The whole notion of reappropriating a term implies that the term is already considered offensive and derogatory.Nblund talk 00:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment Just from looking at the lead, it seems like the "derogatory and offensive" bit in the first line might be unnecessary, since the next two sentences make it very clear that this is a controversial term that many people think of as a pejorative. Also, dictionaries can be useful, but they absolutely cannot be a definitive source on whether a term is derogatory - there's rarely any kind of definitive answer to these questions that fits under a single dictionary definition. Same thing with newspaper style guidelines - all those do is reflect the opinion of those newspapers' editorial boards, they aren't authorities on wider societal usage. More specialized sources would probably be better for that determination. I assume that "tranny" has a quite a few papers or even books dedicated to its use, those should probably be the go-to sources on whether the term is considered derogatory, who considers it derogatory, and in what contexts. The definition in the lead is supposed to reflect the entirety of the article, but since the article is just a stub, that isn't really helpful here. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you are right. Could you also give your take on the Laci Green-discussion? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we typically avoid citing dictionaries. There are plenty of reliable sources which describe tranny as widely perceived as a slur, pejorative, derogatory, etc.:
  • GLAAD
  • VICE
  • GLSEN
  • Advocate.com
  • Independent.co.uk
  • Pink News 1 and 2
  • ABC (Australia)
  • UC Davis.edu
  • Cosmopolitan
  • The Guardian
Unless we have plenty of sources (not sources about individual opinions like Ru Paul's), I cannot see how we'd remove that it's offensive/derogatory. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree with this. Generally speaking, I feel dictionaries are not good sources, since they provide no context. Different dictionaries are also written for different purposes and audiences, which isn't really something that can be easily parsed into an article. Especially for a well-known word like this, it should be easy to find more in-depth academic coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is this article in mainspace? It could be the poster article for WP:NOT#Dictionary - Usage, slang, or idiom guides - and should be redirecting to Transgender sexuality. Atsme📞📧 13:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point! Any objections?Jeff5102 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
We have an article on the term in order to describe relevant context beyond its dictionary definition. For similar examples, take a look through Category:Ethnic and religious slurs and Category:Pejorative terms for people. I don't think it would be appropriate to redirect it. MastCell Talk 18:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

WP's sister project, Wiktionary, defines the term as (slang, chiefly derogatory, offensive) A transsexual, transgender or transvestite person, usually a trans woman; the latter being what WP:NOT#Dictionary policy suggests. Perhaps a paragraph could be added to the main article, Transgender sexuality, which needs a bit of expansion. Perhaps a merge into the main article would be the best option. I reviewed the cited sources in the stub, and except for one, maybe two RS, we're looking at 2 dictionary sources, passing mention in opinion pieces/blogs, a FB policy article in Wired, a journal MOS ref, an apology in Huff, an article in the Life and Style section of The Guardian, etc. Atsme📞📧 04:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Rfc at Bible and violence

please comment here Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc

Langrial (Gujrat district)

This is a small town article. Lots of well-meaning locals, but fluff and nonsense and a complete lack of understanding of what we do and how we do it. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Have seen a lot worse. Have trimmed it somewhat. Edwardx (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it ok to state that someone received a revelation?

I've been having a discussion at Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories about whether we can say that Joseph Smith received the text of the Book of Mormon. Neither of those articles use that language. Part of the response to me was to say that "We don't say so-and-so said he received a revelation". 1886 Revelation says "is the text of a revelation said to have been received". But I searched for "received a revelation"[3] and find that a lot of our articles actually do use that phrase unqualified (while others qualify it). Doug Weller talk 19:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it is OK to say it is claimed, but not to use language that implies it is true.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, a reliably sourced claim can be presented as a reliably sourced claim. bd2412 T 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

We need a question whose answers provide concrete community consensus. Maybe it should be posed as two possible phrasings between which respondents can choose. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

"received a revelation" does not preclude self reception nor other possibilities.Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
That is exactly the point I was trying to make on the talkpage. Maybe poorly, I don't know. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
True, but not (I would argue) in this context. Which is clearly "divine revelation".21:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Only if we state in Wiki's voice it was divine. "received a revelation" is perfectly NPOV, does not take a position, and is concise. As long as we do not add divine, or "from X", etc. it is the shortest way to phrase this.Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually I think in the context you are using it is is "had a relation", received implies it arrived from outside. Perhaps you can give a couple of examples of where "received a revelation" is not used as a "euphemism" for divine revelation?Slatersteven (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
eg [4]. Self reception is possible.Icewhiz (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Sadly I cannot view it, could you provide the quote?Slatersteven (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not some unusual text refers to an individual having "received a revelation" from himself, the phrase is inappropriately ambiguous when used without qualification in an encyclopedia article. Rare ambiguous uses are not an excuse for bad writing. bd2412 T 03:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be pretty easy just to say "according to Mormon tradition Smith received a revelation of..." or similar words? Or am I overlooking something that makes it more complicated? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for the detail about whether or not a revelation was involved—that would be UNDUE for this article which is focused on evidence-based theories. The current wording 06:08, 23 December 2017 is good as it simply says that the Book of Mormon states certain things. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, as it appears this moment the text is fine. Which actually makes me even more confused as to what this is all about. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Whether or not Joseph Smith's retelling/translation of the Book of Mormon was a bona fide act of God should not be relevant to the encyclopedia's contents, especially in an article not directly related to religion. Describing it as a Mormon tradition is the correct option here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, Power~enwiki, BD2412, and Johnuniq: I actually brought it here after finding it used elsewhere[5] and I believe some of the articles in that search need a qualification for the phrase. Do others agree? Doug Weller talk 08:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I have a problem with this one - [6] "At the headquarters of the Latter Day Saint in Kirtland, Ohio, Joseph Smith received a revelation from God, calling for an expedition to be raised in Kirtland, which would then march to Missouri and "redeem Zion." - as "from god" is in wiki's voice. Most of the others have claimed, said, according, etc. or are unspecified. I don't see a problem with "received a revelation" when we don't specify from whom it was allegedly received from. Note that some (or in some cases - all) of the underlying sources we're relying on may (particularly in arcane religious subjects which might only be covered by religiously oriented texts) use "received a revelation" without any qualification - redacting God/divine would OK, but adding "according to, claim, said" could be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH if we do not have a source using this language.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I would rather it was changed to "had a revelation" as both less imprecise (in terms of context) and a more common usage when discussion "internal revelation".Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I greatly prefer "had a revelation". That states a fact in reasonably objective terms. It is appropriate both to books of religion and to mathematical and scientific discoveries such as quaternions and Kekulé's dream. "Received a revelation" implies reception, which implies transmission, which implies an external source. It has effectively the same meaning as "was given a revelation". IMO expressions like those last should be avoided unless they are quotes from a citation. Narky Blert (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
As I point out in Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories, in the "Regarding Claims from Mormon archaeology" section, the most scholarly work to date on Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling (2005), writes in such a way as to assume that the experiences of the subject are as they are claimed. Ie: Just as Muhammed calls his experiences revelations, and the texts discussing them do the same, so do scholarly works on Smith. The author of that work, Richard Bushman, points out in the introduction that he is actually following the pattern of a recent Mohammed biography in doing so. So I think the greatest shorthand that communicates how the SUBJECT understands the experience, without getting into the way the audience or the author reads it (No need to get into, "So and so did such and such but people believe this and I think that," etc.) is the best way to handle writing about any religious figure, be it Mohammed, Ghandi, Luthor, Joan of Arc, The Maccabees, or Smith. Playerpage (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Both "had a revelation" and "received a revelation" are unacceptable as statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. It has not been established as a fact in the case of Joseph Smith that any revealing actually happened.

Dictionary definition of revelation[7]
1 a : an act of revealing or communicating divine truth
1 b : something that is revealed by God to humans
2 a : an act of revealing to view or making known
2 b : something that is revealed; especially : an enlightening or astonishing disclosure ("shocking revelations")
2 c : a pleasant often enlightening surprise ("her talent was a revelation")
3 capitalized : an apocalyptic writing addressed to early Christians of Asia Minor and included as a book in the New Testament — called also Apocalypse

Even if you use definitions 2a and 2b, it still requires some external person, event, etc. to do the revealing. An epiphany is not a revelation. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

We're not in business of endorsing (or, for that matter, rejecting) revelations. Unlike facts that can be known, it cannot be objectively known that X had a revelation. E.g. for most Christians Smith is from Satan (or merely deluded) and they would therefore deny that he had divine revelations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Later comment: I meant rejecting out of hand, but not merely stating "failed prophecy". Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

We can say something like "according to Mormon beliefs, Joseph smith had a revelation that..." without stating the belief as fact in Wiki voice. It's been moved to a Religious Claims section, which separates it from scholarly theories. –dlthewave 20:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

We can't say he received a revelation because we don't know. If we did know then we would all be Mormons. Note that while some reliable sources may say he received a revelation, it is implied that it was what he claimed and his followers believed. That's because it is tedious to repeated a qualification in every single sentence. TFD (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The points in this discussion were a bit difficult to follow. Am I missing something or is it clear that we cannot state that factually someone had/received a revelation? As far as I know there is no reliable source for any such statement. Attribute the claim. It could be attributed at the beginning of a long passage, for example only once at the beginning of a description of a story, but it still should indicated as coming from some source, not as being a fact. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Tying Trump to Moore by excluding information

Roy Moore is an extremely unpopular political figure who recently lost an election in Alabama. Naturally, Democrats would like to tie President Trump to Moore (an accused child molester) as closely as possible.[8] That's to be expected, of course, but our BLP is improperly joining in that effort.

In particular, the Roy Moore lead says, "President Donald Trump endorsed Moore a week before the election". That's true, but Trump also previously opposed Moore in the GOP primary, by supporting Moore’s opponent Luther Strange.[9] Nowhere in the Roy Moore lead (or in the entire BLP) is there any hint that Trump ever supported Strange over Moore, because this information has been assiduously deleted every time anyone tried to mention it.[10]

At the article’s talk page, User:MrX has insisted that Trump never opposed Moore,[11] and insists that he will never acknowledge that Trump lost in his effort to get Luther Strange elected.[12] This strikes me as POV-pushing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump's support of Strange in the primary belongs somewhere in the article. It doesn't belong in the lede. The same is not true for Trump's endorsement of Moore - it belongs in both. This is both because the general election is far more important than the primary and because this difference in importance is reflected in coverage by reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 23:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps if the Roy Moore lead were brief, but it is immense and includes material that received vastly less coverage in reliable sources than the involvement of the U.S. President in the primary battle. Also, we're talking about including a mere eight words to provide context. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The lead is a little too long (is it so important that he served as an MP?) but not egregiously so. It's a big article so it's expected that it would have a big lead. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
So eight more words would not make much difference in the lead size. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to eat sensibly during the holidays, so please do not put words in my mouth. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Trump never "opposed" Roy Moore, so we cannot say that in the lead or anywhere else. After Luther Strange lost the primary, Trump wrote "Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy, WIN in Dec!"- MrX 23:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I think the wording "having previously opposed Moore during the primary" isn't quite right, because I don't recall Trump ever saying a single bad thing about Moore. Instead I'd add "having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary". The distinction may be narrow, but I think it's supported by the sources, who tend not to use the term "opposed". I do think this information is worth including in the lead, since it's part of the story of this election and was covered heavily by reliable sources discussing Moore both during the election and afterwards. It's just a small addition but adds some context that's important, and so much of the article is given to the 2017 election that I think this should be considered giving due weight in the lead to the topics covered in the article. Or at least it would be, but I see there's not a single mention of the fact that Trump endorsed Luther Strange in the entire article, which seems very odd. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
This is important. Supporting one opponent in a political race can't be taken to assume they oppose the other, without that being explicit language. --Masem (t) 00:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
According to the Associated Press via ABC News, “Virtually the entire Republican establishment — including President Donald Trump — opposed Moore's primary bid in September.” When a politician supports and endorses a person in a campaign, that almost always means the politician opposes everyone else in the campaign. I've never heard of a politician endorsing two people in the same campaign. That being said, the lead would be greatly improved by inserting "having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary". But I would prefer adding "having previously opposed Moore during the Republican primary". Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
It is a bit more complicated than that. Even while endorsing Strange, Trump telegraphed ambivalence, which some interpreted as hedging in favor of Moore.[13] bd2412 T 00:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Who interpreted it as hedging in favor of Moore? According to that article you cite, Trump said, "Roy has a very good chance of not winning in the general election. It's all about the general." He was urging people to support Strange instead of Moore. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The last line of the article says, "'Roy's going to have a hard time winning. But I will be backing him if he wins. I will be backing him, OK? I'll tell you that,' Trump hedged". Saying that you'll support the other guy if he wins the primary is not particularly ardent opposition. bd2412 T 04:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
User:BD2412, thanks for pointing that out. I will reciprocate by pointing out that during the GOP presidential debates every candidate pledged to support the nominee, which is standard, and does not mean that none of them opposed each other during the primaries. In any event, three editors in this section have said they’re fine with inserting “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary” into the lead. What about you? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think that language would be absolutely correct to include. bd2412 T 04:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Endorsement of one candidate in an election cannot be assu!we to means the endorser opposed all others. It is quite possible the endorser is happy with all but recommends the one they think is best qualified (particularly in a partisan primary race). Yes, it is very often endorsement of one means they oppose the other, but that has to be made explicit and simply cannot be assumed. --Masem (t) 02:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Masem, political opposition is always relative. Many people who opposed Hillary Clinton relative to Bernie Sanders then supported Hillary Clinton relative to Jill Stein. As between Strange and Moore, Trump supported Strange and urged people to vote against Moore, and that’s pretty much undisputed by reliable sources, AFAIK. I’m not wedded to saying “Trump opposed Moore in the primary”, so please feel free to suggest alternative language, though I think “Trump opposed Moore in the primary” is true (not to mention supported by reliable sources like Associated Press and ABC News). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I would need to see what Trump said exactly to propose the proper language. Trump could have want Strange over Moore, but didn't care as long as a Republican got in at the end. If that was the case, it is hard to say Trump was opposed to Moore, but only preferred Strange. --Masem (t) 03:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Masem, Trump urged people to vote against Moore because Trump thought Moore would probably lose in the general election. Trump said: “Roy has a very good chance of not winning in the general election. It's all about the general.” I don’t really care how we phrase it, but the point is Moore overcame Trump’s backing of Strange. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
If that's all he said, calling that "opposed" to Moore is too strong. Something like "Trump did not endorse Moore during his primary race against Strange, believing that Moore 'has a very good chance of not winning'." - -Masem (t) 03:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, User:Masem, but it would be more concise in the lead to say “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary". I and User:Red Rock Canyon have already said in this section that that would be fine. What do you say? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, as long as it's avoiding "Trump opposed Moore". --Masem (t) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Can someone point me to a bio article on ANY other politician that mentions endorsements in the lead? If not... I would say that mentioning Trump’s endorsement in the lead of the Moore article is UNDUE. Later in the body text, perhaps... but I seriously have to question whether the lead should get into this sort of detail. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I strongly endorse any one of the following three outcomes, and oppose none of them: [1] Get Trump out of the lead, but mention all of his endorsements in the article body; or [2] put into the lead "having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary"; or [3] put into the lead "having previously opposed Moore during the Republican primary". Any one of them would be a big win for NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Leaving it the way it is would be a win for WP:NPOV. Bigly. Trump's support for Moore, a candidate who flaunted the law, wore cowboy suits in public, and was credibly accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct, was unprecedented and was significantly covered for weeks in a large number of reliable sources. That's why it belongs in the lead of Moore's bio. Trump's initial support for Strange perhaps belongs in the lead of Luther Strange, or not.- MrX 01:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
        • The lead says, "During the Senate race, allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him...." Heaven forbid we should mention that the allegations were made after the primary was over; how could we sufficiently smear the GOP if we mentioned that?[14] And the fact that Moore was able to overcome a primary campaign waged against him by the President of the United States is less important than the irrelevant reason why Jeff Sessions vacated his seat? I don't think so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Some of those are valid points. There's another NPOV problem in the statement that "some Republicans" reversed their objections to Moore after Trump's endorsement, when in fact the Republican National Committee reversed course. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
            • The National Republican Senatorial Committee did not reinstate support for Moore.[15] Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
              • Don't confuse the Republican National Committee with the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
                • Not to worry, I don’t confuse them. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
                • (edit conflict) On the one hand these multitudes of plausible-deniability-enabling sub-groups and spinoff groups of Republicans are a fig leaf that we don't need to waste our time on, but on the other hand, we should make a reasonable effort to use reasonably precise layman's terms to describe exactly which group endorsed whom. It's important to recognize that to the man in the street, the RNC and the RSC and all the other committees are part of the Republican brand, and what they do reflects on all Republicans. What Trump says is not literally what all Republicans want or agree with, but what he says unavoidably reflects on the Republican brand and on all Republicans, like it or not. But NPOV requires that we do try to be specific about who said what. Use precise language, as best you can.

                  As a rule I would avoid saying in Wikipedia's voice that "X endorsed Y", and instead say "X said Y". So don't say "Bob endorsed Jane.". Say "Bob said Jane is the best candidate for the job" or say "Bob said vote for Jane". Be literal, if space allows, and use direct attribution and direct quotes if you can.

                  Also, as a rule, I think Wikipedian's should realize that it's impossible to satisfy everyone's idea of what neutrality is. These groups have deliberately obfuscated their identity and their intentions, in order to please multiple constituencies. It isn't our fault if the way we describe it isn't 100% omniscient and fair. Anyone who can write an article that is about 80% fair deserves a lot of respect and possibly even one of the good barnstars we save for editors who really did something more than just showing up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think that the endorsement of Moore passed the WP:10YT for the lead. This was entertaining political theater as the special election was held standalone of the usual cycle, but I do not see how this will be a defining feature of Trump or Trump's presidency - at least not at the moment. It was in the news. Two years from now we will focus on the mid-terms which is a much-much bigger and significant thing regarding the balance f power.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Something to remember... we are Takling about the Roy Moore bio article... not an article on Trump, or Trump’s presidency. The focus should be on Moore not Trump.
In other words, the question isn’t whether this all was defining for Trump, but whether it was defining for MOORE? If Trump’s endorsement had actually swayed voters (and Moore had either won or lost the election DUE TO Trump’s endorsement) it would be far more relevant to highlight. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Blueboar, as you know I wouldn’t object to removing Trump from the lead. However, there is a lot of useless info in this very long lead, such as the reason why Jeff Sessions decided to vacate his seat. I hope you will not mind if I ask you this annoying question: if Trump stays in the lead, would it be okay with you if we insert the following to give a better idea of Trump’s role: “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary”? The Trump angle is basically that Moore was able to overcome Trump in the primary, and Moore was beyond Trump’s ability to help in the general election; if one of these is in the lead, I think the other ought to be too, and just including the latter makes it seem like Trump was more devoted to Moore than he actually was. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
This comment reads like a pushmi-pullyu: On one end you're saying the lead is too detailed, while on the other you want to add a detail. My preference would be that we trimmed the lead waaaaay back (to maybe 1/3 or so of its current length). It would be more readable, and it might have the benefit of decreasing these political arguments. But I doubt that would fly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I hope it flies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there a source to say that Moore overcame Trump's support of his opponent in the primary? Right now, there's no reason given at all as to why Moore won over Strange. Even the article on the special election is vague/absent of why Moore won over Strange, so without that sources, you can't say Moore overcame Trump's support of Strange, making that inclusion in the lede completely inappropriately. It is fine in the body to explain that in the main (non primary) election, Trump, who had initially endorsed Moore's opponent in the primary due to concerns Moore would not win the election, endorsed Moore in the main election. --Masem (t) 17:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I did not suggest including in the lead any language about Moore overcoming Trump's support of Strange, though I can find sources for that if you would like. All I suggested to include in the lead is this: “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary" which you approved above. Incidentally, according to the Washington Post, "With his victory, Moore became the first Republican Senate candidate since the 2014 cycle to overcome a full-scale attack during the primary from allies of Republican leadership and the U.S. Chamber. He also won despite a last-minute push by Trump for Strange that included a barrage of late tweets and a rally Friday in Alabama." Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with Massem and Boris... The entire article needs extensive trimming but (even without that) the stuff about Trump definitely does not belong in the lede. Anythingyouwant... your amended language would be fine in the lower section discussing Moore’s failed Senate run... but even that little bit is too much for the lede. I would go so far as to say that the lede should not mention anyone but Moore... mention others (Republicans or Democrats... supporters or opponents... endorsers or detractors) in the appropriate sections in the body of the text. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
A lot of us who have discussed content disputes on the article talk page (where it's supposed to happen) would disagree that that the article needs extensive trimming and would disagree that Trump's endorsement of Moore (after the sexual assault allegations came to light) does not belong in the lead.- MrX 18:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Does this mean you’re willing to include in the lead when the sexual assault accusations came to light? Right now, the lead gives no clue because you kept that out of the lead.[16] Thus readers are now getting the impression that the Alabama GOP nominated someone who they knew had been accused of these things, which is false. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll discuss any miscellaneous proposal for improving the article on the article talk page, where those discussions belong. This noticeboard is for discussing NPOV issues that can't be resolved on the article talk page. You wanted to insert the false claim that Trump opposed Moore into the lead. We don't fix NPOV issues by adding false information to articles.- MrX 19:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
You are continuously and unabashedly misrepresenting facts. According to the Associated Press via ABC News, “Virtually the entire Republican establishment — including President Donald Trump — opposed Moore's primary bid in September.” And even if you were correct, I have said over and over again that I can accept compromise language which you have refused. Just like you have refused to say in the lead that the accusations were made public after the primary campaign.[17] Please stop POV-pushing. If you won’t believe Associated Press and ABC News, then try the Washington Post, which reported that Moore “won despite a last-minute push by Trump for Strange that included a barrage of late tweets and a rally Friday in Alabama.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Mr. X and I rarely agree on much of anything, but this is one of those times. I think the lead (this is a lead, not a lede. There's a difference.) in the Roy Moore article has issues, but one of them is not including that a sitting president not only endorsed him, but actively campaigned for him. This is certainly more noteworthy than implication that he is cheating on the finances of a non-profit (why that unproven allegation is in the lead is a good question). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The finances thing does not belong in the lead because non-profit organizations don’t pay taxes and thus could not be paying insufficient taxes. There are many problems with this lead, but I thought it best to start with the biggest problem. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anyone claiming that they paid insufficient taxes. Tax exempt organizations are required to file a Form 990 with the IRS, and the allegation is that they did not report all of Moore's pay. –dlthewave 04:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The lead says, "He is also the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit legal organization from which he collected more than $1 million over five years, though a far smaller amount was indicated on its tax filings.[21]" A casual reader will assume someone was trying to pay less taxes than they were supposed to. As you say, no one has actually claimed that. Therefore I agree with Niteshift36 who raised the question of why it's in the lead, and it seems somewhat misleading for the lead (pun intended). Anyway, I didn't raise the question here, and I don't intend to pursue it, because I'm trying to focus on why the entire primary campaign is mysteriously omitted from the lead while irrelevant details are included (like why Sessions decided to vacate his seat). It was very unusual for a President to become deeply involved in a disputed primary, and then for the White-House backed candidate to lose; the last time was with Arlen Specter in 2010. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As you can see, when I mentioned the issue, I said "cheating on the finances", nothing about paying too few taxes. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I agreed with you to the extent that you said this: "why that unproven allegation is in the lead is a good question". And I also agree with you that our reasons are not exactly the same. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who have commented above, for their input. I have just made these two article edits that have both been discussed above, and both improve the neutrality of this BLP's lead. This is not meant to preclude further improvements, e.g. getting Trump out of the lead, or cutting the size of the lead. I slightly tweaked the second of those two edits here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

And User:MrX has predictably reverted Trump's stance in the primary campaign, and the lead now does not even suggest that there ever was a primary campaign. This is called deception. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Predicable, because you do not have consensus for adding that detail to the lead. You have one or two people sort of agreeing with you here, but several who don't. Your edit was poorly written and gave undue emphasis to a minor point. Feel free to start a proper RfC on the article talk page if you think you can gain consensus for your edit, but I think you better use a better argument than calling the status quo version "deception".- MrX 01:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Four editors here explicitly supported saying in the lead “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary”. So that's deception too. Yes, I'll probably do an RFC, in time. Your position that the entire primary was minor and not worth mentioning is absurd given the immense coverage of it in reliable sources, the very unusual failure of a President to secure victory for an incumbent in the primary, the paucity of words I have suggested to include, and the amount of truly irrelevant stuff in the lead (such as the reason Sessions vacated his seat). Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
MrX beat me to the suggestion of an RfC. That's the obvious next step in a case like this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)\
Okay. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The RFC is here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The part of the lede on the election is written in narrative form, and needs to be re-written to be in summary form. The first sentence in the paragraph about the election should be that he lost the election. That's not an NPOV issue, just an editing one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 12:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A question of fairness.

There is a suspiciously obsessive amount of information on Chris Langham's criminal history amounting to a witch hunt. There is an over-emphasis on accusations (never proven) of paedophila and such attention to detail of this matter that I wonder what the motives are of the contributor. Wikipedia is not a revenge tool. And contacting me directly to censure me is not in the spirit of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notmrsgrundy (talkcontribs) 12:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Langham was convicted of possessing child pornography and spent six months in prison. Yes, that's not the same as being a paedophile, and that word is only used three times, all appropriately. The child porn stuff is extensive, but is all well-cited, unlike the career section which only has two cites. Perhaps a solution of sorts is to expand the career section with cited material. Edwardx (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Should it be in the lead, and the third sentence at that?Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Also I have to agree with the OP, this does look like a massive POV issue, the material on his arrest and conviction seems to take up most of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda

Daisaku Ikeda -- this page is really obviously biased. It's as if a devoted follower of his wrote it -- it doesn't mention any criticism aside from a journalist, and aside from that it's all devoted to praise of Ikeda. It cites a obscure scholar who's the head of a foundation founded by Ikeda and who's books are sold on Soka Gakkai websites as proof that "Ikeda's vision for the SGI has been described as a borderless Buddhist humanism that emphasizes free thinking and personal development based on respect for all life." . It also says, in the lead, that "At age 19, Ikeda began practicing Nichiren Buddhism and joined a youth group of the Soka Gakkai Buddhist association, which led to his lifelong work developing the global peace movement of SGI and founding dozens of institutions dedicated to fostering peace, culture and education" which is cited to his own website and the same obscure scholar.

I think this article should be radically rewritten to comply with NPOV. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you considered adding the criticizing views, removing the impartial tone yourself? You can also insert[citation needed] Template:Citation needed for the sources you find questionable. I think it is much to ask for this noticeboard to rewrite the article about a person they know very little about.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Designation of terrorism in Ukraine

I have the following problem and I will appreciate the feedback of the community. In Ukraine, there is a war which some sourced define as civil war, and others define as a war between Ukraine and Russia, which is not really important for this topic. What is important that there are currently two sides, the Ukrainian army and the armed forces of two breakaway republics, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. Ukraine officially designates these armed forces as "terrorists", and there are plenty reliable sources, in Ukrainian, English, and other languages, which just call them terrorists ("Today, terrorists shelled a town close to the ceasefire line, two civilians were killed". Of course the Ukrainian army also shells towns on the other side of the ceasefire line, and civilians also get killed, but they, for a good reason, do not designate themselves as terrorists. There is no terrorism in the common sense of this word, i.e. there are mo group or individuals which attempt to destabilize the territory of their enemy by specifically targeting civilians, no explosions in supermarkets and all this kind of things. Now, this is all fine, but some people tend to accept this neuro-linguistic programming seriously. There have been attempts to add "terrorism" (references to Ukrainian sources) in the infoboxes of the articles on the breakaway republics as "ideology", which were promptly reverted. Now, I see that this designation made its way to the articles such as List of terrorist incidents in December 2017 (search for "Donbass", there are three occurences). It definitely does not belong there - this is not terrorism, this is just a war which one of the sides designates as the terrorism activity. However, since it concerns plenty of articles, before mass-removal (which will likely cause resistance) I believe we need to discuss whether there are general ways of solving the problem - opening an RfC? Where exactly? What would be the scope of this Rfc? (I will now notify Wikiproject Ukraine, but I am mostly interested in opinions of uninvolved users). Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I don't know if this helps, but there does exist two articles on government terrorism: (1) State-sponsored terrorism — about government supported terrorism, and (2) State Sponsors of Terrorism — about an official United States list of governments accused of (1).
Though, the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic could not qualify for (1) because they are not recognized states (see List of states with limited recognition#Excluded entities). That article does not include it as a state even to be considered for recognition. It would seem, as according to their articles they are quasi-states. This matches the narrative that they are merely rebel groups and not states.
If this is the case, then they clearly are capable of terrorism like any rebel group that controls territory. They are not widely considered a terrorist organization, but there are incidences of terrorism committed by their members that should still be treated as such. To do otherwise would mischaracterize their authority to use violence (or lack thereof). Other users should help set up the RfC. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 21:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. The problem is that the incidents included in the lists are not terrorist attacks - this is usual ambush like shelling, smth the opposite side (the Ukrainian army) does as well, in roughly equal amount. To stretch it, if North Korea would ever recognize the US as a terrorist organization (which they are perfectly capable of doing) - would this make every shooting by the US army or police a terrorist attack? I guess not. --Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
It might surprise you to know that I did not put in the time to check the a lot of these incidents out before I wrote my response. I probably should have checked but it is dang cold in New England and I was pressed for time. Regardless, now I see what you are talking about, Ymblanter.. A lot of these are just straight up skirmishes with the rebels and don't belong in these articles. Though, I found some actual incidents of terrorism reported to be by the Ukrainian Rebels, that includes: the 25 October 2017 Kiev Bombing, 26 August 2017 Dumbass Bombing, Two or more attacks in July 2017 (one by the Sparta Battalion), the failed 8 June 2017 US Embassy attack (suspected rebels) and the 29 June 2017 library attack purporably by the Kalmius Brigade, the May Avdiivka 2017 Shelling, and both incidents of April 2017. That is all I can for incidents specifically caused by rebels or are suspected to be that should most likely stay in for their civilian focus. The others are either more grey (some civilians and service members), anarchists, allegedly caused by the Ukrainian government with no alternative, or like ones you previously mentioned. I hope that helps a bit more.―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 03:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I have not looked at all incidents, and I do not have a strong opinion. For example, I see that the May Avdiivka 2017 Shelling is clearly not a terrorist attack - civilians were killed as a result of shelling, and it is even unclear from which side the shells came - both sides point to each other, and none of the sides AFAIK ever specifically targeted civilians. I agree, however, that we need to inspect these incidents one by one and only leave those which are beyond any doubts related to terrorism (if any). My point was more broad. Imagine I go now and remove some incidents from the list. Most likely, I will get reverted with an edit summary smth like "vandalism, removal of information based on reliable sources". I can go to the talk page. Should I repeat the discussion we are now having here at every talk page, or we can refer to this discussion, or is it best to open an RfC and be done with it? It is not really acceptable that Wikipedia clearly supports one side of the conflict, even if this side has an international recognition and the other does not.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
My 2 cents is that the Ukrainian designation of terrorists (in the scope of the ATO - "anti terror operation") is close to worthless. We can say they have been designated as such by Ukraine. The rebels are saying similar, or even worse things, about Ukraine (e.g. a "punitive operation", fascists, Nazis). The views of both sides to this separatist conflict should be discounted. There isn't so much terrorism per se but rather guerrilla operations and bombardment/fire on civilian targets/areas (though to be fair - both sides are dug into such areas).Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The Ukrainian designation clearly serves and internal politics - they can say they combat terrorism rather than that they are in war with Russia (which may have serious consequences, and now they can do basically whatever they want). I am fine with that, but we should not take the designations too seriously (indeed, we do not take the designations of the opposite side and do not write that the Ukrainian government is a Nazi regime). In the articles on both breakaway republics there is information that they are considered terrorist organizations by the Ukrainian government, nobody attempts to remove it from there, and IMO it is sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment -- not suitable for statements in Wiki voice. There may be instances where it would be appropriate to state that Ukrainian authorities designated such and such event as terrorism, but that's about it. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman and Ymblanter make valid points. Outside of al Qaeda and IS there's no real consensus on any terrorist labeling. All the reservations of WP:PRIMARY apply.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The entire Donbass was officially designated by Ukraine as an "Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone". But it is more important what 3rd party secondary RS tell. There are numerous non-Ukrainian scholarly RS that call DPR and LNR "terrorist organizations" and their actions "terrorism acts", such as here (just as a random example). I do not think we can dismiss these sources. One should keep in mind that actions against regular army can be regarded as terrorism acts, and the terrorism is not limited by a certain assortment of weapons. That can be shelling or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This is not the point. Definitely there are (or, rather, there were in 2014) actions which might have qualified as terrorist attacks. But I do not see how it can justify calling every of their action a terrorist attack, as it is routinely done in the lists I cite. I would generally agree that it there is a neutral non-involved source calling some act a terrorist attack we can call it a terrorist attack. However, Ukrainian sources are obviously neither neutral nor non-involved, they are pretty biased and should not be used by Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think DNR and LNR started to be frequently described as terrorist organizations in RS after shooting down the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Speaking about Ukrainian sources, such as that one, they mostly tell about cross-border shootings and shelling. There is no doubt these incidents had actually happen. But are they "terrorism incidents"? No doubts that a lot of civilians died in these incidents. Do we have any good 3rd party RS telling that cross-border shootings which kill civilians and have been conducted by organizations officially designated as "terrorist" by a major country should not be considered an act of terrorism? I doubt. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I am sure we can find Russian sources describing similar shelling by the Ukrainian army as terrorist attacks (and the army itself as a bunch of Nazis).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Btw the reference you provided does not mention "terrorism" (though there zillions of others, from the same source, which do).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you are saying that an incident "X" should not be included in the lists unless this specific incident was explicitly defined in majority of non-partisan RS as a "terrorism" incident. Yes, I actually agree. There should be a consensus of sources to include something to a list. However, the lists are usually compiled on the basis of rather loose selection criteria, i.e. "This is a list of some of the terrorist, alleged terrorist or suspected terrorist incidents which took place in October 2017". The incident we are talking about arguably satisfy these criteria. Yes, the Ukrainian side alleged they were terrorist incidents. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
If this is the case (which I am not yet sure, I would need to check the lists more carefully), this needs to be changed - there are unfortunately too many sides which allege that certain acts are terrorist attacks, whereas no neutral reliable sources call them such. Having all such events in the list is impractical (I am not sure we want to describe participation of the US in the Iraqi war as "terrorism", and I think there are sources describing it as such); making selection immediately breaks WP:NPOV. I am afraid keeping only the incidents described as terrorist attacks in independent neutral reliable sources is the only way forward. We have enough systemic bias already.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Deciding if something was/was not a terrorism incident is frequently controversial. See Definitions of terrorism. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
But speaking about "Ukrainian sources" like ATO reports, you can not dismiss them as "unreliable" (there is fact-checking) or "advocacy" (those are simply reports by an official government agency). You can possibly call them "primary" (I am not sure), but such sources can be used. If there are better secondary RS that tell something different, then you can use that other sources instead of ATO reports. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Most of them are primary, but the problem is not only that they are primary. Again, let me give an example, There are plenty of Iranian sources, both primary and secondary, which call the US "the Great Satan" and which allege that the state of Israel does not exist. For the sake of the argument, let us only talk about English-language sources, which are plenty. Would it be appropriate to use these sources in the articles about the US writing smth like "the police of the Great Satan shot an African American man on 18 February"? Stretching it even further, would it be appropriate to add this act (shooting) to the article on satanism? I think the bright line here is to use the findings of fact, and not to repeat loaded definitions. In the case of Ukraine, the finding of fact are that somebody from the eastern side of the ceasefire line randomly shelled the city of Avdiivka, and five civilians died. The loaded definition was that it was a terrorist attack (and a similar attack from the west side of the line one day before and another one day after, which killed two civilians in the city of Horlivka, was an anti-terrorist operation). If we do something else, we just help the Ukrainian government propaganda. It is very nice for them to use the fourth popular website in the world, and even for free, but I guess this is not aligned with the Wikimedia mission.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I personally agree that "ATO" is mostly a full scale warfare. But you would need to change criteria for selection on these lists and have RS supporting that something should be included or should not be included. This is all what I mean. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Would you suggest an RfC at the talk page of one of the lists, specifically on the scope?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
No, because I recently submitted a very similar RfC about another list, and it seem to fail resulting in significant waste of time. But nothing prevents you or anyone else from doing this. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per policy, Wikipedia recommends the use of peer reviewed third-party sources in difficult situations. Ideally, such third-party sources would in no way be connected to the conflict, impartial, and having no stake of any kind in its ultimate outcome. This is NOT easy. For example, Canadian soldiers are in Ukraine training Ukrainian soldiers in counter-sniper techniques. Canada pledged almost $700 million in assistance to Ukraine including for non-lethal military equipment: helmets, ballistic eyewear, protective vests, tents, sleeping bags, mobile field hospital and tactical medical kits, which is a form of direct involvement. Almost every country is involved in this conflict in some way. But the Canadian press does NOT use the word "terrorist" here, except when quoting the words of Ukrainians. [18] [19] Poeticbent talk 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
There are such sources on the subject in general, and some of them do tell about terrorism by DPR and LNR [20]. However, one can't find flawless secondary RS on each specific incident. Such incidents are sometimes covered only in ATO reports. In the absence of better sources, ATO reports can be used per our policy. If anyone doubts, a question can be posted on WP:RSNB, but I do not think it will be decided as an outright unreliable source. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
ATO reports, particularly for 2014, are worse than science fiction reliability wise. Basurin's daily briefings or the "Colonel Cassad" blog are more reliable fact wise (and probably should not be used). The sole thing an ATO report can be used for is stating that the Ukranian government said something.Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I would not trust their numbers of casualties, because they did not report everything, but the incidents they reported did happen and were usually reported also in other sources. If not, and you know such examples, that would be a strong argument (somewhere at RSNB) that the source should not be used. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The number (and timing) of casulties is way off. As is their reporting of the situation of encircled units - e.g. Debaltseve or the troops along the pre war Russian border in summer 2014. ATO reports on the circumstances of such units are utterly unreliable (basically "our troops are fine, making deep bold moves into enemy turf" - even when any objective 3rd party sees they are encircled and/or in dire straits - ATO recognizing reality a bit after troops dissolve or remanants managed to retreat) as well as maps regarding Ukranian control of territory both during losses as well as grossly over optimistic representations during advances. It is basically akin to Soviet style propoganda (the pro-Russian sources are more in the Putin era information warfare concept - they actually tried to report truthully most of the time... So "fake news" would have a greater effect when needed - contrasted with the Soviet era information strategy of lying ("everything is great" most of the time)). I am doubtful this will pass any serious examination at RSN.Icewhiz (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is their website. I certainly agree that their coverage in 2014 was very poor. But it is currently widely used/cited by a large number of other news outlets, and not only Ukrainian ones. That other news outlets usually consider it a sufficiently reliable source (of course excluding RT and Sputnik). My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Used due to lack of better sourcing (stringers at the front are useful, not complete) - and ALWAYS attributed to the Ukranian spokeperson/source. I do not think anyone considered them to be even remotely reliable. Many outlets parroted their casulty figures and maps (attributed) for lack of better sources (the maps from 55 Savushkina Street affilated blogs were actually more reliable - but lacked official gravitas (no, BBC will not run an according to X blog when they have a UA army stmt) and Basurin's stmts also had gravitas/recognition issues). Any serious RS parroting them always did this with attribution.Icewhiz (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree: this source should be used only with appropriate attribution and not "in WP voice". My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
It looks like we have consensus here, I will try to implement it.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ted Bundy died as a born again Christian and went to heaven

This is about [21]. Let me be clear: the above is not view, but it is the view of James Dobson, one of the most important leaders of the Christian right. According to WP:ASSERT, I did not render it as objective fact, but I have attributed it to the people who hold such opinion. I was reverted twice, by two astronomers, and I have invited them to the talk page to discuss, but there is only me speaking, see Talk:Ted Bundy#Non-neutral?. The NPOV problem is that views about someone's eternal destination will always be skewed and there is no way to tell who's right (theological orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder). There is no such requirement that the theological beliefs of the Christian right have to be Wikipedically neutral. All we have to do is attribute these views to the people who actually hold them. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is about Ted Bundy, a serial killer. The article is not about James Dobson or born-again Christians. Accordingly, the issue is not one of NPOV but WP:DUE. What Dobson maintains can be stated in his article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Johnuniq. That material does not add any verifiable information about Ted Bundy. At best it adds hearsay, and in some cases, hearsay of people speaking of matters of which they cannot possibly have certain knowledge. Take it to your blog. Jeh (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
So, WP:N and WP:V opinion does not guarantee inclusion. Well, I learned something new about Wikipedia today. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Firstly WP:N does not apply to content *within* articles. It explicitly says so. It has no bearing on if a factoid deserves mention in an article. Its entirely on 'Can this article exist'. Secondly WP:V just says that all information must be verifiable. Not that all verifiable information must be included in an article. For content within articles, WP:NPOV (WP:DUE) applies. Assuming you can reliably source it, a neutrally worded 'Bundy was a born-again Christian' would be acceptable for his biography. 'Bundy went to heaven' is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:VNOTSUFF.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, the mantra written all over this place was "when there is no consensus, render all notable views from WP:SOURCES". I can't be blamed for believing it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Is it, where? Also I think there is pretty much a consensus here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The first guideline you link to applies specifically to determining when editors may use the term "most experts agree" or "consensus among experts" in article text to describe a consensus among academic experts in a field. It has no bearing on deciding whether it makes sense to include certain content in an article. I am fairly new as well, and I've found it helpful to read the policies and guidelines. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I did not say that I challenge the NPOVN consensus, I have only explained my past actions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
"This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy." This page is not for justification of actions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying, but I have been away. I agree with Slatersteven's comments above. The paragraph regarding Bundy's supposed conversion to and "went to heaven" is definately WP:FRINGE and is not acceptable, nor is the manner in which the new paragraph is written. Both WP:DUE and non-neutral apply here. The Ted Bundy article received GA status as a result of efforts by DoctorJoeE and others. It would be a pity to put this status in doubt by inserting blatantly WP:FRINGE additions and I would strongly oppose this. David J Johnson (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: What conceivable relevance to the Ted Bundy article could someone thinking he is going to heaven have? That's not about Ted Bundy it's about kooky Christians. Flat earthers think the earth is flat, should the earth article be riddled with statements about it? And that's not even a great example, flat earth theory at least relates to the topic of the earth. A Christian theologian is not an expert on the topic of Ted Bundy. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I had a misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. I consider the matter settled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Scientology

Moved from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Scientology. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look at this edit: [22]

The abstract to the citation is here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276907542_Scientology_Sect_Science_or_Scam

http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15685276-12341364

We have an article on Numen (journal).

Also interesting:[23]

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What is your point, I am seeing nothing too untoward here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, Nonchalant77 is clearly a single-purpose editor, but what's the problem with that particular edit? Famousdog (c) 10:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This edit is certainly a bit of favorable cherry-picking. James R. Lewis (scholar) is being used precisely because he is known to be on the "uncritical" side of the study of scientology. I would not go as far as to say his ideas are "fringe", but they are clearly not the full story as to the WP:MAINSTREAM evaluation of the topic. The edit lacks a definite balance to have a paragraph that pushes only his perspective on this monumental instance in Scientology's history. This seems like it might be better suited for WP:NPOVN. jps (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Also see: Scientology (James R. Lewis book) and Bad (Social) Science – The Book Scientology and James R Lewis vs 'Private Eye'. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit in question.[24] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Eyes needed on James Dobson

KCWikiEdits is a newish editor repeatedly adding factually incorrect material and outright puffery to James Dobson. There may be a COI. Additional eyes on the article would be appreciated.- MrX 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

All of the awards mentioned in the new material and the information about the radio broadcast are cited with outside sources. So to my knowledge, none of the claims are factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCWikiEdits (talkcontribs) 18:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
You didn't cite independent sources for many of them, and some of the awards are not even noteworthy. The Blaze is not a reliable source, especially for WP:BLPs. drjamesdobson.org is not a reliable source for the non-notable Defender of Life Award from the non-notable Justice Foundation. HSLDA is not a reliable source. Also, you put the incorrect founding date for FoF (three times) and you edit warred to force your version back into the article.- MrX 18:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Reclaim Australia

Would some editors come and join us at Reclaim Australia? There are just two of us there and I'm afraid we've reached an impasse. The basic topicz (though there's lots of other stuff going on as well) are (a) the relationship between RA an neo-nazism, and (b) whether other organisations should be included in the "see also" list. StAnselm (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Lots out there...very easy source... good example is this academic book by professors Judith Bessant; Rys Farthing; Rob Watts (2017). The Precarious Generation: A Political Economy of Young People. Taylor & Francis. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-317-28917-3. . As for see also....just follow our policies.--Moxy (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Suppression and gaslighting at Origins of Cold War page

Over the holiday, User:Volunteer Marek, with the support of User:Gravuritas, and User:My very best wishes, systematically removed relevant facts from the Origins of the Cold War article which cast the US and UK in a negative light. They have refused to allow any of those facts to be restored, even when they have been thoroughly Talked through and documented. On Christmas Day, Marek cut over 15,000 bytes of text, covering nearly a dozen different subjects, which he regarded as "misrepresenting sources." It isn't practical to go through all of them here, but here's a typical case: I was told that I could not support my claim that Operation Sunrise— involving the surrender of an SS general to the US in exchange for protection from the Nuremberg Trials—was part of the origins of the Cold War. On the Talk page I demonstrated that the sources said this, and they were from reputable historians. Indeed, the event was significant enough to be mentioned in Routledge's Encyclopedia of the Cold War -

Operation Sunrise was also one of the early episodes of the Cold War, stoking Soviet fears that the Allies were signing a separate peace with Germany and ultimately leading to a tense exchange between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin.

There was no acknowledgement when I'd made my case, and indeed quite a bit of gaslighting. This Talk page has essentially become a dead end if it interferes with the pro-American government position.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

First, from what you're describing here, it sounds more like your problem is with editor behavior - your complaint is about a conspiracy to "suppress" and "gaslight" you. Perhaps you should take those complaints to WP:AN/I?
On the issue of the text removed and the article's neutrality, from the talk page thread on that text removed, I can see that Volunteer Marek presented several examples of the text going far beyond what was said in the sources, or some sources being unreliable for the text based on them. Three other editors agreed that the text should be removed.
You challenged them on the issue of Karl Wolf (but none of the rest of the text) by showing more pages from the book you were using as a source. I can't see the whole book, but those pages do seem to confirm the several sentences written about him and Operation Sunsrise that had been removed. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
For months now User:GPRamirez5 has been a difficult editor to work with--he routinely deletes fully sourced material with no explanation, and routinely distorts the sources he used. In this case, it was a minir episode. For a few weeks before WW2 ended Stalin was worried the US-UK were making a separate peace with Germany. Stalin discovered a few weeks later that there was no basis whatever for his fears. The Soviets were falsely informed to the effect that the Americans were Negotiating a surrender behind their back--They demanded that a Soviet general be present for any surrender negotiations. FDR in the last days of his life strongly informed Moscow that it was mistaken. All negotiations in Switzerland were ended by the U.S. in order to placate Moscow and meet its demands. Let me quote a standard history that explains what happened: At Caserta [in Italy] on April 28-29 [1945], an unconditional surrender document was quickly drafted. Generals Lemnitzer and Airey were present, as was Russian Major General A.P. Kislenko. Terms were dictated by the Allies. [ p 25] ....on May 2 at 4:00 a.m., Kesselring approved the surrender. At 2:00 p.m. Wehrmacht troops in Italy and the western areas of Austria began to lay down their arms. " [ p 27 source = "Operation Sunrise: America’s OSS, Swiss Intelligence, And The German Surrender 1945" by Stephen P. Halbrook (2006) at http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/sunrise.pdf and cited at Operation Sunrise (World War II) ] There were no further complaints from Moscow since there misunderstandings had been cleared up, and their demands for a Russian general the involved had been accepted and implemented. It appears to me that User:GPRamirez5 has ignored this and instead an encyclopedia source that only devotes a few sentences to the situation and does not explain how it was resolved by April 1945. Does this little episode represent an important contribution to the article on the origins of the Cold War?? --several years later did Stalin mis-remembered it?? No RS mentions any such effect. The dispute between the Soviets and the US in this case is one of dozens of minor episodes that irritated one side or the other– in this case it was firmly and finally resolved long before the Cold War cecame operational in 1947. Rjensen (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a plausible interpretation. Neither of the sources [25], [26] present it as a critical incident leading to the Cold War, but rather as an early example that illustrates the mistrust within the Allies and the political machinations that dominated the Soviet-Western relationship later on. I guess the question then is this: out of all the incidents that led up to the Cold War, which are important enough to be included in the article? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The case of [Nazi General] Karl Wolff illustrates how political considerations that foreshadowed the coming of the Cold War began to dominate as the war ended and the Alliance crumbled…The importance of the Wolff case within…the political interests of the Western Allies…are particularly evident in the prominence of the members of the Sunrise group who protected him.
-Kerstin von Lingen, Allen Dulles, the OSS, and Nazi War Criminals (Cambridge University Press, 2013), page 281

The above quote is from one of my original sources cited. Being a recent monograph published by a university press, it is in fact the "standard work" on the subject, contrary to User:Rjensen's claim. What he claims is the standard work comes from the website of a lawyer, Stephen Halbrook, with no track record in Cold War history.

Also contrary to Rjensen, it can't be a "little" or "minor" episode when Roosevelt and Stalin were directly dragged into it (very peculiar logic). Their extensive correspondence is posted on Michigan State University's official Soviet history website.

Rjensen's argument actually illustrates what I'm referring to. The belittling of university level sources, and second-guessing of the peer-reviewed contents. Furthermore, Marek claimed that the source didn't connect Wolff and Sunrise to the origins of the Cold War, when in fact, it clearly does. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Here is the problem as I see it. You bring statements that are not supported by sources. When others tell they are not supported by sources, you first deny it, then agree, but tell that the "90 percent of this article" are not on the subject (not true) and bring something entirely different [27]. Obviously, other contributors do not agree with such "arguments". My very best wishes (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes, you seem to be telling me not to believe my own eyes:

Historians speculate that the Cold War in fact started with the negotiations between Wolff and Dulles on March 8, 1945, in Lucerne...The secret dealings between the American intelligence services and the SS in Switzerland made the Soviets paranoid about Dulles, and about clandestine contacts between Soviet operatives and the Americans, and served as a pretext for the onset of the Cold War.
-Prof. Istvan Rev, "An Absurdist Film That Touches on Wartime Reality" New York Times, 3/15/2010

Incidentally User:Red Rock Canyon, this was also one of my original sources.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This is waste of time. If you have a disagreement about something (I have no idea what it actually is), post an RfC. If want to complain about other users, this is not a good idea because your own editing clearly falls under WP:TE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I read the pages you linked from the Kerstin von Lingen book, including that line you quoted. That source demonstrates that this was an event leading up to the Cold War, but it doesn't demonstrate that this event is important enough to put in the article, which seems to be the issue. The other editors seem to believe that it was a minor side note and shouldn't be in the article. Personally, I find that quote from the NY Times opinion piece a pretty convincing reason to mention this event in the article. I don't think the article could be used as a reliable source for factual claims, but Istvan Rev seems like an expert on the subject. I think you'd help your case by finding other sources that show that a significant number of historians think this event was an important in causing or contributing to the Cold War. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Red Rock Canyon, I've already marshaled both more sources than my challengers, and higher quality sources than my challengers. And even Rjensen's source says that “…Sunrise revealed tensions that would quickly culminate into the Cold War...”

By the extreme vetting with which we seem to be judging this, 99.9 percent of Wikipedia could be deleted right now.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not true. You still haven't addressed several instances of you misrepresenting sources at all. As for "99.9 percent of Wikipedia", if you see sources being misrepresented somewhere, feel free to correct it or bring it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC request: Bitcoin scalability problem

Hello, i proposed to remove the word "problem" from the articles name, as I think it creates an NPOV issue. Please feel free to comment at Talk:Bitcoin_scalability_problem#RFC_article_naming,_removing_"problem"_from_article_name_for_NPOV. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Transylvanian peasant revolt

I would highly appreciate all imputs on a discussion which started months ago. Rgvis says, the article about the Transylvanian peasant revolt is unbalanced and disputes its neutrality, because it does not contain two sentences that he had suggested. One of the two sentences was based on a book published in the 1930s, the other one on a tertiary source. I think both sentences represent marginal (or rather fringe) theories, because they clearly contradict to all reliable sources cited in the article. I sought assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania more than a month ago, but no other editor has joined the discussion. The start of the discussion can be read here, and it was continued here. Thank you for your comments in advance. Borsoka (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is about more than "two sentences", as already mentioned by other editors, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transylvanian_peasant_revolt&diff=809990080&oldid=809988856 (Rgvis (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC))
@Seraphim System:, as the editor implicitly mentioned above, I would highly appreciate if you could comment my action. Borsoka (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the above post does not clearly state what is disputed so that uninvolved editors can be of any help. So far as I can tell, this is the disputed edit: two sentences about the subservient position of Romanians, resulting from their Orthodox religion in a Catholic Kingdom, prior to the start of the peasant revolt in 1437. Is that correct? The sentences are sourced to three books:
    • East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500, U Wash Press 2013 [28]
    • A History of the Roumanians, Cambridge U Press 2015 [29]
    • Linguistic Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, Multilingual Matters 1998 [30]
My sense is that the obvious solution is to include the two sentences and provide attribution, e.g., "Historian Jean Sedlar writes that..." If this claim has been explicitly rejected by another historian, the disagreeing historian can be referenced too.
I hope that helps. -Darouet (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Darouet:, thank you for your above comment. Sincerely, I think all above books, which are not written by specialists, represent marginal views, but I understand that you suggested a possible compromise. Nevertheless, let me ask you, do you really think that Seton-Wattson's A History of the Roumanians, which was first published in 1934, should also be included? Its claim - ethnicity did matter in medieval Hungary - clearly contradicts to all recent reliable sources. Medieval Hungarian law did not distinguish, for instance, an ethnic Hungarian, Slovak or German nobleman from an ethnic Vlach noble, they enjoyed equal privileges independently of their ethnicity and religion. On the other hand, a Catholic Vlach knez (or chieftain/half-noble) was legally inferior to Orthodox Vlach nobles, and enjoyed a more favorable status than Orthodox or Catholic Vlach peasants. (I refer to all books cited in the article to substantiate my statements, but the following sources can also be read online: [31] and [32].) Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally unless it is a section discussing the historical view of something, newer sources are preferred. If the current view is A, supported by multiple sources, and you have a historical view B which is contradictory, by a single source/very few sources, the historic view would not be included (again, unless it was in a section detailing the historical viewpoint, which is where it would be appropriate). A 1934 source that touches on religion and ethnicity is generally going to be superseded by newer research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Borsoka: I apologize that I can't look into this more carefully at the moment, due to real-life obligations. I agree with Only in death that newer research will tend to supersede older research. That said, as I noted above, the material you're removing is sourced to three different books, two of which are published by prestigious universities, and two of which are recent. The old source you oppose has been republished by Cambridge University Press, which doesn't make it inviolable but... might make it relevant. One reason I'd suggest including the contested text with attribution, and including a counter-point with attribution, is that a reader motivated enough to read about the Transylvanian peasant revolt would probably be fascinated to learn about both sides of this academic debate. -Darouet (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Darouet:, thank you for your answer. Although two of the above books are tertiary sources, none of the two is dedicated to the subject of the article and one of the two does not mention a single year, so we cannot decide whether it is relevan for the article at all, I accept your approach as a compromise, as I mentioned above. Sorry, I do not fully understand your reference to Setton-Wattson's 1934 book and I would like to close the debate about the article. Do you say, that its quite unusual approach about ethnicity in medieval Hungary should be mentioned? Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Borsoka: I think someone with more knowledge of the subject area than I can provide might be helpful to you. I wonder if Loesorion, Ealdgyth, SteveMcCluskey, or Ian Spackman would have ideas? -Darouet (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it is generally known that because of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics and known schism between them there was many cases of prosecution of heretics. In many cases Catholics Inquisition was involved and due to that and many other events specially in states where one religion was in minority (or state religion was different from majority} or in diocese that where neighborhoods of other religion some kind of persecution against other religion was often used. So in general it is quite possible that we have a case here of similar misconduct here and as I understand there is a source about it. In Hungary it is known fact that Louis I of Hungary was against Orthodox believers and church and that latter in many location in Hungary there was some kind of persecution. And in 1436 at time just before rebellion takes place in Hungary was present James of the Marches as inquisitor. It is clear from many sources that there is religion background in this rebellion among others possible causes so it is meaningful to mention other religions and peoples life's under such a circumstances. And if there is any opposition from other source about religion groups and conditions they lived it could and should be included but with note about disagreement between historians and a year of both sources. I think a year when historical work took place is important because we have in many cases in recent time that history is rewritten because political changes and politician will and not because new findings specially in eastern and southeastern Europe after 1990's with diminish of communism and creations of new states and nations never recorded before in history. Loesorion (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Loesorion:, thank you for your above remarks. (1) Sorry, I do not understand your reference to the persecution of Orthodox believers "in many places" in Hungary, especially in the 15th century. There were large domains possessed by Orthodox magnates in the kingdom in this period. Could you refer to reliable sources that name places where Orthodox believers were persecuted in the 15th century? This could be an important piece of information. (2) Neither do I understand your reference to James of the Marches. I have always read that he was invited to persecute Hussite Hungarians, because Sigismund of Luxembourg feared that the Hussites wanted to rose up in Hungary. Please inform me about the reliable sources that make a connection between James of the Marches and the Orthodox Vlachs, because I would like to expand the article based on them. (3) I have never read books which state that the 1437 rebellion had a religious background: Catholic Hungarian and Orthodox Vlach commoners jointly fought against noblemen of diverse ethnic background. Yes, some scholars assume that Hussite (and not Orthodox) ideas may have influenced the rebels (this significant theory is clearly mentioned in the article). (4) If my understanding is correct you agree, that Setton-Wattson's A History of the Roumanians, which was first published in the 1930s, should not be cited in the article. Please ping me if I am wrong. Borsoka (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The Confessional Situation of Hungary until the beginning of the 14th Century + Catholic Pressure in Hungary in the 14th Century @ Testimonies on the ethno-confessional structure of medieval Transylvania and Hungary: (9th-14th centuries) - page 14/33 in pdf format (22 in the original publication - Transylvanian Review: source). (Rgvis (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC))
@Rgvis:, could you refer to the pages which refer to persecution of Orthodox believers in Hungary in the 15th century and make a connection between the Transylvanian peasant revolt and the alleged persecutions of Vlachs for their Orthodox faith in the late 1360s (under Louis I)? (Please remember, Louis ordered the persecution of Vlachs because of their "disorderly behavior", not because of their Orthodox faith. In the same decree, he also prescribed that the oath taken by a Vlach knez who had been settled on royal land be equal to an oath taken by a Catholic nobleman.) Borsoka (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
You have already had the answers in all references cited, even in the last one (and, there are many other). The "Background" section does not objectively reflect the general social context of the time, while the "Aftermath and assessment" section does not emphasize at all on one of the main consequences of the event, the exclusion of the Romanians (who had become "tolerated") from the social-politics life for the next centuries (as so many sources says). (Rgvis (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC))
@Rgvis:, if my understanding is correct you could mention many reliable sources, but you coul not refer to pages in the same sources which mention the persecution of Orthodox believers in Hungary in the 15th century or make a connection between the Transylvanian peasant revolt and the alleged persecutions of Vlachs for their Orthodox faith in the late 1360s. Please remember, all statements in an article should be verified with an inline citation and we should add a page number. If we cannot refer to pages, we cannot use the cited source. Please remember that I already referred to a reliable source ([33]) which states that the "Hungarian nation" included the full-fledged noblemen in the 15th century. Consequently, as the same source states, ethnic Magyar/Hungarian, German and Vlach noblemen were regarded Hungarians and enjoyed the same liberties, while ethnic Magyar/Hungarian, German and Vlach peasants were excluded from the "Hungarian nation" and they did not enjoy those privileges. I would be grateful if you could refer to academic sources which state that Orthodox Vlach noblemen did not enjoy the same privileges as their ethnic Hungarian peers and were excluded from the political life in Hungary/Transylvania in the 14-16th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Your understanding is not correct, because you obviously do not accept anything else, but your personal opinion. You are not interested at all in other documented references. Anyhow, be aware that Wikipedia articles must reflect all points of view (even if you like it or not). Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC))
@Rgvis:, I would be grateful if you could refer to pages of reliable sources instead of making a guess about my intentions, because reliable sources can verify edits, but my intentions cannot. I still must assume that you are unable to refer to pages in reliable sources (1) which verify that Orthodox believers were persecuted in Hungary in the 15th century; or (2) which make a connection between the Transylvanian peasant revolt and the alleged persecutions of Vlachs for their Orthodox faith in the late 1360s; or (3) which state that Orthodox Vlach noblemen did not enjoy the same privileges as their ethnic Hungarian peers and were excluded from the political life in Hungary/Transylvania in the 14-16th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology

An editor has attempted to insert a long treatise on how bad the administration of this school is.[34] I've already been reverted once. This is textbook tendentious editing so I'd appreciate some eyeballs on the article, since I don't always come on English Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (t c) 03:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Section in WWII bio article

Erich Hartmann (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

A disagreement has arisen over the inclusion of an “In popular culture” section in the Erich Hartmann article: Erich Hartmann#In popular culture. It was removed with the following rationale: it is only a couple reviews of a book. It is not enough to have "In popular culture" portion.

I believe that the section meets the guidance at WP:MILPOP:

  • "In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable secondary source for the article topic.”

The section is well-cited and is within scope, I believe. Separately, it's relevant to the page, in part because most of the narrative in the article is based on the book in question, The Blond Knight of Germany.

The discussion on the talk page has stalled, so I would appreciate additional input on the matter. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Erich Hartmann#The Blond Knight of Germany.

  • Question: Should the section be kept in the article? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Reading through the article and the section "In popular culture", my sense is that you should keep it. Hartmann, a fighter pilot, became famous in the United States partly through a biography: "The Blond Knight of Germany." The section in question addresses the biography, and uses a few scholarly sources that appear (justifiably) critical. Since the book and reviews are all about Hartmann in popular culture, the effort to remove commentary on them comes across as politically motivated, if not hagiographic. -Darouet (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
My grandfather served in the RAAF during the Second World War. I do not appreciate the implication of your last comment. Kyle Delwood (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing an issue with it, Darouet got it covered with his comment and I agree with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The section "In popular culture" contains relevant information, verified by inline citations based on reliable sources. It is also in line with WP:NPOV. Consequently, I think we should keep it. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC needs additional input

See Here. Thank you. --Jayron32 19:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Seth Rich Murder Page

I have attempted to discuss issues with the Murder of Seth Rich Page in the open discussion on the bottom of this page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich).

I cannot show a diff as I am not allowed to edit the page.

The problem with the page is that it has not been written from a neutral point of view. Editors have stated that the article represents the news sources available, however, more impartial news articles exist (for example https://crimewatchdaily.com/2016/09/30/exclusive-murdered-dnc-staffers-family-friends-set-record-straight/) and the neutral point of view policy clearly states that either opposing points of view need to be represented or the most neutral sources. This article is about the conspiracy theorists and how much harm they've done since Seth Rich's murder, not Seth Rich's murder. The point of view of this article is not neutral, as can clearly be seen from the over references to conspiracy theory, and fake news. It can also be seen from attempts to mark it as a debunked conspiracy theory with nothing more than law enforcement saying the claims are unfounded and the fact checking web sites rating the conspiracy theory false due to law enforcement's statements. The language of the article does not reflect these actual statements. A neutral article shouldn't sound like it was wrote by a right-wing or left-wing politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:E970:54C8:94EB:182D:8DF6 (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be because that is what it is most noted for. As to marking it as debunked, well as it is a crime and the police investigate crime if they say X then we have to accept that they have seen all the relevant evidence and have thus concluded there is nothing to prosecute on.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE issue at Kashmiris#Origins?

This is an off-shoot from an ongoing discussion at WP:RSN#Linguist's history (where the OP asks us to focus purely on the reliability of a supporting source, without examining the context of why we are citing it in the first place). However, I think we need to discuss the context (ie the content) as well. So, I am asking about that side of the issue here...

The section in question includes the statement: However, some scholars and Kashmiri historians such as R.K. Parmu believe that the Kashmiri people have a Jewish origin, due to several similarities between Kashmiris and Israelites. This theory holds that Kashmiris descend from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel which settled in Kashmir after the dispersal of the Jews.

This strikes me as giving UNDUE weight to fringe opinions. The idea that ANY group of people are descended from the "lost tribes" is fairly fringe. My preference would be to simply ignore what R.K Parmu (and these other unnamed "scholars and historians") say about "lost tribes" and the origins of the Kashmiri people... simply omit it as being UNDUE. Please share your thoughts on this. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems this, Theory of Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel, has some legs, someone even bothered recently [1] to see if there was DNA evidence supporting this (they concluded that not). It could be in as a very short blurb - half a sentence. As is the origins has a whole slew of options.Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Downie, Jonathan M., et al. "A Genome-Wide Search for Greek and Jewish Admixture in the Kashmiri Population." PloS one 11.8 (2016): e0160614.
The theory of Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel, mentioned in two reliable sources cited in the article, is prominent enough to be included in the article. My concern is that the article does not mention that this is a minority view, refuted by most scholars, as it is clearly stated in both cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I see two solutions to the problem from here. You can either source that the first is the majority view, or source that the other view is not backed up by DNA. If it should be included at all--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about Church of Satan POV and messy RfC at Talk:The Satanic Temple

There seems to be some obvious POV-pushing and meat puppetry going on at Talk:The Satanic Temple.

In the past, we've had people with declared connections to either TST or the Church of Satan editing the page. Having a WP:COI doesn't disqualify anyone from editing the page, obviously, but with the recent RfC it's starting to show signs of coordination.

As I started reading through the talk page and the issues people were raising, I found some of the zeal regarding whether it's a religion odd, given the sourcing. I noticed that several of the users also edit articles about the Church of Satan and saw several comments to the effect of the Church of Satan being a real religion or real Satanism or whatnot and the Satanic Temple is not.

So I started googling and found that, indeed, the Church of Satan seems to have some problems with TST (see also [35] [36]). TST, in turn, looks to have started mocking the CoS.

Since this appears to be something along the lines of an official position for the CoS, and because I started noticing several SPAs in the thread above, I did a little more googling. I'm not going to out anyone, but it doesn't seem like users are trying to hide their connection to social media accounts which clearly advocate for the CoS.

I don't think there's anything actionable at this point (hence being here rather than ANI). But the matter of how to handle the way in which we characterize TST as a "religion" is tricky. IMO it's clear it won't involve simply omitting religion in the description nor calling it a religion without qualification, but how exactly to go about it is unclear and unlikely to resolve without additional voices. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to keep the page Neutral and hope that you know my intentions are the same. I only began editing it when there were complaints that the page read like a press release and I tried to balance it out by adding additional cited information. I think one of the big issues is that there is confusion and accusations of positions that are unfounded. Satanism has existed for a long time before The Satanic Temple which wasn't founded until 2013. The Church Of Satan was founded in 1966 and has been the single public representative of the religion of Satanism for over 50 years, including it's founder Anton LaVey having written The Satanic Bible as well as several other books considered Satanic religious cannon. Those articles can be read for further background. I think that weighing CoS against TST is a false equivalency, and I think implying that any discussion of Satanism pre-dating TST is somehow anti-TST or pro-CoS is presumptive. Additionally TST has changed it's position several times in it's relatively short existence, I think I don't think that discussions of those changed with citations is inherently anti-TST. However there are some editor that seem to want only positive information about the position being taken today, and are calling anything else bias. Anyone who has been interested in Satanism going back further than 2013 is going to have a different take on it, which isn't inherently pro/anti anything. It's simply a result of longer experience with the topic.
Perhaps the larger wikipedia community can help with that, it would be wonderful. I don't think there is any disagreement on the facts that Satanism pre-existed TST, that of the two founders of TST, one of them (Jarry) claims to not have any prior knowledge of Satanism, and the other (Doug Mesner, aka Greaves) was actively involved in CoS activities for at least 10 years prior to founding TST, so clearly had knowledge of Satanism before TST. Additionally we know that TST originally claimed to have been founded by Neil Bricke (a vocal believer in Satanic Ritual Abuse) and that they originally claimed to be theistic - both claims which can be seen on internet archive of the TST website in 2013 and have been discussed in interviews, we also know that what TST claims today is "Satanism" is different that what "Satanism" has been defined as going back to 1966 so there's a disconnect there to some extent. I think those points are all well enough documented that I don't need to add each citation here but let me know if you need a reference for any of them. So, the question as far as I can tell is simply how to talk about TST in this larger context without people who seem to have a pro-TST bias complaining that discussion of these facts is anti-TST? Thank you User:Rhododendrites for your continued level headed approach to this. Seanbonner (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Pssst. TST has never claimed to be "founded by Neil Blick (a vocal believer in Satanic Ritual Abuse)". Greaves did once claim as a pun that "Neil Bricke" (a pseudonym) was the mysterious leader of TST, as he poked fun at the real Neil Brick, founder of "Stop Mind Control And Ritual Abuse Today" (SMART). You appear to have fallen for the prank. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is the Internet archive of the TST website page showing the claim, which was live for several months in 2013. That's not a one time pun. Greaves has stated repeatedly on Twitter that this claim was written before he was involved with the organization, which is another issue all together but the fact remains that it was on their website when it launched and for several months after that, so it was a claim regardless of how they try to down play it now. [37] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanbonner (talkcontribs) 00:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, your link is to a page using the pun-pseudonym name "Neil Bricke", a play on the name of the real "Neil Brick" (a critic and disparager of Satanism who would never found a satanic religion), as I said. If you wish to continue to believe it is an actual person long after the choice of name was "down-played" fully explained, I can't help you with that. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be misunderstanding my comment Xenophrenic, I'm not claiming "Bricke" is a real person. I'm pointing to the fact that for months when it launched the TST website made a claim that they later changed, and that this is a documentable fact that plays into the history of TST and it's initial intentions, which are the kind of things that are discussed in the history sections of articles - yet some editors have taken to arguing that including historical facts is biased. This was not a one time pun or a single joke taken out of context, it was on their website for months when they were actively engaging in media stunts - this was the story they were pushing when they were trying to get media coverage initially. A story that they later changed. The after the fact justification is PR spin. From an organization that openly and actively engages in PR spin. My efforts on this article have been to try and identify the confirmable facts and separate those from the PR talking points as we don't want this article to be a promotional piece, but rather an accurate and neutral representation of facts. It's certainly true to that claiming to be a theistic religion founded by someone with a fake name which is a reference to someone who might be your most vocal critic doesn't cleanly paint the picture that have deeply held atheistic beliefs, but that isn't a reason to pretend it didn't happen. Seanbonner (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Nope. I understood you perfectly. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
If you understand my point is that a statement was made on their website for several months then I'm not sure I understand your argument about what name was used or your false claim that it was only mentioned once as joke. Sounds like a deflection, but feel free to explain yourself better in reference to my point specifically. Seanbonner (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I took a look at the RfC and related Talk page discussions you linked, Rhododendrites, and I can confirm what you observed: There is POV-pushing, meatpuppetry, potential COI issues, and "zealous" attempts by one faction to denigrate the other. To that, all I can say is welcome to the world of religion. As is true with any significant flavor of religion, some branches will pre-date other branches, some will change over time, some diverge dramatically from their origins, - and each will inevitably criticize the other and exclaim, "you're not doing it right!" You'll find this is true in the realms of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, ... and Satanism is no different (see Temple of Set, Satanic Reds, The Satanic Temple, Church of Satan, etc.). Taking on the challenge of how to characterize religions such as The Satanic Temple is always interesting, and the lead sentence of our article on Religion should serve as a warning: There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.
Our only recourse is to adhere to Wikipedia's policy and convey what the reliable sources say. You'll need to cut past the feelings, opinions and original research from editors and simply go with the reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Beyond scholarly consensus there is also the matter of the religion tax break given out to only nominally religious organizations. I do however note that the first real reference source I see mentioned in the footnotes, the Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements in footnote 2, clearly indicates at least that it is a new religious movement and is presumably sufficient sourcing to use that term. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Pssst. Temple of Set does not consider themselves Satanists, rather they are Setians which a separate theistic religion different from Satanism which they agree is atheistic, and specifically why they split from it. They object to being called Satanists. Seanbonner (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I never said otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if I misunderstood, you listed them first in your "see also" list of arguments about flavors of religions and how that is the same with Satanism. As ToS doesn't consider themselves Satanists I don't see any argument there. Seanbonner (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Responding here mainly to say thanks for your response/context, Seanbonner, and thanks Xenophrenic for analyzing/jumping in. Noticeboard threads dealing with content can easily turn into redundant/parallel wall-of-text talk page threads that scare off previously uninvolved parties, so I'll leave it at that and cross my fingers that more people get involved. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Case in point - The "Chapters" section included information about Memberships and Chapters which are different things. I made a new section to clarify that with links to the official site showing the difference and had my edit immediately deleted, and was was then accused of POV pushing. [[38]] Seanbonner (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I notice that what some might call problematic edits at least on the talk page seem to be ongoing at least in my eyes. Should such continue, sanctions of some sort might be a not-unrealistic option. John Carter (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And I guess an issue raised here is one which I thought worth pursuing at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Really new new religious movements. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Leonard Lance

I removed text from Leonard Lance which stated "In January 2017, several thousand protesters, mostly women, marched to Lance's office in Westfield, New Jersey as part of the 2017 Women's March to protest GOP policies and advocate for women’s rights, human rights, LGBTQ, climate change, gun control, and other issues." I removed it because I believe it is WP:UNDUE. For one, the claim of "several thousand protesters" is attributed in the source to the event's organizer, so that's not exactly an impartial source. Second, it was the local version of the 2017 Women's March, not a protest specifically against Lance. In terms of what the two given sources say about Lance, one source says "..the crowd walked along North Avenue through Downtown Westfield to Congressman Leonard Lance's office at 425 North Ave. East..." and the other source lists six "sister marches", noting that for one of the marches "Marchers are scheduled to gather in front of the Lord & Taylor on North Avenue in Westfield and march about a half mile to the office of Rep. Leonard Lance." The text was reinserted after I removed it with my WP:UNDUE rationale, and I wanted to get some feedback here, thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a question about UNDUE, but it certainly is not relevant here to describe the views of Leonard Lance. Obviously his views are not shared by all, but that is a discussion about Gun Control in the United States and not about his views. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Immigration to Sweden (effects on crime) and Sanandaji

I am trying to improve the controversial article of Immigration to Sweden and specifically the section crime. What is not disputed is that certain crimes are increasing [39], that immigrants are overrepresented or the reliability of Brå, but instead how to interpret the statistics. The section as several issues (eg it's too long 1500 words), but since this is NPOV lets focus on that part here. Currently the controversial Jerzy Sarnecki is given a monopoly with his hypothesis that immigration has not affected the level or type of crime[40], while others such as the Iran-Kurdish economist Tino Sanandaji (PhD University of Chicago and researcher at Stockholm School of Economics) has a different view. Politico Europe gave a summary of him in their "The 28 people who are shaping, shaking and stirring Europe List of 2018"[41]. The edit we are disputing for this discussion is this [42].

Sanandaji dedicate 5 pages in his book Massutmaning to counter Sarnecki and this misconception. For the purpose of this discussion and according to Fair Use and "Citaträtten", transcribed quotes of this so that you can temporary read the full argument using Translate. User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning#Excerpts. The argument can be summarized as:

  • Even if crime is falling while the share of immigrants goes up, that does not prove that immigration does not affect crime. The crime among non-immigrants could be falling, while the crime among immigrants is increasing for a net zero effect. Thus the crime levels could still be lower without immigration.
  • Accounting for socioeconomic factors might explain why immigrants are overrepresented, but says nothing about how the level of immigrants effect the level of crime. Since immigration cause socioeconomic problems that can't be solved, and socioeconomic problems cause crime, immigration affect the level of crime. This is fact is used by others such as Skolverket in their studies. Accounting for things does not make them go away. You wouldn't say that eating a bag of potato chips is healthy if you account for fat, carbohydrates and salt. Eating that bag is still unhealthy.
  • It is questionable if socioeconomic factors can explain their over-representation as the study this is based on is flawed.

I don't argue that we should delete the mentioning of Sarnecki on the page, but rather that we complement the page according to NPOV with this view. First this was blocked on the premise that Massutmaning was not a reliable enough source for this statement. But this argument was dismissed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard[43]. The consensus was that the source it self was reliable for this statement, but including it was a question of NPOV. After this discussion, they have now moved the goalposts to be about NPOV and this is where we are today. They have argued that Sanandaji is a fringe view and that the journal where they let Sarnecki's mistakes through is a better source than Massutmaning. First I would like to state that according to WP:IAR, we can dismiss these reason if we know that it will improve the article. However there is no such rule and the view Sanandaji present is neither Wikipedia:False balance nor WP:SPS. They also never raised these complains when I did the edits about Walloons and Germans in the history section[44]

Sanandaji has been cited/used as an expert of Swedish immigration in at least 8 different countries in 5 different languages (a lot for Swedish domestic policy) based on major news papers User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning#Sanandaji_as_an_expert. The book has also strictly received positive reviews by Swedish media User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning#Reviews and broke the financing record within Swedish publications[45]. The only critics are Sarnecki and debunked statements from Hans Lööf. The summary from Politico Europe should be enough to state his expertise/relevance on the subject. To avoid people criticizing his sources he has strictly relied on independent studies and government reports and deliberately never researched the area himself. Researches such as Assar Lindbeck and Jan Ekberg has approved of his argumentation.

From the previous RS Noticeboard discussion[46]

  • "As a reliability issue Tino's book has been covered, his opinion on the immigration question has been covered, he certainly qualifies as an expert on statistical methodology. And really the above section is quite neutrally worded. Even a layperson can see when you have an expert stating 'Its not because they are immigrants, its because they are poor' the obvious question 'So where are all the rich immigrants then?' appears. Which is why its a thorny issue in Sweden, given the crime statistics overwhelmingly show certain types of crime to be linked directly to 1st and 2nd generation immigrants". --Only in death does duty end
  • Yes, maybe I should have been more precise. He is an expert economist, but not an expert on immigration. And conflict-of-interest applies to books as well as papers. --Stephan Schulz
    • Well if we are being precise, neither is the criminology prof. What Tino takes exception to is the methodology involved in Sarnecki's conclusions. Sarnecki says statistics support argument A), Tino says the same statistics equally support argument B) which Sarnecki has disregarded without providing sufficient reason. Certainly Tino is more than qualified to opine on statistical methodology, and his MA is in Public Policy, which is certainly an immigration issue anyway.--Only in death does duty end

Can the crime section include views from other than Sarnecki? Given that 1. Sanandaji is referred to as an expert in various major news papers 2. that Massutmaning is famous in Sweden and 3. that Sarnecki is proven wrong, make his argument relevant to bring up in the crime section? --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The user above misrepresents the section in the Immigration to Sweden article[47], as well as past discussions about his proposed changes. First, Sarnecki is only explicitly mentioned twice in whole sub-section (sourced to 3 RS: FactCheck.Org, USA Today, and the Globe and Mail) and his study in the British Journal of Criminology is cited once, yet the user claims that Sarnecki has a "monopoly" on the section. Second, there are a number of scholarly publications and dozens of high-quality RS used in the article. Third, given that the subject (the relationship between immigration and crime in Sweden) has been covered extensively in RS and the fact that section already uses a large number of high-quality RS, there is no reason why we should introduce a self-published book. If Sanandaji's self-published book is to be mentioned, it should be one sentence at the end of the sub-section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
What did we say about going around Wikipedia making false statements about the content of edits/artciles and other users? The entire section is either based on either based on Sarnecki 2013 which is cited three times or someone citing that study or a study from the same department at Stockholm University. Lets take the first 10 examples. 1. The 2013 study, 2. study from same department that and cites Sarnecki. 3. same incorrect argument "hese groups overwhelmingly come from socially and economically marginalised suburb" 4. Cites Sarnecki indirectly "djust for socio-economic factors, that disappears almost completely" 5. cites Sarnecki. 6. Same incorrect argument "to high levels of unemployment, poverty, exclusion, low language and other skills" 7. cites Sarnecki 8. deadlink 9. cites criminologist (i.e. sarnecki) 10. Cites Sarnecki 11. Cites Sarnecki 12. Cites Sarnecki. I could continue, but I think I have proven my point.
The second point is irrelevant for the discussion, but also false since it mostly cites the same group at the Stockholm University
The third point is where we don't agree and seek help from this noticeboard. I agree that it is too long, but it still misses important perspectives. I tried to shorten it by removing discussion about Trump's view which you have blocked [48]. Sanandaji is not the only complaining about the incorrect method of adjusting for sociological factors, but is relevant source of this and a source that responds to Sarnecki directly. The consensus from the RS noticeboard was that Massutmaningen is a reliable source for this statement--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a self-published source by an academic who doesn't appear to have published any peer reviewed articles on crime, immigration, or statistical methodology, from what I can tell. The opinion might be worth mentioning, but it probably shouldn't be afforded the same weight as the view of a well-regarded expert. I'm especially dubious in this case because it seems to be countering a social-scientific conclusion by reference to bare assertions and speculation - e.g.: the study is flawed, immigrants cause unsolvable socio-economic problems - which is the sort of thing you can only get away with when you self-publish. Nblund talk 19:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment! I just want to clarify what the argument is. He is not necessary arguing that immigration has caused crime, he is pointing out logical errors in Sarnecki's argument that it hasn't. Yet I don't think anyone seriously can suggest that poorly integrated low skilled immigration will into one of the most highly educated countries in the world with also the highest employment gap (immigrants vs natives) in world will not increase inequality in that country. He also gives an example of where Skolverket has regarded adjusting for socioeconomic factors as incorrect. Does this change your view? That Sarnecki is wrong in his argumentation is established, I would argue WP:IAR says that this says we should bring another perspective up. However since a published economic researcher with a PhD from one of the best universities in the world is more than qualified to comment on methodology and even though certain editors here doesn't think he is an expert, the various sources that claims that he is could be more relevant. Therefore we don't have to use WP:IAR and just WP:NPOV
He has also stated that "Däremot anser han att det kan vara önskvärt att genomföra studier med specifika frågeställningar, som likt den tyska studien, kopplar samman ursprung och brottslighet. Har brottsligheten ökat i Sverige på grund av invandringen? Det är en rimlig frågeställning och den typen av studie skulle man kunna göra även här. Men det finns en viss beröringsskräck vid ämnet, säger han." [49]. So it is also not really clear that Sarnecki have the same view today.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, I don't think it's a matter of whose argument we believe. It's a question of due weight. Sanandaji does seem to be a noted polemicist, but I don't see compelling evidence that he is comparable to Sarnecki when it comes to the issue of immigration and crime. You might be in a better position if, rather than citing Sanandaji's critique of Sarnecki, you simply briefly summarized a key point or two elsewhere in the article.
Admittedly, I'm using google translate here, but I don't think Sarnecki is actually positing that aggregate statistics alone disprove a connection between immigration and crime. Sanandaji seems to be knocking down a straw man, so I don't think the point is so compelling that we need to apply WP:IAR. Nblund talk 00:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The weight that should be assigned to opinions is based on their reception in reliable sources, which in this case would be academic articles on the connection between crime and immigration. In this case, an expert has chosen to publish his opinions outside the academic mainstream which usually suggests they have little support within it. So they should be considered fringe - they have received a lot of popular support but little from experts. We can mention them so long as we make that clear. TFD (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

How do we handle the unproven claims of alternative medicine? Pertaining to WP:VALID

I'm a fairly experienced editor and I'm familiar with the stricter standards that apply to pages in health/medicine categories. This is a question about how editors navigate providing enough context so that readers understand that claims of health benefits by many alternative medicine practitioners are unproven. It's important that we convey what those practitioners say it does, but also to make it clear that those are only unverified claims. Presently I'm focusing on Rolfing. The article states plainly in several places, especially in the Lede and in greater detail in a section called Effectiveness, that no health benefits have been proven for this method. A new source has been introduced that mentions claims of changes in movement and proprioception; these claims appear in enough other sources that it is perhaps worthy to note in the article. The same source also mentions claims of pain reduction but that is less emphasized. We have a specific source that details the science that shows that the link between biomechanics and pain is often not there (for specific health conditions), though it doesn't address the alignment ideas of Rolfing specifically. What is the best way to handle this and stay within WP:VALID? I have tried to consult other alt-med articles to see how this is handled but frankly many of them are rather sloppy. Thanks in advance. --Karinpower (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The answer's right there in WP:VALID: "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world". So, to deal with Rolfing's claim wrt "movement" and "proprioception" neutrally we'd need some decent mainstream sources (preferably WP:MEDRS) that discuss these topics. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
We say what RS say about it and we attribute all claims. Thus "Bert Scrogins claimed that him licking your left nipple cures the dreaded Lurgy. The Royal society of I did not spend five years at medical school to be called Mr has said that it has seen no evidence for this. Dr Sir Emanuel Terrible said "this is just plan quackery.".Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Woody Allen sexual-assault allegations

Woody Allen sexual assault allegations is a new article that currently has only nine people watching it. There is a disagreement on the talk page about which details to include and how to interpret UNDUE. More input would be very valuable, particularly as there are several issues not yet discussed that could be contentious. Could people put the article on their watchlists, please, even if you choose not to comment at the moment? SarahSV (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Nationalist dispute in RfC at Abkhazia

There is a time-wasting nationalist dispute going on in an RfC at Elbonia... I mean Talk:Abkhazia#New RFC. It repeats an already properly closed 2016 RfC and failed 2017 RfC on the question of whether and where to include a large or small version of the disputed republic's flag, and follows an abortive attempt to POV-fork the article. At least one prominent figure in the disagreement hails from the region in question. The RfC is malformed, is not phrased as a simple neutral question, does not bother to link diffs, and does not ping editors who previously had an opinion. This is par for the course in Elbonia articles. This could use more eyes (and if I had my way maybe some topic bans). —DIYeditor (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

DIY... just a friendly comment... dismissing such debates by using the term "Elbonia" does nothing to resolve the issues you are raising, and makes it appear as if you have your own POV axe to grind. Please try to phrase things more neutrally. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
A friendly response: That POV is a point of view on Wikipedia itself. Promoting the view that North Elbonia is or isn't a rogue insurgency is POV-pushing. Declaring that such behavior is a misuse of Wikipedia is not a misuse of Wikipedia. I don't see what's inappropriate about a slightly humorous and quite apt reference to a comic strip, or about finding the persistent bickering in these articles, not infrequently by people with apparent personal interest in the sovereignty disputes, to be a bit tedious. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Because it implies you view Abkhazia in the same light, a made up country.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
By what logic? Referring to similarities with something fictitious implies that the referent is also fictitious? Sorry, no. I have zero opinion about the legitimacy of any of the sovereignty claims. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Then perhaps you shouldn’t try to use dismissive humor when talking about them. Doing so makes it appear to others as if you do have an opinion.
But enough about how you should have phrased things. Let’s focus on your concern: Yes... nationalist aspirations often lead to POV editing. From your comment, I gather that there was a previous RFC on the article in question (held a bit over a years ago) and you feel that it is too soon to reopen the discussion. Is this a fair summary of your concern?Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
It's an ongoing problem at Commonwealth of Independent States articles which is why they are on my watchlist. I think the most problematic part it that there is often at least one party involved who is from that very region and who predictably comes down on the side of their national(ist) interest. That's not good editing. I see a problem with both sides of this particular RfC, one for outcome shopping, the other for being persistently pro-Georgia and being from Georgia. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=822012975"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard
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