Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

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

Fringe source in WWII bio article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


"Part of a larger crusade"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redskin (slang)

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

If you read the rubric at the top, you'll see that you're meant to have made an attempt to resolve this on the talk page first. Had you done that, rather than reverting without edit summaries (which is an awful habit), then I rather suspect we'd have managed to deal with this. I suggest that you try that first, but if you'd rather deal with it here, that's fine with me. For the record, I am not an American, of any kind, and literally have no dog in this fight. Bromley86 (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I should mention that all of my changes were explained and, when you look at the cites, they now explicitly support the points that they're attached to. This was not the case before. For example, in the first para of the Body:
The origin of the term "redskin" in English is debated. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) had cited its earliest use in a 1699 letter from an English colonialist, Samuel Smith, living in Hadley, Massachusetts, which supposedly contains the following passage: "Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins." Based on this source, the OED suggests the term was specifically applied to the Delaware Indians and "referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint."[3]
That cite supported literally none of the points made. This is one of the issues I've addressed in my edits. Anyhoo, I'm dealing with the dispute on the Talk page and won't check back here unless pinged. Bromley86 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I made a choice not to engage further on the talk page after Bromley86 made an explicit statement that editors have the right to interpret sources based upon their own opinions rather than include all and note the discrepancies and controversies. Editors have to summarize and select, but dismissing the work of Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a PhD historian, by saying "There will be plenty of qualified people who have misrepresented things..." and saying it is biased is beyond the pale. Then there is the news report on a talk on "redskins" and bounties given by Michael Taylor in 2013, while he was a professor of anthropology at Colgate University.

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

This has been repeated dubbed "irrelevant" and deleted (it is currently missing), apparently based upon a mistaken assumption about the topic of this article. It is not a dictionary entry closely tied to the etymology of the term, since as "slang" there is really no such thing. Non-standard words used by different groups may have radically different meanings, yet the recent edits have removed much of the content attempting to address these meanings from a NPOV. I would welcome actual collaboration to improve the "origins and meaning" section, but that would mean recognition that all of the previous content supported by reliable sources has validity.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
There is also the issue of whether a statement on the existence of the debate regarding redskins, bounties, and scalping belongs in the lead section. As one of the major points of public controversy, I think that it does.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
You what? What I actually said was that we should always evaluate sources. I did not say we should ignore her opinion, just that her opinion was not sufficient for inclusion in the Lead. Write the Body, summarise in the Lead, and it is not sufficiently important to be in the Lead. Mind you, the fact that you seem to be unable to recognise that she appears to not present a neutral POV on this subject is of concern, as is your willingness to believe statements made with no support. This is almost the very definition of POV pushing, and yet you accuse me of it. Priceless!
As to the Taylor reference, I'm not sure what your point is. Firstly, it's not clear from that article that he actually said that.[4] Secondly, the article gives no evidence to support the assertion. In the face of an article published by an expert in a journal that specifically says this etymology is made up,[5] we assume it's made up. Bromley86 (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

That there is a fundamental difference requiring participation by additional editors is the reason for posting here. In my experience this may take a while, but the POV tag can remain, and there should be no further changes to the article until there is a resolution. I have begun a draft in my workspace to indicate the changes I would make. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
None of which addresses my point that your accusation of OR was as baseless as your accusation of POV editing after zero effort to discuss: that's resorting to ad hominem to try to get what you want. I offered to go down the WP:3O route, which was the correct resolution to a content dispute.
It's interesting to note that you appear to have had a similar view to mine a few years ago: This is not an article about scalping, but about the meaning of the slang term redskin, so scalping is barely mentioned since, as you say, scalping has only a tentative relationship to the term.[6] Not the words of someone who one would expect to disagree with the removal of the scalping suggested etymology from the Lead, an etymological claim that has been described as an "unfounded",[7] and "fictional",[8] by Goddard, and "revisionist history" in Indian Country Today.[9] Bromley86 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Again the confusion between rejecting "redskin only means scalp" and accepting that "Redskins" was the term most often used to refer to "Indians" by those collecting scalps for bounty. The latter is what Michael Taylor is saying (thus that ref's importance), and the 19th century newspaper stories are examples. However, isolated use of the term redskins for scalps becoming part of Native American oral history is likely within the context of collecting scalps for bounty. Did a bounty hunter never point to his collected scalps and say "I have a hundred redskins here."? Is oral history to be rejected entirely? Should a non-literate society be reduced to what is reported about them by their colonizers, including a scholar from the Smithsonian Institution, which has no clean record with regard to exploitation? The problem is attempting to establish any single entomology for a slang term. There are three groupings of early usage: pigment, skin color and scalp-hunting. Each has its validity and sources, and none refutes any of the others given the doubts voiced by scholars themselves regarding the certainty of any of their work (and to say they do is OR an POV). Any or all meanings may have been used by some groups, but none consistently. Nothing close to a standard meaning emerged until American culture had standardized the stereotypes of the Native American at the turn of the 20th century; a savage redskin when they attacked "peaceful" settlers, a Friendly Indian at other times.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, and one that is entirely due to your inability to understand a simple concept. Words come into being, and then their meaning changes over time. The origin of the word is important, and an encyclopaedia should discuss it. It should also discuss the meaning. Your talk of "early usage" is inaccurate: if we have written records of Indians using the term to describe themselves without prejudice that greatly predate the evidence you supply for its possible use in a scalping context, then the scalping suggestion cannot be the origin.
The suggestion that the Smithsonian should be ignored, but people who say something with no support should be believed is, frankly, insane. A non-literate society does present challenges when establishing what happened in the past, but there are ways of dealing with it. Academic review of the many interactions with literate societies, in multiple languages, is a good start (and we have Goddard's journal article to cover this). An academic review of oral histories would also be useful. What is not useful is revisionist oral histories put forward without support.
Again, the Taylor ref you supply is incredibly weak, and your insistence that it is not is concerning. You present it as if it's a quote of something he said: there is no indication of that. This is precisely what I was talking about when I said we should evaluate sources, rather than hope that they say what we want them to. And, anyway, even if we assume he said it, where is the research that he undertook to come to that conclusion?
In closing, would you care to tell me what is POV about my most recent version that you reverted. Note that I specifically say that I have not reviewed the Evolving meaning subsection, but I think the Origins subsection is entirely fair and balanced. Compare with the rambling mess that was there before. Bromley86 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The draft is now a table with the current and proposed versions; and is very much a work in progress.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
what is the exact dispute here? Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Well nobody answered my question -- though I probably don't have the time this will probably take. But here are some thoughts from a skim of the discussion. Perhaps they will be useful. Or not. As you like. I need a break from my current wiki concerns so I'll spend a few minutes typing here about some things I thought I saw in the discussion. If I am wrong then perhaps explaining it to me will advance the discussion a little anyway. I've been wrong before and promise not to take it personally. I know just enough about this to know I don't know nothing.
  • Is redskin an racial term - Yes by definition, since it refers to a racial characteristic,
  • Is it a racist term - Always? Not sure. Ask a native american. It took a column by Courtland Milloy for me to understand why why white people should not say "nigger"
  • But native americans have used the word - If you say so. Is/was English their first language? Do you understand all of the cultural nuances? Are you sure?
  • but it must not be that bad if native americans say it Are you native American and are you talking to Native Americans?
  • Is the fact that racism and genocide took place in the past objectively true? Yes
  • Is quoting someone's past statements ok? yes if they are notable and are backed with reliable rources
  • Is the Smithsonian a reliable source? Usually and would probably be accepted as such on most topics by our dispute resolution process
  • Is our dispute resolution process perfect? No. it is in fact rather arbitrary. But at least it involves discussion
  • Is the Smithsonian a reliable source on native americans? Depends who you ask and what the question is
  • If horrible stuff happened we don't have to talk about it, right? Was the horrible stuff notable?
  • Is 'redskin' derived from flayed native american skins? Don't know. Several Native Americans have told me this
  • 'So is it? Don't know
  • What about that chief, he called himself a redskin Was he being sarcastic? Was this just the white man's word for him as far as he knew? Was he surrendering after Sand Creek? Context matters
  • In history articles do we include the doings of racists and murderers? yes we do
  • Do we quote their racists rationalizations with approval? Not if people stop to think about it. Right?

'*Is this Wikipedia policy? I don't know, though I am pretty sure Wikipedia tries not to be racist

  • But it matters because.... Yes? Go on... Context matters. Please explain. Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since this noticeboard is on my watch list, don't know why I missed the June 9 posting. What is the dispute? With regard to NPOV, the issue is the degree to which an editor can use their personal judgement to select and summarize what is contained in reliable sources. There is no argument that we apply guidelines on what is a reliable source, and this also depends upon the topic of the article. Redskin (slang) is a cultural/social topic about the origins and meanings of a term that also has become part of a public controversy. It is therefore important to present all points of view in the controversy while maintaining the primacy of published sources from those with academic standing in the relevant fields of history, linguistics, anthropology, and sociology.

I see Bromley86 as having overstepped any reasonable application of NPOV guidelines by reducing or deleting content summarizing the reliable sources authored by Native American scholars Roxanne Dunar-Ortiz (PhD in History, UCLA) and Michael Taylor (PhD, Anthropology). Instead, there is reliance on one RS from a PhD linguist, Ives Goddard. It is my position that neutrality demands that the opinion of each scholar be summarized without bias, editorializing, or original research. Individual scholars do not refute the work of others in a single article; this is only done when secondary sources state that there is academic consensus, which does not exist for this topic. If a well-respected historian states that "redskin" was used by some white settlers as a reference to dead Indians, there is no contradiction in also stating that another academic draws a different conclusion from the meager published documents of the same era which were translations of translations by individuals of "no great learning".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail

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

A piece that Hopkins wrote herself published by the Daily Mail is one of those reasonable exceptions that is identified in the first bullet point of the RFC closure "The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects. This appears to have been adequately addressed by the support !voters: if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead." -the BLP's own words would be one of those cases that no better source would be found. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hopkins is mainly known in the UK for the controversies which regularly occur after she states her opinions. She is not known as a pundit with a reputation for serious comment, so the article you quoted from is frankly non-notable, quite apart from the issue of when it is appropriate to use the Mail website as a source. If there are any websites which praise her insights, they probably do not count as a reliable source. (In fact, Hopkins does not write for the newspaper itself, and is under contract to the associated website, see the sources when she moved from the rival Sun tabloid.) Philip Cross (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Given that there is a section in Hopkins' BLP about criticism of her views of the Manchester Arena bombing, including her own words from the DM is completely reasonable to cover that neutrally. Anywhere else on WP, absolutely not. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The RfC says the Mail should not be used, and if the quotation has any substance in a neutral article about Hopkins, it will be reprinted in another, more respectable, source. I managed to write Enemies of the People without citing the Daily Mail once. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is a unique case: there is noted criticism of her views in the BLP, so her original statement is necessary to reference as to be neutral. Other sources might reprint parts of Hopkins' statements from the DM article, but we would still want to include the DM article as the original source for material. DM is not banned fully, but it should only be used exceptionally, and this is one of those exceptions, and only for being used to provide the context for criticism of her views. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
And to point out that in the RFC, it was agreed that if DM's coverage of a topic was the center of a story, its use there was perfectly fine; I would think it is failing to not cite the DM for their original "Enemies of the People" headline in an article about that story, so that a researcher can go and review that original article for themselves.--MASEM (t) 15:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the RFC said we cannot use the DM, except in exceptional circumstances, so why is this exceptional? It is not our job to include critical materiel, but to report others criticizing it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
If we are documenting the criticism about someone's specific viewpoint they made in a statement, with the criticism being considered notable and from RSes, then for purposes of neutrality, it makes no sense to exclude a reference to that original statement so that we are documenting the controversy. If say Hopkins wrote the same statement in the Telegraph or Guardian, there'd be no question of its inclusion. The fact that it came from the DM should not be an issue here because we're not making any claims of fact from her own words, just providing the citation to what her own words are. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
No, we report what RS say about it. BY the way, this (as far as I can tell) is not a response to what was written about her tweets, so no there is no reason to include it in order to address NPOV issues. When RS comment on her article we can report is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
On the last point, when re-reading, I do agree, the criticism over the tweets, it seemed initially that the criticism included the statements in the DM article, but that's not the case, so no that DM article citation can't be included; we would need a separate RS to make critical note of that.
But to the first point, if someone's published statement is being criticized in a manner that is considered notable and appropriate for inclusion in an article, then the exclusion of a citation to the original statement, regardless if it is from an RS or not, is inappropriate as per WP:YESPOV. We're documenting what one side and another side has said, without judgment calls, so it is only reasonable to provide a citation to the original statement and the RSes that critique it so that the reader can make their own call. Again, no factual information is being supported by the non-RS outside that that person wrote or spoke those words as their view. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the section is entitled "Manchester Arena bombing", and in that section, information has been added regarding an inappropriate tweet Hopkins made regarding radical Islamics in Britain. It would certainly appear as if Wikipedia was attempting to maintain a positive and negative balance, per WP:CRITS, by including a more fulsome outline of her views on this subject. Keep in mind that Donald Trump thanked Hopkins in 2015 for her "powerful writing on the U.K.'s Muslim problems". If that "powerful writing", and her rebuttal to the current criticism, is only found in a blacklisted source, then that seems to warrant an exception. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
If you look at WP:DAILYMAIL you will see the reason why we do not allow it except under exceptional circumstances. The reason is that they deliberately fabricate direct quotes, deliberately publish doctored photos, etc. Read the evidence posted in the RfC. A Daily mail article under Hopkins byline can be reasonably presumed to contain the words of Hopkins; she would complain if they made stuff up and published it under his byline. That makes it one of the exceptional circumstances. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Per Guy Macon. Also a primary source will almost always be acceptable to reference the primary sources views. The fact it was published in the Daily Mail is irrelevant in this case. If Hopkins had published it in a blog, another paper, self-published on amazon, it would still be acceptable to use as a source on her opinion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I sense that interpretations by administrators differ here. According to Iridescent The Daily Mail remains "a valid source for opinions and commentary but not to be trusted as the sole source for facts". If that's correct then this case is not even exceptional, Katie Hopkins is quotable here and "anywhere else on WP". I disagreed, but think it shows once again that the closers' comments are hard to interpret. Perhaps they could be asked to explain what they meant? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I think Guy's point above is important: this is a DM article, but is one penned by a specific person, and is desired to be used to source a quote from that person. Assuming inclusion of the quote is appropriate, we could care less if it was published by NYTimes or the DM, her opinion is her opinion and we just need to find a fixed medium to present that. The situation would be very different if we were trying to pull quotes reportedly said by her by an article penned by someone from the paper. In this case, as per the DM RFC, there are concerns they purposely misquote people, so we cannot trust that the quotes purported said by her are actually what she said, and DM should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Assuming inclusion of the quote is appropriate, we could care less if it was published by NYTimes or the DM isn't quite the case—part of the reason the Mail is deprecated as a source is their history of falsifying quotes (given that the context is Manchester, this story may be pertinent). In a case like this, I'd see no issue with using the Mail as a source, since it's essentially a story about a Mail article in which the paper is being treated as a primary, not a secondary, source. ‑ Iridescent 08:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Which is of course why we need third party RS (or even the person themselves, on a non DM page) saying that this was her. As daft as it seems (but given the above a valid question) do we KNOW that these her are unaltered words?Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Since she's just been fired by LBC and will almost certainly be shown the door by Associated in the next few hours as well, one would think that if you give it 24 hours you'll have more third-party commentary than you'll know what to do with. ‑ Iridescent 09:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Re: my earlier comment ("If you look at WP:DAILYMAIL you will see the reason why we do not allow it except under exceptional circumstances. The reason is that they deliberately fabricate direct quotes, deliberately publish doctored photos, etc. Read the evidence posted in the RfC. A Daily mail article under Hopkins byline can be reasonably presumed to contain the words of Hopkins; she would complain if they made stuff up and published it under his byline. That makes it one of the exceptional circumstances."), I would emphasize that we are talking about two entirely different kinds of quotes. We have multiple examples of the DM fabricating direct quotes as in a claim that prosecutors said X at the close of a murder case written before the case closed. We have zero examples of the DM publishing material under a person's byline, paying them for their work, then printing something other than what they actually wrote. The first time we catch the DM doing that we will stop using DM articles penned by a specific person as a source. Right now, a reasonable person would conclude that it is OK to presume that DM articles penned by a specific person contain the words of that specific person, especially if that specific person does not complain about his words being changed but rather goes on to sell the DM further articles on other topics. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not accept Guy Macon's claims about "evidence" posted in the RfC, but addressing solely the issue of whether Katie Hopkins can be quoted for the opinion of Katie Hopkins: yes that should be the case. But the RfC closing comments don't allow for it, and some commenters in this thread say it would have to be an exceptional special case (if I'm interpreting correctly), and -- the topic of the first paragraph of this thread -- a quote of Katie Hopkins was reverted with the edit summary "No, the Daily Mail is banned from BLPs". Unfortunately that appears to be a correct summary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as a closer of the RFC, we could not anticipate every possible use of the DM as a source in our close, which is why we tried to carve out some wriggle room for legitimate uses. This appears to be a legitimate use of the DM, because it is likely to be reliable in this specific case. It is still preferable to use a non-DM source if/when they become available. However, the DM does not have a reputation for altering the words of the author of the piece, so this can be taken as one of the exceptions we tried to write into the close. If I seem to be misunderstanding something, please ping me Tazerdadog (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, It is not a matter of "anticipate every possible use of the DM", this is a situation that was explicitly and clearly brought up in the RfC discussion: "This is relevant because the proposal would ban even attributed opinions, though of course there's some muddle about that too." Can you answer: yes attributed opinions are included in the ban, or no attributed opinions are not included in the ban? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: Attributed opinions of people other than the author were considered in the RFC and were included in the ban (IAR notwithstanding). Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I take it that is also the judgment of the other four closers (Yunshui, Primefac, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Sunrise) so attributed opinions by Daily Mail writers are not included in the ban, provided they aren't quotes of somebody else. Sorry about being wrong. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
It happens. Better to ask for clarification than never know. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC
Looks like I'm late to the party, so nothing much to add here except that yes, I endorse Tazerdadog's explanation above. Yunshui  07:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Although it's not strictly the same situation, I would say that a safe bet in cases like these is to apply the rules in WP:BLPSELFPUB; if something fits those criteria, then it's usually safe to use even in a BLP regardless of the source - WP:DUE weight permitting, of course. That would be the case here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is not a blog. WP:NEWSORG now applies: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Then Ritchie333 should not have done the revert, attributed without-quoting-others opinion is not covered by the ban here or elsewhere, and Magnolia677 is free to re-insert. Consensus? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It makes no sense to apply WP:DAILYMAIL when Daily Mail is being used as a primary source or in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Consensus appears to be that using Daily Mail in this particular circumstance is supported. If this is correct, I will add this edit back to the Katie Hopkins article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good. i would put something like "per neutral point of view noticeboard discussion" in the edit summary. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


The Christian feast of Pentecost celebrates an event that according to the Acts of the Apostles (part of the Christian Bible) took place while the Apostles of Jesus were in Jerusalem during the Jewish festival Shavuot. The word Pentecost derives from the ancient Greek name for that Jewish festival. That is well-attested and uncontroversial. Western Christians will be celebrating the feast of Pentecost this weekend, and I imagine the article will see an uptick in traffic over the next day or two – especially as since 2005 it has appeared on the Main Page every time it has been celebrated. Over the past three days, User:Seraphim System has suddenly become very active on that page. For the most part they have been removing information they say overloads the article. But they have also added a section on the etymology of the word pentecost that gets more confusingly worded at every edit, seems to want to distinguish sharply between pentecost and shavuot (they insist that "pentecost is not a translation of Feast of Weeks" – they have removed the word "shavuot" itself in both English and Hebrew), and relies heavily (three citations in two short paragraphs) on the work of Gerhard Kittel, an important biblical scholar but also a known Nazi. Reliable sources recommend his work be used with careful and critical discernment but Seraphim System insists his lexicon is a standard and unproblematically reliable secondary source. Another main thrust has been that the word "pentecost" is "not in the Old Testament" – an irrelevance to the question of etymology, since the word is attested in ancient texts, both Jewish and Christian, as the Greek name for the Jewish festival; but also non-neutral since many Christians (Orthodox, Catholic, some Protestants) do regard two of the texts in question as part of the Old Testament, although most Protestants do not. The editor seems oblivious to the idea that the canonical status of an ancient text does not affect its value as a source for ancient words. I've tried a few rewrites and reverted a couple of particularly problematic edits, but draw back from 3 reverts in a day. The editor in question is nothing if not persistent. I've engaged on the article talk page at Talk:Pentecost#Septuagint_2 and responded to the editor on my own talkpage. I have tried (without on every occasion succeeding) to do so with patience and good humour. It is clear now that we keep going round in circles, with the editor asking for the same things to be explained again and again, asking about my personal POV, asserting that "this is sourced", asserting that the Nazi in question heroically disapproved of other Nazis going so far as to murder Jews, etc. I now want to disengage and get community input. It may seem abstruse, a content dispute about the meaning of a single ancient Greek word, but with the topic of the article just two days away (and likely to appear on the main page) I am concerned about the direction that the editor is taking this. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Doug Weller and PiCo who have had the opportunity to work on common articles with this editor, I think that I only conversed with Seraphim once on the Melchizedek article's talk page. Not about this editor, but an idea also would be to request semi-protection during the critical period of the events (against random IP disruption, if that's a common problem every year)? —PaleoNeonate - 01:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I come to this thread following a specific request from Andreas Philopater ("AP") at my user talk page. The only place I recall having encountered AP is on this AN thread, where I commented positively on advice AP had offered to Carolus. The request AP made to me was neutrally worded I do not consider it canvassing, just to pre-emptively address that potential concern.
I am not religious, so my knowledge of the intricacies of an issue like this is small, and I would need to look into sources to comment on the content issue – which I can do, but it will take some time. My immediate advice would be to post similarly neutrally-worded requests for input from suitable WikiProjects – perhaps the ones for Religion in general (and more specifically Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible), History (and specifically Jewish History), and maybe the Germany WikiProject for the specific issue of Gerhard Kittel and Nazism; all of these appear to be active and may have relevant information / perspectives to offer.
On the stability issue, I note that the article has seen a cumulative total of 113 edits since 31 May. I also note that the Shavuot article has seen no similar increase in editing. The Rambling Man has a vast amount of experience on main page issues, and I hope he will comment at least on the aspect of whether the article is main page-suitable in these circumstances. As I understand it, Howcheng usually puts together the WP:OTD section, so his input would also be welcome. EdChem (talk) 02:16
In the 5.5 years I've been maintaining OTD, I don't recall ever having to deal with an article that's been in the middle of a dispute. I would say that in its current state, we should probably omit it. This year has been a bad one for the Christian holidays. A lot of them this spring have been omitted due to maintenance problems, but it is what it is. howcheng {chat} 02:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly this does not have a single diff of a supposed NPOV violation and this discussion should be closed and the OP trouted. AP has made repeated posts that the article is about a Jewish Feast - which it isn't. It's about a Christian commemoration of a supernatural event which Christians believe mark the birth of the Church. What the article said we "The ancient Greek word Pentecost is used in Deuteronomy 16:10" - it is not, and I removed this unsourced statement.The accusations agbout Kittel, who was tried and acquitted of any wrongdoing are just more of the same. Annemarie Tugendhat testified that after her Jewish father was taken to a concentration, she asked Kittel what he thought about it. She says that the discussed with her at length his strong objections and belief that Christianity did not allow any justification for these actions. She said the content of his speech exposed him to personal risk from the Nazis. Others who had been persecuted by the Nazis testified to defend the integrity of his work. Numerous "baptized Jews" testified to various forms of assistance they received from him. Distorting the facts about something terrible, contrary to the testimonies of the people who lived through it, because it is inconvenient to have to deal with an editor who writes sourced content is pathetic. This editor is not going to be happy unless this article is about "The Jewish feast of Pentecost " - editors have tried to push this POV in this article before, and have called others antisemitic and Nazis when they haven't gotten their way. He hasn't shown a single diff of an actual edit that is not NPOV - not one. Seraphim System (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The spice must flow...

I don't think there's a reason to be very alarmed at this point. This is still at the level of content dispute/discussion, we're not at ANI for instance. We could consider this like an RfC... —PaleoNeonate - 07:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding Kittel, it is a 10 volume Lexicon written by multiple authors. Kittel was one of two editors for the German edition. It is colloquially referred to as "Kittel" - it's actual title is TDNT (or Theological Dictionary of the New Testament). It was translated into English by Geoffrey W. Bromiley and is published in the United States by Eerdman's - Some Eerdman's publications are available through Questia and they generally have a good reputation as a publisher for religious texts of all kinds. TDNT definitely meets our standards for WP:RS. Last time I checked sourcing statements to WP:RS was part of our WP:NPOV policy which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic - This is the last edit I made to the section, which is sourced to multiple WP:RS [10] — I am not sure why Andreas Philopater feels using "The Feast of Pentecost" for Pentecost is an NPOV issue. The etymology section needs to explain that different terms were used in the Septuagint for Pentecost and "Festival of Weeks" — the previous article said "Pentecost" was used in Deuteronomy 16:10 and Exodus 34:22 - it is not. This term was used in Greek texts — as far as I know, it is not a term in Hebrew, and the texts that were translated from Hebrew into Greek for the Septuagint used a different term. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with whether or not Kittel was a Nazi, but maybe someone can explain it to me. Seraphim System (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Howcheng: If what you are saying is true, then it seems to be part of a problem I've seen on many of our Christianity articles. They are full of unsourced WP:OR, use of primary analysis of religious text sources without secondary sources, factual errors that are not supported by the majority of WP:RS - it is troubling that you feel an article in this condition would be suitable for OTD, in any case, simply because there is no active editing on the article. Just saying "This year has been a bad one for Christian articles" is not ok. Why are articles about Christianity being excluded from OTD? Can you be more specific then just "maintenence problems"? There seems to be a lot that editors can do to improve articles in the subject area, instead of starting frivolous disputes with an editor who is removing unsourced content and adding information based on WP:RS - I sugested that AP post to RS/n if he had concerns about whether Kittel is WP:RS. The version I am using is published by Eerdman's and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley who is himself a big name in Christian theological studies. I think it's a tough sell and one or two critical articles that have been written about Kittel's "antisemitic" theology don't change that. There are scholars who believe that Christianity is inherent antisemitic, or a root of antisemitism. We don't write our articles from their POV and we should not write our articles from their POV. All I did here was improve an article that was largely unsourced and in poor condition based on WP:RS and our policies. I did change Shavout to its redirect Festival of Weeks in the lead per WP:JARGON which says we should use more commonly known terms where they are sufficient. This advice is especially relevant in the lede. I added the Hebrew term and spelling to the appropriate Old Testament section. I don't consider this POV editing. There seem to be some editors who think it is a POV violation when articles are not written from their POV, or even when articles are written by editors who they feel don't share their POV (independent of the content of their edits) —this is damaging to our articles in some areas, and Christianity seems to be one of the areas suffering from this problem. Constantly accusing other editors of POV editing without evidence is a personal attack. Seraphim System (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
"Maintenance problems" refers to yellow-level maintenance tags and higher, whatever they may be. The most common reason is missing references (not enough or none at all), which is all that those of us who are not subject-matter experts are qualified to evaluate. Anything else like original research or needs expert attention, etc, we rely on others to judge. As for the rest of your post, I'm afraid I don't want to get involved in a content dispute. As I said before, I believe this is the first time this has happened during my tenure, so I don't have precedent to base any decision on. I had originally made the decision to exclude Pentecost because there was a maintenance tag on it, but if there's consensus that it's unwarranted, then I'll be happy to restore it. howcheng {chat} 07:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Howcheng: Thank you Seraphim System (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Apologies that I am so inexperienced a wikilawyer as not to have provided diffs to the specific edits. There have been over a hundred edits on the page in the last three days, but I will try to sift through them and give a few (not exhaustive) examples. The first edit to try to dissociate the Christian festival from the Jewish festival mentioned in Acts 2 is here, where a statement that the word "Pentecost" was used for both a Jewish and a Christian festival is dismissed as "unsourced OR" (it was unsourced, and I would say poorly phrased – I have no idea who added it – but SS him/herself has since started adding material about a Jewish "Feast of Pentecost"). The article talkpage comment Most likely, we can say Acts 2:1 takes place during Shavuot, but then we have to consider what scholars have said about Acts 20:16 (part of a much long screed that makes a diff unhelpful: it's there on the talk page) as good as recommends WP:SYNTH. Here s/he is referring to another editor as "vandal editor" for wanting to clarify that "50 days after Easter" actually means "49 days" in the way most people in our culture count days (not including the day being counted from: and SS is insisting that the other editor provide a source for seven weeks from a Sunday to a Sunday not being 50 days). That reference to a "vandal editor" is a clear failure of WP:AGF, and a suggestion to me that there are issues of WP:OWN here. Here s/he's removing sourced material that ancient Jewish writers Philo and Josephus used pentekoste to refer to a Jewish feast. S/he later adds back in, from a different source, that Philo and Josephus "use the word pentekoste", after a section about the word having alternative meanings, leaving it moot as to whether or not they were referring to the Jewish feast. Here SS removes sourced content, now gone from the article, with the edit summary "adjust image size + WP:CAPTION". Here s/he starts the problematic series of edits on the etymology, at the same time moving the section up to right under the lead. A nuanced discussion of why Kittel is problematic but still used, rather than simply dismissed, can be found on Google Books. This edit summary has Kittel which I followed closely and cited, as though that was unproblematic. This, and subsequent assertions here and on the talk page that Kittel was a good Nazi, show a failure to apply critical and careful judgement to the source. I have to go now (life intrudes) but will attempt to add more diffs later, to oblige. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll take them one by one
  • Removal of unsourced content, not POV. "Christians commonly do not celebrate it as a separate holiday" needs a source
  • Comments on the talk page are irrelevant. The fact that you have already decided it is WP:SYNTH before seeing the edit or the sources is not worthy of consideration.
  • About vandalism , what happened was I asked the editor for sources and he said he did not need any [[11]] — the language "fiftieth day" that is being disputed is sourced to an overwhelming number of WP:RS. Then I reverted his "dubious-discuss" tags as vandalism. No sources, no discussion WP:FORUM.
  • A lexicon from 1889 is not encouraged under WP:RS. Replacing it with BDAG, which is considered the #1 Biblical Lexicon is not POV editing. It is improvement.
  • Removing that under WP:CAPTION was not POV editing, it was policy based and part of a series of edits that improved the abominable layout of the page, where the infobox spanned 3 sections of the article and the photos were poorly spaced. I set up an image gallery, etc.
  • Basically, a whole lot of nothing and Kittel, which you should have more properly posted on RS/n. You keep bringing up Kittel without explaining what specifically you find problematic about how Kittel has been used in the current article. Judging from the rest of your comments, what you find problematic is that WP:RS don't support your POV that an article about the Christian Feast of Pentecost should emphasize a Jewish harvest festival and that you have decided it would be appropriate to make vague and dramatic statements about Nazism in the hopes that other editors will allow you to continue adding unsourced and incorrect content to the article, or at least have a well-sourced article removed from OTD because it no longer has the tilt you want. Seraphim System (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
    • First point: yes, the phrase you now quote should indeed have been excised; but your edit removed more than that one phrase. Pretending otherwise seems desperate.
    • Talk pages: I have always tried to take account of talk pages. I was not aware that they were irrelevant. I am not sure I should accept your assertion that they are.
    • Vandalism: I did not say which of the editors was in the right, and I would myself be somewhere in the middle. You are right that Pentecost is indeed the "fiftieth day", the other editor is right that anybody who thinks for two seconds may be struck by the fact that Sunday to Sunday is only 49 days, so it may need clarification. The point is not who is right and who is wrong, but that you have displayed aggressive ownership of the article over the last two days.
    • lexicon from 1889: 19th-century scholarship on ancient texts is still fundamental (it's not as though textual scholarship has undergone the sort of changes that medicine has: the ancient texts were already ancient then, and modern scholarship was already modern). You yourself insist on using a translation of a work completed in 1945, despite the availability of more recent sources. Removing sourced material out of simple recentism is a dubious path. But again, this is deflection. You raise the issue of the publication date, without answering to how you turned Philo and Josephus using the word for a feast, into Philo and Josephus using a word that could mean any of three things. This speaks again to a pattern of editing to minimise or deny the relevance of the Jewish feast.
    • WP:CAPTION: It may be policy to remove such information from the caption; you removed sourced information from the article entirely, with an edit summary that suggested you were just tidying up the images.
    • Kittel: I have repeatedly stated on the talk page of the article what the issue is. For you to say I have not explained suggests you have not been reading my explanations. Given your view that talk pages are irrelevant, this makes sense.
    • "my POV": I notice you yourself provide no diff to what you ascribe to me, although you made much of my earlier failure to post diffs. From what you say here I begin to suspect you suffer from the etymological fallacy. To say that the word for a Christian festival derives from the Greek name for a Jewish festival is not to say "that an article about the Christian Feast of Pentecost should emphasize a Jewish harvest festival". But the etymology section (that you chose to make more prominent in the article, citing Kittel three times in the process) should certainly address rather than obfuscate this linguistic relationship. Since I initiated the discussion here, you have made praiseworthy efforts to rectify that, although more could be done.
    • vague and dramatic statements about Nazism: again, I notice you fail to provide diffs yourself. Above I provide a link to a nuanced statement about Kittel. It actually quotes Geoffrey W. Bromiley, in an Eerdmans publication, saying "It need hardly be said that the translation and publication of Kittel is no necessary endorsement of everything contained in it". I had intended to use this time to provide more diffs about your edits. Instead it has gone on answering your deflections. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Almost forgot, allow you to continue adding unsourced and incorrect content to the article: diffs (again). Also: what were you saying about personal attacks? have a well-sourced article removed from OTD because it no longer has the tilt you want: the article was a mess and when I saw somebody starting to clean it up my first feeling was relief. Then as your edits progressed, concern. Then at your intransigence and persistence, alarm. That is why we are having this discussion. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
NPOV is a policy about the content of edits to the article. It is not a policy about editors, your perception of their personal POV or comments made by editors on talk pages. If you are "not aware" of this, I suggest you read the core policies before filing complaints like this. If I am wrong about this, I would appreciate correction from more experienced editors, because I would not want to continue editing with a poor understanding of our core policies. For MOS:CAPTION, I removed information from the Caption only. My clarifying the etymology section had nothing to do with your post here. I added it because it was necessary for the article. After another series of vague and dramatic comments about Kittel, I still have no idea what you are complaining about. TDNT is sourced for the usage of Pentekostos in reference to Jubilees because TDNT was the only Lexicon that has this information. It is the only use of Pentekostos in the "Old Testament" (excluding the Apocrypha)—this is why TDNT is considered essential in the field of Biblical Studies. It can not be replaced. Our talk discussion about Kittel is a separate issue, I don't want to drag it out here. I haven't read Kittel's controversial works. I am speaking only of TDNT. Bromiley says in that same statement that TDNT is authored by multiple authors. It is like a 10 volume encyclopedia. I am not sure why you feel the quote "It need hardly be said that the translation and publication of Kittel is no necessary endorsement of everything contained in it" is significant. Publishers are not in practice of "endorsing" the views of the authors that they publish. Probably, he said this case expecting hyperbolic reactions that would jeopardize the availability of a critical source for which no adequate substitute exists. TDNT sometimes has information that even BDAG does not have. Your obsession with one of the editors of a 10-volume academic Lexicon seems to be approaching Ahab-like proportions.Seraphim System (talk)
Your personal POV is of no concern to me. I wish you would stop asking or guessing about mine, and also stop ascribing ludicrous intent such as This editor is not going to be happy unless this article is about "The Jewish feast of Pentecost" (above; with no diff; good luck finding one). It would be more fruitful to focus on well-sourced content. Prior to me initiating this discussion your edits were distinctly tendentious, and as I have repeatedly said, this is because you were uncritically using a single source, and stubbornly rejecting (as you still do) any suggestion that this was unwise (dismissing it as vague and dramatic). I have at no point attributed the POV of the source to you personally. Your editing turned around very quickly once wider input was requested, making for a much more presentable article this morning than we had last night. For that I commend you. As to your point immediately above, it is true that Kittel is a multi-authored work. As the text I linked to further above shows, a number of the contributors were worse Nazis than Kittel himself. I'm not sure how that helps your argument. You say that you have to use Kittel here, because the information you want to include can only be sourced to Kittel. If that is the case, you should perhaps consider whether WP:FRINGE might not apply to this particular bit of information. Biblical studies is not exactly a dormant field. Perhaps that one bit of information is not really essential? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Lol, no the fact that Pentecost is used for Jubilee year in the Septuagint translation for Leviticus is not a fringe theory. I verified it in the Greek text myself and you can too. At no point was I "uncritically using a single source." This is a lie—and a deliberate one because we discussed BDAG on talk. I also used the UBS Handbooks. Nothing cited to TDNT is even remotely controversial. I can't say that I have read the entire thing and I can't speak to the integrity of the entire 10 volumes. I have never encountered anything problematic in it and I have overall found it be an invaluable resource, and very reliably researched with extremely thorough footnotes. You are trying to determine the reliability of the source based on the supposed political views of Gerhard Kittel—that is not how we do things. I have actually researched this—there are legitimate criticisms about Kittel's personal theories about political Christianity. I would not cite a statement like "Jews are secularizing our society. Christianity is the best line of defense against Jewish infiltration" to Kittel and expect that it should be considered WP:RS because of his reputation as the editor of TDNT. Scholars widely agree that his ideology was substantially different from Nazism. I have never encountered anything in the Lexicon that is about political ideology, or his original ideas about Christian ideology in the contemporary political context that Kittel wrote about in his other works. Every academic source has sections that may be primary for the ideas they are discussing. For anything like this, I find secondary sources instead of citing directly the scholar. The only thing I can attest to is my own good judgment in using sources. Can this discussion be closed now? Seraphim System (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Again with the deliberate missing of the point. At least, you seem to be able to read at college level, so I assume it is deliberate. Fringe is not whether or not the word is used for the jubilee, but how relevant that is to the etymology of the feast. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Also asked to give an opinion here by AP on my talk. I'm not up to date on current biblical scholarship, but from reviewing the talk page and the text it looks like no one disagrees that Tobit uses the word to refer to Shavuot. The current version of the page sets this out clearly without making value judgements as to whether Tobit is part of the Old Testament, which as this table shows depends on who you talk to. What is the exact nature of the contention laying it out this way? If we have reliable sourcing saying Tobit uses it in this way, we should present it and let the reader make their own value judgement as to the status of that book. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
    • That was the issue that first raised my concern, but Seraphim System seems (after several back and forths, initially in the article and then on the talk page) at least partially to have conceded that point. The other issue is minimising the etymological connection of the Christian feast to the Jewish feast, which Seraphim System has gone some way to addressing since this conversation started (had s/he showed any sign of doing so earlier this conversation might not have been necessary). S/he still insists that Kittel is a fine source. Indeed, using Kittel as a reference no more makes someone a Nazi than driving on an Autobahn does, but using Kittel specifically to minimise the Jewish roots of Christianity should be a red flag. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
This is something that happened only in your imagination. Kittel is used for three statements. One is to call it "the Feast of Pentecost" - the other is to discuss the sole usage of Pentekoste in the Septuagint translation of the "Old Testament" - in the meaning of Jubilee year in Leviticus. The other is a trivial mention to several passages that use it in phrases like "one hundredth and fifty year." Ultimately I settled on explaining it in plain english rather then using complicated terminology like deuterocanonical or Apocrypha. What is unclear is why you are so deeply offended by the statement that Tobit and 2 Maccabees are not in the OT. You are right, it is not ideal because Catholics do include it in the Old Testament—however, Jews do not. So any claims that this should be seen a "red flag" for antisemitism are laughable. The word for the "Festival of Weeks" in Deuteronomy and Exodus is not Pentecost. I do not need Kittel for this. It can be sourced directly to the Greek Text of the Septuagint itself, because it requires no interpretation. It can also be sourced to any and every biblical lexicon and serious commentary. This is just a reality you are going to have to accept.Seraphim System (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The current text of the etymology looks fine to me in terms of NPOV. The general sourcing issues could be taken up at RSN for future questions. If you want to make a more clear connection The Catholic encyclopedia article clearly credits Greek Jews with the term citing Tobit, Maccabees from their canon and Josephus as a source outside the canon, and you could likely find additional sources if you had access to current academic sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought something like consensus had emerged, but comments such as this one make me wonder if I didn't have more cause for concern than I realised. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I'm concerned that you don't understand how disrespectful it is to write "This is a Jewish holiday" all over an article about a celebration of the birth of the Church, and yet you seem very comfortable accusing others of anti-semitism. What part of the first hundred years of Christianity leads you to believe that Christians spent their time celebrating Jewish harvest festivals? This was what, 1900 years ago? Putting that aside, Pentecost is a separate holiday. There is an entire section devoted to the Old Testament Roots of the holiday, and it is mentioned appropriately in the etymology section as well. Saying that "Pentecost is the Jewish Feast of Weeks" is ... well, it's something. Christians don't celebrate the Jewish feast of weeks. What they celebrate is an entirely different event. JEWISH!!!!1! was actually a comment another editor made on the talk page after being told "I have reverted the reversion so and so who claims Pentecost is a non-Jewish feast. It is this kind of antisemitism that needs to be addressed in Christian theology." It's funny, lighten up. This is not the first time this has happened. Seraphim System (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Report on the critical reception in the introduction at Iron Fist (TV series)

Multiple discussions on the article talk page have tried to resolve this issue. At Iron Fist (TV series), the introduction of the article, at the moment, says, "The series received mixed reviews from critics." This was added after an editor challenged the introduction saying that the series received generally negative reviews. The editor argued that "mixed to negative" is more accurate, and then settled on "mixed" when it was clear that "mixed to negative" would not be added. Since then, the introduction has said "mixed." Some editors have maintained that "mixed" is fine, while others have argued that "mixed" is at odds with what the overwhelming majority of sources report on the critical reception for the series; for example, with the use of sources, I have argued that saying "mixed" in the lead is a WP:Due violation. See Talk:Iron Fist (TV series)#"Mixed to negative" is unsourced for where the dispute started and for sources offered. (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Soliciting comments on Russo-Georgian War

I have started a RfC [12] on a certain contentious statement in this article, please help resolve the dispute. I should say though that the article is under discretionary sanctions - edit carefully! Banedon (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Pamela Geller and the counter-jihad movement

Pamela Geller, who rose to prominence as the head of a campaign to stop the building of an Islamic centre near the site of the 11 September 2001 attacks, is described by academic sources as a prominent activist for the counter-jihad movement in the United States. I have compiled a couple of academic citations on my talk space: User:Al-Andalusi/Pamela Geller.

The question, is the inclusion of the statement "She is a prominent activist for the counter-jihad movement in the United States" in the lead of her article appropriate or not? We have a user here who claims that this is "apologist language" used by "a lot of apologists for islamophobia". Your help is appreciated. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If that's how the reliable sources refer to her, it's not for us to complain they have adopted the apologists' language. That aside, neither our article, nor the article on counter-jihadism in general, mince any words with how their subjects are perceived. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Here is how SPLC described her

She's relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam and makes preposterous claims, such as that President Obama is the "love child" of Malcolm X. She makes no pretense of being learned in Islamic studies, leaving the argumentative heavy lifting to her Stop Islamization of America partner Robert Spencer. Geller has mingled comfortably with European racists and fascists, spoken favorably of South African racists, defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps.

and also as a prominent anti-Muslim activist [1]
So if the question is does the language pose an NPOV concern, I think yes, maybe, since there are significant WP:RS who have not adopted the language "counter-jihad" movement. Seraphim System (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Pamela Geller". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2017-06-09. 
While I appreciate the ping to comment on this NPV, I don't have much more to say than what I've already said in the Talk:Pamela Geller#Counter-Jihad activist section. I'll ask the readers here to review that section, as I haven't edited in over a month due to other pressing concerns. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: - re "how the reliable sources refer to her, it's not for us to complain they have adopted the apologists' language" - Sure. Some reliable source do refer to her as an "anti-jihadist". Many more refer to her as "anti-Islamic" or "Islamophobic". WP:BALANCE dictates that we reflect all sources or go with the majority language. Al-Andalusi seems to be on a one-man mission to use the language that seems to fit his unusual perception of Geller. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree with NickCT, adding that the "counter-jihad" movement seems to be a somewhat fringe mindset which we shouldn't adopt the language of in the neutral tone of the project. We should use the language used in mainstream sources, by which it is meant the balance of best sources. --Dailycare (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Given the number of sources is it Fringe? However I also note that many of those sources also refer to her (or at least the ideologies she defends) as being (I quote) " anti-Islam movement", thus it is rather more coimplex then I think the OP represents.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dailycare:, no one buys your claims that the academic sources listed on User:Al-Andalusi/Pamela Geller (most of them specialized on right-wing extremism) are fringe. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@NickCT:, by all means add "anti-jihadist", "anti-Islamic" as well as "Islamophobic" to lede. No one has prevented you from doing so. You on the other hand, claim that the lede should be restricted to a single one size fits all label, of your chosing, and have insisted that all other reliably sourced labels be removed. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Al-Andalusi: - You were trying to change lede from describing Geller as primarily "anti-Islamic" (something that very many RS describe her as) to "anti-jihadist" (something that very few RS describe her as). Don't suggest I'm trying to exclude RS. I'm trying to maintain WP:BALANCE. NickCT (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@NickCT: I don't see a removal of "anti-Islamic" in the edit you linked to. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Al-Andalusi: - Did I say you removed it? I said you de-emphasized by using the verbiage you prefer first and placing your verbiage on equal footing with the more common verbiage. You changed the tone in a unbalanced way that doesn't reflect the RS. NickCT (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@NickCT: So in your view, the NYTimes and Toronto Sun (which are cited for the "anti-Islamic" claim) are more reliable than the scholarly academic sources I listed for "counter-jihad"? also, why the insistence on complete removal of "counter-jihad activist" from the lede? If it is an issue of balance as you claim, then a simple rewording and perhaps changing the placement in the lede would suffice. But there is an usual demand for complete removal, which I'm trying to understand here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Al-Andalusi: - re "insistence on complete removal of "counter-jihad activist"" - I'm not insisting on that. If you want to put it in, put it in. Just don't put it in a way that suggests that "anti-jihadist" is as good or common a descriptor as "anti-islamic".
re " NYTimes and Toronto Sun" - You're cherry picking. The basic fact is that there are 100's of sources which use "anti-islamic" and a few sources which use "counter-jihadist". I'm not looking at any one source. I'm looking at them all. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think there's a big problem with the text "Multiple groups have described Geller as Islamophobic". Neither cited source supports this "multiple groups" claim properly. SPLC has a tendency to be go OTT sometimes: they described Majid Nawaz as an extremist for example[13] - they're not suitable as a source for asserted fact. Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: - So you think we need to cite it better? Certainly a whole number of folks/people have described Geller this way. NickCT (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I would say that if we cite three groups saying it then we have "multiple groups" saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to defend that at arbcom. WP:SYN thus: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." [my bold]. For a BLP it's important to be squeaky-clean. Just because editors are on the side of the angels is no excuse for laziness: we must be scrupulous in the application of the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
We are not, we are paraphrasing the paragraph "the following groups have called her Islamophobic (followed by a huge list of all the groups that have)".Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: I think the "Islamophobic" label is a separate issue that can be addressed later. We are discussing the usage of "counter-jihad" label, as cited in many academic sources. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: - Ditto on Slatersteven's comments. Multiple sources have explicitly stated that Geller is "anti-islamic"/"islamophobic". NickCT (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

POV tag at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Is it okay to add a {{POV}} template at the top of the page, for the entire length of time of an RFC about the intro section, while the RFC is ongoing?

Could use more eyes on this, please.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just added it back, based on my complaint about the declarative title, which I have argued is a WP:POVTITLE and not merited by sources. -Darouet (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Darouet, that was bad move. You and a tiny minority of other editors have repeatedly made specious arguments for adding expressions of doubt to the article title and the lead. Your arguments are based on selection bias, where you have chosen sources that support your fringe point of view, rather than looking at broad sampling of sources. We have had several RfCs which support the current version of the title, and specifically reject the notion that the Russia election interference is alleged. At this point, you and (mostly) one other editor, refuse to accept WP:CONSENSUS and continue to WP:REHASH what has already been settled. This is not how Wikipedia works and if you can't get that, you have no business editing the article. Shame tagging the article because you have not prevailed in several consensus discussions is textbook tendentious. You need to stop.- MrX 18:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@MrX: The BBC and Reuters are not fringe sources, and there are other major world news outlets (e.g. Le Monde) that also take no position on the veracity of the allegations. Given this uncertainty you are advocating an extremely contentious, if not reckless, editorial policy where allegations in an international incident are transformed into established facts. Furthermore, I may be in the minority, but we are not a "tiny minority:" there have been many editors who've complained about this at various points. I can't speak for all of their viewpoints now, as they may have evolved. In any event I would invite other editors here to review the debate, which is available on the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say they are fringe sources; I said that those sources were cherry-picked to support your fringe point of view. I have detailed this once again on the talk page. Again, a non-selective sampling of sources show that 80% of them do not refer to the Russia election interference as "alleged". You continue to insist that we use the 20% minority of sources, which blatantly violates WP:NPOV. I say again: if you can't understand or won't accept that we are not going to express a minority viewpoint in Wikipedia's voice, then you should not be editing these types of articles.- MrX 20:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Nobody has done a rigorous analysis of all sources, and those that have been presented on the talk page, ostensibly to demonstrate that media generally take the allegations as truth, show that media attribute the allegations (something our title doesn't do). The accusation of cherry-picking can be turned right around: you are reading sources that attribute allegations and ignoring the attribution. I'm happy to stand behind the editorial policy of Reuters and the BBC, which doesn't deny the "possibility" of "alleged" Russian interference in the US election. Anything farther is a shaky POV limb we don't need to and shouldn't be resting our article on. -Darouet (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@MrX: and having said that, I'd like you to genuinely ask yourself why Reuters and the BBC write in this way? They don't write about the possibility of alleged global warming, the possibility of alleged evolution by natural selection, or the alleged landing on the moon. Clinton/Podesta/DNC emails were leaked, US intelligence publicly stated the Russians did it, and two of the most respected news agencies in the world will only write about "alleged" interference. Other news agencies sometimes write about interference as an allegation, sometimes don't, and often attribute the allegations. German, French, and Spanish wikis follow the BBC and Reuters approach. This isn't so complicated. -Darouet (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:DROPTHESTICK - Perhaps we need a "Criticism Section" for the small minority of dissenters to channel their rage? - Darknipples (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
No, I think the concerns of the very significant minority (probably more than a third of editors) need to be taken seriously. Our article is written in an unnecessarily strident tone that comes off as highly POV. BBC, Reuters and other major publications are apparently unwilling to make a statement of fact that our article basically makes. That should be troubling to editors. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thucydides411 What is your evidence that it HASN'T been taken seriously? Look at the amount of discussion on the talk page regarding this "alleged" concern. At some point this could become more than a simple content dispute. There are other ways to mediate this, but at some point WP:ANI will have to get involved. Is that what you want? Darknipples (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Some eyes on Malcolm Nance would also be appreciated. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Unrelated to above topic of this thread. I already personally posted myself to ask for more eyes on the page, due to concerns about violations of WP:BLP by individuals adding fringe sources that fail reliable sources to disparage a living person with undue weight, at WP:BLPN and WP:RSN. Sagecandor (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


I recently WP:BOLDLY edited our page on Amalek[14] and was, as I expected, reverted.[15] -- by a 7-day-old account with 21 edits, most of them simply adding spaces in an obvious attempt to raise the edit count.

I would like to ask some other editors to review my edit. After all. I may be wrong and simply don't see it. Or I may have inadvertently thrown out some of the good with the bad.

Here are some of my NPOV-based problems with the Amalek page:

First we have a 19th century rabbi claiming that the Germans are descended from the ancient Amalekites, with the further claim that the Hebrew Bible says that Hitler may be seen as a result of the failure of the Israelites to kill Agag.

Next we have an editorial in an Israeli newspaper as a source for the quote "The Armenians are not Jews, and according to folk tradition the Armenians are nothing more than Amaleks! Amaleks? We would give them help? To whom? To Amaleks? Heaven forbid!".

Then we have an anti-Zionist rabbi quoted as saying "The Zionists came from the seed of Amalek".

And, of course, we then have a Jewish ultra-nationalis claiming that "Amalek" refers to the hostile Gentiles who are to be revenged for the near annihilation of Jews and their God.

Not to be outdone, this is closely followed by claims that Arabs are Amalekites, that Irananins (who are Persians, not Arabs) are Amalekites, and of course there is a claim that Muslims are Amalekites.

Finally we have some really biased external links such as:

  • Wipe Out Amalek, Today?
  • Amalek, Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe
  • Remember Amalek: A lesson in Divine Providence

Please review my edit. Thanks! BTW, I am hereby officially associating Wikipedia editors who fail to follow WP:NPOV with Amalekites. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand, what is your problem with presenting different viewpoints of Jews who associate certain groups with the Amalekites? NPOV is also about showing different opinions, as long as they are properly sourced and attributed.--Arielle JS A (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
True to an extent. But being neutral does not mean presenting ALL viewpoints even if reliably sourced. Especially when they tend to be fringe. As it would give them undue weight in an article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Long term POV issues on Algenon L. Marbley

The article for United States District Judge Algenon L. Marbley has seen long term POV issues, with non-POV material being inserted and subsequently removed. Such material was reinserted on June 7, 2017, by a one shot IP editor. In 2013 and 2014, the problem was bad enough that the article was protected on several occasions, but activity is now on an infrequent hit and run basis. Because the material is not an outright BLP violation, I have chosen NOT to revert it, but rather report it. The issues raised are actually valid, they are simply presented in a non-POV manner. If somebody was willing to take some time to re-write some of that material in a POV-compliant manner, I think the problem would likely go away. My hands are full with my current project and probably better if somebody with a fresh set of eyes handles this. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the contentious material per WP:BLP, I believe it is an outright BLP violation, because the Fox News reference doesn't support the contentious content, specifically: demonstrated strong opposition to freedom of religion, and WorldNetDaily is a poor source for contentious material in a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert Kiyosaki

Brought to AfD to assess notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kiyosaki. Sagecandor (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart News lede is violating WP:BALANCE

Hello, would you please re-open the discussion that was closed a few minutes ago at about sourcing? WP:BALANCE says, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." Reputable sources contradict; The NYT calls Breitbart conservative-leaning. [16] Conservative-leaning contradicts far-right. Thus, according to WP:BALANCE, we need to describe both points of view. Técnico (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

All your 38 edits at Wikipedia appear to be connected with this issue. Please respect the advice given at talk, namely that Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 5#Should Breitbart be described as far right? is a recently closed discussion, and it included mentions of the discussions before that. There will always be a source that has a view somewhat different from those expressed by others, and that is not a reason to contradict reality. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Johnuniq, what is your point about the 38 edits? You might be committing the ad hominem fallacy. The point is The New York Times calls Breitbart conservative-leaning. Leaning contradicts far. Thus, per WP:BALANCE, both views must be described. Técnico (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
No one here has the motivation to spend the rest of their life arguing with accounts created for a single purpose. Editors have known since 2006 that dealing with agenda-driven accounts is unproductive—2006 is when WP:SPA was created, and it is constructive to look at the original 2006 essay. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Johnuniq, thank you for the link, which led me to this sentence: "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards." The Wikipedia standard WP:BALANCE is clearly being violated. Técnico (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You have repeatedly told us your opinion. However, your opinion is, as repeated discussions have demonstrated, not shared by the broader Wikipedia community, which has, through several repeated discussions about this topic and a standing consensus, determined that the standard is, in fact, being upheld in this case. While consensus can change, repeatedly bringing up closed discussions can also be considered disruptive and tendentious editing, particularly when there is no significant new evidence nor is there any apparent broader movement to change the consensus. In short, it's time to drop the stick, move on from this topic and contribute productively elsewhere on the encyclopedia. If you cannot, then it will be self-evident that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:BALANCE doesn't mean we should favor any one particular source, especially if it's reliability is questionable (See WP:FRINGE). It just means that sometimes in order to maintain WP:NPOV on a subject with multiple widely accepted viewpoints, each POV should be represented accordingly. Darknipples (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Also "conservative leaning" dose not contradict "far right". Of course a lot depends on what you mean by conservative, but issues like Anti-immigration, attitudes towards women's right, attitudes towards, but I do not need to go on, often cross over between "conservative" and far right.
You can conservative and not far right, but (I would argue) you cannot be far right and not be conservative. So no it may not be a contradiction.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
While it is impossible to ignore the number of sources calling Breitbart far right that it must be included, it's also a subjective term (particularly the NYT's statement) and the current first sentence of the lede violates NPOV. It's definitely a fact we can say Breitbart is right-leaning, but whether they go as far as the "label" far right suggests is a subjective measure, the opinion of many press sources, and thus that should be called out later as a claim. eg Instead of Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or is a far-right American news, opinion and commentary website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart News has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories. we should be saying Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or is a conservative American news, opinion and commentary website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart News is frequently considered a far right publications by media critics, and the website has been found to have published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The current text reflects the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. We are not required by WP:BALANCE to replace it with weasel words and shilly-shallying flab. --14:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Brietbart is far right. In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue. This would be major WP:FALSEBALANCE. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
This has been settled by a recent, extensive RfC in which it was shown that more than 38 diverse, reliable, international sources routinely refer to Breitbart as far-right. The WP:SPAs and throwaway accounts who don't give a damn about building an encyclopedia and who are repeatedly rehashing this are being disruptive and should be blocked if they persist.- MrX 15:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is that while I agree that list of 38 sources all ID Brietbart as far right, it also seems to be a narrow set of sources. Using google news, excluding hits on Breitbart itself (""), I get:
  • 36,600 hits for "breitbart news" "conservative" -"far right" -""(eg excluding that term)
  • 3,500 hits for "breitbart news" "far right" -"conservative" -""
And for more narrowness, adding in Bannon's name so that we're likely focusing on articles talking about the website rather than name-dropping:
  • 12,500 hits for "breitbart news" "bannon" "conservative" -"far right" -""
  • 2,420 hits for "breitbart news" "bannon" -"conservative" "far right" -""
Now this doesn't mean all those sources are RSes, obviously, and not all of them are going to be about Breitbart news, but scanning the first 3 pages of results for all show an approximately equal hit-or-miss in terms of RSes. Every disclaimer of GHITS applies and a more detailed analysis would be needed to assure this is the right conclusion after only using RSes, discarding opinion pieces, etc. I would not disagree that a number of quality RSes do call Breitbart far right, but just to point out "here's a selected number of sources" without reviewing the whole of the sources (which from the talk page, has never been done) is a false balance, appearing to disproportionately pick and chose from a minority of sources to make it appear as the majority point. At minimum the GHIT test should be sufficient to recognize that calling Breitbart "far right" as fact is not appropriate, though it still is appropriate to note this assertion by those 38 sources. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
We need to bear in mind that different sources will use different terms to describe the same thing. The term "far right" for example is favored by news media, while academic sources generally reserve that term for neo-fascists. Articles should clearly convey information to readers and avoid ambiguous descriptions. I think the most common description is "right-wing." TFD (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the following argument sound? If not, which premiss or deduction is not correct?

1. WP:BALANCE says, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance."
2. CNN is a reputable source.
3. CNN calls Breitbart far-right.
4. The New York Times is a reputable source.
5. The New York Times calls Breitbart conservative-leaning. [17]
6. Leaning contradicts far.
7. Therefore, reputable sources contradict.
8. The New York Times is relatively equal in prominence to CNN. (It can be argued that NYT is much more.)
9. Hence, by WP:BALANCE, we need to describe both points of view and work for balance. --Técnico (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much all of this has already been discussed to death. Just read the talk page archives. This is just WP:REHASH. You need *NEW* arguments here, or this is pointless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If the argument above has been already discussed, then what premiss or deduction was found to be incorrect? I searched the talk pages. The word leaning appears three times. It seems to never have appeared in the context of the 9-point argument posted above. --Técnico (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Can we have a source that says that leaning and far are mutually exclusive (n this context, as after all you cannot lean against something you are far away from).Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Técnico: - The term "Far-Right" is undoubtedly not contradictory to "conservative leaning". "Far-Left" could be considered contradictory, or possibly even "liberal leaning", as they are more accurately "opposite inversions" of Far-Right and conservative leaning, but it seems like you are only trying to abide by the letter of BALANCE while violating the spirit of its underlying principles. Do not try to use WP:BALANCE just to make a WP:POINT. The best advice I can give is to try and listen to others to try and possibly find a compromise that will lead to a consensus. Volunteer Marek made a very good point about this discussion being a WP:REHASH, more or less. See...
  • [Archive "Breitbart_again"]
  • [Archive Breitbart_Global_News_Syndicate_-_Reliability_Dispute]
  • [Archive]
DN 09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I have to disagree with saying that "far right" and "conservative leaning" are not contradictory. "Leaning" implies being somewhat close to the center... "far" implies being... well... FAR from the center. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Except that "conservative" and "right wing" are not wholly synonymous (hell neither is "Conservative" and "conservative", are they libertarian conservatives, Neoconservatives, European style conservatives (much more like the Democrat party)). "leaning" also just means Tendency or inclination. Thus whilst (it is true) some one can be conservative leaning and not far right it is not true to say that someone cannot be far right and have conservative tendencies.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If far right means fascist and conservative leaning means Tory Reform Group, then they are contradictory, but if far right means to the right of traditional Republicans and conservative means to the right of traditional Republicans, then they mean the same same thing. Hence the American conservative movement was called "far right." Hence a USA Today article refers to Goldwater as both "conservative" and "far right," using the terms interchangeably.[18] Readers are able to understand the use of the terms by understanding the context in which they are used. America has an exceptional political tradition and the application of foreign concepts such as far right and conservative can be confusing. We should not present a difference in use of terminology as a difference of interpretation. Also, we should not use this difference to imply something not meant by the sources. TFD (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Although I am sympathetic to TFD's analysis its application raises WP:OR concerns. As always our description should reflect sources, weighing frequency (see MASEM's analysis) and source quality. Our own analyses of what ideologies constitute or comprise others are less relevant. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There appears to have been extensive discussion and consensus resulting in the current description of Breitbart News as "far-right" (the original poster really should have included pointers to those discussions, because otherwise this discussion is not properly informed). Nothing presented here has shed any new light on that consensus; this exercise does look much more akin to forum-shopping by an agenda account, and we shouldn't be enabling it. MastCell Talk 17:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
MastCell, there is no forum shopping happening here. The original post asks that the discussion be reopened at the Breitbart News talk page. Furthermore, there is no consensus about whether leaning contradicts far. Técnico (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please see current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:T.C3.A9cnico_.28moved_from_WP:AN.29. Carl Fredrik talk 06:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Weasel words "it was reported" regarding a dubious claim contradicted by better sources?


No idea what to make of this. Issue was previously discussed, and I thought resolved, here. Argument was made here that the claim should not be removed without re-adding the previous information, which I accept, but this doesn't apply to the above situation.


Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence in book article

RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence in a book article.

Please see Request for Comment, at Talk:Trump_Tower:_A_Novel#RfC_about_the_author_credits_of_first_edition_in_first_sentence. Sagecandor (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Citing anti-Muslim activist's ... "questionable" reaction to anti-Muslim violence?


The section is garbage at the moment and needs expansion to include the statements by the Muslim Council of Britain and so on, but I'm torn on whether Robinson's remark should simply be blanked outright, or nuanced to point out that he experienced criticism for the offending remarks (which is what the source says).

I posted as much on the talk page some time ago but have not received much traction, as people seem to be more interested in whether ISIS's view is worth noting.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I think three is a weight issue here, for all his mouth Mr Robinson is (in reality) a nobody. Why are his views worthy of note?Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Hate-speech and bigotry isn't really WP:DUE. See WP:CRIT DN (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I (to a degree) disagree (thought not in this case) hate speech is not the issue...who says it is. I*f this had been spouted by (say) Teresa May we would have to repeat it. But Mr Robison is just another street thug who has got a bit of publicity.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, since I proposed removing it, two other editors on an impartial forum agreed, and no one on the article talk page explicitly disagreed, I've gone ahead and removed it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Not cool - you didn't discuss this on the article talk-page. You mentioned this in passing on an unrelated comment (on lede reversion) - which I think was corrected anyway - which is why nobody was discussing there. Mr. Robinson's comments (and subsequent interviews) received SIGCOV. We should give coverage to all sides of the conflict. Just as we quote ISIS outlets justifying ISIS attacks - we should quote UK political elements of note (such as Mr. Robinson) who appear to be possibly justifying the attack. You could re-work how this is covered - there was significant subsequent criticism of Robinson and he's made some more statements. This was Front-Page news the few days after the attack. There are obviously (as can be seen for instance in Wikipedia's trolls vandalizing the page! And of course more established ways of seeing support) - some people (maybe a very small minority) who are justifying the attack - and this is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If this has not been discussed on the article talk page why was it brought here?Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
H's phone here. iPad's out of battery. As I outlined above, I had mentioned it on the talk page but had been essentially ignored. I'm sure the reason was the length of my post, but that's irrelevant. I was considering removing it, but I was reluctant to blank ”sourced content” from an article in a controversial topic area without first getting the go-ahead from someone. Slatersteven and DN appeared to be taking an even harder line than me, so I fired ahead. As for "not cool": technically speaking there is no requirement to get prior consensus on the talk page or anywhere else for an edit like that, and I was if anything being excessively careful by seeking some kind of input prior to making the edit. (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I can see why it was missed, and it should have had a separate section (after all it was not in the lead, what everyone seemed to be talking about).Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Political views of Donald Trump

For reasons that I do not fully understand, there is an ongoing discussion about a perceived bias in this article. Is there anything that can be done to make the article more "neutral?" Jarble (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Without knowing what it is that is the problem it is hard to see how we can improve it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I see a number of minor sections where, in the absence of Trump or an official aide making a statement towards that issue, the article uses a commentator's opinion about how Trump stands on the issue. And more often than not, as that commentator is being critical of Trump, it makes it negative-sounding. I recognize that the various "Political positions of (President)" have a standard format and required list of H2 topics, and if Trump had not said anything towards those, the section should at least mention "Trump has not indicated his position on X". However, on these minor topics, having these can be a problem. For example, the "Disable People" section does state Trump hasn't made a stance, but then includes a negative element of him not yet responding to a certain group's request. I'm sure there's a LOT of groups and issues Trump hasn't addressed yet, so it's unnecessary to include that at this point. Or take the "Education / Presidency" section. It's taking his Education secretary nomination and trying to identify that as a political position even though Trump hasn't said anything about it, and the text only describes the nomination as controversial, which says nothing about Trump's policy. Lots of small little things that allow for the tiniest bit of Trump criticism coatracking whenever possible. There are places for this, but should be in clear, called out "criticism" sections or articles, rather than mingling among stated positions by Trump himself. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Surely if her refuses to say what his position is (even by just not responding to a direct question) that is noteworthy? I fail to see how this is a NPOV issue. I am less sure about the education section, I would have thought that an appointment does indicate a policy choice by Donny. By can see how it could be re-worded.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Lack of a stance is only noteworthy if someone (out side of Wikipedia) has actually noted it. If no one has noted it, then it is Original Research for Wikipedia to mention it. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, But in the areas raised here I am not seeing that. It has been noticed (and commented on) that he has no stance.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Where you can source that he has not stated a stance, that's fine. But that's all you then can really say. Any added material that is others suggesting or commenting on what his stance might be really isn't appropriate at that point, as while they can be worded neutrally, it begs the question if he refuses to take a stance or not. We shouldn't be letting other sources try to guess what Trump's unstated stances are on the various policies at least in this article. It is fair in articles or sections about criticism towards Trump to use RSes that are critical of Trump not yet taking a stance, but that's not appropriate in this specific article. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, in cases where Trump has not taken a stance, but other's are interpreting that lack of stance as meaning something, that interpretation is an opinion... and must clearly be phrased as being such (ie clearly attributed) in the article. On top of that, we we must be careful not to give opinions UNDUE weight. Being clear on who holds an opinion is very important to determining whether the opinion should be mentioned, and (if so) how it is mentioned. Not easy, but vital to neutrality. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
In the case of the Disabled people, what makes that questionnaire more important than likely the hundreds of others his office has gotten from other concerned groups? Mentioning his lack of reply makes it a weak attack on him by appearing to say his doesn't care about disabled people. It's fine that we can source "He has not yet stated an opinion on disabled Americans.", but we shouldn't try to fill in the gaps with things that are not his own words. In terms of the appointment, it is more that we have no idea what the nominee's stance is from the written text, nor why Trump nominated her (which would likely indicate some of his positions too). I'm doing just a quick scan of the DeVos nomination articles, and there's very little in discussing her nomination that includes Trump's reasoning. I do see a lot describing what DeVos likely supports in terms of educational reform, but it would be OR to assume that that is also Trump's view (it has a highly likely chance of being as such, though). Instead, right now, it describes how the pick was controversial, which alluded more to how negative the Trump adminstration is broadly seen, which doesn't need to repeated in every possible place.
Basically it is at the end of the day that where Trump hasn't said anything specific about a policy area, filling those gaps with anything else has the potential to be a coatrack. It is better to say nothing in those cases. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Alleged murder confession at O. J. Simpson murder case article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:O. J. Simpson murder case#Alleged confession. A permalink for it is here. Like I stated there, an IP has framed an alleged confession by Simpson as a true confession by Simpson.

The IP range also stated this on the talk page: "I have seen that Lee Harvey Oswald has been named as John F. Kennedy's killer on Wikipedia; I suggest the same be done to O.J. Simpson and name him as the killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Various programs (America Crime Story, Made In America) have resulted in the consensus that reliable sources state that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. The legal contexts of 'burden of proof' and 'presumption of innocence' apply to someone who is being tried for a crime. Although Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law, reliable sources firmly establish his culpability."

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA