Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66

Fringe source in WWII bio article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


"Part of a larger crusade"

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

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

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

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

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

On the one hand: That book by Range, published when he was only 19 years of age, is bad. It's biased to the extreme (Range uses peacock words to describe Lindemann in nearly every sentence: vorbildlich, besonnen, erfolgreich = exemplary, considerate, successful) and it does not contain much information anyway. I cannot imagine that a historian would refer to that work while writing about Lindemann. The same information, that he was the 94th recipient, could easily be referenced with Manfred Dörr (1996), Ritterkreuzträger der Überwasserstreitkräfte, vol. 2, already being used in the article. So, as was pointed out very early on, one question is sourcing, the other inclusion. The first could be resolved quickly, although I am not sure, if there isn't an interest to keep Range as a source anyway. The second touches upon WP:DUE. These kind of articles, i.e. articles dealing with Knight's Cross recipients, are stuffed with small details. Those details lend authenticity to a narrative which actually distracts from the violence of war. The article features a whole chapter on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, but skips over the fact that Lütjens and Lindemann, following Erich Raeder's order, were responsible for the hopeless final fight and thus for the death of most of their crew. (Holger Afflerbach: "Mit wehender Fahne untergehen". In: VfZ 49 (2001), p. 609.) Sure, that's the usual German military glory stuff of Wikipedia. But if "romancing" is to be critically discussed at some point, it has to include a discussion of how "facts" are selected and how they are presented. Such insight is completely missing with many of the MilHistProject.--Assayer (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
My original statement in the thread was: the material [is] trivial, while the source being used is highly questionable and unsuitable for a Featured Article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work.
The larger question is, should Wikipedia promote articles that contain a highly selective set of facts and are largely sourced to, let's say, specialised literature (militaria / phaleristics / WP:QS and / or fringe sources, up to & including neo-Nazi publications)? For a related discussion, please see: Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#Intricate_details & Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel#Sources (with the same editors, actually). Or, for a more humorous take, see:
K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Once again, scrapping at the bottom of the barrel. Words like "exemplary, considerate, successful" does not make the source biased. They are observations.
And what does Coffmann mean by "selective set of facts"? Are there any "alternative facts"? What does this 'Trumpist' speak mean? Are there conflicting sources?
 ::::I think it is obvious to any passing observer that these two individuals are intent on causing fights over the most trivial matters. K.e.Coffman seems to think that "anti-shipping" (maritime interdiction), "air raids", "sorties" and "missions" are also Nazi euphemisms. Now that is funny. Dapi89 (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Reading this thread was a headache. Everyone, please keep to the point. '94th' is only published in one book, that book is not a reliable source, and so '94' should not be included. There is no reason to discuss triviality or notability of the fact, or predisposition of editors. There is nothing in WP:RS that discusses pulling facts that are probably true from unreliable sources just because the unreliable source is unlikely to fabricate that particular point. WP:RS is clear, the source must be reliable for the fact to be verifiable. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Does this source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? If not, strike the 94, and move on. 2604:6000:7B0E:8C00:B91F:4407:3AF6:3B15 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

I am besides myself on the article about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Another editor added the following[3] which was reverted[4]. Editors on the page are arguing that Trump's response isn't related to the article about the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I have never seen Wikipedia editors literally arguing that articles about a topic are off-topic. No matter how much I explain that it's not our job as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong, it falls on deaf ears. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not about RS, it is about Undue. The argument is that this is a throw away line by Donny that has nothing to actually do with Russian interference and thus has not place in that article. No one questions the sources, they question the weight.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that WP:Reliable sources are wrong. If numerous reliable sources have reported on this (which they have), it's our duty as Wikipedia editors to report this. AQFK (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
They are not saying they are wrong, they are saying this is irrelevant as it tells us nothing about Russian hacking.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course, you are. Reliable sources have determined that this is relevent. You just admitted that you think it's irrelevant. AQFK (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Trivializing one party's claims or responses in a dispute they are centrally involved in is completely inappropriate for NPOV. UNDUE here would apply to views of those that are in no way involved with any of the claims; we don't want to give excessive weight to voices that aren't central to the matter and that represent fringe views. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
We have one sides response to the accusations of Russian interference, this has nothing to do with that. As the source says (which the suggested text failed to mention) there are some key differences between this event and the Russian interference.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
In addition if we have this we must also have the DNC's explanation/denial.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The proposed material is a diversion. It is not a direct response to the serious revelations of possible collusion with an adversary state. It doesn't matter if the material is covered by 10,000 reliable sources; consensus among editors is what determines what goes in an article. Consensus (so far) has concluded that this material is not meaningful and not relevant to the subject of the article.- MrX 16:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Consensus cannot override NPOV policy. See WP:LOCALCON. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, there's no reason to not include the DNC's response to the accusations of collusion with Ukraine, as rebutting to Trump's assertion. But omitting Trump's assertion, being the central figure out this, should be included if has been given that much coverage. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Some here seem to be forgetting the basic principle "A source is relevant if I like what it says and irrelevant if I don't". It's in our policy WP:POLICIESIJUSTMADEUPTOWINANARGUMENT... Clearly when the democrats accuse the Trump administration of colluding with the Russians in order to win an election, a direct response by the Trump administration accusing the Democrats of colluding with the Ukrainians in order to win an elections is relevant and has sufficient weight. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Great so Sean Hannity is Donald Trump? As far as I can see that is who the source ascribes this claim to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not Twitter. God help us if we start writing articles that essentially say: "That's what you are, but what am I?!" By the way, it's not just Democrats saying that the Trump campaign may have colluded with Russia. Even a casual reading of a few sources makes that abundantly evident. - MrX 17:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It'd be nice if you went and joined the ongoing discussion on the article talk page before making changes like this. There's a survey up and everything. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Almost all of the oppose comments seem to be rebutting strawmen, e.g. "this is irrelevant as it tells us nothing about Russian hacking"; "there are some key differences between this event and the Russian interference." I explicitly acknowledged key differences between the scale of Ukrainian and Russian influence efforts in my initial comment on the matter, but then no-one has suggested creating a new section on "Ukrainian interference" in the election, and not even Sean Hannity has implied that Russian interference is somehow negated or justified by Ukrainian interference. The White House response was limited to the Trump campaign–Russian meeting, i.e. that there is an obvious and direct parallel between Don Jr. accepting Russian opposition research and the DNC accepting Ukrainian opposition research, which has not been refuted. (As Glenn Greenwald says: "What's the argument as to why that's illegal but not this?") If this content is considered too far removed from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to be allowed to stay, then so is the "Meeting with Russian lawyer" section, and probably much of the article focusing on circumstanial ties between Trump associates and Russian nationals.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
See also "Trump Jr. Was Told in Email of Russian Effort to Aid Campaign," The New York Times, July 10, 2017: "The White House press office, however, accused Mrs. Clinton's team of hypocrisy. The office circulated a January 2017 article published in Politico, detailing how officials from the Ukrainian government tried to help the Democratic candidate conduct opposition research on Mr. Trump and some of his aides." If America's paper of record considers this news fit to print, in its article on the Trump Jr. affair, maybe Wikipedia should follow suit.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The story of Russian interference in the election has had massive, daily coverage in RS for some time now. Given the number of ongoing investigations, the story is likely to continue for quite a while. A few days ago, Trump basically said that Hillary did something bad somewhere else. This is actually an old story that was in RS for a brief period of time and faded away so quickly most of us forgot about it. What are the chances that this accusation will stay in the news related to the Russian interference in the 2016 election? If it does, it can be included then. But, even RS look at this as an attempted diversion. And with the massive amount of play this story has and will continue to receive, we can’t include every tit-for-tat. WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT, WP:DUE. Objective3000 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Well besides The New York Times, a secondary reliable source - an open supporter of Clinton even - there are others dedicating entire articles just to the response of the White House press secretary and others, such as The Atlantic[5] (the OP mentions others in the tp), or to the DNC's response to it, such as CNN[6]. There's also others criticizing the response but dedicating an article to it, such as WPo[7]. The excuse to white wash away the response on this one-sided BLP violation of an article is "meh, not enough"? You'll have to do better than that. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't read past: an open supporter of Clinton. There is a difference between news pages and editorials. Objective3000 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So, we're going to have to include everything Donald Trump and/or Sean Hannity say to try to distract away from the Russian meddling. No matter how far off-topic it is? No matter how implausible? Just because some sources covered (and debunked) it? Where will we find space to write about things that actually happened and that actually involve Russia meddling in the election? This falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. And while Wikipedians may habitually give a lot of coverage to statements that come from the White House, I'm afraid that we're living in a different world for the time being. Geogene (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No, not everything, just responses notable enough such as this one. And please read the material, no one "debunked" it, some people criticized the response, no one said the accusation was false or denied the Ukrainian story. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Except that this is not notable (more correctly, it is UNDUE) because it got hardly any coverage at all compared to the article's topic. (In fact, to answer your next argument I'm looking for a source now by searching "Democrats Ukraine" and I'm not even able to find any today, and will have to go dig that WaPo piece out of the article's talk page to do so. And what little coverage it did get was primarily negative, or in other words, RS are debunking it as a talking point and distraction[8]. That will be the same tone it will have to get in the article, if it must go in, and so inclusion will only make Trump's defenders look worse. Sorry, it's bunk even if it's DUE. Geogene (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
There have already been numerous sources provided, and your inability to find more is besides the point. Please move on. I don't care what Trump or his supporters will look like, I care about the article including responses to an accusation that made the headlines on every newspaper (the response). If the response was criticized so be it, that is not a reason to censor it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The reason I can't find those sources today is because in the last few days they have been utterly buried by thousands of other sources about other aspects of the topic. That can only have happened because it's such a trivial aspect of the subject. Therefore, UNDUE. Just because something you like can, in theory, be reliably sourced if you search hard enough for a handful of news articles does not guarantee inclusion, and I'm afraid that if you think that it does then you profoundly misunderstand a key aspect of the editing process. Geogene (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't need to "look hard enough", it's right there on every headline screaming at your face. Yes, newspapers cover different news different days, who would know! And yes, mainstream media has a well known feud with Trump, so you see more articles about things said against his administration than responses by it (who would know!). The fact that even so it got such ample coverage goes to show. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
mainstream media has a well known feud with Trump. I'm sorry, but that you would state such as fact on the NPOV board suggests that you don't understand the principles behind NPOV. Objective3000 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
And again, you dismiss every point with "you don't know what you're talking about". I feel like this discussion is moot. I've made my point. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
May I suggest that in future you never put words in quotes that were never spoken? Objective3000 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that no one has suggested the obvious solution... which is to create a stand alone article on the Ukrainian interference in the 2016 United States election. There was obviously enough media coverage for it to pass Notability for a stand alone article. Plus, with a separate topic we get a different evaluation of what is DUE and UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That is a story that came out six months ago and died. Doesn’t pass WP:RECENTISM. Objective3000 (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it's important that we don't blindly parrot every instance of finger pointing in Washington. We need to carefully judge how significant a comparison the Ukrainian interference is to the Russian. I made an attempt at doing this, skimming the Politico article, which said that Ukraine's involvement, while straining "diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections", did not rise to the level of what Russia was doing. Quoting from paragraphs 4-6 of the article: "The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race...But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails. Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials...There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine." I'll leave it to editors with more time and knowledge than I to investigate further. ~Awilley (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Well put. Our job as editors is not all that complex if we simply rely on RS. Takes away any burden on us to perform OR/SYNTH. The Ukraine thingy came up about six months back (if I remember correctly) and died. The Russian thingy has been going on for at least seven months and is daily fodder in RS. An attempt to bring the Ukraine thingy to the forefront in an article on Russian interference in the 2016 elections as a distraction is unlikely to last. If it does, then we can include it. But, it’s four days old. Patience will out. Objective3000 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Per RECENTISM, we shouldn't have an article anywhere close to the depth of what the current Russia Interference is. We have no idea in the long term how much of this is actually significant, as we're still dealing with accusations and no firm conclusion. If editors are going to chose to be that indepth, then they need to treat all relevant angles with the same in-depth coverage, but per RECENTISM and NOTNEWS, this article is realistically far too much that we as an encyclopedia should be covering. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree. And I find the public opinion polling egregious. But getting consensus to shrink an article isn't easy. Geogene (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter if we discus the key differences between these two incidents here, or even on the talk page of the article. Any text we include in the article must reflect the RS's doubts about the similarities. The suggested text did not do that, but rather only put the fact thew the Trump campaign had made the association. The problem with this (as well as making clear that the DNC have said that there were no official contacts) Is that we then get a paragraph or two over what is a rather lame (failed) deflection. This there is an issue with undue weight here. But until we actually see some suggested text that actually reflects what the RS have said about this I most oppose inclusion of this on principle.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This is what I meant by the RECENTISM problem. As soon as you start including every accusation and criticism made towards Trump and/or Russia, to be NPOV for the controversy you need to add Trump and/or Russia's own accusations and criticism, and then the counter-criticism to that. This all creates a huge rabbit trail that is puffing up the article size tremendously. None of this should be called UNDUE or FRINGE, particularly since it can be readily sourced. The other option is to keep the article at the bare bones, stating core facts and enough to establish the importance, and omit all the punditry until the matter is well and fully resolved, at which point as an encyclopedia we can write with 20/20 hindsight on the actual points of opinion that best represent the closed situation to focus us. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps editors should wait until/if indictments occur, before bloating up the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps editors should refuse to let a Wikipedia article contain accusations against a living person while not allowing that person's direct response into the article. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and those who allow it should be ashamed of themselves. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
"Oh, but it is only his view so it must be FRINGE and thus UNDUE to include" will be a response, which is BS. UNDUE/FRINGE should not be applied to those views directly at the center of a controversy, only to those viewpoints that are not directly party to the situation (eg most of the media in this case). --MASEM (t) 19:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Masem & Guy Macon, the systemic bias is not going away anytime soon. Based on my recent experiences, NPOV appears to be nothing more than an acronym as far as political advocacies are concerned because the policy itself is loose ended and leaves interpretation to the discretion of the closer who is charged with determining consensus. It's pretty much the same democracy Ben Franklin was concerned over. All the conspiracy theories surrounding the Trump presidency and the articles that were spawned from it in this encyclopedia are chilling — Americans aren't stupid and most can see right through the facade. Having said that, I don't consider what's happening now any worse than the birther issues with Obama, or the pay-to-play scandal with Clinton, or the fact that Maddow is believed by some to be as much a conspiracy theorist as Hannity - the main difference being, her conspiracy theories resulted in a ratings surge, despite fizzeling out as nothing burgers in the end - as with Trump's 2005 tax return. Every 4 years it's "party pay-back" to settle scores for how the preceding party was treated. It's led by the MSM, which was emboldened with the repeal of the Smith–Mundt Act. Propaganda by pundits has gotten far worse than it ever was because it generates much needed $$$. The article in the Harvard Business Review is telling, as is this one. So the question do we fix it in an effort to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia? Some editors may not fully understand the consequences of such bias in the encyclopedia: #1 - America is divided almost equally but Trump won and there's a Republican majority in both the House and Senate so NPOV is just as important now as it was from 2008-2016; and #2 - world leaders are showing more respect for Trump than left-leaning MSM, whose primary goal is $$$ generated by bait-click now that print is outdated. It would be naive of us to think otherwise. Atsme📞📧 02:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
As long as the U.S. mainstream press are considered superior sources to everything else, Wikipedia will naturally reflect the U.S. press choice of topics and angle on events. Neutrality starts with not giving excess weight to a particular group of sources, especially when those sources share a common worldview and common incentives. Changing the status quo looks like an uphill battle at WP:RSN. — JFG talk 04:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
It's more than just being superior sources but that we're "not allowed" to question them, but I will continue to argue that journalism today is far from what journalism was when our core policies were developed and we need to be able, as WP editors, to pull out from the walled garden of these RSes and consider what the larger pictures is, before then going back to judge how to use those RSes effectively. This is where NOT#NEWS, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:RECENTISM all have to come into play to know that we shouldn't be writing anywhere in depth on some of these controversial recent topics, and should instead to go into any analysis until a significant amount of time has passed so that a clear picture of what actually happened is known. Right now, it is too easy to take the press's court of public opinion as fact which biases the approach to recent controversies on WP. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, the standard now is that you must treat "RS" as gospel, or you're "pushing a POV," "tendentious," and are likely violating a whole host of other policies/guidelines. Don't be skeptical of what you read in The New York Times or the Washington Post or what you see on CNN or MSNBC, and if you have any criticism, you need to shut up since you "don't know what you are talking about." Journalism today barely resembles journalism from 10 years or even 5 years ago. They're just running with "stories" and all rushing to get their click-bait articles published so quickly that they keep forgetting to make sure the stories are true or are properly sourced. The basic tenets of journalism are completely out of the window. And that's why we're sitting here with endless "RS" (which pretty much means only NYT, WaPo, Vox, BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, ABC News, CBS News and other organizations that popped up in last year's WikiLeaks bombshells again and again) reporting primarily one point of view, with no distinction between hard news and opinion commentary at all. It's sort of a "post-truth" environment, so to speak. How do you ensure NPOV in an article, if all the sources are POV but call themselves NPOV? What a mess. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Uh, guys, WP:NOTAFORUM. If you want to whine about the evil reliable sources and our policy regarding these, this is not the place to do it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Discussing balance in sourcing is a legitimate NPOV issue, apt to be discussed here. Nobody is talking about "evil sources", just saying that "acceptable" sources seem to be unduly clustered around a single world view, and this is detrimental to the encyclopedic spirit. We wouldn't want to sound like Kremlin propaganda, and equally we shouldn't sound like CIA propaganda. Sometimes we do. — JFG talk 05:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agree with Masem, and a lot of cleanup has to be done weeks after the news cycle is stale. Some spur-of-the-momen articles can be forgotten and left in a sorry state. See the proposal for a 3-day holding period before creating "breaking news" articles: User talk:EEng#X-day/week "embargo" on articles on breaking-news topics. Under this scheme, news could still be mentioned in existing articles but we wouldn't spend so much energy creating forks about ephemeral stories, duplicating content, debating them at AfD, updating them by the minute, and losing sleep over hype. — JFG talk 05:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, obviously this thread has been hijacked. But to reiterate what has been said before, 1) these proposals for the whole "holding period" conspicuously coincide with the rise of Donald Trump and all the scandals that generates. The same people weren't too concerned with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM until it became politically convenient to do that.
Second, and more to the point, I have yet to see any substantiation for the claim that "a lot of cleanup has to be done weeks after the news cycle is stale" or that "articles can be forgotten and left in a sorry state". Sure, some things have to be updated, articles are improved... I mean, it's Wikipedia, that's how it's suppose to work. But nothing extraordinary. Certainly I don't see any editors complaining "oh, I'm always having to clean up these old articles I don't have time for anything else" (there is complaining, but it's of the "why am I not allowed to push my POV? So unfair, that RS policy!" variety). So this is trying to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist, which suggests that... well, see 1).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this started before then, the rise of the culture war around 2010 and later, just that given that the media generally has an average left-leaning take, and that they were rebuffed by Trump early in the cycle, they have promoted a very anti-Trump approach to their coverage, making the situation much more obvious and much more dire to how we handle these sources. Now, the media swings all the time, that's not the core problem, it also extends to editors that generally have political opinions that align with the press who circle the wagon around such articles, insisting that this is what the coverage is now and we must cover it that way now and can't look anywhere else (as this specific Russian election article is the poster boy here for this). The problem exists, but it is a very complicated problem that requires both review of some core policies, and of editor behavior. There are short term solutions, like the waiting-day period, but that's a band-aid and doesn't solve the problem. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
"they have promoted a very anti-Trump approach to their coverage, making the situation much more obvious" - that's your impression, but it's not actually backed by... anything. Systematic analysis of news coverage have found that either Clinton got the worse of it [9] or that it was about even. It might *look* like there's "anti-Trump" approach because he simply got more coverage than anyone else, so even if Clinton got 6 bad stories out of every 10, Trump got 14 bad stories out of every 30 during the same time. And oh yeah, the kind of things he does (mocking disabled reporters, starting twitter wars, insulting people, etc. etc.) just ... might ... have ... something ... to ... do ... with ... it ... ... ... no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no such balance, and it goes beyond the Trump/Clinton election season. Several studies have shown 90+% of negative coverage of Trump, including after the election. Sure, his attitude deserves some pushback, but the constant smears are beyond anything seen elsewhere. If the press did reflect public opinion, you'd wonder why he got elected in the first place. The only place in the U.S. where press coverage is aligned with public opinion is Washington D.C., which voted 90% for Clinton and a whopping 4% for Trump. Ahem. — JFG talk 06:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The electoral college system, which ignored the popular vote.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you meant to complain about The World Series of Baseball, which since 1903 has ignored the total number of runs scored? Or perhaps you meant to complain about California (Population: 39,250,017) and Wyoming (Population: 585,501) each getting two senators? Surely you can't be saying that it is OK to start a contest (World Series Championship, Presidency) with an agree-upon set of rules (most games won, most electoral votes won), wait until a winner is declared, then after-the-fact ask that the rules be changed (most runs scored, most popular votes won)? That would not be cool. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
No, and I did not say anything like that. I just pointed out that the coverage of trump being moistly negative in fact reflects the fact that most Americans view him negatively. That says nothing about the fairness of the contest, or the rights and wrongs of the electoral college system.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Funny choice of words ("which ignored the popular vote") if that is not what you were saying. If I said "The World Series of Baseball, which ignored the total number of runs scored" would you not conclude that I thought that the total count of runs scored was somehow significant? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Only if you take it out of context (context was you said " ...If the press did reflect public opinion, you'd wonder why he got elected in the first place... " I replied "The electoral college system, which ignored the popular vote"), nothing funny about the wording. He did not get elected based upon public opinion (which was against him) but because of the electoral college (which did not reflect public opinion). Nothing else was said about it legitimacy or legality or morality, just that his election was not based upon the popular vote (and thus public opinion). But this has sod all to do with the topic sop will call this the end.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
(To VM) First : Forbes contributor, so not a RS. But even then their point is not that the press was anti-Clinton, but they were so anti-Trump to create a Streisand effect to draw more people to Trump. Trump himself may not present himself as a nice person, but we have reasonable expectations built in our policies that the media reporting on that will remain objective (just as we are to remain objective in our summary of these events) and ignore the slights (Report on them, yes, but not comment on them). Thats no longer the case, hence why there's a breakdown in how these play out. Now that would be mitigated on WP if editors also stuck to the objectivity we expect (we're not asking people to support Trump, but to drop any pro- or anti-biases when working within consensus) but editors refuse to do so and stand on the fact so many sources are anti-Trump that WP should be written in a tone that reflects that, which is not our goal or policies. --MASEM (t) 12:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
If I understand what you're saying; yes, Trump has received more negative than positive coverage. (As did Clinton.) We can’t look at that fact as proof, or even an indication, that the media is biased and try to force some “balance”. One study shows that slightly more Fox coverage of Trump has been negative. Fox has rarely been accused of having an anti-Republican bias. Objective3000 (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
It is completely possible to have negative/critical coverage and yet remain objective. Happened across Gore, both Bushes, and Bill Clinton's time. That's actually what we'd expect the press to be as acting as a fourth branch of gov't (we'd never have Watergate if this wasn't the case). But the current press is being negative/critical without retaining objectivity, in part to many many factors (loss of finances, loss of readership to citizen journalism, competition of opinionated journalism from conservative media like Fox News, timeliness of reporting against social media's speed, the culture war, etc.) all which were happening to a lesser degree before Trump too office - his presence intensified it. And its not about "balance", it is about impartiality and tone. The net result, as here in the election article, is that predominate editors around the article are writing from the media's stance that has already declared Russia guilty, so any shred of evidence that the media jumps on (like the Trump Jr. meeting) that supports that must be inserted immediately, when instead we should be holding off for a few years to be writing anything more indepth, and if not that, staying very impartial to the matter and document the controversy rather than then trying to push analysis of it. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, I agree that many editors tend jump on new events too quickly. That could be bias – but could also simply be an overly eager desire to keep WP up-to-date without heeding RECENTISM. But, I don’t agree with a broad indictment of the press, or that we should somehow assume bias and filter out this perceived bias, simply because coverage is negative. Perhaps there is good reason that the coverage is negative. Real-life politics appears to focus more and more on the negative these days. In any case, this sounds more like a general argument on policy; and I don’t think this is the correct venue. Objective3000 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I may be missing something obvious, but do the cited sources actually support the sentence in the article? The Politico article cannot be used as a source that "The Trump administration responded by citing a January 2017 Politico report..." and the suggestion to look at the Ukrainian influence originates with Hannity, not the Trump administration, according to the Politifact article. I am very skeptical if Hannity's opinions are due weight, and they certainly should not be presented as if they had the weight of the White House. In any case, both the Politico and Politifact reports present the story's connection to Russian influence as a false equivalence anyway. So, while it could conceivably be mentioned, it should be done so with considerably more attention to what these reliable sources actually say about it. I feel like that would probably be undue weight on something that is only of peripheral relevance to the article, unless there is considerably more attention (e.g., White House response, DNC response, and further news analysis). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a reason for the electoral college in the US - our Founding Fathers had enough foresight to see that the electoral college would help preserve liberty and justice for ALL via a fair election process unlike socialism/communism which excludes the fundamental rights of an individual and favors the collective (and that works as long as you're not that individual). Back on point, Masem, JFG, it appears to me that the final determination of what is or isn't NPOV will be made by whatever coordinated group happens to be protesting the loudest at the time. In the interim, we are all required to AGF, and like good little volunteers, be compliant with PAGs that are considered to be antiquated and highly ambiguous...but what do we know? It's ok if MSM drags out the Russian conspiracy theories with their bait-click revenue schemes, but it's not ok to mention Clinton's deals with the Russians or the money the Clinton Global Initiative was receiving from foreign governments, or any other incident that tarnishes their reputation. It's ok for MSM to accuse Scaramucci of wrong doing, which resulted in the firing of 3 CNN employees, but WP editors must still consider CNN & Politico as RS. They don't publish conspiracy theories - they publish reliable information - only FOXNews and conservative media publishes conspiracy theories, right? It's no secret that WP suffers from systemic biases, be it gender, religion, or politics - after all, MSM said so. We are also aware that the encyclopedia is plagued by those editors who are here for one purpose, anonymity allows it and provides the perfect platform from which they are able to push a particular POV - be it the result of paid editing or advocacy - both being hazardous to the health of the project in much the same way business promotion is hazardous.. Unfortunately, the concern has not risen to a level of urgency which appears to be the only motivator of change, although it appears WFM has to agreed to ACTRIAL, so we're moving in the right direction. Another positive step would be the breaking news moratorium we've been discussing on EEng's TP. I'm still not sure how to combat the kind of bias that allows, for example, Sean Hannity to be called a "conspiracy theorist" in WP voice (based on what rival pundits in MSM have called him) but not Rachel Maddow for the same reasons. The excuse for the reverts (while an "in use" template is still attached) is BLP violation. I guess Hannity is not a BLP in the eyes of some editors. I'm still trying to figure that one out, and looking for the best solution that is actually compliant with NPOV since that isn't what I'm seeing at those two articles now. I've often wondered if any consideration is given to the fact that FOXNews leads the ratings and is a very powerful voice in MSM because of their "fair and balanced approach". Based on MSM reporting (and ratings), FOXNews is clearly the popular choice...but equal their ratings, you have to add MSNBC & CNN together (discounting their occasional spikes based on...uhm, conspiracy theories) to equal that of FOXNews. Sounds like popular vote vs electoral college, doesn't it? I've lost count of how many times FOX has been discredited as an unreliable source, along with Breitbart, The Daily Caller, The National Review, etc...for no other reason other than their "conservative POV". There isn't one publication in MSM that hasn't had to make a retraction at one time or other so I guess it's one of those "make-up the rules as you go along" scenarios. NPOV means inclusion of relevant views that can be cited to RS. I also keep seeing WP:UNDUE used when a particular narrative doesn't fit a left leaning POV - uhm, what gives a leftist view the edge over a conservative view? I could understand it when the left dominated the House, Senate and presidency, but guess what? That is no longer the case, so when we mention UNDUE, who makes that determination? And that's when bias rears its ugly head and is the basis for the determination that Maddow is not a conspiracy theorist but Hannity is, and so it shall be. smh Time will tell. This is an intersting read if you have time.Atsme📞📧 13:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Such naked nationalist rhetoric and offtopic rants against "MSM" has no place at the neutral point of view noticeboard. But in any case, I'm not going to assume that this is obvious to everyone here and remind them that there are discretionary sanctions in place concerning the subject of this article. (Also, FWIW, I don't think it is all that controversial to feel that both Hannity and Maddow, and lots of other folks, have severe issues of bias that taint their representation as far as WP:NPOV is concerned. And Leftist rants are equally problematic.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

For some of us the issue was how this was worded more then it's inclusion (but it is still an issue). This was not a statement made by the white house (the text included in our article says it was), the Source pointed out as number of flaws in the analogy (out text did not). The proposed text did not only not reflect the POV of the sources, it actually made a claim the source did not. Thus (as presented) it has issues with OR, NPOV and verifiability. Maybe those who argue for it's inclusion could offer up a moire neutrally worded version of the text that actually reflects the sources claims?Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please elaborate what you mean by "This was not a statement made by the white house". Do you think that the statement made by "The White House press office" (a direct quote from the NYT piece cited in the article) does not represent the White House position? Politrukki (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: please advise. Politrukki (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about the suggested text (and the source it uses), which is (by the way) the source the white house used. And why have we not been shown the white house statement itself?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The White House statement has already been quoted in this discussion (17:24, 15 July 2017). The same source is still cited in our article, and was properly cited with an inline citation in the article when this disputed content was first introduced.[10] Politrukki (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Neither of those two sources (in the text) mention the white house saying anything about this. And no the white house is not quoted, the NTY's is. So what did the white house actually say about it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The edit (with the inapplicable "BLP" edit summary) that was originally added and quickly reverted is typical of a large class of fake news that comes up in articles related to the Russian interference. In this case several editors pointed out the WP policies that protect our articles from this kind of false and/or UNDUE text being inserted by edits that are either disingenuous or unaware of WP content policies. This material is undue and the text did not even neutrally represent the cited source. This does not belong on WP, except possibly on an artilce concerning propaganda and the media. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven: The sentence beginning with "The Trump administration responded by citing" cited three sources. One of them is a piece from The New York Times. Please read what it says about "The White House press office" and Ukraine – or use the timestamp I provided to find the relevant NYT paragraph quoted in this discussion. Politrukki (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO: Thank you for your interesting opinion, but I don't think The New York Times (or Politico or – I don't know which one you are referring to) has a reputation of publishing fake news. If you disagree, you should probably head to WP:RSN. Politrukki (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
So that is what we should say, "According to the the New York Times the white house press office...". As no one else seems to have reported this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's see:
  1. "White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders brought up the Ukrainian story on Monday." CBS News
  2. "The Ukraine rebuttal has been ricocheting across right-wing media in recent days, advanced by Trump aides such as Sebastian Gorka and Sarah Sanders" The Atlantic
  3. "conservatives, Trump backers, and Trump Jr. himself resurfaced the findings of a January Politico story about Ukrainian efforts to aid Hillary Clinton" Slate (This one doesn't actually say "White House", but the point remains the same.)
  4. "The White House went on offense Wednesday amid the firestorm over Donald Trump Jr.'s campaign-season meeting with a Russian lawyer, trying to turn the tables by alleging the Democratic National Committee and the Clintons are the ones caught up in 'collusion'." Fox News
  5. "[Ukraine something something something] ... The White House has tried to compare this arrangement with the communication that the Trump campaign had with Russians during and after the campaign." The Washington Post
The first three sources are from article talk page. It should be easy to find more sources. I see no reason why we shouldn't use the original edit as a starting point. Politrukki (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Now we need to work on a decent text that reflects these sources, such as drawing attention (as they do) to the major differences between these two incidents. Care to suggest a version that does not violate NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh they don't treat fake news as news, but they certainly refer to it. This thread is just a forum-shopping roadshow of editors whose POV has been rejected on article talk. That's not a useful engagemnt at this site-wide noticeboard. Time to bury the duck and drop the hatchet. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The use of the term "illegal alien"

I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue, but I'd like to explore the possibility of banning the use of "illegal alien" across Wikipedia unless it's part of quotes. I've noticed that it's a term that editors regularly try to introduce to Wikipedia articles related to immigration (see the edit-warring on this article[11], for instance) whereas other editors try to remove it. While lots federal and state agencies do use the term (some have moved away from it in recent years), the term is rarely, if ever, used by reliable news sources:

  • The Associated Press Style Guide[12] doesn't allow it.
  • The Washington Post style guide: "The Post does not refer to people as “illegal aliens” or “illegals,” per its guidelines."[13]
  • The New York Times style guide doesn't allow it, even describing it as "sinister-sounding".[14]

Is is therefore jarring when Wikipedia uses a term that is (i) widely seen as offensive or sinister, (ii) has not been used by any reliable news outlets in decades, and (iii) has far more suitable (common in reliable sources and non-offensive) substitutes, such as "undocumented immigrant" and even the flawed "illegal immigrant". So, it's not only bad style to use it on Wikipedia but the fact that the term is allowed on Wikipedia leads to lots of needless edit-warring as users try to introduce the offensive term to pages and others try to remove it. I've also started a discussion on the Manual of Style board[15] to get their take on the term. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Whoa Snooganssnoogans is misstating what the text he cites says about the NYTimes "style guide." It is a pretty nuanced directive, What the NYTimes style guide actually says is that writers should “consider alternatives when appropriate to explain the specific circumstances of the person in question or to focus on actions: who crossed the border illegally; who overstayed a visa; who is not authorized to work in this country.” @Snooganssnoogans: to suggest that you immediately strike your untrue assertion that "The New York Times style guide doesn't allow it. What the style guide forbids is the use of "illegal" as a noun, i.e., a phrase like "the illegal worked as a chef."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, this is embarrassing for you. The source that I linked to says: "Off the table entirely are “illegal,” when used as a noun, and the sinister-sounding “alien.”" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you know what a "noun" is?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
What on Earth are you on about? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I know there was a discussion of this on a noticeboard, but I can't find it. However, in principle, I agree that we should not use "illegal alien" unless it is a quoted word, if we are describing the meaning of the term, or in cases of historical context where the term was more common (as one might find in older works of fiction, avoiding reversioning of the past). If we are talking about a contemporary issue, even if the sources use "illegal alien", if we can paraphrase that to something less offensive but still accurate, that would be better. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what relevance my weigh-in on this will have, but I was intrigued when I heard a United States judicial member once clarify that no one is an "illegal" anything unless they are found guilty in a court of law. Until then, they are merely "undocumented". I found that very interesting. For what it's worth. Maineartists (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent sources. The term is most often used to describe living people that have never been convicted. The term is used as a derogatory label WP:LABEL. There exists perfectly adequate language to express this without such terminology. Yes, we can use it in a properly referenced quote. Objective3000 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The term should be used where appropriate, as the term is the correct legal definition of a foreign national living without authorization in a country they are not a citizen of. Yes the term is politically charged, but that does not preclude it from being used in a encyclopedic tone. Keeping WP:GEOSCOPE in mind, the term "Alien" is in use outside of the United States where it has fewer negative tones, and in the English speaking world has the same legal standing. As far as sourcing is concerned, the federal government of the United States employs the term ([16] [17]) as do a number of dictionaries ([18] [19] [20].) Like all terms that could induce offense or be used to defame, the term "Illegal Alien" should be used in the proper context to better serve the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that my vote is below.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Illegal alien is the proper legal term. It definitely should be used in any wiki text covering statutes and policies in which it is defined, and possibly elsewhere. There is nothing inherently sinister with either alien (a person who is not a citizen or resident) or illegal (a person who has entered illegally without a proper visa). Just because some PC speech activists are trying to move away from the proper legal term is not a reason we should do so. If at all we should ban non-legal pseudo euphemisms such as undocumented immigrant (which for instance assumes the illegal alien's intent is imiigration and not some other intent).Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
"some PC speech activists" = Virtually every single reliable news source. Seriously. I dare you to find one reliable news outlet that uses "illegal aliens" except in quotes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Left leaning press has endorsed this - which is what you brought. However US code and regulations are full of the term. Want to hazard a guess as to how many times alien appears in the us tax code, guidelines, and forms? I could see how calling a BLP an illegal alien would be a violation of BLPCRIME prior to conviction. However if we are talking about an unspecified group or alternatively individuals who have been convicted or deported there really should not be a problem to refer to them as such.Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
"Left leaning press has endorsed this" <-- bullshit excuse to dismiss best practice of reliable sources. If you don't like an encyclopedia written on the basis of reliable sources, find a different venue for yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
VM, please try to keep this civil. As you know, comments like that serve no purpose other than creating strife and disruption. Cast your vote and leave it at that. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Labeling the NYT, WaPo and AP "left-leaning press" on the NPOV board is, IMHO, an example of irony. Objective3000 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Despite being leading RSes (and really leading, the first newsorg you would want to cite), NYT and WaPo do have a clear editorial angle. Does not mean they are not reliable (in fact they are highly reliable, and perhaps the most reliable US sources). But reliability does not equate with adopting their style guide which reflects their editorial angle, which unrelated to reliability.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC) The NYT, as a RS, recognizes that it is perceived as liberal [21].Icewhiz (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal, which is about as conservative as the NYT is liberal, doesn't use "illegal alien" either.[22] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The source you provided, which might or might not be a rs for wsj's policy, actually say they prefer to use illegal immigrant. They avoid alien due to possible popular confusion with E.T. In popular news reporting that may be a concern, but in a wiki article actually dealing with a statute that uses the term? Finally I will note that if Wikipedia will blanket avoid the term, it will paint Wikipedia as biased, as avoidance of illegal in this context clearly places a source in a particular camp. Undocumented immigrant is just aas POVish as illegal.Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I cannot imagine the logic behind this statement: Undocumented immigrant is just as POVish as illegal. Objective3000 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Use of one over the other allows a quite stong statistical inference of the writer's political position.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Perception is not reality and I’ve never before heard the claim that The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage is politically influenced by the editorial board.
BTW, the NYT states about the author of that piece: "Her opinions and conclusions are her own." That is, it is not RS. Objective3000 (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I will note that this is a frivolous dispute - as any astute reader would note each major news-source has a bias which is usually known. The editorial policy and substance guide are typically what is most affected by the bias as well as "tone" - what sets an RS apart - is that it doesn't (too much) alter facts and attempts to vet them - but that regards reporting - NOT style guides. The author in question works in a pretty significant capacity at the newspaper. But if you really want another source, then this summary of a journal paper (which i could pull as well) - [23] - claims NYT has a liberal leaning bias. And one could find dozens of other RS analysises of the NYT (and WaPo) - probably the most studied paper out there - including in specific topic areas.11:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As the npr ethics handbook says, "Strive to use words and phrases that accurately deliver information without taking sides on emotional or political issues."[24] When we use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant," we are taking a position on the issue. I think there should be a section on "politically loaded language" in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Words that may introduce bias that includes the terms, "homicide bomber" and others. TFD (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Could be an addition to WP:TERRORIST. Objective3000 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. SamHolt6's position seems perfectly sensible to me, as there will be times where "illegal alien" is the correct term to use. I'd also like to note that this appears to be drifting into avoiding "illegal immigrant" as well which, irrespective of the current culture war going on in the US, is still perfectly acceptable elsewhere.(UKIrelandNZSouth Africa) Bromley86 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • It would be helpful if you would read the links you provide before providing them. The first story in your UK search for example ("Grenfell fire: 'I was too afraid because I'm undocumented'", BBC), doesn't use the word "illegal immigrant", it refers to "undocumented residents." The term "illegal immigrant" redirects to "undocumented residents," which is the preferred term in UK reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep, saw that. Perhaps you missed the quote marks? Did you see the second article? "... among 18 suspected illegal immigrants found in a lorry..." Third: "Eighteen suspected illegal immigrants from Iraq..." Forth: "Egypt says the detainees are illegal immigrants..." Fifth: "An illegal immigrant who was caught working..." Etc. Admittedly, I've been out of the UK loop for a couple of years, so things may have changed, but they were always, without question, called "illegal immigrants" rather than "undocumented migrants" in the UK in 2015. From my memory, anyway. Bromley86 (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I support the use of the term provided the context is appropriate. For example, the term should not be used in an article that has content cited to any entity that does not use the term per their manual(s) of style. However, the term still has legal standing, and remains a definition provided by a number of dictionaries. From a legal standpoint, in the United States a 2015 opinion by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ([25]) confirmed that the term has basis in legal documentation. The parlance of our time is changing, and while the term may well fall out of favor (a counter to my 5th Circuit point would be that the term has not been granted a legal opinion by the US Supreme Court), it remains in use. Without doubt the term is politically charged, but that does not preclude it from being used in a encyclopedic tone if the situation (and more importantly, the source cited in the concerning instance) warrants it. The question should always be if or not it is tactful to use the term, or if a better one can be employed to suit the same need. Per my previous posting, like all terms that could induce offense or be used to defame, "Illegal Alien" should be used in the proper context to better serve the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Dictionaries do not characterize the term illegal alien as disparaging nor offensive. It is a neutral term, used to describe "a foreign national who is living without authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen." Just because very left-leaning media outlets like the New York Times and WaPo don't want to use a term doesn't mean Wikipedia should conform to their preferred terminology. Setting a standard for adopting euphemisms in place of appropriate wording isn't a good direction for the project. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
"Very left-leaning media outlets like the New York Times and WaPo" - HiddenTempo, just please drop this ridiculous nonsense. Your own POV is showing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Play the ball, not the man. You don't have to personally address every single thing a fellow editor says that you disagree with. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that creator of this discussion misstated the policy of the New York Times - my fact check posted at top of discussion. I note that an editor above has also misstates the policy of the Wall Street Journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The WSJ policy is to use "illegal immigrant" and, in some cases, "undocumented immigrant". The only mention of "illegal alien" is in the context of a term that prefer "illegal immigrant" over.[26] A quick search shows no mention of "illegal alien" in WSJ language (unless quotes, letters and op-eds) since 2001. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are legally accurate phrases. Unlike newspapers, even the most reliable of which take editorial positions, Wikipedia avows neutrality as a goal. Taking sides in a fraught conversation about whether to call individuals who live in a country without a legal basis for their residence, would be a gross violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and abandonment of our pretense to political neutrality.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support — This is a straightforward application of WP:LABEL. It has become a value-laden term that implies a POV that shouldn't be expressed in the encyclopedia's voice. Exceptions are appropriate for quotations and for legal contexts where the entity involved uses the term. Also, "illegal" in the absence of judicial review may be a BLP violation. To choose (perhaps) politically contentious example, we don't use "statutory rapist" as a generic descriptor of people who have had sex with someone under the age of consent in the absence of a legal finding about that person. Nor do we use "trespasser" for European colonists in the Americas. Instead, we attribute POV.--Carwil (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • All terms in this debate are value laden, the term "undocumented alien" simply supports a different set of values than the term "illegal alien." Wikipedia should not choose sides in a political contest by banning either term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The use of this term is an active political conversation with pundits and scholars weighing in on both sides, (Cf. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Sorry, but the Accurate Legal Term is 'Illegal Alien' [27].) Wikipedia should not be taking sides by banning politically contested terms.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The "scholar" Hans A. von Spakovsky who doesn't have a PhD, and is most known for making false and unsubstantiated about voter fraud while dabbling in some climate change denial on the side. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • My point is that this is a political debate, and it is POV for WP to take sides.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I want to reiterate the point made above by Bromley86; progressive and mainstream newspapers in much of the Anglosphere use "illegal alien" routinely - so it would be a tad imperialistic for bien-pensant U.S. editors to impose this on the world. Here are some recent uses from around the Anglosphere: Irish Times "Barely a year later he was deported as an illegal alien from the country of his birth. " [28]; The Guardian "sentenced at a federal court in Las Vegas in December last year to a year in jail after admitting charges of being an illegal alien in possession of a..." [29]; The Australian "Tax all illegal alien remittances out of the USA at 90%." [30]; an ex cathedra editorial in The New Zealand Herald "on Friday afternoon she was told that, as of yesterday, she would be an illegal alien." [31]; Times of India, "They are from Nepal and most of them or their forefathers were illegal alien into Bengal from Nepal." [32]; and from Jamaica's oldest newspaper, The Gleaner "Hailing from Ewarton, St Catherine, she was living in the US for over 30 years as an illegal alien..." [33]. However, some offshore Anglophone newspapers do want to ban this phrase, Al Jazeera wants us to "drop the word" [34].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose while "illegal alien" may not be considered a politically correct term, it is an accurate term. WP is not part of any political machine so being politically correct is a contradiction of what WP represents. The courts use the term - see the following footnote by federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen, Southern District of Texas which references a Supreme Court decision: The Court uses the phrases ‘illegal immigrant’ and ‘illegal alien’ interchangeably…The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase ‘illegal alien’ offensive. The Court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012). Cited from this linked article. Atsme📞📧 20:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • While "homosexual" is a proper term to describe gay people, we don't use that because it's become a perogative term to call a person. While "negro" is a proper term to call an African-American, we also don't use that for the same reasons. There are places where the term had been used frequently and we shouldn't wash that away, but when we have flexibility (such as discussing immigration policies of today) there is almost no reason to use that term unless part of a quote. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Who is "we"? Did you mean perjorative in your response above? I disagree with censorship and the use of political correctness. There's a big difference in being polite vs choosing words to make something seem like something it isn't. Atsme📞📧 02:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a fine, subtle difference between political correction and avoiding offensive terms; I'd say PC-ness is when a small minority disagree with the use of a term and thus try to push for a different phrase into the larger culture, whereas an offensive term is one that the majority of the population recognize it as such and avoid it. And to that definition avoiding "alien" is a step to avoid an offensive terms that most agree is offensive, rather than trying to be politically correct. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem arises when we have to determine exactly who is offended by the term? The illegal alien? Sorry, but "offended" is far too subjective and WP editors are supposed to be editing with accuracy in a dispassionate tone. Everything about political correctness is contrary to that policy. We don't have "safe rooms" here. Atsme📞📧 14:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Ooops, forgot to ping Masem after replying above. Atsme📞📧 14:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
We look to see whom considers the term broadly as an offensive term. In this case, I think it's fair to say that non-immigrants recognize "alien" as offensive (judging by the Style Guides above) so it's not catering to a small group. Also note that for dispassionate writing we should avoid offensive terms if there is language with equal meaning that is less offensive, and in this case, it's clear "immigrant" is a more neutral term for "alien", but otherwise with equal meaning. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per LABEL and any legal terminology needs to be identified as such. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, it is an accurate and legal term. Second, we don't need to banning indivi9dual terms and start listing. There are plenty of policies and guidelines on article content without starting to create word bans. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see why "illegal alien" would be viewed as a deprecated or insulting term considering the media has made such a marked change from it, and that alien is indeed somewhat "sinister-sounding". However I see a problem with the argument that "illegal" presumes a judgment any more than "undocumented". If a person hasn't been found undocumented in court, who is to say they are factually undocumented? When using any variation of these expressions in referring to persons you are assuming the terms actually apply. Either way the example Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is phrased is, by the very nature of applying any description, presuming that the persons discussed are as described, and any people who are not factually here illegally or without documentation are not included in who is being discussed. So for a different type of example, we probably shouldn't label a specific individual an undocumented immigrant if they weren't reported in a RS to have been found to be undocumented or illegal in court, since either way you phrase it is an allegation of having done something unlawful as in WP:BLPCRIME (even if a specific case is not handled criminally). So the distinction is moot for those purposes. Additionally I would say that "undocumented" sounds potentially confusing and like the government has merely failed to take note of an individual. It depends what the reader takes "undocumented" to mean - not having documentation (a green card say) vs. not being noted (in the census say). Since it is ambiguous (and probably euphemistic) how "undocumented" is being used and since "alien" does sound somewhat sinister (implying they are "other" or "strange"), I have to say my preference would be for "illegal immigrant" and not to use "illegal" as a noun, but I'm not convinced a universal guideline would take into account all circumstances the terms might be used in articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The people, themselves are "illegal"? Really? Where in the US Code does it state that these people are illegal? Even cocaine isn't illegal. You just can't act in a certain manner with respect to things that are illegal. Like being an alien within the US. There are certain actions that are prohibited, not a prohibition on their human existence. And alien, while a term of art and a legally defined term, is not a good word anyway because Area 51 and the Killer Tomatoes. We don't call our colleagues here "Illegal Editors" even when they're POV pushing and disruptive. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • There are actions that are perceived to be "illegal" as they go against the law, such as speeding. Most people still speed, because that "illegal" action only becomes a crime when police action becomes involved. In the same manner, there are immigrants to the US (or other countries) that have come here without going through immigration or other allowed routes of entry (eg refugees), making them "illegal". But until a specific one is caught and convict, we don't presume that guilt on any individual . So we can broadly talk about "illegal immigrants" without being disparaging. We can't call any specific person or group as such unless that's been proven out in a court of law or otherwise confirmed by the persons themselves. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Where in the US Code does it state that these people are illegal? 8 USC § 1365, 1324, and 1325 for starters. The ACLU and other activist groups do use the common euphemism "undocumented immigrant," however. And yes, cocaine is still very much illegal [35]. We shouldn't get in the habit of churching up language just because it sounds nicer and safer. If that's what we're going for, then Anthony Scaramucci needs some serious revisions, in regards to replacing certain obscenities with the "appropriate" anatomical terminology. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with Masem. If "illegal alien" is indeed a precise legal term, as some have suggested, then it may be applied in the precise legal meaning of that term, supported by a reliable source. For example, "John Doe was tried and found to be an illegal alien" (with a source). However, I do not believe the argument that because it is a specific legal term, that therefore justifies its usage across the board. The designation of "illegal" in "illegal alien" is a judgement of law that cannot be applied to groups of individuals whose legal status has not been settled by a court, particularly in Wikipedia's voice. Depending on the context, "undocumented immigrant" is perhaps a more descriptive term: it is an immigrant who lacks the proper documentation, but whose immigration status has not been determined under existing statutes. I would support considering "illegal alien" as a word-to-avoid, for this reason, but I would stop short of an outright ban. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As a legal alien who underwent thru much expense and enormous red tape across decades to so remain, it is crystal clear to me that there is a difference between a legal alien and an illegal alien. There should be no place in the Wikipedia for fashionable political correctness and virtue signaling. The laws of the U.S. call illegal aliens "illegal aliens" and it would be POV to use alternate words not in the laws. XavierItzm (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Sławomir, Masem, and others. I'm not a native speaker, I don't make any associations when I hear the term, so I was indifferent when I first saw this discussion open and curious to see what other editors - specially native speakers - would say. Given what has been brought up by Snooganssnoogans regarding how RSs use the term and the argument by Sławomir I would say the term shouldn't be the first option, being used only in a proper context such as quoting a legal decision or when the RSs used as reference use the term. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) is six feet long in smallish print because the language has such a long history and is based upon so many other languages. That makes English a pain to learn. But, it also provides us with so many ways of making a statement. Which is to say, there is always a polite method of expressing a thought. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As an encyclopedia, we cannot engage in Orwellian doublespeak-style censorship of any terms that do not fit a certain ideological narrative. David A (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP doesn't make blanket bans. That said, "illegal alien" is a charged term that should be used with care. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Support?) the question is improperly/confusingly formatted. Use of such a term should only be applied when it is appropriate, such as when quoting from an article. DN (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Term should only be used when necessary in direct attribution, not as a general descriptor when discussing immigration issues. High time for the Wikipedia to move beyond using racist, outmoded terminology. TheValeyard (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose should be determined on a case by case basis, although legitimate usage is likely to be rare. This is consistent with WP:LABEL, which discourages contentious or politically loaded terms but doesn't ban them outright. An outright global ban is not the way this is usually handled. I am not interested in editors' individual political views on the subject, pro or con. Geogene (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    • That's why I thought it should be a guideline not to use the term. That way we would avoid the term unless there was a good reason to use it. Similarly with "terrorist." We don't want to adopt an American-centric view that their allies are freedom-fighters and their enemies are terrorists, especially when allies can become enemies and enemies become allies. But it is hard to avoid the term when describing small groups whose only activity is carrying out terrorist attacks, rather than insurgents who occasionally or even frequently do so. TFD (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Have any words ever been banned "across" Wikipedia? If not, then in response to the OP, this is the wrong venue. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Partial support As per DN, the problem with the proposal in the OP is that we can’t ban it completely. Obviously we must use the term when quoting someone using the term. But, it has become a value-laden label. I think it should be added to WP:LABEL . Objective3000 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Bias re: Linda Sarsour

Hello, I am looking for some diverse opinions on this page. Based on my reading of the page, it seems very defensive. Here's what I said in the talk page: "I think this article needs some of its content from the section on controversy moved to a new section called criticism, with additional details. This person has been criticized by many notable public figures, including Sam Harris and Courtney Love. Additionally, the tone of the whole article seems very defensive, and it needs a review by a senior editor. On the talk page, too, at least two editors seem to have personal connections with this person who are refusing to consider or are outright twisting criticism by others."

My comment on the two editors was based purely on my reading of the talk page, where multiple people have raised similar issues. The article appears to be guarded to make sure no negative perception of its subject is formed (for instance, every time potentially damaging fact is mentioned, it instantly follows with an explanation, as if this was a newspaper).

When I raised my objection, one of the two editors I mention attacked me and threatened me with sanctions and sent me a notice. This seems like a misuse of their privilege, because I am clearly not interested in vandalism. I have made many substantial contributions to various wiki pages. So an input from another disinterested editor on the whole situation is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talkcontribs) 08:53, 25 July 2017) (UTC)

We do not generally have criticisms sections. Also I have to ask why Courtney Loves opinion of her is even worthy of inclusion. I dislike just random criticism by celebrities. Also we do have to put both sides of any dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The above editor has now repeatedly and falsely accused me of having a conflict of interest ("personal connections") without a single shred of evidence — this is clearly prohibited behavior, as they are casting aspersions on other editors without evidence. I'll be opening an Arbitration Enforcement request now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, Courtney Love is a very notable feminist, which is a theme that is relevant in this context. Sam Harris is a highly followed public intellectual who is known for his criticism of Islamic ideology, which is another theme relevant here. There is also Jake Tapper, who has also criticized her for her "ugly sentiments" : if all this seems irrelevant, then I wonder what would be consider relevant. I originally began to contribute to wikipedia because I thought it was a neutral place. This incident has really shaken my faith in this system and if no effective response appears from senior members, I will stop contributing altogether.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talkcontribs) 09:59, 25 July 2017) (UTC)

Is Ms love a notable feminist, or a celebrity who expresses feminist view points? Also what is it you want to add?Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
It would make it easier if we concentrated on one thing at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sharia law

No we cannot call her a sharia law advocate, we might be able to say "she has been called a sharia law advocate".Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Although I would like to note what does she have to do to be called sharia law advocate.Icantevennnnn (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

She has been called a Sharia Law advocate, so it should be mentioned in general, not just something on Ayaan has accused her of. The following references call her Sharia defender or pro-Sharia law-- [1][2][3]The article currently mentions Ayaan Harsi Ali calling her a "sharia defender" based on an NY times article but doesn't mention that very same reference which adds "As to the accusations that Sarsour is a defender of Sharia law, the fact-checking website Snopes looked into the claims last week and found that Sarsour has indeed posted messages on Twitter that seem to take a defensive stance about Sharia law. Snopes’ calls to Sarsour seeking clarification have not been returned." Icantevennnnn (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Note that Sarsour's page was created in 2016 and was pretty thin [36], before the Women's March. Not much more than local coverage (the NYTmes article is the local section) and the sole claim is that she chaired a non-bluelinked, local group. Article at that point might easily have been deleted. Sarsour sprang to notability as an "organizer" of the 2017 Women's March. Leaving aside the fact that the question of who merits being called an "organizer" of that march if a controversial question in its own right, this was her first moment of fame, and, as with all of her subsequent news cycle appearances, the coverage centered she was or was not in favor of shaaria and terrorism, and on whether she was or was not anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-LGBT, and anti-feminism. there was a lot of coverage [37], and do note (I was involved in editing the Women's march article last winter) that other members of the "organizing committee" that she was part of are not blue-linked. Controversy over her stand on thse issues pretty much constitutes her notability, generating articles that defend or accuse her on each of these issue (I may have missed an issue or two, there is, for example, some controversy within the Muslim community regarding her authenticity as a spokesperson for Islam or Muslim Americans.) Given this reality, I suggest not only that it is reasonable for the article to have sections on Views, where her articulate positions have garnered significant coverage, (much as we do with politicians,) but also that despite my general disparagement of "controversies" sections, when an individual is, in fact, notable primarily for repeatedly saying stuff on twitter and elsewhere that generates nationwide coverage it seems to be reasonable to cover them in a "controversy" section. ping me if you have a better proposal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: The article does actually have a "controversies" section, because you're right, in this case it's a relatively neutral way of covering the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who advocates for Palestinians will attract a lot of Islamophobic opposition. I think what is wrong with the article is that is does not explain where the criticism is coming from and where it is not. Note the ACLU says it stands with her. TFD (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


We need ore then one source, we have to establish this is a noteworthy controversy,and I do not think that just saying "throw rocks at cars" is important enough to include. I would rather then was rather more then name calling.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Israel National News calls her anti-Israel [4] She has also been accused, by a Democratic New York State Assemblyman, of saying that throwing rocks at cars in Israel is a good thing [5] This has also been said by a third party: "Sarsour once praised Arab stone-throwers in Judea and Samaria, calling their attacks 'The definition of courage'. She also expressed her disgust for Zionism, calling it 'creepy', and dismissed anti-Semitism, saying it doesn’t 'exactly compare' with Islamophobia."[6] More on this: "This April, Sarsour drew further criticism after she shared the stage with Rasmea Odeh, the terrorist bomber responsible for the murder of two Jews in a 1970 supermarket bombing. During the April 2nd event in Chicago with Odeh, Sarsour praised the terrorist, saying she was 'honored and privileged to be here in this space, and honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.'"[7] Courtney Love, in addition to an internationally known celebrity, has been called "a third wave feminist icon" in this book [8] and this book [9] So does it count when Ms Love says Ms Sarsour is "a vile disgrace to women" and "anti-American' and 'anti-Semite' and a 'fraud'. I leave it up to others to decide.

She has also expressed opinion that Zionism and feminism are incompatible. Sarsour said to The Nation, “It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, ‘Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?’ [10][11] This issue drew so much criticism that noted female actress Mayim Bialik of The Big Bang Theory show, who is Jewish, wrote a whole post about it.[12]Icantevennnnn (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it is best to discus individual issues on the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am moving different themes on their own separate headings. Icantevennnnn (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

On the general issue, we cannot have one sides articles. So just as we cannot put her views without criticism of them wee cannot have criticism without putting her version of the controversy. Thus if we just have people saying nasty things about her, to which she has not responded, it is not a controversy and so we cannot have it in the article as it violates a number of polices (such as BLP, undue and NPOV).12:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

I think I have said everything I wanted to say. I have also provided sources. So if this isn't satisfactory, I don't think what is. A few people have been very enthusiastic on this page when it comes to defending her against controversy, I will see if they do the same in this case. I have nothing more to add.Icantevennnnn (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Courtney Love's opinion should be excluded entirely, there's a big difference between "feminist icon" and being an expert, for an expert opinion. This simply isnt the way our WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies work, (see also WP:COATRACK - I think I saw that the above editor has made about 154 edits? I would suggest reading these policies in more detail, especially WP:RS Seraphim System (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^

Non-neutral editing on Tara McCarthy

Content dispute on a deleted article Tornado chaser (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tara McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blackzinnanthemum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Blackzinnanthemum has been engaged in a campaign of whitewashing and general lack of neutrality on the Tara McCarthy article. McCarthy is a white supremacist, and Blackzinnanthemum's edits have sought to legitimize her views and make them appear mainstream. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently BlackZ has decided to leave it alone. This discussion can be closed. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Black supremacy

Previous discussion here. The black supremacy page carefully avoids labelling it as a racist ideology while the white supremacy page is not shy about mentioning it. Here is where I added the racism template: diff. The subsequent edit shows it being removed, then re-added by me because I noted that the article was included in that template, and then removed again because the article had subsequently been removed from the template. Here are some basic facts:

  • The definition of white supremacy is "The ideology which holds that the white race is superior to all others."
  • The definition of black supremacy is "The ideology which holds that the black race is superior to all others."
  • The page itself is already "Part of a series on Discrimination'".
  • The definition of racism, according to Oxford Dictionary, is "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Here's some additional sources: The SPLC article linked on the black supremacy page has "racist" as the first word in the headline, WaPo which links to this study, Viceland, and Washington Examiner that links to a Gallup poll. I would like a third party to assess whether or not excluding "racist" and/or the "racism" template constitutes a violation of NPOV. And does consulting a dictionary really constitute WP:OR or does it count as an WP:RS? Thank you.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This is just stupid. More than two years ago I broke the false equivalency that held—without a single reliable source—that the opening sentences of Black supremacy and White supremacy had to be mirror images of one another. In truth, there are no reliable sources that anybody has found in two years that assert that black supremacy is racist. But like clockwork, every few months somebody gets his nose out of joint because Wikipedia doesn't say that black supremacy is racist. When I (or other editors) ask them to produce reliable sources, we always get the same song and dance routine: look at the dictionary, it's a textbook example, etc. I'm sorry, but it's not POV to correctly reflect what reliable sources say about a subject and refuse to engage in original research because it suits the whims of the Fox News crowd. Relevant discussion started more than two years ago and can be found at Talk:Black supremacy/Archive 4, Archive 5, and the current talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
You shouldn't cast aspersions (see WP:PA and WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL).Terrorist96 (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
And you shouldn't waste other editors' time, but you are, so here we are. Since it's so obvious that black supremacy is racist, where are the reliable sources? I would have thought you'd have found some by now. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
"Black Supremacy is a racist world view that considers black or colored people to be better than white people. (E.g. Black Hebrew Israelites, Nation of Islam, Yahweh Ben Yahweh)." and "black separatist groups have used a more racist and militant approach...Many black separatist "hate groups" are rooted in racism and anti-Semitism, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center's Heidi Beirich." Terrorist96 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I've never heard of "Apologetics Index", which may or may not be a reliable source, but with respect to your second source, I suggest you learn the difference between black supremacy and black separatism. Does the SPLC source even use the word supremacy or supremacist? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is their about page. And the separatists page also conveniently omits any mention of racist ideology.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, not this again - the issue has been discussed to death, just look at the talk page archives. What some editors think is "obvious" notwithstanding, there is a lack of RS which describe black supremacy as a racist concept/ideology. That's really all there is to say. The opposing argument is textbook OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am looking for neutral third parties and you admit to have been part of this dispute in the past. Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding another source: "In fact African American racism is a coherent ideology of black supremacy, promoted in Afrocentric courses and institutionally embodied in the Nation of Islam." (page 23)Terrorist96 (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

First, a book by Dinesh D'Souza is probably only a reliable source for his own views, not for facts. See WP:RSOPINION. Second, the subject of the sentence is "African American racism", not "black supremacy". In this instance, two strikes and you're out. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The SPLC article linked above clearly labels it as racism, and if we are to write Black supremacy or black supremacism is a racial supremacist belief that black people are superior to people of other races, then we are basically calling it racism and should call a spade a spade. If the SPLC is used as a source on Wikipedia for other groups, should be fine to use it here also. It's blatant POV push to wash it away. BBC also discusses SPLC's views[38], Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I wish people would read the archives. Every X months somebody insists we have to say the same as the white supremacy article, it's a false equivalence. Some of these orgs are very odd and sometimes pretty nasty in their beliefs. Most are extremely fringe, sometimes it isn't even clear that they are more than rhetorically supremacist. Visiting editors don't seem to care about any of that, as long as we use the same language for both white and black. Simply find the sources, not ones that say something 'a bit like that', because nobody has yet. Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I haven’t seen any RS which claim that black supremacy is, in and of itself, a racist ideology. The white supremacy article is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Wikidictionary is not an RS. As an aside, I would avoid using the expression “a spade is a spade” in a discussion involving blacks. Although the expression’s origin is not racial, the word spade has been used as an ethnic slur for 90 years. Just a suggestion. Objective3000 (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Black supremacy is obviously racist. If there is a lack of reliable sources, that just proves how racist the world is. However, we are not here to right great wrongs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The picture I'm getting of this topic is that, while we have one source that identifies an obviously racist ideology (the SPLC), we don't have independent secondary sources. Thus we cannot "Call a spade a spade", because no one has really bothered to do that. But this is precisely the domain of the general notability guideline that, in tandem with other policies like WP:PSTS, allows us to enforce this aspect of the neutral point of view: if there aren't independent sources about something, we shouldn't have an article about it. I would point out that WP:FRINGE is also clearly relevant here (far more than it would be for a more well-studied concept like white supremacy). I think that, if anyone wants to keep this article, it should be rewritten to include studies independent of those commissioned by the SPLC, preferably in reliable secondary sources. And no, not the writings of Dinesh D'Souza. Otherwise, I would not oppose deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
It actually was sent to AFD about a year ago. Result was "no consensus." Fyddlestix (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm an inclusionist, but I find racism repugnant. If Wikipedia rules prevents us from calling an obviously racist ideology racist, we are not obligated to have an article about it. If anyone wants to nominate the article for deletion, I'd support it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
There appeared to be general agreement in the previous AfD that the article at least required a major revamp. But, the article has seen little change in the year since. It appears to be mostly based on work by the SPLC. I have nothing against the SPLC; but don’t like seeing an article mostly based on one primary source. It may be that there simply aren’t other usable sources and that the article isn’t salvageable. I’d support an AfD. Objective3000 (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I would support redirecting it to black separatism as many people suggested in the previous AfD, since that topic has more coverage. Also note that the closure of the AfD said that if the article isn't revamped within a reasonable amount of time (it's been over a year), then another AfD would be appropriate. Since I initiated this NPOV discussion, I would like someone else to initiate the AfD in the interest of fairness or a perceived WP:POINTY agenda.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I would be against a redirect. As there is no mention of supremacy in the separatism article; a redirect would suggest equivalence. Objective3000 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Black separatists are black supremacists by definition. It's just been white-washed (lol) from the article. NBPP are black separatists, NBPP members also hold black-supremacist religious beliefs, Louis Farrakhan has become infamous for bringing a racist, black supremacist element to the black separatist ideology, etc.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
You cannot be as stupid as you sound. You just can't. By definition? What definition is that? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That is skirting the line of a racist statement, you're taking the extremist views of the the notoriously antisemitic NBPP and attempting to tar other black groups with them, guilt-by-association style. TheValeyard (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The SPLC article does not say black supremacism is racist. Although it is about black nationalists they call racist it does not say that they are all racist. TFD (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I suspect gaining consensus on a topic like this will be near impossible in a medium such as WP but still, we must try. In that vein, let's flip the question: (1) If black supremacy is NOT racist, then define it for us; (2) Aside from the obvious, what differentiates black supremacy from white supremacy? Also, we cannot just summarily state that "black supremacy" denotes de facto racism because it shares the word supremacy with "white supremacy". I understand the impulse to do this but regardless, we need to follow the policies re: good and solid sourcing from several respected entities. It may very well be that the term does not enjoy widespread use in current society and if not, then finding source material will be challenging to say the least. airuditious (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Perth agreement

Perth Agreement#Canada begins, "The Act of Settlement 1701, the Bill of Rights 1689, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, and the Royal Marriages Act 1772 are part of the laws of Canada." In the third paragraph it says, "The position taken by the federal Cabinet was that Canada has no royal succession laws, the country's monarch being automatically whoever is monarch of the United Kingdom."

I find beginning sentence misleading because the implication is that the parts of these acts governing succession are part of Canadian law, while the Canadian legal scholars have determined they are not. Since these laws governed other things it is possible that parts of them are in effect in Canada. For example one of the sources provided, a 1991 Supreme Court opinion, says that section 9 which provides for parliamentary privilege is. Hence one editor argues that the sentence is sourced.

By way of background, there was an argument about whether the succession laws have been incorporated into Canadian law and would have to be changed in Canada so that it had the same succession as the UK and other "Commonwealth realms" or whether whoever succeeded to the throne of the UK would become Canada's monarch. Legal opinion settled on the second position although some editors bitterly oppose the view.

TFD (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

TFD: it would, perhaps, be helpful to commenters, whether new or old to this controversy, if you could cite and link sources for and against the propositions in question (and any undecided). Qexigator (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
+ Such as at SOQUI website, supporting proposition that Within the legal context under discussion...succession to the office or position of monarch, or head of state, or "crown", in each one of today's realms, including UK and Canada, is subordinate to the theory and practise of the rule of automatic recognition [la regle de la reconnaissance automatique] per Bouchard JSC Quebec in Motard's case, para.47 quoting Professor Oliver's report, referring to the Preamble and section 9 of the 1867 Act to declare that the rule of automatic recognition applies: (quote) 104. The Queen or King of Canada is, according to the long-standing rule of automatic recognition, whoever is the Queen of King of the United Kingdom. The preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, refers to the desire of the Provinces of Canada to be "federally united under the Crown of the United Kingdom…with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom"(endquote): per Quebec SUPERIOR COURT, Motard c. Canada (Procureure générale), 2016 QCCS 588 (CanLII)[39] . One Summary by SOQUIJ ("We analyze, organize, enrich and disseminate law in Quebec and this added value enables us to support professionals in their search for solutions, as well as the general public in their understanding of the law. - In carrying out its mission, SOQUIJ fulfills the mandate entrusted to it by the National Assembly of Québec. SOQUIJ reports to the Minister of Justice of Quebec.") "I concur", full summary ends "Elle n'a pas donné force de loi à la loi britannique ni étendu son application au Canada, que ce soit directement ou par incorporation par renvoi. [It did not give effect to the British law or extended its application to Canada, either directly or by incorporation by reference.]"
  • Legislation cited

Constitution Act, 1982, The, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 — 2; 11; 15; 52(2) Cited by 38,203 documents Constitution Act, 1867, The, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3 — 9; 52; 96; 100; 133 Cited by 5,118 documents Official Languages Act, RSC 1985, c 31 (4th Supp) — 8; 13 Cited by 303 documents Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, SC 2013, c 6 Cited by 4 documents

  • Decisions cited

A.-G. Quebec v. Collier, 1985 CanLII 3056 (QC CA) Cited by 11 documents Campbell v. Hall, 98 ER 1045 (not available on CanLII) Cited by 11 documents Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, [2005] 1 SCR 667, 2005 SCC 30 (CanLII) Cited by 161 documents Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie‑Britannique v. British Columbia, [2013] 2 SCR 774, 2013 SCC 42 (CanLII) Cited by 32 documents Hudson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 SKCA 108 (CanLII) Cited by 5 documents Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke, [1969] 1 AC 645 (not available on CanLII) Cited by 8 documents Motard c. Canada (Procureur général), 2016 QCCS 588 (CanLII) Cited by 1 document New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), [1993] 1 SCR 319, 1993 CanLII 153 (SCC) Cited by 158 documents O'Donohue v. Canada, [2003] OJ No 2764 (QL) (not available on CanLII) Cited by 6 documents O'Donohue v. Canada, [2005] OJ No 965 (QL) (not available on CanLII) Cited by 7 documents Osborne v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1991] 2 SCR 69, 1991 CanLII 60 (SCC) Cited by 165 documents R. c. Investissements navimex inc., 1998 CanLII 12930 (QC CA) Cited by 6 documents R. v. Jebbett, 2003 BCCA 69 (CanLII) Cited by 9 documents R. v. Montague, 2010 ONCA 141 (CanLII) Cited by 10 documents R. v. Morris, [2006] 2 SCR 915, 2006 SCC 59 (CanLII) Cited by 38 documents Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 SCR 753, 1981 CanLII 25 (SCC) Cited by 114 documents Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC) Cited by 276 documents Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) Cited by 10 documents Ref re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I.; Ref re Independence and Impartiality of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I., [1997] 3 SCR 3, 1997 CanLII 317 (SCC) Cited by 381 documents Switzman v. Elbling and A.G. of Quebec, [1957] SCR 285, 1957 CanLII 2 (SCC) Cited by 164 documents Teskey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 612 (CanLII) Cited by 3 documents

Qexigator (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

History of Bob Jones University

History of Bob Jones University seems to be an article solely (or at least for 90%) focused on controversies surrounding this (admittedly contrversial) university, and very little on the remainder of the history (e.g. the opening of the Bob Jones University Museum & Gallery, which is how I came across this page). Multiple attempts by others at Talk:History of Bob Jones University (move and merge requests) have been rejected. The page should either be renamed or (almost completely) rewritten, and should at least be tagged with some appropriate warnings. Some more (and more experienced with this kind of stuff) eyes on this are welcome! Fram (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. There are already countless other WP pages that encompass the "History" of the University: Bob Jones U vs US Bob Jones, List of Bob Jones U People, BJU Press, Bob Jones U vs Simon Bob Jones, and Category: Bob Jones U. This page IMO shouldn't really be titled as such: "History"; as it clearly does not represent all that is going on with this place. It seems as though the motive / agenda was to create a page simply to represent the "controversial" aspects of the school into one single article (not its "History"). If it is the true and complete "History"; either it has been presented in a non-NPOV, or this place has some real troubles (which I can't believe) . I would vote to move to better represent what the article should be titled - easily done. Maineartists (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Does look rather like a POV fork. Merge all the "history pages".Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Linda Sarsour CUNY speech

There's a disagreement at Talk:Linda Sarsour § CUNY speech controversy over whether it's within the neutrality policy to state that: [40] members of the "alt-right" objected to the speech; [41] her defenders included "some Jewish groups"; and that [42][43] Sarsour has been criticized generally by "conservatives". Relevant sources include Time, Newsweek, and The New York Times. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Professor's commentary at the Incest article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Incest#Professor Steve Jones material and WP:Undue weight. A permalink for it is here. It concerns whether or not the inclusion of a professor's commentary in the "Islamic" subsection of the "Religious views" section of the Incest article is undue weight. Commenting here or at the article talk page is fine, but it's best to centralize the discussion -- keep the main discussion in one place. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Dissident Aggressor / The New Rolling Stone Album Guide

There is a dispute about a non-qualitative description of a song, Dissident Aggressor that I would like some additional opinions on. The statement is that the song is an "apocalyptic epic" which is how it is characterized in the The New Rolling Stone Album Guide and cited as such. An editor has repeatedly removed this description of the song from the lede as being "too POV." Is The New Rolling Stone Album Guide too POV for a non-qualitative description of the song? Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What? That's really non-qualitative? By the way, he didn't respond for a while after the last post in the discussion on the article's talk page, so I assumed he'd been convinced otherwise. Esszet (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, second-to-last. Esszet (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, the issue has been resolved. Esszet (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC labeling in lede

See Talk:Jared_Taylor#RfC_labeling_in_lede Atsme📞📧 12:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Standstill agreement (India)

There is a RfC on the issue of 'violations of the Standstill agreement by India and Hyderabad' on Talk:Standstill agreement (India). 2405:204:33A9:962F:2133:E96C:B796:88E9 (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Charles Buell Anderson and Endeavor Academy

Charles Buell Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Endeavor Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I post this here because I think two things should be considered:

  1. Do we need two articles? I'm especially wary of a stubby biography that basically accuses a person of being a cult leader.
  2. Can we reframe the wording in accordance with NPOV? I mean, accusations that a particular group or institution is a 'cult' should be made clear in the article, but there is no objective delineation of what makes one person's church another person's cult. Let's attribute that opinion per WP:ASF, if we could?

jps (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question

Water under the bridge. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This article is of dubious scholarship.

There has been growing evidence over the past 20 years on the subject. This article generally presents those views but twists the evidence to support a traditional view. In particular, linguistic analysis suggest many of the works had collaborators or different authors. The article ignores sources which conflict with its view and the editors stifle dissenting views. I would like the Wikipedia editors to solicit a wider range of views for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The mainstream view is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him. The various counter views are on the fringe, and Wikipedia needs to be clear about that per policy. We're always gonna get POV warriors wanting to expose The Truth™ via Wikipedia, but it ain't going to happen: we must reflect mainstream accepted scholarship. Not sure why there's a NPOV tag on the article, looks like a hostage tag. Alexbrn (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Alexbrn, the core issue is that WP:NPOV requires due weight to be given to different viewpoints. Since the consensus view of Shakespeare scholars is that he wrote the works, this should be clearly evident from the wording on Wikipedia. In particular, neutrality does not mean giving equal space and consideration to the consensus view and disagreeing fringe viewpoints. That would be a major violation of neutrality, in fact. The existence of the fringe viewpoints should be acknowledged and they should be clearly portrayed as fringe views, not serious views. --Dailycare (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Frankly the Shakespeare authorship question article gives more weight to the fringe views than the general scientific/research community does. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There are discretionary sanctions due to the exhaustive amount of discussion on this topic in the past. I agree that the IP editor's concerns are best ignored. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Harasment by User Sg Thomas, Reasons Unrelated to Article

Yesterday, the subject of an article , received threatening messages from a person (last name 'Thomas') on youtube, over the artists comments regarding political matters, which have no bearing on the subject of the article in question. The person, last name 'Thomas' wrote publicly on a youtube website (Democracy Now) at that time, "I found your Wiki page, unless you want it marked with a million citations needed by tomorrow, you will retract your insult to me."

Today as promised, were demands for citation on virtually every sentence of the article about the artists work, by user: Sg Thomas - same last name as the individual threatening to harass in this manner. Citations demanded by Sg Thomas included date of birth, repetitious demands where clear and well researched citations exist elsewhere in the paragraph or section, etc. Something like 30 frivolous demands, in this way. And when attempting to undo the changes by this individual, received messages in talk like 'I can do this all day', and now see attempts by this user to see the article removed.

The obtuse manner of the behavior, coupled with the exacting threat the day earlier, make it clearly an act of harassment and intimidation by this user, however professional they attempt to make their behavior appear in view of others who would inspect.

To be clear, one is not against adding citations where truly needed. And this article is well researched by several users over a period of years. The user is flagging the article for COI today, but at no point does it promote a product for sale, or point to an outside website or company. It is biographical, and full of reliable (journalistic) citations in each paragraph, and is used by journalists and students over years before this, without incident.

What can be done, in such a case where a user like Sg Thomas uses Wikipedia, and threats of seeing articles removed, as a form of harassment and intimidation over unrelated matters in this way? When attempting to file a complaint elsewhere on Wiki, we received the message 'Citations are not vandalism', but what we are reporting here, is harassment and intimidation, for reasons which are not truly legitimate.

Any help in combating this behavior would be greatly appreciated, and thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicEditor1234 (talkcontribs) 22:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The edits have been reverted, so this may not be a big deal. If the behavior continues, report it at WP:ANI. Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You can certainly monitor their activity as Blueboar alluded; however, separate from WP - you may also wish to contact YouTube and report the user there as well. They too have policies and regulations. But it seems this editor has an agenda, and enough evidence has already presented itself to support that claim. I second the recommendation in wasting no time in reporting if it continues. Best of Luck. PS I'm surprised you received the response: "citations are not vandalism" since the behavior is certainly disruptive editing in that capacity. Maineartists (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Museum of the Bible

I started a thread here but considering the low editor participation at that article I thought that posting about it here would be a good idea. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

For those interested: Talk Page [44] and Edit History [45]. Maineartists (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure weather to include the incidents, could be WP:UNDUE. If added back the incident list does need rewording per NPOV. This sentence "There has been little public outcry regarding the matter, even though the pieces actually “continue to be stored, preserved and studied at Cornell University..." sounds like an opinion that there should have been public outcry. The use of "questionable" here: "...have contained artifacts that were acquired with questionable practices and and thus had to be returned as well..." is, well, questionable. And "The reputations of the these institutions haven't been severely tarnished..." seems to imply that they should have been. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It indeed appears that the goal is to claim that the Museum of the Bible is victim of persecution. Thanks for your comment, —PaleoNeonate – 05:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Since the museum was alleged to have fake or looted pieces, an editor provided examples where the most reputable museums have also had fake or looted pieces. This is synthesis, because it takes sources that do not mention the Museum of the Bible in order to minimize the accusations against it. In order to present the information we would need a source that explicitly drew that conclusion. TFD (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Which label to use? An eternal problem.

Recently I've been getting into articles that involve controversial figures and organisations, and I've seen over and over again people inserting labels, fighting over labels, etc. Theres a request for change about the NPOV policy at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Labeling_people_correctly, several recent discussion on this noticeboard, and numerous edit wars over many articles.

The pattern repeats over and over: journalists settle on a "spicy" label for Bob Smith; editor A inserts the spicy label when referring to Bob Smith; editor B notices this and an edit war ensues. Editor A says "Hey man I'm just using the label from RSes, and no you're not allowed to use any other label.". Editor B says "Okay whatever let's just not put a label then please.". Editor A says "No you can't take the spicy label out just because you don't like it, that would be original research.". Tempers rise because editor B believes editor A is just inserting the spicy label in order to make Bob Smith look bad, and that the RSes are biased. Editor A thinks editor B is a Smith-ist sympathiser trying to cover for Bob Smith.

  • If Bob Smith is reliably and widely reported to be a convicted criminal, when is it appropriate to refer to him as "convicted criminal Bob Smith". I don't like him very much, can I go all over wikipedia and put 'convicted criminal' next to his wikilink every time he is mentioned? What about when all the news stories say "alleged rapist"?
  • When journalists as a whole decide to condemn Bob Smith, there is little to stop them from using sensationalising labels. And in fact a good news editor will encourage this sort of language. Is it encyclopedic to simply repeat these labels, or does that bias the encyclopedia towards sensationalist and condemnative language?
  • The most inflaming cases appear when the label describes an ideology or belief that Bob Smith denies. Obviously nobody, not even the journalist, is qualified to read their mind. This gets even worse when the label is vague or evolving in meaning (e.g., alt-right), since the journo may not even intend all the consequences of the label as stated on the label's article. Moreover, beliefs change.

It appears the WP:INTEXT provision of WP:LABEL was intended to partly solve this problem but it apparently isn't working very well, as these edit wars go on and on for far longer than necessary. In-text attribution is awkward and gets rarely used, especially not in article leads. I'm not here to make the usual complaint of 'left wing bias' or whatever ... I'm just here to ask: Can someone already write a policy or essay that clarifies what editors should do in this kind of situation? At the very least just to put an end to all the tiring edit wars...

Cheers.--Nanite (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

As you mentioned there is already WP:LABEL, but the attribution part is mostly ignored by editors. The problem with that RfC is that it is an ultimatum - if the subject denies the label, it cannot be used. It seems to make an exception for terrorists, which only denounces the problem with the proposal; opposing editors mention the rejection of other labels as an issue, as such labels may have a negative connotation and the people that are labeled with them may refuse them merely to not look bad, even if they were rightly labeled so and no one besides them questions the label. In that case not labeling them just because they refuse the label would be wrong. Their refusal should however be noted, right after the first labeling. When journalists as a whole decide to condemn Bob Smith ... Is it encyclopedic to simply repeat these labels Is Wikipedia a sock puppet of these journalists? If so, then yes, blindly repeat the labels. If not, then no, the labels should at the very least be attributed. But then again I guess most wikipedians are Editor A and don't really care. Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I don't like that RfC either and I oppose it. But something needs to be done either to shut up the editor A's or the editor B's in a firm manner. I'm at the point of "I don't care, just pick one.". --Nanite (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
There are three separate issues. When a label should be used, how to present that label (eg attribution), and, in the label is determined to be appropriate, when to use that label. More often than not, the latest issues arise because some editors want to stuff labels into the opening sentence of an article, even if it is one that is deemed appropriate to include somewhere, as that sets a non-partial tone for an article as well. There's a lot of questions that all need to be answered at the same time, and more often than not, only the first of these is of focus. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
As an example of why all three are important, here is Variety's obit for Jerry Lewis, which in its fourth paragraph (effectively its lede) it slams his political views, and thus immediately sets a tone for the entire article. We have to be a lot better when it comes to labels and criticism towards persons to make sure it is handled appropriately. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts are: All labels should be reliably sourced. Any label that is both subjective and could be deemed to be controversial should be properly attributed and should not be given equal status to objective labels or to non-controversial subjective labels. For a BLP, if the subject is shown through sources to have disagreed with a subjective label, then that label should be deemed controversial. Anything with "alleged" / "accused" / "claimed" etc., next to it as qualifiers is controversial. A subjective label, controversial or not, should never be worded as if it is an incontrovertible fact - it should be made clear it is an opinion expressed in some rs sources. Subjective labels, controversial or not, should not appear in the first sentence of a BLP lead. Subjective labels would be things like political labels going beyond party allegiances, sociological labels, societal labels, labels used by select groups or holders of select ideologies, labels used by the subject as a self-description, insults, labels related to intelligence, labels implying biases, etc. Objective labels would be things like citizenship or age or profession or career qualifications or membership of political bodies or - unless exceptional reasons occur - criminal convictions if convicted in a court of law in a democratic country, etc. Labels should not be stand-alone content - a label has to be justified by the article having content related to that label - so for example, if there is nothing to do with religion in a person's article, that person should not be labeled Christian or Muslim or Jewish. Ideally, editors would be forbidden from stating "xxx is yyy" in the first sentence of a lead if label yyy is subjective, and editors would be forbidden from creating content that states, without qualifying wording such as attribution, that "xxx is yyy" if label yyy is both subjective and controversial. Attribution qualifying wording would require more than just giving a ref after the label. I think none of this means excluding sourced content, it is just giving content appropriate weight. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nanite, I agree that journalists frequently use "spicy" labels for people. A great example was Barry Goldwater, who was frequently described as "far right." In those cases you can look for articles - particularly in scholarly sources - that discuss what description is best. TFD (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Steve Bannon

Should this article have an image of a protestor's placard calling Bannon a racist? NPalgan2 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Emir of Wikipedia TheValeyard belatedly pinging other editors, sorry

The article is under discretionary sanctions and requires consensus for re-adding anything that has been challenged. Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. Since it appears to have been challenged, it should not have been reinstated within the article without consensus.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Accusations that Bannon is a racist or white nationalist accurately reflect the sentiments of many anti-Bannon protestors (notwithstanding the merit of the accusations) so I don't see an NPOV problem there.
But if the talk page comment is accurate ("the status quo on wikipedia is that political figures' biographies do not feature images of hostile protest placards"), treating Bannon differently would be an NPOV problem. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
But how has the status quote emerged? Was it ever formally decided on or has it just emerged as those figures had less hostile protest? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@TheValeyard: You might have not gotten pinged as I didn't. Luckily I saw this on my watchlist. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, the Tea Party protests led to the historic Republican wave election of 2010 after the passage of Obamacare. So should we add this to Obama's article (an accurate reflection of the sentiment of many anti-Obama protestors): The burden is on the editors who added this highly unusual photo to the article to justify inclusion. It seems to me that anti-Bannon signs were just one theme amongst many at the women's march, for example. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The connections of Steve Bannon to white nationalist causes is a widely-held point of view, supported by countless reliable sources, as Mr. Lambden admirably notes above. The connections of Hillary and/or Bill Clinton to various conspiracies, schemes, and criminal elements has long been a product of fringe media. Just now I even found we have an article on it...though I thought the title would be "Clinton derangement syndrome", that search instead brought me to Clinton crazies. The two are not comparable. TheValeyard (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, note the Obamacare sign I posted above; Obama's "like your healthcare plan, you can keep it" statement was politifact's lie of the year. Similarly, the criticism of the Clintons' that their lucrative speaking fees were problematic was very widespread criticism. But we don't have a protestor waving a "Hillary=Corrupt" sign on her page. Finally,@TheValeyard: has been very frank - many people say Bannon us a white nationalist, so we should have a picture of a protestor with a sign saying he is a white nationalist on his wikipedia page. Note that the Steve Bannon article does not call him a white nationalist in wikipedia's voice, instead saying ' He rejects allegations that he is a white nationalist,[139] calling white nationalists "losers", a "fringe element", and a "collection of clowns".' NPalgan2 (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Using a free image of a protester criticizing Bannon, in conjunction with text that identifies Bannon's views as controversial and seen as racist/etc. even if Bannon disagrees, seems reasonable, as long as it otherwise does not affect the tone of the article. That is, I would expect that in the body (past the lede), we would cover Bannon's career without mentioning or going into depth about his controversial views, and then go into criticism towards him, at which point that image would be fine. It would not be fine as the free image near the top of the body of the article (after the lede), since it does affect how one would read the rest of the article. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Masem here; including the photo in context of critical views is fine, but it certainly shouldn't be the lead photo or used in conjunction with general biographical sections. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Also agree... looking at the current sate of the article, I would suggest moving the image to the section on "Political views" (which is really more a summary of the criticism of his views). Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The image is fine if properly placed and if it accurately reflects a widely-held POV as TheValeyard suggests it does. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone who has supported inclusion of the protestor's placard like to take a stab at a general rule for the inclusion of these sort of images in biographies of political figures (not to mention editorial cartoons, hostile attack ads, etc)? Generally these are not included in encyclopedia articles in usual circumstances. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

One reason things like attack ads and political cartoons aren't included is that they aren't free media. However, it would be difficult to write any other type of guideline, the only key factor is if the individual has been the center of attention of such public outcries to demand that much attention to the individual. Bannon clearly passes that line due to how much controversy his career has generated. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I would support inclusion of the image next to a paragraph about that protest. This does not appear to be the situation here. --Nanite (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the image is fine. Bannon has perhaps more than any other person in U.S. politics made divisive statements and attracted controversy and condemnation in mainstream sources. It's not the same as Obama and Clinton who since not everything they did during their public careers was controversial. Every news item that mentions Bannon mentions his controversial nature. TFD (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, one wonders what the point of such an image is--what does it enlighten? That someone thinks he's a racist? The text of the article should make those things clear, in more balanced terms than one single photo. The only good reason (besides "it's nice to have a photo in that large chunk of text") I can come up with is that it sort of balances the more positive images below, of him all famous and stuff. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I really still think that, although Bannon is a controversial figure, to have 1 out of 6 photos being a BANNON RACIST sign is undue. None of the many dozens of photos on the Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama articles are of protests against them. One single one on the George W. Bush article is of a protest, out of dozens. If the new standard is "if there's controversy mentioned in the article body, we can have a photo of a protest sign accusing the article subject", then what's to prevent one single editor from going on lots of demos against political figures they don't like and uploading the photos they take, thus significantly skewing the content? Photos are most eyecatching part of an article. Skimreaders remember the photos even when they forget the text. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

How many large scale protests were there specifically those three? And arguably for either Bill Clinton or Obama, if there were protests over their Presidency, I would probably expect to see that on something like Political positions of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Since Bannon's never run for office, there's not going to be those separate articles. Additionally, given how much public dislike of him (and documentation to that effect), in contrast with the three above, it seems completely reasonable. (And further in contrast, how many rallies have their been in support of Bannon compared to these three?) Key is that such a photo, since it is going to draw the eye, needs to be in the criticism section which needs to be one of the last parts of the article per tone as described above. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
How many protests have there been *specifically* targeting Bannon? There was a protest targeting him in LA, covered by CBS, the Indpenedent and the Hollywood Reporter There was a "Protest Trump Advisers and White Supremacy at Harvard” covered by the Boston Globe, and that seems to be pretty much it. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


See Talk:Jesus#Failed verification. The content requires a source to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a statement that atheists deny the devinity of Jesus requires a citation... given that atheism is (by definition) the denial of any divinity.
That said... it has been suggested on the talk page that the statement really does not belong in the section where it is placed. I agree... and I would resolve the dispute by simply omitting the statement entirely. (No need to source something you don't say). Blueboar (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:QuackGuru and Judeo-Christian related articles. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:39, 21 August 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