Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From PsiForum
< Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Revision as of 23:37, 9 December 2021 by Tachyony (talk | contribs) (Imported page)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes:
Click here to start a new discussion
Search this noticeboard & archives

no archives yet (create)

Homelessness in the United States

Per reliable sources guidelines, articles on Wikipedia should be based onreliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views are included. A lot of contents are directly based on self-publications by homelessness related professional corporations and primary source government publications. Just to name a few:

I believe we should at least be bouncing things off of secondary sources in choosing what is included for due weight consideration. Writing based on sources like above seems to be too primary source based and possibly original research. Something unique about this subject matter is the unusual number of institutes, foundations, policy centers, coalitions and other think tanks and advocacy groups and writing directly from these sources would bring in bias in favor of the homelessness service industry in my opinion. Can we discuss on suitability of significant dependence on sources of these type on this subject matter? Graywalls (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The Urban Institute is not a primary source; it's a think tank which provides secondary sources. Similarly, a federal agency's publication of an overview of a policy topic is certainly not a primary source. If you find *better* sources, sure, you can include them. But money focused on this topic will largely come from either (1) the government, in some form, or (2) charitable philanthropy, as is the case for many fields, except that many areas of study also are driven largely by (3), business profits. "Homelessness services industry" sounds like an exaggeration (one loaded with POV) given that homeless shelters are not investor-driven and largely driven by local charities. It's more important that an article on homelessness describes the literature on homelessness than that it suppresses the philanthropic research to drive some sort of personal point of view that homelessness is not a problem or that its existence is somehow exaggerated by an "industry". I think the sort of conspiracy to promote homelessness which you present is a minority perspective and you're welcome to try to document it but it shouldn't receive the dominant weight.
I'm not saying all think tank articles or government overview publications are reliable sources (I am saying they are not **primary** sources); specific publications can be discussed at WP:RS/N. CC: @Ruthgrace and Pathawi: II | (t - c) 07:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720 and Possibly: as they have participated on articles on this subject matter that I've also edited on in the past. Reliable vs due weight are completely different matters though. However, you're right not everything I mentioned are primary. The decision to include, thus making the determination that it is inclusion worthy to build contents based on government and court rulings certainly fall under NPOV when these have not been discussed as matters of importance in reliable sources that are not advocacy groups. If the page was on soup, writing favorably on plastic containers and disadvantages of metal containers and citing a bunch of plastic industry related publications and plastic related institutes would be NPOV issue as it would be overrepresentation of one industry. If New York Times mentions a report they've done, then adding that report as an add-on source would be reasonable, but not to go build contents based on those contents in far greater depth than discussed in the NYT article. Extensively citing think tank and advocacy groups far beyond the interest expressed in them by mainstream media would be similar issues. Graywalls (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I haven't done a check, but I imagine that there is a significant amount of academic literature on this topic from secondary sources. Per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources. If editors want to improve upon this article, I encourage them to first go to WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or search academic databases that are provided by their local library systems. Peer-reviewed high-quality sources should be exhausted before lower-quality secondary sources and primary sources are used. Z1720 (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I've been tagged: I used to work (a while ago) at a homeless people's organisation, and for some time I ran a shelter for homeless youth. I think I created two pages on this topic perhaps fifteen years ago (I haven't checked)—long before the current COI policy—but I don't think I've edited content pages on the topic of homelessness in over a decade precisely because I don't think I can be neutral on the issue. I still watch the pages, but I don't edit them, & I try to stay out of the debates except when I think there's bullying going on. So I think I'm going to limit my participation here to one comment, & then I'm out: The notion of a united "homeless services industry" with one unified perspective is fringe POV nonsense, & that fringe point of view has clearly driven the suppression of sources for homelessness-related pages in an effort which, contra WP:RS, attempts to remove a 'significant minority view' on a topic.
It seems to me that from a practical standpoint this should be a non-issue. For example:
  • There are plenty of critiques of HUD's numbers on homelessness (I've written & published several), but if you exclude HUD data as non-neutral because it's a government agency, there is no possibility of providing any sort of estimate of the number of homeless people in the United States. No one else is counting. If you kick HUD documents out because HUD's a primary source, you've misunderstood the role of primary sources in Wikipedia (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). Homelessness in the United States is clearly a topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopædia, & it seems obvious that this sort of statistic is the kind of information to which readers should have access. Ideally, the Statistics and demographics section would look something like: 'HUD says there were n people homeless on a given night in 2020. [source] Some researchers and advocates have disputed HUD's count methods, claiming A, B, & C. [sources].' But even just the first sentence would be preferable to silence. It is misguided to think that it would be preferable to seek a secondary source that just repeats the US government's statistic because it's (allegedly) more neutral than that government. Compare what we do with censuses: We don't eschew census data on populations because they come from government sources, & we don't rely on secondary sources to repeat what census bureaux have published.
  • The USICH is similarly a government body. It's perhaps a better candidate as a reliable source than HUD because of its composition: 'In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.' (WP:RSCONTEXT) But on that topic of context: The document in question is a policy statement: How should we end "chronic" homelessness, & what progress has the government made in that regard? The document is manifestly political in that it's a statement about a particular presidential administration's budget. It seems to me that such a document is a perfectly reliable primary source for what government policy is at a given point of time (again, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), but not a reliable statement of what the world is like. For that, a secondary source would be more reliable. Check out WP:BIASED.
  • It's not at all clear to me why the Urban Institute would be considered a primary source different from a research institute on a university campus. Its papers don't meet the gold standard of being peer-reviewed, but peer review in a mainstream journal is one end of a spectrum of reliability: not the sine qua non. For the particular paper in question, three government agencies & a gaggle of academics worked out a method for surveying homeless service providers & homeless clients of those services. The paper provides the survey instruments & details the method. That's better than most of what gets published in psychology journals. If you take a glance at the citing papers on Google Scholar, you'll see that it's been cited fairly extensively as a reliable source by peer-reviewed papers. (Several hundred citations. I've only gone thru a few, selected at random. All of them cited the survey's data directly, sans caveat.)
In the first case, I don't see that there's any reason to prefer a secondary source, as the secondary source would simply repeat the primary source's numbers. It would be beneficial to have citation of critics of the methodology, ideally from secondary sources. In the second, I think you've got a paper that is clearly reliable as a statement of policy (which is significant in itself), but that as a description of what homelessness or chronic homelessness is like, you'd want a secondary source. In the third, if you could choose between this paper & a similar paper that were published in a peer-reviewed journal, the latter would be preferable. But you can't: The latter doesn't exist. The fact that an imaginary source could be better doesn't mean that this one is trash. There is a modicum of nuance required in dealing with these kinds of sources, but it's not a nuance that is difficult to manage if one isn't guided by trying to advance or silence a particular viewpoint.
In relation to the general principle: These articles (like most!) would certainly be improved by an increased reliance on academic scholarship. But that means bringing in new sources by doing real research: Not trying to remove information in a campaign to suppress a supposed bias that is arguably not even expressed by these sources. (Was Ben Carson's HUD under President Donald Trump biased in favor of the "homeless services industry"? Did any homeless services think they were beneficiaries of such a bias?) I probably don't (I hope I don't!) have any more to say than this. Pathawi (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
For one reason or another, these homeless topics appear to have unusual concentration of sourcing from various advocacy groups as well as government sources. With sources like USICH, it isn't so much about reliability. Sourcing from various homelessness advocacy groups would be like writing contents into pages about meat from PETA. There are a lot of government publications, proceedings as well as case laws. When those things however have not been picked up in the general audience media, the editorial discretion to include contents based on these primary sources would be issues of biased/undue. Graywalls (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
That is just restating your original complaint which has already been addressed (in detail) by Pathawi. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Graywalls:, the argument you are making, as I get it, concerns RS, not POV. A sound NPOV argument would be: "Article says P but most Rel Sources say Q". Cinadon36 18:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

There might be some overlap, but it primarily concerns NPOV and inclusion worthiness WP:DUE weight. In the lead it says "Homelessness in the United States refers to the issue of homelessness, a condition wherein people lack "a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence" as defined by The McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act." But whether this definition is the prevailing definition or not should have a source other than advocacy groups or government documents. A quick Google search comes up as "A coalition is a group of like-minded organizations or individuals who unite to create policy change." So a coalition against carbon emissions may have the correct factual info on something, but including a statement about vehicle emissions and their negative impact citing that coalition would not undue and possibly POV advocacy. Graywalls (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Graywalls: I get what you are saying. Usually, these kind of sources are creating more trouble than good. But, you need to have a source saying otherwise, in order to prove there is a NPOV issue. Until then, all we can have is a reasonable suspicion. Cinadon36 06:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I've got no problem with the idea that there might be a better lead sentence description for 'homelessness in the United States' than a legal definition from a Federal act. I should note, by the way, that there's no open dispute about this: Graywalls hasn't proposed a change in that lead ¶, or made an edit that someone else reverted. I actually don't think that there's a reasonable suspicion that there's an NPOV issue: People in the United States tend to think of homelessness as a policy issue, so it's not surprising to me that a US editor would read that definition in the primary Federal funding law for homeless services & think that it would do the trick. Homeless service providers generally hate the McKinney-Vento Act for a number of reasons. So if this is POV editing or advocacy, whose POV? Advocacy for whom? The sentence was added on 10 September 2016 by Jumplike23, who made a great many edits to the page on that date; I can't see any indication that there was a motive of advocacy of any kind, or what cause Jumplike23 would have been advocating. If you think they were editing to advocate a POV, you should probably ping them so that they can participate in the conversation. To me it just looks like a good-faith edit. (Actually, reviewing their edits, this person seems like a really good editor: Lots of clean-up, but also a lot of contributions from reading of reliable sources.) So, contra Cinadon36, I don't think that there is a reasonable suspicion here. & again—as I said at the beginning—neither is there a conflict.

(By the way, I'm also unclear on what coalitions have to do with the McKinney-Vento Act definition: The Federal government is not usually described as a coalition, nor is the Republican Party [Stewart McKinney's party]; the GOP & the Minnesota DFL Party [Bruce Vento's] certainly haven't tended to act as any kind of standing coalition. I don't know in what sense the individual Jumplike23 might be considered a coalition—not the kind of ontological question one generally has to consider while editing Wikipedia.)

Like many primary sources, the McKinney-Vento Act may be reliable for certain purposes; it might not be a good source for a definition of US homelessness for the lead sentence because it is a statement of policy. What you ought to do here is go find some good, reliable, scholarly source on homelessness in the United States, identify a good description therein, & pitch that as the description for the lead sentence. You'd probably find, however, that social scientists are inclined to use a much more expansive definition of homelessness than is the Federal government. For example, I just looked up 'homelessness' tout court in Google Scholar. The first article was from the Canadian Medical Association Journal, so I ignored it (not homelessness in the US), but the second was from a 2010 article entitled 'The New Homelessness Revisited' from the Annual Review of Sociology. (Annual Review articles are nice, 'cause they give you such a useful overview of what's going on in a field of scholarly research.) There's a five-paragraph section on definitions, most of which emphasises aspects of homelessness that would go well beyond the McKinney-Vento Act definition. In fact—& I didn't go looking for this—much of the section focuses on ways in which the Act's definition doesn't go far enough. (If you want to look this up, it's written by Barrett A. Lee, Kimberly A. Tyler, and James D. Wright. It appears in volume 36, pages 501–521.) I went thru all of the top ten Google Scholar hits for 'homelessness': Four of them dealt with Canada or the UK specifically; several had significant sections on how to go about defining homelessness. In fact, after this search, I think that there could be an interesting conversation on the Talk page of either Homelessness or Homelessness in the United States about how to give the breadth of these definitions their due in the lead ¶ & in a definitions section—tho I wouldn't participate, the idea kind of excites me: This is the sort of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia fun! But such a discussion could only be carried out by editors operating in good faith who were committed to adequate representation of the range of significant points of view.

To the principle issue: The government source is not inherently a non-NPOV source, nor is it inherently & without qualification an unreliable source, nor is there any reason at all to think that it was introduced with the intention of advocacy. Primary sources have appropriate & inappropriate uses in Wikipedia. Their presence on a page is not, in itself, a problem. Rather than removing them indiscriminately, the productive route is to recognise that they're useful for what they're useful for, & to seek reliable secondary sources to build the article up. Pathawi (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, it's not my intention to say that that specific Annual Review of Sociology article is the article that one should go to for characterising homelessness in general or homelessness in the United States: It's just the handiest, top-of-the-list, Googling example for my point. If one wanted to reword that introductory ¶ from secondary sources, they should draw on more than just that one article (& of course the set of reliable secondary sources that they drew on would not even necessarily have to include that article). Pathawi (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The question blurs the distinction between reliability and neutrality. Per neutrality, articles must provide due weight to different opinions on homelessness. That does not mean that the sources used for facts need to be vetted for the opinions of their authors. Pat Moynihan's admonition is worth repeating: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts." Saying a source is reliable means that we have confidence in its factual accuracy regardless of the opinions of its authors. What may confuse matters is that some biased sources fabricate information. But that is a matter for RSN, not NPOVN. TFD (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, if you were to place "In California USA, it shall be a misdemeanor for any owner or manager of an elephant to engage in abusive behavior towards the elephant, which behavior shall include the discipline of the elephant by any of the following methods: (a) Deprivation of food, water, or rest. (b) Use of electricity." into elephant, or California and cite https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=596.5 I don't see a reliability issue. However, if the inclusion is based on the penal code, or animal rights advocacy group, then while there is little doubt about the accuracy, but I would say the editorial discretion to include it into an article is undue. The decision to include such thing would potentially be a neutrality issue. If a balanced mainstream source brings this matter up, then I believe that creates a cause of inclusion worthiness. In this case, including the link to advocacy group, and the penal code discussed in the news article alongside would be reasonable. Graywalls (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for comments on criticism and controversies section

Transluded from SpaceX Starship's talk page:

Should the criticism and controversies section be integrated to the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Why not just write it as prose in the body?Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
There are times when a reader might want to - for whatever reason - know specifically about the criticisms and controversies about a subject, and might not wish to read the entire article to find that info buried throughout the text. I find it useful to have stuff like that separate; some think it violates neutrality, but readers should not be forced to read either accolades or criticism if they don't want to. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6033:FF4F:6CE5:7BA8 (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure this is a valid reason, we are not many things and one of those is a gutter press scandal rag.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Who said anything admit gutter press scandal rag? We shouldn't be including gutter press scandal content in articles at all. Having criticism separated into a section, that would otherwise be in the article but within the rest of the article text, doesn't turn us into a tabloid - it's all the exact same content, just organised differently. Also, to clarify, I was only talking about scholarly criticism on academic subjects...I would agree that for most BLPs having a section tempting drive by muckrakers to fill up with trashy scandalous gossip would not be wise. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6033:FF4F:6CE5:7BA8 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This essay might be useful: Wikipedia:Criticism Cinadon36 16:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, how do we get a feeling of how well vetted a particular essay is? Anyone can create an essay and it's not a guideline, although I know some policies and guidelines make references to essays. Graywalls (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal lead content

There is a discussion related to the neutrality of the Wall Street Journal lead. Please see the discussion here Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal#Should_editorial_opinions_be_posted_in_the_lede_summary. Springee (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

To sum up what I have been stating: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today and other major newspapers all have no mention of their supposed editorial opinions in the lead, meaning the specific targeting of the WSJ is not a NPOV. Additionally, the only sources in the article[1][2][3][4][5][6] are referring to individual guest columnists and not the editorial board, meaning the claims in the lead are quite literally false by stating that the editorial board "promoted" these things. Other than the book, only a single source[7] states anything about this, and it is referring to 30 year old editorials on acid rain and ozone, even though the source states that the editorial board has changed its opinion on the matter, and this web article was a decade ago, so no coverage of this has occurred since. Regardless, even the acid rain and ozone topics are never mentioned in another reliable source, meaning this is clearly completely UNDUE for the lead if it is never covered outside of two sources. If we were to include two sources to cover every supposed "controversy" with every newspaper, the leads of the article would be filled with random nonsense. Bill Williams 16:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I have repeatedly asked editors to provide multiple other reliable sources to prove that this is somehow a major controversy worthy of the lead of the article, but nobody has provided anything, only claiming that it is major enough for the lead without any actual sources to prove that this is well covered. Bill Williams 16:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  Comment: There is not a standard format for writing articles on Newspapers. Lead content depends on what is mentioned at the main body. Hence, the argument: "other major newspapers all have no mention of their supposed editorial opinions in the lead, meaning the specific targeting of the WSJ is not a NPOV" is invalid. Cinadon36 17:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I know, which means that there must be a specific reason as to why the WSJ is different from every other major newspaper article. Nobody has provided a single reason or a single source to back this up. My main point is that a few random opinion articles published in the Wall Street Journal is falsely stated to be "the editorial board has promoted."
Also, nothing about "health dangers of passive smoking, pesticides, and asbestos" is "mentioned at the main body" so I have no idea how this warrants inclusion in the lead. Bill Williams 17:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bill Williams: If there is a section or a subsection at the main body of the article on these topics, it should be mentioned in the lead. Arguments involving WP articles of other media are fallacious. Also, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". I do not see an infringement of NPOV policy. Cinadon36 17:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
It is not a neutral point of view, i.e. "representing fairly, proportionately," to put this in the lead when it is seldom mentioned in reliable sources. Again, it is not even mentioned in the body concerning second hand smoke, asbestos, and pesticides, so how does it warrant inclusion in the lead. If this is not a violating of NPOV, then adding "The New York Times editorial board has promoted abolishing or defunding the police" simply because they have published random opinion articles with those opinions, even though the editorial board itself never had them. Bill Williams 17:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
If you feel NYT is wrong, why wont you discuss it at the Talk page of the related article? It warrant inclussion in the lead since there is a subchapter dedicated to the issue at the main body of the article. Cinadon36 07:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
There are 23 subsections in the article below the five main sections, and only one, the part insulting WSJ reliability based on what random opinion editors published decades ago, is the only one of those 23 subsections described in detail in the lead, because to describe any others would make the lead far too long. There is no reason as to why random opinion editors' scientific coverage decades ago is more notable than the 22 other subsections, making it completely violate NPOV to shove that in the lead. Bill Williams 20:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The solution would be to also add other important points/subsection at the lede. The specific issue is important, well covered, there are academic articles on this specific topic.Cinadon36 20:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
It would probably be better to tone down the climate change material from the lead and increase (within reason) other lead content. However, if the lead is going to be on the shorter side then the climate content should be removed to preserve WEIGHT. Springee (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I'm saying, if this article had a six paragraph lead like Donald Trump, multiple of which went into extensive detail, I would understand having at least the climate change section. But that is not the case, and the lead only include basic information on the WSJ, such as it focusing on business and finance, winning Pulitzer prizes (which is mentioned in the lead of every other newspaper that has), its founding and readership, and the different languages and locations it exists in. What it had to say about climate change a decade ago and before does not outweigh any of that in the slightest. Bill Williams 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to plug my edit here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wall_Street_Journal&action=history> because I think the debate here misses the point. It was a really bad sentence for a lead, because it was a list that was basically repeated in the body of the article. It was more of a restatement than a summary (per WP:LEAD, a lead should SUMMARIZE). I don't even like having that sentence about the editorial stuff in the lead, but it concerns me far less when it's actually a summary rather than a list, or a restatement. My edit was reverted by someone on unknown grounds, and I didn't even change any of the stuff being debated here, I just made it more of a summary than it had been. We're here to write a good encyclopedia, and some more objective things, like my edit, should be allowed to happen, even while debates like this (which are also part of the process) happen. Some of us want whatever the hell is communicated here to be done well. 2600:1012:B068:D777:3172:6FCB:3354:9A46 (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I mostly think your edit is better, but one change I would make: for neutrality's sake, climate change needs to be mentioned explicitly; "an number of environmental issues" unduly downplays an issue a great number people view as of the most urgent importance. I agree there's no need to be listing off things like acid rain and asbestos, etc in the lede. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:F14A:CD95:FAAA:9671 (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I am the IP you just replied to--that is indeed the most prominent issue on the list, both in terms of the effect on the environment as well as the huge importance of the fossil fuel sector to the economy, that WSJ was defending (if we became carbon neutral tomorrow, it would be far more painful than banning tobacco or switching to refrigerants that don't harm the ozone later or banning asbestos ever would be). Although I think currently the WSJ position is more of, "we'd rather it be Texas shale than Venezuelan or Saudi crude, because why pump $$$ into the MBS -> NSO group -> dead WaPo journalist pipeline or whatever crank crypto thing Venezuela is doing?" That's how I see it--it's more of an economic nationalist argument than an anti-environment one. Of course, they are definitely still anti-anti-fossil fuel, but it isn't like anyone in the US govt is, no matter what party, once they enter the driver's seat and have to determine petrol policy. Here in California, last I heard, Newsom has a newfound love affair with natural gas peaker plants because guess what, people don't like constant power outages while ironically having to pay neighboring states to take excess solar energy...yes, climate change is also not a bygone issue unlike acid rain or asbestos, so that's good too. So ending that sentence with "...health and environmental issues, including anthropogenic climate change." is indeed a good way to say it. 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

unattributed claim of a terror attack

At 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, an article on a Palestinian stabbing to death an armed Israeli settler in the West Bank, the unattributed view that this was a terror attack is offered in Wikipedia's voice. The justification for inclusion is a number of Israeli news sources (Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ynet) called it a terror attack. The reason others (waves hand) have offered to remove it is that third party uninvolved sources such as the BBC, AP, Financial Times do not use that language in their own voice, and in the case of the AP explicitly attributes it to an Israeli police spokesperson. WP:WTA seems pretty clear to me, but an editor has claimed that an RFC is needed to show that there is not consensus for the inclusion of this value laden label in Wikipedia's voice, and that's just silly so here I am. Should Wikipedia call something a terrorist attack when sources outside of the area of conflict do not do so? nableezy - 21:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You cannot describe it as "unattributed" when as you point out a bunch of RS, in their own voice, call the attack a "terror attack". And I don't know what you're reading into WP:WTA, but here's what it says about words like "terrorist": ...best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
That bar has been met. And I have never seen anything in regards to inclusion be based upon whether or not a RS happens to be within a conflict zone! -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I point out that RS also do not use that term in their voice, making the usage decidedly not "widely used". Israeli press calls all Palestinian violence terrorism, that and other shocking developments at 11. And yes, without attribution in our article it is unattributed. Im not sure if youre using words in some way besides their definition, but that is what "unattributed" means. And what WTA says is, even if widely used, use in-text attribution. nableezy - 21:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The group that "took responsibility" for the attack is an internationally-designated terrorist organization. But it wasn't conclusive that they were behind it. But if we accept the conclusion that that group was behind it, then would it not be a terrorist attack? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
That would be a judgment best left to others to make, not Wikipedia. The African National Congress was once an internationally-designated terrorist organization. I dont personally think attacking an armed participant in a war crime is best described as a "terror attack", but I acknowledge that others do see it that way, which is why I think attributing "terror attack" to the Israeli police as the [AP does would be the best way for us to go. And not just accepting one "sides" POV as though it were unimpeachable fact. nableezy - 21:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree and I would support removal or attribution to the source, rather than Wiki's voice. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
In general, we should be avoiding these "absolute" motives (like terrorism, murder, assassination) until we have a firm statement from the investigative body responsible for that event (police, etc.) and avoid using RSes' own assessments of these terms. We often jump too fast to label these with these extreme terms that are guestimates by people that do not have the position of expertise to make that determination. --Masem (t) 21:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The investigative body responsible for that event (Israeli Police) have said it was a terrorist attack. Inf-in MD (talk)
Assuming that nableezy is right about only Israeli media using the label, we should absolutely not use it in wiki-voice. We can't rightfully say a label is "widely used by reliable sources" when only media outlets affiliated with one side of a conflict use the value-laden label. Firefangledfeathers 21:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, I have not done an exhaustive search, the ones offered for the label are all Israeli news orgs (RS all of them no doubt, but certainly have a partisan tint), and the ones Ive seen from outside of Israel that picked up this story have not. There may well be others that do use the label, but the major international news sources dont seem to. nableezy - 21:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I would say my view here is susceptible to a showing that independent RS are using the term in their own voice. Even then, I think the way it's currently used in the article is untenable. A redirect link to Palestinian terror, which targets Palestinian political violence is ... not great. When specifically referring to the perpretrator of the attack, I would be greatly surprised to learn that independent RS refer to him as simply "the terrorist" as the current version of the article does. Firefangledfeathers 22:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers:The Jerusalem Post is considered both independent and reliable. They said this:
"Israeli man killed in West Bank terror attack ... stabbed to death in a terror attack ... The Palestinian terrorist, Salam Azal..."'[8]
But at this point, I'm personally fine with adjusting the article so "terror attack" in the lead isn't in wikipedia's voice. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. I could have been more clear: I meant 'independent' here as in 'not affiliated with one side of the conflict'. Firefangledfeathers 03:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A misleading presentation of the way the term is used. Non-Israeli, independent and reliable sources describe it a "terrorism", e.g - Mickolus, Edward (2016-08-08). Terrorism, 2013-2015: A Worldwide Chronology. McFarland. ISBN 9781476664378, and the OP knows this because it is (a) used as a reference in the article, and (b) discussed on the talk page. There are many others- Evyatar Borowski, 14, who was killed in a terrorist attack at Tapuach Junction in 2013.; Terror Stabbing Victim Laid to Rest, etc... If the redirect link is a problem, we can remove it Inf-in MD (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Neither of those websites are reliable sources, and one book with a brief mention does not make the term widely used. And it is beyond silly to claim I know what every single source in an article says, nearly as silly as claiming that it is widely used when you start citing websites that describe its own views as coming "from a pro-American, pro-Israel perspective". nableezy - 23:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Both of them are reliable sources, the Jewish Voice is a reputable weekly newspaper, as is the Jewish Press. Having a pro-American, pro-Israeli perspective does not make something unreliable, nor does it make it Israeli. The book source highlighted was mentioned several times in a discussion on the talk page that you participated in, and in the AfD of the article you participated in. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The question is, is the pro-Israeli perspective the neutral point of view for the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The claim I was addressing was that these are not reliable sources. Do you agree that they are? Inf-in MD (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Reliability =/= Neutral point of view, we both know that. If international outlets are attributing the terrorist aspect, then that's likely to be the NPOV as well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Please stop deflecting - are these reliable sources? Are they "international" outlets (i.e non-Israeli) ? If yes, we can address how to best achieve a NPOV on the article. Sources don't have to be neutral, articles do. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
If there's deflecting happening here, it's not Hemiauchenia. I agree with the point: this is not a question of reliability, and it's a good thing we're here at NPOVN. Firefangledfeathers 03:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)]
Please read the comments by Nableezy, which are repeatedly about reliability. 14:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The Jewish Press promoted an empty book titled A History of the Palestinian People on Amazon, until it was removed as a racist tripe, and bragged about doing so (here). A publisher pushing racist tripe and goading others in to doing so alongside is your idea of a reliable source? The Jewish Voice may be reliable for local news among the Sephardic community in Brooklyn, but no it is not a reliable source for violence in the West Bank. nableezy - 03:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The JP published as satirical review of a satirical book (and tagged it as satire). Some may have found the satire offensive, but this is not in any way a reflection on its news reporting reliability. Th policy on reliable sources does not limit a paper's reliability to the neighborhood where its headquarters are located . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inf-in MD (talk • contribs)
No, that was their news desk. See where it says "By Jewish Press News Desk". Very publicly pushing racist propaganda. And of course the headquarters are not relevant lol, but a small local paper focused on the Sephardic community of Brooklyn is not reliable for material on acts of violence in the West Bank. nableezy - 18:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely essential that we don't adopt the language of one side of a conflict. This is pretty basic NPOV territory. In Israel, it is commonplace for everyone from a kid throwing a stone to a regular soldier of an enemy country to be called a "terrorist". We can use it with attribution, but it is not a neutral term. As pointed out, reliability is irrelevant; this is not an issue of fact but an issue of label. Using "terrorist" without attribution would be the same as using "shahid" (martyr) without attribution. Zerotalk 04:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The comments of User:Zero0000 are especially apt here. Nableezy demonstrates above that neutral international sources do not use the term terror attack, therefore we shouldn't either. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes

Editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) and review accompanying recent edits at Mass killings under communist regimes. Levivich 03:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a really bad look for the neutrality of Wikipedia and is the most embarrassing and disgraceful event that has happened on this website in 2021, aside from maybe the mainland china incident. X-Editor (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
If you are looking at all the canvassing and bad faith keep votes, then I agree. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Following the generalization up the cat tree, only fascists and communists engage in Category:Mass killings by ideology, the democracies only do its parent Category:Mass murder.Selfstudier (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
And any time anyone tries to conpare the total numbers of killings between communists and fascists, in order to imply that fascism is really "the lesser of the two evils" or whatever - ASIDE from what deaths get included (e.g., I think the Memorial for the Victims of Communism includes Covid-19 deaths as "mass killings by communist regimes") - they always fail to consider that the Nazis and the fascists LOST World War II! Had the nazis accomplished their mission, their genocide count would have been been dozens of times larger than it was! (And as terrible as Stalin was in his own right, he was still a critical player in defeating Hitler, thus preventing those would-be mass exterminations. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:F14A:CD95:FAAA:9671 (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I may have voted strong keep in the discussion, but I am completely against all the canvassing and disruptions to the vote and discussion. The result is probably going to be no consensus. X-Editor (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Folks… there is no need to comment here. The place to comment is at the linked AFD. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for Assistance on Talk: Assault Weapon

Hello, I am attempting to make an edit to the page Assault Weapon which is presently under dispute. I believe the article as it stands suffers from a failure of neutrality, as a small but committed group of users who believe they "own" the page have attempted to stifle discussion and omit mention of opposing viewpoints in the article. Most importantly the article fails to discuss the reasons why some individuals and organizations support restrictions on assault weapons. I have created a discussion at the article talk page regarding my concerns on the page's neutrality, and would like to invite others to contribute to the discussion at Talk: Assault weapon.

The edit in question (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault_weapon&oldid=1057437485) is as follows: "Many groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, support bans on assault weapons, stating "Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time." [1] Other groups are opposed to restrictions on the use of assault weapons, arguing that ""the term 'assault weapon'... is a media invention."[2]. After the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, many news organizations ran stories about assault weapons, explaining their varying definitions and presenting varying opinions about whether they should be banned again at the federal level.[3][4][5]"

Some opposing editors would like to omit the 1st sentence (and the edit was reverted citing WP:ONUS.) However, I believe that doing so violates Wikipedia neutrality policies, including the requirement to discuss all significant controversies regarding a topic in the lead, as well as the necessity of citing multiple points of view on a topic, not solely one side's position in a debate. I have also attempted to begin a discussion at the article talk page regarding concerns of neutrality in the article page. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC on whether and how to cover J. K. Rowling's trans-related views in the lead of her article

  FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead

I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.

Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The idea that WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Women Writers are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single socio-political viewpoint suggests major blind spots on the part of the poster.
However, we do need fresh eyes on the lead of the article. The discussion so far has seen a great deal of tendentious misapplication and misconstrual of WP:NPOV, so watchers of this page might be especially helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

World Chess Championship - possible violation of neutrality.

Hello, everyone. I noticed that this page may not comply with the Wikipedia policy of neutrality as the Russian challenger doesn't have a Russian flag next to his name in the Infobox and some other places in the article. It is well understood that WADA imposed sanctions on the Russia's sports events but it is not clear how it has any impact on Wikipedia's guidelines. The only rationale behind not showing the flag could be sources but in the case of this particular sport even I found plenty of sources that speak of the Russian chess player Ian Nepomniachtchi representing Russia. Please check this section I initiated:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2021


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Chess_Championship_2021#Wikipedia_bias_against_Russian_sportspeople_and_its_own_rules_violation

P/S: For at least, there is no consensus in the sources as many of them talk about Nepomniachtchi as representing Russia. It is not clear why the editors of the "World Chess Championship 2021" decided to take one side. I'd like to hear from more editors and reach a more clear consensus here regarding the Wikipedia's policy.

--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:A056:F425:465E:703F (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The flagicon does not refer to the country of origin or nationality of the player, but which country he is representing. Cinadon36 08:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This is consistent with articles relating to the 2020 Summer Olympics (e.g. 2020 Summer Olympics medal table) and other events where Russian athletes have competed under a neutral flag. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Cinadon. I feel that the anti-doping rule involved here is kind of silly, and also the insistence in using flags in the infobox of the Wikipedia article is silly. But with where we are, using the FIDE flag in reference to Nepo at the World Championship (and the Russian flag for the Candidates) is correct. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

António de Oliveira Salazar first paragraph is not neutral

Hi, albeit that this article states many times that he was a dictator and that it provides sources to prove that, the first paragraph is very enthusiastic and completely omits that. There's support within the talk page to include that he was a dictator in the first paragraph and it seems that most of the issue surrounding that is if he was a fascist dictator or an authoritarian dictator but the dictator part is always firmly secured anyways so I can't see how this article can maintain it's neutrality if it doesn't state that in the first paragraph. I know relying on other wiki pages is usually not that strong of an argument but the truth is that the Portuguese one does state that right away. Shexantidote (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Censoring all criticism of Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Nableezy is censoring all criticism of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Though his justifications for doing so keep shifting:

  • He deleted one criticism claiming it was from an unreliable source. That's not true, as The Jerusalem Chronicle is listed as a reliable in the list of perennial sources. diff
  • Then he deleted the same criticism again, now claiming it doesn't have sufficient weight to be included. talk diff
  • As for the two other paragraphs, he said (correctly) that some of the criticism didn't match what the sources said. That's totally fair. diff
  • But after that was fixed, he came up with other reasons for why he was yet again, removing all criticism from the article.[9]

As for what's being deleted, here's the diff

Paragraph #1: This is a verbatim quote from one of the co-founders of the group, speaking about the group, as published in a RS. It can be up to the reader to determine what he meant exactly.

Paragraph #2: This is from an opinion piece in a RS, that is written in the article as an opinion. Seems 100% appropriate for the criticism section.

Paragraph #3: An 80 page report was written about the group, and it's the focus of an article by a RS. It boggles my mind that this is being excluded from the criticism section. Is the publication possibly biased? Sure, but that is why it's included as their opinion in the criticism section.

- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not impressed with the way you habitually accuse another editor of "censorship". Kleinpecan (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kleinpecan: Do you have any diffs to support that accusation? If not, I'll ask you to retract it.
It's very possible that I've used that word before, I don't recall. I think it's a word I use selectively, and that is appropriate when a user has chosen to remove _all_ criticism regarding a group. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
My take: the entry for The Jewish Chronicle (not The Jerusalem Chronicle) at WP:RSP says that it is "generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting" (emphasis mine) and that in-text attribution is recommended for content about Palestine/Palestinians due to bias. These articles are from 2011 and 2017, about a Palestinian organization, and you didn't attribute the viewpoints. Maybe the lack of attribution is a good thing, because the viewpoints in your edits aren't from The JC, but from people The JC is itself quoting. In fact, The JC doesn't seem to be giving its own viewpoint at all. As far as I'm concerned, two articles with second-hand criticism from a biased sourced is UNDUE to support one paragraph, let alone two. I'll also note that you only pulled pro-Greenstein and pro-Collier claims from those articles and not any criticism of Greenstein or defense from the PSC, which is cherry-picking. Then we have the Haaretz article, an opinion piece, supporting another entire paragraph. Also UNDUE. I know nothing about the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, but if there are documented cases of anti-semitism, then reliable sources have probably reported on it, in actual news articles written in the editorial voice of the source. Woodroar (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Just for clarity, "criticism" need not be "anti-semitism", right? If the criticism is that they don't do enough to distance themselves from antisemites, then that's what it is. As for cherry picking, I personally have no issue with solving that by adding to the article, as opposed to just removing all criticism. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There are several issues here. The first is Collier, a non-notable blogger who routinely makes less than plausible claims about any number of people (including calling a number of Wikipedia editors "terrorists"). One biased source picked up a "report" he made. That report is not a RS, Collier has no expertise in the matter, but yes one source covered him calling an organization antisemitic. As far as I can tell, nobody else gave half a crap. That does not meet anything close to the lowest bar to be dedicated even a sentence in the article on that organization. Second, the piece on Greenstein is not criticizing PSC. It is criticizing Lauren Booth for criticizing PSC. Third, the op-ed in Haaretz makes one claim about one meeting of one chapter of PSC. Even if it were the work of an established expert, which it is not, that would still not merit mention in the article on the organization. I am totally fine including actual reliably sourced criticism about this or any other topic so long as it meets WP:DUE. But that is not what has been offered. nableezy - 01:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

And the idea I am censoring anything, as opposed to removing straight up fabrications as added here is a straightforward personal attack. nableezy - 01:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Nableezy: I edited the text for accuracy. Was there a single fabrication in the latest version of the criticism that you removed from the article? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that Greenstein was criticizing PSC at all. The rest of it is a WP:WEIGHT violation. You know what I do when somebody says get better sources? I get better sources. nableezy - 01:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The nature of the problem can be clearly seen from the first paragraph, which I'll quote:

Tony Greenstein, who is one of the co-founders of Palestinian Solidarity Campaign wrote: "PSC needs to take decisive action to root out, once and for all, those who evince sympathy for racism - of whatever description. Gilad Atzmon is deeply antisemitic. He subscribes to every myth and libel that has ever been written about Jews, from the world Jewish conspiracy theory, to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the Holocaust itself." (Lauren Booth's attack points up new split in PSC)

However, the source begins "Pro-Palestinian activist Lauren Booth has launched a vitriolic attack on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign for dissociating itself from antisemitic musician Gilad Atzmon" (my emphasis). By omitting the dissociation, Bob drobbs constructed a paragraph that invites readers to assign Atzmon's views to PSC. It is the opposite of what the source says. Does Bob drobbs think that this misrepresentation of a source is so precious that someone who removes it should be brought to a noticeboard?
The third paragraph gives a forum to an unqualified activist-blogger who writes like half the world is antisemitic (including multiple Wikipedia editors). Anyone can write a "report"; that doesn't mean we have to cite it. The source for the second paragraph is the only one that should be considered seriously; my opinion matches those who argue for its omission since it is hard to extract anything from it that is both meaningful and representative. Zerotalk 01:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Greenstein was responding to Lauren Booth's criticism of the PSC. His statement is a defense of PSC for publicly disassociating itself from Atzmon, which Booth criticized. Just throwing Atzmon in to the article at all, when the only relation he has is that the PSC says there is no relation, and very publicly so, is an attempt at guilt by association, made only more improper because there is no association. nableezy - 01:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Zero0000, I welcome constructive feedback to improve text. If the first quote needs to go, that's fine. But as for Collier, his opinions and/or reports been referenced in the Guardian[10] and BBC[11], along with other sources. That seems like he's more than qualified to give an opinion after writing an 80 page report on this group. -- Bob drobbs (talk)
Here's more. The Irish Times referring to another one of his reports:

"The comments were made during a “periodic review” of Ireland’s human rights record before the Geneva-based commission, and come in the wake of a highly critical report last month on anti-Semitism in Ireland by researcher David Collier."[12]

So I really don't understand how anyone can try to just completely blow off Collier with claims he's an inconsequential blogger and "censor" his criticism. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Collier is mentioned as having made a highly critical report in that Irish Times link. The only person who has used "censor" here is you, so you appear to be quoting yourself. Yes, he has made the news, lots of non-notable and non-expert people make the news. Collier isn't cited by them though, sometimes if something he writes has some sort of impact he might be covered by them. And if more than one partisan source covered something he did you could argue it was consequential enough to merit coverage in our article. But that is not the case here. Collier's "report" on PSC has been covered by one partisan source, it has had zero impact on anything, and since Collier himself is not in any way an expert on the topic, covering his views is UNDUE weight here. Finally, this is an encyclopedia article, not a compendium of opinions by non-experts and non-notable bloggers. You keep harping on it's just being offered as his opinion. Yes, and his opinion does not matter here. nableezy - 04:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Your POV is showing through here as you continue to try to disparage and demean Collier as just a "blogger" and put "report" in quotes. Multiple RS call him a "researcher". He researched this group and produced an 80 page report on them. That would seem to qualify him as a subject matter expert on the topic of PSC's antisemitism. Here's examples of anti-semitism from PSC members from his report:
  • Claiming Israel was harvesting Palestinian organs
  • Suggesting Mossad had attacked Paris.
  • Sharing a video claiming the Holocaust was “the greatest lie ever told”.
If this report was covered in depth by a multiple sources and had a lasting impact, it might merit it's own article. But that cannot be the standard for inclusion in an article. An extensive report on a group, done by a researcher, covered in depth by a RS, deserves a mention. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
David Collier (political activist) is notable now. I believe the article passes WP:BIO.
And along with that, I did a bit more research. The same article in Jewish Chronicle is also in the Jewish News with a few tweaks[13]. There's also an opinion piece in the Middle East Eye, written by Kieron Monks, mentioning the report and it's impact.[14] Is that not enough to get the criticism included in the article yet? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, Collier still remains not notable despite your effort to get 6 or 7 mentions of him in 3/4 sources,- in a shouting activist career so far lasting 2 decades- only one of which is mainstream (The Guardian) to document that his Social Media and Twitter flagging as anti-Semitic virtually anything associated with criticism of Israel. Antisemitism is, like the Israel-Palestinian conflict, one of the most rigorously studied topics in the academic world, with a huge output of reliable scholarly analysis and debate, and in that literature Collier is invisible. Jake Angeli is notable (compare the sourcing depth) but no one would cite him in an encyclopedia for his views on American politics. Collier is even more marginal - a specialist in the petty bickering and gossip of UK Labour Party chapters, but has nothing to tell an encyclopedia about anti-Semitism, esp. because if you disagree with him, you fit that category (as several wikipedian editors do, by his 'lights'). So handing him a stub to make him 'notable' ergo 'quotable' is just a technical ruse, whose fragility is attested by the fact that serious sources on that issue don't take his views, as opposed to his provincial rhetorical militancy, seriously. One figure behind the endless flybynight attack-Wikipedia organizations tried to make himself and his family notable some time ago by scratching up a similar ragged assortment of minor news mentions. The articles were duly deleted. Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
As to your mention that Middle East Eye mentions Collier, it is interesting that you cite here this for his notability, and yet on the Collier page you edit, you have avoided using this source. So I expect that, since you are so concerned about Collier's importance you would add what the article states in his regard. This is what it writes of Collier's views about people who support Palestinian rights.

"'Palestinianism' is a disease that is anathema to freedom, to debate, to openness and to human rights," Collier blogged. "It will infect those who catch the disease with anti-Semitism just as it provides them with a denial mechanism to protest their innocence." This highlights an issue that many of the charges of anti-Semitism against Palestine solidarity activists are coming from partisan political opponents rather than objective racism monitors. Collier is a longstanding Israel advocate and critic of Palestinian activism who has described his mission as "showing everybody how toxic our enemies are".Kieron Monks, Labour’s anti-Semitism scandal has spilled over into attacks on Palestine solidarity Middle East Eye 17 July 2018

Likewise I would expect someone arguing that censorship is abroad on Wikipedia to harvest the same article for what it notes about double standards re anti-Semitism: any rumour of anti-Semitism in Labourite social media is profiled vigorously, but racism in Zionist organizations' social media is ignored. So consider putting the following into the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland

The Zionist Federation UK Facebook page contains comments referring to Palestinians as "subhumans" and "evil made up people", with one post reading "Fakestinians...would slaughter their own mother if they had one." The StandWithUs page contains numerous references to Palestinians as "animals" and "savages". One popular comment suggested "Napalm Gaza" and another taunts a victim of the Gaza fence shootings - "one leg will suit you buddy". A 2017 report on social media in Israel found that messages of anti-Arab racism were posted at a rate of just over one per minute, with frequent incitements to violence. There has been no parallel scrutiny of hate speech in Israel advocacy, far less any suggestion that the field is discredited as a result, whereas pro-Palestinian activism is now suffering a crisis of legitimacy.'Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment The Collier article has 2 incoming links, one from here (the one above) and the other from Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party where Bob drobbs has added material (JC source, unattributed) that probably has zero weight. 4 of 8 refs for the Collier article are sourced to the JC, I think this is likely an AfD candidate. I would also mention that Bob drobbs spent a large amount of time insisting on the antisemitism POV at the BDS article, given that PSC is a BDS supporter this seems an extension of that editing. Persistent pushing of a single POV (essentially that of the Israeli government via proxy) is not a good look.Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Opening paragraph of Gary Glitter article

There is an active disagreement as to how the opening sentence (and opening paragraph) of the Gary Glitter article should read - the discussion is at Talk:Gary Glitter#Page Emphasis. For context, Gary Glitter was formerly a highly successful musician in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s. From the late 90s to the present day he has been convicted of various sexual offences involving children in both the UK and Vietnam, and is currently imprisoned in the UK for a lengthy prison term. He is therefore one of the most infamous people in the UK today.

My concern about the article is that I feel the opening paragraph places undue weight on his prominence as a musician by burying the lead on his current fame as a convicted sex offender, which is primarily what he is known for in the present day. Absolutely no mention of this is made until the fourth sentence of the article, which has the effect of making his convictions appear to be of secondary importance. My issues with this are:

  1. It places undue weight on his fame as a musician, given that secondary details about his musical achievements are mentioned before his sex offences are referred to at all.
  2. It also puts the casual reader at risk of missing it, given the numerous and repetitive achievements listed in the second and third sentences. Someone who is just trying to get the gist of who he is may stop reading before reaching the fourth sentence. (I know that I sometimes read articles like that if I just want to find out why someone is notable ASAP when reading something else, as I'm unlikely to care about a slew of career highlights in that situation.)
  3. Without preface, the mention of Glitter as a sex offender is missed from Google results containing the article (given they only show around 20 words).

I would propose changing the first sentence to describe Glitter as a "former glam rock singer and convicted sex offender" (or the other way around), in the same fashion as Ian Watkins. This allows the reader to anticipate the elaboration in the fourth sentence, and prevents the (somewhat lengthy) detail on Glitter's achievements from obscuring his current status.

However, there has been pushback against this on the basis that he is only notable as a sex offender because of his notability as a musician. My response to this is that notability is not assessed chronologically but by degree, and no sources since around 2006 have shown any interest in anything other than Glitter's fame for his sex offences. We are past the point of recentism being an issue. I should also note that the reason he is a famous sex offender is because he was already a famous person, and has nothing to do with why he was a famous person. It is therefore incorrect to say that his fame for sexual offences is secondary to his fame as a musician, as knowledge of both is necessary to get a full picture of why he is famous today.
—Theknightwho (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it should probably open something like "Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944),[3] known professionally as Gary Glitter, is an English former glam rock singer and convicted sex offender who...." In line with our other articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Which other articles did you have in mind? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Certainly not Jimmy Saville then, who wasn't convicted and whose abusive nature doesn't appear in the google search thingy in exactly the same way as Gadds doesn't. -Roxy the dog. wooF 20:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Ian Watkins is an example. Theknightwho (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Why do only "sources since around 2006" dictate the order of content in the first sentence. That's just another form of "recentism", isn't it? I'm also not sure that Glitter and Ian Watkins are very comparable (and I'm not sure that's really because I'm a raving glam-rock fan). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Jeffrey Epstein, James Hydrick, and many others, see [15]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
How many UK top ten hits did Terapon Adhahn have in the 1970s?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that Glitter wasn't a signficant musical figure, but he's about as notable for his sex offences as his musical work now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Martinevans123 That is a misleading example. Most people on the list of search results are only famous sexual offenders because of their prior fame for something else, but for most of them their current notoriety is proportionate to their pre-existing fame. In other words: the fact that Glitter was already very famous means he is particularly notable for being a paedophile. This is the point I was making when I said that it's to do with the fact that he was already famous at all and not why he was already famous. Theknightwho (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
You don't need to ping me. I do actually have this page on my watchlist, thanks. My point was that different people may be proportionately notable, in different ways, for different reasons. I realise that Wikipedia generally tends to assume a dichotomy of "notable or not". Most people will not first become notable for being sex offenders. If they do, they are unlikely to be also notable later for anything else. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Apologies - it was to make it clear I was directing my response at you without forking the discussion. I have actually addressed this point in my previous reply, though. Barring anything particularly notable about their crimes (e.g. Epstein), fame as a sex offender correlates 1:1 with their pre-existing fame, given that public interest in their sexual offences will obviously correlate with how much interest people had in them in the first place. This is why Gary Glitter is a lot more famous for being a paedophile than Tesfaye Bramble. Theknightwho (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I find that a simple indent usually does just fine. No forking required. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
"Oh no, Larry, that glam-rock Gary can't be the one I'm searching for. I'm after Vietnam peado Gary..." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm talking about people who don't know who he is but might Google him because his name came up somewhere. Come on. Play nice. Theknightwho (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Actually, that's not the best example - a better example is when the article comes up in searches for things other than "Gary Glitter". Theknightwho (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
How Wikipedia articles appear in Google search results is pretty irrelevant. This is a red herring as WP:LEAD is what matters. I'm open to tweaking the opening paragraph, but saying "he is a sex offender" in the opening sentence is unnecessary. Do credit the reader with an attention span longer than a goldfish.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to take out some of the detail that is now in the opening paragraph, to leave a shorter paragraph such as:

Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944), known professionally as Gary Glitter, is an English former glam rock singer who achieved considerable chart success in the 1970s and 1980s. Known for his extreme glam image and his energetic live performances, his career ended after he was imprisoned for downloading child pornography in 1999, and child sexual abuse and attempted rape in 2006 and 2015.

The details about his singles chart hits, the critic's comments and the reference to TOTP should then be added in to the second and third paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
No objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Also agree with Ghmyrtle. This tightens up the opening paragraph and does not hide or downplay the sex offence convictions.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it would be an improvement, but I don't see what the objection to calling him a sex offender in the opening paragraph is - particularly when it is laid out that way in so many other articles. His notability today (not his notability in the 1980s) comes from both, and the average person (that knows who he is) would describe him by saying that he's a singer that got done for being a paedophile. Both facets of who he is are intrinsic to that. Theknightwho (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Except we don't label him in that way, in the entire article. You don't "get done for being a paedophile" (which is a psychosexual diagnosis), you get done for "having sex with children" (which is usually illegal). The only mention of the p-word is: "In an interview with BBC News in May 2006, Glitter denied that he was a paedophile, and claimed not to have knowingly had sex with anyone under 18." Come on. Play nice. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Which addresses absolutely none of what I said, as I was obviously speaking informally. Have you got a response to the substantive point? Theknightwho (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, this "average person (that knows who he is)" is obviously a very useful source. I guess we ought to run all Wikipedia article lead sections by him, just to check they sound ok? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Collectively, they're a very useful source for establishing notability, yes. What's your point? Theknightwho (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
We're an encyclopedia. We're more interested in what the reasons for his notability will be in 50 years, or 200 years, time - not in what the media today decide will help sell copies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
So you're arguing it's simply not notable enough, despite him being universally described that way in the media? Theknightwho (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes - "the media" are short term, largely profit-oriented, and essentially ephemeral. We try not to be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Right, but on what basis is his status as a sex offender ephemeral in a way that his status as a former glam rock star is not? I could understand if it were just the 1999 child pornography convictions, but it is a sustained and repeated facet of who he is that occurred over a long period in multiple places, that - after the 2015 convictions - are known to have occurred during his musical career. Theknightwho (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
He's "universally described in the media" as just a sex offender, yes? That's quite a strong claim. What's your time frame here: the last week? the past year? or, somewhat arbitrarily, "since around 2006"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I did not say that, as I previously stated that "It is therefore incorrect to say that his fame for sexual offences is secondary to his fame as a musician, as knowledge of both is necessary to get a full picture of why he is famous today." I have no idea why that is being construed as me saying his convictions are more notable. Could you also please state what recentism issues you think are likely to arise here? Theknightwho (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
So, is he is "universally described in the media" as a) a sex offender, b) a sex offender and former musician, c) something else? Am also still keen to get clarification on your use of the present tense. I guess we could move onto actual evidence for your claim after that. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
He is universally described in media today as either a sex offender or a former musician and sex offender, and not a single article that I can find omits to mention it. To be honest, you've yet to actually state what your objection to my proposed amendment is here. Theknightwho (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
As I said here yesterday, "I think it's fair that his musical achievements come first, as that is the correct chronological sequence. ... We ought assume that most readers are capable of reading an entire single paragraph, rather than trying to snatch at a headline in the first sentence." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
And, as I said here yesterday, "you are simply ignoring the plain language used in MOS:FIRSTBIO about the opening sentence", and specifically where it says "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." Chronology is irrelevant to notability, given that both aspects of Glitter's life explain his current notoriety. Plus you clearly do think that readers need to know that he is a "former glam rock singer" from the outset, despite their ability to read as much in the rest of the paragraph, so you're going to need to explain why that is the only thing which should have such prominence, or I assume you agree that that should be removed? Theknightwho (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think the opening sentence needs to mention he's a "former glam rock singer". I don't think that's unreasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
So why, then, not the other equally notable aspect of his life? Theknightwho (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, starting to feel a little weary now. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there any chance of getting some fresh eyes here, rather than the usual suspects repeating the same arguments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah. It's simple. He's known as a glam rocker and a paedo. Put both things in the first sentence and you're golden. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the proposed revision by Ghmyrtle is reasonable. Glitter is notable for two reasons and we shouldn't bury the lead. I think we can trust people to read two sentences in sequence. Compare Kevin Spacey, which is a more complicated example because although his career has (effectively) ended, he hasn't been convicted of any crimes. Mackensen (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  • This is exemplary of the problem nowadays that en masse, we as editors want to call out anything negative about a person or topic in the lede and as early as possible, without recognizing the impact on NPOV's requirement on tone in our writing. Pushing the convictions into the lede sentence and giving it seemingly equal weight creates a clear tone problem. There is no requirement that the lede sentence must include everything why a person is notable, though the lede overall should include all such facets. We don't assume people stop after one sentence of the lede, but instead read the whole thing, so there's no need to push as much as possible into that first sentence. Instead, as has been suggested, the lede probably should have a final paragraph devoted to the convictions, so that the first paragraphs cover why he was far more notable (his musicial career). --Masem (t) 13:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I think if anything he's more notable as a high-profile paedophile. As a reasonable rule of thumb for a first sentence, ask yourself the question: using just fifteen words, how would I describe Garry Glitter to somebody who knew nothing about him. The subsequent sentences and paragraphs can unpack that. This sort of progressive "zooming out" is a feature of good lede writing (see Topic sentence), and avoids the potential POV problems of trying to emphasize (or de-emphasize) stuff by its placement. Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think this is fundamentally what is at the heart of the dispute. I find the view that he is “far more notable” for being a musician completely alien. How much of this is down to generational differences in perception, I wonder? Theknightwho (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
      • On a side note, Alexbrn, I’ve just spotted your edit summary and snorted into my tea. Theknightwho (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think Ghmyrtle’s suggested rewording is excellent. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd go with Ghmyrtle's suggestion, slightly trimmed as follows : "Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944), known professionally as Gary Glitter, is an English former glam rock singer who achieved chart success in the 1970s and 1980s. His career ended after he was imprisoned for downloading child pornography in 1999, and was subsequently convicted of child sexual abuse and attempted rape in 2006 and 2015." At the time of his first arrest, his musical career was basically over and he was already parodying himself (eg: a bunch of Young Person's Railcard adverts c. 1991 showed Glitter with a caption "nice try") so it's easy to make a clear link between the musical career, which had a finite duration, and the criminal convictions, which are ongoing and creating more enduring coverage. So putting them on equal balance in chronological order, as separate sentences, seems about the right balance to me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I’m happy with this, for the reasons you’ve given. Theknightwho (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've now modified the lead, per what appears to be a consensus here, and Ritchie333's suggested wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed redirect: Race and crime→Race and crime in the United States

A redirect proposal based partially on NPOV concerns is taking place at Talk:Race and crime § Propose redirect to Race and crime in the United States. ––FormalDude   talk 05:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments has an RFC

 

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

China COVID-19 cover-up allegations

Hi, I just moved China COVID-19 cover-up allegations from its previous title China COVID-19 cover-up. Can someone more experienced assess the neutrality dispute on the article? My specific problem is with the second section that seemingly use original research to conclude cover-up, based on reports that the Chinese government isn't cooperative on certain international investigations into COVID-19's originals.--GeneralBay (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need this as well as COVID-19 misinformation by China? Wikipedia gets more embarrassing every day. Alexbrn (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Eh, we have a COVID-19 misinformation by XXX for dozens of countries. But that China COVID-19 cover-up was the title is a bit shocking. Thank you for moving that GeneralBay. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Something maybe worth noting is that the closer of the previous merge discussion may lack the necessary experience and did not notice that various oppose !votes were from mostly-leak-promotion accounts... —PaleoNeonate – 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Probably one to blank and redirect (I'd do it if I could face another round of lab-leak drama from the crazies, which I can't). Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The page has now been moved back to the non-neutral title by User:RenatUK. I suppose an WP:RM is the next step, but honestly I agree that merging or redirecting may be better than trying to turn this mess into a policy-compliant article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd almost say that moving it back to "allegations" is a proper adminstrative step to abide by NPOV. Nothing on that page has a confirmed (equating to a guilty conviction) of China's cover-up, though the allegations are clearly there, and so as it stands the title is a clear NPOV violation that needs to be dealt with. But I have a feeling an RM is the right step to make sure there's no further questions. --Masem (t) 05:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Concur with Masem. There's no good reason for Wikipedia to be taking a stance as to whether any given country is engaged in a COVID cover-up absent any sort of actual evidence. Especially when so much of the claims surrounding China have emerged as part of the hyperbolic American propaganda offensive against China that recently (yesterday) included calling China, and I quote, "A threat to the solar system". Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Alexbrn:, please don't do that. Last time you tried those WP:DENY tactics, it caused a very serious altercation between ProcrastinatingReader and Barkeep49 [16]. It is fine for you do that with 9/11 truthers who take up time and space arguing about the melting point of steel, but it's not okay for you to cause altercations between senior editors and administrators. I wonder if Barkeep49 even knew what ProcrastinatingReader was saving us junior editors from that time. How many junior editors got banned for violating the misapplication of the MEDRS that nearly forced a change to this perfectly fine policy? Francesco espo (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    • How many junior editors got banned ...? ← not enough, by the look of it. WP:CGTW#3 applies. Alexbrn (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReaders "procedural" AfD was an attempt to stitch up any attempt to get the article deleted by deliberately giving a poor deletion rationale that people would obviously vote keep against. Barkeeps complaint was spot on. As for you, you are solely here to push fringe theories, and it would be better for everyone if you stopped editing entirely and stopped wasting peoples time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I've opened a move request, see Talk:China_COVID-19_cover-up#Requested_move_8_December_2021. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

María Consuelo Porras

I came across the article because it had a cite error. I've corrected that now, but some of the claims that have been added (in particular by this edit) seem over the top. e.g. "Porras' tenure has been criticized by the left for what they consider a backsliding in the fight against corruption." and "Charges are based on ideological motivation and lack legal basis." (additions in italics). I've added some citation needed tags, but could someone with some idea of Guatemalan politics have a look? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Bias / conflict of interest on topics relating to Hinduism

Arbitrary break #1

It has come to my attention that User:Joshua Jonathan may be acting against NPOV and have a conflict of interest in articles regarding Hinduism, specifically Advaita Vedanta. I have examples of this user being uncomprimising regarding these matters. It worth pointing out this users main interest is Buddhism per his user page [17].

This user seems to think because this user has a understanding of both Buddhism and Hinduism he can make comparative edits, that only seem for example to affect "Hindu" topics. For example, I have had drawn out discussions with this user on the Talk page about Hindu icon Adi Shankara[18], [19][20] after this user blocked this user permanently [21]. After blocking this user, Joshua Jonathan must of thought he could act unimpeded but I was there to address it, which only then it was subsequently changed. This user, for someone that is supposed to be acting in neutrality and in sensitive matters per wiki rules, changed Adi Shankaras religon to "Shaivism"[22] which shows the unawareness and lack of sensivity when dealing with anothers religon. (for the record Adi Shankara is most definitley not a Shaivite.) Almost whenever this user works on a article within the scope of Advaita, the user makes comparions to Buddhism. Its worth noting this user has no interest in promoting articles to GA status[23], so why is this is so invested in topics like these, if not to improve it to wikipedia standard? The reason why I am finally reporting this user is because of the article Advaita Vedanta where this user is acting in a WP:OWN way, against Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and against Wikipedia:Good lede trying to making the lead confusing. This user does good work on other topics, but his lack of senstivity and unawareness makes me think this user is acting in a more meticulous, cunning way. I personally believe this user is a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim by insuating that Advaita and Hinduism by proxy is "influenced" or takes "influence" from Buddhism. Both religons strongly dispute this. What this user will do in rebuttal is confuse with excess amount of information that the user with a problem will be discouraged and dissuaded. This user abuses wikipedia warning templates in almost dogmatic way, making sure this user can act unimpeded. I received my first block (albeit a ban from the Adi Shankara page for a day) and my only goal is to improve wikipedia by elevating article to GA status. This user may be great dealing with ips on other Indian topics like hindu/buddhist empires, but when it comes to religon and philosophy, its hard NOT to see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view being breached. Like I said from the start, this users main interest is Buddhism. JJNito197 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Forum shopping and you won't get a topic ban against anyone at WP:NPOV/N see this thread at WP:AN/I for discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
You are being aggressive. I was advised to come here. JJNito197 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but to bring up matters about content dispute with you and Joshua Jonathan having different opinions, not baseless personal attacks like I personally believe this user is a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim. –Austronesier (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 ETA Forum shopping may have been somewhat unkind as the user was directed here and I should avoid WP:BITE but you should understand you won't get your interlocutor banned here for what he has done - even if you think the edits he made to the article were non-neutral. At this forum you can find people who might have subject expertise to attempt to discuss how to make the article more neutral. I am, myself, far more versed in Buddhism than Hinduism but from what I see the edits made by the Joshua_Jonathan are righteous and well sourced. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Austronesier: thats my opinion, is that not allowed? Simonm223 If you look at the full paragraph, you can see it clearly. JJNito197 (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
No, it is not allowed. See WP:NPA. - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
MrOllie If it consititues an attack, please remove. It was my opinion. JJNito197 (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I did, in fact, review the diff containing the majority of JJ's edits on the article you linked to. They were a combination of minor edits, changes to wording that improved flow, and explicitly cited changes. In aggregate they represented a mechanical improvement to the article. If there's issues with neutrality I would suggest you'd be well advised to address either specific sources JJ used or specific sources you feel would better represent a neutral article here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, the article is in breach of Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and good lede. The citations do not have text where we can analyse the content, and seems to be excessive. Does or does it not at least LOOK like WP:OWN if the I had a problem with it and others did, but were reverted. Its not about specific edits on that page, I thought that was clear by the fact I wanted administrator attention, not dispute resolution. The way the article stands now is not the problem per se. JJNito197 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
No, it does not look like WP:OWN it just looks like a routine attempt to improve an article. And it does not seem less legible to me examining the difference between them. The problem here is this: you have, as of today, asked on multiple locations to have this editor topic-banned on the basis of, frankly, nothing. In the process you violated WP:NPA. That's a more serious problem than claims of non-neutral editing that you refuse to back up with evidence as it isn't very collegial. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
How does it look like an attempt to improve the article if the user has stated that the user has no intentions of elevating the article to GA status.[24] I actually think your help regarding the matter has been cursory, seeing as you have not attempted to address the other points I made. There is a reason I made this, to bring attention to the matter. The fact that this user was banned when he was clearly acting in GOOD Faith is quite sad. He was proactive in many articles.[25] JJNito197 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I am uncertain why you keep bringing up some other editor who pulled a block. WP:OSE is usually used to refer to article content but in this case it applies. The onus on you is to demonstrate that JJ has been disruptive in some way, not to argue that he has been no less disruptive than some other editor who was blocked. And, regardless, you won't succeed in getting anybody blocked at WP:NPOV/N because that's not something this message board is used for. So, again, I'll ask: Do you have any evidence that these edits were non-neutral, that they misrepresented sources or that reliable sources contradicting these edits were removed? Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
That user should not have been blocked permenantly thats why, and was reported by Joshua Jonathan. Joshua Jonathan has stated that Joshua doesn't care to bring the article to GA status[26] so 1, why is Joshua reverting edits on that page, making it more confusing. 2. Why is that user oversourcing the article with no added textual reference so we can source the content and confirm the authenticity. 3. Why is Joshua adding dubious Buddhist terminology to explain Hindu oriented topics and 4. Why is WP:OWN'ing the article so others and myself cannot edit the article. JJNito197 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

this is beginning to look like a retaliatory action and lest you pull a WP:BOOMERANG I'd strongly suggest you should drop this line of approach. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You are reading into something thats not there. I'm not particually wiki-comfortable so can you stop wiki-shaming me and address the points I am making. Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
So here's my concern - I'll be very explicit as I don't want to "wiki-shame" you. You've put up, in multiple places, a request that an editor be topic-banned because of a dispute on this page. Your justification for said editor is a vague gesture toward a technical guideline whose interpretation is very open: Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. When you've been asked for evidence of non-neutral editing you've declined to actually provide it. Meanwhile the edit log shows no indication of edit-warring or disruptive editing. However you've brought up, regularly, that an editor the editor you are in conflict with disagreed with previously ended up blocked and that you feel this was unjust. In aggregate this is not a good look. Now me? I care a lot about academically sourced content - it's something of a pet interest of mine - in addition I'm someone with a lot of background specifically in Buddhism and, from the Buddhism side of this equation, the edits I can see from the editor you are in disagreement with are good edits. Now as I've also mentioned I'm less expert in Hinduism than Buddhism. However that's why I keep asking you for supporting sources. You have yet to provide any. At the very least your requests to have this editor topic-banned are grossly premature and represent a fundamental failure of WP:AGF - a principle of Wikipedia far more important than Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. My advice to you has been to drop the interpersonal conflict angle here which is very likely to backfire on you and to concentrate on constructively improving the article at the heart of this dispute. I'm not going to go around in circles with you any further. I've said my bit. Come back with some evidence that this article has been edited to be non-neutral or drop it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I do appreciate what you wrote and have taken it into consideration. I am only highlighting that user because I was also blocked from that page albeit for a day, also by Joshua Jonathan's report. It is not a "boomerang" issue because I do not particually care about that user as a back and forth issue, but there are edits that for me (and others) that one cannot reconcile just as academic intrigue. Adi Shankara is one of the most esteemed Hindu figures and on the third paragraph there is paragraph that talks about Buddhism. I can't stress how offensive it was to Hindus before we resolved it on talk. There is another example, if we look at Ātman (Jainism), Ātman (Hinduism) and Ātman (Buddhism) they summarise each religon succinctly. However the Ātman (Hinduism) article is the only one that makes comparisons to Buddhism, which was added by Joshua Jonathon. This is not particually a problem, but if I dared TRY and remove that comparison I will no doubt recieve warnings and be shut down. This can understandably leads people to the conclusion that Buddhism topics is not under the same academic scrutinzation as Hindu topics, and thus make people powerless when dealing with certain topics. Like I said I do appreciate this response, but alas I feel that nothing can be done without making a screech and holler like I have done above. This may be an issue site wide, not just Joshua Jonathan. JJNito197 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I am going to have to point out that by the definition you seem to be trying to employ, you have a COI in the topic area too. I think you need to read wp:rightgreatwrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
With the greatest respect, I am neither a Hindu nor Buddhist. I am interested in Hindu topics as a wikipedian, thats where it stops. Some userpages obscurate, others don't. JJNito197 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
And there you have what others are saying to you, there is no evidence a COI with the user, as you have suggested, exists. You need more evidence than you have provided (as in some beyond "well I find their edits offensive"). If you do not drop this you might well get a ban, as this is all a bit wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
This has changed since Simonm223's advice. It is no longer about Joshua Johnson specifically. Joshua also works on Buddhist topics, so I am not taking everything from the User page. I dont expect him to be banned or anything in particular. Something needs to be brought to the light somewhere or nothing changes. I need to be informed or advised on how we go from here. If one looks at the Adi Shankara talk pages, looks at the Advaita Vedanta talk pages and other things I had mentioned, they can get the gist of the complaint and where it stems from. I assure you I only came here after a period of time, and I didn't come here if I knew something wasn't problematic. JJNito197 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've already responded twice; twice my respons was not published due to the fast Forum-shifting. Quite annoying. But here's the response I intended to give:

Serious? You just mass-reverted my edits throughout the article on Advaita Vedanta diff, including three notes and five or six sources, because you object to this sentence in the lead:

[Brahman], which is self-aware (svayam prakāśa)
[Sources: <ref name="Ganeri"/><ref name="IEP"/>{{sfn|Dasgupta|1975|p=148-149}}{{refn|group=note|name=self-luminous}}<br> pure Awareness or Consciousness.<br>[Sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][note 1]</nowiki>

This info is well-sourced and correct - core Advaita tenets - and a summary of sourced info in the article.
Regarding my neutrality, let's ask some other editors: @Kautilya3, Ms Sarah Welch, TrangaBellam, WikiLinuz, Chariotrider555, and Fowler&fowler:. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's quite disruptive that an editor mass-reverts a large amount of edits because they oppose the inclusion of relevant info in the lead, info which describes two core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. Not of Buddhism, But of Advaita Vedanta. To quote Shankara, as quoted repeatedly in Advaita Vedanta:

I am other than name, form and action.
My nature is ever free!
I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.
I am pure Awareness, always non-dual.

— Adi Shankara, Upadesasahasri 11.7, [Source: {{sfn|Comans|2000|p=183}}]

Adi Shankara, 20th verse of Brahmajnanavalimala:
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या
जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः

Brahman is real, the world is an illusion
Brahman and Jiva are not different.

Brahmajnanavalimala 1.20[7]

References

  1. ↑ Mayeda, p. 103 (verse 1), p.105 (note 1); p.126, verse 7.
  2. ↑ Davis 2010, p. 34–35.
  3. ↑ Deutsch 1973, pp. 48–51.
  4. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named aramb
  5. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IEP
  6. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Ganeri
  7. ↑ Sanskrit:Sanskrit documents, Brahmajnanalimala 1.20
  1. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Consciousness

For "self-luminous," c.q. "self-aware [awareness]", see Advaita Vedanta#Three states of consciousness and Turiya.

In response to JJNito's accusations:

  • 1, why is Joshua reverting edits on that page, making it more confusing. - confusing to you? See the core tenets above.
  • 2. Why is that user oversourcing the article with no added textual reference so we can source the content and confirm the authenticity. - because someone keeps reverting well-sourced edits pwhich present core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. See also WP:VERIFIABILITY: if you're unwilling to check the sources, then indeed mass-revert is the easy way to push ypur point - but not the accepted way.
  • 3. Why is Joshua adding dubious Buddhist terminology to explain Hindu oriented topics - where exactly? Regarding the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta, that's an established fact in the academics; excluding this info would be a groos breah of NPOV. If you don't like that, see Talk:Muhammad/images.
  • and 4. Why is WP:OWN'ing the article so others and myself cannot edit the article. - because you're unwilling to accept WP:RS.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

PS: my username is Joshua Jonathan, not "Joshua Johnson." Not reading anything? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Break for readability.

  • 1, confusing to you? See the core tenets above. - Its confusing (was further confusing) per the ambigious terms "pure Awareness" or "Consciousness" which does not adequetly summarize what Brahman is per Hinduism. Satchitananda is widley regarded as the most adequate summary. A
  • 2. because someone keeps reverting well-sourced edits pwhich present core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. See also WP:VERIFIABILITY: if you're unwilling to check the sources, then indeed mass-revert is the easy way to push ypur point - but not the accepted way. - How does one check the sources without having access to a compendium of books - having a note to explain it in the sentence like you have done, albeit not consistently, is what you should do. Especially about that cite you added to the Buddhist "two truths doctrine" that I cant read. Have you not heard of Parabrahman or Nirgna and Saguna Brahman?
  • 3. here exactly? Regarding the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta, that's an established fact in the academics; excluding this info would be a groos breah of NPOV. If you don't like that, see Talk:Muhammad/images. - Disengenious, the Advaita talk page is literally a back and forth with a self proclaimed Buddhist about a Buddhist word 'Svasaṃvedana' that you inserted in the lede.
  • and 4. because you're unwilling to accept WP:RS - I am interested in bringing articles to GA status, you are not. I fully value RS but your RS seem to be sporadic at best.

Regarding that 'PS: my username is Joshua Jonathan, not "Joshua Johnson." Not reading anything?' I could possibly be going blind for all you know. Best JJNito197 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You keep bringing up this 'GA status' thing like it is some kind of badge of shame. No one is required to participate in the article ranking process. MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Of course, but don't act like you are trying to improve the article earnestly. If you were trying to improve the article earnestly you would attempt to bring the article to GA status. I think you forget that Joshua is the most active user on that page. JJNito197 (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect, this is simply wrong. I earnestly try to improve articles and don't care one whit about GA status. Your priorities are not everyone's priorities. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
No it is not, there is no requirement to do more than making an article better. Some do this by looking at grammar and spelling, others by adding snippets of information.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay I take that back. I am quite proud of bringing articles to GA and the GA award is there to show that great effort has been made on the article to improve the readability etc. JJNito197 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I suspect many of us have worked on articles that have achieved GA status. So I am unsure what point you are trying to make.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan said I don't take RS seriously. JJNito197 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
So? The fact you have worked on GA articles does not mean you are free from bias or cannot make mistakes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
You have to take RS seriously to bring articles to GA :-) JJNito197 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this needs to be closed, as it is going nowhere,faxt.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and JJNito197, the fact that you describe this as potential bias against Hinduism is troubling to me. Without substantively weighing in on the disputed edits, I see nothing that comes close to fitting that description. Dumuzid (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I would say Advaita Vedanta but Hinduism is more knowlegable. If you change that more specifically it would help. But it's not just me, it's mulitple people. This user on Advaita talk says[27] it the placement of Buddhism in origins section is misleading because it makes it feel that Advaita originated from Buddhism, and this does not reflect mainstream scholarly consensus this user[28] says Joshua Johnson needs to stop inserting his biased views and opinions in the introduction of article. Joshua Johnson has constantly shown an biased against Advaita tradition and has filled the article with opinionated controversial information and this user[29] says the edits are unusual descriptions. Of course, this is only and handful and it looks as though nothing can be done, but I fear I will have to come back here in the future if nothing changes. JJNito197 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
You fail to note that the reported user seems to agree with the first edit. I am done here, but you have convinced me you are not operating in good faith. Dumuzid (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not a Hindu. That simply shows what I am thinking. Kind regards, JJNito197 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • ad1: my description is sourced; yours is an opinion, as long as you don't provide sources.
  • ad2: I provided notes with quotes; you removed them. All the sources are accessible via Google Books; some I own myself, like Deutsch.
  • ad3: "back and forth" is agross exaggeration, and not an excuse to mass-revert well-sourced info.
  • ad4: your RS seem to be sporadic at best - get real; what sources do you know of? Some of my sources:
  • Comans, Michael (2000), The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
  • Dasgupta, Surendranath (1975), A history of Indian philosophy. Volume 2, Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
  • Davis, Leesa S. (2010), Advaita Vedānta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual Inquiry, Continuum International Publishing Group
  • Deutsch, Eliot (1973), Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0-8248-0271-4
  • Mayeda, Sengaku (2006), "An Introduction to the Life and Thought of Sankara", in Mayeda, Sengaku (ed.), A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120827714

NB: Koller and Meno were alredy used in the lead, but misrepresented. See also User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources for the kind of sources that I use. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
PS: diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Today is Pearl Harbor Day, the 80th anniversary to be sure. May suggest, J. J. Nito, that you order your warplanes back before they reach metaphoric Hawaii and commemorate the day with peace and goodwill? I have known Joshua Jonathon for a long time on Wikipedia. I have found them to be sincere, upright and honest. I have found JJ to be a part of a consensus that we are all human, and like humans everywhere, indelibly African in our blood and bones. That fact predates both Buddhism and Hinduism. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment It's a flippant remark that JJNito197 accuses Joshua Jonathan (JJ) of being a pro-Buddhist and anti-Hindu POV pusher, with Advaita being its proxy. Taking a glimpse at the Talk:Adi Shankara and Talk:Advaita Vedanta, I could see the dispute is mostly frivolous, from linking to self-published sources (with its author not being a scholar), to mass reverts. I could also find "sources" that state philosophies of Hinduism, Buddhism, Yoga, Vedas and the Gita came from Saint Thomas (this for example, from a pastor). So one should really be careful on what sources are scholarly and what isn't. Making a significant contribution to Advaita Vedanta requires one to have an understanding of the nuances in the subject, and I believe JJ is well-read in that regard; that's the reason why I sought the assistance of JJ in that GA nomination request, which you were referring to multiple times throughout the discussion. It is my interest to make the Advaita article a GA, and other editors don't necessarily need to possess such an interest, and that apathy doesn't make him a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim. I also found JJ to be approachable when it comes to consensus if your arguments and sources that you cite in support of that are of eminence. Thanks, WikiLinuz 🍁 (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to agree with JJNito that Joshua Jonathan's edits are overly scholarly & obfuscatory. The lede has become much more confusing from one year ago. 45.78.192.243 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    overly scholarly & obfuscatory: Please have a look at WP:OVERSIMPLIFY - [articles should not give] readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't. And, this is precisely suitable for Advaita Vedanta article given the subject it deals with. WikiLinuz 🍁 (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    Overly scholarly, that's a new objection on me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, Wikipedia does not suffer from being too scholarly in general. I think greater academic rigor would be a good thing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Le Pen

FMSky is reverting my additons to the lead of the Jean-Marie Le Pen article. Which include describing him as "far right", which is commonly used by sources eg [30], [31], [32] as well adding mention of his conviction for holocaust denial, which is mentioned in the body. FMSky contends that these additions are undue. Unlike the French language version, the lead currently lacks mention of his convictions for racial hatred, which I think should be mentioned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree and I've started a discussion on the article's talk page asking FMSky to explain themselves. VR talk 19:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.tachyony.co.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=3868"