View source for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 106

{{talk archive navigation}}

== Communications from government of India to Wikimedia Foundation regarding content about maps depicting the borders of India ==
{{atop| There is a clear consensus to not implement banners or tailored notices regarding maps depicting the borders of India. {{non-admin closure}} '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' <sup>([[User talk:JML1148|<span style="color:#58c8cc">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|<span style="color:#58c8cc">contribs</span>]])</sup> 02:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)}}
Hi all,

As some users may be aware, India (as well as several other countries) has a number of laws making maps that do not match the Indian government’s national border outline illegal. While this has been a known potential issue for many years, in 2023, the Indian government’s [[Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology|Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)]] sent the Foundation several direct complaints about specific maps. This has led to them sending an overall list of 81 URLs on the Wikimedia projects (primarily English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons). '''In India, MeitY has overall enforcement authority over website hosting companies and has indicated to the Foundation that they would block access to Wikipedia in India if nothing is done in response to their demands.''' 

As is usual for our response to government demands, we explained the community-governance processes for the Wikimedia projects and that content and editorial decisions are made by volunteers. '''We have been clear throughout our interactions that the Foundation would not perform any changes, nor is there an expectation for the community to do so.''' MeitY agreed with this and has clarified that their request does not involve deleting any content on the Wikimedia projects.

Instead, they have made two requests to us. One is that we notify users (which we understand to mean editors) about MeitY’s demands, and the second is that notices be added to pages noting where maps do not comply with Indian law. On the second, they also requested a pointer to the official Survey of India map, which they recently agreed to release into the public domain and which was [[c:File:States of India (Survey of India).pdf|uploaded to Wikimedia Commons]].

The Foundation Legal Department’s opinion is that the first request to inform the communities about the notices to the Foundation is reasonable and in line with our transparency principles, and we are therefore making this post.

For the second request, we understand MeitY’s concern to be around readers misinterpreting a map’s depiction of the disputed border. We believe that it may be possible to address some of MeitY’s concerns in line with current content policies, adding language to some image captions mentioning the dispute in normal encyclopedic prose. Where possible, we defer the question of making these changes to community processes and are here to provide transparency on this situation and our perspective on options.

After a manual review of the 81 received URLs, we developed a list of twelve maps of India (on eight pages) where there is both no indication of the border dispute (in the map or caption) and where mention of the dispute may be beneficial in providing [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight|due weight]] in context.

{{collapse top|title=Unedited list of URLs provided by MeitY}}

This list is unedited. Wikimedia Foundation Legal understands that some of the links are broken.
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag-map_of_India_%28de-facto%29.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakoram#/maplink/1
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protected_areas_of_Kerala
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Air_Force_stations#/map/0
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#/media/File:South_Asian_Language_Families.png
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pala_Empire#/media/File:Indian_Kanauj_triangle_map.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_corridor
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_AFC_Cup
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North%E2%80%93South_and_East%E2%80%93West_Corridor
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#/media/File:India_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg
# https://upload.wikipedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Official_United_Nations_World_Map_-_20_February_2020.svg
# https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India_map_en.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India 
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telangana
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_union_territories_of_India#/media/File:India-locator-map-blank.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan%E2%80%93India_relations#media/File:India_Bhutan_Locator.png
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93India_relations#::text=India%20and%20China%20have%20historically,cooperation%20with%20each%20other%2C%20
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93United_States_relations#media/File:India_United_States_Locator.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Wandhama_massacre
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Asia
# https://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%90%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80%E0%/4%B2%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%97
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand 
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-of-countries-by-proven-oil-reserves-%28in-millions-of-barrels%:29---2017---US-E:IA---Jo-Digraphics.jpg#filehistory
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South__India 
# https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/cl/dc/India_locaton_map.svg 
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Institutes_of_Medical_Sciences
# https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/India_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg 
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India_location_map.svg 
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khed,_Ratnagiri# 
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India 
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_union_territories_of_India
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhai_Din_Ka_Jhorpra 
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Games 
# https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/5/57/India_Bhutan_Locator.png 
# https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India_flood_zone_map.sv3 
# https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/India_PakistanChina_Dsputed_Areas_Map.png
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Prernier_League 
# https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Democracy_Index_2020.svg 
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Zones_of_India 
# https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India_China_Locator.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India_roadway_map.svg 
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavaratti
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_India 
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic#/media/File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Pakistan_Economic_Corridor
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#/media/File:2010_Incia_forest_cover_distribution_map_for_its_States_and_Union_Territories.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia#/media/File:Armenia_(orthographic_projection).svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic#/media/File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map_Total_Deaths_per_Capita.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#/media/File:India_southwest_summ
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India#Originser_monscon_onset_map_en.svg
# https://upload.wikimediaorg/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Population_density_of_countries_2018_world_map%2C_people_per_sq_km.svg 
# https://upload.wikimediaorg/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Pakistan%280rthographic_projection%29.svg 
# https://en.wikipedia.orgap.jpg/wiki/Chambal_Rver#/media/File:India_relief_location_map.jpg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_FIFA_U-17__Women's_Word_Cup
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Uzbekistan_relations
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indus_(fleuve).png
# https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India_map_en.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_River
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Iran_relations 
# https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/KoppenGeiger_Map_IND_present.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thar_Desert 
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/k%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification#/media/File:South_Asia_map_of_1%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification.svg
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports 
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone#/media/File:IPhone_3G_Availability.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Asia
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Pakistan_relations
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_India#/media/File:Diplomatic_relations_of_India.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_India#/media/File:Diplomatic_missions_of_India.PNG
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_India#/media/File:Map_of_India_WV.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_India#/media/File:Members_of_BIMSTEC.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_India#/media/File:Indus_river.svg
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_India
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area
# https://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Map-FTA.svg#/media/File:World-Map-FTA.svg
{{collapse bottom}}
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
! colspan = "4" | Manually-reviewed list of pages and files &nbsp;
|-
!Number in unedited list
!Page link
!Page section(s)
!Presumed file(s) affected
|-
|3
|[[India]]
|[[India#Administrative divisions]]
|[[:File:Political map of India EN.svg|File:Political map of India EN.svg]]
|-
| rowspan="5" |78
| rowspan="5" |[[Foreign relations of India]]
|
|[[:File:Diplomatic relations of India.svg|Diplomatic relations of India.svg]]
|-
|[[Foreign relations of India#South 2]]
|[[:File:Members of BIMSTEC.svg|Members of BIMSTEC.svg]]
|-
|[[Foreign relations of India#South 2]]
|[[:File:Map of India WV.svg|Map of India WV.svg]]
|-
|[[Foreign relations of India#Border disputes]]
|[[:File:Indus river.svg|Indus river.svg]]
|-
|[[Foreign relations of India#Policy]]
|[[:File:Diplomatic missions of India.PNG|Diplomatic missions of India.PNG]]
|-
|73
|[[India–Pakistan relations]]
|
|[[:File:Pakistan India Locator 2.png|File:Pakistan India Locator 2.png]]
|-
|66
|[[India–Iran relations]]
|
|[[:File:Iran India Locator.svg|Iran India Locator.svg]]
|-
|62
|[[India–Uzbekistan relations]]
|
|[[:File:India–Uzbekistan Locator.svg|File:India–Uzbekistan Locator.svg]]
|-
|21
|[[Bhutan–India relations]]
|
|[[:File:India Bhutan Locator.png|File:India Bhutan Locator.png]]
|-
|22
|[[China–India relations]]
|
|[[:File:India China Locator.png|File:India China Locator.png]]
|-
|25
|[[1998 Wandhama massacre]]
|
|[[:File:India location map.svg|File:India location map.svg]]
|}

'''The Wikimedia Foundation stands by the community’s editorial decisions and processes.''' If the community decides not to take any action, we will inform MeitY of that decision and, in the event Wikipedia is blocked, attempt to challenge it.

Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.  [[User:Jrogers (WMF)|Jrogers (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jrogers (WMF)|talk]]) 22:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

=== Responses ===

:Thank you for bringing this to us; we appreciate the work WMF Legal does. 
:Some of the maps, where it might be appropriate to include details about the dispute, already appear to depict the location of the disputed border. For example, [[:File:Political map of India EN.svg]] and [[:File:India location map.svg]] appears to match [[commons:File:States of India (Survey of India).pdf]], with both of them depicting India's claim? Can you give us more information about MeitY's objections to these maps; do they want us to depict the territory as Indian, rather than merely claimed by India?
:For most of the rest, particularly maps like [[:File:Indus river.svg]] on pages like [[Astore River]] and [[:File:IPhone 3G Availability.svg]] on [[iPhone]] I don't think including the fact that India disputes the border would be relevant, and I feel that doing so across the encyclopedia would provide [[WP:UNDUE]] emphasis to India's claims; for other countries with disputed borders we don't mention them every time a map involving those borders is shown, and we shouldn't make an exception because India is issuing [[WP:NLT|legal threats]]. 
:In regards to the specific proposals presented by MeitY, I think that adding notices is a non-starter, and adding a pointer to the official survey map isn't much more likely to be appropriate or succeed. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 23:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for this well written summary, Jacob (and Legal more generally). It's probably '''is''' worth taking a look at each of the map uses that doesn't note the dispute to see if they should be more prominently marked. I can't imagine we will be adding the notices. As to the pointer, again, it would be odd to add that to every single instance of the map (marked as disputed or not), but there may be some cases where it's worth adding to the see also/ext links section. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 23:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
::Hi BilledMammal. Thank you for your comments. We understand MeitY’s concerns to be focused on noting that the territory is disputed, not to portray the territory as undisputed in their favor. [[User:Jrogers (WMF)|Jrogers (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jrogers (WMF)|talk]]) 23:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the clarification. However, that does mean I don't understand their objection to some of these maps where that already appears to have been done. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 23:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
::::The difference in list size between "81 URLs" and the list above does suggest that...quite a few of them will be flawed, even with the most generous of interpretations. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 23:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
:::If they want the disputes to be noted rather than removed entirely, why is [[Pakistan]] on this list? The light green part is land that is claimed by both countries – does India want us to ignore Pakistan's claim? {{pb}} Also, and more to the general point, what would we do if we received a similar complaint from the government of Pakistan? Or Bhutan? Or China? I'm concerned that this sets a very dangerous precedent. By all means we should be going through these articles to make sure they are accurate and well-represented, but we should not be bending over backward to placate an overzealous government. – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 23:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Hi Bradv, thanks for your comment! In the interest of transparency, we thought it necessary to bring this to the attention of the community. I want to clarify that we are not proposing any specific changes; rather, we’re hoping to communicate our understanding of the situation for consideration by the community. I think the standard you articulated: “By all means we should be going through these articles to make sure they are accurate and well-represented, but we should not be bending over backward to placate an overzealous government” is a great way to review this. [[User:Jrogers (WMF)|Jrogers (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jrogers (WMF)|talk]]) 00:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Jrogers (WMF)|Jrogers (WMF)]]. For full transparency, can you post <u>redacted</u> copies of these several communications from the Government of India's MeitY related to this issue and the Wikimedia Foundation's <u>redacted</u> written response(s) thus far?
:::Also, have you contacted the Internet Archive about a recent removal of a Public Domain book with a 1868 map of India by an India-based uploader? They might share if there has been a request from MeitY as well. Thanks,
:::-- [[User:Ooligan|Ooligan]] ([[User talk:Ooligan|talk]]) 20:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
::On [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Political_map_of_India_EN.svg this map] it's unclear to me what the difference is between "Pakistani territory claimed by India" and "Indian territory claimed by Pakistan". Current control? I feel like this phrasing is not sufficiently precise in that case. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 00:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:::It's the difference between the land that India actually controls and the land they claim. The red line is the ''de facto'' border, the hashed areas are what India and Pakistan respectively claim. (Same on the east side of the mpa, with China). Obviously it wouldn't be NPOV of us to draw these maps according to either country's wishes, but it would be perfectly reasonable for us to colour the claims differently and make note of the dispute (as we do on most of these articles). – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 00:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:::I would suggest changing it to "Pakistan-controlled territory claimed by India". Unfortunately, this overflows the existing legend, so it will take more significant editing of the SVG to fix. [[User:AntiCompositeNumber|AntiCompositeNumber]] ([[User talk:AntiCompositeNumber|talk]]) 02:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
::::I agree with this. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
::::I concur, "X territory claimed by Y" is at best confusing and at worst it implies actual ownership aligns with the current line of control. "X-controlled territory claimed by Y" would work, but if space is an issue then I believe it can be shortened to "territory claimed by Y" without altering the meaning or understandability. The line of control itself implies the territory is claimed and controlled by the other side. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 06:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
:It would be appreciated if when citing the desire for transparency that the WMF could give a fuller picture of this. It is presented here as a new incident which was merely a "known potential issue" in the past, however it includes [[Bhutan–India relations]] for which we have [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-orders-wikipedia-to-remove-link-showing-incorrect-map-of-india-sources/article33238465.ece news reports] of previous official communication to the WMF. It would be clarifying to know what specifically the WMF means by "the border dispute" in this request to the community. As the WMF has carried out a manual review, it would also be appreciated to know what considerations were taken when doing so. For example, did this review take a similar perspective that it would be "beneficial in providing [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight|due weight]] in context" to add into the maps and captions notes about [[Annexation of Junagadh|related]] [[McMahon Line|disputes]]? It was particularly eye-catching to see [[China–India relations]] included in the manually reviewed list of pages "where mention of the dispute may be beneficial". I hope the WMF takes another look at this situation. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 00:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
::The complaint about [[China–India relations]] is interesting, as both of the India/China maps on that page seem to be drawn in India's favour, with no mention of China's claim. (It doesn't mention India's claim on Pakistan's land either, but if we're going to fix one we're going to fix the other too.) – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 00:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
: Unfortunately, I don't see a way this can be resolved that does not involve Wikipedia being blocked in India. Deleting all maps that show the territory that India actually controls is simply too fundamental a compromise of the neutral point of view to seriously stomach. The only way I could seriously see this being resolved without Wikipedia being blocked is having the maps replaced with one's the Indian government approves of only when viewed from India, like Google maps does it, but the technical implementation of that seems challenging. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:: {{tq|The only way I could seriously see this being resolved without Wikipedia being blocked is having the maps replaced with one's the Indian government approves of only when viewed from India, like Google maps does it, but the technical implementation of that seems challenging.}} I believe the technical implementation already exists (it is often used for banners), but I would oppose that as an NPOV violation.
:: However, what may be acceptable is for us to include a banner on those pages, viewable only in India, that reads something along the lines of "The Indian government has required us to inform you that the maps included in this article reflect control, and do not reflect India's claimed territory". However, I don't think that would be necessary - I doubt India will actually block Wikipedia. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
: This sounds like a headache, but not for us. I'd say the less the community engages with this sort of [[Dr. Evil]] style blackmail the better. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 01:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:As someone who's often critical of the WMF, I have to give props for how this is being handled. If the government of India has an issue with our content, they are more than welcome to make a post here at the neutral point of view noticeboard like anyone else. If the government of India blunders its way into blocking Wikipedia over a few maps, then I hope the people of India will loudly oppose such a decision and see it quickly reversed. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 06:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:Could we just create a new template warning people that a given map might be illegal in some countries like we already have for [[c:Template:Communist_symbol|communist symbolism etc]]? [[User:User1042|<b style="background:blue;color:white;border-radius:12px; padding:3px">User1042</b>]][[User talk:User1042|<b style="background:blue;color:white;border-radius:12px; padding:3px">💬</b>]][[Special:Contributions/User1042|<b style="background:blue;color:white;border-radius:12px; padding:3px">✒️</b>]]  12:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
::If we do, it would be better to do alongside other countries with similar laws. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 13:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Not all of them, in my opinion. I believe that the Russian territorial claims against Ukraine (including Crimea) are just as good as ISIL's in the context of widely documented war crimes of such exceptional intensity, that now the ICC has an [[ICC arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova|arrest warrant]] for Putin: in said case, there is no case for a territorial dispute warning template. --[[User:Minoa|<span style="color:#00A4E0">Minoa</span>]] <small>([[User_talk:Minoa|talk]])</small> 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes. I meant a universal template, like we have for communist symbolism. [[User:User1042|<b style="background:blue;color:white;border-radius:12px; padding:3px">User1042</b>]][[User talk:User1042|<b style="background:blue;color:white;border-radius:12px; padding:3px">💬</b>]][[Special:Contributions/User1042|<b style="background:blue;color:white;border-radius:12px; padding:3px">✒️</b>]]  20:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
:I agree thanks for this thoughtful summary and reasonable stance by the WMF. I suggest we review it and discuss ad nauseum simply to prove that we can before taking any action, IF any is taken. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 17:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:I remember an earlier similar thing with some media coverage[https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-orders-wikipedia-to-remove-link-showing-incorrect-map-of-india-sources/article33238465.ece], it was discussed at [[Talk:Bhutan–India relations]] and other places. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 09:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: [[c:Commons:Village pump]]. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 12:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
* '''Inquiry''' is the complaint at [[India]] about [[:File:Political map of India EN.svg]] (where the in-image caption is perhaps less clear than desired, but seems broadly fair), or other images such as [[:File:South Asian Language Families.png]] (which makes no attempt to convey a disputed border). [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 15:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
*:Good question, thanks for flagging! I believe it's both, and I think that presents a good example of the varying quality of the list they sent us, given that one is at least related to the political borders while the other is quite clearly different. [[User:Jrogers (WMF)|Jrogers (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jrogers (WMF)|talk]]) 15:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
*:: If they refuse to say what they object to and/or want, I must assume they are hoping Wikipedia will self-censor to maximalist demands (that is, have maps that show all India's claimed territory as indisputably Indian) -- which is unreasonable and will not get consensus.  At a policy level, I don't think there is anything that can be done other than a talk-page banner (which I will support if somebody else proposes it).   [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 23:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Due to the way Wikipedia works, it will ''always'' contain errors. That's not something we can change. I'm not inclined to start caving in to demands from this government or that. I'm more sympathetic to India than I am to (say) Russia, which doubtless thinks we are breaking numerous laws with our coverage of the war. But I think we have to draw a line in the sand here. [[User:Adoring nanny|Adoring nanny]] ([[User talk:Adoring nanny|talk]]) 17:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
*:Also worth mention is [[Narendra_Modi#Democratic_backsliding|India's Democratic backsliding]]. [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 04:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
*:Wikipedia will always contain errors, especially if the errors can be verified and the facts can't. That's following our policies and guidelines. But that doesn't excuse, for me, our obligation to try to get things right nor does it excuse our obligation to uphold a neutral point of view. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 08:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

==== Convenience break ====

* {{ping|Jrogers (WMF)}} Other issues aside: Having [[:File:States of India (Survey of India).pdf]] is good, but have the govt. of India released it as an SVG, or better as a data file? If not, please could you ask your contact there to do so? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 17:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
*:Noted. We can try, though the Survey of India themselves have been the slowest responding part (like, it might take them months to respond to a request). If anyone want to make it into an SVG, please feel free to do so. [[User:Jrogers (WMF)|Jrogers (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jrogers (WMF)|talk]]) 15:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Jrogers (WMF)|Jrogers (WMF)]] @[[User:Pigsonthewing|Pigsonthewing]]: I've converted the PDF to [[:File:States of India (Survey of India).svg]], but it's not great quality because of the limitations of the original file. If anyone can create a better version, I'm absolutely fine with mine being uploaded over. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:3px 2px 6px slateblue;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 20:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
* I presume there is no problem about detecting the country of origin when nothing like VPN is being used. For those cases I fully support a country specific banner appearing for specific pages when they are displayed. Plus an option for people to display all banners if they wish. And if Russia wants such a banner for bits of Ukraine being displayed in Russia, well I've no objection and we can all see what they are saying if we want. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 08:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
* I don't think a reader-facing warning is appropriate here. No objections to someone making a template about this as information, and dropping it on associated talk pages - then future editors can decide if they want to adjust things or not. In some cases, something may be inaccurate and this could spurn legitimate improvements. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 14:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
*:We would also need a new Commons template similar to [[:c:Template:Georgian boundaries]] (for misprepresentations of [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]'s borders) to be attached to Commons files. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 06:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
*:I concur with {{no ping|xaosflux}}'s perspective on this. I don't believe reader-facing changes should be implemented but when appropriate I don't see issues with editor-facing notices/templates that garner community support here. — [[User:Ixtal|Ixtal]] <sup>( [[User talk:Ixtal|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ixtal|C]] ) </sup> &#8258; <small> [[Non nobis solum]]. </small> 12:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
* We should seek always to act reasonably, and where we think the edit request is reasonable we should act upon it. In my view, border disputes are usually notable, and I think should be communicated in a proportionate manner (e.g. outlining or shading territory on a map, plus a key). It would not be proportionate to have a big flashy warning about a map being illegal in India. [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 08:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
*'''Do nothing, oppose warning/banner''' [[WP:Risk disclaimer]] already states "Please be aware that any information you may find in Wikipedia may be inaccurate, misleading, dangerous, unethical, or illegal" - why would a country-specific banner even be necessary? Wikipedia has a track record of ignoring petulant bullshit from authoritarian states, no reason for this to change now. '''''[[User:Satellizer|<span style="color:#00B7EB;">Satellizer el Bridget</span>]] [[User talk:Satellizer|<sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)</sup>]]''''' 04:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''No banner''' Per Satellizer. And I'd like to see 'em try and block access to Wikimedia (which...is what [[n:Pakistan reverses block on Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia|their mortal enemy Pakistan did briefly in February]]. [[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] ([[User talk:Heavy Water|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Heavy Water|contribs]]) 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support tailored notices''' I don't like pandering to nationalist interests or censorship at all, but the fact is there will be cases where Wikipedia isn't being neutral, or possibly even correct. The easiest way to avoid angering governments which practice censorship (which in reality is virtually all governments) is to say something to the effect that there are such disputes and the position of the country from which one is viewing Wikipedia may be different than what is represented. Maybe something like {{tq|Wikipedia contains user-generated content and [national borders depicted on this page] may not match the official position of [the Indian government].}} No harm done. If we can preserve access to Wikipedia for millions or billions of people by doing so, that is a very small price. This would not need to be done for governments which don't even give us the chance. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 02:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Do nothing, oppose notice'''. I've thought about it and I don't think we should normalize governments looking for a way to add warnings to Wikipedia. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 03:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose banners and tailored notices'''. The risk disclaimer describes what exactly the Indian government found - that it may be illegal. Almost every piece of content in this project can be deemed illegal according to one or the other. We put the disclaimer at the bottom of every page just for that. Anyone who thinks some content is erroneous are welcome to [[Wikipedia:ABOUT|edit]] - which is of course our daily business here. Re the 81 urls, I don't see anything the WMF should do in particular. — [[User:DaxServer|DaxServer]] ([[User talk:DaxServer|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/DaxServerOnMobile|m]] · [[Special:Contributions/DaxServerEverywhere|e]] · [[Special:Contributions/DaxServer|c]]) 15:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Do nothing, oppose banners and tailored notices ''per se''''' - I agree that we are stepping onto a '''''very''''' slippery slope once we give in to the entreaties of one particular government, no matter how politely requested and how reasonable the negotiations.  There are almost 200 countries in the world, many of which have border conflicts with their neighbors.  Of course, most of these are very low-level and are unlikely to lead to demands to WMF and the various Wikipedias, but I can think of a least a dozen that are festering and could very well result in the same kind of requests that India is now making.  It would be impossible to please all parties if we start on that path, so the only reasonable course of action is to continue doing exactly what we are doing, using the best possible sources and citing everything with reference to them; in other words, our normal commitment to neutrality.  If a country such as India cuts off access to WMF entities for their citizens, that would be a blow, not to us so much as to those people, and it is not too much to think that in democratic countries such decisions would be overturned by public response. In any event, our choice is clear, at least to me. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 19:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
:*To clarify a bit: if an area on a map is disputed between two countries, that should be indicated on the map itself, and in the caption, especially if it's not indicated on the map - but as a matter of '''''fact''''', supported by refs, '''''<u>not</u>''''' as a matter of '''''policy''''', whether set by the community or the Foundation. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 20:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
*I would '''agree to this request''' because it's asking us to do the right thing.  Where borders are disputed, we ''should'' be informing readers of this fact, without taking a stance about which version of the border is correct.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 09:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
*For the sake of NPOV, if we act to acknowledge India's objections to a map we ought to solicit and note the viewpoint of the entity on the other side of the border in question. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 10:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
*This is a very odd venue for a discussion where the goal was for the "community" was to be consulted... Not sure how many Wikipedians have the NPOV noticeboard page on their watchlist, and I only learned about it through asking a question in the Signpost. Suggest moving to the village pump and also prasing it as an RFC. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
** There is already a note on [[WP:CENT]]. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 17:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
* I think it is a reasonable request to include the ''fact'' that there is a border dispute in cases where relevant. Afterall this isn't false and only conveys a [[WP:NPOV]] to the readers. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;'''[[User:CX Zoom|CX Zoom]]'''[he/him]</span> <sup class="nowrap">([[User talk:CX Zoom|let's talk]] • {[[Special:Contributions/CX Zoom|C]]•[[User:CX Zoom/X|X]]})</sup> 18:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
*:In isolation that might be a reasonable request, but it doesn't gel with the list of articles and images presented in the master list and in the manual list, many of which already do this. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Question for Legal''' {{ping|Jrogers (WMF)}} would adding templates similar to [[c:Template:Georgian boundaries]] or [[c:Template:Chinese boundaries]] on the description pages of the affected files satisfy MeitY's request? – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
*:Good question. I think the answer is a solid maybe. I think in context of the way that Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons hosts files, one could make a compelling argument that this satisfies their request for notification about the issue to users. On the other hand, based on my conversations with them so far, they have been very focused on the specific URLs they identified and changes to the file pages require a clickthrough. This did [[c:Commons:Village_pump#Legality_of_Indian_maps|come up on Commons as well]] and my recommendation there is the same I'd make here: it's helpful for us in negotiating, both now and in future, so I'd encourage these kind of filepage warnings if they don't cause other problems. - [[User:Jrogers (WMF)|Jrogers (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jrogers (WMF)|talk]]) 16:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Teratix|Teratix]] @[[User:Jrogers (WMF)|Jrogers (WMF)]] as I [https://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=prev&oldid=772099706 noted on Commons], MediaViewer can show small "non-copyright restriction" icons. (Something like a quarter of those URLs were MediaViewer URLs so presumably that's something the ministry cares about.) It's not much but it should be uncontroversial as we already use it for all kinds of images which are illegal in some Western country. [[User:Tgr|Tgr]] ([[User talk:Tgr|talk]]) 20:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
*Something seems deeply wrong here. According to [https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerCountryBreakdown.htm these statistics], India, a country of 1.3 billion people, accounts for about 5% of Wikipedia's total pageviews. That's on par with the UK. The outcome of this discussion might play a large part in determining whether or not these users have continuing unimpeded access to Wikipedia. Can you imagine if access to Wikipedia in the UK hinged on the outcome of a discussion like this? There would be dozens if not hundreds of users weighing in within hours. It would be bigger than [[WP:FRAM]]. Why is this discussion so comparatively small and slow?

:This is not a Russia scenario where the requests are obviously incompatible with neutrality and free access. There's no request to delete content or rewrite it to support India's claims over all others. The request is to note disputed areas on certain maps are, well, disputed and don't reflect India's view. That doesn't seem blatantly unreasonable or contrary to core values. It's true there's problems to be negotiated, but why are some reflexively saying "do nothing" instead of looking for solutions?

:Why such a lack of self-awareness about the fact that knowing about and participating in this discussion means we are [[User:Barkeep49/Elite|really, really, really weird people]]?

:Am I missing something here? – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
::A few things are missed here. Firstly, much of the , content, even in the manual list, already mentions the disputes, so the calls for change here are calls to keep doing what we are already doing. Secondly, "there's no request to...rewrite it to support India's claims over all others" seems wrong at a close reading, especially in light of the first point. There are a few different border disputes, but the only one that seems to be being raised is the one where a mention would reinforce the Indian claims but not others. A key tell is Jrogers wording "where mention of the dispute may be beneficial". They did not reply to my question about what they meant by that, but the most likely reading I can see is that "the dispute" (note the singular) refers to the [[Kashmir conflict]]. Highlighting only that dispute, which coincidentally is the major one where India does not control all the territory, would of course push the Government of India's claims relative to its neighbouring governments. Finally, it seems to be missed in many comments that this is not a novel topic of discussion. The community has already discussed such content, in many locations over many many pages, for pretty much Wikipedia's entire existence. The community has felt the need to create [[WP:ARBIPA]], because of having to deal with these issues. To say people are suggesting to "do nothing instead of looking for solutions" is to ignore how much has been done on a topic that has been on the ARBCOM-level radar since at least 2007. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
:::{{tq|much of the content, even in the manual list, already mentions the disputes, so the calls for change here are calls to keep doing what we are already doing}} If this is already done for "much of the content", why not extend this practice?
:::{{tq|The community has already discussed such content, in many locations over many many pages, for pretty much Wikipedia's entire existence.}} Sure, but an Indian government threat to block Wikipedia entirely seems to be a relevant new context.
:::{{tq|Highlighting only that dispute, which coincidentally is the major one where India does not control all the territory, would of course push the Government of India's claims relative to its neighbouring governments.}} Sure, so might there be another solution? Could we note these neighbouring governments' relevant competing claims as well? – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 16:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
::::We have standard widespread practices, I merely hedge as I have not reviewed the entirety of the random list of articles. The Indian government threat to block Wikipedia is [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-orders-wikipedia-to-remove-link-showing-incorrect-map-of-india-sources/article33238465.ece not new]. We could show all disputes everywhere all the time sure, but I doubt that's the desired outcome, it's generally not what external reliable sources do, and it doesn't really help readers. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
*Since we seem to be moving to bold !votes. '''Use maps indicating disputed territory, where appropriate. Oppose banners et al'''. Both on any political/diplomatic map, and the regions of India maps, using maps marking the disputed territory as just that would seem appropriate. WMF Legal has thankfully narrowed down the group for consideration from the random, incorrect, and jumbled mix of URLs already. I concur with the views above that if it becomes known that we will add regional banners noting things as disagreeing with the government we're going to get these requests all the bloody time. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 15:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''No notices, no changes.''' Nothing good can come of this. Heck, I find those Georgian and Chinese notices offensive. Thanks for letting me know not to put any maps involving those two countries on Commons, what with the legal threat that they entail. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 06:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
*:In fact, I'm curious, is there a discussion that led to the Georgian and Chinese notices? Was this approved and/or required by foundation legal? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 06:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
*::I don't know the history of the Chinese one, but the Georgian one was a unilateral creation by a user with a history of creating/editing maps to show a particular set of borders. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 07:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
*:::If I were still on Commons I'd be starting a discussion about how the mere existence of these templates is an affront to our philosophy, but. Not my circus. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 14:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
*I would support the addition of tailored notices explaining that the border is disputed. This is reasonably in line with NPOV as well as what appears to be a precedent set with Georgia and China. It would also help avoid 5% of Wikipedia users being cut off. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 10:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
*:I would disagree that it's in line with NPOV as most NPOV issues don't involve a government threatening imprisonment. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 17:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
* '''Support template/oppose notices/oppose no change'''. I disagree strongly with the principle of "If Indian govt has a problem they should approach us via NPOV noticeboard" argument by [[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]]. By liasing with WMF, Meity is explicitly trying to engage with the Wikipedia community, there's no need to force bureaucracy instead of discussing the arguments themselves. I also dislike [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]]'s obvious [[WP:BAIT]], and would recommend users to consider the request on its own merits without trying to draw political non-sequiturs.
: On the same note, I am concerned by the number of editors who feel hungry to get Wikipedia banned in India and would rather play a game of chicken instead of policy based discussion. 
: I think no-change is not the move, simply because some of the request is either already covered by current policy (or can have policy adjusted if the request is reasonable enough). I oppose banners or similar, I support templates to the style of [[c:Template:Georgian boundaries]] on non political maps (like [[:File:Indus river.svg]]). If the map itself is about political borders, current policy dictates we should indicate it on the map already (so no policy change needed).
: Disclaimer: I am an Indian editor. (Though that shouldn't matter for [[WP:INVOLVED]] or similar).
: [[User:Soni|Soni]] ([[User talk:Soni|talk]])  16:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
* I've added a disputed tag for all but one of the files on Commons (and an edit request for that one). I'd '''support tailored notices''' per [[WP:DUE]]. [[User:Frostly|Frostly]] ([[User talk:Frostly|talk]]) 03:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
**I've processed your edit request. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
** I have reverted, as the tag was both incorrect (factual accuracy has not been disputed, POV has) and out of line with what is supported here. It's also blind tagging that makes no sense. [[:File:Map of India WV.svg|This map]], [[:File:India location map.svg|this map]], and [[:File:Political map of India EN.svg|especially this map]] doesn't show the border dispute? Really? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
*I think that we should limit our actions to what would be a reasonable response to something like an edit request on a semi-protected page. It's perfectly reasonable for us to make sure that maps that depict disputed borders, anywhere on the planet, are presented in a manner that is encyclopedic and NPOV. So it's appropriate to mark disputed territories as such, taking into account ''both'' sides in the border dispute. If somebody like the Indian government makes us aware of a map that they perceive as unfair, we should examine it for NPOV and correct it as we see fit, but not necessarily as they see fit. We seem to be doing this now, and we should make an effort to improve on it whenever a flawed map is brought to our attention. And I'm fine with telling the Indian government that we are doing this. But I'm disinclined to go beyond that, as it would become a sort of special pleading for some geographic areas and not others. So I'd stay away from implementing things like banners or special notices. Imagining a hypothetical in which we get blocked in India, I think WMF Legal could ask them what specific maps are the problem, and we could deal with them as I just described, and India might just accept that as a good response from us, and that could be a sensible way to resolve the conflict. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

*'''Do nothing, oppose any changes''' Per Andrevan and DaxServer. If this request is accepted, it may set a dangerous precedent and seriously undermine Wikipedia's neutrality. [[User:Quirino il Grande|Quirino il Grande]] ([[User talk:Quirino il Grande|talk]]) 18:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

*'''Do nothing- no changes in response to this request''' -- 

:A "[[slippery slope]]" as high as [[Chomolungma]].

:India under [[Narendra Modi]] will not risk the negative political ramifications of blocking Wikipedia or the [[Wikimedia Commons|Commons.wikimedia]] within India. If this was serious threat leading to blocking Wikipedia and/ or the Commons, it would have come from [[Minister of External Affairs (India)]], instead of a new agency looking to score internal political points and potential increased influence within GOI (Government of India). See also, [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] above and other "Do nothing" or "no changes" cautionary comments.
:India and China have a many decades old boundary dispute. 100's of kilometers of these boundaries were [[Demarcation line|demarcated]] when [[Tibet (1912–1951)|Tibet was a defacto independent nation]] from 1913 to 1951 with the [[13th Dalai Lama]] as the undisputed (among Tibetans) Head of government. This border "dispute" came into question after [[Indian independence movement|India's Independence]] and the forceful [[Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China|annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China]] in the early 1950's.
:So, does the Wikimedia Foundation and it's associated projects want to be used as a tool in these complex international disputes world-wide? India requests this year- China requests next year. Other countries, other years. A handful of disputed maps will become 100's of disputed maps. Objections over current maps will inevitably become objections over ''historic maps,'' like this 1864 map [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1864_Mitchell_Map_of_India,_Tibet,_China_and_Southeast_Asia_-_Geographicus_-_India-mitchell-1864.jpg] published in the United States.
:Historical [[Indo-chinese relations|Indo-Chinese]] ''border'' maps will be effected, because current maps are based on previous maps and historic documents. 
:For example, the modern India-China boundary dispute is partly based on historic boundary maps printed during the three party (Tibet, Great Britain and China) 1914 [[Simla Convention|Simla Accord]]. This is the historic basis for much of India's [[Arunachal Pradesh|Himalayan]] national boundaries today. Are there any objections by one party to this agreement- the [[Central Tibetan Administration|Central Tibetan Administration]] and the [[Nobel Peace Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]] laureate, the [[Dalai Lama's escape from China|14th Dalai Lama]], (since 1959 is still a refugee in India) about India's and China's boundaries? Are there any objections by the second party to this agreement, [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]]? Or are there any objections by the third party to this agreement, [[China]]? This "slippery slope" example illustrates that "[[What's Past Is Prologue|What's past is prologue]]" here memorialized [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:What_is_Past_is_Prologue_statue.jpg] in front of the [[National Archives and Records Administration|United States National Archives and Records Administration]]." "[[Say Cheese|Say cheese]]"- few smiles in this rare 1913 photograph of the three party (Tibetan, British, Chinese) Simla Accord boundary negotiators posing here:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Simla_Conference_1913.jpg 
:Many countries have border disputes, but there is only one [[Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]]. --[[User:Ooligan|Ooligan]] ([[User talk:Ooligan|talk]]) 21:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
*We definitely shouldn't be adding notices to articles or images that governments don't agree with some/all of their content. This request reflects poorly on the Indian Government, which has a track record of seeking to censor international sources on the country. It's a matter for editors of relevant articles to decide what maps to use and how they should be captioned, per usual editing and (if necessary) dispute resolution processes - which have a strong emphasis on encouraging the use of reliable sources and presenting differences in these sources accurately. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 23:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Defer to Wikimedia Commons''', whom [[c:Commons:Village_pump#Legality_of_Indian_maps|I notified earlier in this discussion]]. They do use legal warning templates[[c:Template:Chinese boundaries|[1]]][[c:Template:Georgian boundaries|[2]]] for some of their images, but it is not consistent. I think it makes sense for them to discuss it among themselves and decide what their strategy should be going forward. The thread I created at their village pump has fizzled out, so perhaps someone ({{u|Jrogers (WMF)}}?) should post the issue to their administrators' noticeboard. Hope this helps. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 23:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
*In regard to file-pages on [[c:Commons|Commons]] or other language wikis, they should be handled by those communities.<p>In regard to maps appearing in Wikipedia articles, in general they should show each side's claims in a reasonably clear and unbiased manner. For example [[:File:Political_map_of_India_EN.svg]] has unclear or misleading descriptors, as discussed above my myself and others. It appears that [[:File:Indus_river.svg]] fails to show the disputed claims at all. These and other maps should be updated as soon as practical, as soon as anyone finds, creates, or provides an improved map.<p>Per [[WP:General_disclaimer]], related disclaimers[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer] and [[WP:No_disclaimers]] I oppose inserting "notices" or similar into articles.<p>In regard to geolocating readers and trying to serve different article-content to different countries, I do not believe the Wikimedia software supports that capability at this time. I would oppose developing such a capability.<p>In regard to the WMF, thank you. It appears that this has been handled quite well.<p>In regard to any Indian government employees who might receive this message, we thank you for any content you are willing to share with us and we welcome anyone who points out any error or unclear content in Wikipedia. However for whatever it's worth, anything that sounds like a "threat" or "demand" may slow or discourage action from our community of volunteer editors, and you might want to pass that up to higher ranked officials and politicians. We will firmly ignore any threat or demand may by China or Pakistan to advance their territorial claims against India, and similarly we will ignore any threats or demands made by India. Our goal is to accurately and neutrally present whatever dispute may exist. See [[:Censorship of Wikipedia]] for an extensive list of countries that have blocked or threatened-to-block Wikipedia, and all the times it has failed or backfired. Not only would such a block diminish educational, economic, and scientific opportunities for Indian citizens, it would prevent Indian citizens from incorporating India's perspectives and interests into our articles. That would undermine India's political, cultural, and international interests on the world stage. We accept India's freedom to do so, and it would sadden us for about 5 minutes. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 10:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Alsee|Alsee]], FYI, "'''''<u>India engineers are helping to keep Wikipedia inclusive</u>'''''"
*:https://web.archive.org/web/20220927231652/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/india-engineers-are-helping-to-keep-wikipedia-inclusive/articleshow/93893944.cms
*:Quote from August 2022 article from the [[The Times of India|'''<u>Times of India</u>''']]-
*::"INDIANS LOVE TO WIKI
*::Readers in India visit Wikipedia more than 750 million times each month, the fifth highest number of views from any country
*::India recently became the second largest English wikipedia contributor country after the US
*::Over 65,000 volunteer contributors in India - a fifth of the global number - add, edit, and update articles on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects every month
*::Wikipedias are available in 25 languages spoken in India
*::Hindi Wikipedia ranked #55, with 140,000 articles and 575,000 users
*::Tamil Wikipedia ranked #61, with 130,000 articles and 179,000 users
*::Telugu Wikipedia ranked #81, with 70,000 articles and 99,000 users" --
*:[[User:Ooligan|Ooligan]] ([[User talk:Ooligan|talk]]) 20:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''No Change''' per Ooligan. Local t/p consensus works fine. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 22:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

==== Convenience break 2 ====

*'''Do nothing''' in response to any request threatening a block of Wikipedia. Rather, invite the Indian government to participate in the Wikipedia consensus-building process, by making proposals for sourced and neutral qualifiers with respect to any map in a RfC or on individual talk pages. Acceding to this request would incentivize other governments to threaten Wikipedia with blocks to get their way, and it would violate our policy [[WP:OWN]]. Our content is decided by editors, not governments. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 20:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Do nothing''' -- India does not get to tell us what their version of reality is and what is right. Thankfully, Wikimedia servers are hosted in the US and so do not need to comply with these types of laws, as they'd be flatly unconstitutional here. Hopefully the Indian Government will change tact. --[[User:Rockstone35|<span style="color:#DF0101"><b>Rockstone</b></span>]][[User talk:Rockstone35|<span style="color:0000ff;font-size:15px"><sup><small><b>Send me a message!</b></small></sup></span>]] 22:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the request by the Indian government in one way. The decision to include or not include notices about disputed maps ''does not'' rest in the hands of this board; it rests in the hand of the editors editing any particular article and their discussions on talk page. Wikimedia Foundation should leave a notice on the talk page of each of the shortlisted maps/articles in contention informing the editors of this issue and encouraging them to discuss whether a change is needed or not. Editors here do understand that we cannot dismiss the Indian government's request purely because it's a government request (or under the misunderstanding that we all should stand proud having defied a government). In that light, this should be sent to the articles in question. Thanks, [[User:Lourdes|<span style="color:blue; background: white">Lourdes</span>]] 06:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
*:I wonder if starting a bunch of individual talk page discussions about this would violate the spirit of [[WP:NOLEGALTHREATS]]. There are definitely laws we want to comply with, such as copyright, child protection, etc. But it sounds like India has made something illegal that is normally protected under freedom of speech. They may possibly be using legal pressure to try to win a content dispute. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 10:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
*Weak comment, as I have only read the discussion and not the articles, but we should treat this as we do any other legitimate content debate. The proposer should be irrelevant – why should Wikipedia care if it's the Indian government or one of their 1.4 billion citizens? We care about building the best encyclopedia possible, not that. [[WP:NLT]] is worth considering, but we shouldn't deliberately ignore correcting incorrect info because it was mentioned alongside a legal threat, if that's what this is determined to be. From WP:NLT: {{tq|The aim is to prevent legal threats being posted on Wikipedia, not to keep bad content from being fixed. Admins should encourage an aggrieved user to identify factual errors in the article at issue; a link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) may be appropriate.}} <span style="background-color: black">[[User:Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">Skarmory</span>]] [[User talk:Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">(talk •</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">contribs)</span>]]</span> 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
*:It is odd that the idea that this is somehow an ignored or overlooked issue keeps coming up. This is a very well-known issue, that editors are very familiar with. The question at hand is very well known, the position of the Indian government is very well known, it has been raised many times before. The overall topic has emerged enough times that we have an [[WP:ARBIND|ARBCOM regime]] dedicated to the topic area. [[Talk:India]] has a related FAQ. This isn't even the first Indian government request on the issue. The only novel item at hand here is the WMF carrying out some sort of manual survey of their own that they have declined to expand on. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

*:What action, if any, was taken related to the 2020 "order" by the Government of India's MeitY against Wikipedia? 
*:See [[Wayback Machine|The Wayback Machine]] =>
*:https://web.archive.org/web/20201203081347/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-orders-wikipedia-to-remove-link-showing-incorrect-map-of-india-sources/article33238465.ece
*:Here is an excerpt: 
*:"The Ministry of Electronics and IT has issued an order under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 directing Wikipedia to remove the link, they added. The matter had been flagged by a Twitter user, who highlighted that the Wikipedia page on India-Bhutan relationship had incorrectly depicted the map of Jammu Kashmir, and asked the government to take action. Sources said taking cognizance of the matter, the ministry issued an order on November 27, 2020 directing Wikipedia to remove the map as it violated the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India."
*: 
*:I requested of @[[User:Jrogers (WMF)|Jrogers (WMF)]] for a redacted copy(s) of the recent Government of India's communications to the Wikikmedia Foundation, but I have not received a response (see above).
*: WMF Legal wrote, "... in 2023, the Indian government’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) sent the Foundation ''<u>several direct complaints</u>'' about specific maps." (emphasis added)
*:-- [[User:Ooligan|Ooligan]] ([[User talk:Ooligan|talk]]) 07:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Ooligan|Ooligan]], you can see my attempt at improving our maps at [[Talk:Bhutan–India relations#Current map]]. I thought we reached a consensus to show the disputed territories, but I see it has since been reverted to the version which does not show the disputed areas at all, which is unfortunate. Our primary response to any legal complaint or threat should be to ensure our content complies with [[WP:NPOV]]. – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 22:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
*Wikipedia is not censored. Governments especially do not dictate what goes here: our sole job is to build a quality encyclopedia. However, we should err on the side of India in India-China border disputes. Due to modernization, internet access, and likely government efforts, there is a bias towards China in articles involving a Chinese controversy. <span style="color:darkblue;"><b>[[User:Chamaemelum|<span style="color:green;">Chamaemelum</span>]]</b></span> (<span style="color:red;"><i>[[User talk:Chamaemelum|<span style="color:purple;">talk</span>]]</i></span>) 04:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Do nothing:''' While on the one hand it would seem reasonable to at least put notices of the dispute on the map, at what point do we stop?  With the many enclaves and exclaves all over the world where countries have similar claims, no matter how outlandish?  With China's claim of the nine-dash line, and its somewhat farcical assertion that any waters where there's a Chinese shipwreck is actually Chinese territorial waters?  Do we slap warning labels on maps if Islamic State claims Texas tomorrow?  (We do not, after all, I believe, have an official WMF ruling as to what entities get to call themselves nation-states or not.)  My inclination is to tell them to block and be damned, and see the Streisand effect at work. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]]   11:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''' Wikipedia isn't here to censor information or pander to anyone. I'd be ok with a notice on the talk page "This map/the map in this article does not correspond to the view of the Indian government" or something similar, but we aren't here to start redacting information from the wiki because of a government's request. Putting that in an info bar on the main article page would be distracting.
*:Frankly if the Indian gov't wants to play hardball, let them. Blocking wikipedia in the country WILL be noticed there and commented upon. WE can't start censoring certain versions of Wiki for certain countries (unlike what Elon did with twitter for Turkey), we're here for everyone. India being the tech-savvy country it is, I'd expect users to simply get a vpn and still use wikipedia anyway. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 22:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
*::* Link to request to Jrogers_(WMF) talk page to post redacted copies of communications. 
*:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jrogers_(WMF)#NPOV/Noticeboard#Communications_from_government_of_India_to_WMF 
*:::--
*::[[User:Ooligan|Ooligan]] ([[User talk:Ooligan|talk]]) 00:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''No notice:''' I firmly believe that accommodating the Indian government's request to add tailor-made warnings to captions would create an imbalance of importance in favor of their claim. This could open the floodgates for other countries to do the same, cluttering Wikipedia with subjective warnings that promote their own agendas. Moreover, this request goes against Wikipedia's core principles as it resembles a legal threat and serves as a platform for bolstering their claim. We must remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing. It is an encyclopedia, a reliable source of unbiased information that should remain free from such influences.[[User:jeth888|<span style="font-family:Old English text MT,courier;font-style: italic;"><big>J</big>ET<big>H</big><small>888</small></span>]] ([[User talk:jeth888|<span style="font-family:Old English text MT,courier;font-size: 90%;">message</span>]]) 12:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Do nothing''' There is absolutely no justifiable reason to listen to their demands. End of question. <nowiki>:</nowiki>3 [[User:Freedom4U|F4U]] ([[User talk:Freedom4U|they]][[Special:Contributions/Freedom4U|/it]]) 00:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Do nothing''' - it opens a can of worms if we change anything in a way which favours a governmental request. Doesn't matter which government. We have an international audience and an international contributor base; we have a system based on consensus and should respect that, not some external threat. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 19:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Do nothing'''. The map concerns the areas called  Pakistan-administered Kashmir ([[Azad Kashmir]] and [[Gilgit-Baltistan]]) and Chinese-administered Kashmir ([[Aksai Chin]]). For decades, the current ruling government of India, [[Bharatiya Janta Party]] (BJP), frequently said that they will conquer Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Chinese-administered Kashmir.[https://books.google.com/books?id=UDA9dUryS8EC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA407&dq=Vajpayee+declared+that+a+BJP+government+would+%22+take+back+that+part+of+Kashmir+that+is+under+Pakistan%27s+occupation&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Vajpayee%20declared%20that%20a%20BJP%20government%20would%20%22%20take%20back%20that%20part%20of%20Kashmir%20that%20is%20under%20Pakistan's%20occupation&f=false][https://www.jammulinksnews.com/mb/newsdet.aspx?q=286519][https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/exclusive-aksai-chin-is-ours-time-to-take-it-back-bjp-ladakh-mp-jamyang-tsering-namgyal-1690278-2020-06-18][https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/161117/no-one-can-stop-india-if-it-tries-to-take-pok-mos-home-hansraj-ahir.html] The opposition has fired back BJP over these empty talks.[https://www.thestatesman.com/india/farooq-abdullah-dares-bjp-take-back-pok-pakistan-1502530624.html][https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/congress-dares-modi-govt-in-parliament-take-back-pok-if-you-can-deal-with-china-pakistan-together/1857591/] Now after ruling for more than 15 years, with 0 territorial gains and [[2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes#India's_territorial_loss|territorial losses under their administration]], the BJP has decided to force completely uninvolved parties like Wikipedia to modify the map because BJP is more concerned about propaganda gains rather than the reality. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 04:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
*In fairness, I don't have a clear sense at all of what they're objecting to. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 20:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
* I don't see that this would be a problem on the Commons side. We already have [[:c:Template:Nazi symbol/en]] because Nazi symbols are banned in Germany. We could make a template for file descriptions doing similar for Indian law regarding maps. I don't see the images being deleted, because it's not related to copyright, and we don't delete other images just because their use is otherwise restricted in a certain jurisdication. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo#top|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 19:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

==== Update from WMF Legal July 14 ====
Hi everyone,
We had a second call with MeitY last week and I wanted to share a short update from it. The main point was good news: we received some greater specificity from them about the sort of information they're looking for. They thought the map at Commons [[commons:File:India Naxal affected districts map.svg|India Naxal affected districts]] was good and provided the information that they wanted to see to end their complaints. This sort of info including the warning note and the details about the disputed borders obviously wouldn't make sense for many of the links that MeitY sent us and we're still working on trying to help them understand the different types of pages. But for political map files, we at least have confirmation that a page like this would satisfy them and appears to be in line with Commons policy and overall neutral presentation of information. -[[User:Jrogers (WMF)|Jrogers (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jrogers (WMF)|talk]]) 19:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

:{{re|Jrogers (WMF)}} There is a related post on your talk page, dated July 7, awaiting your response. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 21:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
:'''Why not?''' The "do nothing" votes dont seem to be based on anything, really, than "can of worms", "slippery slide", "they wont block us anyway", "block us and see what happens".<br>Sure, the Indian government isnt going to be banning Wikipedia. That is not, however, a deciding factor on what we should do. <br>Depicting disputed areas clearly as disputed areas is a clear and obvious change. Not sure why it should not/ can not/ will not be implemented.<br>As for the slippery slide, we already have notices regarding legal restrictions for several countries, not just for maps but for other restrictions as well. Why should we have different standards for different countries? I dont think there would be issues regarding the technical implementation either.<br>I agree that our decisions should not be based on what a government tells us to do, but at the same time, just because someone wants to see the change does not imply the change should not be made. <br>I think the request to clarify the disputed areas is fairly reasonable - and I think we do it poorly as of now - though our implementation may differ slightly with what the request is, depending on our content policies.<br>I think a similar opinion was echoed by [[User:Teratix|Teratix]] and others, who correctly pointed out that there is nothing inherently wrong with the proposal, though we may differ on the exact ways in which we implement it. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 08:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}
: As an addendum, a template has been created on commons as a legal disclaimer for the affected maps [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Indian_boundaries]. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
::Given the above consensus, the template should probably be deleted on sight if placed anywhere on en.WP. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 01:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
::: I don't think commons templates can be used on Wikipedia anyway. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

== [[Socialist Alternative (Australia)]] ==

This is concerning a section in the article in which the political organisation was deregistered as a student club by a student union. In general the article contains a lot of citations from the political organisation itself, often used to portray the organisation in a favourable light rather than a NPOV light which is highly problematic. Please see below for a description of the  dispute. 

An editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Alternative_%28Australia%29&diff=1167164592&oldid=1167162431 introduced material] about an incident concerning the political organisation at a university using citations from the political origination itself to justify a position favourable to the political organisation and in the process introduced highly biased language such as "opposing Israeli war crimes and occupation" into the article as fact. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Alternative_%28Australia%29&diff=1167171062&oldid=1167169153 edited the material] to remove the obviously unreliable source, bring in a reliable source and bring in a neutral point of view to the content. An [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/144.6.64.97 IP editor] who only has two edits (both of which are the article) has mysteriously shown up and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Alternative_%28Australia%29&diff=1167176395&oldid=1167171531 reverted] back to the original POV material containing unreliable sources as citations with a highly politicised and biased message towards myself in the edit summary. I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Alternative_%28Australia%29&diff=1167181782&oldid=1167176395 reverted] advising in the edit summary that they need to refer to [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NPOV]] and that they should take this to talk. I have advised them if they continued war that they will find themselves on a noticeboard (I'm now following through on that). I have then started a new topic in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socialist_Alternative_(Australia)#Socialist_Alternative_student_club_being_deregistered_by_Monash_University_Student_Union articles talk page] concerning the talk page, making sure to tag both users. Rather than engaging in any discussion the IP user has again [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Alternative_%28Australia%29&diff=1167183884&oldid=1167181782 reverted] making only slight changes and again directing highly politicised and biased messages towards myself in the edit summary. 

Can I get the eyes of more experienced editors/administrators on this material and on this article in general which in large sections reads as propaganda for the political organisation. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 07:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

== [[Amhara genocide]] ==

An editor is claiming [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:ADVOCACY]] at [[Talk:Amhara_genocide#Attention_needed]]. They also tagged the article as "possible fake". I have reverted the tagging because (a) no evidence was given, (b) the article has went through several forms of review (AfC, AfD, classification) and was accepted, (c) lots of sources using the term "Amhara Genocide" are available. The claim that it is fake seems to be a non-starter (and was rejected in [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amhara_genocide|this AfC discussion]])  I am unfamiliar with the topic, maybe someone more knowledgeable regarding the issue can take a look into whether or not there are neutrality issues. [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 11:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

:Agreed with @[[User:Random person no 362478479|Random person no 362478479]]. The article had been discussed thoroughly by experienced wikipedians and rated as B first and now C with recommendationsn to improve some disputed and potential Original research contents. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing ethnic division in Ethiopia, articles that discuss ethnic violence are constantly nominated for either deletion or endless tags are added to them from opposing parties (ethnic groups). Bottom line is that the article has more than adequate sources that discuss "genocide" directly to meet the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] requirement to say the least.[[User:Petra0922|Petra0922]] ([[User talk:Petra0922|talk]]) 22:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
:I can only find 18 sources that specifically use the term "Amhara genocide" several of which seem to be critical of the concept. For example "The war in Tigray (2020–2021): Dictated truths, irredentism and déja vu" by M Labziné in the Routledge Handbook of the Horn of Africa states: {{tq|diaspora-based activists and the National Movement of the Amhara (NaMA, a political party founded in June 2018) crafted and imposed the narrative of the ‘Amhara genocide}}. While "Proxy Wars in the Horn of Africa" by H Matfess, T Lyons in the Routledge Handbook of Proxy Wars states: {{tq|A grievance narrative that claimed systematic discrimination against Amhara – sometimes labeled the “Amhara genocide” – used the Welkait issue as one of its rallying cries}} [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
::I am confident that removing the fake/hoax template was justified. But given that I am unfamiliar with the topic I have no opinion on questions of [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:SYNTH]], [[WP:ADVOCATE]], etc. That, combined with the fact that the article doesn't have many editors, is why I posted here. The editor who raised the hoax allegation has now proposed merging the article into another article about violence in Ethiopia, but I have no opinion on whether that would be justified. [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 01:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Random person no 362478479|Random person no 362478479]], I understand, this topic is extremely contentious; not only in this platform but also among policy makers or international bodies. It is highly politicized. As one of the renowned genocide scholars often say, bodies have to pile up before gaining consensus by all, if the whole world agrees on the acknowledgment of a certain case by the whole world, ever. I am not talking about those  make destructive edits deliberately for any specific reason here. [[User:Petra0922|Petra0922]] ([[User talk:Petra0922|talk]]) 15:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]], what do you mean by only 18 sources? Very confusing. You added misleading opinions here. If you are an SME of the Genocide topic, then the examples you listed here (“they said that was said and so on..”.) are completely irrelevant. It is important to focus and refer to the given international scholarly, UN, and other similar sources that discuss the elements of genocidal crimes (in the exact same way as the 1948 genocide convention)- by the way are given in the article. Also, let us not forget that the genocide acknowledgment 100% by the whole world is largely political but it doesn’t give the right some one randomly to get up and deny published and actual facts on the ground. The Wikipedia notability guidelines specifically discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Petra0922#Nomination_of_Amhara_genocide_for_deletion here], and the genocide crimes are discussed in detail aligning with the UN genocide convention and the Rome statute. I can see that you are familiar about the Tigray war which started in 2020 that involves multiple warring parties, however the article is discussing the Amhara genocide that began from 1990s and still ongoing. To make this thread relevant, considering the contentious nature of the genocide topic, we really need to discuss examples of the sources and contents in question. Opinions don’t help us come to a consensus for genocide discussions. BTW, [https://www.conftool.com/iags2023/index.php?page=browseSessions&form_session=131&presentations=showhere] is another recent source that was published by the [[International Association of Genocide Scholars]] venue at the University of Barcelona at the Law department in July 14 (a paper abstract). Because of the importance of the Amhara genocide topic, a full "Genocide in Ethipia" session was created by the organizers who happen to be scholars and legal experts. [[User:Petra0922|Petra0922]] ([[User talk:Petra0922|talk]]) 16:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

== [[Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull]] ==

Additional participation at [[Talk:Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull#Premier_of_Victoria_and_Victorian_government_response_to_Keen-Minshull_rally|Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull#Premier of Victoria and Victorian government response to Keen-Minshull rally]] would be appreciated. Thank you, [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 20:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

== [[Sundown town]] ==

The input of others familiar with [[WP:UNDUE]] and "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" would be appreciated at [[Talk:Sundown town#"Try That in a Small Town"]].  In a nutshell, there is a content dispute about whether the song "[[Try That in a Small Town]]" is about a sundown town. Thank you. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 22:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

:Very frustrating to see @[[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] put a thumb on the scale by misrepresenting the nature of the dispute. The question is whether to include reliably sourced material describing criticism of the song as being about a sundown town—not about whether that criticism is correct. [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 01:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

== 2023 Haryana riots ==

The article [[2023 Haryana riots]] was written by {{u|Plumeater2}}. With all due respect, I don't find the user to be following [[WP:NPOV]] when writing this article, but that maybe because they are new (or maybe I'm mistaken). Anyway, this article would benefit from additional eyes. Currently, it is orphaned so the community doesn't know about it. With this message, I'm hoping to attract more community attention.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

== Swati Tribe  ==

I request admins to take necessary actions against those two users who are spreading vandalism on this page. Swati is a Pashtun tribe which everybody knows and It was written for the years with reference but I am noticing from the last 7 months A user named Sutyarashi is trying to prove Swatis of Dardic origin i.e Of Indian Origin. This user revert any edit immediately on this page however he is even not from Pakistan. He looks like a paid agent as he remain active whole day with one another too. They are just trying to distort history. I did debate with him on his talk page which Admins can read, and I defeated him in debate. He was writing Swatis as Dardic without any reference, However the reference which he provided and was sure on that was debating with me mentioned that Swatis are arab on the same page but he changed words to distort history. I therefore request Wikipedia admins to take actions as we have other things to do. [[User:Khan Of Naral|Khan Of Naral]] ([[User talk:Khan Of Naral|talk]]) 10:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:As I am presumably one of the users referred to above (as per the corresponding notice template), I would just like to point out that during the edit warring I left [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Swati_tribe&action=history two edit summaries requesting the user to obtain consensus on the article talk page regarding removal of referenced content]. To no avail ("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.") --[[User:Technopat|Technopat]] ([[User talk:Technopat|talk]]) 10:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
::As far as I can see the main feature there is Khan of Naral edit-warring. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 10:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:Khan Of Naral has been blocked as a sockpuppet by Bbb23: [[User_talk:Khan_Of_Naral#Blocked_as_a_sockpuppet]] [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 19:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

== Criticism of Islam ==

Should an article on 'criticism of Islam' 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam) also include counterviews on criticism of Islam? This seems really strange to me.
Also, is this also considered a Wikipedia policy or not? 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Adhere_to_policy)
It states: “Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance”
Does this mean that wikipedia articles about high-profile criminals should also include positive points about them equally? [[User:Greengrass7|Greengrass7]] ([[User talk:Greengrass7|talk]]) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

:Read [[WP:NPOV]]. Follow the sources. Yes, in some cases the answers to criticism are relevant. But your example about the criminal would be a [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. [[WP:Criticism]] is an essay that tries to explain and expand on parts of [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 18:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
:That article has been a shitshow for a long, long time. Long story short is that there are over a billion Muslims in the world who become very offended at the idea that their religion isnt perfect and wikipedia policy says we have to take their opinion into account. End result is that anytime someone adds legitimate criticism to the [[Criticism of Islam]], [[Criticism of Muhammad]], or [[Criticism of the Quran]] pages, dozen of fanatics some swooping in to add some apologetics bullshit about how all criticism is wrong and mistaken.
:Basically, if you want to make the article more neutral and accurate, youll have a long battle ahead of you. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4|2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4|talk]]) 21:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
::That’s not what I’ve seen. Your pov is showing. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 19:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
:[(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Adhere_to_policy]] is an essay, not a policy, and I think the line you point to is not well written. I mean, Hitler liked dogs and Mussolini got the trains to run on time. But, we don’t need [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. I think that articles like Criticism of (pick your religion) are quite useful. Of course, NPOV demands we do not paint all proclaimed Muslims as terrorists or proclaimed Christians as genocidal (or vice-versa) despite examples in history. And nitpicking ancient texts I think is less than useful in this kind of article as they all contain moral/logical failings by current standards. (Well, not everyone’s standards.) They also contain complete contradictions, like the Bible's old and new testaments and the early and late chapters in the Quran. In articles like this involving religion, I have difficulty seeing how it is useful to include counter arguments as they tend to be nebulous and religious oriented, like god doesn’t need to follow physical laws and it is part of “The Plan” that man cannot understand.<nowiki></ramble></nowiki> I think articles like this may benefit from a very brief preamble and closing stating that that the articles are scholarly-based, critical summaries, not meant as balanced views. Apart from this ramble, I agree with Doug that I haven't seen a large problem. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
*I don't think it is [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] to include Muslims' counter-arguments in the article [[Criticism of Islam]]. {{u|Objective3000}} gives the example of Hitler and Mussolini - but you simply can't compare the world's 1.4 billion Muslims to Hitler or Mussolini. There is no academic basis for wikipedia to compare Islam to Nazism. Instead, academic literature is full of counter-arguments against [[Criticism of Islam]], written by both Muslims and non-Muslims. I strongly feel all these counter arguments must be included as per [[WP:NPOV]].'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 18:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:Sorry, but I in no way meant to compare Muslims to Hitler/Mussolini. I was just using a [[Reductio ad absurdum|reductio]] example. I have NOTHING whatsoever against Muslims. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 18:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::My view is that "Criticism of..." articles are almost always just POV forks and we shouldn't have them for this very reason. They end up just being a garbage bin for everything negative about a subject. A much better approach would be to for them to become something like "Controversies about..." or "Debates about..." and have a more rounded view of the negatives with the counter-arguments advanced by supporters of the target presented. That's not [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]], it's simply in-scope information. The application of [[WP:DUE]]/NPOV is then to give RS opinion (in proportion to prominence) of the validity of the criticism or the counter-argument. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States]] ==

This AfD concerns a typical allegation of a [[WP:POVFORK]] that fails [[WP:SYNTH]]. However, a user at the discussion also alleged that the template [[Template:Sex offender registries in the United States]], and the articles linked from it, are also non-neutral in contents.

The articles that use this template are:
{{cot|19 articles}}
* [[Megan's Law]]
* [[PROTECT Act of 2003]]
* [[Smith v. Doe]]
* [[United States National Sex Offenders Public Registry]]
* [[Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act]]
* [[Jessica's Law]]
* [[Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act]]
* [[Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe]]
* [[Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony]]
* [[International Megan's Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders]]
* [[Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry]] (at AfD)
* [[National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws]]
* [[Women Against Registry]]
* [[Illinois Voices for Reform]] (at AfD)
* [[Sex offender registries in the United States]]
* [[Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States]]
* [[Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States]] (at AfD)
* [[Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States]]
* [[Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws]]
{{cob}}

The articles linked from the template are:
{{cot|22 articles|bg=#ffcccc}}
* [[Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act]]
* [[Megan's Law]]
* [[Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act]]
* [[International Megan's Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders]]
* [[Jessica's Law]]
* [[2006 California Proposition 83]]
* [[PROTECT Act of 2003]]
* [[Sexually violent predator laws]]
* [[Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States]]
* [[Smith v. Doe]]
* [[Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe]]
* [[Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States]]
* [[Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony]]
* [[Miracle Village]]
* [[Pervert Park]]
* [[Wilson v. State]]
* [[State of Georgia v. Allison]]
* [[Kevin Gillson]]
* [[Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws]]
* [[National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws]]
* [[Women Against Registry]]
* [[Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States]] (at AfD)
{{cob}} –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 19:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

:I'm the user that expressed that concern. I have not fully read all of the articles and I can't say which, if any, are POV. What I can say is that the template pretty much only links to stories about problems with sex offender registries and why they need reform or elimination. So I think the template's collection  appears POV in its curation.

:I suggest getting some other eyes on this whole topic. There are several related articles at AfD:
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States|Articles for deletion/Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States]]
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illinois Voices for Reform|Articles for deletion/Illinois Voices for Reform]]
:*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry|Articles for deletion/Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry]]

:It appears @[[User: How I could just edit a wiki article| How I could just edit a wiki article]] has been going through articles on this topic.

:In the United States, several states have genuine problems with over-reaching, constitutionally iffy sex offender laws. At the same time, Wikipedia recently had some issues with pedophilia-friendly editing coordinated off-wiki. It also had some vigilante, kill-all-the-pedophiles edits. This is not exactly the same thing but the topics are "adjacent".

:I believe this needs a nuanced look.
:--<span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]]  •  [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span> 19:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] I'm not seeing the issue here - yes, based on the above, it's a category that's tagged on a lot of pro-reform articles, but it's also on Megan's Law, Jessica's Law, and Smith v Doe, all articles describing the status quo. Seems neutral, and if not then it can be added to more pro-status quo articles.
::The pedophile thing is IMHO a red herring. Based on my limited (but not non-existent) knowledge of the subject there are credible academic and civil liberties voices which have said these laws are unfair or inefficient. Although there's a certain attraction to lumping all the sex-laws-are-broken folks together, this is not like the attempts we've seen on WP to re-brand or justify child rape. There may be some overlap in the age-of-consent area, but I assume that's based on concerns about the effects of adding kids to registries for underage consensual activity. I haven't been through all the articles so maybe there's some stealth attempt to argue for reducing the consequences of child sex abuse but I haven't seen it.
::As noted on the [[Movement_to_reform_sex_offender_laws_in_the_United_States|"movement" AfD]] @[[How I could just edit a wiki article|How_I_could_just_edit_a_wiki_article]] is indefinitely banned ATM so don't expect a lot more "looking through" from them. [[User:Oblivy|Oblivy]] ([[User talk:Oblivy|talk]]) 05:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#RfC_on_notability_criteria|RfC]] on whether appearing in a selective index is sufficient for notability of journals ==

Editors may be interested in this RfC at the essay NJOURNALS that seeks to clarify whether a journal being listed (or having ever been listed) in indices such as Scopus is sufficient for a standalone article. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 14:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[List of left-wing terrorist attacks]] ==

I wanted to bring [[List of left-wing terrorist attacks]] to other editors attention, I've removed several instances where sources do not clearly identify the event listed as either a terrorist attack or left-wing. Could use some more eyes. It also looks like an editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_left-wing_terrorist_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1167661251 recently added] several events based on their original research that "If white supremacy is a right-wing belief, than [black supremacy] is left-wing". ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color:#004ac0">Formal</span><span style="color:black">Dude</span>]] [[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#004ac0;font-size:90%;">(talk)</span>]] 05:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

:don't mind me, I'm just over here banging my head into a wall repeatedly -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 05:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
:anyway, editors on the article also think that "anti-war" is left wing by definition, along with both anti-religion and, somehow, pro-any-religion-that-isn't-Christian. Are many of these attacks left-wing? Sure. Are ''all'' of them? Obviously not. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 05:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
:This might be an article where source quotations are helpful, to make it clear exactly where in the source it supports that it's one of the listed left-wing ideologies and that it's terrorism. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 06:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not sure that will help, honestly. I've altered the lead to remove the ones that appeared to be linked to the most spurious ones (anti-religion, eco-terrorism, etc) and I'll cross my fingers, but I think this will always be vulnerable to "I'm a conservative and I disagree with this, so it's left-wing" or "this is something liberals like so it must be left-wing" kind of editing. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 06:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure the article even needs to exist, given that we already have {{slink|Left-wing terrorism#History}}. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color:#004ac0">Formal</span><span style="color:black">Dude</span>]] [[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#004ac0;font-size:90%;">(talk)</span>]] 06:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm not really excited about it either. But since utterly absurd topics like [[List of autobiographies]] can survive an AfD, well... -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 06:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:FormalDude|FormalDude]], that page doesn't need to exist either. It's a POV fork of [[Political terrorism]] and there was AfD discussion regarding it and the consensus was a delete. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 08:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Note: I've just listed [[Left-wing terrorism]] at AfD given it was previously discussed there and there was strong consensus for a delete last time. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 08:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:FormalDude|FormalDude]] is this perhaps a good candidate for a AfD? Seems like a POV fork from [[List of terrorist incidents]] to me. If you start an AfD I'm sure you'll get plenty of people seconding your recommendation. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 08:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
::In that case you might want to nominate List of terrorist incidents for deletion as well. Left-wing terrorism is merely a category of terrorism used by terrorism experts and most lists are divided by type of attack, in this case left-wing terrorism.
::I noticed that you nominated both [[Left-wing terrorism]] and [[Right-wing terrorism]] for deletion. Do you plan to AfD the other articles about different types of political terrorism?  [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 10:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
:::I'm not going to run with the presumption that all other articles about different types of political terrorism are POV forks if that's your question. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 10:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]], I've just had a brief read of [[Christian Terrorism]] and [[Islamic Terrorism]] and both appear to be hot messes of [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]]. If my nominations for [[Left-wing terrorism]] and [[Right-wing terrorism]] are successful at AfD, I don't see why those two shouldn't be considered for the same treatment. I'll see how consensus plays out. It wouldn't surprise me if the same issues were present on article to do with Jewish, Sikh and Hindu terrorism. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 11:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Before you move ahead, could you please read [https://books.google.ca/books?id=VJJG14mHbGAC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false "Typologies of Terrorism,"] which briefly explains the basic types of modern politically motivated terrorism used in the literature on terrorism: nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, left wing, right wing, and anarchist. (Aubrey, Stefan M)
::::The basis for creating articles is notability, whether or not they have a body of literature in reliable sources. IOW, can you find books and articles about left wing, right wing, Islamic terrorism, etc.
::::The fact that we may disagree with the classifications used by terrorism experts and law enforcement doesn't justify deletion. Instead, we should include reliable sources that criticize them. For example, [[scientific racism]] is no longer given any legitimacy in reliable sources, but there is an article about it because it is a notaable topic.
::::Incidentally, if you think articles are biased, you can make improvements to them. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 11:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::I'll see how the [[Left-wing terrorism]] and [[Right-wing terrorism]] AfDs progress before I consider anything else. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 13:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:FormalDude|FormalDude]], I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_left-wing_terrorist_attacks listed the article at AfD]. You maybe interested. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 09:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

:Seems to have some distinct OR and BLP issues. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed. Apparently anything can be left-wing when you want it to be. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 10:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
*The problem with political labels like “left-wing” and “right-wing” is that there is no clear definition. A viewpoint that is considered “left-wing” in one country might well be considered “centrist”, or even “right-wing” in another. And (of course) no one thinks that ''their viewpoints'' are out on the wings. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
*:Left-wing terrorists absolutely believe their views are out on the wings. They are quite happy to describe themselves as Marxists, socialists, etc, because they are out doing left-wing terrorism to further those goals. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 12:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
*::"Left-wing" exists more as a pejorative than as a viable description of political movements. This article should be tossed to AFD. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 13:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
*:::It is now in AfD. see my comments above. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 13:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
*:::So why does the [[The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL|The Left]], which is a political group in the European Parliament call itself that? Why did it used to call itself the [[European United Left/Nordic Green Left]]? Why do its constituent parties have names such as [[European Anti-Capitalist Left]], the [[Left Socialist Party (Belgium)]], the [[International Socialist Left]], [[The Left (Luxembourg)]] the [[Left Bloc (Portugal)]], the [[Alternative Left]], the [[United Left (Spain)]] or the [[United and Alternative Left]]?
*:::I think the problem is that American conservatives use the term, along with socialist, as a slur for the Democrats, who aren't left-wing or socialist. It doesn't mean that that the Left and socialists don't exist. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
*::::Yeah, Zaathras's comment wasn't exactly worded very well. "Left-wing" is not a pejorative. It can be a polemic device when used by right-wingers, but it's not a pejorative by itself. Not even "far-left" is a pejorative, but it serves to marginalize movements as "far" and therefore out of the overton window. –[[User:Vipz|Vipz]] ([[User talk:Vipz|talk]]) 07:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
*:::::My comment was worded exactly as I meant to word it, kindly keep the meta-analysis to yourself. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 00:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]]: I shall kindly keep my meta-analysis to myself, but you don't need to, got it. –[[User:Vipz|Vipz]] ([[User talk:Vipz|talk]]) 06:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

*::::I assume the heavy European use dates back to the aftermath of the storming of the Bastille where the supporters of the king sat on the right and vice-versa. I don't think it directly translates into American politics. The far-left barely exists in the US. As for a pejorative, Trump just called Dems communist fascists. Perhaps he was hit with a [[Horseshoe theory|Horseshoe]]. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 15:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

:I think left wing/right wing as something that wasn't commonly used in the USA that has crossed over as a polite-seeming way to insult people, so it only appears neutral.  I think lists by topic, like "eco-terrorism" is much more useful and more likely to be something people can agree on definitions for.  For instance, I tend to hear any kind of nationalism as "right wing" ideology and this list is full of nationalist examples. [[User:Denaar|Denaar]] ([[User talk:Denaar|talk]]) 14:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
:Honestly, I think the issue is as simple as a [[WP:OR]] and [[MOS:LABEL]] violation. We don't have to discuss semantics, or what it ''really'' means to be "left-wing" or "leftist", etc. If it was a list of ''only'' events described by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] as "left-wing terrorist attacks", there is no reason not to keep the list. However, it isn't; in many cases (as outlined above) it's one editor's judgement of what constitutes "terrorism" and "left-wing" motivations. <big>[[User:Yue|<span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">''Yue''</span>]][[User talk:Yue|🌙]]</big> 06:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Yue|Yue]] Well, the reason is that it won't likely ''stay'' that way without serious concerted effort to keep out the violations, though I suppose edit protection on the article would probably help a lot. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss political ideologies. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
* The problem I see with both these lists is that they are populated by events that are not called right-wing/left-wing terrorism in their articles. "Someone is killed, so it must be the opposing ideologies terrorism" and "Someone did something and beleives something that is not part of ones sides current ideology, so it must be the other sides terrorism" are both reductively stupid. There have been right-wing eco movements, and left-wing ethno-nationalists. Anything on either list would need to be explicitly stated as being left-wing or right-wing terrorism, and unless there are editors willing to strictly maintain the list they are quickly going to fill up with POV editing. Both are just massive timesinks, the [[List of terrorist incidents]] can list the stated purpose (if one exists) of the incidents. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]°</small> 19:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
*:Indeed. You can see three or so of us trying to keep trimming it down, but it's an uphill battle and I personally don't really think it's worth the timesink. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 21:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
*::I applaud you efforts, but agree it's to much of a timesink. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]°</small> 19:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

*:Wouldn't that apply to any terrorist attack? Wikipedia articles are for example allowed to say that 9/11 is usually categorized as an Islamic terrorist attack. It's a useful description because it explains the motivation for the attack. We know for example it wasn't carried out in order to protest global warming.
*:From a law enforcement standpoint it's useful because it tells them what type of people were likely to have carried out the attack. They would be looking for an organized groupb of Muslims with overseas connections, rather than an obviously deranged white supremacist who operated alone.
*:[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 09:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
*::My comments are in relation to editors opinion (OR) rather than what is stated in reliable sources. If reliable sources state that the 9/11 attacks were islamic terrorism, then it's fine for Wikipedia to state that as well. Many entries that were on the list were articles with no mention of "left-wing terroism" or "right-wing terrorism", but appear to be include because an editor thought they should be. The issue isn't that the list couldn't exist but that they fill up with OR due to POV editing. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]°</small> 19:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

*AFD on both articles (left-wing and right-wing) is absolutely appropriate. "List of terrorist attacks" has at least some reasonable objective metric for inclusion, as what is a terrorist attack is usually determined by officials of the country it happened in in the short-term, or is determined by academic analysis in the years that follow. But what is a "left-wing terrorist attack" or "right-wing terrorist attack" is highly subjective and are never good candidates for list articles.  I think the broader articles on "Left-wing/Right-wing terrorism" are actually fine as summaries, and can include events that have been identified as academics as examples of the respective terrorism attacks, but we should not be trying to attempt to fully list them because we are going to get stuck in a world of WP-editor subjective determination. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
*:I don't think it's subjective provided we use the definition in reliable sources and only include attacks that reliable lists categorize as left-wing terrorism. It becomes subjective when the criteria for inclusion is anything Wikipedia editors consider to be terrorism carried out by anyone they consider to be left-wing.
*:Classifying terrorism by motivation is useful in determining who might be behind an attack. For example, investigators quickly determined that 9//11 was carried out by Islamic extremists rather than revolutionary socialists or neo-Nazis. Knowing this, they were able to profile the offenders as religious extremists with a high level of education and otherwise no psychological disorders, who were part of a larger conspiracy and were unlikely to claim responsibility. They knew they were Islamic terrorists because of the targets chosen, their willingness to die in the attacks and the high level of loss of human life. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 14:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*::If we are talking "Islamic terrirism", that is far more objective because it starts on the basis that the terrorists had an Islamic bg (thats an objective measurement) and likely perpetuated the attacks under extreme Islamic principles. It doesn't rely on subjective labels. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*There is also an AfD for [[List of Islamist terrorist attacks]] (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks]), which I support. I don't agree with using the term "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamist terrorism" in wikivoice, even if there are sources that are normally considered to be reliable that use the term. Numerous religions have had extremists who commit atrocities and terrorist attacks motivated or partly motivated by religious belief. Many such acts in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere in the period of colonialism were justified as a means to spread Christianity. But we don't use the term "Christian terrorism". Similarly, Biblical justification has been used by Israelis when committing horrific acts against Palestinians in order to establish and maintain the occupation. But we don't use the term "Jewish terrorism". AFAIK "Islamic/ist terrorism" is the only term in frequent use that implies a direct connection between a major religion and terrorism, and in that way slanders the vast majority of adherents of Islam, who abhor terrorism. Wikipedia should avoid the term, especially in view of the dangerous growth of Islamophobia in the US and Europe. [[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]] ([[User talk:NightHeron|talk]]) 18:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]], actually you'd be surprised. There's articles for [[Jewish religious terrorism]], [[Christian terrorism]], [[Islamic terrorism]] and [[Hindu terrorism]]. I've already flagged with @[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]], that I consider them problematic and that I would see how my current AfD listings progress and then consider listing them also. I've just had a look at the Hindu one and it conflates nationalism of people that happen to be Hindu with Hindu terrorism, which is obviously problematic. I suspected I'd find original research of such nature before I looked at it. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 00:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

*::@[[User:AlanS|AlanS]], I ''am'' surprised; I didn't think of looking for such article titles. All of the article titles in your list seem bad, basically political spin terms used to denigrate the religion. I'd be surprised once again if there are unbiased RS that use such terms to categorize terrorist attacks (with the possible exception of [[Islamic terrorism]], which unfortunately is a term sometimes used by people who should know better). If you find that an article in your list is well-sourced except for the title, then instead of AfD you might propose moving it to a new title (for example, from [[Jewish religious terrorism]] to [[Zionist extremist terrorism]], which currently redirects to [[Zionist political violence]]). I'm very impressed with all the work you've been doing to deal with the problematic lists and articles relating to terrorism. [[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]] ([[User talk:NightHeron|talk]]) 00:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::It wouldn't surprise me if some of this articles were created in a tit for tat manner. As, I said I'll see how the listing in AfD go for [[left-wing terrorism]] and [[right-wing terrorism]]. If they don't succeed, then I it would probably be futile and disruptive to proceed with the ones I've just mentioned. The lists are no-brainers and they've obviously gotten a lot of support so far, but again I'll have to see how they go. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 00:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::If the main problems with these articles are the terminology and the OR and POV-pushing involved in the categorizing of terrorist attacks, then you might consider approaches that have an easier time gaining consensus than AfDs, such as moving to a different title, merging into a more general list or article on terrorism, or in the case of [[Jewish religious terrorism]], merging into [[Zionist political violence]]. [[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]] ([[User talk:NightHeron|talk]]) 10:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::That's because HIndu terrorism, despite the name, isn't a form of religious terrorism but rather of ethnic/nationalist terrorism where religion forms a part of defining ethnicity. You could compare it to the Ku Klux Klan which was avowedly Protestant and anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic, but whose motivation was not religious. They opposed people who were different from them and wanted to marginalise them. Unlike religious extremists, they made no attempt to convert people of other religions. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]], I agree. The article however pushes a different narrative and I'm sure you would agree is highly problematic. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 02:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::I don't understand your approach of starting a discussion thread here and requesting multiple article deletions. If I have a problem with an article about a notable topic (i.e., there's a wealth of literature about it in reliable sources), I make the necessary corrections. If I encounter opposition, I talk to them and only when it can't be resolved do I go to dispute resolution.
*::::You haven't even made clear by the way what you find wrong about these articles. I get the impression that your main objection is to the terminology used in reliable sources.
*::::A lot of editors have worked on these articles. Talk to them. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Calm down. I've not requested anything regarding those other articles as yet and I might not. [[User:AlanS|''AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 02:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
*Note: the origin of this list is obviously [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Empanada_Mixta/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1145798694 this list] by the user Alejandro_Basombrio/Empanada Mixta - who got blocked indefinitely after a series of problems [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1126#User%3AAlejandro_Basombrio%3A_POV-pushing%2C_edit-warring%2C_canvassing] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#User:Alejandro_Basombrio_2.0] + sockpuppet [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Empanada_Mixta#May_2023_2] by the admins [[User:Ingenuity]] and [[User:Yamla]] for "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia". The author of the article "[[Special:Contributions/Michael Sieger|Michael Sieger]]" mostly copied that list. The other edits of the account fit the old accounts too (for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hotel_Corona_de_Arag%C3%B3n_fire&diff=next&oldid=1166401467). This clearly seems to be another sockpuppet. There's also a delete discussion where I will add the note, maybe it helps to evaluate the problem. --[[Special:Contributions/2A02:810B:10A0:634:7D8F:E8FA:1C3B:A4BC|2A02:810B:10A0:634:7D8F:E8FA:1C3B:A4BC]] ([[User talk:2A02:810B:10A0:634:7D8F:E8FA:1C3B:A4BC|talk]]) 15:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
*:SPI opened [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RicardoMontano2323] here if anyone has other evidence they would like to add. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

===NPOV and OR problems with lists generally===
The general issue, of subjective categorization lists being breeding grounds for NPOV and OR violations, is a very broad and common one. I previously [[Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists#Creating_minimum_inclusion_criteria_for_lists_involving_subjective_categorization|opened a discussion]] on this topic, but I think it may be helpful to raise it again here, as well as a slightly modified version of my original proposal; adding the following to [[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists]]:

{{tqb|'''Selection criteria for lists involving subjective categorization'''<p>To comply with core policies on [[WP:UNDUE|neutrality]] and [[WP:OR|original research]] topics should only be included unqualified in a list involving subjective categorization, such as [[List of video games considered the best]] or [[List of massacres in France]], if the view that the categorization applies is the view of the majority, substantiated with references to commonly accepted reference texts. If the view that the categorization applies is held by significant minority then the topic can be included alongside appropriate qualification that makes it clear that its inclusion is not the majority view.<p>This is particularly important when the category is covered by [[MOS:PUFFERY]] or [[MOS:LABEL]].}}

Further word-smithing may be needed; the intent of {{tq|if the view that the categorization applies is the view of the majority, substantiated with references to commonly accepted reference texts}} is to make it clear that [[WP:DUE]] applies, but the exact wording to do so likely needs further work. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

:This is a step in the right direction. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 14:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
:I would only create a list with a finite population, for example, member states of the European union. For something like lists of terrorist attacks, I would either have a list of attacks that had articles or copy a list from a reliable source. Anything else invites OR in what meets the criteria and lack of neutrality in deciding what to include or exclude.
:I would also avoid lists where the criteria for inclusion is ambiguous, such as "list of liberal democracies." [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|For something like lists of terrorist attacks, I would either have a list of attacks that had articles or copy a list from a reliable source.}}
::The issue with the first part of that is that it still invites OR as to what meets the criteria; for example, [[List of massacres in France]] includes many items that have articles on enwiki, but whose articles don't even include the word "massacre", let alone establish that it is the view of the majority that a massacre occurred.
::The second works better, but I think it would lead to NPOV issues as it puts undue weight on a single source. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)