Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: section on Ukrainian forces

I'd welcome more contributions to the discussions going on at Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine:

• Shall the article have a section on sexual violence committed by Ukrainian armed forces and law enforcement? The section, which was present in the first version of the article [1], has been repeatedly removed [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and restored [10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. The last version of it can be read here: [17].
• Related to the above: shall the category:Ukrainian war crimes be included in the article?

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This is yet another instance of Gitz6666 engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and not respecting consensus. (Also failing to notify relevant discussing of his posting here) Volunteer Marek 17:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Should the article have such section and the category?. I think the answer is no because the most recent UN report on October 18 [18] blames only Russian army of committing the significant sexual violence. One can also check the original of the report [19] (pages 16-18 in English version). Importantly, this most recent report also summarizes their findings from previous reports. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Was this a notable subject of itself rather than another example of wartime sexual violence? Do we have sources specifically on the topic? I don't think the citations there support it being a separate topic. I'd have thought this should be a section in something else like war crimes in the war in Ukraine. NadVolum (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Sexual violence is always significant; the question here is whether its mention is WP:DUE. The October 18th report isn't a summary of all events throughout the war, but specific to "late February and March 2022 in the four provinces of Kyiv, Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Sumy" (p. 2 here). Other reports covering the period from the beginning of February to the end of October [20][21] do mention "forced nudity" and "threats of sexual violence" by Ukrainian forces. I don't think it's even remotely comparable to what Russian soldiers have been documented committing, but it is mentioned. François Robere (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not object (and never objected) to mentioning such materials on the page if they are on the subject of the page, sourced to a couple of independent RS, and describe specific cases of violence, i.e. the sources tell what exactly had happen, where and when, or reliable statistical data, etc. I also do not mind creating a section if there is enough materials for the section. But at the very least, such section should be properly titled, i.e. if the source say it was committed by civilians, police and territorial forces, this should not be titled "Ukrainian forces" which translated in the context of the page as "Ukrainian army". Something like "Vigilante justice" would be a better title, but then it would probably belong to another page. That is all I am saying here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my answer is still no. Yes, sure, such section could be created if we had enough sourced materials for such section. But we do not. Yes, "vigilante justice" is bad, but news sources ([22],[23]) do not describe them as sexual offenses, hence such "justice" arguably does not belong to this page. See also my explanation here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• How is this even a debate? Has there been a war in history in which sexual violence has been perpetrated by only one side? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

1) Probably and 2) why is that even relevant? Volunteer Marek 04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Except that Ukraine hasn't invaded Russia. I really don't think this deserves a separate page. NadVolum (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That usually depends on the territory, i.e. the invading army usually commits such crimes on the territory of another occupied country. Armies usually commit few rapes of "their own people" on their own territory. This is true even with regard to Russian/Soviet army: most rapes were committed in Germany, even though such cases were documented everywhere. For the same reason, all such cases I know about during Second Chechen War, were committed by Russian forces, e.g. rape by Yuri Budanov, etc. But this is just a matter of sourcing. If there were many well covered and documented cases by any side, that would deserve a section. Looking at the proper sources, such as the most recent official report by UN (see above [24]), one can see that it includes (pages 16-18) a number of specific verified cases with details, all of which are crimes by Russian forces, which is not so surprising based on the trend described above. These cases do not include the alleged threat to a single soldier, which appears in the first diffs by Gitz. This is probably another "fake". My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That would then be another "fake" made by the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, since they were the ones who spread the news here (para. 44); the video is still visible on youtube [25][26], although I've reported it as abusive multiple times. Obviously, most of the sexual war crimes in Ukraine were committed by Russian soldiers, but there are also well-documented cases of sexual violence committed by Ukrainian soldiers and policemen, and I see no good reason not to report them in the dedicated article. The 18 October report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine does not invalidate/refute/disprove the 29 June report (para. 102) and the 27 September report (para. 54) of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said, this claim does not appear in the latest (October) report by the same organization, a report that also summarizes their previous reports. But even in the earlier reports, it only says: "HRMMU has also received an allegation of CRSV perpetrated by Ukrainian forces, when a captured Russian military member was threatened with castration on camera". This "received allegation" is very different from specific cases that have been confirmed and mentioned in the latest report. No, checking various YouTube records is not our responsibility, and they are primary sources anyway. Yes, this is something highly doubtful and poorly documented in sources. And you started this thread to enforce inclusion of such "facts"... My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Now, speaking about their report on June 29 [27] which does not appear in your diffs above brought to his noticeboard, it says something entirely different ("Out of 108 allegations, OHCHR verified 23 cases" and so on). Is that enough to create such subsection and make such category? I would say no because we need description of specific cases to create such section, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about their report published on September 27 [28] (pages 21-22), which also does not appear in your diffs in the beginning of this thread, they mention specific cases of such crimes only by Russian forces. They do mention several cases by Ukrainian forces, but do not provide any details, such as where and when each of the alleged episodes had happen. Again, this is not enough for creating such section on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean this is not enough? We don't need more information, let alone more sexual abuses - we report the information we have. The section on "Ukrainian forces" (last version: [29]) had perfectly verifiable and relevant contents. Nonetheless, it has been removed eight times from the article starting from April 2022. Three editors, who have always collaborated closely with one another, have achieved a result that strongly affects the neutrality of the article, and I would like to know - not specifically from you, but also from other uninvolved editors - if this is acceptable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no meaningful statistical data on this subject (the small numbers of cases are not representative and essentially meaningless at this point), although there are no doubts that the rapes by Russian forces are happening on a large scale, generally speaking. Therefore, the page should focus on well sourced and widely publicized specific cases at this point (that is what the most recent UN reports do). My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should publush the information we have (specific cases). I only object to publishing the information we don't have: mass rape used as a weapon of war. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine is a combatant nation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If WP:RS talk about Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine committed by Ukrainian forces NPOV does not give us any other option other than to cover it, I'm not saying we make a false equivalence but your argument is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen written on wikipedia by an experienced editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thing is RS don't really talk about such. There's some reallllllyyyy big stretching going on to make it seem like some do but even there it's a mention or two of a possibility or such. Volunteer Marek 04:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think their point is simply that it's Russian soldiers on Ukrainian territory, terrorizing Ukrainians rather than vice versa so of course it makes sense that almost all if not all cases of sexual violence are going to be perpetrated by Russians. Maybe at some point Ukraine will start its march on Moscow or whatever and then maybe things will change but for now there's nothing surprising about this. Volunteer Marek 04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing surprising about this, right - the only surprising thing is that you and your posse want to prevent us from reporting on sexual violence perpetrated by the Ukrainian forces, at least until Ukraine starts its march on Moscow. Another surprising thing is this: [30]. I don't even understand the point of removing the tag:POV while discussions are ongoing both here and on the article talkpage. Since there is no consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved (Template:POV#When_to_remove) I believe this already qualifies as sanctionable behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

the only surprising thing is that you and your posse… Why should I even bother replying to an obnoxious comment like that? Unless you strike the personal attacks there’s no point in discussing this with you. Volunteer Marek 17:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Well I don't think the citations justified setting up the article in the first place. But as to your point there is the question of weight, I would be just silly to go around complaining that the pond in my back yard should be included as a lake in Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the pond in the back yard should not be included as a lake, but it should probably be included as a pond. Given that there have been at least 11 documented cases of people being forcebly stripped and publicly beaten with sticks, as reported in the international media [31], in dozens of Ukrainian outlets and in no less than three reports of OHCHR/HRMMU, it is not such an insignificant pond after all, and certainly not a pleasant one for those who suffered that treatment. Verifiable information on Wikipedia and public scrutiny on these practices would not be a bad thing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Volunteer Marek 17:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no mention of sexual violence in your citation. And the lead section citation of the articlewhich is supposed to give it notability deals with sexual violence as one of a number of things rather thn specifically, that's why I was saying the article shouldn't exist, it should be part of the Ukrine war crimes artice. That's what the citation there was talking about. NadVolum (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain the logic of this to me? Even in civil wars and domestic security operations sexual violence occurs. In a war like the one in Ukraine we would expect Ukrainian forces to commit violence including of a sexual nature against collaborators and those they viewed as traitors. I have an academic background in torture and other violence in conflict and I'm just having a real hard time squaring what you guys are saying with reality and the literature. On the specific NPOV point if WP:RS have "a mention or two of a possibility or such" then our article should as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Meaning they would rape collaborators and traitors? Yes, sure, that would worth inclusion to the page if reliably sourced and documented as specific incidents that occur in certain time and places. But of course we should also follow the WP:NPOV on the page, i.e. we should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So, what are "the significant views"? Nearly all publications on this subject say something like this, i.e. "UN official: Russia using rape as war strategy in Ukraine", with supporting links to [32] ("UN panel reports Ukrainian children have been raped, tortured by Russian forces"), etc. So, whatever these sources say, we should fairly summarize them. And the "significant view" here is that nearly all crimes of this nature have been committed by Russian forces. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Objectively there is no such thing as a traitor, that's purely POV dependent. Having the vast majority of the article focus on Russian actions does not preclude a section talking about Ukrainian actions, even if only to note that there haven't been comparable atrocities. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Sure, one can have such section if there are enough well-sourced materials for the section (which I do not see at this point) and there is WP:Consensus to create such section. But not like this (1st diff in this thread), i.e. a single "allegation", while only 23 of 108 allegations have been confirmed later, according to their next report. Moreover, the cited source does not say what exactly had happen even in this single case, where and when. One should also prefer using the most recent UN reports, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The diff you shared shows tha article as it was on 18 April 2022: an excellent stub (actually more than a stub) created by Boud. Then the article was expanded by multiple users. The last version of the controversial section - the one worth discussing - is this: [33] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

That latest version says: "Since the beginning of the Russian invasion, videos circulated on social media and local media outlets showing people believed to be "marauders", bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators being tied to electricity poles or trees and beaten in public. Perpetrators were civilians, police officers and members of the territorial defence.." OK, there are two three serious problems here. (1) Yes, being tied and beaten is a vigilante justice and a human rights violation, but hardly anything of sexual nature (arguably does not belong to the page), and (2) if some or most of the perpetrators were civilians and police officers, why this is framed as crimes by Ukrainian army? But again, I agree that such section could be included if properly written, well sourced and supported by consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Third problem. It says "videos circulated on social media and local media outlets showing...". This is a textbook example of unreliable information that can not be trusted (especially in the context of war) and should not be included in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

1) The OHCHR says that these incidents qualify as sexual violence when the victims are stripped naked, and their opinion on this is more significant than yours ("hardly anything of sexual nature"); 2) "Forces" includes both "armed forces" and "police forces", and the subject of the article is sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which doesn't necessarily have to be perpetrated by soliders: policemen and civilians can also commit conflict-related sexual violence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Well you've resoundingly won that argument... Any other questions My very best wishes? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

But it doesn't justify having the article in the first place. They are described as crimes or war crimes and somebody in Wikipedia haswritted an article selecting what they consider sex crimes. Yes I can see some people considering being stripped naked a crime but it happens every day in jails and people are liable to be subject to it at for instance airports. Intent has to be considered and it doesn't sound like the stripping was supposed to be sexual but a form of humiliation and would be classed as a different form of crime from a sex crime. We should follow the sources and have the article lumped in with war crimes which is what they are. NadVolum (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You can nominate the article for deletion then. Do you understand how absurd your arguments sound to anyone with an academic background? You say that stripping someone is not sexual but a form of humiliation... Ignoring entirely that the sexual aspect is what makes it humiliating. I'm kind of shocked at your ignorance, in general rape as a weapon of war is not for the personal sexual gratification of the rapists... the primary point is in fact to humiliate the victim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have an academic backgrund but luckily I haven't as a result started making foolish equvalences between being naked and being raped. NadVolum (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You clearly do not have an academic background in torture and sexual violence in war otherwise you would know that both of those are forms of sexual violence. Its not a foolish equivalence, they are genuinely in the same category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You genuinely believe that pulling someone (a looter’s) pants down is equivalent to raping parents in front of their children or raping children? That’s it. We’re done. I honestly couldn’t care less now what your views on this subject are. Volunteer Marek 22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

They are equivalent in that they are both sexual violence. I understand that you find the content matter disturbing, it is certainly among the hardest to grapple with. If you ever are interested in learning more about the subject I suggest that you start with Torture and Democracy, The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law, and Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War?. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the word “equivalent” means something else in your world than mine. Volunteer Marek 23:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Mars and Jupiter are equivalent in that they are both planets. That doesn't mean that they're the same thing, equivalence only goes as far as they category they're equivalent in... Two things being sexual violence does not mean that those two things are equally bad. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Your argument though is more like “both the common cold and terminal cancer are sicknesses, therefore they’re equivalent”. Volunteer Marek 03:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a true statement, they are equivalent in that they are both sicknesses. There are many ways in which they aren't equivalent but that is one in which they are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ookay. Volunteer Marek 19:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess you're disappointed the journalists writing about the stripping didn't grasp that it was a sex crime, but then again they have not been academically educated. It means however we are unable to call them sex crimes in the article in Wikipedia because of the WP:OR policy. NadVolum (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Who said we were going to do that? IMO the primary thing we should be mentioning about Ukrainian forces is that they have not engaged in the same sort of widespread sexual violence, you apparently don't want *any* mention of Ukrainian activities at all which is just bizarre. We can't just categorically exclude one side of a war from our coverage about that war. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is ass backwards. You’re starting from the *assumption* that both sides are guilty and then arguing that we therefore we have to include both. We can’t just categorically *include* one side of a war in our coverage of the war *when that side hasn’t done what the other side has* This is kind of elementary. Volunteer Marek 00:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You're talking gibberish, what you just said has no resemblance to what I've argued. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I think it’s a pretty accurate description of your reasoning here, as well as some of your comments above where you assert - without sources or evidence - that both sides must be guilty simply “just because” (quote: “ Has there been a war in history in which sexual violence has been perpetrated by only one side?”) Volunteer Marek 03:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

And where do you get "guilty" out of that? I made no comments regarding courts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

well, NadVolum, since the OHCHR calls it "sexual violence" why couldn't we do the same? OHCHR reports are obviously a reliable source and they have also expertise in the pertinent area. Or do you have a source claiming that the OHCHR misinterpreted or misapplied the concept of conflict-related sexual violence when they referred it to the mistreatment of looters in Ukraine? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Have another look at the OHCHR report. It does not say the stripping was sexual violence. It says there may be some sexual violence related to that. I can't argue with that, it is possible just there's been no report of any. The case of sexual violence they actually talk about is the the Russian soldiers being threathened with castration. NadVolum (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you object to the article being limited to war crimes or expanded to human rights abuses instead of concentrating on sex? I don't believe we have an article on sexual violence or human rights abuses in the second world war, but if OHCHR is to be a major source and you specifically want to include sexual violence surely it should set the topic? NadVolum (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not replying to your second question because I think it's off-topic. The subject of the article is "Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". If you think it's not notable, take it to WP:AFD; if you want to change the subject, you can propose to move the article following the process detailed at WP:RM. Here we're discussing about having a section on "Ukrainian forces" in an article that has the subject and the title that it currently has. You're first remark, however, is relevant: does OHCHR say that forced public stripping amount to conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV)? The answer is: "Yes":

• March update: OHCHR also notes that binding partially or fully stripped persons to poles or trees and beating them in public could also amount to CRSV.
• June report: Five acts of CRSV were committed by Ukrainian armed forces, including territorial defence, or other law enforcement bodies, which consisted of forced public stripping and threats of sexual violence;
• December update: Since 24 February 2022, HRMMU has documented 86 cases of CRSV against women, men, and girls, including ... forced nudity and forced public stripping;

Since we have reliable sources with specific expertise in the area of CRSV/law (WP:RSLAW) reporting that CRSV was committed by Ukrainian armed forces and police in the context of the Russian invasion, IMHO we need a strong argument to exclude these contents from the article without affecting its neutrality. This is the topic on which I opened a discussion on this noticeboard. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Those three citations do not say stripping is a CRSV violation. The first says some cases could amount to CRSV. The second combines it with threats of sexual violence, were these cases of Russian soldiers being threathened with castration?, the third does not specify which side did what but said the majority were by Russian forces. Its good enough for human rights abuses but not for that article. NadVolum (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're seriusly claiming that "Five acts of CRSV were committed by Ukrainian armed forces, including territorial defence, or other law enforcement bodies, which consisted of forced public stripping and threats of sexual violence", does not imply that forced public stripping is a CRSV. Is that what you're saying? Mind WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It i a bureaucratic organisation. If they wanted to be clear they would be. But they say might and could about it. And in this case they link it with a threat of sexual violence without giving the circumstances. They never say any of the stripping is an act of sexual violemce and nobody else has either. I can see you're very keen to label it as such but you need clear citations for things like that and these are most definitely not that. NadVolum (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see any justification in excluding the reports by well-respected international organisations on sexual violence attributed to Ukrainian authorities/security forces. The proportions of attention should respect WP:DUE: that doesn't mean zero sentences/paragraphs on the quantitatively/qualitatively less significant incidents of sexual violence. More reports are available now since my initial stub, but unless the more recent reports directly contradict the earlier ones, we cannot infer that the older reports are considered wrong by the same organisations. I explained quantitatively on 18 April 2022 (numbers of sections, paragraphs, sentences) what seemed to follow WP:DUE based on the 26 March 2022 report available at that time. Boud (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• This seems like a topic that RECENTISM applies...we are not going to have any clear picture of much of what is going on beyond the major offenses in the war to try to be documenting from spotty accounts and weaker RSes. We do not need to be instantly up to date and it is far better to.hold off until a better picture of events can be documented from RSes, which may be months or years from now. --Masem (t) 20:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Our articles on war crimes during the Russian invasion do not offer a clear picture of what's going on. Based on the available sources (mainly news reports and reports from international organisations and NGOs) we cannot offer such a picture: the most we can do is reject blatant propaganda and highlight the conflict between incompatible accounts of the same incident ("the Russians say x, the Ukrainians say y"). But what we're doing is neither useless nor uninformative: we're offering a chronologically and thematically ordered summary of what Wikipedia's RSs are reporting about war crimes/sexual violence/torture/etc. allegedly taking place during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the future, it will be possible to compare what we thought we knew in 2022 with what (according to future historians) actually happened. However, in order for that comparison to be meaningful, and in order to provide our current readers with a relatively neutral and reliable account of the events, we must have a section on "(sexual violence committed by) Ukrainian forces". Removing that section is obviously incompatibile with our committment to NPOV. So far, I don't see a consensus for removal - in fact, only three editors have argued for removing the section. WP:NOCON applies. But it would be desirable/less contentious if other editors made it clear that we cannot simply disregard and silence RSs reporting about conflict-related sexual violence by the Ukrainian side. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

in fact, only three editors have argued for removing the section Out of the four that are active on the article, lol. This right here folks is the problem with Gitz6666’s approach to editing in a nutshell. I AM CONSENSUS! Volunteer Marek 20:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally we take the opinions of uninvolved editors more seriously and not less seriously than the opinions of involved editors. Are you suggesting that we are only to take seriously the opinions of those who are active on the article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No, what I’m obviously suggesting is that Gitz’s framing of the discussion so far as “only three editors argued for removing the section” is, to put it politely, disingenuous. Volunteer Marek 21:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella has commented on the talk page but I wouldn't say she is "active on the article". And My very best wishes is not "active" on the article at all, nor is he active elsewhere, as far as I can see: he doesn't publish anything. He just removes text from articles that doesn't fit his POV on Russia, occasionally takes editors to AE and to 3RR/N, or expresses his views there, and follows Volunteer Marek's edits wherever he goes, to support his views on talk page discussions and in edit wars. I'm not sure that this way of being "active" should make his point of view particularly authoritative as fas as establishing consensus is concerned. I think that the closer, if there will be a formal close, should take this into serious consideration: between VM, MVBW and GCB there's a long-term collaboration, while Boud, Horse Eye's Back and I are three completely independent and unrelated editors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You can wiki lawyer however you like but all that you’re doing at the end of the day is pretending that you alone determine consensus even when there’s many editors who disagree with you. You have both been warned and threatened with sanction on account of such WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior before. Volunteer Marek 21:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You too have been warned, threatened with sanction and actually even sanctioned in the recent past. Since you've removed a well-sourced section from the article no less than 6 times (maybe more) without a clear consensus behind, I would be a little less boisterous and haughty, a little more accomodating and humble, if I were you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m not the one that’s been indef banned on several other wikis already. The section was not “well sourced”. Yes, there is consensus for removal. And even if there wasn’t, you’re the one who needs consensus for inclusion per WP:ONUS, not the other way around. And before you ask others to be more “accommodating and humble” you might wanna strike your personal attacks and completely false WP:ASPERSIONS about them, as already asked twice. Volunteer Marek 03:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I had missed this comment, which requires a reply.

First, I haven't been banned on several other wikis. I'm currently banned only on es.wiki, and I believe that this was a blatant mistake that sooner or later they'll address (I'm not a POV-pusher on the Quran... and I made no edit war [34]).

Secondly, WP:ONUS doesn't apply here: here the guiding policy is WP:NOCON. WP:ONUS is about consensus-building and says that, when there is contentious material, leave it out of the article while discussion happens. WP:NOCON says that at the conclusion of the discussion, a "no consensus" result causes a return to status quo ante. Here the status quo is inclusion: the section has always been in the article, and 3 editors against 3 is no consensus.

Finally, with regard to WP:ASPERSIONS... well, I've nothing to say about this. You've done nothing but casting aspersions on this thread and elsewhere for months, so I really don't know how to reply. I'm not going to strike anything. If you have complaints about behaviour, please take them to WP:AN/I or WP:AE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: need for formal closure?. Perhaps we need a formal closure here or at least an admin/experienced user who's kind enough to guide us to the end of this discussion. If I'm not wrong, apart from myself also Horse Eye's Back, Boud and perhaps François Robere argued that the section should not be removed from the article. On the other side, My very best wishes, Volunteer Marek, NadVolum (if I'm not mistaken) and GizzyCatBella (on the article talk page) argued that the section should be removed. I think that in a case as this one WP:NOCON applies and the section should be retained:

  When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

  If the other editors want to remove the section, they need to build a consensus, e.g., open an RfC. However, VM [35] and MVBW [36] don't agree and reverted my attempts to restore the section. How shall we move forward? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No. if YOU want to include the section, in face of disagreement from multiple editors, YOU need to build consensus. Please stop trying to WP:GAME this by turning Wikipedia policy on its ass. Volunteer Marek 20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Asking at Wikipedia:Closure requests might lead to an uninvolved person closing this discussion. Boud (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Let’s be perfectly clear here. The main if not only reason for including this info is so that the article can say “BOTH Ukraine and Russian forces have committed sexual violence”. On one hand we have Russian troops raping parents in front of their children, raping children, raping each other, torture, sexual mutilation and other sick and abhorrent stuff. On the other hand we have that, early in the invasion some Ukrainian vigilantes caught some looters who were trying to take advantage of the initial chaos, tied them to poles and pulled down their pants. But yeah… “BOTH Ukraine and Russian forces have committed sexual violence”. Gimme a fucking break. And don’t even try to tell me about AGF. That ship sails the moment this kind of disgusting moral equivalence is pushed in our articles and presented as “neutrality”. And oh yeah, sources don’t support this nonsense either. And it’s UNDUE given reporting in reliable sources. And there’s absolutely no consensus for it. As User:Black Kite said, “ Why has Gitz6666 not yet received a topic ban from this entire area?” [37] Volunteer Marek 20:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If that is genuinely what you think is going on here I suggest that you currently lack the disposition to edit this topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

And if you don’t think that this is exactly what is going on here then you lack the competence and the background information necessary to edit this topic area. Volunteer Marek 21:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Today I proposed a new lead for the article, which of course MVBW removed immediately. You can read it here [38]. Obviously it can be improved, and I'd welcome your help in making it better, but could anyone in their right mind think that this text establishes some kind of "moral equivalence" between the two sides? There's no such an equivalence: sexual crimes committed by Russian forces are more numerous and more serious than those committed by Ukrainian forces. This clearly emerges from the lead I have proposed, because it emerges from the sources on which the lead is based. Reliable sources tell us that The majority of these violations [sexual violence] were perpetrated by members of Russian armed forces or law enforcement authorities (OHCHR, 2 Dec 2022). Why on earth can't we say the same? Why should we cover up sexual violence committed by Ukrainian forces and make it appear that all violations were perpetrated by Russian soldiers and policemen? What good would come of it? The encyclopedia would be less complete, less reliable, less authoritative - and readers are not stupid, they would realise this and conclude that it's all propaganda, and if anything goes then Russia Today is as good as anything else. Do as you think it's best, but IMHO having a section on sexual violence by Ukrainian forces is the bottom line of our credibility. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not among my reasons for wanting to include the info. Are you saying that you understand my motivations but that I do not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• After reading numerous publications on this subject it appears that almost all war crimes (I can not put an percentage here) are committed by Russian forces. Therefore, WP:GEVAL does apply here. We can not just say "both sides are guilty" as Gitz suggests. As about vigilante justice, yes, this is bad, but the typical news sources ([39],[40]) do not describe them as sexual offenses, hence the inclusion of such materials to this page is at best debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• This has already been explained at least half a dozen times which is why it’s so frustrating that Gitz keeps beating this dead horse and can’t just respect consensus. The proposed phrasing is POV because it does not reflect the overall nature of the sources. Worse it doesn’t even say what the given sources, as cherry picked as they are, say. For example [41] this source which is being used to cite the opening sentence in Gitz’s proposed text does NOT say “(sexual violence has been committed) by Ukrainian forces” or anything like it. “To a lesser extent” or not, it just simply doesn’t say Ukrainian forces committed ANY sexual violence. This is simply Gitz’s invention. And so on and so forth, I’m tired of explaining this repeatedly particularly since I’m pretty sure it will do nothing to change Gitz’s WP:TENDENTIOUSness. Volunteer Marek 21:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We aren't debating any proposed phrasing in this discussion, perhaps that's a different discussion on the talk page? This discussion is much broader. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the fact that they’re proposing text which completely misrepresents sources and then has the chutzpah to call that “a compromise” kind of illustrates what the underlying behavioral issue here is. Volunteer Marek 03:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective there is the general NPOV question that this noticeboard is equipped to answer and then there is the rest of it. I'm offering my opinion on the larger question of whether or not WP:NPOV supports the inclusion of at least a passing mention of Ukrainian actions and/or inactions in the war (I think we do have the sources for such a section, albeit a very small one). If there are behavioral issues you think need to be addressed I don't think this is the place to do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• As suggested by Boud answering my question, I've asked for a formal closure of this discussion: [42]. May I suggest that we editors who have already expressed our views repeatedly in this already vey long thread disengage? If other editors want to add their views, they are welcome and free to do so until the discussion is formally closed (if it will be formally closed). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666: I think you should shift that from the Administrative discussions section to the Other types of closing requests section - there are no particular administrative powers that are needed to judge what NPOV is in this situation; this is a matter of interpreting Wikipedia policy, where admins have no particular rights above those of other editors. What's needed is someone who is uninvolved in the discussion and can close it in a sufficiently clear and justified way that any appeal to override the closing is unlikely to be accepted: that person might be an admin, but doesn't have to be. Boud (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

   Done [43] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: The sources above are being completely mischaracterized and there inclusion is not only undue but off topic. There is no evidence that rape sexual violence as a tool of war or terror is being used by Ukrainian forces; there is overwhelming evidence that Russian forces are using rape sexual violence as a tool of war or terror. Crimes committed by military personnel are different from using rape sexual violence as a tool of war. I think this is an attempt to create an twisted moral equivalency between the actions of Russian forces and Ukrainian forces.

There is not a consensus for this inclusion. I think Gitz6666 is engaging in chronic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and believe it is WP:DE; as mentioned above, a topic ban needs to be considered.  // Timothy :: talk  17:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

1. The subject of the article is neither "rape" nor "rape as a weapon of war": it is "sexual violence" related to the conflict in Ukraine. According to WP:RS Members of the Ukrainian armed forces and law enforcement agencies have occasionally engaged in conflict-related sexual violence.
2. The sentence there is overwhelming evidence that Russian forces are using rape as a tool of war or terror is false. While it may be true that they're using it as a tool of war or terror, it is sure that there is not overwhelming evidence of this. OHCHR in its latest report said it could not evaluate the scale of sexual violence and we know that by 31 October the Ukrainian authorities were investigating 43 cases of sexual violence, which is too many but, after 8 months of invasion with tens of thousands of soldiers on the ground, seems incompatible with the claim (never officially made by the UN, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch or any other major human rights organisation) about "mass rape used as a weapon of war". We shouldn't express that claim with wikivoice in the lead, and on this there's currently a thread at WP:OR/N: here. Before expressing your views there, please read the discussion.
3. There is not a consensus for this inclusion. I don't agree: there is not a consensus for this removal. In fact the section on Ukrainian forces has always been included in the article and has now been temporarily removed per WP:ONUS. Once this discussion is closed (apparently with no consensus for removal) WP:NOCON applies and the section should be restored.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Strike "rape" replace with "sexual violence". My comments stand.  // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The article history shows this material is disputed and never had consensus for inclusion; the onus is on those that wish to include it to gain consensus.  // Timothy :: talk  18:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Minneapolis

In the article Minneapolis > Cuisine, is this image non-neutral content? Many sources, including the Minneapolis Star Tribune explain a 60-year-old rivalry between Matt's Bar and the 5-8 Club over invention of the Jucy Lucy. I feel picturing one bar and not the other is unfair, and that picturing both is too many dive bars. I would prefer no image, or a different image. Earlier, I failed to have the image replaced (I closed that RfC with WP:SNOW). This has been discussed on Talk:Minneapolis at length since it was introduced into the article on October 25. I will notify the editor who added the photo. Thank you for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion where User:SusanLesch claimed "this photo violates WP:NPOV" was at Talk:Minneapolis#Jucy Lucy. Other editors involved were User:The Banner and User:Bobamnertiopsis. My comment at that discussion was "First, the most recent photo choice was made by consensus at an RFC you initiated. Second...and let me get this straight...because there is a rivalry between these two restaurants about which one invented some greasy local cheeseburger, you feel it would be unfair to feature the photo of one restaurant over the other. Is this correct? Seriously?" Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not see how a one sentence mention of a cheeseburger variation requires a photo of a restaurant, especially if it creates a perception of non-neutrality. Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The plan was also to replace the photo with a poor picture of another restaurant where SusanLesch was working on. So the NPOV could also been seen as: I don't like photo A (the present one), refuse any alternatives (both competing restaurants) so let us replace it by a photo of another restaurant with doubtful notability or by a half eaten burger. The Banner talk 00:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The 5-8 Club was founded in 1928 as a speakeasy; it claims to be one of the creators of the Jucy Lucy cheeseburger.

Two notable restaurants, 5-8 Club and Matt's Bar, both claim to have invented the Jucy Lucy. The article currently displays an image of one of those restaurants, with the caption stating: "it claims to be one of the creators of the Jucy Lucy cheeseburger." How is this POV? Where in MOS:IMAGES does it say every notable building in a city must be included, lest someone's feeling be hurt? The current image was selected because of its relevance, as it should be. Moreover, the photo caption completely removes any hint of POV by acknowledging the burger feud, and that this is one of the claimants to its creation. A simple solution to this POV issue would be to remove that sentence from the caption.

A glance at Talk:Minneapolis shows many discussions between User:SusanLesch, myself, and others, regarding the content of the cuisine section. My editing of that section has primarily involved removing what appeared to be over-the-top puffery, and excessive details about Owamni, a restaurant where SusanLesch is top editor. Past discussions about photos of Owamni include:

• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 223#Minneapolis
• Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 8#Photo of restaurant kitchen
• Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#Photo of Owamni
• Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#Owamni continued again
• Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#Placeholder
• Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#Owamni/Fuji Ya exterior photos - SusanLesch announced that they had contacted the copyright owner for two photos of Owamni, and the copyright owner agreed to release them to Wikimedia. "These were the best I found out of about 2,000 images".
• Talk:Minneapolis#RfC: photo in the Cuisine section
• Talk:Minneapolis#Jucy Lucy

Magnolia677 (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Follow up on WP:DRN cited above -SusanLesch (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Owamni is a separate matter and your conclusions are wrong. You argue that James Beard's best new restaurant in the United States should not be pictured in Minneapolis, the birthplace of the American Indian Movement. I did not expand the Owamni article until after the RfC and after it was flagged {{Notability}}, {{POV}}, and {{Weasel}}. Then I "worked on" Owamni, incessant sparring continued there, and I became its top editor. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The Matt's Bar and the 5-8 Club feud is more than 60 years old. Wikipedia does no one a service by acting a scofflaw [44] on a non-negotiable policy: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.". To stop this battle, in fairness I prefer no image. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Using a feud to push your own agenda is also not appreciated. The Banner talk 17:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I waited for comment until this reached #10. Except for User:Magnolia677, we seem to have agreement on Minneapolis talk. Magnolia can you agree with User:Cullen328, User:The Banner, and me, and close this out before it scrolls away? Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure if there is consensus or that people just stopped responding to your non-committal. The Banner talk 13:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me, User:The Banner. My non-committal to what? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

To use discussion to come to a working consensus. The Banner talk 22:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In truth, except for one editor who sat out, the last three posts on Minneapolis talk came very close to consensus. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Philadelphia is fortunate that Pat's and Geno's are close enough to each other that you can get both in a single shot (see Philadelphia#Cuisine). Note that buildings are depicted, and not a cheesesteak. I don't think including one photo over another amounts to taking sides in a rivalry; the important question is what image (or images, if there's space), best represents cuisine in Minneapolis. There are other notable alternatives, such as Al's Breakfast or the Band Box Diner. Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Again my preference is for no photo. Cuisine became contentious and I'd rather not open new arguments. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

RFCs are supposed to settle issues like this. Continuing on with this after the RFC didn't go your way is starting to look disruptive. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Right User:MrOllie, I abide by the RfC's decision to not replace the photo with Owamni 100%. The present photo was added unilaterally by Magnolia on October 25. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

And the RFC has validated that and cemented it in place. It is time to accept that and move on. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the RfC did not ask or find that. However, as you say, it is time to move on. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Magnolia677 will reconsider in light of a more recent discussion on Minneapolis talk? He seems to dislike unnecessary images and that might to apply to this restaurant photo. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Have to conclude that this noticeboard went nowhere useful. This was my first ever such appeal. Disappointing, guys. Not counting Mackensen who was looking at alternatives, this !vote stands at 3 to 2 demanding use of a tourist trap to illustrate a city. Nobody even pinged User:Sectionworker who participated in the original discussion. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Criticism at the Samvel Karapetyan article

Could someone uninvolved look at Talk:Samvel_Karapetyan_(author)#Libelous_claims and opine whether criticism could be included one way or the other? The disagreement has led to repeated reverts. My opinion is that scholar criticism is a natural biographical part of many scholars and researchers and that particularly in case of a wikinotable author, his peer criticism could be included in the biography of another peer researcher. Thanks in advance. Brandmeister^talk 10:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not even scholarly criticism of any of Karapetyan's work, it's more of De Waal having a different opinion. No other sources have made this criticism, so it is undue and potentially libelous. Also De Waal is just a journalist, he is no peer and has no qualifications to be critical of a respected researcher like Karapetyan. --Dallavid (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Porter and Jick letter

Three different users, including an admin, have reverted to an earlier version of Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics, for reasons which have nothing to do with content. [45] [46] [47] [48] I believe these reverts have removed important details and reintroduced structural issues with the article. They've also reintroduced wording about "Methodological limitations from which the letter suffered", almost implying that there was a problem with the letter itself, though the cited sources don't characterize it that way. Also, a partial quote at the end almost makes it sound like Jick was taking some blame for this, whereas the full quote in the cited source does not give that impression. All of this could be fixed just by undoing the last revert, which again had nothing to do with content. 81.0.64.6 (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

YOu need to make a case at the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Kenneth Roth

Would be helpful to have some outside eyes on Kenneth Roth#Remarks on Israel's policies / Talk:Kenneth Roth#Criticism and controversy bias. Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oregon Forest Resources Institute

Could a neutral third party please look at the Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) article, especially how the organization is described incorrectly at the top of the article as a "forestry trade association" and "de facto lobbying organization" to verify that this article appears to be written as an attack on OFRI from detractors of the Institute? I represent OFRI and therefore have a conflict of interest, but I believe the most recent editors of the page have a conflict of interest as well and have been citing selective details from several-years-old media coverage of the agency to paint it in a negative light. Take a look at the talk for more details about our concerns with the way this article about our organization is written. OreForests (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh

I would like to ask for third party opinions with regard to proper wording and attribution of statements by top officials of Azerbaijan and Russia. Please see here: [49], and relevant discussion here: [50] In my opinion, the statements of top state officials should simply be attributed to the persons who made them, without using non-neutral wording such as "alleged". Grandmaster 00:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• All countries and organizations stated for Azerbaijan to lift the blockade. Third-party WP:RS clearly stated that supplies are running low or either are entirely lost due to the blockade. HRW, referring to some media reports, said trucks allegedly containing humanitarian goods were allowed to pass. Red cross helped transport a patient / delivered medicine and baby food once (from article's sources), that's it.

So fringe, undue and extraordinary claims of Aliev ("about four hundred trucks of peacekeepers have passed through the corridor" / "Red Cross was granted permission to pass as many times as they asked") either stay as Aliev alleged (which is completely appropriate wording for this instance given Aliev's wild claims in contradiction to majority RS, countries and orgs) or don't stay in the article at all for violating WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, that's my view. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not undue or extraordinary, because in addition to reports in Azerbaijani media, there is plenty of video evidence of Russian supply convoys passing into Karabakh daily. Some examples: [51] [52] [53] Every day dozens of Russian supply trucks move via Lachin road in both directions. Some days the number of trucks reaches 50. Also, it is not up to us to evaluate veracity of statements of officials. It is a WP:OR. Statements must be presented with attribution, as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, without any POV language such as "alleged". Grandmaster 10:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I should also add that the use of words such as "alleged" is generally not recommended by MOS:ALLEGED. Grandmaster 11:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Do readers need disclaimers warning them that they're about to be linked to unreliable tweets? (Twitter Files)

See discussion at Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 7#Warning?. The discussion is about whether we should include a disclaimer when linking to the primary source tweets of the Twitter Files in the external links section, warning people that tweets are not reliable. Here's what the warning would look like. Endwise (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No. Taking that we expect editors to be competent, they can see the target of a link before clicking on it. And I would think it is not our place to necessarily say the links are not reliable at the point they are being clicks, particularly in the case of the Twitter Files, as they are a mix of truth (actual messages from past Twitter employees) and poor interpretation of what they mean.

If we start to do that for that, I can see us being dogpiled to do the same for opinion sources and the like. I think its better to just make sure the prose around the links to be clear what's going on. Masem (t) 03:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about an external links section here, so there would be no prose around the links. Endwise (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Posting this to two noticeboards at once looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

?? I posted the two notifications at the same time. How could I be looking for a different outcome? WP:ELN is probably more strictly relevant, but ELN is quite low traffic, and since it is also an NPOV issue, I posted it to both noticeboards. It's quite normal to advertise for participation at RfCs and other such discussions at more than one location. Endwise (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about many links all to unreliable sources many pushing conspiratorial political and medical claims. And the section head here is incorrect. They are links to biased commentary reading things into cherry-picked, internal conversations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added "unreliable tweets" to the header. Endwise (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliability is the wrong issue… in this case, the tweets are being linked as primary sources simply so readers can see the text of the original tweets - the subject of the article - in their original form. Linking to the tweets themselves is the MOST reliable way to do so.

Let me give an extreme example of a similar situation: in our article about Adolph Hitler’s book “Mein Kamph”, we might include a link to a scanned copy of that book (so readers can see what Hitler said in his own words). Now, we can certainly debate whether doing so is appropriate (or not)… but, if we do include it, then we want to do so directly, and NOT via a secondary source discussing that book. We want to take the middle-man out of the equation. The most reliable link is to the original.

So… We can debate the reasons why we should/should not include links to the original tweets but, in this situation, reliability is not one of those reasons. The most reliable link to ANY text is a link to the original text itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

These are NOT the original text in context. They are snipped pieces of corporate conversations. That is, edited. And. conspiratorial commentary has been added which is demonstrably false. This is more like taking small pieces of Mein Kampf out of context to make Hitler look like a sweet guy who just wanted to improve life. Remember the bulletin boards in Germany showing happy Jewish families in the relocation “communities”? Sorry, you brought up Hitler I'll say it again, "take the text out of context and you are left with a con." O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree… The “Twitter files” refers to a selected group of tweets… those presented (and edited) by Elon Musk. In other words… the subject of the article isn’t the internal communications, but rather MUSK’s tweets about selected internal communications at Twitter. His exposé. So the original text is whatever MUSK tweeted. That is what we are linking to. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

If the section ahead of the table of links actually went to explain, using RSes to back this up, that the Twitter Files are a specific narrow slice of the company's communication that appear selected to push a certain message, putting that in prose above the table, then you don't need to have the additional warning - you're using RSes to explain the caution readers should take on reading further. Masem (t) 17:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, as I've read, Musk only sent the various journalists the slices of communications and let the journalists write the narrative around it (likely with Musk's prodding at the implications). Musk talked about the tweets but did not actually reveal directly any "Twitter Files" himself, just advertised the published articles about the tweets when they came out and answered questions related to them from others. Masem (t) 17:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The info box points to the files. Why do we need 18 links (and growing) to twitter conspiracy threads with misleading titles? This isn't neutral or RS. We are in the business of information based on reliable secondary sources, not misinformation directed by one man supposedly gleaned from communications we (and reliable sources) are not allowed to see. Otherwise, we are simply aiding claims the FBI paid off Twitter, Twitter conspired with the government to block Covid information, (he also suggested Dr. Fauuci be prosecuted), Russia didn't interfere with our elections, etc. Reliable sources have not done this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no requirement to have a link in the infobox, since there's actually no single website that published the original stories. That would leave a section with appropriate prose warning that the information should not be taken as fact.

But that said, we do not put warnings about links to other organizations or websites which may have unreliable information when there is an actual existing website (eg take Alliance Defending Freedom as an example). If you make a starting point here, you create the slippery slope to apply everywhere, where it is better to establish why information provided by an EL may be questionable as determined by other RSes in the surrounding prose, and trust our readers are not taking these links in absence of the prose. Masem (t) 18:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

There is already a link in the infobox to a compendium of these links. The "surrounding prose" included "Russiagate lies", "Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary" with no explanation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing on our prose about that. Our surrounding prose in the lede next to the infobox is clear that the Twitter Files are very questionable about being legitimate. Masem (t) 19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It was at the very bottom, past the reflist and nowhere near our prose. That's why I felt it needed a warning. It has been removed during discussion. Here's a version before the removal:[54] O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so we're talking the actual titles of the published TF pieces. Which would be inappropriate to outright remove if the links were kept as those titles are part of the proper referencing for the links. But the prose that I was suggesting to be included prior to the table, to be clear that these are the original published stories but which are considered to be improper interpretation of the various events claimed to be described, would be the included prose to warn the reader w/o the need for a special warning box. Masem (t) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The compromise suggested (and rejected) was to change the warning box to an info box. It needs to stand out considering the length (which was continuing to increase). In any case, I don't think this increasing table belongs anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Prose ahead of the table would be sufficient as a warning/notice that the links in the table are the original published stories and should be taken as questionable. Masem (t) 20:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, everything about the both the titles and conclusions should be taken as wild conspiracy theories based on secret communications that reliable sources have not been allowed to see. I simply don't understand why an encyclopedia would link to such. Should we start linking to StormFront posts? Isn't the infobox link enough? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

To me, if we have an article about a specific article or articles from a source we'd normalky call unreliable but otherwise accessible, it is silly to not link to the specific stories, as to help readers that are furthering research on it. Of course, I would make sure that the reader is well aware of the RS view of the works, and common sense that by linking them in the context of discussing them directly that we are not necessarily promoting or supporting the material.

If we were talking an organization like Stormfrint or Libs of TikTok, where the story is on their general practice and not any one specific article, then it doesn't make sense to link to any specific article they have published. Masem (t) 14:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Not only are the readers unaware, some of the editors adding these are unaware. One states these "prove" FBI collusion with Twitter (indeed paying Twitter) to hide information from the public. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If an article is explicitly about a publication (whether it is a book, website, newspaper article, et cetera) a link to the publication is warranted as an external link. The specific example you're trying to use as a reductio ad absurdum is linked in its article: Stormfront (website) links to the hellhole in question right in the infobox. The Unabomber Manifesto, famously written by a murderer as an exhortation to overthrow civilization, has a link to Industrial Society and Its Future, hosted on the Washington Post's website, in the external links section. Mein Kampf has no less than eight links to different versions and translations. So does The Communist Manifesto – plus a link to a Wikisource page of the entire thing. It is hard to overstate how firmly our policies stand on the side of allowing readers to access the materials that we write articles about: it's the way an encyclopedia works. The singular exception I'm aware of is the now-defunct 8chan, where if I recall correctly the external link was removed due to the fact that people regularly spammed it with child pornography which would show up on the main page if you went there, i.e. the link was literally against the law to click. That is not the situation here. jp×g 08:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to join the discussion at Emrah Safa Gurkan page

Hi, we are engaged in a content dispute in the talk page of Emrah Safa Gürkan article. It is a relatively obscure page; that's why I wanted to publicize the discussion. Thank you. Man-at-Bogomil (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

How should the Preamble to the United States Constitution be neutrally presented?

I am trying to make Constitution of the United States § Preamble more neutral and concise. I am concerned that the current version has an unencyclopedic tone and omits some relevant information, as I've discussed at length at Talk:Constitution of the United States § Flowery, biased, and factually incorrect. I have proposed making the following change:

Current

Proposal

Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States". This echoes the Declaration of Independence. "One people" dissolved their connection with another, and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".

Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States", echoing the Declaration of Independence in its claim to speak for all Americans. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold: "to form a more perfect Union" and to "secure the blessings of liberty", though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I.

Penlite and Dhtwiki have rejected this proposal because one of the cited sources is biased, but I don't think that should be grounds for rejection, especially when it's not the only source for the information. Looking for an outsider well-versed in Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines to weigh in.      — Freoh 19:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article but isn't this really a question about sourcing? And about interpretation rather than presentation? They don't seem that much different except for the part at the end of the second one. If that part is common in reliable sources I don't see a problem in including it. I guess that part is interpretation rather than merely conveying only what it says. Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead? I posted here because Penlite was repeatedly citing WP:NPOV as his rationale, and WP:RS/N has already confirmed the reliability of the source.      — Freoh 20:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Everybody says POV when they don't like something, but NPOV is ultimately a question of what's in the sources, isn't it? On balance. I was trying to figure out what the request is really about, if it is "just" a content dispute between several editors and it can't be sorted out, then maybe an RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. To be honest, I'm also trying to figure out what the request is really about. I was trying to understand Penlite's NPOV rationale, but he disengaged before we could reach a consensus. I'll post an RfC if people here think that this isn't a neutrality issue. Thanks!      — Freoh 21:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

At the article talk page, not here :) Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "biased" source must be Howard Zinn's book, although Freoh doesn't make that clear. That's not the only basis for objecting. In Freoh's version, such phrases as "in its claim to speak for all Americans" and "though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I" spend a lot of time pointing out how hypocritical the preamble seems to people today, which should be understood or deserves a separate article. Also, the proposed version, while admirably concise in some respects, leaves off the helpful demonstration of the need for "a more perfect Union" arising from the flawed "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that this deserves a separate article, as POV forks are not neutral. I was thinking that the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation was clear enough in context, given that this is discussed at length in Constitution of the United States § Articles of Confederation. How would you prefer it to be worded?      — Freoh 20:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The end of the proposed change/version sounds like a POV created angle rather than straightforward coverage of the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by a POV created angle? Are you saying that the contradiction between liberty and slavery is just an opinion? How would you prefer to word it?      — Freoh 23:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: Essentially, yes. Whether it's a justified opinion is irrelevant. No one gets to add one specific viewpoint about the failings of the Constitution to the lead. To give you an example that I hope makes the issue clear: imagine if a conservative user added "though this contradicts the legal restrictions on the right to bear arms" and then cited something like Kopel, Gallant, Eisen. Human Rights and Gun Confiscation. Obviously that would be inappropriate, right? I would oppose that change, and I oppose this one for the same reasons. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to add it to the lead, and I don't understand the comparison. Your example is about legislation that arguably acts against constitutional principles. I'm talking about a contradiction (between liberty and slavery) solely within the U.S. Constitution, one which reliable sources describe directly as a contradiction. Isn't this within the scope of the article?      — Freoh 09:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the answer is to think of it as two separate sections (I am intentionally not visiting the actual article), the first section would be the presentation of what it actually says (per sources/quotes) and a second section devoted to interpretation/implications etc (also per sources and respecting DUE), I am sure the slavery thing is not the only issue and if it is, then there ought to be sources saying that, apart from that, everything else is rosy. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Moot

 – Allreet just overhauled this section, so the issues have changed.      — Freoh 18:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Freoh: What issues remain for the Preamble sub-section? As I just posted on your Talk page, I'm still fine tuning the wording and may add another thought or two but nothing major. Others are of course welcome to pitch in, including changes to what I've written.

I wholeheartedly agree with @North8000 on the need for "straightforward coverage", which to me means focusing on mainstream secondary sources. To that I'll add that our "filter" should also be the needs of our audience. IOW, we're not helping anyone if we belabor details that are well-sourced but go beyond the scope of why people come here to learn.

On that last point: The sub-sections on the Constitution's Articles that follow are under-sourced. While I think the basic information outlined is good, in the interest of readers, that's not true of the forays in constitutional law and the attendant history. IMO such discussions belong elsewhere, either in another article or a separate section. Allreet (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I've already made some changes to what you've written and replied to you on my talk page. I don't have any more complaints after that last conflict of interest is resolved. Your recent edit warring has reintroduced neutrality issues. Please stop.      — Freoh 01:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: I've added sources to supplement the existing Congressional Research Service sources you dispute. On further reflection, I disagree that the Service's published statements constitute a Conflict of Interest, though I have no problem providing more sources. In any case, as best as I can tell, WP:COI does not apply here.

Meanwhile, you've added the same footnote to the word "liberty" in two places in the Preamble subsection with citations linked to Critical Race Theory sources. This seems to be Citation Overkill so one of the two needs to be removed. Allreet (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The citations are not repeated, so I don't see how this is "needless repetition".      — Freoh 01:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: What is your rationale for applying the same footnote to the same word in multiple places? To quote David Byrne, "Say something once. Why say it again?"

And as I've requested before, please ping me when replying to my comments. It's a requirement of the noticeboard (see the guidelines at the top) and it's good form on regular talk pages as well. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

​I was thinking that it could be useful to put it in both places because the context is different (one in a quote, the other in wikivoice), but you can remove the second one if you'd like.      — Freoh 22:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The first doesn't belong in the quote. You've soiled it. Affected people's reading experience by interrupting it with your political POV.

The second may just be a first in publication history. Publishing the same explanatory note twice for the same word in the same section.

Ridiculous. Allreet (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

​Could you explain how it's soiled? How is it a political POV that slavery was constitutionally protected?      — Freoh 12:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote, the most iconic passage of the Constitution, should stand on its own without interruption so that people can read it on their own, entertain their own thoughts, and reach their own conclusions. That's not possible with a note in the middle of the quote, one that introduces a political theory of a highly controversial nature. That's going to stop most readers in their tracks, even those who are amenable to those views, myself included. That should answer both your questions. Allreet (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

​How does the current version make it impossible for people to read it on their own, entertain their own thoughts, and reach their own conclusions? Wikipedia guidelines encourage us to favor secondary sources over primary sources, and I still don't see evidence that anything I added is highly controversial.      — Freoh 19:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You're in the middle of a dispute over neutrality, and your use of sources has been questioned. Then you apply a source on a controversial theory to one of the least contentious sections of the Constitution. Would you think it innocent if someone did the same to Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Or that this is "neutrally presenting" the Preamble? I think this is disingenuous. Allreet (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Answering the question put to me, the statements in the constitution are general and need context (including the norms of the time) to know their intended meaning, and also include even more general goals (e.g. liberty) . You can interpret ANY power given to the government over people as a conflict with the goal of liberty. Also you can interpret allowance of any forcing by one individual over another as a conflict with the goal of liberty. Criticizing it as self-conflicting based on such thought processes is a POV argument rather than straightforward coverage of the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Request for input: use of a questionable footnote

Freoh: Early on, in the second of three discussions related to Neutrality on the Constitution's Talk page, your use of Critical Race Theory and far-left sources was called into question as potentially violating WP:NPOV as was your proposed edit. Now you've done exactly the same thing in terms of text and sources with a footnote you've added in the Preamble section.

I would appreciate input from some of the editors involved in the various discussions: Thebiguglyalien, Dhtwiki, Selfstudier, Penlite, and North8000. To save everyone time, the issues are:

• In the article's Preamble section, a footnote was inserted in the middle of a direct quote of the Preamble questioning the word "liberty" because Article I of the Constitution originally protected slavery.
• The note's references relate to Critical Race Theory.
• The WP:NPOV issues as I see them are Neutrality, Bias, Due Weight, and Fringe Theories, though others may apply.

Discussions between the two of us, which are going around and around, can be found above and also on the Constitution's Talk page. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's all interesting stuff but maybe it's time to take it back to the talk page? Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Actually, two discussions are going on, here and on the Talk page. Yes, it needs to be consolidated and the latter would be the place to do that. However, everyone else seems to have lost interest and something else may need to be done to garner consensus. Allreet (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for inputs @ Talk:Islamic feminism

Request for inputs @ Talk:Islamic feminism#Strange content deletion summary

Bookku (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking for guidance on unresolved litigation

In the Gannett article, there's a section called Gannett#Sued for enabling sexual abuse of paperboys in New York and Arizona. An IP editor on the talk page thinks this section needs more vetting. There is no outright dispute at this time. I expect that at some point, editors at WP would have worked through how to handle content about ongoing litigation but I can't find it, so I'm just asking for a pointer to it, if it exists. Thanks. Novellasyes (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Undue additions at Enoch, Utah

User:Valereee reverted edits to re-insert text which, by its depth of detail and quantity of text, added undue weight.

The text prior to User:Valereee's reverts read: "On January 4, 2023, eight people were found dead from gunshot wounds inside a home after a welfare check by police."

My text removals:

• [55]
• [56]

Edits by User:Valereee:

• [57]
• [58]
• [59]

The unresolved content dispute is at Talk:Enoch, Utah#reversions. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that was a major step from just discussing at talk. Not sure why we needed to come to a discussion board, but okay. I don't really care if we include that content there, we can just create Enoch Police Department. Valereee (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Death of Keenan Anderson

I'd welcome more input in a dispute over whether to include the results of a preliminary police toxicology report in the lead of Death of Keenan Anderson. The discussion so far is at §Toxicology report in lede? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I was considering adding a comment, but then had the thought that since there's a healthy discussion in progress on the article's Talk page, starting a discussion here is likely to make the conversation difficult to follow. I understand you're seeking wider input, but just the appearance of this on the Noticeboard page may suffice in attracting editors to the Talk:Death of Keenan Anderson page. Anyway, that's where I'm headed. Hope that helps. Allreet (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Allreet. Yes, I think it make sense to keep discussion at the article talk page, so this notice is really a "Come on in! We can't decide if the water's warm or not!" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop controversy Part 2

I see there was a previous discussion in August of '22 , and some things have changed since then. I wasn't sure if I needed to come here or RSN first, originally I had intended to go to RSN, but then an RfC was started and I wanted to let that pan out first and see if a consensus could be reached to quell my concerns. Despite weeks and weeks of debate I still seem to have concern for possible issues related to both VERIFIABILITY (which may be a more RSN related concern) and POV. Even after weeks of debate and 2 RfC's in the last few months, I still have concerns. I currently am trying to abide by the most recent RfC close by an admin, by not starting any new topics on the matter. However, the discussion on this topic seems to be ongoing and admins don't seem to take issue with letting debate continue in attempt to find consensus.

I originally became involved when I noticed (certain) sources do not seem to reflect the context used in the wiki-article accurately (IMO). Other editors seemed to take issue with it as well, but that's beside the point. The citations use words like "believed" or "purportedly", which the lead does not seem to reflect, and instead puts into Wikivoice what I feel may be an implied "certainty" that may not be of a neutral point of view (IMO). I asked about including some attributions to help alleviate the issue but some of the editors said it was unnecessary.

Essentially, I could really use some guidance/opinions from uninvolved and unbiased editors to help me re-examine my own personal perspective. If you are currently, or were formally involved in the discussion on that article, please realize that I am only interested in hearing from other editors that were not and are not involved, so I may not respond to you. I am looking for more unbiased opinions here.

So, to reiterate, this is NOT an invitation to participate at the article in question, or a SOAPBOX to sway anyone's opinions either way, I am just looking for feedback for my own personal sanity. It should also go without saying, I am trying to avoid crossing any lines as far as WP:CAN, so again, please do not get involved because of anything I say or the way I say it. I believe editors there are acting in good faith even though I may disagree with their interpretations. I will do my best to accurately represent citations, context and quotes as neutrally as I can, to reflect their current state in the lead of the wiki-article, as of today.

So my main concern has to do with using Wikivoice to say what the lead sentence currently says here...(bold emphasis mine)

In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop[60]. The New York Post published the first story, based on information provided by Rudy Giuliani. Forensic analysis later authenticated some of the data on the laptop, including one of two key emails used by the Post in their initial reporting[61]...."

(CBS citation) We recently added the "involving data" portion to the lead, which I did feel was an improvement, but even the headline from the citation being used for this says... "Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data turned over by repair shop to FBI showed no tampering, analysis says"[62] (bold emphasis mine)...

(WaPo citation) "Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, are authentic communications that can be verified through cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies, say two security experts who examined the data at the request of The Washington Post."[63] (bold emphasis mine)

I would like to just focus on these 2 cites for now to keep the feedback focused. Is it possible or probable we are not being CAREFUL enough with the lead, or do you think this is safe to put into Wikivoice? Why or why not? Cheers... DN (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe if you look at the talk page of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy you can find most of your answers. This topic about the specific lines you are questioning has been discussed at great length. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Grahaml35 Thanks, but I am already an involved editor on that page, and if you read my post here, you can see that I'm looking for some uninvolved and less biased opinions as to whether this characterization of cited sources qualifies as a WP:POV issue. Care to comment on that? Thanks. DN (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Academic bias and Rock balancing

Should the views of rock balancing artists have the same weight as the views of scientists and conservationists? Geogene (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I note here that the actual question, based on the actual sources in the article is "Are WIRED, Vice, and the Denver Post roughly equivalent sources to Smithsonian Magazine, the AP, and the Guardian?" Whose views each source is describing is irrelevant from an NPOV view: almost by definition, if a reliable source reports on the views of rock balancing artists they do in fact have the same weight as if a reliable source reports on the views of conservationists that have a problem with rock balancing. Loki (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Views on what? Rock balancing as a form of art? The environmental consequences of rock balancing? Regarding the former, I'd have to suggest that the artists themselves are hardly the best source for its artistic merit, and secondary sourcing (from the wider world of art criticism) would be preferable. As for the latter, I'd think that the Smithsonian probably knows what they are talking about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no commentary on rock balancing in the wider world of art criticism that could be used as sourcing. Geogene (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like the artists are described by secondary sources and it is a reasonable thng to do in an article like that. Peronally I think people should take more care when in community space not to destroy part of that space, but we should just follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Would be rock balancing artists should just leave Makka Pakka to be the extablished expert. NadVolum (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

These various groups aren't, I think, being given any weight at all on each others' territory: artists that say balancing rocks is relaxing and looks nice, conservationists are concerned that it causes environmental damage in protected areas, national parks say it's messing up their trail markers. The artists aren't presented or quoted as disagreeing with any of that (one of them even says that he knocks the stacks over before leaving), and the conservationists aren't offering any negative artistic critique.

The article could be rewritten with less direct quotation, but if we're writing about an artistic practice that damages the environment, we need to give some context and detail about what that practice actually involves, and why people are doing it. --Belbury (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Per all of the above, these are not opposing viewpoints, these are orthogonal viewpoints. There's room in the article for both. --Jayron32 14:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This, as long as we're not talking about, as Andy framed it, "environmental consequences". We shouldn't be saying "a geologist interviewed by Smithsonian Magazine says it's bad, but this artist says there's no harm." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Going on the above it suggests there are not years of sources that editors can infer what is the popular view, and as such, both should be presented with equality weight in regards to validity, and definitely not claim who is right or wrong Masem (t) 21:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Weasel words, lack of NPOV, etc. on article: Gab (social network)

The use of "Widely described as" in the second sentence is weasel words. Some other editors seem to disagree adamantly. Attempted to make changes citing sources to either replace weasel words or provide more factual context for the reader. My edits, intended to maintain NPOV, were quickly reverted by other editors for what appears to be nitpicky reasons and potentially some argumentum ad populum concerning the disputed NPOV/WW.

I'm concerned that their preconceptions about the social network (for example "Gab = bad" or "Alt tech = bad") is clouding their editorial judgment. It appears that most of the article — most alarmingly right in the first paragraph / lead section — presents heavy negative bias and criticism. In fact, I would say in the current state of the article, the controversy surrounding Gab is more emphasized than what Gab actually even is. I am concerned with "how facts are selected, presented, or organized" (Quote from: NPOV (Neutral point of view) ).

Please help resolve this issue.

See: Talk:Gab (social network) - Where I explained my reasoning in depth.

See: Gab (social network) - The article in question.

Relevant Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gab_(social_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1134253361

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gab_(social_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1134631685

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gab_(social_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1135559033

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gab_(social_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1135801747

User Page Notice(s):

I have posted "NPOVN-notice" notices on the related user talk pages, particularly to the editors who seem to have an issue with my edits. (i.e.: User talk:Shorn again | User talk:HandThatFeeds | User talk:Writ Keeper | User:Slatersteven)

I have also received an edit war accusation in the form of a notice from User:Slatersteven because of my attempts to correct the lack of NPOV in this article. The notice is currently visible on my user page: User talk:Commandur. Commandur (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

NO you received it for making 4 edits (3 reverts and an initial edit). In other words wp:editwaring. Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think your argument is weak. Please substantiate how my edits are "edit warring". Please review the diffs before further comment. Commandur (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

No its not, policy says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." you made three reverts did you not? Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that my good faith contributions in the Talk page as well as here provide ample evidence I am not participating in edit warring. Certainly not to some detrimental degree at any rate. Even so, I am not even remotely close to the typical three-edits-a-day guideline which you cited. Each edit was at least a day apart, January 15, January 19, January 25, and January 26, with attempts at discussing the issue on the Talk page twice in between.

Instead of trying to attack me with accusations of edit warring, why not properly debate my arguments about how the article can be improved?

According to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not a democracy that relies on majority vote, and the best argument should win any dispute. While it is much easier to cater to the majority opinion in many cases (or even to what is merely *perceived* as the majority opinion), sometimes dissent is crucial for progress. Our mutual goal should be improving the article. Not nitpicking good-faith edits. Do you have a solid argument that the article is already written entirely in NPOV? Because I am not the only one who thinks that it is not.

Clearly the lack of numerical representation of my opinion in this section is more due to how I did not specifically invite people here who agree with me, so much as the fact I called the editors who disagree with me here to discuss it.

A news company may decide that bias is acceptable on their news article, but editorial bias still has no place being in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia's purpose is to provide information. It is the reader's responsibility to decide what to do with that information. Not the editor's. Commandur (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

See the posts below, academic sources say it is, it is primarily notable because of it. As to what edit war says "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.", so (and I appoligise) you did not breach 3RR, but you did repeatedly revert to your version, which is still can be seen as edit warring. Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There are citations for the characterization of the site right in the lede. How would you like its userbase to be described? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The tone of the lede is all wonky. While identify that Gab is a home for many of a far right and extremist user, it puts those first before saying what Gab was originally designed for then became, in contrast with networks like Truth Social or Parker which were designed to favor the right views. The lede us overly critical in wikivoice, though these positions should not be whitewashed out if the lede Masem (t) 21:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Whatever other stuff says, doesn’t it make sense to start with the present? Doug Weller talk 21:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

No, a neutral tone starts with the most objective aspects (which would include the creation and original history of the service), and then moves into the subjective ones. Starting with subjective elements - even if there's strong support from the media for that - immediately frames the article as a strong negative critique of the service. We should never be writing that way. We can include the negative critique of the service, but the ordering when it is introduced is very key to keep our tone neutral, impartial and disinterested. Masem (t) 00:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's contrast this with the lede to United States:

The United States of America (U.S.A. or USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US) or America, is a country primarily located in North America. It consists of 50 states, a federal district, five major unincorporated territories, nine Minor Outlying Islands, and 326 Indian reservations. The United States is also in free association with three Pacific Island sovereign states: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. It is the world's third-largest country by both land and total area. It shares land borders with Canada to its north and with Mexico to its south. It has maritime borders with the Bahamas, Cuba, Russia, and other nations. With a population of over 333 million, it is the most populous country in the Americas and the third most populous in the world. The national capital is Washington, D.C. and the most populous city and financial center is New York City.

All present tense and current state, nothing about the origin. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral starts and finishes with neutrally summarising reliable sources. Because what is objective or subjective is in itself a subjective judgement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Simply providing citations does not excuse biased writing. Many readers are not going to take the time to check the cited sources to see who is saying it. Saying weasel words like "widely described" makes them think it is a unanimous agreement by some undefined, ambiguous group of "other people". Please state in-line who is making such a critical statement if you want to keep the statement in the article. Doing due diligence on this aspect is paramount due to the controversial nature of the article. Commandur (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there any characterization we could make of the sources that describe Gab's userbase in these ways that would be based on reliable sources? If not, we can't really say anything other than these characterizations exist and are widespread. We could tone down the language to "described in the media" rather than "widely described" and "haven" could be rephrased or put in quotes perhaps (not sure of MOS etc. on using quotes for attribution if that is the case here). —DIYeditor (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a good way to go about it. Really, that is the type of change I have been trying to suggest, but it has mostly been falling on deaf ears. Commandur (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Not really sure why I'm here. The one edit I reverted is not super consequential in terms of POV, and has nothing to do with weasel words; it's more an issue of sourcing, as I don't see any support for Commandur's addition in the source they cited. Can't speak to any of the other reversions, as I don't know about them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

For that edit, I was referring to this statement from the source:

"Gab launched in 2016 and bills itself as a 'social network for creators who believe in free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of information online.' But the site has run into controversy over the years for allowing extremist content with very little oversight."

I was trying to paraphrase as I think it's bad form to take it verbatim. I think that "very little oversight" and "lax moderation" are basically the same thing, don't you? Perhaps there is a better way to phrase it, though.

As for why you are here, because your removal's supporting statement, "rm; unsupported by source. "due to lax moderation" implies that that they're trying to moderate the content, but no such statement exists in the source" is incorrect, and I have just had my other edits removed by other editors, so it made sense an unmerited removal of my content seemed suspicious. As it seems I was wrong about that, sorry for disturbing you. However, now that we are here, do you understand why the source supports my "lax moderation" statement? How do you think it should be phrased? Commandur (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

'Lax moderation' implies that they are just bad at moderation, but the point the source is making is that they are purposefully allowing the content. MrOllie (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

We are not here to make judgement calls about what an article intends, but rather to state facts as gleaned from various reputable sources. As far as I am concerned we do not reference sources so that we can regurgitate their original intended purpose, but so that we can glean actual facts to help us improve the article in question.

Regardless, I do not see any clear evidence that the source is accusing them of "purposefully allowing" such content. What I see is this statement: "allowing extremist content with very little oversight."

The article clearly states that moderation is very light, in other words, it is lax moderation just as I stated in my edit. It seems you are very focused on the part "allowing extremist content" without paying any heed to the last part: "very little oversight". Please explain to me how you think I have misunderstood the article's statements. Commandur (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am focused on the idea that 'allowing extremist content' means that they are allowing extremist content on their platform. MrOllie (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That just adds more evidence that it is "lax moderation". Just because you personally feel like there is no moderation whatsoever, does not make it a fact. Likewise, that they are "purposefully allowing the content" is more of a loaded statement than what is in the original source. "Allowing the content" has a completely different tone than "purposefully allowing the content", where the second infers intentional malice on the part of the platform. Commandur (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Equating "allowing the content" with "lax moderation" is a way bigger stretch than equating "allowing the content" to "purposefully allowing the content", but regardless, the revision I reverted to didn't make either assertion. Yours did make an assertion, so the onus is on you to support, and that source does not do so. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

My statement asserted the fact that is mentioned in the article. If you did not agree with the phrasing or did not appreciate the wording, you could feel free to improve it instead of completely deleting it. So why did you delete it instead of improving it, then? Commandur (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The article was improved by the removal of your text. That is really the beginning and the end of the matter. Zaathras (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't just make a claim. Substantiate your claim. Commandur (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Slatersteven - pay attention to User:Writ Keeper's comment, "The one edit I reverted is not super consequential in terms of POV".

If it is inconsequential to the POV, then you may no longer logically use that specific edit to substantiate that I was "edit warring". Commandur (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not how edit-warring works. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Considering someone needs some sort of motivation to participate in edit-warring, I do think it works like that, at least to some degree.

I mean, I could also argue that User talk:HandThatFeeds who removed two of my edits in a row with dubious reasons may be participating in edit warring, but perhaps that would be petty. Commandur (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

No, not at all how it works. People get blocked for edit warring over inconsequential stuff all the time - I can think of a case where someone got blocked over whether a dash should be an en-dash or an em-dash. MrOllie (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring over inconsequential stuff is actually worse, its just disruptive without arguably fulfilling a higher purpose. The most consequential area (BLP) actually has carveouts from the normal edit warring criteria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Please ask yourselves: Why are people so vehemently fighting against mentioning the source of the statement within the text of the article? What is their motivation? The reason "because it is unnecessary to do so" does not seem to warrant this magnitude of a response. Hence my mention of "censoring NPOV edits" on the article's Talk page. Commandur (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, accusing other users of "censoring" without evidence is just a personal attack. Quite frankly, this sounds like you're here to fight on behalf of Gab. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not here to fight for Gab, in fact I didn't even know about Gab until about a week and a half ago. I am here to fight for Wikipedia to remain a NPOV encyclopedia as described on the talk page. You did not address my concern that it is unusual for people to fight so strongly against including the source in the text of the article, nor did you provide any good reasons for prohibiting it. Commandur (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

What? Sourcing is included in the text of the article, so this argument makes no sense. The sources you proposed were to soften the view on Gab as only coming from "critics," while there's many other sources, including academia, that draw the conclusion it is far-right.

You then posted a wall of text to the talk page. Suffice to say, I'm not going to point-by-point deal with that when we've already dealt with WP:WEASEL already: this is sufficiently sources in the article already and satisfies that guideline. Further, accusing me of "blatant bias" is a personal attack, another reason I have no interest in engaging that wall of text on the talk page.

The fact I failed to satisfy you does not mean I "did not address [your] concern". I addressed it, you disagreed. So far, you do not have consensus for the changes you want. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

To further respond to this:

In fact, I would say in the current state of the article, the controversy surrounding Gab is more emphasized than what Gab actually even is.

This is because Gab's controversial nature is why they're Notable. The vast majority of reliable sources refer to them as right-wing or far-right. That is not in question. Therefore it is not weasel-wording to open the article with the current phrasing.

As a further point of order, WP:WEASEL is a best-practices guide, not a hard-and-fast rule. Even that guide states:

They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.

This is a situation where it is notable that reliable sources agree on the site's status and motivations. Attempting to label this as only being reported by "critics" is not compatible with NPOV, any more than attempting to describe Flat Earth as only being considered wrong by "critics." Using that term implies that the only people who see Gab as far-right are those ideologically motivated to do so, rather than the vast majority of reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The difference between something like Flat Earth and "Gab is far right" is the volumes of academic analysis that has proven the earth to be round and thus discrediting the whole Flat Earth movement, while we're taking the critics of Gab to be the "word of God" in describing them as far right in Wikivoice and how it is discussed in the lede. Maybe in a good number of years, we will have deep academic analysis of "far right social media influences on the 2020s" where Gab will be firmly set by objective analysis as being at the far right, but we're not there yet. Piling on the public opinion taken from mass media only, and well within the first few years, we absolutely should be wary of taking public opinion as wikifact at this stage. That nearly all the public opinion swings in that direction is why we can safely describe them as "widely considered to be far-right..." but we're still too early and close to events to be taking that media opinion as fact. Masem (t) 18:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think "taken from mass media only" describes the actual sources used on the Gab article, though. There are some scholarly analysis articles in there as well, including this one, supporting the statement Researchers and journalists have characterized these assertions [of dedication to free speech] as an obfuscation of its extremist ecosystem in the lead; the source says specifically: We find that, while Gab claims to be all about free speech, this seems to be merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide. It's not the only such source cited in the article. I don't think that's the most reliable scholarly source we've ever cited on Wikipedia by any means, but to characterize this article as "public opinion taken from mass media only" is to misrepresent it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The current lede of Gab at least uses phrases like "known for its far-right userbase" and "Widely described as a haven for...", which to me frames the public opinion stance outside of wikivoice. (And also correctly, doesn't describe Gab itself as far-right, just that its lax moderation leads to a haven for far-right views). That said, those are still subjective statements and should follow after the most objective statements. For example, just flipping sentence order in the lead:

Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. Founded in 2016 and launched publicly in May 2017, Gab claims to promote free speech, individual liberty, the "free flow of information online", and Christian values, but is known for its far-right userbase. Widely described as a haven for neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, antisemites, the alt-right, supporters of Donald Trump, conservatives, right-libertarians, and believers in conspiracy theories such as QAnon, Gab has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media platforms and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms.

creates a far more neutral approach in the lede while still hitting these key points which should all be there. (There's a few other smaller problems with the tone of the lede, but I'm focusing on the major one) Masem (t) 18:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Since people have asked above for academic sources describing Gab as far-right: Gab is basically one of the textbook examples of far-right social media used in academia today and is extensively studied as such; there's no way that a neutral article could avoid describing it as such in the article voice, since that is essentially its primary source of notability. --Aquillion (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• So, the main issue as far as I can see it is a misreading of WP:NPOV. What it says is "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (bold mine) If a preponderance of reliable sources emphasize the far-right extremist nature of Gab's customer base, then Wikipedia should reflect that viewpoint in proportion to how that viewpoint is reported in reliable sources. --Jayron32 17:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  I do, however, think Masem's point just above mine is relevant as well, some rephrasing could help with some of the objections noted; while still not downplaying the key part of Gab's story. --Jayron32 17:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Project Veritas

Project Veritas released a new covid-related video recently and as usual it's full of lies and misdirection, so expect an uptick in traffic on the article. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:44BA:33D4:C395:AEEB (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless there are sources paying attention to their claims about covid, we can not actually cover the topic. Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Trickle-down economics

I'd like to flag this article for a few eyeballs. We had a bunch of discussions and an RFC on this a few months ago. At issue is whether trickle-down economics is a term of political art, or an economic one, or both, or neither, and whether the article as written is balanced. Andre🚐 00:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Balance is not really the problem. A mess of incoherence is. I moved content to a more appropriate heading that already exists on the article. A revert of an edit that only moves content to start organizing the article is not helpful. Are you objecting to even moving the existing content to be near like content? This is a little twilight zone for me right now. I didn't expect to get SLAPPed. At least, not right away. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It's impossible to comment without a description of what changes you made and what improvement you were trying to make with them. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's a ton of repeated arguments on the talk page, going back years. A lot of what I'd like to do has already been discussed a great length, but it seems a small minority keep reverting everything.

Bare with me while I learn this platform, my edit is here. I did remove an emphasis on "US Republicans", sorry for forgetting that. IMO, it's a little outside what I'd call NPOV and doesn't seem to add to the information quality of the article. It's small, so I don't really want to argue over that.

The larger change I made was moving some content from the lead in to a heading called Usage that already exists. I don't see how that particular content is any different than the other content in the usage heading. I think any typical reader would find the article overall confusing, rather than clarifying. I think reorganizing the existing content is the clear place to start. At the moment, it's kind of just splattered in there. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It is rather a lot of waffle with little meat. The mathematics clearly indicates that in a straightforward economy the money will go up and an oligarchy will form without needing any encouragement from the government never mind any trickle down encouragement. Taxes are needed to offset the strong drift. That's the state of the US at the moment where more than 12% of people would still owe money if they went on the street and sold their clothes and 30% of the wealth is owned by some varnishing percent of the population. NadVolum (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:not a dictionary: "In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped, seen or renamed. In such cases, coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia." In this case it's a pejorative term for the concept that a rising economy (on average) lifts all. So, IMO, the article should only be about the term and rely on the coverage of the economic concept elsewhere. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You're making the assumption here that trickle down economics makes the country richer. I guess on the basis that the US is rich on average and taking care of its citizens is counted as socialism and next door to communism. However there are other countries in the world to compare with, ones with nowhere near so much in the way of natural resources per person, and yet for instance comparing the US to Denmark for instance they are close on GDP per person and yet Denmark has one of the lowest levels of income disparity and a very high level of happiness and the US one of the highest in disparity and is rent by viscious struggles where all reason has gone out the window. Trickle down is not the same as making the country richer. NadVolum (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure he is making that assumption. If I'm reading his comment correctly, he is saying that this is a term being used about a set of policies that are discussed elsewhere on Wiki. I would agree with that assessment.

• To the extent there is a NPOV problem on this page, I would suggest that it is arising because this article is currently structured as if "Trickle-Down" was an economic theory with data and models to be discussed rather than as shorthand largely used by politicians and the media. As noted by multiple editors on the talk page, this article should be closer to Tax and spend, Social justice warrior, Anchor baby, or Gay agenda. These are colloquial terms used in reference to other peoples' views or positions. They are not synonymous with those positions and are often contradictory in application.

As such, the article should be structured a la those pages, discussing primarily the usage of the term historically and linking to pages as appropriate to discuss the merits/demerits of any specific policy being referenced. There has been overwhelming consensus on the talk page going back for a year at least on this. Progress has largely been stifled by one or two editors who have dug in their feet, but who have generally not been willing to discuss it on the talk page. It is a long read, but a perusal can find pretty quickly a WP:OWN mentality and the rebuttal "I don't agree so you don't have consensus, no explanation needed." This page will remain the target of every random IP looking to grind an ax until it is reshaped away from being a WP:FORUM and into an encyclopedic article. Squatch347 (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the notion that "a rising economy (on average) lifts all" is a false assumption designed to make the (journalistic short-hand phrase) trickle-down "theory" more palatable to the unschooled masses. Since it is not at all proven that there is an improved well-being for "all" when a few benefit, this should not be part of the discussion. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If trickle down is to be regarded as 'pejorative' and avoided, then what non-perjorative term should be used for the concept that giving the rich more in proportion or making most people poorer will grow the economy or that it will be good for most people? NadVolum (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we please keep this discussion to the article and stop with the amateur economist analysis as to whether TDE is 'right' or 'wrong'? For my part i agree with User:Squatch347 'trickle-down' is not a scientific term or one used in a meaningful sense in economics. Rather it is a colloquialism used by the media et al. Bonewah (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider the results of yard sale type models amateur economics? They corroborate the observations in The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. NadVolum (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call TDE an economic theory as such and in the hands of politicos, even less so. I think it might be better referred to as (a) trickle down theory, a phrasing that extends beyond economics. I seem to recall a time when it was thought of as a good thing (in theory, the idea of it) rather than implying a criticism. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Trickle-down economics is used in general as a pejorative term for Supply-side economics or "Reaganomics" (another pejorative term), especially the type of economic theory espoused by the U.S. Republican party in the 1980s. --Jayron32 15:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I remember now, the Washington consensus. Edit: https://www.thebrokeronline.eu/washington-consensus-and-trickle-down/ Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but "Trickle down economics" as a pejorative term for anti-interventionist, laissez-faire, and subsidies for the investment classes has existed since the 1930s; I think Will Rogers is generally credited with popularizing it as a criticism of Herbert Hoover's response to the Great Depression. It laid dormant until the Great Malaise years of the 1970s led to a return in the U.S. of supply-side type policies under Reagan in the 1980s. The Washington Consensus wasn't a thing until 1989, and it came to represent the sort of broad acceptance of supply-side economic policies by both parties, especially as the rise of the New Democrats led to the economic theory being basically the only game in town from that point forward. Clinton and Obama generally continued the same kind of economic thinking that was the Washington Consensus. --Jayron32 17:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That at least talked about education and healthcare for all which trickle down is definitely not about. Obamacare where are you. NadVolum (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

NadVolum, can you please stay on topic. We are not discussing trickle down economics. We are discussing whether the wikipedia article on it should be reorganized to show more clearly that it is a term, not a specific policy, usually used by critics of a specific policy, and has been used to describe quite a few different things. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

And as a term would it be okay to apply in describing a characteristic of some these specific policies that come out at the rate of one or more per country per year? Or do you think it should be deprecated a pejorative? NadVolum (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think it's pejorative, as in, meaning to offend, but it is a shorthand term among critics. Its one-sided use is everywhere and easy to find. Non-critical use doesn't seem to exist. But, maybe it is intended to offend. One cannot escape the image of urine falling another's head as it "trickles down", an image that is oft expressed in comics.

If new usages become common, well then they should be added to the article. For example, hypothetical President Wright successfully implements a new tax and economic policy in his first term. Senator Yeft quickly critisized it as "trickle down". Some years later after implementation, analysis of the policies show it had X effects.

The successful implementation of Wright's policies would get their own page. Yeft's "trickle down" comment could be added to the trickle down usage section. Analysis of the policies and their X effects go the page on Wright's policies. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a pejorative term that is applied /used against a range of schools of thought and policies and so there is no distinct alternate term or even a distinct topic. Like Homosexual agenda . So the article should be about the term. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

But it is not "a pejorative term for the concept that a rising economy (on average) lifts all." its much more specific than that. Interesting comparison, it says a lot about you but almost nothing about trickle-down economics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Maybe it's best not to clarify if it was a personal attack.North8000 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can tell you don't know what trickle down economics means. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If there is no better term then the idea should be covered under the term. And I agree it is not about the economy rising on average being good for all. NadVolum (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The point is that it is just a pejorative metaphor that is applied to wide range of economic policies and theories, it's not a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Because they share a common characteristic which is the topic. As Back|Horse Eye's says it is more specific than what you say. Yes when some new disruptive thing comes along the income disparity will almost certainly increase but people in general will probably be better overall eventually. However that most certainly does not imply that if one just increases disparity that everyone will be better off eventually! NadVolum (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I've not seen any common characteristic between the wide range of concepts, economic theories and policies that the term is commonly applied to. Other than the intended effect of helping the lower class. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

So you disagree ith the very first sentence in the article 'Trickle-down economics is a term used in critical references to economic policies that favor the upper income brackets, corporations, and individuals with substantial wealth or capital'? NadVolum (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with that first sentence possibly poisoning the well. With that starting a reader's mindset, they might reasonably read every example in the usage section as "policies that favor the upper income brackets ..." The article shouldn't be making those judgements, since they are put on many different things. This one article cannot be a place to address all of them. Those things have their own pages already. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

And your citations to counter what the article says are? NadVolum (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. It doesn't seem relevant to what I said. I'm not trying to counter what the article says, nor it's current sources. Nor am I supporting it. I am saying that the current message is that "trickle down" is merely a common term, but not a specific thing, which has been used to refer to a lot of different things. What those things share in common is criticism that they are "policies that favor the upper income brackets". Whether those things are reasonable described that way belongs on those things' specific pages. For example, whether supply side economics (a real thing with a wiki page) is reasonably described as a policy that favors upper income brackets belongs on the supply side economics wiki page. It does not belong on the trickle down page just because some critics have called it that. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. It belongs where it is and where it is used. There is no policy or guideline that says to banish it to another page. Quite the opposite. Andre🚐 19:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. You provide nothing to back you up. You fail to demonstrate a NPOV. You have relentlessly obstructed any changes on this article for years. You have insisted, falsely, that any newcomer into the discussion must work things out with you before making edits already heavily discussed and largely agreed by the parties involved. You demonstrate an attempt to own the article and it's contents. You revert edits instead of improve them. You insinuate on a user's talk page that his engagement in the discussion and article is due to a conflict of interest, without recognizing the irony that your own year's long effort on this specific page to defend a small minority opinion would make that case much better. You filibuster the talk page, failing to answer direct questions, in an apparent effort to simply outlast everyone else. I can go on, but it's clear to me you are simply obstructing, for whatever reason. You just feel like you must have some message known on this particular article. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This message is extremely inappropriate and lacks good faith, and bordering on incivility. I am not obstructign anything, we are discussing the question at hand. Relentlessly obstructed changes to the article for years? What are you talking about? I never edited the talk page or the article before October 2022 [64] [65] Andre🚐 19:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"You fail to demonstrate a NPOV." is either horribly mangled by spell check or you genuinely don't understand how [[WP:NPOV] works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It is the latter. I'm new to the platform. I know what NPOV means, since it's not a wikipedia only concept. Now I see it is a shortlink syntax. WP:NPOV Thanks. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"If there is no better term ..." That's exactly the point. There are better terms in every usage instance we can find. Someone says "Oh, this is trickle down economics", which is in reference to a specific economic or political policy that does have a specific wiki page. This usage is so pervasive that many people believe trickle down is some specific thing. It is not. The current version does say this, which is good, but it's so messy that it is confusing and could fail to make this point to an uninformed reader. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

So we should just for instance treat Mammal as a term because each specific type of mammal has its own name? NadVolum (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with NadVolum. The article is about all the meanings and usages of "trickle-down economics." In politics, in economics, econometrics, socioeconomics, media, anthropology, whatever. Andre🚐 18:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that mammal is a distinct topic, "trickle down" is pejorative characterization applied to a wide range of concepts, economic theories and policies. That's why the article should cover it as a term . Homosexual agenda is an excellent example of how to do this. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

So you disagree with the first sentence of the article? NadVolum (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes North8000 (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I do as well. Can we not find better definitions sourced to somewhere else other than the Detroit News? Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No, you can't. Even Investopedia, generally a great encyclopedic source, loosely hobbles together roughly what is on Wikipedia. There is no pointer to anything, because there is nothing to point at. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a pretty terrible metaphor. Suggesting it at all leaves me questioning your commitment to bettering the article. The only people who would make a list called "Trickle down economics" are critics of the items in the list. Last I checked, there's no critics of any specific mammals, though I certainly don't trust the pangolin. I mean, really, what kind of respectable mammal has scales???

My initial comment on the talk page had this challenge: But what we need here first is admitting that this challenge hasn't been met: no one has called any economic theory they advocate for "trickle down". It is not a name that anyone self-describes.

Without conceding that point, the handful of editors that are insisting that the trickle down article be this ever growing list of criticisms of various policies strongly give the impression of pushing a POV. Put those criticisms on the things they are actually about. You seem so vested in the POV you can't even agree to reorganize what's there to make less confusing the message it already says: trickle down is a broadly used term, not a specific thing. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Every single example on the first page I got from Google when I put in 'defnition trickle down economics' said practically the same thing so I think the weight is against you. Go and try if you can though. NadVolum (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me see if I can track down something scholarly, a book or journal article, something like that. It doesn't surprise me that there will be many sources saying TDE for rich folk or similar. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither I nor anyone I've seen here has a problem with the description. How the term is used seems pretty consistent, and no one is arguing that it's not. I don't think you are following what exactly is being suggested for this page. Like I've already said, the current message is more or less already where it should be. It's just confusing; it's not very clear to an uninitiated reader. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Who exactly are you talking about? I assume those personal attacks aren't directed at me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

As to self-describing - that is not how Wikipedia works. Conservapedia calls itself the trustworthy encyclopaedia. It is not how Wikipedia describes it. NadVolum (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Squatch347. This article is about a pejorative term. Trickle-down economics is to Supply-side economics as Loony left is to Left-wing politics. After reading this thread, I would also like to ask that NadVolum consider throwing the ball to someone else, as it seems they're trying to turn this into an argument about their personal opinions on the subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I've thrown the ball to them to provide citations supporting their point of view rather than what it currently says in the article. That after all is the firm basis of Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I support the points made by NadVolum and I will note we had a prior RFC on this a few months ago and didn't reach a conclusion that trickle-down was purely pejorative or that it should be a term alone. That is a view not shared by all editors. Andre🚐 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's see if we can refocus this a bit since it does seem to have become a debate. The question is, yes or no, is the primary point of this page to discuss a term's usage? I feel like reading through this thread that we actually do have pretty good consensus on that point. Squatch347 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The primary point is to discuss the term's usage. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No, its a wikipedia article so we cover usage, history, responses etc proportional to the coverage they receive in WP:RS per WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I concur with Horse Eye. Andre🚐 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I read the article. I think most of the article stays the course of covering it as a term including the history and usage of the term. IMO there are only a few problems areas and they could be fixed by relatively minor wording changes. Adding a few sentences clarifying what the term seeks to do and I think you'd have a pretty good article.North8000 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)