Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany

A disagreement has arisen as to the use of the phrase "the Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany". I consider it a neutral descriptor, no different to saying Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom". The other editor, however, disagrees.

The discussion has not resulted in reaching consensus. It can be found here:

• Talk:Heinrich_Sturm#Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany

I would appreciate some input on this matter. I've notified the other editor here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it, though "Luftwaffe during World War II" (the current wording), is just as good.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've welcomed the editor in question (as a fresh set of eyes) to elaborate more than their "personal opinion" edit summary comments to explain more in depth on the talk page. Although, I must agree with Insertcleverphrasehere in their assessment; and can see where adding "Nazi Germany" may seem excessive. I mean, was there really a Luftwaffe of Canada? Maineartists (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Please see another discussion above: there was apparently a "Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr" as well. :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Pardon my ignorance. We learn something every day! Maineartists (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In keeping with WP:ARTCON, we should either always use "Luftwaffe" for the air force of 1935-1945 Germany or have to distinguish between them with "Luftwaffe of {X}". To be fully compliant, would need to be consistent rules for the 1935-1945 Nazi era organization, for the 1956-1991 FRG era organization, the 1956-1990 GDR era organization, and (finally) the 1991-current reunified FRG era organization. This would also be ludicrously involved and require a huge number of edits to implement. It is much simpler, and in compliance with WP:EN and WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME, to simply use "Luftwaffe" (without qualification) only for the pre-1945 organization and "{East}/{West} German Air Force" for all the post-1956 organizations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a mouthful, and reads like something you'd see in a high school paper. It also suggests that the reader is sure there was another type of Luftwaffe in the 1930s and 40s.

I welcome the sane comments from @Eggishorn:. Dapi89 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"[t]he Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany", although correct, does seem to me to be verbose. "Luftwaffe during World War II" would also be correct, IF one is talking about it during the war years; as is noted the Luftwaffe officially started in 1935. So it can depend on the context. For most cases just stating "the Luftwaffe" should be sufficient after the timeframe has been established (context) for the years 1935-1945. Kierzek (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments. This makes sense. Although I was surprised to hear comments about a mouthful from an editor who insisted that "the Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr" was correct and proper terminology for the German Air Force (diff). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I was in favour of only Bundesluftwaffe and objected to it's removal. No need for dishonesty. Dapi89 (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

We ought to choose, if we have a choice, the least emotionally loaded and most precise and informative term available. Of the terms proposed, I favor "Luftwaffe (1935-1945)". That's as unemotional, informative and precise as we're likely to get. I don't think anyone inside or outside Germany is likely to forget that under the rule of Adolf Hitler, the Luftwaffe was largely an instrument of the Nazi Party, to the extent their aircraft bore the Nazi swastika as a large symbol painted on them. I just distrust appeals to emotion in reference material like encyclopedias, which this is. loupgarous (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Corey Stewart (politician)

In current version of the article, one-third of the lead is devoted to the Wikipedia editing of the subject, a Republican candidate for governor. Mentioning in the article itself is one thing, but isn't this a bit much? Coretheapple (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest regarding User:Bomberswarm2

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

---

Bomberswarm2 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

I've noticed that this user has a conflict of interest bias when it comes to editing articles related to American politics. This user has added information to articles about presidential elections that could be seen as non-NPOV, slanting towards Republican and against Democrat. A quick trip to the user's page shows that it solely consists of userboxes expressing support for Donald J. Trump, as well as a userbox opposing Washington D.C. statehood. This user has also nominated the WP:AUC for deletion, stating 'if there is no response in 5 minutes then this WikiProject will be deleted'. The numerous edits to articles relating to presidential elections, as well as Bernie Sanders, lead me to believe this user has a conflict of interest bias, editing articles to appear in favor of Republican politicians, AKA a bias. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Good. Not relevant to anything since all my edits are NPOV Bomberswarm2 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not relevant to this noticeboard. Please see the instructions above. This board is for discussing POV edits, not the political leanings of any particular editor. I can't find the diff you are referring to a nomination of deletion, please provide it. InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

insertcleverphrasehere - 1 - any other diffs required cam be supplied. As for the relevance, I went to WP:COIN and under 'are you in the right place?' it states that discussions relating to editors with possible biases should be brought here. I should probably use different wording, so I'll change that now. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty stupid edit, I'll agree. While totally inappropriate, it doesn't appear to be 'POV' to me. InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It is POV if UNSC Luke 1021 can provide specific examples of POV edits "editing articles to appear in favor of Republican politicians". The use of Bomberswarm2's personal political view "flair" as an example of bias in this is also POV and inappropriate. Evidence is really the only thing that isn't POV. Endercase (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: - I have an example here (where he also had somewhat of a personal attack but I ignored that, here, here, here (where he adds false information to make Trump look better), here, (where he removes obviously relevant information that portrays Trump in a bad light and here just to name a few. Between this and the excess of Trump userboxes on his page it is obvious there is a bias or possible conflict of interest here. If you need me to explain any or find more I'd be happy to. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomberswarm2/Archive. He basically admits to sockpuppetry to 'avoid political persecution', which was an issue on his other account. I think if your political views are such a big part of your editing that you need to sockpuppet to avoid persecution then you probably have a bias or you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Also, see this diff, where he writes about hypothetical scenarios in which the Democrats will definitely lose the popular vote if California were to vote Republican. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't open this case at the COI board was because some instructions told me to come here for biases. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It is my POV that those were pretty minor edits in low-traffic articles. Mentioning his "flair" is really off-topic, and demonstrates a bias on your own part. In general, Wikipedia has a left leaning swing: Breitbart is banned as a source while CNN is not. I feel like that should be fixed. I really feel like if they are trying to sway public opinion and POV with those edits they are doing a really poor job. Haven't they done something really out there? The account was punished for its sockpuppetry and it even owned up to it punishing it again is kinda overkill. I'd really like to hear from Bomberswarm2 as well. I feel like this sort of thing is causing the chilling effect in Wikipedia. To be honest the username Bomberswarm2 in and of itself suggests Sockpuppet but it could also mean that the user has Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) which would explain their non-interaction and odd behavior. I'm not sure what to do here. I don't really see the problem. I mean WP:Broke right? Like, who really cares? Should we moderate modern politics the same way we moderate history or news? Why shouldn't people edit things like that? Let each thread moderate itself. The edits all get saved and logged anyway. It's not like they can actually delete anything anyways. I really wish we could save all user interactions, a constant save if you will, but only on talk pages, it would add billions in value. The history is saved and openly visible. WP:Broke is pretty clear. I just don't care about this. Why do anything in these cases? I mean if I'm any kinda editor I'm a WP:Broke editor. I really feel like that should be one of the pillars. I don't like that if Bomberswarm2 is sometimes removing referenced information and the NPV should be enacted there with a few discussions on each page and it looks like it was. History will be recorded as is the point of any good encyclopedia. We will not tolerate a dark age, and we shall not be burned down. Anyway, what does Bomberswarm2 have to say about it? Endercase (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

tldr. Keri (t · c) 01:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess, we shouldn't do anything. Thanks for pointing that out Keri. Endercase (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: - Not to take away from the other parts of your explanation, but isn't it somewhat offensive to say that Bomberswarm2 has ASD? I mean we've all been on the Internet and know how it's used in many situations to mean a derogatory term to represent something that is stupid, foolish or 'retarded' (which I am not trying to use in a bad sense), as it is commonly used on the the Internet. I'm not sure about BS2 but I spend a fair share of time on Reddit and such sites and if somebody said I could have autism I'd be kind of offended.

I'm not trying to draw attention away from the original issue or your argument because I am somewhat in the wrong; I thought it was very good and had some points I never realized. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say the user had it, I'm not a doctor, although for all you really know I could be. I just said that the user might have it, I know I sure have it. Sorry if I offend anyone. Although, I feel like calling a "disorder" a derogatory term is actually kinda offensive. Anyway, if the user in question would like to say anything we would all be able to see it. Endercase (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a derogatory term in itself; I'm just saying that in my experience, on my time on the Internet, I have seen many instances of terms like 'autistic' being used in a derogatory sense, and many other people have as well. Through this, I just wanted to point out that although you meant this statement with good faith, it could be seen as derogatory based on one's previous experiences on the Internet, especially places like 4chan and Reddit. If Bomberswarm2 cares to say anything, they can. They've been mostly silent in this discussion and some feedback would be nice. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I dilberatly made another account to avoid political persicution of ultra-liberal Wikipiedia, and now I'm being politically persecuted here for no reason in the improper forum. And of course I receive nothing more than a typical Democrat attack calling me mentally retarted, an attack with no substance because they are losing the argument. I can garuntee if my profile was filled with pro-Hillary information you wouldn't have posted this. Another attack on free speech by the alt-left. P.S all my edits are NPOV. Even if some aren't, it is not even close to the amount of NPOV pro-Hillary edits on pages about the election.

Adittionally as noted in the first reply this shouldn't exist anywhere, and serves as nothing but slander so the entire thing should be deleted.

Bomberswarm2 (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Things on Wikipedia can't actually be deleted as far as I know. It will be archived though when someone does that. I wouldn't go so far as to call it slander. We are all equal peers, right? Anyway, this should blow over soon. I'm not sure how UNSC Luke 1021 feels about dropping the charges but from what I've seen we shouldn't do anything. just try not to attack their free speech too. Endercase (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: - I'd be ok with closing the case. The argument you brought was convincing and the points you made were good and fine. I guess I went a little bit overboard but it isn't really a big deal in the long run because there isn't really any lasting damage. I just ask of @Bomberswarm2: to be a little bit more... decisive with the words you use. I know that you are upset about this but this is not inherently about politics but rather about NPOV. If you had a user page full of Hillary-Kaine userboxes and edited in a way that I saw as a leftist bias, I would still bring this to NPOVN. I don't care what political party you are so long as it doesn't interfere with your Wikipedia editing. I thought that you could possibly have been writing in a POV/biased way, so I brought it here to evaluate with fellow editors in a civilized discussion. Please note that I did not call you mentally retarded, and actually argued againt the use of the term 'autistic' because I don't want to offend anybody. This is not a personal attack on you in any way or form, and I only brought up certain things because I had to in this situation in order to generate a discussion. Hopefully you go your own way and continue to edit to minimize bias towards any political group. (P.S., I'm not a Hillary supporter; I'm actually an independent who supports the ideas of Bernie Sanders. I hate Clinton just a tiny bit less than I hate Trump.) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I’m glad you thought I was helpful. I don’t think anyone meant to convey that they thought you were a lesser peer Bomberswarm2. Thank you for making sure that all POV are shown here while attempting to maintain NPOV. Try to not “remove” referenced information without talking about it. Thank you talk for following protocol and bringing this here instead of raging. It sounds like both of you really appreciate NPOV even if you both have very different political views. I hope you both can work together in the future to insure honest information is continued to be shared by Wikipedia. Remember, all peers are equal and if someone posts something they probably believe what they are saying. Ask them what their reasons are before removing non-inflammatory or possibly correct information (because it gets saved anyway). Leave a Citation needed tag and open up a discussion. Remember, Wikipedia doesn’t have rules we have traditions and policies based on consensus. If you disagree with something be WP:Bold but not WP:Reckless also If it ain't broke, don't fix it but also if it is problem try to fix it. Endercase (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: So I've been looking at this a bit more. There may be some COI issues but COI is very difficult to prove. As such my suggestion is that Bomberswarm2 really needs to start using more descriptive edit summaries. Sometimes they will change the percentages in locations [without providing a source] (could be they are right) or will [add politically charged words] to non-political articles. Yet, they also seem to have a vast depth of political knowledge and some more esoteric entertainment details. They [can] [be seen] [as removing bias] more often than adding it, as well as [vandalism]. Although, [some of their edits] [are a bit out there] (even if cited) these are generally corrected in short order. My main request would be that they start using more descriptive edit summaries more regularly. Endercase (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: - Yeah, I saw a comment they made on the WP:TRUMP project saying that he doesn't care what the rules say and he will actively endorse Trump and Pence for 2020 or some other nonsense. I didn't want to bring it up because I came upon it by chance and didn't want to look like I was stalking or NPAing. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: None of my diffs work? (head-desk). I think the main solution is the use of the edit summary, for now anyway. I saw that too, but at the same time I'd rather have an honest editor than one that is lying to everyone. Endercase (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom

General notice. This is admittedly WP:BITING the newcomer but IAR and NPOV applies. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yitzchak Ginsburgh

This article has recently gained the attention of a new editor who seems to be quite a devotee of this rabbi. Yitzchak Ginsburgh#Teachings shows what we've now got, including the line "He shows astonishing proficiency in Chassidic literature in all its fields and succeeds in elevating mundane concepts to astounding levels, capturing his listeners for hours on end". I've tried to rein this in, but the other editor is persistent and I don't want to edit-war. I'd be grateful if someone else could review this article and adjust (if necessary) for NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have made some edits to this article lately, to reign in this new editor. However, I had no problem arguing with this editor, and although there is obviously never a problem with an extra pair of eyes, I see nothing going on that warrants this cry for help. There is a talkpage: take it there. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you content with "astonishing proficiency..., elevating mundane concepts to astounding levels"?? You've left this in place. I think it's totally inappropriate, so here we are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser and Nomoskedasticity: what's the problem with deleting this kind of peacock language? Even assuming it's true (I have no idea and don't care), the language is so overblown that a discerning reader will be put off and think the article is an advertisement. Toning down the language therefore seems to be in everyone's interest (especially that of Ginsburgh and Wikipedia). -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the "teachings" section. Let me know if they seem problematic somehow. I wasn't sure if the material at the end of the section on his annual festival appearance should remain, be deleted, be altered, or what exactly - still sort of comes across like an advert. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem, go right ahead (I see you did). I disagree with Nomoskedasticity's low opinion of the editor's receptiveness, or Nomoskedasticity's apparent opinion that a few edits and talkpage discussions on the article talkpage won't be enough to deal with the issue and outside help is needed. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I did make a few edits and started a talk-page discussion; the other editor simply reverted, more than once. (And again you did nothing about the sentences I indicated.) Thank you to Darouet for making a start on dealing with this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Great. @Debresser and Nomoskedasticity: hopefully you both are able to work things out throughout the rest of the article. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Free banking

• Free banking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to our article, extensively sourced to libertarian think tanks and right-wing economists for whom 2007-08 presumably never happened, "Free banking refers to a monetary arrangement in which banks are subject to no special regulations beyond those applicable to most enterprises, and in which they also are free to issue their own paper currency (banknotes)."

Mr. Orwell on line 2...

In the real world, free banking means checking accounts without transaction charges. What the article describes is unregulated banking, which is generally well understood to be (a) hypothetical and (b) a terrible idea.

I think we need to move this article. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Guy, I sort of get where you're coming from, but is it true that "Free Banking" is really a commonly used and technical term to describe free checking account arrangements?

I wonder if this issue could be resolved to everyone's satisfaction by moving the article to Free Banking (economic theory) ? -Darouet (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

WP: NPOV problem in the current title-Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China and requested move

In this page I have WP: Conflict of interest, so I need to ask other readers to help determine the WP:NPOV problem. I think there are three questions now.

1. Is the current title commonly used?
2. If the title does not use the Chinese point of view is not neutral?
3. Does the requested title be unusually and not neutral?--Tr56tr (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems that these questions are already being hashed out in the linked discussion, and I don't see a compelling reason to change venues. But short answers: The current name ("incorporation of Tibet...") is not commonly used by sources outside this encyclopedia, and a neutral title is not necessarily one that reflects or aligns with the Chinese government point of view (or, for that matter, the Tibetan government-in-exile's).TheBlueCanoe 04:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tr56tr and TheBlueCanoe: it looks like a lot more discussion has occurred on the talk page of the article than will happen here. I think JFG's summary of that discussion and closure was probably accurate. But then again I tend to agree that "incorporation" is the most neutral term, compared to "invasion, annexation, liberation..." Darouet (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Center for Immigration Studies

Which version do you guys prefer: my version or this version? The latter says in the lead:

Several reports published by the CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars on immigration; think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum; media such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org and NBC News; several leading nonpartisan immigration-research organizations; and by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

I argue that this misrepresents several of the sources, assigns undue weight to others (think tanks that advocate for higher levels of immigration disagree with CIS's reports, and vice versa), and is in any case SYNTH as we would need reliable secondary sources to establish that CIS notably many errors compared to other Washington DC thinktanks or that there is this wide cross-partisan consensus that their work is shoddy. Talk starts here. Pinging Volunteer_Marek. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You can hardly argue undue weight, as it is just listing who has criticised them. Which from doing some quick research, appears to be everyone at one point or another except die-hard anti-immigration outlets. We dont need to compare CIS to other think tanks to say 'they have released reports which have been widely held to be misleading.' Unless we start saying 'CIS are worse than other think tanks'. Which as far as I can see no one has attempted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

PolitiFact and NBC have not "deemed [CIS's reports] misleading and riddled with basic errors". Or take the part about "think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum" - Cato Institute and Alex Nowrasteh in particular have been frequent critics of CIS. But Poltifact actually deemed the only Cato statement they fact checked 'False' - does that go in Cato Institute lead? Or the mention of ICE - Politifact fact checked Rep. Lamar Smith when he cited that CIS report that the ICE spokespersons disputed and rated it 'half true' because Smith "fails to acknowledge detainees had served criminal sentences and all releases weren't discretionary". But the CIS report did not claim that "all releases were discretionary" http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jun/10/lamar-smith/lamar-smith-claim-about-obamas-prison-break-illega/ and Politifact did not deem the CIS report misleading and riddled with basic errors. So is the fact that ICE disputed a CIS report really so important that it should *be in the lead*? NPalgan2 (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the body of the article. The article has a *substantial* section of criticism of its reports. I would be surprised yes if it was not mentioned in the lead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

if a thinkthank publishes stuff about contentious public policy debates then people on the other side are going to disagree with them, yeah, and it's undue just to count up all the criticism without evaluating whether it is notable criticism or has been validated by independent secondary sources. E.g., should this be summarised as criticism - Politifact's verdict seems pretty even handed to me: "Politifact, when evaluating Frum and Romney's statements, noted that the estimates produced by the study had methodological issues but that overall "both the report’s authors and its critics have reasonable points", and that "no one has disputed that recent immigrants filled a surprising share (more than half) of the added jobs". Or Sherk at Heritage criticizing Matloff - that's just a random thinktank analyst criticizing Matloff on Heritage's website. As I mentioned on the talkpage, Matloff's H1B research has been published in a peer reviewed journal, but Sherk's hasn't. Or a journalist at Think Progress wrote an article crticizing a CIS report on CO2 emissions. Do we mention in the lead of Center for American Progress that it's been criticized by National Review? NPalgan2 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• CIS is well known among immigraiton scholars as a lobby organization. The diverse critiques of their reports of course needs to be included in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether to include criticism of CIS in the article, it's whether it's reasonable to turn "Morici [non-CIS guy] said that all of the nearly 9 million new jobs created since 2000 went to immigrants. His numbers don’t add up. The [CIS] study he cited linked to numbers that showed that immigrants accounted for about 70 percent of the net job growth. While that study’s headline was that all of the new jobs went to immigrants, that only held true for a certain age range, which Morici misapplied to all workers. Morici is correct that foreign-born workers, both citizens and noncitizens, do disproportionately well in the job market. But the actual numbers fall well short of the 100 percent that he said. "All" is an overstatement." which they rated 'mostly false', it seems on the ground of Morici's errors into NBC and Politifact have deemed CIS reports misleading and riddled with basic errors. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@NPalgan2 and Volunteer Marek: I'd make two quick notes on this topic. First, I think any neutral reader would read the first paragraph and get a sense that CIS has an agenda. I'm not criticizing that fact, but it's worthwhile to note that for some readers, aspects of the information in the second, proposed paragraph could be easily predicted or even inferred from the first. Second, reading through the article, I'd say that the content of the second lead paragraph is well justified, but that the lead is not a fair summary of the whole article. The lead is also very short. Instead of proposing to delete Marek's paragraph, NPalgan2 have you considered adding another middle paragraph that does more to summarize the article as a whole? -Darouet (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Darouet The difference is not just the lead paragraph but the Reports section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Immigration_Studies&oldid=772814648 which I edited to give a more balanced 'he said, she said'. What do you think about claims regarding particular organisations like Politifact's view of CIS? I'd be open to a lead paragraph noting criticism of CIS that was better than current version. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@NPalgan2: Generally I'm an inclusionist and I see no problem with including the Politifact view (or others). I also agree with careful attribution of opinion, though it seems like both versions are attempting to attribute opinions/statements properly (if there are instances where that's not happening you should point them out).

My only problem with the "Misleading reports" section is that the section title itself wears its view on its sleeve - e.g. declares where it stands quite stridently for readers. I agree personally with the view that these reports are misleading, but writing "misleading reports" as a section title could violate Raul's Razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." (WP:LAWS). I know we try to avoid "criticism" as a section title but it might be appropriate here. -Darouet (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a "Criticism" section, but could "Controversial reports" work? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: "Controversial reports" would be ideal. -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

RFC: It is “naive” to believe…

Hi.

There is an RFC ongoing here at Talk:Twin paradox. There is text there that currently reads as follows:

This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect^[1][2] and naive^[3][4] application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged less.

The “naive” bit has received its share of attention on the talk page and there is an editor who frequents the article and opposes all attempts by other editors to delete it. I invite others to weigh in. It seems inappropriate and insulting in an encyclopedia directed to a general-interest readership like Wikipedia, which is certainly not a bulletin board for experts on relativity to hammer each other with insults. Greg L (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Name change discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Because this issue has been extremely contentious in the past, I invite admins and other interested parties to keep an eye on this name change discussion regarding the future naming of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thank you for participating! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Stolen Generations

I am inviting opinions on a NPOV issue in the Stolen Generations article. [1]

The section titled “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” has been edited to remove ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view. It retains some minor non-historical arguments/information but all arguments, information or explanations from one side of the historical debate have been repeatedly edited out.

It appears from the page history that over a fairly long period of time, numerous editors have attempted to introduce or reintroduce some of it into the article. Every time some of the omitted material has been added or returned it has been removed based on claims that removing one side of the debate ‘improves’ the NPOV, makes it ‘balanced’ or that leaving any of the opposing historical arguments in the article would give those arguments ‘undue weight’.

Apparently for an article on a controversial issue to have a NPOV, only one side of the debate may be represented in it?? I’m not the most experienced editor but that doesn’t seem right. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have left messages on the involved editors' talk pages notifying them of this. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I just don't think that a view which dosen't represent historiographical consensus should be given a platform similar to (or even in excess of) to the position that does. El_C 03:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. The position being postulated for overemphasis is, in fact, a-historical and does not reflect the mainstream view. A blow-by-blow account of a single historian's refutation POV is WP:UNDUE and contravenes WP:BALASP. The historian in question is already well represented in the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I would ask objective editors to review the article and judge for yourselves just how much representation of the alternate POV remains in the article after a sustained campaign to remove it. There are a very limited number of historians who have published work covering the Stolen Generations issue, it is a 'niche' historical issue which is perhaps why there are so few involved editors on Wikipedia thus allowing a small number to take control of the article and push the POV that they prefer. There is quite a lot of published work out there from two historians that I am aware of, at least one anthropologist who has addressed the issue directly and many more who have written on the Aboriginal cultural issues involved (such as the cultural practice of infanticide of 'unwanted' children), journalists, missionaries and persons involved in the administration of Aboriginal child welfare. This paints a very different picture to what is being portrayed as the 'mainstream view'. There is a small group of editors currently controlling the article who want none of this in the article. This is still a disputed issue and there should be sufficient representation of the nature of the dispute, the evidence and arguments, in a Wikipedia article if it is going to present a NPOV. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:8C54:1E4D:7B89:BC10 (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaking neutrality for WP:GEVAL. There is nothing 'niche' about subject: it is thoroughly documented in scholarly texts, documentaries, etc. It is, in fact, why the apology speech was delivered by Rudd. The Howard government, for example, encouraged and nurtured the academics who pushed the 'Stolen Generation did not exist' line. Serious scholarship has dropped that line. My greater concern now is the tone of your response, particularly comments such as "...many more who have written on the Aboriginal cultural issues involved (such as the cultural practice of infanticide of 'unwanted' children), journalists, missionaries and persons involved in the administration of Aboriginal child welfare..." You what? Where? It seems that you're conflating issues in order to push your own original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And you are misrepresenting the changes that I, and, from the page history, others before me, have proposed to the article. I can't see any indication of any editor requesting equal representation of a minority position WP:GEVAL, simply that there be some inclusion in the text of what that minority position is. It is deceptive for you to pretend that I have been asking for equal representation of a minority position. But you and the other editors have acted to remove any mention of what that position is, even the smallest inclusion, a couple of sentences explaining what the argument is about. My point with respect to the wealth of documentary evidence about Aboriginal cultural practices was to address your deceptive claim that the "position being postulated for overemphasis is, in fact, a-historical". Far from being 'a-historical', the historians and anthropologists and others writing about this issue have been able to cite actual historical evidence for their position. It is not something that they have just made up, the evidence is there to support it. Nor is it original research on my part, it is in the secondary sources. As for the apology speech delivered by Rudd, politicians say all sorts of things if they think it will gather them some political support. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:1057:5416:92AE:50D2 (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Suggest this discussion be closed per WP:FORUMSHOP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. After a quick look at the article and talk page - it seems this more a question of weight than of neutrality, and, if anything, the article gives too much weight to the opinions of the likes of John Howard or Keith Windschuttle. The discussion on the talk page looks like it will be successful. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that you say that the article "gives too much weight to the opinions of the likes of" Keith Windschuttle. The following is the "weight" of the text in the article which refers to Windschuttle:

Keith Windschuttle and other historians have argued for a much lower figure.

Keith Windschuttle, an Australian historian who argues that various abuses towards Australian Aborigines have been exaggerated and in some cases invented.

Windschuttle wrote a book on the Stolen Generations and was a key figure in the historical debate about it and the article now contains 2 sentences which mention him but give no details as to his evidence or arguments.

I think you are demonstrating a clear political bias when you refer to "the likes of John Howard or Keith Windschuttle". 124.177.138.139 (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg

There's been a dispute over how/whether to cover the plagiarism scandal in any detail at Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. Briefly, a scandal surrounding alleged plagiarism in his doctoral thesis led to Guttenberg's resignation as the German Minister of Defense, and his (up until now) withdrawal from elective politics. I'll post at the BLP noticeboard to ask about weight issues, but I just wanted editors here to review the section I wrote, and to give any suggestions on neutral tone.

The section I wrote is here: [2].

Two editors have objected that my proposed text is not neutral. I have attempted to discuss with them here, but their response has essentially been, "try again from scratch." What I'm looking for them to identify concrete problems with the text, and to propose changes, rather than rejecting it in its entirety. Perhaps editors here could give the text a look and weigh in on its neutrality, and what changes could be made. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Is there any specific text or portion of the text that has been criticized, and if so can you let us know what to look for?

Reading through the proposed text, I have one suggestion. The text states at one point, "It also emerged that Guttenberg had requested a report from the Bundestag's research department..." It appears this was found in a report by Der Spiegel, which is the source cited. I would change this to, "According to a report by Der Spiegel, Guttenberg requested..."

Also, the main article for the plagiarism scandal Causa Guttenberg states that (at least) two criminal complaints were launched against Gutenberg for plagiarism, sourced to the FAZ. That should probably appear somewhere in the section on the plagiarism scandal. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: Thank you for your suggestion. I'm not sure if "According to a report by Der Spiegel" is really appropriate, however. While Der Spiegel broke the story, it has since been confirmed by many journalistic outlets, and the research reports that Guttenberg requested are now part of the public record. Here are a couple of sources confirming the story: [3] [4] [5].

"Is there any specific text or portion of the text that has been criticized, and if so can you let us know what to look for?" There are two overarching criticisms of the text. One criticism is that the text is too long, since a separate article covering the scandal exists (Causa Guttenberg). The other criticism, made by the exact same editors, is that the text does not include a whole number of different minor aspects of the scandal, listed here. I find it hard to reconcile these two criticisms. One asks for the text to be shortened, and the other asks for a dramatic expansion of the text to cover nearly every minor detail of the scandal.

I think it's possible for a summary to be neutral, without mentioning every single aspect of the subject. I've tried to strike a balance between keeping the summary short (4 paragraphs in a much longer article) and mentioning the elements of the plagiarism scandal that received the most coverage. I've asked the two editors who took issue with my text to propose specific changes, but they reject the text in its entirety. If the dispute were simply about one or another detail being covered, I would expect some sort of compromise to be possible. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you can find a way of noting that it was Der Spiegel 's report without making it appear as though only Der Spiegel has confirmed this fact.

@Thucydides411: The main article Causa Guttenberg is poorly written and had no lead, so I've copied the bio summary over to the lead there: [6]. Let me know if this is alright. -Darouet (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: That's fine by me. The summary works well as a lede for Causa Guttenberg. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please kindly see here: Your input on current RfC is appreciated

The current RfC at the European Graduate School talk page requires your input on specific discussions surrounding the selective use of primary sources in relation to the wider question of neutral point of view. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Two POV fork articles on the same person

Alexis d'Anjou-Durassow is the positive one, and Alexis Brimeyer is the negative one. KMF (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Alexis d'Anjou-Durassow, which accepted Brimayer's false pretensions to various thrones, has been redirected to Alexis Brimeyer. The redirect may need protecting — I'm putting it on my watchlist. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC).

Putin goal to "attack" Clinton

Also in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, we write "U.S. officials said that under Putin's direction, the goals evolved from criticizing American democracy to attacking Clinton..."

The Reuters source reads, ""This began merely as an effort to show that American democracy is no more credible than Putin's version is," one of the officials said. "It gradually evolved from that to publicizing (Hillary) Clinton's shortcomings and ignoring the products of hacking Republican institutions, which the Russians also did," the official said." [7]

This is just one U.S. official, stating that according to U.S. intelligence, Russian hacking goals evolved to include publicizing Clinton's shortcomings. I think there's no reason to use language more inflammatory than in the source provided and don't believe our summary is accurate. Input appreciated here as well -Darouet (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, Darouet. If we summarize the comments of Obama administration intelligence officials regarding Vladimir Putin's alleged aims as that article does, adding analysis to what was said, it's not just a POV issue, it's WP:SYNTH, and possibly WP:OR as well. If we give that official's statements that sort of credence, we must paraphrase him in a way that is faithful to what he actually said. The situation in our article you described is indeed a POV issue. loupgarous (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump "Attacked" US intelligence agencies

In the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections lead, we currently write that "President-elect Donald Trump... attacked the intelligence agencies in a transition team statement," citing Bloomberg News [8].

The source reads, "President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team dismissed claims of foreign interference in this year’s elections as the CIA reportedly concluded that Russia had intervened to help the Republican candidate and shared its findings with lawmakers in a private briefing."

The source later includes a subheading, "Trump dismissive," and also uses the verb "scoffs." The word "attack" doesn't appear anywhere in the source to describe Trump's response.

There has been a debate on the talk page over whether the word "attacked" or "dismissed" is better suited, and input would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"Attacked" is more emotionally loaded than "dismissed". We dismiss faulty information many times a day without the act rising to the level of an attack. In this particular case, the source doesn't support the use of the word attack to describe the response; calling it an "attack" could be construed as WP:SYNTH. Do you need this assessment on the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections talk page, or can I just post it here? I am looking at that talk page now and don't see the "attack vs. dismiss" discussion. loupgarous (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vfrickey: This particular NPOV discussion was archived here: Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 7#NPOV language. You'll find many more POV disputes to ponder by perusing the archives. — JFG ^talk 23:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! loupgarous (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute on Article: "First Epistle to Timothy"

I am in dispute with Antinoos69 regarding maintaining NPOV in the article, "First Epistle to Timothy". It seems that I am not the first to have this dispute with Antinoos69. PeacePeace in the Talk section of this article page also brought up similar issues last year with Antinoos69, but Antinoos69 would not deviate from his position. Antinoos69 has had contentious exchanges with JohnThorne on the Talk section of the article covering 1 Timothy 1. This uncompromising approach by Antinoos69 has resulted in a series of "undos" that has resulted in a protection against editing for several days. I am following the directions of the Admin who suggested the next course is to post to the NPOV noticeboard. I have tried to work with Antinoos69, but to no avail. I have discussed the unsubstantiated claims of the sources he has used and he challenged me to find contradicting sources. I have posted them to the article and amended the article with in-text attribution so as to maintain the POV he so desperately wants to keep. He has rejected all of the sources I incorporated and is unwilling to consider the use of in-text attribution. I have also considered some of the criticism of some of the sources I introduced and I willing removed one. He has ceased discussion and indicated that he would simply "undo" every time I introduce an edit. I'm not entirely sure what more I can do. Antinoos69 has already stated his general distaste for the WIKI block policy and procedures. Based on his unyielding positions he has displayed when working with others, I believe his distaste goes beyond just the WIKI block policy and procedures.66.215.220.110 (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. First, I've been trying to get you to engage substantively on Talk:First Epistle to Timothy for ages, providing multiple avenues for you to pursue. It's been like pulling teeth. Second, the issue isn't NPOV but WP:RS/AC and the fact that your sources don't say what you think they do. Actually, what I very strongly suspect is that you are duplicitously misrepresenting sources and policies in order to get the article to represent your "alternative facts." Anyone can review the details at Talk:First Epistle to Timothy. Needless to say, one cannot even begin to discuss NPOV, or know whether it is even relevant, until one first understands what the relevant sources are actually saying. Consequently, this dispute doesn't belong here at all. The real issue is your disruptive editing. Antinoos69 (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC) And, third, the administrator suggested this noticeboard as one of several possible avenues to pursue—yet more all-too-convenient and maddening misrepresentation. This avenue is the wrong one. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Difficult to know from the above quite what the dispute is - but it is certainly correct that for Wikipedia to say "most scholars agree ... " (or similar), a decent cited source needs to be saying that too. Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

First Epistle to Timothy already provides such statements with such sources. Those sources provide the only scholarly position on what the scholarly consensus is. The problem is that 66.215.220.110 wishes to provide at least one source—and I strongly suspect all his/her remaining sources are of this type, but he/she keeps refusing to quote them on the talk page, and I won't hunt them down after I already caught him/her misrepresenting sources—that doesn't actually address what the scholarly consensus is. That source merely addresses some of the scholarly options, in the following general form: "some" (i.e., "writers") believe X, "some" believe Y, and "some" believe Z, without further specification regarding "some." 66.215.220.110 wishes to misread/misrepresent that as an explicit statement on scholarly consensus contradicting the sources already cited in the article. Of course, it is no such thing, which I'm all but certain he/she understands perfectly well. (Details can be found on Talk:First Epistle to Timothy.) As I said, none of this is a NPOV issue at this time. It is a matter of (mis)interpretation and (mis)use of sources, not to mention disruptive editing. It doesn't belong here. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless the IP can actually bring up specific violations of NPOV this should be closed. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't know who recommended NPOVN, I suppose WP:DRN might be possible too (however, not before this thread is closed in order to avoid WP:FORUMSHOPping).

On the ground of the matter: it is always difficult to summarize what a group of commentators say (even when grouped by denominational or philosophical similarities). A chronological narrative regarding what authors said in the authenticity & time of origin debate may be a way out. In general I support the anon's approach to name authors when their view on authenticity/time of origin of the letter is rendered in Wikipedia.

Another issue with the article is that after the #Date section, all further sections of the article are more or less written from the perspective that the letter "is" authentic. E.g. if the epistle could have been written in the second century, it should not be described as a "fact" that the receiver of the letter "is" the same Timothy as mentioned in Acts 16:1 (etc). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The point at issue isn't the history of scholarship, quite a separate and enormous subject, or the other problems with the article, which are legion. At issue is a very specific and narrow claim about the current academic consensus, regarding which no genuine alternative scholarly views have been presented, because there aren't any. There is no debate to present on the fact of that consensus. If there were, a purely contrafactual hypothetical, that would require an entirely different approach, as I state on the article's talk page. But there isn't. The IP is ideologically driven on this matter. Wikipedia does not countenance "alternative facts." Antinoos69 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd avoid claims about "current academic consensus" if it is that difficult to determine such consensus from the sources. Even more: technically "current" should better be avoided as a style issue (we have guidance about that: MOS:CURRENT, MOS:RELTIME,...) See also elaborate example I was writing for comparison below ("ec" paragraphs): in the first decade of the 21st century scholar consensus seemed to lean towards "inauthentic" until statistical analysis proved incapable to demonstrate it was not by Bach... I wouldn't know what the "current" academic consensus is on the issue: any source describing a "current" academic consensus can be stale tomorrow, so I would, never, as in never at all, use the expression "current academic consensus" in an authenticity debate. Even if tomorrow physical proof emerges to decide the issue one way or another I wouldn't say "current" when inserting such material in Wikipedia (I'd rather say "as of <date>..."). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) The case made me think of BWV 565 (different topic, similar Date/Authenticity issues: for the first two-and-a-half centuries of its existence it was attributed to Bach with "no questions asked", and then, since around the 1980s, literature started to emerge denying, and then after that defending, its authenticity)

• The article doesn't contain an unqualified statement that it "was" composed by Bach (see e.g. "according to its oldest extant sources" insertion in lead sentence)
• avoid grouping of sources on the authenticity debate (rather name individual scholars)
• (more or less) chronological narrative allows to discuss 18th- 19th- and 20th-century analyses of the composition and reception from before the authenticity debate era.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Francis, there isn't the slightest difficulty to determining the academic consensus from the sources. They are explicit, clear, in agreement, and in accord with WP:RS/AC. The problem is that the IP has an agenda, on behalf of which he/she is willing to very clearly and starkly misrepresent sources that say nothing on the matter, as I have detailed. I believe you would benefit from actually taking a glance at First Epistle to Timothy and Talk:First Epistle to Timothy to acquire some vague idea of what is being discussed, which you now lack. You are going way off reservation here. And, possessing a degree in biblical studies, I already know exactly what claims should be made here, why, and what reliable sources say on the matter. Frankly, if the IP were one of my students, graduate or undergraduate, I would question his/her suitability for university. That's how patently absurd the IP is being here. Fortunately, no student has ever directed any such absurdities or tortured misrepresentations of sources at me. Things would go poorly for any who did. I certainly agree, however, that this NPOV matter here should be closed. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I had already read the article (as you might have noticed from what I wrote above). I now had a glance at the talk page too: frankly, your paternalistic attitude doesn't agree with me, and seems like a major obstacle to an end of the talking next to each other. Also, please stop aspersions regarding agendas by others and the like. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think when reliable sources say scholars as a group think in a certain way, these sources are brilliant for us, since the scholars are reliable in their own right, and individual ones from among them are separately reliable concerning what their consensus view is. If a source reliable for the statement states scholars have a consensus view, I don't see a problem stating in Wikipedia's neutral voice that scholars as a group hold this view. This is also more useful for the reader compared to citing "A says X, B also says X, C says Y", which can easily mislead. Having said that, everyone should maintain a cool and professional attitude. Editors shouldn't argue with each other, but let the issues sort themselves out. --Dailycare (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Francis, when editors demonstrate they have agendas and undeniably misrepresent sources, and grossly so, I will certainly point it out. Period. I'm not going to play games or lie about the facts. They are what they are. I've had my fill of misrepresentations already. I'm not going to contribute my own. As for the IP, I've already explained to him/her on the article's talk page what he/she would have to do to change my position, repeatedly. He/She has refused. Ask yourself why. It would be so very easy to do, if the sources existed. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate everyone’s input. I know that it takes a lot of everyone’s time to engage in this discussion. I also want to recognize Antinoos69 for engaging in this discussion. As I read through the thread, I can see that Francis Schonken has experienced some of the same frustrations with Antinoos69 as I have experienced with Antinoos69’s “paternalistic attitude”. I also see that Antinoos69 has tried (as he has in times past) to sway the discussion by his self-proclaimed credentials of “possessing a degree in religious studies” instead of the merits of his argument. And what do we really know about Antinoos69 other than the themes of writings and paintings on his talk and user page, perhaps connotations of his user name, his history of edit-warring, and the value of his discussion with others. This is who he is in the Wiki community. However, all have biases. This is a fact of the world. What is important is that we recognize our biases and do not allow them to stifle alternate viewpoints in the articles. It is not ours to sway readership opinion, like the editorial page of a newspaper. It is ours to bring out alternative viewpoints so that the readers can consider these and reach their own conclusion. This concept is embodied in Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. So, I ask all here. Does it make sense in this article to bring in alternate points of view and who is it here that only wants to show one point of view?66.215.220.110 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

66.215.220.110 Eloquently said. I've been following this "discussion" not only here, but further on the article's Talk Page ever since it appeared here; and regardless of my opinion of the relevance for the discussion, I have come away with one very glaring observation: there are editors that exhaust my patience and attention with their endless dominance and need for control that even if they were to provide Timothy himself as a reliable source, I would side against them. It says a lot for how our appearances and our contributions can differ drastically to the point of almost working against us. Maineartists (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's practice to invent "alternative viewpoints," as you have been doing with regard to the scholarly consensus on the authorship of 1 Timothy. Doing so generally runs afoul of WP:OR, to say the least. And some of your comments about me are flirting with homophobic harassment. I expect you to stop. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

ATTENTION: 66.215.220.110 has resumed his/her edit warring now that the pages' edit protection has expired. He/She still has not achieved consensus for these changes, and I adamantly oppose them. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Fox hunting non-NPOV

I have added a NPOV section to the talk page for the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_hunting To avoid taking unilateral action as I do not have the time to actively participate in that discussion, if there is some agreement about POV issue in the article, could somebody add a non-NPOV tag to the article for me. Thanks!132.205.228.106 (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

The United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 (in normal modern British (and even Irish, Australian and New Zealand) English, it is actually simply "United Kingdom European Union membership referendum 2016", without a comma...I blame probably "trolling", from people effectively imposing effectively American English (or "Oxford English", or British English 150 years ago) onto titles for articles on modern British events, supposedly "for uniformity", for this!) is written in a highly biased tone, especially in its Wp:LEDE, certainly the wording "to gauge support".

The Referendum of the 23rd June 2016 was subsequently ruled as effectively advisory in nature in the judgment of the case of R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union of the Divisional Court (Queen's Bench Division (QBD)) of the High Court of England and Wales (EWHC) on the 3rd November 2016 ([2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) (CO/3809/2016; CO/3281/2016)), and then confirmed on appeal by a separate judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) ([2017] UKSC 5 (UKSC 2016/0196)) on the 24th January 2017, which was subsequently effectively partially overturned, by implication, by the wording of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (2017 c. 9) [9][10], which states that "the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU", which (by wording) clearly infers (implies) that the referendum was to be made retrospectively legally binding in British law at the same time as authorizing Theresa May to invoke Article 50, by formal notification.

The British doctrine and the Westminster system of Parliamentary sovereignty mean that the British Parliament is entitled and empowered to pass laws to be enacted to partially or wholly reverse or overturn judgments of the English and British Courts (see [11] back in the year 1689 (O.S.)), even retrospectively, in the form of something called emergency retrospective legislation. [12][13][14] There is nothing particularly controversial about this. See e.g. the subsequent history of the British case law of Derry v Peek.

I think that the words "to gauge support" here smack more of some extreme diehard "Remoaners" editorialising here on Wikipedia, who probably genuinely believed (and no doubt still genuinely believe) that the British Parliament, Theresa May as British Prime Minister and the Conservative British Government-of-the-day did not actually have to do anything because "the Referendum was advisory" but they chose to enact, make into force and implement Brexit anyway in the form of (authorizing and then implementing) Article 50 Invocation...and to back up my claim, the words used in Wikipedia were certainly "plagiarised" since by people who obviously opposed (and remain obviously opposed to) Brexit. [15][16][17][18] -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I would say the referendum was advisory as it was not (in fact) legally binding.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Which was subsequently overridden by statute, by something called the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Unlike in the U.S. with the U.S. Congress, here in the UK, the British Parliament IS allowed (entitled; empowered) to BOTH pass (and caused it to be enacted) retrospective ex post facto laws (certainly civil), and to also override the British Courts by overturning judgments of the British Courts...or have I been missing something here?! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The referendum was not legally binding when held, so it was advisory. What you're doing is WP:SYNTH: the Act does not say that the referendum is made retrospectively legally binding; rather, that's an interpretation you're yourself making by putting together several (unrelated, in most cases) sources and reaching a conclusion on your own not explicitly stated in the sources. There's little discussion on this, really; I think you're mistaking the concepts of "legally binding" and "politically binding". Impru20 (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are in fact Spanish yourself and living in Spain, you are hardly an unbiased editor (you could be the Spanish equivalent of a civil servant, working in the , for all we know!), especially given the recent controversy over Gibraltar (and all the suspicious previous (and corresponding) pro-Spanish edits regarding Gibraltar in Brexit-related articles)! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk)

You should know that WP:GOODFAITH exists. The mere fact that I'm Spanish doesn't turn me into a biased editor just because you argue about Gibraltar and blah blah blah. I care a shit about Gibraltar nor does the issue at hand relate to it in any way (we're just talking about whether the referendum was advisory or legally binding. I don't know what Gibraltar has to do with this). I just commented my opinion here on such an issue. So, no, I'm not suspicious of anything. Rather, you should learn to assume good faith from others and to actually counter their arguments with good reasonings and not by accusing them of whatever just based on their nationality. That'd be close to racism, I think. Impru20 (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't matter a damn what any of us think its status was: the only thing that matters is what a WP:reliable source says it was. And without a shadow of doubt, the most reliable and NPOV source in this case is the Supreme Court. They declared (a) that the referendum was consultative, not binding - for the very simple reason that [unlike the Scottish Independence and Alternative Vote referendums] the Act that established it did not declare it to be binding and (b) that for this and other reasons, it would be unconstitutional for the Government to use the Royal Prerogative to give notice of withdrawal but would require Parliament's authorisation in the form of an enabling Act to do so. I agree that the words "to gauge opinion" need improving but may only be replaced by words having exactly the same meaning.

By the way, I know that we should wp:assume good faith but when you use ad hominem attack words like 'remoaner', it is very difficult to take you seriously as a proponent of WP:neutral point of view. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What fantasy, make-belief "Remaoner" World is this?! The point about the Supreme Court is moot, because any subsequent Act of Parliament clearly trumps and overrides any previous (conflicting) judgment or judgments of the UKSC...By your own admission, the Act "authorises", not "requires", Brexit (in the form of the invoking of Article 50 by formal notification)...surely, a purely advisory referendum (which is NOT actually what the UKSC said (in the exact words) either, by the way) would have required Parliament to explicitly direct and order ("shall" (i.e., must), not authorise ("may")) Theresa May as PM to trigger Brexit, no?! Like I said, the Act was clearly written (and then passed, and then enacted) on and with the understanding that the referendum was (and is) to be treated and deemed as retrospectively legally binding...and the Scottish referendum was somehow legally binding?! In WHAT way?! Ever heard of WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source?! That Scotland would somehow become automatically independent from the United Kingdom upon the event of a "Yes" vote?! Scottish Independence without a separate Act of the British Parliament is and would have been a British constitutional impossibility! What have you been smoking?! You have been relying on your own original research (albeit-backed-up-by-Wikipedia (or rather, your own edits)), you mean, haven't you?! The Scottish referendum was certainly NOT mentioned (as somehow legally binding, or more legally binding) as such in the UKSC judgment, you must have been simply making this up! I want the relevant paragraphs in the UKSC judgment and their Paragraph numbers, please! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

And changing entries on Wikipedia to score cheap, petty and otherwise meaningless pro-Remain political points (even AFTER Article 50 has already been triggered; i.e., as a [diehard] Remoaner), and then pretending that you are not editing Wikipedia in a biased, partisan fashion, and then trying to throw the Wikipedia book on me (but not before quoting some clearly made-up, Wikipedia-based, (equally) OR-esque stuff), is hardly editing Wikipedia in good faith either! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Can someone quote the relevant parts of European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 that stated that (retrospectively) stated that the referendum was legally binding? Ohh and stop calling people Remoaner (aas well as all the other personal comments), it is a personal attack and is forbidden under the current rules of Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Wage gap

I have recently stumbled upon an article online, which proves that gender wage gap is not real anymore. However our article covering this topic does not agree with this opinion. The article [19] specifically brings up a theme of women working on less paid positions. As well as that, it is very clear that after the Equal Pay Act of 1963 the sex wage gap in the US is not a thing anymore. However, article on gender pay gap state, that in the US it is illegal or might not even exist. I might be wrong, but I think that the theme of gender wage gap should be reviewed on POV violations and/or brought to the arbitration committee. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 16:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

One article doth not a social-scientific consensus make. If there are a succeeding spate of articles that form a collection of WP:RS, then we update our article to note the controversy. If there are a lot of articles that agree that the controversy is over, then we make our article reflect the historical developments. In this case, however, one economist's article in an alumni mag, even Harvard's, is not "proof" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Day-care sex-abuse hysteria

Editors are invited to participate in Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria#RfC: Overall compliance with BLP and neutrality policies, where there are potential neutrality/BLP problems that might necessitate a major structural overhaul of the article, or even deletion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Fritz Korbach

Fritz Korbach was a Dutch/German football coach. For know, the lead highlights him racially abusing lack players, Bryan Roy and Romário in a 1991 interview. None of the Dutch mainstream mediabobituaries considered this was notable enough to mention. At Talk:Fritz Korbach I discussed to remove it, for WP:UNDUE-reasons. However, someone else argued that it was "covered, by various sources to various levels of depth, and which relates directly to his professional career and what he is known for." I doubt if that is true, since the much larger German an the Dutch articles on Korbach did not consider it notable enough to include it. Therefore, is it notable enough to include the affair in the English-language article, and if so, should it be in the lead section? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between relocating it (which I would support) and removing it entirely (which I oppose). GiantSnowman 12:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Moved content to "Career" since nothing in article furthers statement in lede. Maineartists (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

FACRA

The tone of this article is promotional. Amqui (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. Support AfD; unless an admin steps in and decides speedy deletion. Maineartists (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

Page: Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Edit: "In 2013, the SPLC named the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) as a "virulently anti-gay" organization. Professor Mike Adams criticized the SPLC because "Their reason for the characterization was simply that the ADF opposes efforts of the LGBT community to impose its agenda on those who disagree with them for religious reasons.["The War On Krishna", SPLC][ Mike Adams, "The Intellectual Poverty Law Center," Townhall][Revision as of 05:26, 2 May 2017]

Question: This edit is representative of a number of criticisms added to the SPLC page. Is the controversy presented in a fair manner? Is the criticism of sufficient weight that it should be added?

Comments: The edit fails to mention the full facts, including why they include the ADF and who Adams is. It provides a link to where the SPLC refers to the ADF anti-gay, but not their article where they explain why they consider it an anti-gay hate group, which can be found here. It supports the recriminalization of homosexuality abroad, says same sex marriage has lead to the "deification of deviant sexual practices," “The endgame of the homosexual legal agenda is unfettered sexual liberty and the silencing of all dissent,” and links LGBT people to pedophilia, and more.

While Adams is a professor, his views are controversial and he was writing as a columnist in a conservative magazine, rather than as a professor. For example, an article in Cosmopolitan, "UNC Professor Pens Racist, Homophobic Facebook Posts and Articles About Students," says Adams "has been posting hate speech against the LGBTQ community throughout his tenure at the college."

Certainly people who engage in hate speech as normally understood object to the attention the SPLC pays to them and we should mention that. But I think the way this is presented gives undue credence to a fringe view, and incorrectly presents the criticism as expert and unbiased. And this has been repeated for Islamophobic, racist and other types of groups.

I acknowledge that there are a few critics of the SPLC who do not promote hate speech, in particular the independent researcher and journalist Laird Wilcox and the founders of the left-wing magazine CounterPunch. but that is a separate issue.

TFD (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... A homophobe criticizing the SPLC for calling homophobes "homophobes" isn't notable. Delete it. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's assume that either the SPLC's labeling of a group or the group reacting to the SPLC's labeling is covered by reliable sources, as a first measure for inclusion. (I'm sure there have been groups labeled by the SPLC with nary a mention in reliable sources, those should not be included). If inclusion is warranted, then I would definitely say that briefly summarizing (with short quotes) the reasoning that the SPLC listed the group (in this case, like the ADF) should be part of any of these to provide balance, as well as the counter-statement if such exists by the group listed. (In a controversy, laying out the stance of both sides without additional commentary is appropriate NPOV). The statement by Adams seems unnecessary, unless it is standing in for the lack of a statement by the ADF, but that begs again if this specific case is necessary.

But one might want to consider even more narrower inclusion metrics here: the SPLC labels a LOT of groups, but only a few of those labels have really caused significant discussion (not just coverage but secondary-source type analysis), so you might want to limit it to those cases, so you can go into more depth for those. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Masem concerning general criteria for inclusion, though that does not seem to be the consensus on the talk page of the article in question, as reliable sources have been dismissed on grounds of lack of popularity or other reasoning.Though consensus might be arising in the talk page section of the article regarding this and related edits Regarding the specific case being discussed here I think the same criteria can be applied. The only reference in the text quoted above for the listing is the SPLC itself, while the only reference to the reaction is an opinion column, though the provided link seems to be pointing to a text by John Horgan (journalist), which doesn't seem to mention the episode. Considering only the current sources I agree that this controversy has no place in the article, and I believe that was the conclusion on the talk page as well for this specific change. Saturnalia0 (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Nehru College of Engineering and Research Centre

• Nehru College of Engineering and Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on this private college became the subject of some intense editing starting in January following the suicide of a student and the revelation of a number of other abuses at the school. Much material has been added on these controversies, but while this appears to be reasonably well-sourced, it has come to dominate the article. One editor in particular, User:Helpsavestudents, has been the primary contributor of verbiage highlighting the abuses. Others have tried to whitewash the article and/or have it deleted entirely. A few, including myself, have tried to make some severe cutbacks to restore some proportion--while I may have cut things back overmuch, these cutbacks have been reverted in their entirety.

I'm requesting a few more eyeballs to check out the article and assist with figuring out what the best balance is here. Thank you for your assistance. --Finngall ^talk 01:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Karate Master's Bio

A NPOV dispute has arisen on the Isshin-ryu karate page within the section "History," subsection "Tatsuo Shimabuku" (the founder of the style). Here are the relevant diffs.

Here is the lengthy discussion from the Talk page under lineage.

Essentially, undue weight seems to be placed upon a single, disputed secondary source from a magazine rather than presenting that source in the context of Shimabuku's widely accepted biography. For example, the section's language leads with the magazine article's alleged "controversy," placing it in the sentence immediately after Shimabuku's birth and death dates. A previous major edit 1) to expand the range of sources (secondary and tertiary), 2) to refocus on the topic (i.e. on the subject's biography rather than an alleged controversy), and 3) to contextualize the controversial source with other sources, was reverted and rewritten to highlight once again the single magazine article.

I do not object to including the sensational article's central claim that Shimabuku was a fraud who fabricated his lineage. As a non-representative or non-mainstream article, however, it probably should not dominate this brief biographical sketch in a subsection of the Isshin-ryu page.

Altogether, the neutrality issues involved seem to touch on WP:UNDUE WP:PROPORTION WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL.

Help please! Billyinthedarbies (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

__________

I am "The Other Editor" on this matter who cited that article in question, and I am ONLY posting HERE to SUPPORT Billyinthedarbies's request. I am only interested in an accurate history. I just want to make clear that this is not about arbitrating a "fight/Edit War" between two individuals/editors. We just want to have a nice accurate history section. Some of us would also like a pony, but I will not reveal who.

TheDoctorX (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Douban

I would like to request a third opinion on the dispute currently ongoing at Douban. User:Whaterss initially blanked a section pertaining to censorship of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre on the grounds that it is "political content". He has subsequently justified this in edit summaries and on the article talk page by stating that the blanked content is "both unimportant and not neutral".

I responded on the talk page: "You are blanking an account of an event, reported in reputable news media, that has been presented here in a neutral tone. Why? WP:NPOV does not mean "censor anything that might reflect poorly on the article subject". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not censored. We report on notable aspects of the subject at hand. Notability is generally defined as something that is reflected in coverage by reliable secondary sources – for example, the content that you are blanking, which is cited to the BBC. Secondly it isn't your call to dictate whether something is "unimportant" or not – what matters is whether it has been covered by reliable secondary sources."

The blanked content is a brief, neutral summary of an aspect of the subject that has been reported on in a reliable secondary source. There is no basis in Wikipedia policy to censor it. Citobun (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Two things to point out: First, he called "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" a massacre. Clearly he have shown his political opinions while denying "I'm not promoting my political opinions" in Talk:History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002). Second, he proposed the notability guidelines so as to object my opinions. Actually according to WP:N, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article".Whaterss (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Tiananmen Square massacre" is the common English name for this event – see Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. My reply on the Douban talk page: "I never referred to WP:NNC. Per WP:DUE, it is appropriate to cover a breadth of viewpoints on the article subject presented by reliable secondary sources. Censoring this content on the grounds that it is "political" is violating this policy. The text is not biased – it is written neutrally. If being "political" was grounds for deletion a significant chunk of Wikipedia would disappear. You have no basis in Wikipedia policy for censoring this." Citobun (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Greg Gianforte

Me and Snooganssnoogans are in a major dispute regarding content on Greg Gianforte. They revolve around two different topics.

First, Snooganssnoogans added a section detailing Gianforte's belief in Young Earth creationism. I removed it because I think it violates WP:UNDUE, because the article mentions Gianforte's contributions to the YEC museum three other times in the article; and that it violates WP:COATRACK, because the info he added describes the museum's beliefs, which has nothing to do with Gianforte.

Second, Snooganssnoogans added a section entitled "Social Security and retirement." I strongly disagree with this section because Gianforte is only talking about retirement and not about SS. He mentions SS only once to illustrate that the biblical figure Noah did not retire. This sentence has absolutely nothing to do with retirement, but the header misleads the reader into thinking the section regards Gianforte's position on retirement. These sections are in the "Political positions" section of the article, which I think is misleading because neither section has anything to do with politics (especially the retirement quote).

I am posting this here because Gianforte is a candidate in an upcoming special congressional election in less than a month. I am worried that this info and possibly other info is added because of the election. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Does it really matter?! WP is practically giving this guy free commercial space. Is this an actual article on WP? or a political campaign ad!? I am actually quite shocked to read such extensive content since there is so much scrutiny over personal promotion in other areas for subjects and companies that would be instantly submitted for an AfD citing "promotional in tone". Why on earth are politicians a special breed here? From your statements, it seems that you may be a pro-Gianforte fan who just doesn't want anything negative on the page going into the campaign. He's a politician, anything he says regarding the state of our country or its citizen's is considered "political", including the quote on retirement / SS; which is far more relevant to "Political positions" than the next section: "Young Earth creationism". IMO Maineartists (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Gianforte's statements on social security and retirement have been covered by reliable sources. They are notable and would belong on any politician's page. Gianforte's extensive financial backing of a creationist museum is also notable, and has unsurprisingly been extensively covered by reliable sources. The backing of the museum is notable because of the theories that the museum espouses to its visitors, it would therefore be inexplicable for the Wikipedia article not to mention what these theories are (this is something that reliable sources do - why shouldn't the WP article?). It's also disingenious to say that the Wikipedia article covers this three times: (i) one is in the lede; (ii) two is a brief mention about how his support for the creationist museum were the subject of protest; (iii) third was a brief mention under the activities that his charity runs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Since we don't have a transcript of his speech where he mentioned Noah, we do not know the context or what he meant. We know it was interpreted by some as opposing Social Security and we should mention that, but presenting their interpretation as a factual representation is wrong.

I don't know why young earth creationism belongs in the political positions section. I note it says, he "is a believer in Young Earth creationism, the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old." My understanding is that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God or his role in the creation of the universe, whether 6,000 years ago or 15 billion years ago. But that's something for discussion in articles about God and creation, and should not be spammed across every single article about people who happen to be religious. I note that Snooganssnoogans has never added to Hillary Clinton's article that she has "pseudo-scientific" beliefs; her religion has been documented in ThinkProgress[20] and FactCheck.[21] Since we mention Gianforte's beliefs already, this is just tendentious redundancy.

I would also like to point out that this type of propaganda is ineffective because it's too obvious. It's like far left pamphlets that call people running dogs of American imperialism. It only works for those who believe already.

TFD (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been told that YEC beliefs, along with anti-vaxxer beliefs, should be identified as pseudoscience or in conflict with the scientific consensus (see the talk page at 'Ark Encounter' for example). I'm not aware that religious beliefs in general merit that designation. Also, it's quite common that politicians' takes on scientific matters are featured in their pol positions subsections. The content could, however, be easily moved into a 'religion' subsection or be added under the subsection on his charity. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been told isn't a policy. If readers want to know about YEC they can go to the article. Can't you see how patronizing your prose is to readers? And notice that reliable sources, which are our guides, don't write that way either, so there's no reason for us to coatrack it in. I know you want to disparage the subject but that is not the purpose of the article and probably won't have the effect anyway. If you show hostility to a subject, readers will discount what you say about him. TFD (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is being discussed across about three different noticeboards. I've had the article watchlisted for a while and I'll take a look to see what needs to be fixed. In general, we write in a neutral tone and verify our content. Montanabw^(talk) 05:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Follow up: I did a bit of wikignoming with hope that this revision can be status quo ante. My take is that the current version needs more MOS cleanup, and streamlining some redundant sections and over-quoting, but overall, it's adequate, NPOV and paints a fair picture. Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Stating as an objective fact that God is the father of Jesus

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

---

This concerns [22]. At least two editors want to state as an objective fact that God is the father of Jesus. Imho, that isn't an objective fact, but a subjective belief. Not being able to distinguish between objective facts and subjective beliefs is a matter of WP:CIR#Bias-based. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely correct - it should not be just listed like that in the infobox because it is so nuanced. What is said in the end of the first para of the lede does the job properly to stress this point (God being the father of Jesus) as a fundamental tenet of Christianity. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. There's an article on historical Jesus where one can say there is no historical evidence of that. But the Jesus article is not that and there was a note on the entry explaining it. We're happy to list the brothers of Loki or who was Krishna's mother so I think this can be treated them all like in-game Pokemon characters. Dmcq (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Except the consensus among historians is that Jesus has really existed, as a man of flesh and blood. And, even if we don't know if Joseph fathered Jesus, "God has fathered Jesus" is definitely no objective fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In the article on Christ, I think it’s fine to state that God is the father as that article is specifically about the Christian theological concept of the Messiah. On the Jesus article, this doesn’t seem proper. Jesus is also a figure in the Quran, and if IIRC, he is considered a prophet and the result of a miraculous birth, but not the son of a god. The insistence on the talk page that it’s not relevant what Muslims think I find bothersome. Objective3000 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It is subjective, and is a belief (not a fact). By the same token (as long as it is clear) it is an "in universe" fact.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

And Joseph's paternity is an objective fact? Where did you get information about Joseph? From the Bible, right? But the Bible says he is the foster Father of Jesus! Then you must remove Joseph too, if you do not want to write about God the Father. Алессия (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Belinda Carlisle in "All God's Children" declares, "Right out from the start, I was taught to listen to my heart. So when I tell you 'this is real', I know I'm not mistaken." Yet Wikipedia says her father was a man named Howard, and her stepfather was Walt. Secular sources also don't share her conviction that Heaven is a place on Earth, so we know what that's worth. Same sort of poetic license here. Fair play for regular Jesus, but not for historical Jesus. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why Tgeorgescu opened a thread here. There's already a consensus in the talk page against the proposed change, and the mentioned edits have been reverted.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the problematic edits were made after the discussion in the talk page began, and another editor later reiterated his/her willingness to change the article to "God is the father of Jesus" in the infobox. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the consensus on the talk page is clear. Suggest re-opening discussion here if the talk page trends away from our core policies. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am the initiator of this discussion, thank you for your attention. My point of view: the information about Joseph is taken from the Bible. There are no other sources about Joseph. But the Bible says that the father of Jesus Christ is God the Father. What's the point? Do you believe the Bible that Joseph existed, but do not believe that he was a foster father? There are three normal ways: 1. Father is God the Father. 2. Write only about Virgin Mary. 3. Write about Joseph is the foster father. Алессия (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I had already answered such objection with "Historians make the call, not ordinary Bible readers. Historians critically analyze the Bible, they don't take it at face value. Not distinguishing between objective information and subjective claims is a matter of WP:CIR#Bias-based." E.g. Bart Ehrman noted that the Bible is inconsistent upon this issue and scribes have tried to erase verses which called Joseph "father of Jesus". Anyway, if it is not certain that Joseph is the father of Jesus, that's another matter than God being the father of Jesus. The existence of a human father of Jesus conforms to the criteria of historical objectivity (namely methodological naturalism), while God as the father of Jesus cannot be objective knowledge. So, if you want erasing Joseph as father of Jesus, that's another matter than stating objectively that God is the father of Jesus. Such matters have to be discussed separately: one refers to the (lack of a) consensus of historians/Bible scholars, the other refers to stating myth as fact.

There are no other sources about Joseph. There exist numerous texts that mention Joseph, academic texts and ancient texts, The Quran for one. It is not a “fact” that Jesus is the son of God. It is a belief. Objective3000 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Quran? Funny. You are absolutely unaware. Muslims believe that Jesus did not have a biological father. The rest of your "sources" are the same. Алессия (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Quran, IIRC, says that the birth was miraculous and Joseph was the foster father. It does NOT say Jesus is the son of god. Mohammed isn’t even a god according to the Quran. Objective3000 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you like to demonstrate ignorance? Maria was not married in Islam. Алессия (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please watch comments like You are absolutely unaware and Do you like to demonstrate ignorance. Such are not acceptable here. Objective3000 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

So, do you decide not to talk about Joseph in Islam? Good. Алессия (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by that. Objective3000 (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

????? You wrote: "The Quran, IIRC, says that the birth was miraculous and Joseph was the foster father." But there is no Joseph in the Koran. The Islamic Mary was not married.

There is a Joseph in the Quran; albeit the relationship to Mary is unclear. But, that is neither here nor there. Objective3000 (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please explain to me: why does the article "historical Jesus" exist? I read there: «The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods," in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith'). It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.»
In contrast, there should be an article about "the dogmatic Christ", right? So, the dogmatic Christ' father is God the Father. Алессия (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The "dogmatic Christ" article, I believe, is Christ (title) and various articles linked from that. The historical Jesus is about attempts to demonstrate that Jesus did actually exist from sources specifically outside of religious texts, only using things like the New Testament books to corroborate rather than validate. Since Jesus is trying to summarize many different possible records (the historical Jesus, the Christian Jesus, etc. etc.), it should only stick to facts for ideas that are shared universally by all views. In this case that Mary was his mother, who was married to Joseph at the time so regardless of his birth, Joseph served as the father-figure - that's all shared facts. Whereas Jesus being the Son of God is only an attribute of Christianity and should be limited as a tenet of that faith, and not fact. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"In this case that Mary was his mother, who was married to Joseph at the time so regardless of his birth, Joseph served as the father-figure - that's all shared facts." And where did you get these facts from? From the Bible? There are no other sources about Joseph. Алессия (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There are no other sources about Joseph. You need to stop saying this. It is demonstrably false. Objective3000 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Where's your proof? If you accuse me, prove it. Алессия (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not an argument. Because this apocrypha does not claim that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Besides, the apocrypha can not be considered more "objective" than the Bible. Алессия (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a response to what you wrote, we are not mind readers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You know what I mean. To use apocrypha is the same as using, for example, the writings of Arius or other heresiarchs. This can hardly be called a separate historical source. Алессия (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Christianity does not “own” Jesus. He is a major figure in most Abrahamic religions. Not all consider him son of a god. In fact, not all Christian sects hold that belief. Unitarians (as opposed to Trinitarians) believe Jesus was human. The article is about Jesus of Nazareth. It is not an article about Christian beliefs, and talks to other branches of religion. Objective3000 (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Other "Abrahamic religions" do not interest me. There is an article about Isa ibn Maryam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam Алессия (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Then you want Jesus in Christianity, where Jesus as the Son of God is a core tenet. But on Jesus which summarizes numerous different theories/beliefs about him, it has to be normalized to only state things universally agreed on by all groups and not assume one set of beliefs is right. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not true. This article is about Jesus Christ of Christianity. And a little "other views." Алессия (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Other "Abrahamic religions" do not interest me." Your personal, subjective views are of no interest for Wikipedia. We simply render scholarship, see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Your personal, subjective views are of no interest for Wikipedia" Your name is not "Wikipedia". Алессия (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As stated on your talk page, Wikipedia does not care about the subjective beliefs of its editors, it cares about objective information and objective arguments. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You did not answer my last question. About the "historical" and "dogmatic" Jesus. Алессия (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The historical Jesus means the real human, of flesh and blood. The Christ of faith means a mythical being. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that there are other readers of Wikipedia. Objective3000 (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"The historical Jesus means the real human, of flesh and blood. The Christ of faith means a mythical being." You have confused - "objectively" does not mean "atheistically". Алессия (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Marcus Borg has suggested that "the details of Strauss's argument, his use of Hegelian philosophy, and even his definition of myth, have not had a lasting impact. Yet his basic claims—that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that 'myth' is not simply to be equated with 'falsehood'—have become part of mainstream scholarship. What was wildly controversial in Strauss's time has now become one of the standard tools of biblical scholars."<ref>[http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/david-friedrich-strauss/ Marcus Borg, David Friedrich Strauss:Miracles and Myth.]</ref>

— from David Strauss

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, this article does not reject the "myths", right? So why are you worried about "God the Father"? Алессия (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It was a reply to the insinuation of me having an atheist agenda. "Mythical" does not means "false", so "Christ is a mythical being" does not mean atheism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written from a WP:NPOV. Objective3000 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I tend to become tired of his/her shenanigans. Does not seem able to get the point that we don't render subjective beliefs, we render scholarship aiming at establishing objective facts. As I said before, it seems a case of WP:CIR#Bias-based: he/she does not have intellectual maturity needed to comprehend Bible scholarship and the policy-based arguments made by established Wikipedia editors. He/she wastes our time with puerile arguments ([23]), subjective exhortations, discriminatory remarks (Jews don't matter, Muslims don't matter, Talmud cannot be speaking anything true), insinuations of atheist agenda (see above) and personal attacks (as warned above by others). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is that argument puerile? See No true Scotsman. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The exact relation of Jesus to the Abrahamic god has been the subject of intense and divisive discussion since long before the biblical canon had been established. "God the Father" is not a universal concept even among Christ-believers. This is certainly not suitable as an absolute claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits referring to apocrypha, or heresiarchs only applied when one’s own faith is perceived as under the gun. Edits suggesting an atheist agenda. Lack of care or interest about other religions. Only the Bible can be a source. If someone cannot get through the shell of their own beliefs, perhaps the editor is in the wrong place. In any case, this is the NPOV page, and they do not seem to understand the concept. Objective3000 (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Hall Affair - orphan with NPOV problems, but worth salvaging

I happen to agree with the fairly explicit point of view of this article, but that doesn't excuse the violations. As written it's a mess, with not only NPOV problems but formatting and others as well. It's had an assortment of tags on it, apparently, for about five years now. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Lisa Fritsch

Lisa Fritsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DMGUSA (talk · contribs)

This is apparently a friend of the subject's; subject had previously attempted to have an employee of hers "Improve" the article, but that one got blocked. The edits by DMGUSA are very favorable to the subject, and poorly sourced, if at all. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

Not sure if this is the right place to discuss what will probably wind up being changing the text in a maintenance template, but anyway...

I was just looking at Jesus Christ, which transcludes Template:Redr and so includes the text Please do not replace these redirected links with a link directly to the target page unless expressly advised to do so below or elsewhere on this page.

But "Jesus Christ" is a non-NPOV theological title that shouldn't generally be used in Wikipedia's voice except in statements like Christians call him Jesus Christ. The neutral equivalent is Jesus of Nazareth. I can see why some editors might accidentally pipe-link the redirect because "Jesus" is ambiguous and they assume the article's title is not just Jesus. But places where someone actually wrote "Jesus Christ" in an article should generally be replaced with "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth" or the like, per NPOV.

Can anyone think of a reason not to change the template text to read Please do not replace these redirected links with a link directly to the target page without a good reason?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC

What's non-NPOV about saying Jesus Christ? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're requesting. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe the point is that the Christ in Jesus Christ is a faith statement and therefore not NPOV. If so, the point is correct. Antinoos69 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Our article seems to clear it up - "In postbiblical usage, Christ became viewed as a name—one part of "Jesus Christ"—but originally it was a title." In modern times it seems to simply be a name, not a title. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And the cited sources make an obvious point: whether as a title or a "name" (a highly dubious claim, btw), Christ conveys and was meant to convey a theological point. Hence the NPOV problem. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ is a redirect. When people enter "Jesus Christ" into the search box, they should be brought directly to Jesus, because "Jesus Christ" is an incredibly common way to refer to "Jesus." The NPOV claim is hairsplitting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

All three of you are missing the point. My point was that the template explicitly tells editors that they are not supposed fix non-NPOV wording, apparently based on a overly generalized reading of WP:NOTBROKE. If someone still doesn't get why "Jesus Christ" is not NPOV, consider that "Christ" is a translation of the Hebrew term "messiah", and its appropriation by gentile Christians, and its being adapted to carry a different meaning, was an integral part of the Christian supercessionist view of Judaism. The messiah is in origin (and remains today, if we're being honest) a Jewish concept, and Jews don't consider Jesus to be the messiah. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have to wonder if Hijiri has the same issue with our article on Gautama Buddha (since "Buddha" is also a title that has turned into a name)? Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 should not be targeted for religious reasons, per WP:WIAPA. That said, the issue is not WP:NPOV because users are correctly redirected to our article Jesus after a search for the string ""Jesus Christ"" - so at present there's no NPOV issue at all. It's hard to understand why Hijiri 88 said there is one, it doesn't seem to bear on the change he wishes to make. I can't see a reason not to change the template text as Hijiri 88 requested, however; it's not a destructive change to the template. loupgarous (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies if my comment came across as an attack... I meant it as a question. I wanted to know if Hijiri's concern was just about our Jesus Christ article, or was it a broader concern... applying to other articles where a potentially religious title has become part of the subject's name? Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The off-topic nature of the comment in question aside (we don't have a redirect template specifically telling us that we are required to use the title "Buddha" to refer to Gautama Buddha), it is also a false equivalence: plenty of academic literature by non-Buddhists uses the title "Gautama Buddha", but most secular scholarship of Jesus does not call him Jesus. Gautama Buddha isn't even a redirect. I'd wonder, therefore, why Gautama Buddha specifically was gone to -- my user page doesn't mention Buddhism (as opposed to "Jewish history"). I do get a lot of people assuming, despite my user page, that I am ethnically Japanese, and therefore presumably identify culturally with Buddhism. But this too doesn't make sense, since no one in Japan calls him "Gautama Buddha" -- the name of the ja.wiki article translates to Shakyamuni Tathagata.

Vfrickey appears to have missed the point -- my concern is that the redirect page for Jesus Christ includes wording that inadvertently tells users not to change it to more neutral wording. The actual frequency of the non-NPOV wording is irrelevant, as I was proposing that the template wording be amended so as not to encourage the use of non-NPOV wording. If the non-piped link to Jesus Christ is not very common at the moment, that is likely because people have been ignoring the instruction in the template.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Just left a message to BD2412, the editor who placed the template in question over our article Jesus Christ out of courtesy to him, as well as the desire for an explanation of the reasoning behind the template as it stands. loupgarous (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My edit was strictly for purposes of replacing the deprecated {{This is a redirect}} category shell with the new {{Redirect category shell}} category shell. I have no preference for what specific categories are listed therein. bd2412 T 04:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifying the issue, BD2412. I'd like to consider our article Jesus Christ under the guidance of WP:RNPOV, which says " ...editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." An unbiased eye can see that NPOV cuts both ways here, but logically the issue's more profound than that.

This whole article's a POV fork under Neutral_point_of_view#Handling_neutrality_disputes. Its text ought to be deleted, since the whole issue of Jesus being the Christ (or not) is covered in our main article Christ. That overrides the objection I have to changing the template to remove POV issues or to changes to the article. No convicted Christian would turn to wikipedia for affirmation of his or her faith, anyway - that's not what we do here - families and pastors ought to be doing that, not us. loupgarous (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Amway

The Amway article has been plagued by socks who remove the pyramid selling term. See e.g. [24]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As I explained on Talk, the term "pyramid selling" is a primary synonym of multi-level marketing according to the WP definition of the term. The repeated removal is disruptive and not NPOV (and the fact that multiple socks appear to be involved is suggestive of potential WP:COI). Page protection was just imposed so that should help with the WP:DE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As explained in the Amway article, the FTC has determined that Amway does not fit the definition of a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes are illegal. I appreciate that some critics say it is in fact a pyramid scheme and others say it is similar or an unethical business model. By all means that belongs in the article but we cannot state as a fact they are a pyramid scheme when most reliable sources disagree. TFD (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Just because they have learned how to keep within the law doesn’t mean it is not a form of pyramid selling. The FTC is a huge slow-moving dinosaur that hasn’t realized it is extinct. The Better Business Bureau is also a business funded org so can in no way be assumed as a suitable RS. Why can't we call a spade a spade? And why are these edits being done by single purpose accounts? I would suggest first nuke the article and SALT it. Then if anyone then wants to recreate the article is has to go before many more eyes for approval. Much of the references are advertorials. Fresh eyes would not allow them to be added. Aspro (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I could relate horror stories about my and my wife's experience as Amway distributors, but that'd be WP:OR and unhelpful. Strictly speaking, Amway's not a Ponzi or pyramid scheme, in which no actual capital is acquired and grown for investors - any dividends paid come solely from other investors' money. Amway's a scheme in which potential earnings from direct sales are exaggerated, as are potential earnings from recruitment of the crowd of distributors you must recruit to "make the real money".

One possibly helpful RS is "Herbalife Deal Poses Challenges For The Industry", a 2016 article in Fortune, which describes the draconian settlement the multi-level marketer signed Herbalife signed with the Federal Trade Commission, agreeing to pay $200 million into a fund to reimburse their distributors who lost money, and to accept severe restrictions on their future business activity. Quoting from the Fortune article:

"But the part that should worry the industry isn't so much the fine—though it is one of the largest ever levied by the FTC in a consumer protection case. The more ominous part is the consent decree Herbalife signed as part of its deal to avoid litigation and put the matter behind them. As part of its settlement, the company agreed to provide proof going forward that its products are being sold to actual customers—something Ackman, CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, had been seeking since launching his assault on the company in December 2012. (In the decree Herbalife neither admits nor denies wrongdoing.)

While the decree's terms may be strong medicine even for Herbalife, they would likely cripple, if not kill off, many of its competitors in what's known as the direct selling, or multi-level marketing, industry. That category includes companies like USANA (USNA, +0.39%), Nu Skin (NUS, +0.31%), Amway, and Avon Products."

The article also gives good descriptions of what makes multi-level marketing operations so prone to abuse:

"Multi-level marketing (MLMs) companies use independent contractors to both sell their products and to recruit additional independent contractors to sell their products. They are paid commission fees based not only on their own wholesale purchases from the company—intended either for resale to retail customers or for personal consumption—but also on the purchases of their recruits and on the purchases of their recruits' recruits, and so on.

Most MLMs bear at least a superficial similarity to illegal pyramid schemes, where early joiners make out like bandits but later participants inevitably lose their money since, mathematically, there's no one left to recruit. In a pyramid scheme, distributors buy product from the company just to manipulate the compensation system, not because they really want to consume it or resell it. (For that reason, inventory may pile up in garages or be dumped for resale at a pittance on the internet.) In 1979, the FTC accepted the notion that MLMs were not categorically illegal, at least so long as they followed certain rules—known as the Amway rules, because of the case that established the precedent—that were supposed to ensure that when MLM distributors bought product from the company they were really consuming or reselling that inventory...

Over the years, however, both the FTC and the courts have grown skeptical that these rules—which nearly every MLM claims to follow—are really being enforced or that they are, in any case, sufficient to prevent an MLM from devolving into a pyramid scheme. The consent decree Herbalife signed Friday replaces the weak, difficult-to-enforce Amway rules with robust, verifiable proof that products are reaching good-faith consumers."

Hope this helps! loupgarous (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's List of Islamic extremist groups

This section provides a list of groups that are allegedly support Islamic extremist ideology, although the definition of "Islamic extremism" is ambiguous and often controversial. Can this list be re-written so that it describes these groups in more objective terms? Jarble (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of Walmart discussion

There has been a really great conversation at Talk:Criticism of Walmart and I'm looking for more editors to join the discussion. To summarize: Wikipedians have noticed and have begun attempts to fix the Criticism of Walmart article, which is full of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV content, and is far from encyclopedic in areas. Some editors have suggested throwing out the article and starting from scratch, while others have said the article would take a "massive" effort to clean up properly. The issue is no one knows where to start. I posted this same question to Wikipedia:Village pump, where George Ho recommended I seek input at this noticeboard. So here I am. Input and advice from additional editors could be a huge benefit to finding a way forward in cleaning up Criticism of Walmart. As one of Walmart's representatives on Wikipedia, I have a conflict of interest and I do not feel comfortable making suggestions as to whether the editors should try to correct the existing article or start over by reducing it to a stub, as has been suggested by others. I am, however, willing to help with whatever "grunt" work is necessary to assist other editors in fixing the page (providing references, assisting with identifying inaccuracies, etc.). Any insight is valuable and appreciated. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I spent a fair amount of time trying to fix this article, and finally gave up (sorry JLD). See my comments at the talk page, but it looks like someone went on a witch hunt some time in the past. Roughly half of the references I checked did not actually support what was said in the article. For the record, although I believe Walmart is the essence of evil and is destroying all that is good about the US, the Criticism of Walmart article is a hatchet job and reflects poorly on Wikipedia's reputation. I hope that some good people will step up and rectify this. For encouragement, I have found JLD to be one of the fairest, most helpful, and easiest to work with COI editors I have encountered, a pleasant change from the usual corporate shills. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

JLD and Kendall-K1, I think the entire article should be scrapped. I haven't touched the article since January I believe. Also, Kendall-K1, when I checked references, I had the same problem you did, the refs didn't didn't support what was claimed, or they were dead links. That's why I tried to remove the links. I wasn't trying to go against any Wikipedia policies when removing the links, my thinking (which was probably wrong) was that if the refs didn't support what was stated, they should be removed. I only did that because I read a lot of BLPs on Wikipedia, and on the talk pages for BLPs, you have to have a reference, or Wikipedia could get in legal trouble, so I figured the same would be true for an article about Walmart. I apologize if I caused you any trouble Kendall-K1, I did enjoy working with you on the article. I also think it's nice to work with someone like JDL. You're upfront and honest, and to echo what Kendall-K1 wrote, you don't act like a corporate shill. Paige Matheson (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism articles and sections are inherently POV. Criticism should be incorporated into the main article or articles in relevant sections or in some cases have stand alone articles. The main article for example should say what employees are paid, then commentary on it, rather than having it as part of a criticism section. TFD (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1 and Paige Matheson: Thank you both for recognizing my efforts here. I hope editors are able to reach consensus on how to move forward to bring Criticism of Walmart in line with Wikipedia's standards. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with undeclared conflicts of interest and defamatory statements/links on bandpages

Since 2010 I have edited and added to a Wikipedia page concerning a UK based rock page (now relocated to another EU country).

I seek advice of how to deal with repeated edits to the band's page being made by a former member of one version of the band who believes he has been badly treated and has rights to trade under the band's name. He also adds links to his current projects (unconnected) and to defamatory information on the band's founder and current members posted on a similarly named webpage he owns (which IMO is an abusive registration). I don't want to get into edit wars but don't really know what else to do.

I have declared a interest as a friend of the band's founder but also declare truthfully that I have no financial interest in the band and am not in any way contracted to edit the wikipedia article. The subject of the page might fairly be described as having somewhat limited tech understanding and I edit the page as a favour to him. Until recently this has been an uncontroversial process merely adding new releases and changes to band personnel etc.

The band in question have existed in various forms since the early 1980s and all their material has been composed by the band's founder who is also the only person to have been in all incarnations of the band.

Following an acrimonious split from the band, a individual who was a touring member of the band for about a year has posted untrue and libellous statements on a website he has registered with the band's name (merely buying a domain with a different suffix). He now posts links to those statements on the band's Wikipedia page, in a way which suggests this is agreed by the band's founder and reverts any changes made. This person has not declared a conflict of interest though that is obvious. He also adds links to his websites in external links and promotes his current band which has no connection with the original band other than having two members who played briefly in the subject band and a very similar name to the original band. During his membership of the band, the band only performed material written by the founder. In fairness, this person (the former band member) did record and produce an album of old hits of the band and organised two tours of Spain in 2015 and 2016. His contribution during that period is not in dispute nor is his right to claim that he was unfairly treated by the band's founder and management (and lost money as a result) though of course that is disputed. However I do not believe that Wikipedia is the place to grind an axe particularly when it involves links to material of a personal and libellous nature including financial information.

As is often the case in the entertainments industry disagreements arose and the band split with the former member claiming he now owned the band and would continue without the founder member. It is fair to say that the band is almost entirely a vehicle for the founder member who not only wrote all the material but also sings it and has a distinctive style. Once promoters realised that the founder was no longer in the band attempting to tour under the original name, further engagements were cancelled.

The founder member recruited new band members (to join the three members of the previous band who remained) and continues to tour and has produced and released an album of new material. He is very well known in the EU country in which he now lives and enjoys much TV and Radio coverage.

Ideally someone neutral would edit the Wikipedia page but I don't know how one 'recruits' such a person. At very least I think that the person doing these edits should declare a COI and the links to his disputed version of events which led to the split - which are not verified by other neutral sources - should not have a place on the page.

I have not mentioned the name of the band here as I do not want to fan the flames further.

Any advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lleolyons (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

In truth neither of you should be editing the page without first asking for edits to be agrees with the community, COI edds should not make unilateral edits. As to how you recruit neutral edds, by posting link to problem pages and asking for help (such as here and at RSN). Could you please provide a link the the page in question?Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please assess neutrality in this case

I have started an RFC here on the topic of how time should be given in article text. It is possible that a few involved editors are biased due to the way such things are written in their own countries and languages. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump time

This Timeline of scandals related to Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election and attempts to impeach Donald Trump needs goof look at, maybe even an AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely problematic presently since this assumes via OR that all these events are essential to the story around the interference. WP:RECENTISM is critical here. In a few years we may be able to have a timeline like this when the full story is known (particularly if impeachment hearings come into play), but right now, it cannot be written neither neutrally nor without engaging in original research. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)