Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

NAMBLA content on Harry Hay

Sorry for the length and subject matter.

I found the inclusion of NAMBLA content in the lead of Harry Hay surprising, and in looking at the sources used, then a look to see if there were better ones available, I found sourcing lacking. I took the one sentence off the lead and also removed Category:Pedophile activism as both seemed inappropriate. Can you guess where this is going? They were both re-added and the content in the lead expanded. (Here is a copy as of 4 July 2019. I read all the sources I could find and tried to apply NPOV. After a couple rounds of this I gave up and started a survey of all sources on this content.

NAMBLA is widely despised as child molesters by the vast majority of LGBTQ people as well as popular culture. It’s a group for pedophile advocacy. Pedophilia, is a preference for prepubescent children as old as 13. NAMBLA is possibly the most hated group imaginable to many LGBTQ people.

Any connections to NAMBLA automatically taint whoever is connected with them. The vast majority of reliable sources barely mention anything, those that do cite:

1. February 1983, Hay speaks at an event (not NAMBLA’s) and states, “...if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.” This quote follows Hay’s recounting his own positive sexual experience when he was 14 with an older man (reasoning for his going public in proposed content section); No reliable source for the quote but one good source for the overall speech.
2. June 1986, LA Pride parade bans NAMBLA, Hay wears a sign in protest on his back, one supporting Valerie Terrigno who was also banned, on his front.
3. June 1994, Stonewall 25, and ILGA bans NAMBLA, Hay and 149 others protest the action, about NAMBLA mainly (reasoning in proposed content section) and march in the Spirit of Stonewall alternative parade with 7,000.
4. sometime in 1994, spoke at a NAMBLA event where he suggested changing the group’s name. (I only see one brief mention of this.)

reliable sources found

Click for list of reliable sources on this with any usable content

"When Nancy Met Harry". The American Spectator. Retrieved 2019-06-25. - from The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord writes as a political commentator, and has a track record of controversial writing. I suspect this is not a reliable source, the chief purpose of the article is guilt by association attempting to connect Nancy Pelosi to allegation of pro-pedophile advocacy. But they do use the quote from 1 (above) taken from NAMBLA’s website. The speech was mainly Hay sharing his own positive gay sex experience with a man when he was 14. This assessment of this source might prove helpful, “I agree that The Specator should not be cited, or more accurately Jeffrey Lord should not be cited. That's not because he's a conservative, but because he has a documented history of saying utterly ridiculous things about anything he perceives as liberal. He's a political strategist, not an academic or a journalist, and his expertise is trying to make opponents look bad. This is the only source for 1. Marc LaRocque and Cooper Moll (2014). "Finding aid to the Lesbian and Gay Academic Union records, 1973-1987; Coll2011-041" (PDF). Online Archive of California. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help) [Box 2/folder 21] Lesbian and Gay Academic Union Records, Coll2011-041, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives, USC Libraries, University of Southern California., this was added to the article here but despite several requests there remains zero evidence the quote is contained there in any form, as it’s administrative records about the conference there is still the possibility a copy was included. If verified what is actually there this could be a better source for 1 if it’s not a primary source. - just added. Biographer Vern L. Bullough writes, "Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate." Of interest to note is that the same organizers who didn’t want any NAMBLA recognition did want Hay himself. Also interesting is the omission of context for Hay’s wanting to wear the sign from the previous but uncited sentence, wearing the sign was ”an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.” This is in alignment with the few NAMBLA-documented speeches Hay gave as an invited speaker where he didn’t advocate for the group but instead talked about his own experiences. This source also helpfully points out that the 1994 Stonewall march was also protested for its commercialization and that Hay helped lead the counter-March with almost 7,000 participants. This is helpful for 2 and 3. Timmons, Stuart (1990). "Photos by Sandy Dwyer". The Trouble with Harry Hay: Founder of the Modern Gay Movement. Retrieved 2010-06-24. The sign Harry tried to wear in the 1986 L.A. Gay Pride Parade - which points out he tried to be in the parade implying he didn’t succeed in some way, This is unneeded, but does provide a photo of 2. , a reliable source that confirms the two signs were worn in the LA Pride parade. This is for 2. Bronski, Michael (2002-11-07). "The real Harry Hay". The Phoenix. - (Copied here) - In an obituary, LGBT history academic and writer Michael Bronski wrote, “He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades. HAY’S UNEASY relationship with the gay movement — he reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability — didn’t develop later in life. It was there from the start.” He helpfully contextualizes why he thinks Hay advocated for inclusion in the two parades, although he doesn’t provide anything to prove his assertions. This is unneeded but supports items 2 and 3. "Defend Harry Hay's Reputation at the National Equality March". Retrieved 2019-06-25. - This affirms Hay was never a member, and contextualizes the Stonewall 25 episode. Additionally it notes exactly what I’ve been seeing: Allegations that Hay was a supporter of pederasty was “a staple of those members of the right-wing establishment who are bent on destabilizing the Obama Adminstration and destroying the careers of members of his administration through guilt by association.” (Specifically Kevin Jennings). This is unneeded but is a helpful source for 3. "#BornThisDay: Gay Rights Pioneer, Harry Hay". The WOW Report. 2019-04-07. Retrieved 2019-06-25. - In 1994, he joined the The Spirit Of Stonewall, instead of the official pride march and controversially supported inclusion of NAMBLA. “He felt that silencing any part of the movement because it was disliked or hated by mainstream culture was a seriously mistaken political strategy. ... He saw that eliminating any “objectionable” group, like drag queens or leather enthusiasts only pandered to the idea of respectability.” This is unneeded but helpful source for 3. Simon LeVay; Elisabeth Nonas (1997). City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America. MIT Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-0262621137. Although some prominent gay leaders such as Harry Hay have supported NAMBLA's right to participate in gay rights marches, the link between NAMBLA and the mainstream gay rights movement has always been tenuous. - This was Just added, although it only supports some prominent gay leaders such as Harry Hay have supported NAMBLA's right to participate in gay rights marches, it is use in the lead falsely to bolster that Hay was “an active supporter“, which no reliable source has yet to verify and the entire lead paragraph hinges upon. It’s not needed, but technically loosely confirm 2 and 3. Weir, John (August 23, 1994). The Advocate, “Mad About the Boys”. Here Publishing.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - he was speaking at a nambla event and said they should consider a name change because “boy lover” had negative connotations like “homosexual” did in the 1950’s. I’m not seeing any other mention of this. This is the only source that supports item 4, but does so trivially. Hard to believe if there was more connecting Hay it wouldn’t also be included. Hay, Harry, "Focusing on NAMBLA Obscures the Issues", Gay Community News, Fall 1994, pp. 16, 18. As cited in Jenkins, Philip (2004). Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. Yale University Press. p. 275. ISBN 978-0300109634. - Just added to the reference section. This source, likely an opinion piece by Hay, comes just after the Stonewall 25 events where both ILGA, and Stonewall 25 organizers banned pro-pedophilia groups from participating. It likely reaffirms his already reported reasoning, included in proposed content, behind supporting the group being allowed to march. This might be useful for 3, if someone can confirm what Hay actually wrote. But would likely be under primary source. gives only one quote from that Hay-authored piece right above but it’s certainly relevant, "I am not a member of NAMBLA, nor would it ever have been my inclination to be one." This has obvious contextual relevance and likely should be included. Yalzadeh, Ida (October 20, 2018). "Harry Hay | Biography, Activism, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-07-02. A champion for a diverse homosexual identity, Hay often waded into contentious debates, notably by advocating for such controversial organizations as the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pro-pederasty group., this was just found and is the first to assert that Hay advocated for NAMBLA among other groups. It being the only source that offers this blanket statement lends to the point that this subject area is not yet proven to have such a weight in Hay’s life to warrant anything in the lead. The author doesn’t offer any information to corroborate the assertion. - Here is a helpful comment so far: “Beacon Press is a department of the Unitarian Universalist Association, somewhat of an advocacy publisher, but still potentially useful. ... I'd be hesitant to use the Beacon book, as both the publisher and the editor you linked have long histories of being activists rather than dispassionate scholars, but it could be useful for simple factual statements, e.g. "Hay did X in year YYYY".” This source reprints Hay’s Spirit of Stonewall speech from their press conference. - After paging through this the “two contrasting interpretations of Hay's support for NAMBLA” were a sentence each: “outspoken advocate for” vs. “alleged advocate of”; both useless as neither provided any information to affirm the statements, Here is a helpful comment so far: “Left Coast Press is an imprint of Routledge/Taylor & Francis, a globally prominent academic publisher. ... Conversely, anything coming from T&F is highly likely to be reliable both for simple statements of fact and for theoretical analysis, and I'd need to be given a solid reason to doubt them before I advised someone to be careful using it.” This source delved into Hay’s using his coming-of-age story as a 14-year-old with a man in his twenties, and why he shared it publicly.

References

Unless other reliable sources support this material and demonstrate it has a significant bearing on his life I don’t see how this should be in the lead. As well I think the category is inappropriate. Am I crazy? Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

When Hay was was alive, his constant advocacy for NAMBLA and his cruising of boys was common knowledge. Same as with Ginsberg. It's part of what made Hay a controversial figure - someone who was routinely disrupting Pride, getting kicked out of the very orgs he founded (Mattachine Society), etc. I've tried to explain this to Gleeanaon, who clearly wasn't around then, but he takes my suggestion to read the sources as a personal attack. He suggests respected gay journalists like Michael Bronski, who was part of some of the same radical collectives as Hay, are somehow orchestrating a smear campaign. I suggest anyone who wants to comment first read Bronski's article, "The real Harry Hay", all the way to the end, as Bronski points out the the New York Times and other major outlets were already leaving the NAMBLA stuff out of his obits, and immediately trying to reinvent him on death:

Neither of the long and laudatory obits in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times mentioned his unyielding support for NAMBLA or even his deeply radical credentials and vision. Harry, it turns out, was a grandfatherly figure who had an affair with Grandpa Walton. But it’s important to remember Hay — with all his contradictions, his sometimes crackpot notions, and his radiant, ecstatic, vision of the holiness of being queer — as he lived. For in his death, Harry Hay is becoming everything he would have raged against.

Gleeanon's main project right now is editing National LGBTQ Wall of Honor, and they are the one who added the list of names and are the creator and main editor of the article. Gleeanon honestly didn't seem to any know this about Hay, as he seems to not know much about any of the older community members he's copy and pasting into that list. I've told them the answer is not to rewrite history. But Gleeanon keeps deleting discussions from their talk page and misrepresenting both the sourcing and other people's edits. He has become a Tendentious editor who is wasting our time with his, I'm sorry, ignorance of this topic and, possibly, agenda to whitewash on behalf of this group. If the people working on the memorial didn't want someone this problematic, they should have asked older people, or done their research, rather than trying to whitewash the honorees after the fact. Gleeanon is now focusing rather intensely on this. I have asked if they have COI on this project and they have denied it, but I'm really not sure I believe that given this intense POV push. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It may be that Bronski had an inside view of what Hay was like, and that Bronski disliked the fact that reliable sources like the New York Times, did not consider these problematic aspects of Hay to be significant aspects of his life. It may be that some people involved in some hall of fame project have failed to consult enough older people about their choice of inclusions. But Wikipedia should reflect what the balance of reliable sources say about it, not the views of individuals with an interest or individuals disgusted or disappointed. MPS1992 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, editors are permitted by policy to blank content from their own talk page -- especially when the content concerned is several thousand words in length. Blanking such content is generally regarded as an indication that they have read it. Anyway that's a question of editor conduct, not a question of article neutrality which is what this noticeboard covers. MPS1992 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I have continually asked for reliable sources that verify the “constant advocacy for NAMBLA” and pedophilia. There seems to be a massive conspiracy except one lone, but respected LGBTQ journalist. Perhaps that should be also shoehorned into the lead? One of the world’s best known pioneering gay rights advocates whose had dozens of obituaries, articles, interviews, books, and documentaries about him all fail to mention this despite Wikipedia even advertising it, possibly for years. Perhaps because they saw was is plainly evident, a lack of evidence despite NAMBLA themselves posting every scrap of pro-pedophile material they can. I look forward to more people looking into this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy? There is/was no conspiracy. This has been common knowledge for decades. The sources support this common knowledge. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed -- but the sources do not seem to regard it as significant in the individual's biography. MPS1992 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

MPS, it's not just Bronski, it's the Gay press in general who wanted this known about him, because he was continually raising a stink about it and people were having to kick him out of groups and events. It's in the Advocate[1], and his own group, the Radical Faeries have it on their tribute page to him:[2]. This isn't righting great wrongs, it's keeping history accurate against a POV push from a relatively new, revisionist editor. NAMBLA is ugly. Of course people would rather not see it. But those who supported and promoted the pedophile group should be kept accountable. Go look at the article, not this user's misrepresentations. I think there is a misunderstanding here about what WP:NPOV is. We write in a neutral voice. It doesn't mean we hide awful things about people to make them sound nicer. Yeah, it's hard to write neutrally about a pedophile group. So we just state the facts. But we don't bury the facts when he, after Allen Ginsberg, was probably the group's most famous advocate in the gay community. Yeah, it's gross. But it happened. So we document it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess you really are saying that the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times were "revisionist" as well, and therefore we shouldn't consider them reliable on this topic, but instead we should only consider reliable the views of people that Hay knew personally and had had disagreements with? MPS1992 (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Or, let us look at it a different way. There are three questions. First, should Hay's protesting the exclusion of NAMBLA from events be mentioned in the article? (I would say yes.) Second, should it be mentioned in the lede of the article? And third, if it should be mentioned in the lede of the article, how should it be mentioned there? MPS1992 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

They were incomplete. As their obits of subcultural figures have often been. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Those sources are already included in the seven(!) total(!) to be found, this one is a collection of obits with only one even touching on this content, the very sole one you helpfully quoted at length despite it already being posted above. These scraps were then woven into a grand story. It certainly feels “undue”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

References in the article include Hay's official bio, which was fine with Gleeanon until he realized it sourced all this, with this photo:[3], where Hay wore the sign, "NAMBLA walks with me" in LA Pride. As I said on talk: I really didn't want to link to them, but here's - https://www. nambla. org/hay2002.html NAMBLA's index on their Harry Hay materials. This page has - https://www. nambla. org/sanfrancisco1984.html photos of Harry Hay speaking on a NAMBLA panel in 1984, in San Francisco, under their banner. And again in 1986 in Los Angeles (no photo). Ick. The link is not live because, understandably, the site is on the blacklist. So the the url has spaces. You will have to copy and paste, and take out the spaces, to see it. Ick again. Gleeanon thinks all this is a conspiracy. But it's in Hay's official bio, which was written by some of his most ardent supporters. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

None of that proves anything but that he made invited speeches at some of their conferences, helpfully they provide their version of the transcripts which show ... no advocacy for the group or even anything beyond Hay recounting his own positive gay sex experiences as a kid. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Trying to destroy Pride because they wouldn't let NAMBLA march is not being an advocate? Helping them re-brand in order to get more members, sitting under the banner for photos while the group was sending out newsletters with photos of smiling seven year olds with the caption, "Smiles mean consent." Wow. You are really reaching here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Original research inventing narratives not supported by reliable or even NAMBLA’s own sources isn’t helpful. Zero evidence Hay had control of how his photo was used, that he was helping recruit, or even destroy Pride. All interesting ideas that I’m sure will be spun into gold by right wing bloggers. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

OK folks, I think we need some outside input here, if anyone is willing? That's what this noticeboard is for. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite bemused by all this discussion about whether Hay was a ardent supporter of NAMBLA. He was. Anyone who is old enough, was contemporaneous in his communities while he was alive, knows it to be true. As a co-founder of the Mattachine Society, people saw him as an elder statesman in the 1970s-90s. Gay people listened when he had opinions. Many vociferously disagreed with him on supporting NAMBLA. There were a significant number of Gay/Lesbian newspapers and newsletters during that time period. Hay did interviews with them and articles were written about him. Those papers, often with very good journalists writing for them, could be used as contemporaneous reliable sources. Unfortunately, only a fraction of them are available online. They would be secondary sources on this issue. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: If you know of any particular articles, post a request at Wikipedia:RX and volunteers there may get free copies. Also searching university library databases may pull up some articles. For articles prior to the 1980s or 1985 etc some of those may not be available electronically and will need to be taken from microfilms. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are aware of any reliable sources, they are welcome. I just added one that was wedge into the lead just hours ago which ironically proves how weak the sourcing remains. As to your point, it seems like the only thing that we can reliably verify up to now, is that he defended their right to be in two Pride parades where they had been banned, and the reasons. Arguably this might have caused a furor at the time, although I’m not seeing any evidence of that either, but don’t we have to rely on verification through reliable sources? What we have after searching is listed at the top. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need." He is advocating for children to be in sexual relationships with adults. He gave this speech in 1983 at NYU and it is archived on the NAMBLA website as well as here . On the Back to Stonewall site it also states,"These events overshadowed Hay’s previous legacy so much that today he is all but forgotten and purposely left out of many LGBT historical writings." Indigenous girl (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The first quote you cite is already included in the first sections of this report, sourced only to NAMBLA itself, everyone has pulled it from them.

On the surface, the “On the Back to Stonewall“ site looks great but the Hay content seems to be word for word copying from an older version of Wikipedia’s Hay page. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am aware that the quote has been previously linked to however I thought it best that it was out in the open. Please help me try and understand, are you insinuating that the speech at the forum, hosted by the Gay Academic Union at NYU in 1983, given by Hay, is not accurately presented? Are you insinuating that Back To Stonewall is made up of revisionists and that Will Kohler doesn't know what he's talking about? Indigenous girl (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The quote was already out in the open, it’s point #1, in bold of this report.

That speech is only known from NAMBLA’s posting their transcript. It has to be presented that way. Additionally it’s not about NAMBLA so you have to use original research to say it is. It’s also not about pedophilia, Hay was the 14-year old and the man he had sex with thought he was an adult.

I’m saying ”Back To Stonewall” didn’t even use their own words for the NAMBLA content, they used Wikipedia’s Hay article as gospel, but as is evident here, all the NAMBLA content is generally unverified and he presents zero sources or even credit to Wikipedia. I have no problem publishing true content that is verifiably sourced, but we are currently publishing unverified, and possibly unverifiable claims. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually the GSU collection at USC contains the entire transcript of his speech. He specifically mentions NAMBLA in the context of his speech and urges allies to advocate for sex with 13, 14 and 15 year old children because, "it's what they need more than anything else in the world.". Indigenous girl (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Indigenous girl:, or @CorbieVreccan:, who added it to the article here, can you share how you verified this? Any link that others can use?

I do accept the NAMBLA-posted transcript does mention the group in the summary of the speech. I still think it’s borderline original research and has to be used NPOV. His speech is a testamonial of Hay’s own positive experience as a 14-year old having gay sex with an older man, based on his own experience he thinks that parents and friends of gays “should be running interference for NAMBLA”. Only presenting this material NPOV without original interpretation is acceptable. He also does not specifically advocate for sex with teens, but says a relationship which, I think requires original research to infer he meant romance or sex rather or additionally to anything else. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? In one sentence he advocates defending NAMBLA and in the next he speaks positively about relationships between young teenagers and older men. How could you possibly read that in a way that isn't about sexual relationships? All of your comments in this thread give the impression of increasing desperate denialism. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. I maintain that Wikipedia should report facts that are actually verified in reliable sources. All this NAMBLA content is dependent on supposedly well-known information which few to none reliable sources documented. Compare that to the mamouth volume about this is the lead and article. Any reader would falsely believe this was central to his life. Yet the vast majority of reliable sources make no mention of it. Those that do make very little mention of it. Yet the article lead? It’s a fourth of the content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: One way to obtain older newspaper sources is to use university library databses and type in particular phrases. Some of those may be paywalled/closed, but Wikipedia:RX is a tool one can use to get access. Some older papers are not electronically available, but articles may be available in microfilms. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I notice someone had already mentioned The Advocate - I wish to elaborate further and state that the article described Hay as being an older generation thing:

• Weir, John. "Mad about the boys." The Advocate. Here Publishing, August 23, 1994. ISSN 0001-8996. Start: p. 33. CITED: p. 37.
• "Harry Hay, 82, a founder of the Mattachine Society[...]suggests to a crowded room at the recent NAMBLA meeting that a name change for the association might help." -- "Hay's presence at the NAMBLA meeting signified that NAMBLA is more than just an advocacy group for men imprisoned[...] It has become in part the last refuge for longtime activists who feel alienated from the current mainstreaming of the lesbian and gay community."

It might help to search on Google Books for content like this. Check the publisher to ensure that it is not self-published.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked around Google Books but sadly found that a lot of the newer books mentioning it tended to be hyper-religious or small publisher things... I'm looking for books from major publishers. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Found: Miller, Ben (2017-04-10). Jacobin https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/harry-hay-communist-mattachine-society-lgbtq. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) "When he died at ninety in October 2002, many remembrances focused on Hay’s late-life defense of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. While Hay never joined the group, he did defend it from being expelled from several LBGTQ conferences. His defense of NAMBLA was eccentric and troubling, rooted in his own experiences of teenaged sexual activity. But it was a small piece of Hay’s long life of writing and activism." - This source argued that it was not a significant part of Hay's activity and that he never joined... If you think Jacobin is mischaracterizing this, it would be good to find a secondary source (from a reputable publisher, of course) which says the opposite. "Gay History – October 23rd: The Almost Forgotten Gay Activist Harry Hay and Quebec’s Gay Club Raid Protests" (mentioned above by another user) seems to contradict Jacobin when it states "These events overshadowed Hay’s previous legacy so much that today he is all but forgotten and purposely left out of many LGBT historical writings." but it may be good to check the publishing status of this website to see if it counts as a Reliable Source. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe:, Thank you for the leads, the Miller one does help to anchor the content. The Back2Stonewall one though didn’t even use their own words, they copied word for word from Wikipedia’s Hay article. That does demonstrate, again, how out of step the article is compared to reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: Re: back2stonewall copying from Wikipedia, remember to go through the revisions and find the earliest Wikipedia revision with the content versus the earliest copy of the back2stonewall page to establish which came first. If back2stonewall indeed copied from Wikipedia, it cannot be considered at all in regards to reliable sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe:, indeed. Back2Stonewall published OCTOBER 23, 2017; word for word from Wikipedia content that predates. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Notes before closing

In closing, I think the discussion here has reached consensus that this is reliably sourced as a prominent and recurring issue in Harry Hay's political work. As Gleeanon409's initial presentation did not include all the sources, mentioned "sources" that are not in the article, and simply dismissed all sources that discuss this part of Hay's life as "unreliable", I am including a list here of the actual sources that cite this well-known, unfortunate fact about Harry Hay. As others have said, NPOV means we write neutrally about the facts of someone's life, without censorship. This was a well-known fact of Hay's life.

Reliable Sources:

• The Advocate (LGBT magazine) <ref name="Advocate1994">{{cite magazine|last=Weir|first=John|title=Mad About the Boys|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KmMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA37|date=23 August 1994|magazine=[[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]]|page=37|issn=0001-8996}}</ref>
• Michael Bronski for The Phoenix <ref name= rhh>{{cite news|url=http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm|archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20120302214758/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm |archivedate=2012-03-02|title=The real Harry Hay|date=2002-11-07|accessdate=2008-11-16|first=Michael|last=Bronski|authorlink=Michael Bronski|newspaper=[[The Phoenix (newspaper)|The Phoenix]]|quote=He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades.|dead-url=no}}</ref>
• MIT Press <ref name=NonasLeVay>{{cite book|author1=Simon LeVay|author2=Elisabeth Nonas|title=City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cl-4yFFql8gC&pg=PA181&dq=Harry+Hay+NAMBLA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb4enV94XjAhVnTt8KHWyVCHUQ6AEITTAH#v=onepage&q=Harry%20Hay%20NAMBLA&f=false|year=1997 |publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0262621137|page=181|quote=Although some prominent gay leaders such as Harry Hay have supported NAMBLA's right to participate in gay rights marches, the link between NAMBLA and the mainstream gay rights movement has always been tenuous.}}</ref>
• Stuart Timmons, Hay's Official Biographer: scan of photo plate <ref name="LAPridePhoto">{{cite web|url=https://www.wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Harryhaysignnambla2.jpg|title=Photos by Sandy Dwyer |last=Timmons |first=Stuart|date=1990|work=The Trouble with Harry Hay: Founder of the Modern Gay Movement|accessdate=2010-06-24|quote=The sign Harry tried to wear in the 1986 L.A. Gay Pride Parade}}</ref>
• <ref name=Spectator>{{Cite news | last = Lord | first = Jeffrey | title = When Nancy Met Harry | work = The American Spectator | date = 2006-10-05 | url = http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/05/when-nancy-met-harry | accessdate = 2009-04-14 | deadurl = yes | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090329000719/http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/05/when-nancy-met-harry | archivedate = 2009-03-29 | quote=Said Harry: "Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."}}</ref> Gleeanon wants to exclude this because it's "conservative". WP does not exclude sources on the basis of being liberal or conservative, and the text is the same as in the full speech below. This is included because it is an online text.
• Hay himself <ref name=LGAUfullspeech>[Box 2/folder 21] Lesbian and Gay Academic Union Records, Coll2011-041, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives, USC Libraries, University of Southern California</ref>
• Timmons again {{sfn|Timmons|1990|p=310}} {{sfn|Timmons|1990|p=295}} - Official biographer
• Vern Bullough <ref name=Bullough>{{cite book|author=Vern L. Bullough|authorlink=Vern Bullough|title=Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2002 |isbn=978-1560231936|page=74}}</ref> In Before Stonewall, biographer Vern L. Bullough writes, "Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign [supporting NAMBLA] rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."
• Yale University Press / Hay again / GCN again: Hay, Harry, "Focusing on NAMBLA Obscures the Issues", Gay Community News, Fall 1994, pp. 16, 18. As cited in {{cite book |title=Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America|year=2004|last=Jenkins |first=Philip |publisher=Yale University Press|page=275|isbn=978-0300109634}} Hay writes on the issue for Gay Community paper of record.
• Hay's spiritual group: Obituary on Radical Fairy site, reproduces Bronski obituary.
• Obviously, as the NAMBLA site is blacklisted, we are not going to link to their website pages, but they have Hay's speeches, and photos of him speaking in front of their banner on their panels. These speeches and photos are in other publications that are not currently available online, but they are well-known in the community. It is inappropriate for Gleeanon409 to cast aspersions on older editors who remember these things and suggest this material is fabricated. This material is linked via broken URL's on article talk.

There are more mentions out there online, and a ton more in print, but these are the ones in the article at the moment. To include this material is in no way an endorsement of Hay's views. It is certainly not an endorsement of NAMBLA. Whenever someone invokes "trying to right great wrongs" when it's something like pedophile advocacy (dear gods...) I wonder if they think we have no responsibility as editors here at all. Hay made quite the ruckus trying to keep NAMBLA from being shunned when he was alive, so it's only fair that it stays in his article now. What's there right now is NPOV and minimal, all things considered. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course I remain dubious of these statements, and how “NPOV” and “minimally” the content is presented but first I’ll look at these sources to see which ones aren’t already listed at top, and include and assess what information should be added. It will take me a little while to do all this. When I’m ready I’ll post here again with a summary. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Advocate article was already listed by me in the reliable sources section; so is the Bronski obit with it’s quote; so is the superfluous Timmons photo; so is the problematic Jeffrey Lord article; so is the Vern Bullough book; so is the Gay Community News; so is the link to the Radical Faeries.
I’ve added the Simon LeVay book; and the LGAU archive box.
I see little value in adding any more credibility to NAMBLA by acknowledging their online content, we can hold our collective noses and use the Spectator article that got it from them. His other two times as speaker both were Hay talking about his own positive experiences with gay sex when he was young. We already have the context for the quote to cover that, and it’s all primary sourced. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So we basically haven’t moved much to allay my initial concerns.
There remains zero reliable sourcing to support “Hay was an active supporter [of NAMBLA]”, you may know it to be true but no reliable source has backed it up.
Also it’s deceptive to state Hay “protested the group being banned from Pride parades” when we only have evidence for two; 1986 LA Pride, and 1994 Stonewall parades.
It’s also POV to state he spoke “about helping the group strategize a name change to help with their public image” implying he was doing something not implicated in his speech, a neutral take would be more along the lines of what I tried, he thought boy lover had negative connotations just like homosexual did in the 1950’s.
Wikipedia is broadcasting worldwide these deceptions. I can’t see how any content on NAMBLA should be wedged into the lead, and the utter lack of coverage in reliable sources presented so far suggests it should be trimmed to a NPOV minimum in the article.
Additionally there remains zero evidence to prop up the “Pedophile advocacy” category being included. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of POV, what you are calling "gay sex when he was young" was sex between an adult man and a 14 year old boy. Then Hay went on to speak at a handful of events that we have documented to plead with the gay community to endorse adults having sex with kids as young as 13, saying this would be the best thing adult gay people could do for gay kids. This is horrible. This is why he got kicked out of Pride parades and shunned by those who cared about kids. You are minimimizing criminal activity, this man's advocacy for criminal activity, and the way he tried to implicate normal gay people in criminal activity. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

He “pleaded” for gay men to have sex with teens? Or did he mean mentoring them? I don’t think we can say without evidence so instead, again to be NPOV, we likely should just report neutrally what the sources support, “relationships”, and leave the leap of guilt for the reader to decide. And that “series of events”, looks to be a total of three, and it was NAMBLA that kicked out of parades, and not even NAMBLA advocated for breaking any laws. Please dial down the hysteria and actually let the reliable sources dictate what is verified instead of your own memories. Your personal facts might be the gospel truth but they don’t belong in an encyclopedia. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As both Red Rock Canyon:[4] and Mark Ironie:[5] have noted, watching you increasingly attempt to minimize the damage done by NAMBLA, it's really hard to believe you're serious at this point. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere was this more evident than in Hay’s persistent support of NAMBLA’s right to march in gay-pride parades. In 1994, he refused to march with the official parade commemorating the Stonewall riots in New York because it refused NAMBLA a place in the event. Instead, he joined a competing march, dubbed The Spirit of Stonewall, which included NAMBLA as well as many of the original Gay Liberation Front members. A source specifically states that he "persistently" protested NAMBLA's exclusion from these marches. Including that is not deceptive; it's accurately following the sources. Your personal research about which marches he protested cannot be used to counter that statement.

Harry Hay... suggests to a crowded room at the recent NAMBLA meeting that a name change might help. Maybe this isn't "strategizing", but the source does say that he offered them advice on how to improve their image. This is not "adding credibility to NAMBLA," it's presenting the facts about Harry Hay as recorded in reliable sources. That is, and should be, the sole goal of Wikipedia. Material is not censored because we fear it may lend credence to some disgusting agenda, and biographies are not white-washed because we might prefer to see our heroes presented in a better light. Oh, and even Britannica mentions his support of NAMBLA [6] Hay often waded into contentious debates, notably by advocating for such controversial organizations as the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pro-pederasty group.. This isn't some smear cooked up by the right-wing media and Wikipedia.

That being said, I agree that these statements He spoke out in support of relationships between adult men and boys as young as thirteen and helping the group strategize a name change to help with their public image are not well-sourced. They rely on analysis of primary sources and that questionable Spectator article (hard to tell if it's an opinion piece or journalism). It would be better to leave that out of the lead, and just let the quotes speak for themselves in the body of the article. I think that entire final sentence should be cut from the lead, both for issues of sourcing and to avoid lending undue weight to the issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous girl found the full speech about NAMBLA where Hay "urges allies to advocate for sex with 13, 14 and 15 year old children because, 'it's what they need more than anything else in the world.' in the ONE archives of Hay's speeches at USC. So, the sourcing is solid, and it should be included in the body of the article. As long as the rest of the text prior to that is in the lede, as it was before Gleeanon's disruption, I think the specific details about that speech (which he gave multiple times) can be left for further down. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a primary source, and appears to be interpreted as such -- those are the dangers of primary sources. I understand that the topic causes emotions to run riot, but this is, after all, the neutral point of view noticeboard. MPS1992 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, @Gleeanon409:, please do not say things like 'it’s deceptive to state Hay “protested the group being banned from Pride parades” when we only have evidence for two' -- no that is not deceptive. If he protested two of them, he protested it on an ongoing basis. Don't be silly. MPS1992 (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as MPS1992 says, any text of the speech is a primary source, and we are not permitted to analyze primary sources and summarize them. I think it might be acceptable to quote some of the text of the speech in the article, since it's on a topic discussed by other secondary sources, and it's in the subject's own words, but we cannot put in any interpretation of what he's saying absent a secondary source that reports on his speech and what it means. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, as the primary source is available for comparison, we are able to see that the secondary sources are quoting Hay accurately. So that means the Spectator, Kohler, and the others cannot be ruled out just because we may not like their views on other issues. That is the sole reason I left the Spectator in - to verify the quote. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you guys totally following the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we should be summarising what secondary sources say, not just confirming that our chosen primary sources are accurate in what they say and what our longstanding appreciation of them is? MPS1992 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The main function of the primary source is to assuage concerns that the Spectator piece was completely inventing something. Author Jeffrey Lord's opinion of Hay based on that speech would need to be attributed, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing this NAMBLA content and presenting it NPOV has been the main problems from the beginning. It remains that we ONLY have the primary source for this quote. Kohler copies Wikipedia word for word, I pointed this out in a previous section, and the Spectator, which is unmistakably an opinion hit piece, acknowledges they got it off NAMBLA’s website. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous girl may have found that Archive box source but you added it to the article, I asked both of you for anything that other editors could verify the information but nothing yet has come forth. It remain unclear what if anything about Hay’s speech is in there. Please be clear about what that source actually is and how it was confirmed.
And my “disruption” has continued to prove there indeed is glaring NPOV and sourcing issues. I’m glad we’re finally getting some more eyes on the issues, as well as finding any reliable sources. Hopefully the article will improve and all this content will be adjusted with due weight. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992: It’s hardly silly, especially with such contested and controversial content, to be precise, NPOV, and encyclopedic when reporting this content, specifically in the number of parades he protested NAMBLA being banned from. There were two, separated by eight years. It’s deceptive not to report the facts as verified. I would say the same thing if there were eight or dozens. Let the facts speak for themselves. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Having more time to look over sources, I can't see an NPOV version of Hay's article not mentioning NAMBLA. Now, I will say that I agree that The Specator should not be cited, or more accurately Jeffrey Lord should not be cited. That's not because he's a conservative, but because he has a documented history of saying utterly ridiculous things about anything he perceives as liberal. He's a political strategist, not an academic or a journalist, and his expertise is trying to make opponents look bad. Aside, I found what I consider two more useful sources that I don't think have been mentioned yet. Hay, Harry (1997). Roscoe, Will (ed.). Radically Gay. Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807070819. seems to me a very good reference for sourcing content on this topic. There are also two contrasting interpretations of Hay's support for NAMBLA in Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert (2013). Censoring Sex Research: The Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations. Left Coast Press. ISBN 9781611323399. One of those interpretations was penned by Bruce Rind, who has a well known agenda, but I find he does have a point. Specifically, while searching for sources, it was hard to miss the volume of relatively recent conservative hit pieces that bring up Hay and overstate his support of NAMBLA, even going so far as to say he founded the organization. I will not cite those as they are light years from RS. That is, there really are people trying to posthumously demonize him as advocating for the rights of sexual predators to rape children, and may explain counter-attempts to minimize his involvement with them. Anyway, I found original statements of Hay and other content in Radically to be quite illuminating on Hay's position toward the group (note that although Hay is listed as the author, he is not the literal author of much of the content within). Notably, at times Hay described his support NAMBLA as being a sort of counter-counter-reaction. His belief was that NAMBLA was being excluded from the gay movement to appease conservatives, and therefore the gay community was allowing outsiders/opponents to dictate who could be members of it. He also of course had a very expansive view of "consent" as described here, that included underage males seeking out older men for sexual purposes, as already mentioned. Again, I don't see how an NPOV article avoids mentioning this, but it does have to be done correctly. I would actually avoid using any sources that are just dumbing down the history here to "Hay supported NAMBLA". Those are not useful because they are far more vague than we need to be. The outline of a paragraph or two I think would be npov would go, 1. Hay was controversial for his involvement with nambla. 2. Although not a member, Hay protested in support of Nambla's rights to march, etc. 3. Accurately describe Hay's statements on man-boy relations and exclusion of groups from the movement. It's of course a tricky thing because people see 'nambla', the imagine creepy old men grooming young boys for molestation. I assume that's the goal of some of the writers who bring this up. It's also obvious that although what Hay had in mind was still a crime, it's not that particular scenario. Plenty of people will consider that a distinction without a difference, but they will be basing that opinion on an accurate statements of facts. But anyway, I think this is achievable, inevitable, and necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your insight and comments on this. It’s exactly what I was hoping would happen here.
No one has suggested that this content shouldn’t be presented in the article. How it’s presented, and wether any mention belongs in the lead is the main concern.
I’ll have a look at these new sources to see how they can add to the understanding of the subject. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m having several issues accessing these sources mostly because I’m using Google Books. The site purposely blocks sections of pages so I’m not sure that when I’m searching I’m getting all the content on the subject, as well everything has to be hand copied rather than cut and paste. If anyone has ideas I’m open to them! Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Update (July 6, 2019)

I got feedback on the two books suggested above. Accordingly the Will Roscoe one will likely be used to note facts but not analysis.
While the Hubbard - Verstraete one, is considered of scholarly research and likely can be used to explore Hay’s motivations. I have a copy of the book on its way as I’ve been unable to fully access it online. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sticking with this. I think some criticisms have been valid and others have been problematic. I hope you will take others' concerns seriously, and I hope that you will recognize their concerns about the historical portrayal of Harry Hay. Equally, I hope they will understand and help in your efforts to portray Hay according to reliable sources. I think you are all trying to achieve the same aim -- more or less. I am from a different cultural milieu, so I can't really claim to understand any of it. MPS1992 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I’m learning plenty about sex and sexuality researchers including the prejudice and backlash they faced when they approach taboo subjects. Apparently that’s been true from the beginning. I’m almost through the first book, if I have to I’ll track down the other as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• I’ve asked for some help at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Pro-research help needed for Harry Hay. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• I’ve also asked for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Opinion piece? By Harry Hay In ‘94 Gay Community News. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible content

Hay’s favorite story, of his coming-of-age, “which he repeatedly told to audiences in later years and refered to ironically as his ‘child molestation speech,’ in order to emphasize how sharply different gay life is from heterosexual norms,” recounted his time as an emancipated fourteen-year-old (circa 1926) pursuing sex with a man in his mid-twenties who assumed Hay was of the age of consent. He shared the story “specifically to contradict entrenched stereotypes and to caution against uncritical generalizations so common in reference to pederasty.“ The man gave Hay “tips on how ‘people like us’ should conduct themselves, which ‘inspired Harry almost as vividly as the erotic memory’.”

In 1986, Los Angeles Pride wanted Hay to march, but they had banned NAMBLA, a group synonymous in the U.S. with pro-pedophilia advocacy, and had to negotiate for him to only carry a sign, rather than a larger banner, to protest the action. Hay wanted to do so “because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.” He ended up wearing two posterboard signs; one for Valerie Terrigno, a recently disgraced lesbian politician also banned from the parade, on his front, “Valerie Terrigno walks with me"; and on his back, “NAMBLA walks with me.”

Eight years later, in 1994, Hay was again protesting NAMBLA being banned: ILGA (now ILGBTIA), the-then only group representing gays and lesbians at the United Nations (UN) banned them and two other groups from membership; and Stonewall 25 organizers, producing the 1994 twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the largest LGBTQ Pride event in the world as of then, banned them and similar groups from its Pride protest march, that purposely changed the route to use First Avenue going past the UN, reflecting the events’ international focus on LGBTQ issues. Hay was among the 150 “activists, scholars, artists, and writers” who signed on to support Spirit Of Stonewall (SOS), an ad hoc group that felt the banned group had free speech, and association rights. Hay delivered “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” speech, concerning the expulsion of NAMBLA, at a SOS press conference, where he stressed three organizing principles from the formation and growth of the LGBTQ movement he used since the early 1950s: we do not censor or exclude one another; if someone identifies as lesbian or gay he accepts them as such; and we cannot allow heterosexuals to dictate who is in our communities—we decide. Hay helped lead the counter-march with almost 7,000 participants.

Comments on ‘possible’ content

If any better sources are forthcoming I’m happy to check them out and add accordingly.

I’m proposing this content be used in the article instead of the current material, after this has been vetted.

Separately, and dependent if any new sources are found, decisions can be made if the category is appropriate, and what, if any, content belongs in the lead. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this text serves as neutral. Is this intended as the lede? Or into the Later years: 1980-2002 section? It still seems like white-washing. I still have trouble understanding the resistance to the Michael Bronski obit/article. Bronski had been involved in journalism for over 30 years when it was published. The info in it is grounded in decades of gay journalism. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This would potentially be content for inside the article. The lead content would then be a reflection of what we think belongs in the article itself. As for Bronski, and other sources that only gave a sentence, or less, of content on this I’m following the guidance above, “I would actually avoid using any sources that are just dumbing down the history here to "Hay supported NAMBLA". Those are not useful because they are far more vague than we need to be.” Bronski had one sentence, “He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades.” Looking at every reliable source there remains only two parades, eight years apart, so it’s hard to reconcile that with “consistently advocated”. Likewise “He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment”: Bronski was the only source to characterize this way, again we only have two parades; the 1986 one he seemingly was alone in the position, but in 1994 he was one of 150 LGBTQ activists and others that was protesting the group being banned. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe I need to explain some of the editing choices made, if reading through the above sections weren’t clear:
  • The Hay quote, usually misrepresented—especially by right-wing and conservative bloggers—as him advocating for sexual contact with men and young teen boys, is omitted as we only have one primary source, NAMBLA itself.
    • What is included is analysis of why Hay often shared his own story of when he was 14, where that quote was picked from, and had a positive gay sex experience with an older man.
  • No mentions of Hay advocating for the group, or pedophilia by extension, are included as no reliable sources gave any evidence he did this. Of all the sources on Hay, the majority don’t mention this subject area at all. Those that do use only the briefest of mentions with the most credible citing his protesting the banning from two Pride parades: LA in 1986; and Stonewall 25 In 1994.
    • Both parade episodes are included with explanations of why he protested their bans. Tellingly he was one of 150 LGBTQ activists on record for the 1994 protesting.

Given the reliable sources available to now, and I’m happy to look at any others that may add to or change what is known, I think Wikipedia’s present content in the lead, and article is dreadfully sourced, and misrepresents Hay’s connection to this despised group. Additionally including Hay in the category of pedophile advocacy is wholly inaccurate. If Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia and not a click-bait tabloid then we should update the article accordingly. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• @MPS1992:, @Red Rock Canyon:, @Someguy1221:, I’d appreciate if you could look at the proposed content to see if the sourcing is reliable, NPOV, etc, and offer any changes, or any other sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Gleenanon, what you have done above in your proposed text is simply leave out the WP:RS sources that have the well-documented content that you don't like. Your sanitized version, describing what you believe were and were not Hay's motives, is not an improvement and is not encyclopedic. Additionally, in this discussion you have consistently misrepresented the sources, claiming reliable sources are not reliable simply because you do not like them, or claiming that sources don't exist when they do. When people have pointed this out, you simply ignore the corrections and keep misrepresenting the sources. This is a serious violation of policy and wikiquette. Posting a note up top that people do not need to read the full discussion, only your bits of it, is inappropriate, and by only pinging the people who you think might agree with you, you are treading very close to violating the WP:CANVASSING policy. As a number of people have already told you, reliable sourcing and writing with a neutral tone don't mean "never critical" and "never controversial". The fact Hay supported NAMBLA, spoke on their panels, carried their signs, cruised boys, is what it is. It's sourced. It was his choice. Downplaying what that means, or what NAMBLA is, is really not the answer. As Wikipedians, it is not our place to re-interpret or decide what his statements and actions really meant. We just document it. It's on Hay, not us. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This entire process was needed because the POV and poorly sourced content was included in the article. Your again inviting me to leave it as is, or otherwise waiving me off isn’t helpful.

If I had found any reliable source that did provide evidence he in any way was an advocate for NAMBLA, or by extension pedophilia, I would be obligated to include it, with due weight. I found none. Nor has anyone else thus far.

I looked, and still welcome, any usable reliable sources that actually provide evidence for your many claims against Hay. Please note, that is not an invitation for you to post a list of sources, like you’ve done in the past, that have been listed already, but are considered primary, unreliable, or too vague to be of any help.

If there is a source you think I’m misquoting, or otherwise misrepresenting, or an equally reliable source that should be used, that we haven’t already included, then please make it known here.

I’ve amended the note at the very top, it was never my intention to mislead. I encourage anyone who’s willing to read the wall of texts to do so. It’s right there. Their conclusions might easily catch something I missed.

I invited the uninvolved people in hopes they could help move the process forward. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hello. I am one of the "uninvolved people", also described as "the people who you think might agree with you". I am really tired of this whole dispute, but I do not promise to be coherent while I explain why. It seems to me that this Gleeanon fellow was just fixing a few things, while also being far too excited about fixing things a little too much, and then suddenly he tripped some tripwire whereby people who ever advocated that bad thing, had to be vilified, and anyone trying to prevent that had to be crushed. Well actually my grandfather was in the military, and indeed he found that if you crush something under your boot then it often does not rise up again. He gave me many wise pieces of advice. I have not read every single piece of evidence presented above about what every single reliable source said about every single thing that this Hay fellow said about anything. To do that, it is probably going to take me another few weeks, so I hope you are all very patient people. For the time being, it seems to me that this Gleeanon fellow has some legitimate concerns about the current (original) article, and that some other editors are going slightly apoplectic that he should challenge the existing article. As someone who is not any part of any of either scene, this maybe should be the time that I back off and leave you all to it. But actually I am going to ask you to do two things. (1) actually understand what each of you is saying to the other, and if you can't do that, (2) give me some time until I can finally be bothered to read the above proposal and work out what it's about and whether it's accurate or what. I would much prefer the first option. MPS1992 (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I opened a thread at WP:RSN to address sourcing in the lead’s first sentence, while this content for the article itself moves forward. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Update. I just today got a copy of: “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” Hay, Harry. Gay Community News ; Boston Vol.20,Iss.3, (Fall 1994): 16. It’s the full text of his speech detailing why he, and apparently others, objected to ILGA and Stonewall 25, expelling NAMBLA or any other group that identified as gay/lesbian. The pdf is about six pages so it will take a bit of time to digest and hopefully distill into the proposed content.

  I did omit at least one important facet in trying to express his views. He adamantly felt that queer youth worldwide were victimized by being forced into hetero identities dooming them into forms of despair. He felt this was the real molestation they faced.

  He also connects Sen Jesse Helms move to defund the United Nations by discrediting ILGA via the pedophilia groups scandal; with his similar move 30 days later “amended an education bill on its way through the Senate by denying federal funds to any public school district that teaches homosexuality is a positive lifestyle alternative through class work, textbooks, or counseling. This language is so broad that even Project 10, a nationally known counseling program for Gay high school students, would be a key target of the ban.” Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• I’m still going over Hay’s own writing on the subject: “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” Hay, Harry. Gay Community News ; Boston, Vol. 20, Iss.3, (Fall 1994): 16. Anyone can also get a copy by requesting it at WP:RX. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Update. I’ve opened a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests in hopes to resolve this and the other main tagged issue of the article. I’ll work on updating User:Gleeanon409/sandbox/Hay - nambla sourcing with Hay’s published speech on the subject. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• • Request was auto-declined until this issue is resolved; I’m looking at adding the Hay speech and checking out the source(s) added in the last week above. Then a rewrite of proposed content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Looking into the Miller source suggested above. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Adding Jacobin source. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed content

{this would replaced the content in the body of the article; after reading every reliable and non-primary source it’s apparent this was a minor aspect of Hay’s later life. Accordingly I feel anything in the lead would be WP:Undue and violate WP:RSUW.}}

When Hay died, Michael Bronski’s obituary mentioned his “late-life defense” of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a group that is synonymous with pro-pedophilia activism. Initially in the late 1970s NAMBLA was accepted as one of many fledgling LGBTQ groups, at least as a fringe one, for its advocacy of gay youth, and civil rights for the teens and pedarists, who had sex with teenaged boys. Quickly though the pedarists were in the minority as the group became controlled by pedophiles—attracted to children and pre-adolescents—who insisted on abolishing all age of consent laws without compromise, eroding all mainstream LGBTQ support. Hay was never a member but did defend them from being expelled from LBGTQ events which was characterized by Bronski as politically embarrassing, and Jacobin’s Ben Miller as “eccentric and troubling,” but “a small piece of Hay’s long life of writing and activism.”

Hay’s favorite story, of his coming-of-age, “which he repeatedly told to audiences in later years and refered to ironically as his ‘child molestation speech,’ in order to emphasize how sharply different gay life is from heterosexual norms,” recounted his time as an emancipated fourteen-year-old (circa 1926) pursuing sex with a man in his mid-twenties who assumed Hay was of the age of consent. He shared the story “specifically to contradict entrenched stereotypes and to caution against uncritical generalizations so common in reference to pederasty.“ The man gave Hay “tips” as to how gay men should act, which ‘inspired Harry almost as vividly as the erotic memory’.”

In 1986, Los Angeles Pride wanted Hay to march, but they had banned NAMBLA, and negotiated for him to carry only a sign, rather than a larger banner, to protest the action. Hay wanted to do so “because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.” He ended up wearing two posterboard signs; one for Valerie Terrigno, a recently disgraced lesbian politician also banned from the parade, on his front, “Valerie Terrigno walks with me"; and on his back, “NAMBLA walks with me.”

Eight years later, in 1994, Hay was again defending the group: ILGA (now ILGBTIA), the-then only group representing gays and lesbians at the United Nations (UN) banned them and two other groups from membership; and Stonewall 25 organizers, producing the 1994 twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York City, the largest LGBTQ Pride event in the world as of then, banned the groups from the Pride protest march, that purposely re-routed to use First Avenue going past the UN, reflecting the event’s international focus on LGBTQ issues. Hay was among 150 “activists, scholars, artists, and writers” who publicly signed to support Spirit Of Stonewall (SOS), an ad hoc group that felt the banned groups had free speech, and association rights. Hay delivered “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” speech at a SOS press conference, and later reprinted in Gay Community News, where he stressed organizing principles from the formation and growth of the LGBTQ movement he used since the early 1950s:“...we wouldn't censor or exclude each other. If people self-identify themselves to me as Gay or Lesbian, I accept them as Brothers and Sisters with love. ... [We] integrate [into the mainstream] on our own terms, as we saw ourselves and with our own set of values. ...[And] we no longer permitted any heteros ... to tell us who we were, or of whom our groups should or should not consist”. Hay helped lead the counter-march with almost 7,000 participants.

Notes and References

References

Comments on ‘proposed’ content

I’m hoping others will be willing to check over the proposed content, and sourcing, and after being vetted this could be used in the article to update the content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC) @MPS1992:, @Mark Ironie:, @WhisperToMe:, @Red Rock Canyon:, @Someguy1221:, I’m hoping you can shed some light on the ‘proposed’ content for the article itself, and a constructive path forward. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on ‘Proposed content’

Should the ‘proposed content’ in the sections directly above replace the NAMBLA-related content in the Harry Hay article; and by WP:Lead, and WP:Undue should there be *any* mention in the lead. If so, what would satisfy NPOV, and WP:Lead? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"Criticism of..." pages in general

According to [7]. we have pages on

• Criticism of Swaminarayan sect (but no Criticism of Aum Shinrikyo)
• Criticism of Mother Teresa (but no Criticism of Dalai Lama)
• Criticism of Muhammad (but no Criticism of Gautama Buddha)
• Criticism of the Israeli government (but no Criticism of the Chinese government)
• Criticism of Amazon (but no Criticism of Alibaba Group)
• Criticism of Facebook (but no Criticism of Twitter)
• Criticism of The Walt Disney Company (but no Criticism of Monsanto)
• Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt (but no Criticism of Herbert Hoover)
• Criticism of Family Guy (but no Criticism of the Simpsons)

We also have a bunch of redirects like

• Criticism of Jay Leno (but no Criticism of David Letterman)
• Criticism of the C programming language (but no Criticism of BASIC)

To me, it looks like most (but not all) of the "Criticism of" pages are WP:POVFORKs or WP:COATRACKs for criticism that wasn't allowed into the main article.

I think that most of them should be merged into the corresponding main pages and that all of the "Criticism of" redirects should be deleted as being unlikely search terms.

Before I post an RfC proposing that, does anyone agree or disagree with my take on this?

Are there any opinions on particular "Criticism of" pages that should be kept? I am thinking that...

• Criticism of Christianity
• Criticism of Islam
• Criticisms of Marxism
• Criticism of capitalism

...might be worth keeping. Or maybe not. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to say "We have criticism of X as a page but not critical of parallel topic y". Two questions better asked: 1) If we have "criticism of X" as a standalone, do we also have "criticism of parallel topic y" in the article about y itself, and 2) if we have "criticism of X", is there a SIZE issue to explain why it was moved out, and was there a better split of content less contestable that could have been split out first per Summary Style. And there are other factors to keep in mind. For example, Facebook has been a LOT more hot water than Twitter and so I would expect a rather lengthy bit on criticism of Facebook. Enough for its own page, after taking out all the minutee of the coverage? Not sure, but I would not be surprised to see enough for a standalone. --Masem (t) 00:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• I do not think that "criticism" pages are inherently problematic because the criticism of something or someone can be a well-defined, notable and perfectly legitimate subject. Not having pages about something is not a policy-based argument. Some of these page, however, (like Criticism of Swaminarayan sect) should go to AfD on a case by case basis. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with above, “criticism of” pages justified where body of criticism is well defined. Not a problem that some exist and some don’t if existing ones meet that test and non-existing ones don’t, or if non-existing could be made. Nothing prevents creation of criticism of Monsanto page for example — doubtless justifies and welcome to add. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a lack of a criticism article for a related topic it not, one its own, enough to justify deletion since there are several other possible reasons for this. It could be, there is enough criticism for an article but no one got around to making it, the other subject is simply less controversial, the other subject has a shorter article so the it wasn't necessary to split criticism for size purposes, ect. This clearly needs to be decided on a case by case basis.--67.68.29.177 (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've long been of the opinion that criticism sections, let alone articles, are inherently coatracks for editors to include their own personal gripes. The vast majority of them should definitely be deprecated and their content merged into the articles. Sceptre (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I readily agree that criticism sections (but not limited to them) have become the type of laundry lists for any mention of any potential "bad thing" against that topic. It is moreso a problem over on BLPs, but it extends across the board. A poorly established criticism section in an article is a honeypot for anyone to come by with a weak source to say "this must be added!" But this doesn't mean criticism sections - or standalones - are bad in of themselves, as long as editors keep out the single-source, RECENTISM stuff, and instead focus on long-term criticism towards the topic, or criticism that has had a significant effect for the topic. It is similar to trivia sections, they can grow out of line if editors do not scrub out those entries that do not have proper sourcing. Now, in some cases, that can be merged throughout the article, but this is not always possible without disrupting narrative flow. For example, if we are discussing a company like Facebook, the only logical place to put its controversies is within the history of the company, but narratively would be jarring, and a separate section makes more sense - as long as it properly kept. --Masem (t) 23:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking over some of the criticism articles listed above, you can see a striking difference between two types of articles. Some are literally about the criticism, citing secondary sources that are explicitly analyzing the subject "criticism of X". Other articles appear utterly disjointed, lurching from section to section without transition, and many of the sources are literally criticisms of X. Far from a laundry list, I would say that many of these appear to be trash bins. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

To create a good page of this nature, one must have some secondary sources (preferably books or reviews) on the whole subject, for example a book entitled "Criticism of X". Otherwise, this is going to be a "coat rack" or essentially a list. My very best wishes (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would wager that most "Criticism of X" pages should be merged into the main, "X", articles. But some, like Criticism of Christianity are quite big because of the long history of the relevant phenomena, so I guess they should be kept intact? Notrium (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How about Criticism of Wikipedia? Probably should stay. There doesn't seem to be a consensus for a policy change barring "Criticism of X" pages; rather, it seems that this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. NightHeron (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon, Masem, Hyperbolick, My very best wishes, Sceptre, Someguy1221, and NightHeron:, relevant: Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Merging, Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge Notrium (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

IMO "Criticism of" sections and articles should all get deleted. Sections distort the coverage in the article, and the articles are distorted coverage. But IMO moving it from a separate article (an obscure "garbage can") into a section of the main article makes the problem even worse.North8000 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that keeping criticism pages separately helps to organize the content much better. Yes, such sections can distort the coverage of a subject, but this is not necessarily the case. Having a "controversies" section for a company is fine. Also, subjects like criticism of Marxism or Islam are notable and deserve large separate pages. This is not distortion. Some others, like Criticism of the Israeli government are indeed basically attack pages. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no justification for claiming that the article Criticism of Islam is "notable and deserve large separate pages. This is not distortion. Some others, like Criticism of the Israeli government are indeed basically attack pages." Why should criticism of Israel be forbidden, and criticism of Islam be encouraged? Wikipedia has often been accused of systemic bias in favor of the West (such as the Judeo-Christian traditions) and against other parts of the world (such as the Islamic traditions). The NPOV noticeboard should be a place for reducing bias, not a place for reinforcing bias with clearly prejudicial claims. NightHeron (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• The examples you have listed have gathered coverage of critism from reliable sources and thus deserve their own article. Additionally, large articles are often split out to separate articles including Critism of pages as there is a limit on how many bytes you can have on one certain page. If you can gather enough coverage of Criticism of Herbert Hoover to be notable you are more than welcome to create that article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• My question is this.What are articles entitled "Criticism of....." Doing in an Encylopedia in the first place? I agree that any criticism article becomes a bitch list, and contentious at that. If there are any criticisms don't they belong summarized into the main article, or forked into a subsection. I can't think of any criticism that can't be briefly summarised, then again my thinking isn't all that it should be.21:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• I notice that many sections of Criticism of Christianity have main article links at the top. If the content is contained in, for instance Christianity and colonialism, and summarized in the main article, isn't that a better organization?—eric 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• I will say in general, there is a very broad issue that most often our reliable sourcing (and thus by inclusion, ourselves) focus on the negative. People want to be critical of others, it is human nature. That said, I do thing there are times to distinguish between reasonable debate on a topic (something I'd suspect much of Criticism of Christianity is really about), and sources just airing frustrations and concerns out without any expectation of a "result", which is probably more common in these Criticism articles. I don't have a solution, but this is something to think about, and definitely the case of wanting to avoid pages that are similar a list of frustrations, even if coming from RSes. That actually starts to get into SYNTH to argue that there is criticism of a topic. --Masem (t) 17:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deep six 'em all Criticism of X is not ever valuable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Systemic problem on Wikipedia: Dictators are not being described as such

I've noticed a systemic problem across Wikipedia: Leaders who are universally described as "dictators" or "authoritarian" in peer-reviewed academic research are not being described as such on Wikipedia pages. Check Kim Jong-un's lede and you'd never know that he happens to rule a non-democracy, never mind one of the most repressive dictatorships in existence. Same goes for the Bashar al-Assad page before I fixed it (the page even brazenly suggested that he was a democratically elected leader). I noticed that similar problems plagued the pages of Putin (whose regime is typically characterized as a hybrid regime or competitive authoritarian regime) and Viktor Orban (who is universally described as having overseen democratic backsliding in Hungary) before I fixed those pages.

There's a humongous literature out there, which is peer-reviewed and written by recognized experts - in many cases, political scientists explicitly list regimes which are democratic, hybrid regimes, authoritarian. Furthermore, there are measures of democracy (Polity, Freedom House) that can inform our language. Use it, people! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Just because a source says something does not mean you can repeat it in Wikipedia's voice. Quoting is a more sure way to do things, unless the quoted source would be given undue weight, of course. Remeber that (almost?) all sources are biased. Notrium (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not a question of one source saying something. This is a question of universal agreement among the best available sources (there is an enormous peer-reviewed academic literature on democracy and authoritarianism) that a particular regime is not democratic. That Wikipedia systemically fails to stick to the sources on this particular topic is a horrendous NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually there's a substantial peer-reviewed literature on how blurred the lines are between authoritarianism and democracy. See The Rise of Authoritarian Liberal Democracy and Authoritarianism and The Elite Origins of Democracy.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge Scholars Publishing is a predatory scam press, and the author is a nobody who just publishes weird monographs for non-academic scammy publishers. The second book, which is by actual recognized experts and published in a top tier academic press, does not at all say that there is no distinction between democracy and authoritarianism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say "no distinction" either. I said blurred lines. From the second book: "...cracks have begun to emerge in the consensus that democracies are actually forged by the people and that their policies are intended to benefit the people...In short, democracies might not be all that different than their authoritarian predecessors in terms of material consequences." GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Christ almighty - what a brazen distortion of the book. The book is about the causes of democracy, and the authors argue that the onset of the democratization process is elite-driven. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm comfortable calling many regimes "authoritarian", less so "dictatorial". The former is broader, "milder" and more inclusive, so the risk of error is low and we shouldn't have qualms using it where appropriate; the latter, in addition to being rarer and more "extreme", sees frequent use in common parlance (talk shows, etc.), so we should limit it to scholarly or high quality sources, to avoid error. François Robere (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans, François Robere, and GPRamirez5: Wikipedia is not perfect, and many articles stay non-neutral and even non-encyclopedic for far too long; I wish you good understanding and recall of Wikipedia's guidelines in your efforts (and luck). Maybe you should start a WikiProject (maybe called "Authoritarianism")? That could help in efforts on specific persons like Orban. On the other hand, I do not like the way those "Democracy indices" try to aggregate data that does not seem like it should be aggregated ("measuring democracy" and "conceptualizing democracy" seem like productive search terms on libgen). I prefer specific examples of governmental misdeeds of all kinds (crimes, corruption, just immoral) and criticism of policy and laws to simplistic labeling of governmental leaders. Notrium (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Using a term like "dictator" should only be in Wikivoice well after the regime that would be called that is over (like, on the order of decades) and the presence of strong academic views, or if there is overwhelming academic evidence to call it such while the regime is active. It's a label, and definitely BLP applies. --Masem (t) 23:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC) (ETA to apologize to @MPS1992:, though the H3 was accidental). --Masem (t) 00:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Why this time gap? François Robere (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree this should be the case, contempory sources are always going to be far more subjective then those written with the benefit of hindsight.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The time gap deals with issues that fall into WP:RECENTISM especially with the media today and some academics who are quick to judge. We're an encyclopedia and thus should be writing from the long-term POV, not what everyone is saying today. A good example would be Reagan's presidency. At the time, it was generally seen as good, but we recognize today that it set some events in motion related to Reaganomoics that we are still feeling today, and broadly, it's not a pinnacle presidency. --Masem (t) 15:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

But we're not talking about future implications, but about contemporary acts. Could we say that "Reagan was/n't a fiscal 'hawk'"? We could, if sources support it, because it's based on what he said and did in real time. François Robere (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we should be far less focused on contemporary acts unless it is clear they will have long-term impacts. Which means we may not cover some contemporary acts until the future where academics/analysts realize that that prior act had more weight or the like then it seemed at the time. So yes, if these later sources support the inclusion of what a leader did during their term, they can be included. But basically, this is where Wikipedia's overall approach on anything political should start with "wait and see", or at least using better judgement to know when such analysis and opinion have appropriate merit to include with attribution. We are not good with "real time" coverage of politics because that is where the combination of media and editor biases (which happen, unavoidable) both interplay and create numerous difficult situations. AmPol2 is awash with those problems, and same with something like this for other current world leaders. Attributing broadly-made claims from strong RSes made about current leaders and regimes while waiting for academics to work out the historical facets does no harm to WP and sticks to neutrality policy (among other things). --Masem (t) 19:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Minimalist definitions of democracy are very simple, and there is simply no dispute at all in the academic literature about whether Kim Jong-un rules an authoritarian state or a democracy, and there is no reason at all to expect that to change as academics obtain more information about the regime. These assessments are not just flippant subjective opinions, but are determined with cold hard criteria that political scientists are essentially in agreement over. What you're essentially arguing is that Wikipedia should run interference for the tyrants of the world by intentionally omitting (or hiding in 'disputed'-style language) the nature of the political systems that they run because stating facts is not nice when the facts happen to not be nice? We should omit that North Korea prohibits a free press, because communicating that fact reflects poorly on the North Korean regime? What you're advocating for is a grotesque neutrality violation and an extreme distortion of Wikipedia policy. It's postmodernist tripe - the notion that nothing is real and nothing can be stated plainly. And unintentionally, it's very same obfuscatory language that these dictators rely on to polish the image of their regimes. Wikipedia can either be a party to these tyrants' branding strategies or we can stick to peer-reviewed academic RS and stay beholden to the spirit of Wikipeda's NPOV policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

First, we're not here to right great wrongs and trying to frame the argument that way is not helpful; it is not required for us to make sure a leader who many believe or consider a tyrant is actually factually called as such, though WP:DUE does require to acknowledge that that numerous assessments do exist and we should not hide that. This is not about eliminating that criticism, just to recognize it just shouldn't be said in a factual tone but as a broad agreement from sources. I am not saying that that is not true, but we should wait for sufficient time to pass following the closure of the regime so that we can see where the broad academic assessment lines and declare something as fact. Let's consider scientific theories; there are some theories that we accept as fact today, but only because there have been decades or centuries of observations and evidence to support the theory to be true despite not being able to prove it true. But a freshly published theory, which appears to be consistent with all existing knowledge and available observations is not going to be declared true for some time and will require broad agreement from across the specific field. Its the same principle here. We want our point of observation to be outside of when the activities are current to start to judge if hypothesis can be taken as fact. At the end of the day, it is simply being conservative/cautious with our writing to avoid aggressive stance. There is zero harm is saying "Many assert X is Y" over "X is Y". --Masem (t) 20:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The harm is that it gives readers the appearance that there is a dispute as to whether the Kim regime is authoritarian or not. It's the same reason we don't write "Many scientists say the Earth revolves around the Sun". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

We've had centuries to validate the Earth's motion around the sun. We've had only 8 to judge Kim's regime, and its still ongoing. That's my whole point about theories, they need time to be accepted as truth with question. --Masem (t) 20:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The question isn't really about time - we're an open encyclopedia, so we can and should be up-to-date - it's about "labeling": you're afraid of political influence, and your remedy to that is waiting; mine is sourcing restrictions - that way we can be both up to date and accurate. François Robere (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• ...If someone is using the term dictator and they're not talking about the Romans, isn't that figurative use of the term? I mean, "dictatorial", meaning "like a literal dictator" would still be technically correct, but dictator was a specific historical office. GMG^talk 20:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Dictator, Authoritarian and Autocrat are synonymous in the academic literature. Then there are all kinds of typologies of authoritarian regimes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Well, authoritarian and autocracy are both terms with specific meanings that are not necessarily anachronistic in the same way that dictator is. There is lots of colorful language that sources might use because they're writing for a different format than an encyclopedia, where we follow the substance of the sources, but we don't necessarily follow their colorful language. But I'm the history guy more than I am the politics guy, so make if it what you will. GMG^talk 21:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment There's no problem with describing people as dictators if reliable sources consistently indicate such, but I think it is probably more helpful for readers to describe what, exactly, we're talking about and acknowledge some of the vagaries of the definitions here: Dictatorial institutions are complex and vary quite a bit. Kim Jong Un (in theory) holds absolute control of the state through torture and oppression, Putin holds power through a more complex system of competitive authoritarianism that relies on a mixture of repression, co-optation, and bribery. Readers will likely get more from seeing the details rather than simply reading that "X is a dictator" Nblund ^talk 01:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely not - Whats going to happen is wikipedia will just become even more of a proxy of the US Department of Foreign Affairs. Your idea to use Freedom House (A predominantly US gov funded org) as an authority speaks for itself.103.127.65.123 (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: This is drive-by editing. Each article should be treated individually, and the terminology used should be selected as appropriate to it. The article should also be viewed holistically. It's wrong to focus on one word in the introduction. In my experience, drive-by editing like this leads to perverse outcomes. An edit that is completely appropriate in one article can be inappropriate in another article. If there is a problem with the neutrality or accuracy of an article, that should be addressed on an individual basis.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia is supposed to follow the normal descriptions used in reliable sources. Here's what Sidney Goldberg, father of Jonah Goldberg, wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

Castro is clearly not squeamish about using rhetoric straight out of the Marxist-Leninist handbook, or ruling Cuba the same way. And yet the imperialist bourgeoisie seems to be squeamish about labeling Castro for what he is. The latest edition of Webster's New World College Dictionary calls him merely: "Cuban revolutionary leader, prime minister and president." Sounds rather impressive--you can almost see it on the résumé for a MacArthur genius award. But is Castro a dictator? Apparently not enough of one to define him as such.

This is not the only instance of labeling-hesitation in Webster's New World--at least when the "leader" in question belongs to the "revolutionary" left. The dictionary can call Hitler the "Nazi dictator of Germany" but Stalin merely the "Soviet premier, general secretary of the Communist party of the U.S.S.R." Mussolini is an "Italian dictator," but Tito is "Yugoslav Communist Party leader, prime minister and president of Yugoslavia." Franco is "dictator of Spain" and Salazar "prime minister and dictator of Portugal," but Mao Tse-tung is "Chinese Communist leader, chairman of the People's Republic of China and of its Communist Party."

And Lenin? "Russian leader of the Communist revolution of 1917, premier of the U.S.S.R." This seems especially unfair, since Lenin's writings openly urged the deadly ruthlessness with which he ruled. Still, a good bourgeois dictionary must not go too far.

It's not Wikipedia that is biased, but the sources. If that bothers you, you can always switch to a right-wing wiki and watch Fox News.

TFD (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I could only find two stylebooks that mention the issue. According to Reuters Handbook of Journalism, "Use of the word dictator implies a value judgment, so avoid it unless quoting someone."[handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=D&oldid=3147#dictator] The U.S. government information network Voice of America (VOA) says, "As with similar terms, use fairly across the political ideological spectrum."[8] But the VOA represents a certain bias. TFD (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Bashar al-Assad

Why has the OP felt it necessary to "fix" the Bashar al-Assad page? Did not that fellow work as an eye surgeon in a UK hospital, before fate called him back to do something that he did not wish to do? MPS1992 (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What bearing does that have on whether his rule is a dictatorship or not? AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the main distinction in U.S. media that authoritarians we like are called presidents while ones we dislike are called dictators? TFD (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un

As an example of the misguided ideas on this subject, my text which described the Kim regime as a "dictatorship" in Wiki voice has been changed into saying the Kim regime "is frequently considered" a dictatorship.[9] This attributedpov qualifier is completely unnecessary, and is in fact a brazen NPOV violation because it suggests that there is an active debate about whether Kim rules a dictatorship when there is ZERO debate about it. If the Kim regime is not a dictatorship, then there is simply no such thing as a dictatorship. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Just because there are no obvious contrary points to several RSes that say "X is Y" (eg whether that's "X is not Y" or "X is actually Z"), does not mean "X is Y" becomes fact in wikivoice, especially around labels, which "dictatorship" falls into. --Masem (t) 14:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Dictatorship is not a contentious opinion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Given what the rest that you added to support the idea of a dictatorship are all elements that are generally seen as "negatives" (lack of rights, free elections, etc.), the use of "dictatorship" in that sense is clearly a label. NK is a one-party state, legally, which is the factual element that should be stated, but under Jong-un (as Jong-il), it has all the appearances of a dictatorship, which is fully appropriate to point out, with attribution. --Masem (t) 15:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

We're not obliged to follow NK's own definition of itself ("legally"). Both North Korea and Syria define themselves as "republics", and NK even styles itself a "democracy" - should we write that in Wikivoice? François Robere (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be completely wrong to not factually state the form of government that NK has from their constitution. That's a hard fact. Whether the government is effectively run that way is a wholly separate manner , and its where one can say "NK is a one-party state as established by its constitution, but is commonly considered a dictatorship by political analysts." or something to that extent. That's a impartial, neutral statement but that still hits that there is a lot of criticism at the way NK is run. --Masem (t) 18:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Supporting what Masem has written, it is always preferable to attribute statements or labels of this kind. -Darouet (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

But constitutions themselves are only a meaningful feature of Western-style democracies - they carry very little weight in dictatorships, both formally and informally. Put differently: following NK's constitution doesn't actually means you're being "objective" - rather it means you're impose Western standards on a country that works completely differently. "Objectivity" here would be stating things as they are; and how do we know what they are? By following RS. François Robere (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As I posted above, the criterion is how they are normally described in reliable sources. Kim Jong un is normally described as the president of North Korea, while General Noriega was described as the dictator of Panama. That could be because left-wing dictators give themselves normal sounding titles such as president or premier while right-wing dictators call themselves duce or Fuehrer or Generalisimo or have no official titles at all, but let's follow the lead of mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

There is ZERO disagreement in the best available sources about how to describe Kim and his regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

See what I posted above. Reliable sources will say "Augusto Pinochet, dictator of Chile," but "Joseph Stalin, premier of the USSR." We follow the lead of reliable sources, not Fox News Channel hosts. BTW, why don't you ask us to refer to the kings of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc., that you view favorably as dictators? TFD (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are ranting about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to be persuasive, you might try to be polite to other editors. Anyway, read the explanation I entered above by Goldberg. TFD (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You are suggesting that the sources that I use are Fox News hosts (???), and that I support the authoritarian regimes of Saudi-Arabia and Jordan (???). Then, after making these unhinged and baseless accusations, you ask me to be polite about your absurd accusations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is what Sidney Goldberg wrote:

Castro is clearly not squeamish about using rhetoric straight out of the Marxist-Leninist handbook, or ruling Cuba the same way. And yet the imperialist bourgeoisie seems to be squeamish about labeling Castro for what he is. The latest edition of Webster's New World College Dictionary calls him merely: "Cuban revolutionary leader, prime minister and president." Sounds rather impressive--you can almost see it on the résumé for a MacArthur genius award. But is Castro a dictator? Apparently not enough of one to define him as such.

This is not the only instance of labeling-hesitation in Webster's New World--at least when the "leader" in question belongs to the "revolutionary" left. The dictionary can call Hitler the "Nazi dictator of Germany" but Stalin merely the "Soviet premier, general secretary of the Communist party of the U.S.S.R." Mussolini is an "Italian dictator," but Tito is "Yugoslav Communist Party leader, prime minister and president of Yugoslavia." Franco is "dictator of Spain" and Salazar "prime minister and dictator of Portugal," but Mao Tse-tung is "Chinese Communist leader, chairman of the People's Republic of China and of its Communist Party."

And Lenin? "Russian leader of the Communist revolution of 1917, premier of the U.S.S.R." This seems especially unfair, since Lenin's writings openly urged the deadly ruthlessness with which he ruled. Still, a good bourgeois dictionary must not go too far.

TFD (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting issue. I think this has to be discussed on the talk page of each article, as individual cases. I'd be happy to participate, and feel free to ping me if such individual discussions are started. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

United Nations page map

Fellow wikipedians,

For some time now there has been a dispute on which map to include on the introduction of the United Nations wikipedia page. It involves the following two:

1) United Nations Members (green–grey scheme) (the established map)

2) United Nations members de facto borders (the new map)

The green-scheme map broadly follows the norms of the UN and international diplomacy by keeping it to internationally recognized member-states.[10] It has also been used for several years on the page until recent edits brought up the issue. Lastly, it is used in over twenty languages across wikipedia.

The blue-scheme map highlights various de facto (unrecognized) states who are not members of the UN and is highly contentious as 'new' de facto states come and go every now and then and who is to say what a de facto state is? There is no broadly agreed upon standard. Moreover, it is only used one page and only on the English wikipedia.

I wish to receive feedback on this issue from neutral wikipedians who are are not politically invested in this topic.Wadaad (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

What is the source for the "de facto" map? Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: as far as I can tell. It has no source. Wadaad (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If it has no source, it should not be used. However I would like confirmation from someone not asking for support removing said map before I'd say explicitly that it should be taken down. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

What is the source of the green-gray "Establishment (sic) map"? I don't believe that the UN has that map on its official website. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wadaad, you left a long edit on my User Talk page with excuses for your most recent edit-warring regarding the United Nations article, and I replied in your Talk page to make sure that you see my response. Given that it explains my concerns with your methods of imposing your views on other editors, and the process that I believe would allow us to settle this controversy, I will include my response here as well.

First of all, the map that you wish to include in the article is not an NPOV presentation of the world, even if the UN pretends that Taiwan is ruled by the People's Republic of China and Kosovo is ruled by Serbia. It is misleading to color de facto states that are not members of the UN in the same color as UN member states. When readers see Taiwan colored green, their first thought will be that Taiwan must be part of the UN.

But more to the point, you have a lot of chutzpah to use the fact that you were blocked for edit-warring on this same article (and regarding this same issue) as the reason why you should be permitted to revert, without seeking a consensus, edits made during your month-long ban (which followed several shorter blocks for edit-warring). I'm no expert on Wikipedia's edit-warring policies, but I'm pretty sure that having been blocked from editing for a month because of your persistent edit-warring does not give you carte blanche to continue edit-warring on the same article the minute that your ban expired (or did you wait a full half hour before making your Bold reversion?). And once your Bold reversion was reverted, you should have gone to the Talk page and sought a consensus. Instead, you reverted a second time (and added a POV "clarification" that only made things worse), and when I was forced to revert you again and explain that when Bold reversions are themselves reverted that you should seek a consensus at the Talk page you then reverted for a third time. I'm not going to file a formal accusation of edit-warring (I prefer to talk things through), but it is likely that some other editor will do so unless you don't start acting more civilly.

On another matter, during your edit war last month, you also engaged in inappropriate canvassing when you sought out known anti-Taiwan editor Lo meiin (who soon thereafter was blocked indefinitely for his abusive behavior--most persistently against me--and POV pushing) and asked him to join the map discussion. I see that you now have invited SharabSalam to participate in the discussion of this new controversy, but you did so *without having commenced the discussion in the Talk page*. I am familiar with SharabSalam and, while we've had heated debates in the past, I can vouch for his fairness and civility: If you were seeking another Lo meiin, you will be disappointed. I also see that SharabSalam participated in the map discussion last month, so it was not inappropriate for you to invite him to a new discussion--but you need to start one at the Talk page.

In the spirit of civiliy and seeking a consensus, you should self-revert your third reversion, start a new discussion at the Talk page, and invite all participants in the prior discussion (including Ythlev, Vanilla Wizard and NightHeron) and other frequent collaborators in the United Nations article. But please cease with the edit-warring.

And I would be remiss if I did not add that the discussion of this topic should be open to all interested editors willing to follow the rules, including editors who are "politically invested" in the topic, whom Wadaad apparently wishes to exclude. For example, given that the blue map notes that the de facto Republic of Somaliland is not a UN member, while the green map colors it green as part of Somalia, an editor from Somalia could be said to be "politically invested" in the topic. However, I don't believe that Wadaad should be prohibited from opining just because he's Somalian, and neither should editors from Taiwan, the PRC, Kosovo, Serbia, Cyprus, Georgia, etc. be excluded. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Does the map pass wp:or and wp:v?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest we remove all maps from UN related articles. I have never seen the UN drawing maps with borders. This map borders are original research. If we want to mention the members of the UN we can just mention them, for God's sake, there is no need for a map in the infobox. The UN logo is enough in the infobox.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• I agree. If the maps were uncontroversial and/or sourced directly to the UN, that would be different. But as far as I can see, these maps are neither, and they're not even particularly helpful to a reader. The first map in the current United Nations article looks just like the whole world colored green, even if you click on it to magnify the size. There are a few white spots not colored green, but it's unclear whether those are countries not in the UN or just lakes. Deleting the maps would free editors' time for more worthwhile pursuits than endless disputes about Taiwan, Kosovo, etc. NightHeron (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm starting to like the idea of removing the maps. They're just not the best way to convey which polities are and are not part of the United Nations. The article Member states of the United Nations does a much better job at this by simply using a table. The best solution would be to direct readers to the list article where relevant, and simply use another graphic wherever the map is currently used.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 18:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Given that both maps could be misconstrued, and that (as SharabSalam mentioned) the article easily could list the 193 UN member states and 2 UN observer states (or else make a cross-reference to the Members of the United Nations article), I think that you three are on to something when you suggest that the article not include a map at all. Now, personally, I love maps, and a map that shows the few states (de facto or otherwise) that are not UN members would be of interest to me, but with the level of heartache that such map creates for some other editors I will support a decision not to include either map. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I just realized that the green-scheme map that colors green everything but for the strip of Western Sahara controlled by the SADR, the State of Palestine, Vatican City and (adding to the confusion) a few lakes currently appears at the top of the Member states of the United Nations article. If the editing community reaches a consensus that neither the green-scheme map nor the blue-scheme map should appear in the infobox of the United Nations article, may I assume that such consensus also would extend to the Member states of the United Nations article, where inclusion of either such map may lead to confusion? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I think any map with borders that demonstrate member states of the UN is problematic. Especially when it comes to disputed areas like China and Taiwan, Palestine and Israel etc etc. The borders in the maps implies that the UN recognize these borders. I think the logo and the flag, which also contain maps but without borders, are enough in the infobox. If we want to mention UN members we can simply create a table in the UN article or in the Member states of the United Nations article and make a link to it. Other editors might say that mentioning of the members of the United nations should be in the lead, we can put a link to member states of the UN in the infobox.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: If you mean is the map based on something outside Wikipedia, no, it is based on discussion on Wikipedia. At first I just took the base map, which is sourced, coloured the undisputed territories of member states and left everything else grey. Then the discussion led to me removing separate colouring for Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. I agree that not having maps is a good idea. Ythlev (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the discussion here that the United Nations members de facto borders map is WP:OR and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: WP:OI: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Is this particular way of categorising territories an "unpublished idea"? I think not. Ythlev (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think we should just remove the map from this article, or alternatively use the actual file the current map is based on (if the copyright allows). Any map we create will be lying to our readers, one way or another, either by claiming that certain governments control territory that they in fact do not control or by implying that the UN recognizes the existence of certain countries that it does not recognize. There are a half dozen or so cases in addition to Taiwan that make mapping the UN very messy. Perhaps for that reason, the UN doesn't present a map of member state territories in its sections about member states, and you have to do a bit of digging to find any map at all. Additionally, once you do, it has "The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country" and other disclaimers printed right on the image itself. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I vote for removing the map from the United Nations and Member states of the United Nations articles. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Great replacement: move discussion on use of "conspiracy theory" in the title

There is an ongoing move discussion regarding whether to move Great Replacement → Great replacement conspiracy theory. The discussion currently only has 4 participants, and has been relisted. Additional input would be helpful. Nblund ^talk 16:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

EOKA and torture lawsuit.

Hi all, I believe your help is needed concerning EOKA's article (a guerrilla struggle during 1955-59) and a lawsuit on torture that was filed ~55 years later. I believe a sentence or a couple of sentence would be enough, other users though believe a detailed section is needed.

My main argument is that torture allegations are discussed elsewhere in the article (section: Detention Camps and claims of torture"). The lawsuit is an unimportant issue per se, it was settled out-of-court, of course it was covered by some RS newspapers. A lot of RS talked about torture by UK, their opinions are mentioned elsewhere in the article, so it is like we are re-addressing the issue to tell a different story- a sensational one. Talking about the specific lawsuit and its details adds nothing to the article.

Currently, the specific section is 4,212 bytes, in an article of 52,611 bytes. That is ~8%. We skipped many serious events (ie tortures by EOKA - see Menoikos case, or the death toll of EOKA is summarized in a tiny single sentence). In my opinion, the lawsuit shouldnt be mentioned, but even if we mention it, it should be trimmed to 1-2 sentences. No secondary source is covering the specific lawsuit (apart from some newspapers reporting the news, I am not sure they are deemed secondary sources)

Pls @Dr.K.:, make the counterargument.Cinadon36 19:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

ITN and Barisha raid

On Wikipedia's front page, we currently state in Wikivoice that "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi kills himself during a US raid," when all reliable sources (and our article on the topic) attribute the claim of Baghdadi's suicide to Trump or US officials:

• The Atlantic [11] like the Abbasids, he is dead—smashed to bits, according to Trump, by a self-detonated suicide vest.

• NBC News [12] Trump said the ISIS leader "died like a dog, he died like a coward. He was whimpering, screaming, and crying."

• ABC News [13] The president said al-Baghdadi, "went into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way," and died when he detonated a suicide vest.

• Reuters [14] Baghdadi killed himself during the raid by detonating a suicide vest, Trump said in a televised address from the White House.

• BBC [15] The fugitive leader of the Islamic State (IS) group killed himself during a US military operation in north-west Syria, President Donald Trump has said.

• The Guardian [16] US president says jihadist leader detonated suicide vest in US raid in north-west Syria.

• Agence France-Presse [17] As U.S. troops bore down on al-Baghdadi, he fled into a “dead-end” tunnel with three of his children, Trump said, and detonated a suicide vest.

• Associated Press [18] US media cited multiple government sources as saying Baghdadi may have killed himself with a suicide vest as US special operations forces descended.

Based on these sources, our text should clearly be rephrased to something like Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead after a US raid in Idlib, Syria."

However, at In the News, otherwise very reasonable editors (e.g. pinging Masem for courtesy) are arguing that we should convert attribution to fact, unless a reliable source contests the nature of his death. This is really inappropriate, especially for something that is so easy to get right, and when every other reliable source is correctly attributing the claim. -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Press release as rebuttal

• Buy Nothing Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per [19], is a press release by Adbusters a valid source as a rebuttal for criticism in the following para:

While critics of the day charge that Buy Nothing Day simply causes participants to buy the next day,[6] Adbusters states that it "isn't just about changing your habits for one day" but "about starting a lasting lifestyle commitment to consuming less and producing less waste."[7]

I would argue not. Guy (help!) 15:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we attribute it, and seems to me they are an RS for what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes if this material can be considered "about self" and if this release is in reply to comments/criticism directed at Adbusters/their project. I'm not clear if Adbusters is the organizer and target of BND criticism or if they are a third party offering this in support of BND. Basically if the criticism of BND is DUE then we are making a better article by including a reasonable reply from the organizer (assuming Adbusters is the organizer). If this release was published as a general statement then only if it helps the reader understand the subject. In either case, attribution is required. Springee (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say, since Buy Nothing Day is very much an Adbusters thing, the test should be whether inclusion of the material would be unduly self-serving. In this case I don't think it is. As such, I'd think it's allowable under WP:ABOUTSELF though borderline. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

We are in agreement in this case but I don't think "unduly" enters into it here if the material was in response to criticism that we are discussing in the article. Springee (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The first part of the contention ("... critics of the day charge that Buy Nothing Day simply causes participants to buy the next day") does not seem reliably sourced (not what the on-line article (blog?) really says, nor would the 101 forum comments that follow it in any guise or format be a reliable source), nor does Wikipedia's "summary" seem free from WP:EDITORIAL, so I can live with the entire section being removed as it happens to be now, per WP:CRITICISM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If the discussion of the criticism is UNDUE then we should remove both. Springee (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The "rebuttal" isn't clearly related to the specific criticism at all. In fact it was written before the article cited as criticism. 199.247.44.10 (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

But it is a rebuttal of the criticisms is not not, just not that specific incident of it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, no, the segment wasn't written in response to any criticism at all. Positioning it there as a rebuttal is actually borderline OR. 199.247.44.10 (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Was it not, both were published on the same day (not one later), so how do you know one was not a reaction to the other?Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I'm now not sure what you're talking about. The Adbusters press release was written November 16th, the Tyee article November 24th. 199.247.44.10 (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake It was the title.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A trick I use to see if two contrasting viewpoints are being presented neutrally... swap the viewpoints. So, what happens if we put the two parts in reverse order, and say:

Adbusters states that BND “isn’t just about changing your habits for one day” but “about starting a lifetime commitment”. Meanwhile, critics state that it simply causes participants to buy the next day.

If this swap significantly changes the meaning then we have a neutrality problem. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Jack Posobiec

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.

---

The biographical section for this page is currently in dispute for neutrality (see: Talk:Jack_Posobiec). There are questions regarding balance and neutral point of view in the presentation of the biography of a living person. A particular point of contention is a disputed association of the subject with the alt-right. Credible, reliable sources indicate both an association and a non-association, but so far, any edits to include sources who categorize the subject as non-associated are reverted. Ihuntrocks (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The content you proposed on the talk page does not include any reliable sources to assert non-association with the alt-right and conspiracy theories, merely Posobiec's own denials. Your attempts to equate the significance of Posobiec's denials with the claims of apparently every reliable source represents a false balance. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A quick aside... Does anyone else find it hypocritical that we give self-expression significant weight on labels relating to gender... but NOT when it comes to labels relating to politics. I personally prefer to favor sources over self expression ... but it would be nice to have consistency, whichever way we go. Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Gender identity is personal, no one is a better authority on it than themselves, and most of our sources already defer to people's self descriptions anyway, so this is a false dichotomy. By contrast, most people are extremely bad at identifying their own ideologies, and people with unpopular or extreme viewpoints have a strong incentive to dissemble about their actual beliefs. Nblund ^talk 22:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Of the two sources provided, one (New Yorker) quite specifically outlines that Posobiec has organized and hosted events in direct opposition to the alt-right. This is a documented event, with credible, verifiable sourcing that is not a mere statement of association. With that being said, an individual's professed allegiance to an idea should be given weight, especially if it is expressed publicly with accompanying actions (see previous reference). See also the neutral point of view section on bias in sources, which states, "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." [emphasis added] If you can present a compelling case for why publicly demonstrated actions and professions of non-allegiance to the alt-right documented by credible and verifiable sources should not be included in light of existing policies, please state your case fully. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

For my part, I actually think we would be better off describing him as "far right/right wing" rather than "alt-right", but, no, we don't need to mention that he attended a rally in the intro, and your proposed edit went quite a bit further to downplay reliably sourced descriptions calling him a troll and a conspiracy theorist, whitewashed his connections to Pizzagate, and emphasized a bunch of non-notable stuff about his military record. It's pretty much a non-starter, and any valid point you might have about the alt-right is getting lost in a bunch of WP:FRINGE pov pushing that seeks to equate his wildly implausible denials with reliably sourced statements. Nblund ^talk 23:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: Thank you. The conversation moved on on the talk page from my original edit to address specific issues which are in contention. Continued reference back to the original edit only, without moving with the discussion, could be viewed as disingenuous participation. In keeping with the bias in sources section, if assertions are going to be made and cited in the bio section as they currently exist, then other available sources which are credible and verifiable should be presented alongside them to maintain a neutral tone, which is required by Wikipedia, and would not fall subject to the false balance issue if presented in accordance with those guidelines. The ultimate point here being that, if neutral or positive information cannot be presented alongside negative information (the page is overwhelmingly negative in tone and source selection), then those contentious statements may need to be removed entirely. I, however, feel that achieving a balance of sources and a neutral presentation of contentious information is preferable. Since you have replied here, I'd like you to address the issue above brought up by Smoeguy1221 and answered by me. It could be best to address one point at a time, and this is a good starting point. Ihuntrocks (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not disingenuous to reference the edit that you have been warring over. I don't know what, specifically, you're asking me to address, but I suspect it has already been answered above. Nblund ^talk 23:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: Thank you for responding. The specific issue in question here is listed above and relates to the event organized and hosted by the subject in direct opposition to the alt-right. You're being asked to address why a sourced assertion can be included in the biography when it favors your chosen narrative about the subject of the page, but a credible and verifiable source documenting public actions by the subject in direct opposition to the alt-right (the claim in contention) should be eschewed, despite Wikipedia's suggestions for dealing with source bias and policies regarding accusations about subjects in biographies of living persons. It would be helpful if you could clear that up with specific respect to the policies and the item mentioned. The source is included in the comment above in reply to Someguy1221 and was included in my original edit (if we must continue to refer back to it, rather than to where the talk page and this specific discussion have progressed). Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Because WP:DUE weight means we give greater prominence to things that are more widely covered. Nblund ^talk 23:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The contention that WP:DUE is meant to indicate that verifiable and credible sources may not be included is not convincing. It is not being requested that more weight (space) be given to the view, nor even equal weight. What is being asked is that appropriate weight be given to bring the article in line with the second example found in Public Figures section of the BLP guidelines to state that there is an alleged association with the alt-right which is contested by verifiable actions. Stating that there is evidence that something is contested would not be undue weight; it would be factual, neutral, and verifiable.

In this case, please see The New Yorker as an example of a credible source which reports on an event -- one organized specifically against the alt-right. In terms of sourcing for the current contents of the page, only two of the sources qualify as reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines on news organization as sources, as the third (cited as [4])is an op-ed/analysis piece and is disqualifed by Wikipedia's standards. Of the two remaining sources, both simply label Posobiec as "alt-right" without providing evidence to substantiate or contextualize it. Wikipedia's own page on the alt-right indicates that it is a white nationalist movement. None of the three sources, even the invalid source cited as [4] provide evidence to substantiate that Posobiec is a white nationalist -- nor do they ever allude to him being so. This section should actually be deleted immediately as unsourced or poorly sourced information, per policy. In this case, the additional source from NBC, despite containing a claim from the primary source (Posobiec) about his political affiliation, is discussed by a reliable second source (NBC), and by policy can be used to augment The New Yorker source. In this context, the article should be updated to reflect that Posobiec is identified as a "conservative Republican" or "New Right" with removal of references to the alt-right, as there is no reliable source cited in the article to support this. Ihuntrocks (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute tag has been removed less than 24 hours after being added while discussion is still active on NPOV noticeboard and Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. The edit summary associated is simply "Not buying it," which doesn't seem to satisfy the criteria for removal in the when to remove guidelines. Sources used currently in the article are disputed under several Wikipedia guidelines, as is the tone of the article. At present, an insufficient number of people have joined the discussion. Clarification is requested. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The talk page NPOV dispute section has now been closed with an incorrect assertion that I have "dropped" the dispute. It is possible that this issue (NPOV on page) will require an RfC from uninvolved editors. Ihuntrocks (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have re-opened the talk page discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (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.

Far-right anti-LGBT canvassing to No-go area

See this twitter with 16K followers calling disciples into action.AstuteRed (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite ironic that a brand new SPI account would complain about canvassing. There appears to be all kinds of shenanigans going on on this article from all sorts of folks. Volunteer Marek 14:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Also https://www.wykop.pl/link/5198225/wedlug-wikipedii-w-polsce-istnieja-no-go-zones/ and https://www.wykop.pl/link/5199751/strefy-no-go-w-polsce-w-wikipedii-dalszy-ciag-walki/ I checked the comments using Google translate and there are plans to flood the article with bogus information as well as deleting things. Also see WP:NOSOLICIT and WP:CANVAS. // Liftarn (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There very well might be such comments buried somewhere in there, but at least on the first link most of the discussion is about whether... rainbow colored park benches in Kielce cost the government 6k zloty or 60k. The general consensus seems to be that if it’s 6k zloty (about 1500$) then that’s fine, but 60k (about 15000$) is too much for a park bench, even if it is rainbow colored. Kielce is in one of those supposedly “LGBT free zones” (sic) so there’s some surprise about these benches being put up in the first place. Volunteer Marek 14:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That article is already terrible to begin with. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Aside from being horribly written and organized it’s an obvious POV pushing magnet. Volunteer Marek 14:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Judicial murder, lawful killing or execution

@Scope creep, DIYeditor, and Gwenhope:The use of the word executed is too sanitary and anesthetic when used for the judicial murder of persons, by the state. The same thing goes for the word phrase lawful killing ". A lawful killing is execution by the state,or if you will state sanctioned murder.

When speaking of people put to death for the crime of murder we might use the euphemism: executed, or judicial murder. What then of people put to death, as in Iran, Saudi Arabia for adultery or homosexuality, or authoritarian countries for political reasons. These are lawful (judicious) murders by the law of the land. Hitler had thousands of political opponents judiciously murdered,and millions more murdered simply because of their ethnicity or some undesirable feature. So is it a white wash of a horrific event to call the judicicious murder of some resister, adulterer, pr homosexual execution a lawful killing? And what is an "unlawful killing" anyway. Killings by their nature are unlawful, unless carried out by the state, ostensibly (but not necessarily) after being given due process of law. Then they are actually judicious murders. Or as the coroner reports, "Death by homocide".

So how do we refer to these events in article names and in the articles themselves.? Oldperson (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. Please see: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The word we should use is “executed”. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.Blueboar I am familiar with and thought about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am not trying to right a great wrong, but to be accurate. Wwhenever the state murders someone for what ever reason we call it an execution, and we only use the word murder or killing when it is done by an individual. So Adolph didn't murder anyone he only executed them. How about the phrase "Unlawful Killing"? It is nonsense, A lawful killing is murder by the state (execution) all other murders, by definition are unlawful. Is that not so?Oldperson (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

For anyone's information, this stems from List of unlawfully killed transgender people. No, Oldperson, as I already told you, other lawful killings may include self defense, defense of another, assisted suicide, accidental deaths not caused by negligence, acts of war, and possibly other circumstances. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Lawful killings include whichever killings the the relevant authorities deem to be lawful, and these are not murders, by definition. Lawful killings occurring outside of proscribed court procedures may be accurately termed extrajudicial killings. Where there is a dispute over the lawfulness of a killing or the identity of relevant authority (perhaps involving an authority of disputed recognition, or a conflict between national and international law), that dispute is settled by using or describing the language found in reliable sources. In fact, there should not be a dispute as far as Wikipedia is concerned unless there is a dispute in the reliable sources to begin with. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Someguy1221Thanks, that clears up a lot.What then is the diff between an "unlawfull killing" and a murder. I am not trying to be cute here, but this is a serious question. The beheading of tens of thousands of political prisoners by the NAZI's were lawful killings. Stoning, beheading, hanging for adultery, homosexuality or political dissent in Iran, Saudi Arabia, China or many other countries are lawful killings. And the extermination of peoples by official decree are lawful killings. The answer, if I interpret you correctly is that we are to resort to RS for proper terminology. If the opinion in some RS calls it a lawful killing, then so it is, if another journalist in another RS calls it murder then so it is, if there is a conflict. we seek out a plurality. The death of a Saudi journalist in an Embassy in Turkey is a lawful killing, because it occurs on Saudi territory under the direction of the supreme authority of Saudi Arabia. I think I understand now. it is situational.What is a lawful killing in one country is judged to be murder by another country. Say, for instance, dissent in county X is punishable by death, then dealing death with an expat is a lawful killing. Salman Rushdie had a fatwa (a ruling by recognized religious authorities and the country of Iran) of death issued against him by the mullahs of Iran, killing him, anytime, anywhere would be a lawful killing, if I understand your explanation.Oldperson (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In all of the situations you present, there will be inevitable conflicts in the terminology used, if not between reliable sources, than at least between involved parties. If someone were to kill a person in Country A after being given permission by Country B, there is a conflict of appropriate legal authority. If a national government were to endorse a genocide, this is likely to be condemned and possibly even punished under the guise of some international authority. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide which nation's laws apply, whether they were followed, or whether international law matters. Follow the reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, executed is the correct term for this particular form of barbarism. Guy (help!) 15:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUM —DIYeditor (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Guy It is quite telling, and disgusting, how we humans choose to sanitize the things we do to each other. Execution may be the correct term, when carried out by a state against its own citizens, but execution is just another name for murder. Murder is murder, regardless of who does it, where it is done or by whom? Execution is murder, but we do santize our activities don't we.

However for WP purposes I guess execution and unlawful killings will have to do, however I do think that the word murder should be used rather than "unlawful killings"Oldperson (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Saints

Saint Peter, Saint Nicholas and Saint Joseph etc. I feel that Wikipedia is biased towards Christianity than other religions. We cant put (prophet) next to Muhammad article yet we have these articles describing Christian leaders as Saints. Should we change the titles?.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In part this has been done because Peter, Nicholas and Joseph are already taken. For the handful of named Islamic prophets whose given name has an article about the name itself, there is an article of the form NAME_(Prophet). Obviously, <HONORIFIC>_NAME is inconsistent with NAME_(<HONORIFIC>). Many figures from the Hebrew Bible get titles of the form NAME_(BIBLICAL_FIGURE). There have been at least a dozen discussions over moving Saint Peter to another title, all of which land at "no consensus". Anyway, conclusion, these title are the result of necessary disambiguation, but the solutions are extremely inconsistent. By the way, I am only attempting to provide a description of the issue - not to argue any which way. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you raise some good points, and would be interested in seeing a discussion somewhere about changing the way these are disambiguated. I will note that Someguy's assessment of the situation seems spot on; it is not done as a means to grant extra status to these figures, but as a means of expediency to draw a distinction between these and other articles of the same title; for example other Christian figures such as Bartholomew the Apostle or John the Evangelist have been disambiguated other ways. I don't believe that the intent was nefarious, as the OP implies, but agree that situation is inconsistent with both Wikipedia policy and with other similar cases. --Jayron32 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

In addition to what the two above posters said, WP:COMMONNAME. the three you mentioned are most commonly known as "Saint <their name>" whereas Muhammad is known to everyone but Muslims as, well, Muhammad.

Plus your insinuation that this is a purposeful bias makes you look petulant or jealous. 2604:6000:FFC0:54:5D97:40B6:3599:6C13 (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a rather rude assumption of bad faith on the part of the OP. The point that these are disambiguated using their honorific is a valid concern, given that other people are not. WP:COMMONNAME only makes ssense when there is a single, very obvious common name we can point to; in these cases there are multiple, easily recognizable common names. No Wikipedia guidance exists in isolation, and in these cases WP:HONORIFIC also needs to be taken into account, especially since in many of these cases we can come up with another, rather obvious and very common name that ALSO abides by other Wikipedia guidance better. --Jayron32 17:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Jayron32, Someguy1221 and the IP, in my opinion the problem here are the articles that contain "Saint" or anything that implies holiness. I am not saying that we should make the article title of Mohammad as "Prophet Muhammad" or "Muhammad (the prophet)" I am saying that we should change articles titles that contain implications of holiness, which are mostly Christian related articles. Wikipedia should not be used as a hagiography. Most editors in Wikipedia are probably Christians which is probably why Wikipedia is written from a Christian perspective. I am not saying that they purposely did make wikipedia biased towards Christianity, not at all, it is their religion and they are writing what they know. See for example in FAQs it says The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. There is also the argument of sources and COMMONNAME in which the common name is biased but I would note that "Saint" here is a honorific term that should be not regarded as a title and I think for example in Saint Peter the name should be changed to "Simon Peter". I don't have much knowledge in Christianity but I think we can use the full names of these Christian Saints if there is any to disambiguate instead of using the honorific terms. If there is no full name then I think the honorific term should be change to NAME_(Christian Saint). Sorry for the late reply I was busy these days and I totally forgot about this discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I wonder how many readers will know that Simon Peter refers to Saint Peter? I didn't know that his first name was Simon. You are completely correct about Christian bias, but it's not necessarily Wikipedia's fault and not necessarily related to the religious backgrounds (if any) of Wikipedia editors. The English language itself, which has been dominated for centuries by two Christian-majority countries (UK and US), has a strong Christian bias. This might be gradually changing as the proportion of non-Christian English-speakers (even in those two countries) increases. To give an example, in some public school systems in the US, teachers are instructed to refer to the break in late December as the "winter vacation" and not say "Christmas vacation" out of respect for non-Christian students. I think that the best response to the bias in common English usage is not to rename Wikipedia articles with titles that would confuse many readers (such as Simon Peter rather than Saint Peter), but rather to be sure that articles related to Christian subjects are balanced and give ample coverage to criticisms. For example, I was very glad to see that there's an article Criticisms of Mother Teresa. Note that the article's title still refers to her as Mother Teresa, although the content of the article makes it clear that "motherly" might be the wrong word for her. NightHeron (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Some honorifics are just so ubiquitous in English usage that they become the individual's name (i.e. Augustus, Genghis Khan). Anecdotal I know, but prior to this discussion I'd have drawn a complete blank if someone asked me who "Simon Peter" or "Nicholas of Bari" were. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Climate Crisis redux

Past discussions on the use of "climate crisis" on Wikipedia concentrated on the timing of such use, claiming that "not enough climate scientists use the term, so we shouldn't either."[20][21] Counter claims include the fact that "hard" scientists are trained against using superlatives, resulting in under-use even where appropriate; and that the term "crisis" is in the realm of the social sciences and humanities, and scientists in these fields use the term frequently. Well, these concerns should be resolved now: the "Alliance of World Scientists" - a 23,000 strong network - had published a "call to arms" titled World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency, signed at the time of publication by over 11,000 scientists, most of which from the earth and atmospheric sciences, and biology. The statement includes such language as: "climate emergency", "catastrophic threat" and "climate crisis".

This should be more than enough for us to allow the use of "climate crisis" and "climate emergency" in Wikivoice. François Robere (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why didn't you ask this question on the article talk page before coming here? Your last edit to the talk page was 2 Sept. It seems like the talk page should have been the first stop before coming here. BTW, the material was correctly removed as out of scope for an article: "This article is about the term or expression, "Climate crisis". For substantive discussion of the current warming of the Earth's climate system, see Global warming. For an understanding of any enduring change in the Earth's climate system, see Climate change (general concept)." Springee (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Because this isn't about the article, it's about terminology across Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• There was an extensive discussion of this exact issue two months ago at Talk:Climate crisis#Wikivoice and "climate crisis". In that discussion there was no consensus that it was now okay to use the term "climate crisis" in Wikipedia's voice; the majority of participating editors disagreed with such a change. It is not appropriate, per WP:FORUMSHOP, to reopen the discussion here so soon after the discussion in September. NightHeron (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I know and I linked to it. The point is there is new material to consider from yesterday. François Robere (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• By your own admission the material is new. Wikipedia shouldn't blaze the trail and act as an agent of linguistic change. Unless you can show that there is a clear consensus among scientist and researchers, not activists, politicians etc, then we should use terms with a neutral tone. It also isn't clear that this newly released paper actually indicates a change in language or something else or was simply the phrasing selected by the authors with the intent to create urgency in the readers. Springee (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• We're not blazing any trails here, but following RS' consensus. Can you show a better way of showing consensus than a letter signed by thousands of RS? As for a "change in language":

Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation... we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.

François Robere (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That makes a pretty clear case that the authors want to change the language, not that the language has already changed. Wikipedia waits until the language has changed. That could be judged in perhaps 5-10 years. Not the day after the paper. Springee (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

So 11,000+ people (plus the UN, and other governmental, non-governmental and scientific bodies) "changing their language" isn't good enough? François Robere (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Who exactly are these 11,000+ people? What exactly did they sign? Was it in English each time? Has the language demonstrably changed in the scientific literature (not the political/advocating stories) since then? Do you have any RSs that indicate this paper has resulted in a change? Springee (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Scientists, researchers, and other scholars in the fields of earth and atmospheric sciences, and biology. There's a list - you can check for yourself.

Has the language demonstrably changed This letter is the evidence. It's thousands of RS using those terms. You're moving the goal posts claiming this isn't enough to show use. François Robere (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If the letter "is" the evidence, then its inclusion in an article that is strictly about the term "climate crisis" constitutes original research. There needs to be secondary sources that have discussed that specific letter's impact on the change in language/ how it relates to a reframing of climate change in order for it to be included. Zortwort (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not about inclusion anywhere, it's about "Wikivoice". François Robere (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Springee, Really? To my reading it makes it clear that the scientists want to explicitly join the general consensus that this is an emergency, and use a term that already has widespread currency in the non-scientific literature, rather than continuing to use the cautious language which is being exploited by denialists to minimise the problem. Guy (help!) 14:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. So you should be able to show that the new scientific term is "climate emergency" vs "climate change". Also, you presuppose that the current consensus is "climate emergency". Let's say this paper is the cross over point. After this paper the future scientific works will start to refer to changes in various climates not as a change in the ecosystem due to "climate change" but a change in the ecosystem due to the "climate emergency". How long should Wikipedia wait to decide there has been a new consensus? Conversely, if we were to look at the papers published by some of those 11,000 signatories or even the authors, and find that they continued to use the term "climate change", would we decide this isn't really a consensus for a new term? Let's keep the emotions out and logic in here. Springee (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Springee:

1. There is pretty clear consensus that "climate change" is going to be disastrous.
2. The term "crisis" has been in use for some time by those scientists concerned with crises - political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, crisis management experts and economists.
3. We don't need consensus for any one term, because multiple terms can be used in parallel. This is the case here. François Robere (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Scientists often sign advocacy statements and reports that use strong wording, but don't necessarily use the same language in their other writing. Do we know that all of those 11,000 scientists would use terms such as "climate emergency" even in their non-advocacy writing? For example, if they're invited to write an article for a traditional encyclopedia, would they use that term in the encyclopedia's voice? Also, is it really the case that denialists are basing their arguments on cautious language by scientists? You might be right about that, but it's not clear to me. NightHeron (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron, True, but this is an unusually large number of them and an unusually emphatic statement. As to the substantive question, I believe we go through three phases of development of a phrase like this.

1. Promulgation / early adoption, where WP:ATT applies: Thunberg spoke of a "climate emergency"...
2. Mainstreaming, where we can repeat it without explicit attribution but only where the term is correct in context: Scientists discussing mechanisms for addressing the climate emergency considered various approaches... but some politicians reject the need for urgent action on climate change not the climate emergency
3. General acceptance, which is the current case with climate change and climate change denialism, which we use in wiki-voice.

I don't think we're at 3 yet, but we probably are at 2. Guy (help!) 15:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I just think we have to be extra careful about terms that are emotionally loaded and easily misinterpreted by the public. Terms like "crisis" and "emergency" can be misinterpreted to mean (1) we're facing calamity in the immediate future (rather than within a few decades), or that (2) anyone who's devoting energy to any other issue (economic inequality, racism, sexism, human rights) should drop that and prioritize climate activism. NightHeron (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron, Looking at the raging twelve-appliance fire that is Western politics right now, it is easy to see why people are keen to reinforce the urgency of dealing with climate change, because we might not have time to wait for sane governments before it's too late (if it isn't already). I don't think it's alarmist to describe climate change as a crisis or an emergency. One might justly debate the level of climate induced extinction, suffering and death that reaches the level of crisis, but that would be to risk asking the fabled frog how he feels when the water is just below blood temperature. Guy (help!) 16:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I doubt any of the editors involved in this discussion disagree about the urgency of the climate crisis. But objections to using terms like "climate crisis" and "climate emergency" are serious, non-fringe, and shared by many people who agree about the urgency. In addition to the reasons given in Climate crisis#Concerns about crisis terminology, another important viewpoint is that the term "climate crisis" understates the problem. The term "climate crisis" can be criticized for suggesting to the public that it's an isolated issue. But the impact will be felt soonest and most acutely by the poor, the powerless, and the people of color. That is, we're not talking about a future with bad weather; we're talking about social and ecological dystopia. Many (such as Naomi Klein) see the crisis as inseparable from other consequences of capitalist excess, and would like to see coordinated activism that focuses on climate change in conjunction with class oppression, racial oppression, and violation of human rights. One of the sources for our discussion praises CNN for getting its viewers to switch to bamboo toothbrushes, thereby undoubtedly feeling that they've contributed to averting the crisis. There's a long history of trivial actions, press releases about "sustainability", and corporate cooptation of environmentalism. Lip service -- strong words and emotional pronouncements -- is not the same thing as activism. NightHeron (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Scientists often sign advocacy statements and reports that use strong wording, but don't necessarily use the same language in their other writing So what? Why does this statement - a statement of consensus - less worthy than any individual paper? François Robere (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: I'm not saying that the statement signed by 11,000 is "less worthy". It is worthy as advocacy, and there is nothing wrong with advocacy by scientists or anyone else. My point, rather, is that the style of writing in an encyclopedia should resemble scholarly/scientific writing more than it should resemble advocacy writing -- in the sense of using factual rather than emotional terms. Thus, although the 11,000 might agree that strong language is appropriate for advocacy writing, they do not necessarily agree that it is appropriate in their own scientific writing. NightHeron (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Would you agree to stating in Wikivoice that "the change would result in a crisis in so and so" (economy, migration, water distribution etc. etc.)? This is widely agreed upon by sources, and is routinely described in papers discussing the human consequences of climate change (eg. [22][23][24][25]). François Robere (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: It would be fine to write something like "Several researchers and environmental organizations have stated that climate change will result in economic, social, and political as well as ecological crises" followed by several references to those researchers and organizations. That would not be in Wikivoice, since the use of "crisis" is being attributed to reliable sources, rather than being a word choice of an editor. NightHeron (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I know there are numerous papers that present well-supported events that will happen in many geographical and topical spheres of influence, but they are all theories and predictions. They still cannot be presented in wikivoice as fact. A statement like "70% of the world's icebergs would thaw at a 1.5 degC average temperature increase" is not appropriate - we don't know how factually true that is, but "It is estimated that 70% of the world's icebergs would thaw at a 1.5 degC temperature increase" with one or more immediate sources would be fine. --Masem (t) 16:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Science is by definition all about theories and predictions... Regardless, how are we with ongoing climate-related crises? eg. associating Cal. fires to global warming? François Robere (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It usually takes years/decades/centuries of observations that conform to the theory to justify treating the theory as fact, eg something like the principles of Quantum mechanics can be taken as fact as we have years of understanding and evidence that all conform to the basic tenets. We have not seen a "climate crisis" so it remains theory and prediction, and thus can't be taken as fact in Wikivoice. We don't have strong confirmation that the fires in California are tied directly to climate change, though elements of climate change do directly provide reasons for these fires (drought, unusual weather patterns, etc.) --Masem (t) 19:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

So essentially you're taking the freedom to determine what is "fact" and what isn't, rather than relying on scientists' consensus. François Robere (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

No, we'd look to sources, where there should be dozens/hundreds of proper research papers to support that a theory holds. The case here , trying to argue we are in a climate crisis, is based on only a handful of sources, nowhere need that level of sufficient support to make it a "fact". I would also suspect that in general, for events that are predicted to happen, that until they happen, most research-based sources will take care to call the event happening as a fact, and would still use weaker assertive language, that something is likely to happen but not saying explicitly it will happen. --Masem (t) 20:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Note there is a distinction between scientists' consensus and scientific consensus; and that it is the latter that we should be interested in when determining what to couch as fact in Wikipedia's voice. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• The OP's explanation of the lack of consensus on crisis language (that "'hard' scientists are trained against using superlatives") is far from the only or the best explanation. For some of the other reasons why many scientists prefer not to use "such language as: climate emergency, catastrophic threat and climate crisis," see Climate crisis#Concerns about crisis terminology. NightHeron (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't make any such claim. I said it's one of the explanation, and that it - along with any other - is irrelevant now that we have thousands of subject experts signed on a letter using that terminology. François Robere (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

We know that the "crisis" terminology is still controversial in the mainstream, as is the more-used term "climate emergency". Maybe in ten years, after there's an historically horrific undeniably-climate-related disaster, the mainstream will actually replace "climate change" with "climate crisis". But the mainstream and a few influential politicians^{T cough ru cough mp} are still largely in denial or deflection, so for the time being it is the term "climate crisis", including its controversiality, that should be recognized. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's something on "mainstream". François Robere (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Again: using examples of use of the term, mainstream or not, would constitute original research (see WP:OR). Additional observations about the "climate crisis" characterization are at this diff. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This isn't an "example", but agreement among over 150 "mainstream" media outlets... François Robere (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify that sentence? I don't understand what you mean by "but disagreement among over 150 "mainstream" media outlets." Thanks. The reason for citing WP:OR is that an editor is gathering evidence to show that "crisis" is becoming the consensus term in RS, but is not finding any citations to RS that say something to the effect that "'crisis' is becoming the consensus term." Meanwhile, the understanding of other editors is that there is still disagreement among climate scientists and others about whether or not non-advocacy sources (such as scientific publications and encyclopedias) should use the term "crisis" in their own voice. NightHeron (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Corrected - "agreement". Primary sources (eg. scholars referring to X as Y) are usually sufficient to establish consensus - we don't usually look for meta-analyses on terminology. Hence, agreement among 150 outlets and 11,000+ scientists should be sufficient to establish mainstream use. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

But mainstream use is not the same thing as consensus. To establish that there's a new consensus, that is, that there is no longer controversy among mainstream sources, you need sources that say that. An editor's own selective examination of primary sources does not establish that there's consensus. NightHeron (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Wide mainstream use is. Regardless, this isn't our concern - sources already agree that climate change will be disastrous, and that's the only thing we as an encyclopedia should be concerned about. The political and PR reasons for using or not using some term on popular media, which you agree are the causes of this "controversy", don't apply to us. François Robere (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I read "climate crisis" in the same sense as "humanitarian crisis" - it is a type of LABEL geared to draw people into well-intended action, but does have a certain emotional weight to it, ala the calls of "won't someone think of the children?!". We should avoid such terms until they have more consistent use, which is probably going to take more than than past reports and a single paper that is supported by thousands of scientists, even if it comes after the fact of a point of no return in terms of the climate change issue; remember that WP is not here to right great wrongs and that includes being amoral to something as severe as climate change (that is: we clearly recognize it in Wikivoice, but we have to be careful of dramatizing it in Wikivoice). And even it were to become an accepted term, the use of the term would still need to be judges related to the context and sources around it. A topic that dealt with the state of climate change 5-10 years ago should not suddenly be changes to push the "climate crisis" language into it. --Masem (t) 14:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

MasemThe voice of wikipedia is the voice of the common vernacular, save where the article is technical, such as in computer programming, medicine, science, engineering, etc. If the common vernacular speaks of "climate crisis" then so should wikipedia. There is dispute over the terms "global warming" and "climate change" because the carbon industry and their handmaidens in press and politics used the word "warming" to distract and confuse the public, like when a U.S. Senator shows up on the floor of the senate with a snowball and uses that to scoff at "global warming", and wikipedia even reflects that fact with articles on both. The situation is mired in money and power and wikipedia is caught up in the politics of it all trying to remain neutral, yet neutral they are not, because WP is in fact choosing sides, by treating climate change global warming as two different subjects, and now arguing against "climate crisis". By the time the crisis is recognized it will be too late. The world was in crisis in 1937, it wasn't recognized until Sep 1,1939 and then it was too late. And I assume that you, Masem, speak English as a second (or third or fourth)language, you do well, very wellexcept that you should have used the past tensed "judged" instead of judges and "changed" instead of changes.Oldperson (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia's voice is impartial (that's set in NPOV). The discussion around climate change does have some impartial aspects (it is happening, humans have contributed to it, it is of major concern), but it also has some very biased language in the larger discussion that is meant to draw people into action (calling it a crisis or emergency), and that's what we cannot get involved with, especially given WP:RECENTISM. It is a politically-charged area, and we have to stay out of those politics. --Masem (t) 16:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Masem, true, but playing down the importance of climate change is in itself a political stance. I think we are now at a point where we don't need to pretend that it's a minority or fringe view, we can use it without saying "according to..." if a source uses it, but we also don't assert it as fact or apply it when sources don't. Guy (help!) 17:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG and Masem:Major point Guy. Never thought of it, but you are absolutely correct, at this point in time pretending that climate crisis is a fringe or minority view is in fact taking a political point of view, and abandoning NPOV. There is another axiom to bear in mind, "silence=assent".Oldperson (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"Climate crisis" is certainly no longer a FRINGE view, I will agree with that, but based on the limited sources and RECENTISM, it should be treated as a minority view with respect to UNDUE and other facets of NPOV, particularly given it is loaded language. Wikivoice should not pretend climate change doesn't exist nor that it isn't caused by humans, no question; the scientific basis of this ideas is far too great to dismiss over thousands of peer-reviewed papers. But being asked to put this as "climate crisis" in Wikivoice based on a much smaller number of papers is not appropriate here. We can certainly be assertive in that "Over 11,000 scientists supported the statement that the world is undergoing a climate crisis and action must be taken immediately." - that gets the emphasis across in Wikivoice without violating NPOV. --Masem (t) 19:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

based on the limited sources and RECENTISM, it should be treated as a minority view with respect to UNDUE and other facets of NPOV Are you commenting on the language or the actual thing? François Robere (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Both the way this discussion is being presented. As I see it, "climate change" is the more general term for anything like global warming, global cooling, etc. I know that all of what is being talked about is the climate change since the 20th century, which we know cannot be strictly blamed on external factors and which we know was human-caused to a significant degree, so unless its clear from context, I read "climate change" to refer to what's happening now. The question being asked seems to be if we should call this period a "climate crisis" instead, but that itself is really a different concept, in that there is climate change but that dealing with it is utmostly critical. That is not as much of a scientific assessment as compared to determining if there is climate change occurring, but is a combination of science, politics, social views, etc. While I personally agree that we are in a climate crisis, as a WP editor we don't have the sufficient sourcing or time to be able to yet just that we should call the current climate change period as a climate crisis in Wikivoice, but would certainly assert that this has been called such with attribution is fine. --Masem (t) 20:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: You're assuming "crisis" is just a "buzzword", but it isn't. When there's famine in Yemen and a whole generation of children is at risk of stunted growth and death, that is a crisis. When tens of thousands of people have to be evacuated in California because of wildfires, that is a crisis. We don't need to wait ten years for the terminology on either to stabilize. François Robere (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should talk about the electrical grid maintenance crisis in California. Springee (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If sources name it so, why not? We can certainly talk about scandals shortly after the fact. François Robere (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Masem has addressed your concerns quite effectively. Wikipedia is not an advocacy site and we should use neutral language even when dealing with politically charged topics, especially when the politically loaded language has not been established as the consensus language. Springee (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

On the basis of neutral point of view, it would seem most appropriate to continue using the term "climate change" as the general reference term. In any sections dedicated to controversy specifically, the terms "climate crisis" or "climate emergency" could be used if given proper in-text attribution to the source(s) of those labels. This would be in line with the predominate coverage by reliable sources over time. François Robere, while your sources may indeed be WP:RS compliant, they are all very recent (dated within the last 48 hours from the reflinks generated). It might be useful to review the policy on recentism to evaluate whether they should be given the weight that you are advocating (see also due weight). For the discussion format I've been watching, it might also be useful to review the policy on bludgeoning the process for ideas on how you might help foster a more productive discussion. That's all I have, and I'll go back to watching for the time being. Thank you all. Ihuntrocks (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Just clarifying that I'm not pushing to replace the term as a "general reference term", only for allowing other terms in Wikivoice alongside it. François Robere (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: No, he didn't. Again, calling famine a "crisis" isn't more or less objective than calling the effects of global warming "crises". The only reason not to do so is politics. François Robere (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

François Robere, please see the definition of bludgeoning in the context of discussion. Ihuntrocks (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUM issue or wrong location for oblique accusations about Wikipedia editors from persistent FORUM/SOAP/RIGHTGREATWRONGS violator. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Francoise Robere An observation. There are scores of known paid editors. What is not known is the number and identity of editors paid by corporations, foundations, like the Koch Brothers, nation states like the Saudi's and the Iranians, not to mention infamous Putin that monitor select pages of WP, and are expert at carefully crafting edits, arguments and reverts to comply with WP policy and guidelines and civily pushing POV's that protect their patrons . These would be expertly skilled craftspersons at wordmongering Slipping below the radar and even attaining admin status, tactics include slapping on templates and use WP:AFG, DUE, UNDUE,SOAP, FORUM, BLUDGEON,, etc all are part of their expert tool kit.Not saying that all users of these devices are paid or nefarious, but they are tools to be used by those with expertiseOldperson (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Retracted. François Robere (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Discussion continues. François Robere (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem wrote: "We can certainly be assertive in that "Over 11,000 scientists supported the statement that the world is undergoing a climate crisis and action must be taken immediately." - that gets the emphasis across in Wikivoice without violating NPOV." He also said: (he) would certainly assert that this (climate change) has been called such (climate crisis) with attribution is fine. If that is 'fine' and doesn't violate NPOV, why was all reference to the 11,000 scientists calling it a crisis deleted?

And if @Springee thinks that "Masem has addressed your (François Robere's) concerns quite effectively" (which appears to suggest he agrees with Masem that we can assertively state that over 11,000 scientists supported the statement that the world is undergoing a climate crisis without violating NPOV) why has the reference to the 11,000 scientists not been reinstated? Notagainst (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

As Francois Robere has pointed out to myself as well, this section is not about the content's inclusion in Climate crisis but about wikivoice. So saying, the reasons for not including your reference to this statement by 11000 "scientists" is independent of the point that Masem is arguing. The content you're referring to was removed from Climate crisis as it was out of scope. Another point I'd like to make, which has been under the nose of everyone here for some time, is that the paper that Francois Robere is referring to, which was allegedly signed by 11000 scientists, was in fact not vetted for credentials in any way. A cab driver in Hamilton got his name on as a signee by calling himself a scientists of "BS detection and analysis." Also on the list of signees are "Micky Mouse" and "Dumbledore". Robere's claim that this list represents "11000 reliable sources" is not accurate-- the reliability of those who have signed this release is in no way guaranteed. Zortwort (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying its acceptable to use the term climate crisis in wikivoice but not in the article called Climate Crisis - because its out of scope. The original objection to much of the material I posted on the CCrisis page was that we can't use the term climate change because its not accepted in wikivoice. NAEG wrote QUESTION - Can Wikipedia describe global warming (aka climate change) as "the climate crisis" in WP:WIKIVOICE, without violating WP:Neutrality? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC). Masem and Springee are now saying we can. So do @Simonm223, @india.OHC and @Vision Insider. So it appears the wikivoice argument is no longer a concern.

So instead, you say information can't be included because its out of scope. But you also want to argue that the 11,000 scientists were "in fact not vetted for credentials". This suggests you think the source is unreliable. If the problem is that an article referring to the climate crisis is "out of scope" in an article about the climate crisis (!!!), then whether or not that article comes from a reliable source is irrelevant. If its out of scope, its out of scope. Or are you suggesting that if a more reliable source is found for the same information, suddenly that information would magically become within the scope. If you keep changing your objections and muddying the water with contradictory arguments, no one participating in this discussion can tell what your real objection is to including information about the climate crisis on the Climate Crisis page. Notagainst (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Also I just checked the list of signatories myself. The signatories are listed in alphabetical order. "Micky Mouse" and "Dumbledore" do NOT appear on the list. Who is the cab driver in Hamilton you are referring to - or are you just making shit up? Notagainst (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not that other editors are being inconsistent or contradictory or making shit up (it might be helpful if you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF before using such language). The problem is that you are repeatedly failing to understand what other editors have patiently been explaining to you. Namely, (1) the consensus is that the scope of Climate crisis should be the development of the debate about what terms to use, and so the article should only cite sources that address this issue directly; (2) on Wikipedia generally there is no consensus that the terms "climate crisis", "climate emergency" or "climate destruction" should be used in Wikivoice, although of course it's perfectly okay to quote reliable sources that use those terms (just as it's okay to quote reliable sources that prefer less emotional terms). The specific question being debated in this thread is whether the statement signed by 11,000 people (perhaps all of them scientists, perhaps not) is sufficient reason for (2) to change. It's clear from the discussion that (2) still holds. NightHeron (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The names "Micky Mouse" and "Dumbledore" were struck from the list but were in the original copy of the release. See https://globalnews.ca/news/6138812/mickey-mouse-global-climate-emergency-letter/ and https://www.thespec.com/news-story/9683052-retired-hamilton-cabbie-gets-himself-on-list-of-fake-scientists-declaring-climate-emergency/ . The fact that these names were ever allowed onto the release calls into question the veracity of the credentials of every other signee on that release, and indeed whether those listed as signees exist at all. I think this is somewhat besides the point when the discussion is about wiki voice, but something to note anyways. @NotAgainst: the accusations of bad faith are not warranted or appreciated, by the way, you'd do well to use other language. Zortwort (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The original objection to much of the material I posted on the CCrisis page was that we can't use the term climate change because its not accepted in wikivoice. ... Masem and Springee are now saying we can. I do not believe that this accurately reflects the statements by either Masem or Springee. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have specifically stated that it can be used only with attribution ("According to 11,000 scientists..."), not in Wikivoice without it. --Masem (t) 05:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Discussion on opinions in the Daily Mail

There is a discussion on whether the Daily Mail is a usable source of opinions that are not used under WP:ABOUTSELF. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Opinions in the Daily Mail. — Newslinger talk 14:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about Era style in the article Plimpton 322

• There is a discussion in Talk:Plimpton 322#Era style about the neutrality of the Eras style in the article, comments are apreciated. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

RFC on supporting countries at 2019 Hong Kong protests

This is an invitation to participate at the following RfC regarding the 2019 Hong Kong protests: Add US or other counties or not as supporting counties and official organizations in the infobox's pro-protester side. starship.paint (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• @KasimMejia: - if you are concerned about attention on this RfC, I have notified this noticeboard and also added the RfC to the category: Society, sports, and culture. starship.paint (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Evo Morales government resignation

More eyes are needed at Evo Morales government resignation where some accounts are trying to gives the impression in Wiki voice that this was a coup (something that needs to be reliably sourced). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I mean WP:BLUESKY - when a legally elected president is kicked out of office by the military... Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"Kicked out" via... a suggestion. That's a pretty novel application of "coup". 199.247.45.42 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Balance at Forced into Glory

The article on the book Forced into Glory (2010) seems to have a sharp WP:POV problem, as has been pointed out on its talk page for over a decade (and the article has actually gotten more one-sided since then). Our article is a misleading hatchet-job that cites nothing but critics of the book and opponents of its message (either politically motivated or directly fiduciary conflicts of interest – it's relying almost entirely on authors of competing (and much more complimentary) books about Abraham Lincoln and slavery, even where it claims to be citing just "a 2009 review" rather than someone engaged in a protracted academic dispute with the author, Lerone Bennett Jr. His analysis of Lincoln's own statements on slavery and Africans has been "an academic controversy" (term from an RS not me) that he initiated all the way back in the 1960s (FiG was a very belated followup volume).

The article's talk page seems to have a WP:OWN problem, as well, and said party showed up at my talk page to essentially threaten to edit-war against me simply for "loose, inaccurate, and semi-inflammatory language you use in your edit summaries and on this page" (i.e., my own talk page). This editor does not frequently edit the article itself, so it's kind of weird.

The meat of the matter: I've laid out a detailed bullet list of issues with the article and probable solutions to them at: Forced into Glory#Balance: Conflict between Lincoln critics like Bennett, and critics of those critics. I point to plenty of sources and where to find more of them. The response from this only apparent regular watcher of the page has been a bunch of ad hominem and otherwise fallacious blather, and some WP:OR / WP:FORUM ranting about Bennett and then some "what ifs" regarding how Lincoln could have proceeded other than he did, based on the editor's personal analysis of a historical failed politician.

I don't think this is constructive (much less collegial), and would appreciate some attention to the article from both WP:NPOVN regulars and those who edit within the broader subjects of Lincoln, the US Civil War, and American slavery and abolitionism. It's our "job" to document the academic disagreement, not help one side of it demonize the other (even if the one side might mostly be in the right as historians). I don't want this to focus on editorial personalities and haven't named any other editor, but will drop off a {{NPOVN-notice}} anyway. What I really care about is the unbalanced article being improved, with enough editorial input that it stays improved.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I really don't know what SMcCandlish's problem is with respect to "Forced Into Glory", but he seems to be taking a certain little pleasure in spreading loose, inaccurate, and semi-inflammatory statements in his edit summaries to the article, then on his user talk page, and then on the article talk page. In his latest round of nonsense that I replied to, he was pushing a strange conspiracy that the "Lincoln-praisers" (his term for mainstream respected professional historians!) are conspiring to suppress Bennett's book because of their "fiduciary" interest in selling their own books! This "fiduciary conflicts of interest" stuff is pure personal WP:OR nonsense cooked up by SMcCandlish, and if he tries to push it into the article, then he will be violating WP:FRINGE. I made a pre-emptive move (leaving a comment on his user talk page) in order to prevent this type of nonsense from spreading from his edit summaries onto the actual article itself, and in doing so I apparently brought down upon myself the full wrath of SMcCandlish, but somehow I remain completely unmoved by the display.

Meanwhile, SMcCandlish has been trying to obfuscate (but cannot honestly deny, if asked directly) such facts as that:

1) Bennett is NOT a professional historian (he's a professional magazine publisher who dabbled in history).

2) The quasi-consensus of those who ARE mainstream professional historians is overall against Bennett's interpretations of history (though of course there is no absolute unanimity, and some may be more favorable to certain aspects of it).

3) Bennett himself may have been a very earnest civil-rights supporter and advocate for the African-American community, but nevertheless there's an objectively-observable convergence between his views of Lincoln and the views of Lincoln held by many neo-Confederates and white supremacists... AnonMoos (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Personally don't see evidence of a serious academic dispute yet. James M. McPherson, Eric Foner, and Allen C. Guelzo are all well regarded specialists in the Civil War era. If you've got reviews or articles from academic historians supporting Bennett then by all means bring them to the table, but for the moment only one side has presented quality sources. --RaiderAspect (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Result of Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn

Two users, Deathlibrarian and XelatSharro (suspected sock puppet), Have been changing the result of this town battle from "attacking side victory" to draw. This change is not backed by sources and the user(s) have been arguing it ended in a draw due to defending side withdrawing. Even though the town has been captured. The user Deathlibrarian also unilaterally changed the result and has been constantly reverting me, saying discussion is taking place. Even though he made the change right after opening a discussion about it. 1RR has not been violated by either side. [26] [27] [28] [29] KasimMejia (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

KasimMejia both of us have issues with the result being listed simply as a "Turkish victory" - because Turkey didn't win the battle and defeat the SDF. The SDF forces withdrew because of a treaty, and the Turkish forces then claimed it. I am very happy to have more opinions given on the issue by a fresh set of eyes - thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Look at the result of this battle Siege of al-Fu'ah and Kafriya. I send it to you two times, you didn't respond both times. SDF was sieged in the town when they decided to withdraw, even if they weren't the town is captured, making this a victory for the attacking side. I'm not gonna respond anymore and wait for admin's thoughts. KasimMejia (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree the result was a Turkish victory and that the article's infobox should state that. This would also appear to be the long-standing version of the article-- I'm unsure how Deathlibrarian can justify restoring the challenged content rather than reverting to the version that had remained for weeks before XelatSharro made his uncited, and contentious change to the battle result. Zortwort (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

FPSTurkey, XelatSharro and I all had made variations to the infobox that it needed to indicate that it was not a military victory, but the city was gained as the result of a wider negotiation. IMHO I think its misleading to the reader of the article to indicate otherwise, and that seemed to be the consensus of the three editors. Just my opinion, but the other two users also found issue with it, so it seemed worth discussing.Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Bending the source to support a statement that seems vague and too wide in its scope (in Craniosacral therapy)

I would like to get some uninvolved editors' opinions on the Craniosacral therapy article.

I am an editor that is uninvolved with the subject of the article – who seems to have walked into the nest of opinion-pushing editors with my improvement suggestions driven by some simple general (i.e. subject-agnostic) logic. (Is it crazy to think that naming the jurisdiction(s) is a necessary part of mentioning a particular law or regulation? More on this on the Talk page which is linked below.)

I had only made or suggested to make a couple simple and fairly minor improvements to the text/source integrity, but was forcefully rebuked and reverted a couple times. This prompted me to take a closer look at what happens around that article.

Looking at its Talk page discussions, it seems that there's a fairly vocal group of editors that is trying to keep the article in the state of being locked into a certain viewpoint – to the extent that even fairly non-controversial copyediting suggestions (e.g. tagging passages with the "where?" tag in search of a clearly missing piece of info) by the editors like myself got rejected.

Again, let me be clear: I have no involvement whatsoever with the article's subject – so it's strange that I'm being addressed on the Talk page as if I'm trying to push a POV on it, which I was not even remotely attempting to. Please review the following two sections of the Talk page: "Jurisdiction..." and "Neutrality dispute" for mine and another editor's attempts to address what's essentially a text/source integrity issue – with these attempts quickly degenerating into a not-at-all-productive discussion with flinging barely useful references to things like WP:1AM and WP:FOC (the latter, ironically, by the editor not being focused on the content at all) and statements like "we are biased towards reality. <the article's subject> is bollocks" – all while refusing to address a very straightforward issue I had originally raised.

For reference, here are my edits that got reverted – which pretty much shows how the good-faith attempts at copyediting/improving the article get reverted flat-out: [30], [31], [32]. In almost any other article these edits would be non-controversial – but here they became controversial even after my attempts to resolve this on the Talk page. cherkash (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Cherkash, Yet another WP:TLDR in support of WP:FRINGE nonsense. Wikipedia is reality-based. Unashamedly so. The fact that the real world finds the claims of CST to be nonsensical is not Wikipedia's problem to fix. Guy (help!) 00:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

And yet you once again refuse to engage on substance: i.e. of the text/source integrity – the two just don't match in the article. cherkash (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)