Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 21 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86

The article "Chaldean Catholics"[edit]

User:Ninnyçizzy says that the article Chaldean Catholics must have the introductory phrase "This article is about ethnic Assyrian adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church". I say that the question of whether Chaldean Catholics are "ethnic Assyrian" should be addressed within the article, not imposed as a preliminary prejudged definition. I personally accept that Chaldean Catholics fit into the generally accepted definition of ethnic Assyrians, but I do not exclude from the definition of "Chaldean Catholics" those members of the community who avoid that definition.

Ninnyçizzy sees as inadmissible within the article "Chaldean Catholics" any mention that the term "Assyrian" can also refer to adherents of a particular Church distinct from the Chaldean Catholic Church. He calls any mention of it "redundant and fallacious". I hold that, if this article uses the term "Assyrian" (as it does), it ought to indicate the sense or senses in which it uses it.

There has been no meeting of our minds on the Discussion page. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The dispute seems definitively ended, and this notice may be removed. Bealtainemí (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Syrian placenames[edit]

There are disputes on a number of talk pages of articles about Syrian settlements (including but not limited to Talk:Al-Malikiyah, Talk:Al-Muabbada, Talk:Al-Jawadiyah) over what titles the articles should have. My understanding from Talk:Kobanî#Requested_move_19_December_2019 is that we're obliged to follow WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. the name the place is best known in English-language sources, no matter its official name or how it's known locally. It'd be great to know if this really is the relevant policy, as it is being opposed pretty much everywhere I propose it, usually on the basis that, as these places are part of the Syrian Arab Republic, they ought to be called by their Arabic names, as per Syrian law. As far as I know, Kobanî is the only Syrian settlement that has been moved on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, from its official name of Ayn al-Arab. Konli17 (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear about how I believe this violates NPOV. This resistance to WP:COMMONNAME is driven by Arab/Syrian nationalism. It can countenance Latin (Damascus#Names_and_etymology) or Italian (Aleppo#Etymology) names being used to refer to Syrian cities, but not Kurdish or Assyrian, no matter the common name. Kurds and Assyrians have traditionally been oppressed in Syria, and the notion of extending equality to their languages is difficult for some. Konli17 (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that none of the editors who frequent this board have offered an opinion about this problem. Suggestions, anyone? Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The comment from this editor (edit-warrior with four open cases against them at WP:ANEW), might sound like an innocent one, implying the Kurdish name is the common name and is not being used because it is Kurdish. This is simply not true, and Konli has tried to move these pages to Kurdish names before. Each case has its own story, but these Kurdish names are usually newer inventions by the new comers, see Ras al-Ayn for example. If some Kurds use different names than the rest of the population (Assyrians, Arab, Armenian, erc.), this does not mean the Kurdish name is the common name. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
A lot of places in Syria have two or three names because people living there from different ethnic groups call it like that. However, due to historical reasons, Arabic names, which are derived from Semitic roots and the original names for these places, and are used for hundreds of years if not thousands. It is not possible to change the names of the cities and towns in the entire region because of the change in the political government there, this is insane!--Michel Bakni (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This place located in Syria, and name of him is the official name in SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC,

the rest of the names are sub-names omar kandil (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

PhD candidate as a reliable source for a denial of Syrian Kurdistan against the views of multiple professors stating otherwise?[edit]

At the article Syrian Kurdistan there is currently a dispute going on which we have discussed at the RSN where we were told that due weight be rather an issue of the discussion. So there is me who wants to have included an undoubtedly existence of Syrian Kurdistan, and Amr ibn, who claims there does exists enough doubt about the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan to merit the inclusion of the mention that only "some regional experts" and "many Kurds" refer to the Syrian part of Kurdistan as a Syrian Kurdistan, Rojava or Western Kurdistan. As some people might know, the Kurds were and are fighting against ISIS, (which it defeated in October 2017 in Raqqa), and Turkey specifically waged and wages a war against the Kurds in Syria. Then the Kurdish population was divided into the countries Syria, Turkey and Iraq following the partition of the Ottoman Empire. So Kurds are really present in Syria and the areas of Syrian Kurdistan are adjacent to the other parts of Kurdistan. This is WP:commonsense. But Amr Ibn denies the (by scholars undoubted) existence of a Syrian Part of Kurdistan and brings Mustapha Hamza, a PhD candidate with no Wikipedia article as a reliable source against multiple well known scholars and professors (most with an own Wikipedia entry) on the topic and wants to have mentioned that only "some regional experts" and "many Kurds" call it Syrian Kurdistan, Rojava or Western Kurdistan. He brought books of McDowall (well respected scholar on Kurds who sure mentions a Kurdish population in Syria and Denise Natali, who also accepts the existence of Kurds in Syria). As to me, there doesn't exist an expert on Kurds in Syria that denies the fact of a Syrian part of Kurdistan adjacent to the other parts of Kurdistan as it is also stated and depicted in the Kurdistan article on Wikipedia. Here you can read the discussion at the RSN and here our discussion at the article talk page. My demand is that commonsense and the view of multiple respected scholars are the views presented in the lead and the doubt is removed.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You fail to make distinction between presence of Kurds in Syria (just like in any other country) and Syrian Kurdistan. Respected maps and books have not shown the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan, although they still talk about Kurdish communities. PKK/PYD portal have started this rhetoric of a "Syrian kurdistan" during the Syrian civil war and the control of large swaths in northern Syria by PYD militias. See the differing maps for this area corresponding to the military control of YPG militias.

Furthermore, this article is not unique in saying "Syrian Kurdistan" is a nationalist Kurdish invention. Below are some books talking about Kurdistan without any mention of a "Syrian Kurdistan":

Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, there was a long discussion involving many users (not just me) on the Talk page before adopting the text ""some regional experts" and "many Kurds" refer ". Also, the Treaty of Sevres map (1920), which is used as the foundation for all Kurdistan statehood claims does not even touch the Syrian border, this latter became even farther south with the Treaty of Ankara (1921). One more, thing, as you know, a peer-reviewed article is by definition a reputable source, whether the author is a PhD scholar or a full professor. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there you see how Amr Ibn argues, he defends a source by a Phd candidate against numerable well known and really very often cited Professors on the topic.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is one more reference (page 1) from the prestigious International Crisis Group. I quote: The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this was after they captured the territory from ISIS. And yes they wanted to rule themselves instead of being ruled by Assad, who is widely viewed to be a hereditary dictator who defends the prohibition of the Kurdish culture. Still, the PYD/SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces)) is/are a legit and firm defender of the Syrian territorial integrity, as they are the main force against the Turkish invaders. It will be interesting to know, if Wikipedia has the POV of Assad and ISIS or of a democracy which allows all nations to live their culture.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am glad you are exposing your POV-pushing agenda and opinionated nature of edits for admins here to judge. I am sure you think yourself on a propaganda website, not WP. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I'd be glad, too if an admin would look into the dispute. Just to clarify also to you. I am referring to the Point-of-View of Assad and ISIS who's views of terror and autoritarian non-democratic government are not really well seen in the academic world, and the Point-of-View of a democracy governing in the Autonomous Administration of North East Syria who's valors and policies can be found in the vast majority of the movements and parties of the academic society. I'd say it is commonsense pushing what I do. There exists a part of Kurdistan in Syria and this is commonsense.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
It's also ironic that someone with your POV pushing history and refusal of arbitration results and ban log opens a claim here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments 1.) If either editor in this dispute wants administrator action this is the wrong place to seek it. 2.) What is the actual dispute here? All nations are, by definition, nationalist … inventions, so what's the issue at hand? A map is not a territory: the area called Syrian Kurdistan certainly exists. It's not deniable that conflicts exist as to whether this is Kurdish Syria or Syrian Kurdistan, so what's the dispute here? GPinkerton (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Paradise Chronicle:, @عمرو بن كلثوم: when you bring these topics to any outside page, you need to summarize first by putting bullet points, diffs and things like that. You should also attempt to bring it first in a neutral wording. Then you can dispute it as much as you want. So I'll try to summarize.

This seems to began with the wish to remove "many Kurds and some regional experts" in the sentence "regarded by many Kurds and some regional experts as one of the four parts of Kurdistan" Paradise Chronicle is of the opinion that this is an undisputed fact and therefore we can remove "many Kurds and some regional experts" Amr ibn Kulthoum then responded with a number of links, which I suppose oppose the undisputed fact. After a small amount of back and forth, they brought their concerns to WP:RSN. In that conversation, ElKevbo concluded that the books bought were likely reliable sources, but they had concerns over WP:UNDUE. Then, they brought the conversation here, where they returned to back and forth before other editors commented.

My Concerns:

@Paradise Chronicle: typically WP:COMMONSENSE is not viewed as a concrete argument, more as a "I believe my edit was common sense" but it is not something which you can repeat over and over, because if there is a lot of opposition clearly it isn't viewed as common sense.

@عمرو بن كلثوم: I share ElKevbo's concerns about putting too much weight on this idea. Admittedly, I have absolutely no knowledge in this issue. Presently, Paradise Chronicle hasn't brought any evidence which shows WP:UNDUE applies here. If one of you two can find sources like AP, Reuters, BBC etc using/not using Syrian Kurdistan, then that will most likely settle the debate since they follow similar policies as we do.

Both: This is not the avenue that should've been followed. The RSN was fine as it was requesting the correctness of a source, but this is quite clearly an attempt to win a debate, not attempting to reach a neutral point of view. Dispute Resolution, RfC or asking an admin to attempt to mediate would've been much better. Also, both of you are not presently attempting to reach a consensus. Wikipedia isn't about winning, but finding solutions that both follow our policies, maintain an encyclopedic tone and having broad consensus among editors. I suggest requesting mediation. I'm also going to request for the article to be protected to stop the high amounts of edit warring. Thanks, SixulaTalk 13:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

There is one paper of a nobody (I can't find anything on him on the internet) who even supports the cultural right of the Kurds in Syria. If you google Mustapha Hamza he is either a medical doctor or scientist who studies noise (yes this exists). Sixula's not very well founded judgement places a no name Phd candidate as an accepted pare for an academic authority (widely and often cited also in other books on the topic) and professor on the topic like Jordi Tejel. Tejel was actually already cited in the article so I didn't think I need to bring this up here again. Reuters was also already cited. I've now added at least three more professors to sort of WP:overkill the phrase with 10 sources of which several are sitting professors or university lecturers and others are well known authorities on the topic. There are David Romano, Thomas Schmiedinger or Michael Gunter and all of them one can google and find them as academics. Less well known academics I do not name here.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: you are putting words in my mouth. I at no point actually made an analysis which stated that certain sources were or were not WP:RS, I simply stated that you had, at that point, given no evidence to show that Syrian Kurdistan existed or to show WP:UNDUE. You have now done that. However, I don't think I emphasized my last point enough; this is not the correct route. You need to seek mediation, ask an a RfC, do something, but this isn't it. If you disagree with my judgement on my summaries or my concerns, that's fine. But please attempt to heed my last point of advice, that this is not the place to do it. Also pinging @ElKevbo: if he wishes to comment on the new sources brought. Thanks, SixulaTalk 20:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
No thanks; this all seems to be off-topic for this noticeboard. ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: yes, I agree. Thanks, SixulaTalk 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Here a some others sources, all of which use "Syrian Kurdistan" and none of which post dates the Civil War. Some even discuss the definition and usage of the term and its suitability.:

This is a common name and need not be attributed or equivocated. GPinkerton (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Ok, this is great. I support GPinkerton in his conclusion. Thanks, SixulaTalk 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work GPinkerton. Thank you for your patience, Sixula.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I stopped watching this noticeboard after the first comment of Sixula telling us this is not the right place for this debate, so I didn't see Pinkerton jump in and make conclusions for everybody, and then run to the admin noticeboard to report me as if I am the one starting an edit war and refusing to compromise. Obviously, they did not bother to visit the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page to see what's going on. I provided the all-important Treaty of Sevres map above, and a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan". This issue is really too long to explain here, so I would rather have people visit the Talk page mentioned above. In brief, two or three users are trying to show this as an entity that has long existed and three other users do not agree with that, and argue that this term was produced by Kurdish nationalists. On a quick factcheck, it is interesting that none of the links provided above by Paradise has "Syrian Kurdistan" in the name. We are not arguing about the presence of a Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria. One last thing, I just visited one of the links provided above by Paradise and could not even find Syria in there. There is Iran, Iraq and Turkey. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
All my suspicions are confirmed and reinforced. Thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

POV edits by Francis Schonken on Murder of Samuel Paty[edit]

Having reached a deadlock with the user in question on the relevant talk page, as you can see here and here, I'd like to report the chief editor's persistent manipulation of content. It started with him refusing to qualify Charlie Hebdo cartoons as controversial/inflammatory, as I managed to include here after a lot of hit-and-run. Given that we already shouldn't include both drawings in the article as per WP:GRATUITOUS and that we should instead approximate their content in the prose, it appears accurate and objective for him to describe the drawings as merely cartoons depicting Muhammad, instead of the more contextual controversial cartoons mocking/ridiculing Muhammad. Please see the sources provided there, considering both their reliability and relevancy. Since we were on the verge of an edit war, for which he posted a warning on my talk page, I refrained from further editing the page. As I was in the process of filing an RfC, then, he suggested resolving the matter by making some fune-tuning to address the opposite view. A few days later, however, he decided the cartoons shouldn't even be described as a motive for the crime, which makes me question why they still appear on the article then. According to him, as once mentioned in the discussions above, encyclopedic content is only one that can be found verbatim in the references (i.e. semantic meaning). Any pragmatic meaning inferred by another editor with an opposing stance to his is labeled original research. Thus, the word "motive" must be explicitly mentioned in the sources, even though the source says, for example, Blood has been spilled before in France over satire targeting Islam. Another example of arbitrary manipulation can be found here, where he thought clearly, solely a proof by assertion, is enough ground to undermine consensus as put in WP:RSPSOURCES. I tried to trace his claims and found no evidence for the allegations whatsoever. Assem Khidhr (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's an alternative overview to Francis's somehow twisted account below:

  1. 20:20, 23 October 2020: Assem Khidhr introduces "defamatorily" in the article
  2. 11:03, 24 October 2020: Assem Khidhr re-introduces the same word
  3. 14:13, 24 October 2020‎: Assem Khidhr starts a discussion on "defamtorily"
  4. 17:43, 25 October 2020: Discussion reaches an impasse
  5. 10:54, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr introduces "inflammatory" in lead section
    • 11:57, 30 October 2020: reverted by Francis Schonken
  6. 11:57, 30 October 2020: Francis Schonken starts a discussion on UNAOC (the source provided in #5)
  7. 12:54, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr reintroduces "inflammatory" in lead section with another source
    • 13:05, 30 October 2020: reverted by WWGB on grounds of a dubious source
  8. 14:22, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr re-reintroduces "inflammatory" in lead section with new sources and quotes
    • 14:27, 30 October 2020: reverted again by Francis Schonken on grounds of lead unworthiness and POV.
  9. 10:47, 4 November 2020: Francis Schonken removes "motive" from lead section
  10. 10:40, 5 November 2020: Francis Schonken removes Aljazaeera source based on OR

Assem Khidhr (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Overview:

  1. 20:20, 23 October 2020: Assem Khidhr introduces "defamatorily" in the article
  2. 11:03, 24 October 2020: Assem Khidhr re-introduces the same word
  3. 10:54, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr introduces "inflammatory" in lead section
    • 11:57, 30 October 2020: reverted by Francis Schonken
  4. 12:54, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr reintroduces "inflammatory" in lead section
  5. 14:22, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr re-reintroduces "inflammatory" in lead section

For the related talk page discussions:

  1. Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty/Archive 1#Nature of the depiction: Assem Khidhr unable to convince Francis Schonken and Passant67
  2. Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty#UNAOC: Assem Khidhr unable to convince Francis Schonken and 1Kwords

Vice regent participated in both talk page discussions, taking, afaics from their relatively short intervertions, somewhat of a middle position. But if you'd like to see that as support for Assem Khidhr's approach, feel free to do so.

I think Assem Khidhr would do well to understand that on this point there are more editors to convince than me. Assem Khidhr was, in mainspace, reverted by three different editors. In talk page discussions there were three editors unconvinced by Assem Khidhr's rationale. Coming to this noticeboard seems rather like clasping at last straws, than a serious attempt at convincing anyone who starts from a different approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Only chipping in to say that Francis Schonken's assessment of my position is one that I agree with. Also I diagree with Khidr's edits to add inflammatory/etc as a qualifier. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
We cannot say in wikivoice that something is "controversial/inflammatory" unless that opinion is universal, as that would be a breach of NPOV. We can only say that "X found the material to be controversial/inflammatory". WWGB (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
This. Its clear that sources are presenting that the person in question found the cartoons inflammatory, hence their reaction, but we cannot say in wikivoice that the cartoons to be inflammatory. --Masem (t) 03:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Omission of the discussions timeline and the subjective wording impose an interpretation on a supposedly descriptive account of the events. For example, how would we know which interlocutor is unable to convince the other? It could be me failing to convince you or the other way around. To avoid redundancy, I'm inserting notes for a more disinterested version, lest a strike be taken as disruptive. Further, with the article subject being a typical flamewar, we'd expect some degree of a naturally arising factionalism that well explains why my contention seemed like a heterodox position. As evidence for this, see e.g. the discussion here, where 1kwords and Passant67 suggest there's systemic bias for Islam in enWP. Assem Khidhr (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Assem Khidhr: please see WP:TPG – don't modify someone else's talk page comments. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: You bet! I moved my annotated version to my own comment and left yours as was. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of the added details, you continued to add the term "inflammatory" in wikivoice, when it clear that was a problem. --Masem (t) 03:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, being universal isn't required for inclusion on Wikipedia. In this case, we'd hardly have anything left on the site. Wikipedia is concerned with reliable sources. If the shape of earth is reported to be round in reliable sources, then we don't require flat earthers' assent to achieve universality. We speak of roundness in Wikivoice and still deliver flat earthers' theory as an assertion. Not to fall in a slippery slope, when an event evokes controversy that can be verified in sources deemed neutral, then they are controversial in Wikivoice. Again, being controversial isn't per se a negative description, it just reflects people's reactions. When these reactions are notable enough, they can be verified and hence be objectively reported. Assem Khidhr (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Calling a situation controversial in wikivoice by judging what's going on in reliable sources (recognizing there is a mix of opinions on a topic), is different from trying to assess the nature of some cartoons to call them inflammatory in Wikivoice, which is something we cannot do because that requires Wikipedia to take an opinion on the actual pictures. --Masem (t) 04:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
If enough people find something inflammatory, then can't we call that thing "controversial" in wikivoice? The very definition of the word "controversial" indicates that significant people disapprove of it.VR talk 19:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but the read I'm getting from the article, is that at the point where "inflammatory" was being added, the nature of the cartoons was not clear (after the fact they might be), and only the person in question was considering the cartoons inflammatory as to take action. In a post-analysis of the situations, we could describe the cartoons were considered controversial in Wikivoice, but not at the specific point they wanted to be introduced. --Masem (t) 19:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad someone's starting to see an impartial picture. Here's some extra evidence of controversy that I partly mentioned on different occasions during the discussions, noting that the cartoons date back to 2012, which is more than enough to objectively assess the situation and have a neutral say at the time of my edits:

  1. French ex-Foreign minister Laurent Fabius described the same cartoons as pouring oil on the fire.
  2. French ex-president Jacques Chirac condemned the magazine's decision to republish previous cartoons of Muhammad and described it as overt provocations.
  3. American ex-president Barack Obama commented on the same cartoons: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam".
  4. Charlie Hebdo was banned before in France for disparaging the death of General de Gaulle, a national symbol (note the Times article being titled The Provocative History of French Weekly Newspaper Charlie Hebdo)
  5. Well-aware of WP:POINTy behavior, I'll refer to these examples only to show how often such qualifier was judged compatible with Wiki policies by other contributors in the community, some of which are pretty apt, judging by the articles assessments:
  6. In 18:59, 2 November 2020: 1kwords admitted that it's fair to say the cartoons didn't merely depict (as stated now on the article), but rather ridiculed. He said:

    Instead the showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons ridiculing prophet Muhammad which Muslims find blasphemous would be a more appropriate phrasing.

Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  • The only POV edits I see are the ones trying to label as inflammatory some perfectly ordinary cartoons. The only thing deserving of the term inflammatory in this case was the Muslim responses from the parent, the imam, and the numerous propaganda outlets and world "leaders" who have decided to burnish their Islamist credentials by calling for Macron's head, a boycott of France, and so on, just as they did when the self-same cartoons were in the news the last time an extremist decided they were "inflammatory" and killed numerous people to prove their piety. GPinkerton (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Showing pornographic cartoons to minors is certainly inflammatory, wouldn't you agree? In some jurisdictions it would also be criminal. VR talk 19:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
What editors think of images is completely irrelevant per WP:NOTFORUM. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Vice regent: What relevance would that have? No-one is suggesting showing pornography to children - why would you even mention it? ... GPinkerton (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Assem Khidhr: The fact that Islamists have killed before because of the same drawings (and other drawings) does not make the practice of drawing controversial or inflammatory. It makes Islamism controversial and inflammatory and it makes Islamists tragically inflammed. Provactive action is all theirs. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Assem Khidhr: Reuters France has allowed displays of the cartoons, which are considered blasphemous by Muslims. In some Muslim countries, politicians and other figures have made rhetorical attacks on French leaders, accusing them of being anti-Islam and calling for a boycott of French products. ergo, Reuters doesn't write that the cartoons themselves are controversial, but that Muslims find them blasphemous. A Thousand Words (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, much less absence of evidence in a single quote from a single source. Assem Khidhr (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Where is your evidence? This is going nowhere. GPinkerton (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Religious views of Adolf Hitler[edit]

User:Hardyplants is removing stable, relevant and well-sourced content from the article because they hold the opinion that Hitler committed the holocaust solely because of "science" (as they have argued in edit summaries). This is against what the source (who happens to be a christian historian) says. - Daveout(talk) 22:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Solved. - Daveout(talk) 06:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it a NPOV violation to say Joe Biden won the 2020 election?[edit]

Is it a NPOV violation to say that Joe Biden won the 2020 election? This has come up on several pages where editors instead add obfuscatory language about the election results. See this dispute on the Sidney Powell page.[1] Is it not instead a NPOV violation to mislead readers into thinking the election results are up in the air and omitting that all challenges of the results are without evidence of large-scale fraud? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, given the fact there is still another election to be held. It might be fair to say he won the popular vote, but the US does not elect its president based upon that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed ad nauseum at Talk:2020 United States presidential election and related articles, and I think it's safe to go with what has been decided there rather than trying to achieve a whole new consensus all over again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, none of the states have certified the election results yet. Deadline is December 8. Until then, claims should not be made about who won, and assertions one way or the other are opinion and represent POV. Pkeets (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This is incorrect. A number of states have certified their election results at this point. Within the next ten days, a majority will have done so. BD2412 T 17:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Arguably yes. He is currently the projected winner by all media sources, and the only official point that he will be named President-Elect prior to inauguration is after the EC votes in December. While there is no likely chance that all the challenges that Trump's team will change this, the fact that Trump has not conceded at all is making this difficult. Normally, if the other person running conceded, that would generally be the end of it, and then we can in factual terms the winner won.
That said, we also need to recognize that barring any wacky hijinks in the next 2 months, we should be writing these articles for the long-term. One has to ask if it is necessary to state "Joe Biden won" or simply to establish the period after the elction. Powell's article as I look at it now uses rather neutral language that establishes her role in the legal challenge to the election, but avoids saying anything if Biden won or not, which is good. That'll work in the very long term for this aspect. --Masem (t) 17:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It is a NPOV violation to not say that Biden won the 2020 election. He is the president-elect, according to every reliable source, and our job, consistent with the NPOV policy, is to reflect what the reliable sources say. Neutralitytalk 17:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
But they are technically not correct. The only official point where "President-elect" can be used is after the EC tally. This is an example where the media may be saying something presumed factual when it actually is not the case. Its unlikely the results will change, but there is a factual aspect here that we should be respecting, if we need to include that. (Eg on Biden's page, we better not be calling him P-E until after the EC, but only the projected P-E). --Masem (t) 18:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:TRUTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
How the EC works and when the election results fully determine the actual Presidential-Elect is well documented in US Law. That's verifyable, so pointing to TRUTH doesn't make sense here. --Masem (t) 18:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes it does. You say the RS got it wrong, but that is classic WP:OR.
The President-Eject has called truth lie and lie truth from day one, and you want to make him the arbiter ("Trump has not conceded")? The media are telling us one thing, and Trump is telling us another thing, and we go with Trump because of legal nitpicking? I think this is real beef people have with that decision. It makes me antsy, Wikipedia siding with that old fraud.
It's a wiki. If Trump stages a coup, we can still change it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying, under US law, the next president is not decided until the EC vote is counted. The media can call it all they want, and never in the US EC history has that call been wrong, but there is a CRYSTAL factor here that there's a possibility - extremely slim here - that Trump may win. Sure, numerous legal experts have stated there's no reasonable chance that all of Trump's lawsuits will amount to flipping anything, nor any ploys to flip electors, but from a technical standpoint, the only point the US knows with 100% factual assurance that it has its next president is at the EC, and going by CRYSTAL, that's how we should be handling it. Everything else is projections of the winners barring any oddities. But as I said above, it seems outside of the specific articles on the election, Biden, and Trump, there's ways to reference the results of the election without having to say anything specific to the results of the election, given how we are to write for the long-term. --Masem (t) 18:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
And again we're dealing with the ugly face of RECENTISM. Facts based on the actual legal process supersede news media clickbait; i.e., use sound editorial judgment. We can say "media" declared the winner; however, the vote has been challenged by the Trump campaign/administration (whatever), or something along that line. Atsme 💬 📧 19:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Neutrality's statement that It is a NPOV violation to not say that Biden won the 2020 election. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Masem, you state that the reliable sources are "technically not correct," but you don't cite any sources in support of that conclusion. That's because there's virtually no support in the RS for that conclusion. In any case, as O3000 points out, "president-elect" is not a formal position or office. It's not dependent on a concession speech and is not dependent on a GSA administrator's "ascertainment." The line of argument you are making amounts to OR. Neutralitytalk 23:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The RS is the US law behind elections. The winner is not decided until the EC votes and the Senate affirms (as described below). While in all practicality Biden's won, its a language precision issue and incorrect to say that factually regardless of what the media states. The media knows as well as we do that the EC and Senate confirm, but its poor form for them to say he's won at this point. It would be like us saying a suspect is guilty before a trial because the media has all condemned him as guilty. The media is not a legal body responsible for anything here. --Masem (t) 05:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(1) You're still not citing any sources; (2) "U.S. law" does not define who the president-elect is, because it is not a formal position or office; the closest thing is the GSA "ascertainment" which is only for purposes of allocating federal office space, etc.; (3) your analogy about declaring a suspect guilty before trial makes no sense (reliable media sources, such as those acceptable for use on Wikipedia, don't do this). We don't disregard the universal array of reliable sources because some editors declare that they are wrong. Neutralitytalk 20:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The entire EC process is spelled out in Article Two of the US Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment (this shouldn't need pointing out), and it clear that the President and Vice-President are not named until the Senate counts the EC votes and completes the process. That is when we know 100% factually who "won" the election, no iota of doubt. Any call for who "won" is based on all projections and expectations that the EC voters will not be faithless (which is unlikely to happen this years as reports suggest), and hence we can only call Biden "President-elect" (the media's term) representing the projected winner of the election. Doesn't he has actually won yet because that cannot happen until after December 14. The point about comparing this to the media calling someone guilty ahead of time (as a hypothetical) is pointing out that we have to be careful of the media leapfrogging past the legal requirements of the process. --Masem (t) 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Masem, I have not known you to propose that your own reading of primary-source information be reflected in editorial decisions on any other topics in article space; why are you taking this [[WP:NOR|pro-original research] stance in this instance? What it looks like from here is an attempt to promote FALSEBALANCE by entertaining a hypothetical that no reliable sources are able to document.
Also, your original research is wrong; this year's supreme court ruling has strengthened the hand of the states considerably with respect to faithless electors, and the majority opinion was based on the ballot decision made by voters in each state. Therefore, the sources stating that Biden has won the electoral college are correct to do so, and SCOTUS jurisprudence has made clear that the election is decided by voters in each state and not by the electoral college, the members of which can be bound to the election result. Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
It's actually very much related to the blind faith editors sometimes put into the body we have of RSes. I have no question by Dec 15, Biden will be named as the next President from the EC, but that process is still happening and until then, it is incorrect to say "Biden is the next President of the U.S. under the terms of US law." This may be a squabble over technical language precision and the unquestional victory that Biden did achieve from preliminary results, but it is important that we can't let the media let Wikivoice speak incorrectly on something they are not the authority of (that being, what US law says). This type of slippage can leak into other areas, and creates more problems. And in this case, this is a "the sky is blue" situation: everyone should know what the EC is and despite how backasswards it may be, it is still part of the US election process. Having to source that is a silly question. And on the faithless electors, the SCOTUS case only gave the states the ability to actually impose fines and/or switch out electors if their laws have that in the books. (I expanded the article on these cases) It did not remove the possibility of faithless electors, but obviously in some states, makes any elector less likely to be faithless; experts have also said it is unlikely to see any real shift in the EC with faithless electors this year given the projected EC lead Biden has. But it remains a very remote possibility, so per CRYSTAL we should be avoiding any statement that Biden won with Wikivoice assurance. --Masem (t) 23:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
As usual, Masem, you are missing my point. I could cite any number of RS Political Science textbooks to tell you the same thing SCOTUS articulated: that a presidential candidate wins an election by collecting electoral college victories in a number of states sufficient to win a majority. The electoral college is only supposed to play a role, per US constitutional law, if no candidate gets a majority of Electoral College votes (or in other edge cases like a death of a candidate during or immediately following the election). That's what actual reliable sources on US elections state, and no presidential election for more than 100 years has been decided in any other way. But you want to set RS scholarship aside based on your own ideosyncratic reading of the US constitution. Absurd. Newimpartial (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Query in 2016, Wikipedia "called" the election early on the morning of November 9, when the electoral college counts were obvious as reported by multiple media outlets [2]. What is the policy-compliant reason that the 2020 election should be handled differently? Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I would avoid the word “won”. But, “president-elect” is not an official term. It’s a media term, and the media says Biden in president-elect. As there are no history books yet, we rely on the media. But, I wouldn't capitalize it. O3000 (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Clinton actually called to Trump to concede. Yes, there could have been EC shenanigans (The Faithless elector issue) but at that point, the losing candidate willingly admitted to losing. Arguably, though we should not have used that wording then there as well; the "win" only happens after the EC. --Masem (t) 18:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
You can retract a concession. Don’t think that’s meaningful. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, that wording in that diff clearly doesn't factually state Trump won, but implied that he would likely win the EC when that happened, so it used appropriate caution in language. --Masem (t) 18:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
According to Merriam-Webster [3], The AP's assessment has been used as the announcement of a winner of the presidential race for decades. According to the AP and all mainstream media, Biden became president elect on November 7, four days after the election, when they determined that there was no longer any doubt about the outcome. That should be good enough for us. Even Trump has acknowledged that Biden "won" the election, but falsely claimed that Biden won because the election was "rigged", see [4]. NightHeron (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
But later after that one tweet, he stated in another that he has not conceded yet and still challenging the results (despite how everyone else knows how fruitless it will be). --Masem (t) 18:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
And he may claim he’s the winner for years. Although, he’ll need to retract that in four years if he wants to run for a third second term. O3000 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Come Dec 14 (when the EC votes) we'll have the definitive answer, and at that point, regardless of what Trump claims, we can then factually call Biden as P-E. --Masem (t) 18:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, technically, the EC votes and passes it to the Senate which counts and announces the next president. Not the president-elect, as that’s just a media term. I think we can use president-elect since RS do and it happens to be a convenient term. But, it’s not something that matters a great deal. O3000 (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the fifth election Wikipedia has been through, and we have never waited for the Electoral College to meet before reflecting the reporting of sources on the winner of an election. I think we would need a fairly definitive consensus to break with that precedent. I would also note that although lawsuits have been filed in various states, those lawsuits only address small numbers of votes in each state, and not enough to overturn the outcome in those states. Even so, those lawsuits have generally been dismissed as frivolous. BD2412 T 19:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I believe most cases where this may be an issue can be reworded to be set in language reflecting the long-term and not what is currently the "not yet determined" stated of the next 2-3 months (until Jan 20 when inauguration happens); the OP example seems already worded in a manner that doesn't spell out anything that says Biden won but alludes to the litigation Trump tried after it, implying that he was considered the loser without saying factually he lost. That's fine. As I mentioned above, there's only a handful of articles that we probably have to talk about Biden's current state as the media's selected President-Elect or the projected winner of the election or the like in that form, until we have official results from the EC. For example, if we are talking about COVID, we can say something "After being projected as the winner of the election, Biden set forth a new plan for dealing with COVID..." or "After being named president-elect from the election, ...." and avoid saying "After winning the election...." --Masem (t) 19:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem, in 2016 the language Donald Trump defeated Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump will become president on January 20, 2017 became part of the stable version of the 2016 election article the night after the election. If people here think that the lack of a concession speech from Trump makes a material difference to either the sourcing requirements or NPOV requirements concerning the election result or who the president-elect is - in the absence of any RS reporting casting doubt on the result - I would like to see what the policy basis of that argument might be. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We should say Biden won because that is what news media say. Note that while the U.S. system of using an electoral college is unusual, there are similar issues in say someone won a parliamentary election. If for example a party was projected to win a landslide in a parliamentary election, we would say the party leader won. However, losing candidates can request recounts, electoral officials may delay certification until every ballot box is received, elected MPs have not yet been sworn in, they may switch parties, the head of state may refuse to appoint the party leader as PM. But the standard should not be absolute certainty, it should be reasonable certainty. TFD (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem Surely this is wrong "the media's selected President-Elect or the projected winner of the election", the media has not selected anyone as leader, they have simply reported who has one won the USA nation wide popular election. I do admit I am no expert regards the confirmation process. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are reporting on the first counts reported by each state (their popular votes), though some states like Georgia are doing recounts (not expected to change the numbers). That can be immediately used to project the EC winner due to how the EC works, except for the potential of faithless electors which no expert believes will change anything. So there is less than a million in one (or closer to less than a 140 million to one) chance that the EC winner will be anything but Biden. But the process is simply not complete. As a comparison point, big news over last few days was the signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which forms an Asia economic block. The problem is is that that process still requires individual ratification by each country. So we cannot say that this RCEP is now in force (as some poorer press outlets indicate), but that it has been signed for individual nation ratification. It is the same issue here, we still have a process that has to be complete before Biden, by law, is recognized as President and thus when we can factually say that without putting Wikivoice into any potential backfire situations. --Masem (t) 23:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Earlier in this thread you wrote that "if the other person running conceded, that would generally be the end of it, and then we can [state] in factual terms the winner won." In such cases the winner is called president elect days or weeks before the full legal procedure has taken place. So the issue is not that Wikipedia must wait until after the legalities have occurred. Rather, your position that we should not declare as fact that Biden is the president elect is based only on Trump's failure to concede, which in turn is based on his falsehood that the election was stolen from him. All mainstream sources agree that that's a falsehood, and for that reason refer to Biden as president elect. Per NPOV, Wikipedia should do likewise. NightHeron (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

I have been giving this issue some thought, and I think that the real problem is that there is a conceptual distinction between winning the election and winning the presidency. Hypothetically, for example, if Biden were to die a week before the Electors meet, and the Electors (primarily being Democratic Electors) then cast their electoral votes for Kamala Harris to be president, no one would take this to mean that Biden had "lost" the election, even though it wouldn't be Biden who "won" the Electoral College and then assumed the presidency. As for the possibility that the outcome of the election itself will change, the audits and recounts that have been done to this point have only reinforced the Electoral College vote, and it has been noted that the lawsuits that have been filed do not impugn a sufficient number of votes to change the outcome either. Thus, we can properly reflect sources reporting that Biden won the election, while perhaps noting in a footnote that there are hypothetical scenarios under which the candidate who wins the election still does not win the presidency. My proposal, therefore, is that we refer to Biden as the winner of the election now, but not as the winner of the presidency until after the Electoral College votes. BD2412 T 04:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Support One could say, in purely democratic terms, that the most votes wins the election. So a candidate can win the election and not gain the presidency. My view is that the electoral college is a toothless political ritual that has no real effect beyond custom and ceremony, and the constitution has long since evolved to make the fourth estate the arbiters of the elections of the third. GPinkerton (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Back to Sidney Powell[edit]

Could we please get back to the original topic, which was 2020 US presidential election results in Sidney Powell's biography. Only the opening post and one commenter have mentioned Powell. It is unclear which talk page discussion or article content the opening post refers to. Perhaps this edit (16:24, 15 November 2020), which added content "Joe Biden won the 2020 election" to the article without providing an inline source. For this is material that is likely to be challenged, it definitely must have inline citations. This is also a new claim that is not made in the article body.

Currently the lead says "to challenge president-elect Joe Biden's victory". That is not exactly an accurate summary of cited sources, though it would be verifiable to say that Powell was "seeking to stop state officials from confirming President-elect Joe Biden's victory in Pennsylvania". Would that be NPOV? I don't know. That is what the Reuters source is saying, whereas The Hill attributes calling Biden's victory (the word is not used in the source) to media outlets: "election results in several key battleground states that were called by media outlets for President-elect Joe Biden". Politrukki (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  • It's basically language that in a few weeks won't matter in the specific case. Only thing you could take out would be "president-elect" as leaving "Biden's victory in PA" is otherwise "true" now; no , the state hasn't certified (though that should happen in most of the state today) but they reported their uncertified popular vote which has Biden clearly winning, and thus explains the legal challenges. I would assume the body would get into the specifics. --Masem (t) 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Catherine de Zegher[edit]

A user has completely rewritten the article, whitewashing it (one mention that the subject was suspended has been left, everything else removed, sources removed as well) and reverted me twice. Anybody wants to have a look? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


I (Curatorslog) am the user who rewritten the article. The page as it was was not neutral, it was too focused on a single part of the career of the person the page is about. the page was not balanced. Moreover, it is about a controversial case. the previous version of the page was not objective because it gave undue attention to one aspect of the person's career and not the entire career. In addition, it concerns a court case that has not yet been completed. What is necessary, namely to mention that the person was suspended was indeed mentioned in my version. But the full description of the person was not objective and balanced. All this gives the impression that there was a conflict of interest with the person who wrote the original article. What I have done is to give the full picture of the person in a balanced way. Does anybody want to have a look? Thanks.--Curatorslog (talk) 20:57 15 November 2020 (UTC)
And they continue reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't blame them. It's not desirable to use a BLP to coatrack someone's view of a "controversy". BTW, there is a recently created article: Toporovski collection controversy. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Even in the original version the whole controversy section is only a small part of the article. The user appears to have a connection with the subject, as they have created and made substantial edits to mutliple related topics, an example being the Toporovski collection controversy article you mentioned above, as well as List of exhibitions curated by Catherine de Zegher, Kanaal Art Foundation. Might be UPE, but its not clear cut. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Basically all public interest to the activity of de Zegher is because of the Toporovski affair due to which she was suspended, then fired, suspected of fraud and faces criminal charges. There are many reliable sources reflecting this, and they were cited in the previous version of the article, but now they magically disappeared after the revisions by Curatorslog who is likely a COI editor, and the whole Toporovski affair has been reduced to two sentences.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
And now the mention of her suspension which I yesterday added to the lede, has been removed. I am sorry, I do not think we should continue assuming good faith here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Why are you so keen to use a BLP to rubbish the subject? If the person is only known for a problem, the article should be about the problem. If the article is about the person, any problem should be mentioned minimally in the article. If they end up in prison, a mention in the lead would be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
No, the person is not only known for a problem, but the problem was a big deal in the media.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
For example, James Watson who is undoubtedly notable for a lot of things, including his Nobel Prize, was fired for making one-time inappropriate comments. In his (quite extensive) article this is one paragraph out of four in the lede, and a section of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
James Watson has a long history of making inappropriate or racist comments, most were removed from the article. Hardyplants (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Would it however be appropriate to remove the mention of his firing from the lede? This is more or less what happened here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with a sentence in the lead mentioning the issue since the lead should be an overview of the body.Hardyplants (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
It was indeed first reduced to a couple of sentences in the body, [5] (followed by edit-warring) and subsequently removed from the lede [6].--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:In Praise of Blood[edit]

Need more eyes on this one... Is it true that I am a "biased uncooperative editor" as well as "lack expertise and understanding and are completely disrepectful"? You decide! (t · c) buidhe 15:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Rebecca Sockbeson[edit]

I figured this was more a worry of POV/PUFF than COI, but I approved this draft yesterday but I have concerns that it may be borderline when it comes to POV. The original author has only worked on this article, which makes me concerned about a COI or SPA. This person may just be a fan of Sockbeson or wants to increase the number of articles on indigenous women on WP to combat Systemic bias, which is totally fine. I just need another pair of eyes on the article to see if I'm overthinking the whole thing. Thanks in advance! Bkissin (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Aparna Rao[edit]

I'm in a dispute with Hipal at Talk:Aparna Rao#Quick review about the current neutrality of the article, and particularly the weight given to sources currently in the article. Could we get some more opinions? Would be much appreciated. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Rao was an anthropologist.

The article was created this year by an editor with a couple of weeks experience, with little help from anyone since, that's being pushed to GA. No conflicts of interest have been declared with any editors.

The only reference we have with any depth on the person is an obituary published the Nomadic Peoples journal. (I've never seen a discussion on such an obit, and am unsure how reliable it should be considered, nor how much weight to give it.) The only reference that appears to hold much weight is a Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute book review. (I'm uncertain how much weight this actually gives. Someone with expertise about the specific journal's book reviews, or something similar would help).

With such references, I'd expect little more than a WP:STUB article. Instead we have 25k article with a 150+ word lede. Editors seem unfamiliar with WP:NOT and WP:DUE, and seem to be assuming that POV means a balance of positive and negative. --Hipal (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Just to give my side of this: what Hipal thinks I believe of POV is not what I believe POV means (i.e. I don't believe that POV means a balance of positive and negative). The sources in the article currently I believe are properly balanced, and although the the obituaries are certainly not as reliable as some of the academic sources in the article, they are published in reputable journals, which presumably have a process of fact-checking. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I also saw Hipal's edit summary of their previous statement, which I think gives a pretty succinct summary (better than their statement above) of the situation: poor sources and inexperienced editors - how much can we depend on an obit published in an academic journal, and a Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute book review?. It is my understanding that since the obit is fact-checked, being published in an academic journal, we can use some of the factual details present, but the opinions should be treated as opinions, of course. This is for areas of the article where there is an absence of more reliable (i.e. non-obit style) sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • One final note. To quote from WP:BIASED, Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Due to the fact-checking and editorial control present in academic journals, the obituaries are currently being treated as reliable sources for facts (specifically, uncontroversial facts such as when was she born, where did she go to college?) when other sources aren't present, and for opinions are given little weight (since obviously they will only say things supportive of the subject). I thought this was the right approach, but apparently Hipal thinks differently on this. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Vanessa Beeley[edit]

The Vanessa Beeley article has been totally rewritten by Kashmiri. While supposedly trying to make the article more "neutral" it actually whitewashes the subject by lending undue weight to conspiracy theories surrounding the White Helmets that Beeley has advocated, which reliable sources agree are false. Kashmiri has a history of profringe advocacy on other western pro-assad figures like Piers Robinson, who is best known for his efforts to dispute the Douma chemical attack. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: This is not an article on the White Helmets. This is an article on Vanessa Beeley and her views. Here, we are not to judge whether her views are true or false - we just present them and, in order to maintain a balance, may include a reputable statement, like from a UN source, that will show her claims as not objective. This is what I did. If you want to challenge the Russian-promoted narrative about White Helmets, go to White Helmets, because this here is a biographical article if you understand what a biography is.
As much as personally I find Beeley's views odd to say the least, I disagree that Wikipedia should report on the content of her tweets or that her views should be presented using statements like: "Middle East experts have dismissed Beeley's allegations...". We don't debate Newton's theory of physics in his biography by writing that "Einstein has dismissed his allegations...".
To put it simply, if you want to have an argument on something with an article subject, go to that person's blog or page, or email them, or bring it up in an article on the topic.
Additionally, your casting aspersions on me is not welcome. Keep in mind the Wikipedia rule: Comment on content, not on contributor. — kashmīrī TALK 13:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Emily W. Murphy - BLP vios & DUE issues[edit]

A NPOV tag has been placed at Emily W. Murphy (by another editor, but still). This was also posted on BLPN by valereee but sufficient outside input not generated, so cross-posting here. The article had serious NPOV & WEIGHT issues and BLP violations (which valereee has - more tolerantly than I - tried to discuss since early Nov). I caught the article on BLPN and have made some adjustments removing unsourced accusations and rewriting some prose to accurately reflect sources. There's 3 distinct categories of disputed content (explicit BLP violations, blatant UNDUE, and then just indiscriminate information), some I assume will be challenged in good faith and we'll work those out, but I'm concerned explicitly about POV pushing part here. A secondary issue with the article is that all RS discussing the subject as a whole seem to view her in a relatively positive light (eg CNN or LA Times, ), but our article (even after my changes - before, after - includes removals from others also) is the exact opposite impression.

I'd greatly appreciate some uninvolved eyes and participation from editors, and admins given the editor's prior strays at ANI for POV issues. Ideally I can pass this off to someone else and crawl back into my technical hole. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I've opened a related thread at AN concerning edit-warring accusations at that article. —valereee (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump Page[edit]

This is clearly going nowhere fast. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I thought Wikipedia was suppose to be a neutral information page on any subject matter, not a political commentary on someone they don't personally like.

"Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency." (2nd paragraph) - That sounds like very biased and partisan-like. Is Wikipedia political now?

"The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." - "Fact checkers" are incredibly biased too and are under heavy scrutiny by the right for their partisan loyalty to the left. Why would you even include them when they're grossly inaccurate like most of the mainstream news media out there?

"A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia.[c] Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that offense." (4th paragraph) - "Trump and his campaign BENEFITED from Russian interference in the 2016 election" yet the only reference you have is some biased Liberal news article that offers NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. "..his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that offense." So you can say that about anything anyone is accused of. They weren't charged or or indicted but OH THEY WEREN'T EXONERATED EITHER! Yeah and? Does that suggest that they're guilty of something. There was no evidence and he wasn't charged. What does that even mean? I know what you want to look like because you guys are obviously political-minded when you wrote this.

"Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic. He downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." (5th paragraph) So now we're using Wikipedia to write opinion pieces? Because that's EXACTLY what this state IS.

I could go but you get the point. Since when is Wikipedia a political news paper? This whole thing looks like it was written by CNN! I think all it does is alienates you from a certain group because you guys can't keep your opinions to yourselves and yet every year you're asking for donations. Good luck getting any from the group you're siding against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MFrn2345 (talkcontribs) 08:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you disagree with the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. That's not something we can fix, and we don't care about your threats. Cope harder, perhaps. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Opindia backdoor POV pushing[edit]