Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

Hebron- slant is obvious, not neutral

This article on the city of Hebron https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

Lamont's citation at MobileSyrup

Does the following statement represent the WP:BIASED citation fairly and without editorial bias? (Special:Diff/1096776490)

In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use."

A proposed revision of this statement was (diff):

In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use", but "GrapheneOS has so far been one of the easiest privacy experiences I've tried".

According to Special:Diff/1096788266 which undid said revision: Ease of installation has been over-emphasized enough already. Deleting added over-emphasis. The current full statement in the article is:

In 2022, Jonathan Lamont of MobileSyrup, in a review of GrapheneOS installed on a Pixel 3, after a week of use opined GrapheneOS demonstrated Android's reliance on Google. He called GrapheneOS install process "straightforward" and concluded to like GrapheneOS overall, but criticized the post-install as "often not a seamless experience like using an unmodified Pixel or an iPhone", attributing his experience to his "over-reliance on Google apps" and the absence of some "smart" features in GrapheneOS default keyboard and camera apps, in comparison to software from Google. In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use."

The proposed full statement was:

In 2022, Jonathan Lamont of MobileSyrup, in a review of GrapheneOS installed on a Pixel 3, after a week of use opined GrapheneOS demonstrated Android's reliance on Google. He called GrapheneOS install process "straightforward" and concluded to like GrapheneOS overall, but criticized the post-install as "often not a seamless experience like using an unmodified Pixel or an iPhone", attributing his experience to his "over-reliance on Google apps" and the absence of some "smart" features in GrapheneOS default keyboard and camera apps, in comparison to software from Google. In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use", but "GrapheneOS has so far been one of the easiest privacy experiences I've tried".

I doubt it's fruitful to discuss this at Talk:GrapheneOS, so I'm bringing this to attention of NPOVN and the editors. (Legal attribution: Statement from the GrapheneOS article, authors Special:Contributions/84.250.14.116 and User:Yae4.) 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Took the liberty of highlighting repetitions of similar phrases on "ease" of install, which the OP wants to add again. Also noting lack of consensus on reliability of this source, which the author's own words called a "post", and appearance of "advert infested click bait" group blog quality. The OP here is insisting on keeping their preferred questionable quality sources, while preventing the usage of WP:PRIMARY sources almost entirely, which is a related issue. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

For the latter statements: See Talk:GrapheneOS#Jonathan Lamont's review at MobileSyrup for my review of the source. The place to discuss reliability of sources is WP:RSN, editors should focus on neutral point of view here. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussing how to neutrally present information from an unreliable source is a waste of time, and as you know, there has been little uninvolved editors interested at WP:RSN recently for other similar discussions. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

References

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)

• I have blocked this user for disruptive editing, among other issues. While the article may need some work, they seem more here to promote a problematic POV. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• I have reverted changes made at the article French petition against age of consent laws by the now globally locked editor Epistemological biker as some were clearly biased – changing a comment about relationships between teenagers to adult/child relationships, for example. Unfortunately, I didn't finish the edit summary before accidentally hitting return. I don't know if there was anything useful added / changed, I just took it all out. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOV issues in some sections at Space Race

There seems to be an NPOV issue in Space Race in which there are concerns that some or all of that article may be unjustifiably skewed towards pro-USSR/Russian viewpoints. Attempts to rectify the issue had been made by me and others, such as the addition of this edit out of the belief that they are of pertinence to the presentation of the information within this article.

Unfortunately, around two editors had reverted those under the very vague reasons of "unencyclopedic", "trivia" or "not suited here", and as it reached 3RR I first attempted to reach one of the reverters at talk page to discuss the issue, but found out that it was semi-protected. Thus I'd had initially brought the issue to the article talk page for discussion or solicit third opinions from subject matter experts.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Race&diff=1096178509&oldid=1096115562

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Race&diff=1096429619&oldid=1096427505

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Race&diff=1096430709&oldid=1096430480

As the discussion went on, I proofread the article once again and found out more issues:

• The "Origins" section gives more coverage to Soviet rocket development whereas American ones like Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT were left out, the latter makes the statement This left the United States as the only one of the major three World War II powers not to have its own rocket program, until Von Braun and his engineers were expatriated in 1945. inaccurate.

• Within the Robotic lunar probes section, the Soviet's Luna mission were given relatively meticulous attention (such as failure attempts) and America's early Thor-Able probes in the Pioneer program were ignored. At a glance readers would take that US has less failure rate that the USSR, but deep down it gave another wrong impression that US has a late footing than Russia and "didn't try hard enough" in terms of lunar probes launching attempts whether successful or not.

• The Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine in the "See also" section, which should just be in namesake satellite page as it's a bit out of scope in this article, appears to be something that "spikes the football" for Russia, in spite of original editor's intentions when adding the link to here. Fixed

• By standards which the editors in that discussion had used in this case, the following passage in the article is conceivably "trivia" or "irrelevant" as well:

Valentina Tereshkova, was launched into space on Vostok 6 on June 16, 1963,[90] as (possibly) a medical experiment. She was the only one to fly of a small group of female parachutist factory workers (unlike the male cosmonauts who were military test pilots),[91] chosen by the head of cosmonaut training because he read a tabloid article about the "Mercury 13" group of women wanting to become astronauts, and got the mistaken idea that NASA was actually entertaining this. Procedurally dropped due to WP:BURNOUT related to Chronic Covid Syndrome.

At least for me, it fails Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance as it is skewed towards pro Russian viewpoint, no matter how subtle it is. In a larger way, it could invite animosity among WP:READERS in the context of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

They could get an impression that USSR/Russia's achievements were overrated or bloated to the detriment of the US, even though there is a dictum in the FAQ at the article talk page header stating that the race resulted in a tie and no one "won" the race. As a result some of them would go dig deeper and find out that there are nuances or caveats behind those achievements and proceed to either edit the page or just make a fuss about it. If it's reverted or so on then they could easily switch to the latter, where it could very well become something like the Streisand effect and produce a perception that Wikipedia violated WP:NPOV conventions by "secretly loving Russia" in here which I fear could produce net harm to the project in the long term.

As the discussion there had headed into a deadlock, with no input from subject matter experts as of yet, I have decided to raise this issue at this noticeboard. Any help would be appreciated in resolving this NPOV issue. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Deadlock is certainly one way to describe all other editors agreeing your edits were poor. Andyjsmith gave a particularly well-worded explanation here, which I suggest reading again given your repeated assertion that explanations have been vague. CMD (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

In light of your helpful advice to read his statement again while checking the sections where the proposed edits about the Ranger probe and Ham the chimp is at, I've found out that the use of the word "first" was less prevalent than expected, thus I'll be happy to drop the two proposed edits, for now.

However, as for the third proposed edit regarding Alan Shepard, I think it should be okay if we slip in a brief statement that he landed while inside his spacecraft while leaving the extraneous lines into articles that which are "in-depth", such as the adjacent Timeline of the Space Race, where a longstanding consensus including even subject matter experts exist to uphold and preserve the passage which in turn helps maintain WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Example.

It remains to be seen how the newfound other NPOV issues listed in the bulleted points above will be handled. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Just made a strike on a bullet point due to this edit.204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Switching to other marking options. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

First human spaceflight

The dispute has by now extended to Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race where after a short RR, me and User:TompaDompa had temporarily restored the following passage while marking it up for discussion.

First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft and thus the first complete human spaceflight by then FAI definitions.

Relevant references:

• http://www.techrepublic.com/article/geek-trivia-a-leap-of-fakes
• https://www.seeker.com/gagarins-falsified-flight-record-1765739082.html
• https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/why-yuri-gagarin-remains-first-man-space-even-though-he-did-not-land-inside-his

The side advocating the removal claimed their rationale on the grounds of WP:MINORASPECT, although there was long and implicit consensus to preserve the passage before today. Conversely, me and perhaps some others like subject matter expert User:JustinTime55 who had upheld the passage because FAI rules at 1960s required takeoff and landing inside spacecraft. In this case, distinction matters and it would violate WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and become a case of WP:POVDELETION if the fact was left out.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_Space_Race&diff=753862145&oldid=753803108

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_space_exploration&diff=787659288&oldid=787604255

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_Space_Race&diff=prev&oldid=787604332

Taking account of other editors' concerns about WP:MINORASPECT while mindful of Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance where suppression of information risk making more problems rather than resolution, I had attempted to relegate the passage into a Template:NoteTag which can be seen here. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Do sources on the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race (respectively) give significant weight to the distinction of being the first astronaut to land inside the spacecraft? I took a quick look at some such sources ([1][2][3][4] and [5][6][7][8][9], respectively) and they did not, but that could of course have been a non-representative sample. However, if they do not, this is a WP:MINORASPECT that should not be included because An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

I'll also note that https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/why-yuri-gagarin-remains-first-man-space-even-though-he-did-not-land-inside-his (cited above) says The conclusion of the delegates was to rework the parameters of human spaceflight to recognize that the great technological accomplishment of spaceflight was the launch, orbiting and safe return of the human, not the manner in which he or she landed. Gagarin and Titov's records remained on the FAI books. and as is true with any sports organization, the FAI reserved the right to reexamine and reinterpret its rules in light of new knowledge and circumstances. Yuri Gagarin remains indisputably the first person in space and the concept that the first cosmonauts had to land inside their spacecraft is a faded artifact of the transition from aviation to spaceflight. So going by that source, the assertion that Shepard's was the first "proper" spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view that must not be included. TompaDompa (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Taking reliability issue aside, Russian state media agency TASS had described that the view was even held by NASA which then attempted to get FAI to not recognize Yuri Gagarin as a cosmonaut and instead be referred as a parachute jumper.

• https://tass.com/science/868892

In this respect it is not really a fringe view, but rather something that had made it to mainstream but underreported, due to the falsification and suppression of information on this aspect by the former Soviet Union.204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed "First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft and thus the first complete human spaceflight by then FAI definitions." and its associated references from both Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race as per WP:FALSEBALANCE. This is definitely a minority / fringe view and should not be included in either timeline. The only reason this requirement was on the initial Fédération Aéronautique Internationale rules is that it was a carry-over from aviation, the FAI subsequently amended these rules that make it clear this issue was irrelevant to Yuri Gagarin's achievements, refer to this reference for the complete explanation. This issue is already explaned on the Yuri Gagarin, however it would create a WP:FALSEBALANCE to included it in an other article, particularly the "Timeline" articles.Ilenart626 (talk)

The sidebar in the often-invoked WP:FALSEBALANCE contains a passage from BBC Trust's policy stating that This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.

In fact, as said before the view was the direct product of 1960s FAI rules, rather than some hodge podgey theories drawn up by some tin foilers like flat Earth believers. Implications or conclusions by virtue of classical textualism had been drawn from the interpretation of the FAI rules through reliable sources like the Tech Republic and Discovery Channel's Seeker (media company), although at that time as you mentioned, FAI gave in and retroactively mark him as the first man to fly in space out of pure practicality, mostly because many other spaceflights had already occurred by the time the scandal was uncovered. If TASS is to be believed, NASA had at one point attempt to use the grounds to persuade FAI to refer Gagarin as a parachutist. Even today, the view still appears in discussions related to Yuri Gagarin.

Because of these, the information that was embodied in the passage clearly falls into the quoted BBC Trust's policy as above. However, for now within the list articles I think it would be more appropriate to make it into Template:NoteTag, with an option of revisiting this to see whether to restore to a full blown text after half a year. This is because, from an eventualist lens, the ever increasing unpopularity against Russia due to the invasion of Ukraine can plausibly cause views expressing skepticism against Russian achievements in general, such as the one being discussed here, to be re-popularised and ending up on mainstream opinion, just like WP:CCC. This is not helped by the recent fact that Russian cosmonauts had displayed separatist flags on the International Space Station. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The ability to perform a soft and safe landing of the descent capsule was quite an important technological distinction at that time, as well. It's why there was a longstanding and implicit consensus to preserve the passage for more than five years until now. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Just think about this perspective; it is the equivalent of Charles Lindbergh deadhanding his plane to Paris while bailing out onto a ship somewhere near the Irish coast. There was even an investigation by FAI itself on whether to disqualify Gagarin before budging out of practicality. In the grand scheme of things when covering events in the era where technological achievements and feats are showcased by either side of the Atlantic, that passage goes right into something we call a MacGuffin at least. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Astronautica, despite some inaccuracies since it was not really up to date, had a footnote directly in Gagarin's entry of its manned spaceflight list page mentioning the caveat that he bailed out of flight with the implication that the record would be rejected by the FAI in normal circumstances. Keep note that the almanac was endorsed by the American Astronautical Society's History Committee in terms of credibility while NASA regularly refers its readers to it. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

NASA website describes Gagarin's flight as the first human spaceflight. TASS is not reliable to state that NASA actually considers his flight a parachute jump.

The story about FAI rules technicality is classified by TechRepublic as 'geek trivia', which it probably is.

On the substance of the matter, neither Shephard's Mercury-Redstone 3 or most of the modern spacecraft such as Soyuz and Crew Dragon are capable of performing a controlled landing in the sense old FAI rules required: the last phase of the flight is parachuting followed by an impact. PaulT2022 (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Except that, unlike the other examples you've brought up, Gagarin ejected himself out of the spacecraft before touchdown. As said before, this is an equivalent of Charles Lindbergh deadhanding Spirit of St. Louis to Paris while bailing out onto a ship somewhere near the Irish coast. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The NASA link which you've posted here said that This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers. Visit NASA.gov for current information, just as a note. According to the page, textually speaking, they merely state that Gagarin was the first to orbit the Earth.204.15.72.92 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

From a quick Google books search, I was able to uncover the following:

• The Race: The Complete True Story of How America Beat Russia to the Moon by TIME correspondent James L. Schefter. Page unknown.

The problem was, under FAI rules, a pilot must stay with his ship from takeoff to landing. ail out and it doesn't count.

• Human Spaceflight by Joseph A. Angelo. Page 24.

Years later, when Russian officials admitted that Gagarin had ejected from the Vostok 1 spacecraft during descent and did not land in the same craft in which he started his journey, some FAI officials raised a technicality that questioned the official status of his “first-in-spaceflight” record. Founded in 1905, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) is the world organization responsible for setting standards and keeping records within the fields of aeronautics and astronautics. In 1961, the FAI rules required that a pilot (that is, an astronaut or cosmonaut) must land with the spacecraft to be considered as having achieved an official spaceflight worthy of entry into the FAI book of records.

It was the second source stating that it was FAI officials and not average Joes that raised the technicality of his "first in spaceflight" record. That itself says a lot. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's a document by James Oberg which has just been found.204.15.72.92 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• http://www.jamesoberg.com/red_star_in_orbit_04_Gagarin_only.pdf

This uncertainty came to a head in Paris three months later, when the International Aeronautical Federation, or FAI (the acronym for the French name), convened a meeting to certify the world records being claimed for the flight. A longstanding FAI rule could have meant an embarrassing propaganda defeat: to qualify for any new world flying records, a pilot must take off and land in his aircraft or spacecraft. The rule book was quite explicit on this point.

As it turned out, the Vostok capsule was equipped with an ejection seat, which served to catapult the pilot clear of the booster in the event of a launch failure. The same system was to be used during the final descent to earth, since the three-ton spherical landing capsule did not pack a parachute large enough to ensure a gentle (or even a survivable) landing. The pilot was supposed to fire the ejection seat at about 10,000 feet and come down separately. Gagarin had almost certainly used this method.

In Paris, the FAI director-general confronted the Soviet delegate with the crucial question: “Where was the pilot on in return in relation to the space vehicle?” Perhaps sensing a plot to deny the Soviet Union its rightful recognition, the Soviet spokesman loudly protested: “Ask the Americans if the U.S.A. believes that these records claimed for Gagarin were actually made. All the people of the world have already endorsed Gagarin’s flight and have accepted it as fact.” The wrangling went on for five hours, with the FAI officials demanding documentation that Gagarin had landed inside the ship and the Soviet delegates denouncing such requirements as obstructionist and insulting.

Finally, as dinnertime approached, the FAI officials gave in and agreed to certify the Soviet version of the flight that Gagarin had been inside the capsule. Subsequently, when foreign newsmen asked for evidence that Gagarin had landed inside the ship, Soviet officials would point to the FAI certification as independent proof of their claims. But as the proverb goes, nobody has a good enough memory to be a successful liar. A year later cosmonaut Popovich was asked how he landed, and without checking he blurted out, “Like Titov and Gagarin, I landed outside the ship”; in 1964 the three-man Voskhod capsule would include a small retrorocket to cushion the final landing, and boastful Soviet space officials would point to it as “the first time that a crew could land in its ship.” Ten years later a book by chief Soviet space correspondent Evgeny Riabchikov would describe how the Vostok came down in a plowed field while Gagarin himself came down in a pasture near a deep ravine.

Still, that isn't 1971 yet, when the full details of his landing came out.204.15.72.92 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph from Human Spaceflight by Joseph A. Angelo. Page 24 continues with Despite the subsequent FAI record challenge based on a technicality within the rules, Gagarin's mission and marvelous accomplishment is still almost universally recognized as the first human spaceflight.

More importantly, none of the sources you've provided state that Shepard performed the first human spaceflight. They say that based on a technicality, in the opinion of authors (but not FAI), Gagarin's flight should've been disqualified from being recognized as an official record. This is different from the statement made in this edit.

What these sources would support is a footnote stating something along the lines of: Some authors speculate that in the case if FAI were to reject Gagarin's record based on a technicality, Shepard may have been considered to perform the first spaceflight.

We don't have a way to know whether FAI would've accepted Gagarin's record if they knew about bailing out, and neither whether Shepard's landing would've been considered the record by the same rules. Its all pure speculation and should be presented with appropriate wording and weight.

I agree with the opinion of editors who stated that its UNDUE, however, inclusion of a footnote about existing speculation could be useful for readers that share IP address's opinion about expressing skepticism against Russian achievements in general. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a great start! Furthermore in page 109 of Nicholas de Monchaux's Spacesuit: Fashioning Apollo, the following passage was shown:

The particulars of this process, and the fact of Gagarin's separate landing, were not revealed until 1978.

A reference tag was marked on the sentence within the book. Since according to the sources so far, the FAI had questioned the veracity of Soviet's record for two times, specifically after Titov's flight and during the 1970s, I was wondering whether it could lead to sources that can confirm that the latter had happened. I'll see if my local bookstore has the book this weekend.

On the articles, the proposed note tag text can also be worded as,

Some sources speculated that per the interpretation of FAI definitions in 1961, Shepard, rather than Gagarin, may have been considered to complete the first human spaceflight mission. This is due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. However, later on FAI eventually recognised Gagarin as the first human to fly into space due to practical reasons.

204.15.72.92 (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

However, later on FAI eventually recognised Gagarin as the first human to fly into space due to practical reasons. - every word here is a misrepresentation:

1. FAI recognised Gagarin's flight from the beginning

2. sources don't doubt the Gagarin was the first human to fly into space; they discuss whether FAI should've recognized this as a specific type of a record

3. 'practical' reasons that made FAI consider Gagarin's flight the first flight is an entirely unfounded speculation

What this sentence probably should say instead is something like FAI later changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished (paraphrasing the penultimate paragraph from here)

PaulT2022 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

So the text would instead be Some sources speculated that per the interpretation of FAI definitions in 1961, Shepard, rather than Gagarin, may have been considered to complete the first human spaceflight mission. This is due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. However FAI later changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished.

Thanks. I'll wait for comments from others about this proposed solution before putting those onto the Timeline pages while moving on to discuss other issues in Space Race, including the omission of Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with 'however': it implies a contradiction, whereas sources say the rules were updated to reflect differences between piloting spaceships and airships.

I think 'the interpretation' is also inappropriate: clearly its not the only one as FAI interpreted them to recognise Gagarin's flight instead of Shepard's. Probably should say 'per formalistic interpretation', 'per alternative interpretation' or something similar.

Ultimately, sources see this as a WP:FRINGE viewpoint and while I see a merit for its inclusion in a footnote, it shouldn't be described as anything different from what it is; definitely not as a some sort of truth kept secret by FAI as implied by the proposed wording. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hence, the passage would be Some sources speculated that per formalistic interpretation of FAI definitions in 1961, Shepard, rather than Gagarin, may have been considered to complete the first human spaceflight mission. This is due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. FAI later changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished. They would be a note tag attached to both Gagarin's "first human spaceflight" and Shepard's "First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft" in those Timeline articles. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a source to state that the Shepard's flight would've indeed been the one recognised instead? Not being picky, just realised his flight was suborbital, so its not automatically obvious that it would've met the criteria. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:BLUESKY would apply here as Shepard's flight was directly after Gagarin's making the former the second man in space, which has the logical implication of Freedom 7 being the first spaceflight instead had Vostok 1 been disqualified. Temporarily taking aside all these, presently it's a known and well established fact that he landed within his spacecraft whereas Gagarin did not. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Not only its well established, but its been reported by New York Times in "SOVIET CLARIFIES GAGARIN'S FLIGHT" 8 May 1961 p39, two months before FAI acknowledged Gagarin's records. The implication that Shepard was therefore first to fly to space because of landing method used by the Soviets never surfaced at the time. To the best of my understanding, none of the sources linked above makes such connection either. PaulT2022 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately, the sources say that the idea that Gagarin did not make the first crewed spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view. Whether this was controversial decades ago is irrelevant—it isn't now. The idea that it was the equivalent of Charles Lindbergh deadhanding his plane to Paris while bailing out onto a ship somewhere near the Irish coast is the personal opinion of an editor, which carries no weight here. It is not appropriate to include this fringe view in the articles, not even in a footnote and not even if we clearly describe it as a fringe view. Debunking it unprompted would be legitimizing it (as worthy of being explicitly debunked) to an extent that is simply not justified by the sources we have. As Ilenart626 noted, this is covered at Yuri Gagarin#Vostok 1, which currently says:

At about 7,000 metres (23,000 ft), Gagarin ejected from the descending capsule as planned and landed using a parachute. There were concerns Gagarin's spaceflight record would not be certified by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), the world governing body for setting standards and keeping records in the field, which at the time required that the pilot land with the craft. Gagarin and Soviet officials initially refused to admit that he had not landed with his spacecraft, an omission which became apparent after Titov's flight on Vostok 2 four months later. Gagarin's spaceflight records were nonetheless certified and reaffirmed by the FAI, which revised its rules, and acknowledged that the crucial steps of the safe launch, orbit, and return of the pilot had been accomplished. Gagarin is internationally recognised as the first human in space and first to orbit the Earth.

That is the proper place and manner to cover this information. Sources on the topic of the articles at hand—the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race, respectively—generally do not cover this aspect from what I've seen. That makes it a WP:MINORASPECT which is not to be included because it would be giving it undue weight. The same goes for Shepard being the first astronaut to land inside the spacecraft—it's a WP:MINORASPECT which is not to be included. At best, we can place {{FAQ}} on the talk pages (see Talk:September 11 attacks for an example of how the template can be used). If we do so, it should say something like:

Q: Didn't Alan Shepard technically make the first human spaceflight?
A: No. This idea stems from old Fédération Aéronautique Internationale rules carried over from aviation stipulating that the pilot had to land inside the vessel, while Yuri Gagarin parachuted out of Vostok 1. The FAI decided to certify Gagarin's record and amended their rules to not require landing inside the spacecraft as they judged that landing safely was the important part. Gagarin is almost universally recognized as having made the first human spaceflight, and the conception that he did not is a WP:FRINGE view.

What do you think about this, PaulT2022? TompaDompa (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@TompaDompa I agree completely with WP:FRINGE / WP:MINORASPECT. Not only its minor, but the implication that if FAI were not to recognise Gagarin's records would imply that he didn't fly to space is unsourced, as far as I understand. (FAI doesn't recognise primacy in the space race or the fact of the space flight; and Gagarin's flight was orbital, far above the required altitude and likely tracked by the US tracking stations. So it would've only affected FAI recognition of the altitude/duration of an orbital flight record.)

Having said that, the problem is not it was controversial because of the bail out decades ago (it wasn't - see this contemporary NYT article from 8 May 1961 for example), but that it became controversial now, because there are people eager to debunk Russian claims and achievements assuming that they're potential lies. (For example: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022/03/yuri-gagarin-gets-memory-holed-by-american-space-advocacy-group https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/12/putins-schoolboy-hero-inspiring-invasion-ukraine/)

James Oberg's quote above is alleged to be from the 70s. However, he himself mentions in the PDF that he reworked his article and book, and the part quoted above seems to be plagiarised from The cosmonaut who couldn't stop smiling by Andrew Jenks, pp.148-150, published in 2012. Jenks attributes the entire story about FAI concerns to his 2007 interview with a local teacher from Saratov, who also happens to be an amateur historian interested in the space race. Jenks also references two local untraceable newspapers without naming article authors, so its conceivable that they're written by the same teacher. Seeker article appears to be a rewrite of either James or Oberg (judging by the narrative structure). The rest of the sources who mention FAI being at odds about recognising Gagarin's primacy in space don't reference where the story comes from; it is possible that they're basing it on Jenks, as no pre-2007 sources that would talk about this controversy were presented.

I think that explaining why Gagarin is named/listed as first in space would be useful for readers who come to Wikipedia after reading fringe theories. Agree that its best if it would not be phrased as debunking because of legitimisation concerns. And definitely not in the proposed wording that would imply that FAI stole space race victory from Shepard.

Perhaps a contemporaneous source can be found that would say that FAI reaffirmed the Gagarin's flight eligibility after reviewing the landing method? Linking it as a reference for anyone in doubt would be better than a custom footnote. If such source doesn't exist, then its really problematic for adding anything as the only source I was able to trace is the teacher from Saratov mentioned by Jenks, and the rest appear to copy from him. None of them really makes a clear connection that if Gagarin's records wouldn't have been recognised by FAI, primacy of his flight would be somehow invalidated. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

James Oberg's book Red star in orbit which was published in 1981, contains the exact long passage regarding the confrontation between FAI officials and Soviet delegates at page 55. The Encyclopedia Astronautica was more explicit that Gagarin would not qualify for all the FAI spaceflight records as the 1961 sporting code mandated every flight, including spaceflight as something which must involve the presence of pilot in their craft during takeoff and landing. It was interpreted by the Tech Republic that:

Thus, he did not "legally" complete a piloted flight under the guidelines of the FAI, the international aeronautics governing body.

Moreover, according to those sources, the records of both Gagarin's and Shepard's were examined at that time, while Smithsonian noted the following:

If nationals from two different countries claim a record, it is the FAI's job to examine the submitted documentation and make a ruling as to who has accomplished the feat first.

With above, the note tag would serve as a Macguffin in those articles. Besides that, landing safely while inside the spacecraft is an impressive feat on its own, particularly given the context of that era and the Charles Lindbergh analogy. "First in space" or "First to fly into space", and "First to complete spaceflight", although similar at a glance, can carry a different meaning. It's not just something like whether Pluto is a planet; rather Gagarin was only a hair breadth from being disqualified before FAI gave in. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The point you're missing is, as evident from the contemporaneous publications, as well as FAI website, it certified three records for Gagarin's flight: duration of orbital flight, greatest altitude of orbital flight and greatest mass lifted in orbit. It certified two records for Shepard's non-orbital flight, in two different categories, for a sub-orbital flight. FAI never certified the record for who was first to fly to space.

You've supplied sources that say that because FAI recognised Gagarin's records, his primacy in space is unquestionable, and that the Soviets made contradicting statements about his landing to secure FAI records regardless of its ruling. There's no question about it. However, after reading all sources carefully, I can't find anything to support the claim that were his three orbital flight records not to be recognised, Shepard would've been considered the first man in space instead. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What we have is a WP:FRINGE view and a WP:MINORASPECT. Everything else is beside the point. I'm removing the fringe/undue material from article space. TompaDompa (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, @TompaDompa: please do not close the discussion yet as it hasn't run its full course. Presently there are only five participants which would be far from fulfilling a quorum, especially when subject matter experts such as @JustinTime55: hadn't weighed in yet. In fact, according to page history he had restored or upheld the passage in 2016 while the information had been staying up on the page ever since with longstanding WP:SILENTCONSENSUS, until now.

Prematurely closing this discussion would be akin to saying a given political candidate had won the election when there are uncounted postal votes that could result in a loss or a tie. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now you're just straight-up WP:WikiLawyering, and poorly at that. I didn't close the discussion and Most conversations do not need to be closed. per WP:WHENCLOSE. Silence is the weakest form of consensus per WP:SILENTCONSENSUS and it has now been challenged—several editors here agree that this is not appropriate to include. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. per WP:ONUS. You are promoting what is per the sources a WP:FRINGE view in article space. TompaDompa (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, it would be more precise to state that it is (or was) a significant minority view rather than a "fringe" opinion, as it was the FAI officials that raise the technicality to the Soviet delegates. This states that Views held by a significant minority should be included, but should not be given as extensive coverage as majority views. To do so would overstate the extent of controversy. Aside from those, one thing which I notice that was overlooked from this discussion so far is that there is subtle yet significant etymological differences between "first man in space", "first human spaceflight mission", and "technically completing the first human spaceflight mission". It is not helpful to move the goalpost within this context, such as conflating the three altogether. I will make a table here to explain it easier.

Question	Yuri Gagarin	Alan Shepard
First person to cross the 100km Karman line boundary and into space?	Yes.	No.
First human spaceflight mission (irrespective of outcomes or technicalities)?	Yes.	No.
Technically completing the first human spaceflight mission by 1961 FAI definitions?	No. He ejected out of his spacecraft before landing.	Yes. He was in the spacecraft all the time.

The sources simply implied Point 3 based on the formalistic interpretation of 1961 FAI rules. Moreover, aside from WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:CHILDPROTECT (due to an unfortunate fact that a thread attempting to do p*do advocacy is just above this Outpost Tavern), there is an interesting caveat in WP:NPOV in the form of WP:NONAZIS prohibiting views that attempt to whitewash Nazi Germany, Nazism and the likes from appearing on Wikipedia, presumably broadly construed. It is more than the simplistic discontent among readers.

As time goes on, we may very well see the editing community outlawing any edits or views that promote Russocentric totalitarian beliefs like Rashism or Russkiy Mir (Russian world) in the same fashion as above. When it happens any contents within any topic that is deemed too slanted towards pro-Russian viewpoints will be up for challenge, as with concurrent to the discrediting of Russophilic ideologies, a section in WP:NORACISTS states that racists generally believes in That their culture is superior to others and editors would want to err on the safe side, particularly given the association of Gagarin mythos by Putin with his war and Russia in general, and the display of separatist flags by Russian cosmonauts within the International Space Station.

This is entirely similar to the Midas Curse. In fact as per this Vanity Fair article which is already put here, the beginning had already started. Hence, if we remove the passage in the name of fixing "false balance", more likely than not we'd be ending up reinventing the wheel and end up on the starting point once again which by all means is going to be unnecessarily disruptive to all of us. Considering that the retention of passage in full may be akin to fighting fire with fire and causing undue weight, at this time the rewritting of passage into something as anodyne as possible and subsequent relegation into a note tag may be the least bad solution out, within the situation that is like between rock and a hard place.

I digress, indeed. But the gist is circumstances may wildly change so much that it would be better not to commit the sin of omission of throwing the baby out with the water. In the meantime only First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft would remain as main text within the articles, because what's the point of having to eject from spaceships like Soyuz or Dragon every time when there is a room of improvement to eliminate this major discomfort? It's an impressive and significant technological advancement on its own, despite being a "one small step".204.15.72.92 (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Technically completing the first human spaceflight mission by 1961 FAI definitions? - this is unsourced, as there's no reliable source that states FAI ever recognised who made the first human spaceflight (besides the Angelo's childrens' book written by a non-expert), and its trivial to verify that FAI indeed didn't make such judgement.

I retract my previous statements about merit existing to include this speculation, which indeed could've been there because of Russocentric concerns. As it stands now, its a speculation by two editors, not supported by a known reliable source. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The mentioned Tech Republic source stated that Gagarin Thus, he did not “legally” complete a piloted flight under the guidelines of the FAI, the international aeronautics governing body". But at this stage, I'd be happy to rewrite the proposed notetag into a more anodyne manner.204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

How about nixing the explanatory footnote and instead using the {{FAQ}} template in the manner I suggested above? TompaDompa (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Thanks for the creation of the FAQ pages; don't forget Timeline of space exploration and also Space age. We're still in the process on whether to go a little bit WP:IGNOREALLRULES to move the Tech Republic and/or Smithsonian citations to the respective Gagarin's sections, given that most readers don't really bother to click the link to the talk page and the wider context which I think I had repeated ad infinitum here.204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This is getting rather tiresome. No, we're obviously not going to WP:Ignore all rules to go out of our way to get people to read WP:FRINGE views. If people don't read the FAQ debunking a WP:FRINGE theory unless they are looking for it because most readers don't really bother to click the link to the talk page, that would in fact be a feature rather than a bug. By trying to get people to read about a WP:FRINGE view, you are promoting a WP:FALSEBALANCE—surely you must realize this? TompaDompa (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea, for now. Besides that, it might be helpful to put the Tech Republic and Smithsonian links into the Yuri Gagarin sections of both the Timeline articles where they would just be a "further reading" directing users to outside resources that contains the view while simultaneously affirming Gagarin's "first in space" record. That would be anodyne enough to allay concerns of "pro-Russian whitewashing", while adhering to WP:DUEWEIGHT. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm against as these articles don't say what records FAI was involved with, effectively spreading disinformation by omission. For anyone interested, contemporaneous NYT article specifies, some digging on FAI website allows to find answer as well.

It happened just about the exact time the events in Oberg's long passage happened. Note that there was still only circumstantial evidences that Gagarin jumped. According to Stephen Walker's book Beyond: The Astonishing Story of the First Human to Leave Our Planet and Journey into Space, there were even initial newspaper reports in Saratov that Gagarin jumped, only to be destroyed by the KGB. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Correction: The information somehow leaked out through the Iron Curtain and picked up by some Italian newspapers mere days after Vostok 1. RadioTV Svizzera's journalist Paolo Attivissimo has a Twitter thread of it with translations. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that inclusion of these links is against WP:EL guideline. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Categorically disagree with Not to mention that inclusion of these links is against WP:EL guideline. WP:ELYES states that Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. The Smithsonian article in particular could be an ad hoc FAQ for readers, not unlike as proposed by Tompa.204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with PaulT2022 here. Don't link to sites hosting WP:FRINGE views as "further reading", obviously. TompaDompa (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The Smithsonian citation which in addition of being far more reliable than Tech Republic, is more anodyne than the latter. It has mentions of the controversy, but ultimately affirmed the fact that Gagarin was the first in space. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this source doesn't have mentions of the controversy, but ultimately affirmed the fact that Gagarin was the first in space. Rather, it clarifies that there is no controversy—that the idea that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view. We shouldn't try to inform readers about WP:FRINGE views they are not already aware of. I added the link to the FAQ, because that's the appropriate place to put it in this context. TompaDompa (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding you are promoting a WP:FALSEBALANCE—surely you must realize this?, maybe. However the WP:FRINGE invocation that's now being thrown around like a shibboleth also contains the BBC Trust policy that This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.

The bad thing is it is going to be in the eye of the beholder. In most times editorial disputes such as this can be affected by Wikipedia:GEOBIAS too. No offense, for example in America they would feel that the edit must be present in any form to maintain NPOV, while in Russia more might think it's extraneous or unnecessary "revisionism", and all of the rest could be a tossup, including apathetic attitudes like "meh, I don't care".

For the moment, I think we can soft close this discussion and move to the next topic of the inclusion of Qian Xuesen and GALCIT into Space Race, with the possibility of a re-opening at any time in case of changed circumstances; examples being the decision of Justin or other subject matter experts to weigh in, change of authoritative spaceflight timelines info (i.e. Britannica) to include the technicality amidst the rising anti-Russian sentiment, access to sources such as records from FAI or NASA that are not initially covered here which support the inclusion of the passage, or the expansion of WP:NONAZIS to prohibit the pushin pro-Russian ideologies of all spectrums. This is not to mention the possible concerns of "minority rule" on the Timeline and the space age large-traffic articles.

Move to the next? 204.15.72.92 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per the sources, the idea that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view. "Yuri Gagarin remains indisputably the first person in space and the concept that the first cosmonauts had to land inside their spacecraft is a faded artifact of the transition from aviation to spaceflight." and "Despite the subsequent FAI record challenge based on a technicality within the rules, Gagarin's mission and marvelous accomplishment is still almost universally recognized as the first human spaceflight."—mind you that these are your sources that you brought up. Whether there was some controversy several decades ago doesn't matter—the idea that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view now.

With regard to Shepard being the first astronaut to land inside the spacecraft, sources on the topic of the articles at hand—the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race, respectively—generally do not cover this aspect. It's a WP:MINORASPECT which is not to be mentioned in these articles. If you disagree with that, demonstrate that this is incorrect by citing sources on the topic of the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race which demonstrates that this is in fact something the sources consider to be a significant aspect of these topics. TompaDompa (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

By the same logic as you had put forth, First interplanetary escape without undercarriage cutoff.[clarification needed] would be FRINGE-y as well. However obviously that would be not germane in the discussion here due to it being in different era. Besides, WP:NOTPAPER may be of relevance while Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space and balance detoured that Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers.

Otherwise, I'm more than inclined to put in the mentions of Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT into Space Race, assuming that there's a go from all of you.204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the scope of this discussion isn't really limited to Gagarin and Shepard alone; the topic include other pro-Russian POV issues such as the omission of Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT. However as recently COVID hit me and I'm still grappling with neurological issues, I may leave this all entirely to the community to run on its own after the issues regarding Gagarin and Qian Xuesen were resolved.

Fine. I rewrote the proposed tag ground up into the following:

Some sources reported that Vostok 1 did not meet the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale's requirements of establishing records due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. FAI changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished.

Otherwise, taking PaulT2022's suggestion, for this time I will put the Tech Republic link and some of the rest into the Timeline articles, this time as a citation on Gagarin's "first human spaceflight mission" or so, while removing the text from Alan Shepard's section which according to page history has been there for about five years. 19:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I kindly request not to attribute to me what I haven't said.

My opinion is the entire FAI rules argument cannot be used to speculate who could've been considered first in space unless a WP:RS presented to establish the relevance of FAI rules to Gagarin being recognised as the first human to fly in space (TechRepublic author doesn't make such judgement), at which point an informed discussion on WP:FRINGE viewpoint inclusion can be held. As of now, the proposed edit is an unsourced speculation and I'm against it per WP:VERIFIABILITY. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I kindly request not to attribute to me what I haven't said? Sure, however as the old saying goes, you can't unring a bell. Please keep that in mind next time.204.15.72.92 (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The "citation" option would not really involve the (re) addition of information per se onto the two articles per se; rather it would just be a "further reading" which directs users to outside resources that contains the view while simultaneously affirming Gagarin's "first in space" record. That would be anodyne enough to allay concerns of "pro-Russian whitewashing", while adhering to WP:DUEWEIGHT.204.15.72.92 (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hang on! The Seeker article implied that If Gagarin and Titov both ejected before landing, the Soviet Union would lose its spot in history as the first nation to launch a man into space. But I guess it's late now. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The article then goes on to say the FAI held a special meeting of delegates to reexamine Titov's records and reconsider Gagarin's. The result of the meeting was a change to the parameters that defined spaceflight rather than a change to the records. The parameters switched to focus on the payload launched; this technical achievement mattered more than how the astronaut or cosmonaut landed. That Gagarin had orbited the Earth was the real achievement, and both his and Titov's records remain in the FAI's books. and After the decision to keep Gagarin's record intact, the early Vostok landing system went from a controversial issue to a historical oddity of the transition from flight in aircraft to spaceflight in capsules. In other words, there is no controversy and there hasn't been for decades. The idea that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view. It's time to WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

FTFY: there is no controversy and there hasn't been for decades yet. But fine, I'll move on to the next section for now.204.15.72.92 (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Seeker article has factual inaccuracies: if two nations were going to vie for the record of first in space, the FAI should have clear rules to determine a winner. The result of the meeting was a change to the parameters that defined spaceflight rather than a change to the records. The parameters switched to focus on the payload launched; this technical achievement mattered more than how the astronaut or cosmonaut landed.

These parameters were the ones claimed by the Soviets from the beginning and certified by FAI before the Titov's flight; FAI never made a determination of who was first in space.

Given the contradictions with secondary coverage in NYT and primary documents from FAI, I don't think this Seeker article can be considered to be a WP:RS per WP:REDFLAG PaulT2022 (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an NYT subscription, can you please quote the relevant passage from it? 204.15.72.92 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Its a very short note, says that FAI certified three orbital flight records for Gagarin (added here) and two for the sub-orbital Shepard's flight. Published on 23 Jul 1961.

I suppose FAI website should have the details about what records and when they've certified in open access. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Although the atmosphere was so tense because of the charged nature of the underlying issues, I feel grateful to learn about a quirk that Gagarin's record of attaining highest altitude in elliptical orbit through a one-man spacecraft remains unsurpassed. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

204.15.72.92 endlessly arguing with walls of green text does not change the fact that you are pushing WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE issues. Suggest you get a life and stop wasting editors time with your nonsense. Ilenart626 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggest you to refresh yourself with WP:CIVILITY as get a life can often be construed as appearing to ridicule another editor's comment.204.15.72.92 (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the text below as their is no consensus for adding this Wikipedia:Fringe theories to the talk pages of Talk:Space Age, Talk:Timeline of the Space Race

and Talk:Timeline of space exploration. Two editors is not a consensus.

Ilenart626 (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Given that you had performed these unwarranted reversions despite that this NPOVN discussion favoring the use of FAQ explainer talk page headers which was added by me and @TompaDompa: in the affected pages:

1 2 3

I'm not sure how that would be different from disruptive editing.204.15.72.92 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggest you review Wikipedia:Consensus Ilenart626 (talk)

Sure, the WP:CONLEVEL states that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. However, it can also be argued from the other way that this discussion has only a participation of a handful of users without inputs from actual subject matter experts and the rest of the editing community, therefore looking more or less, to paraphrase a quote from For All Mankind (TV series), an "orchestrated discussion". To illustrate more, the page views of the articles stand in the thousands. Moving from that, it's helpful to read this too. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Again you are introducing irrelevant information. I also note that you have reverted my edits and as per WP:STATUSQUO these should be removed until we have Wikipedia:Consensus Ilenart626 (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Once more WP:STATUSQUO states that "During a dispute discussion, you should not revert away from the status quo ante bellum until a consensus is established. Instead of reverting, insert an appropriate tag indicating the text is under discussion. If a dispute arises regarding which version is the status quo ante bellum then be the adult in the room and don't revert. Tag instead". This means that the affected pages are restored to versions like this on an interim basis, pending the outcome of this discussion.

Don't throw stones inside glass houses, next time. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm, English not your first language? The term status quo ante bellum is a Latin phrase meaning "the situation as it existed before the war". This means we go back to what the articles say before you added your fringe theories

Ilenart626 (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

According to page histories, the text had been present there for about six years by virtue of silent consensuses, along with subject matter experts such as this. At this stage, to pretend otherwise reeks of WP:JDLI.204.15.72.92 (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not terribly attached to the FAQ—it was mainly an attempt at a compromise to get the WP:FRINGE view out of article space. I don't mind the FAQ being removed. I do however very much mind 204.15.72.92 reintroducing the WP:FRINGE view to article space. You know this is a WP:FRINGE view. You agree that this is a WP:FRINGE view. There is no disagreement here about removing the WP:FRINGE view from article space—the disagreement that remains is whether the FAQ should be on the talk pages. Re-adding the WP:FRINGE view to article space at this point is purely WP:Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. TompaDompa (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point I'm okay with the text omitted from the article space of those three, simply because the time is not right yet. However the WP:POVDELETION state that Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted, which is very likely behind the rationale of putting up the FAQ templates. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the rationale behind the FAQ is that there is an editor who promotes WP:FRINGE views who also engages in WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT behaviour that makes discussing the issue extremely time-consuming and patience-trying, and the hope was that the FAQ would function as a compromise that would bring that to an end. I don't think you fully appreciate just how disruptive you are being. As Chipmunkdavis said in the section above: Deadlock is certainly one way to describe all other editors agreeing your edits were poor. Please WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I was actually in acceptance the FAQ compromise when I restored the template after he barged in to remove it under the grounds of WP:STATUSQUO. In fact, prior to that I was going to move on to discuss GALCIT and the lunar probes passages on Space Race.204.15.72.92 (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

For the rest, the status quo ante bellum of Timeline of the Space Race and Space Age appear to be this and this respectively.204.15.72.92 (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

And the consensus here—which includes you—is that the material under discussion is WP:FRINGE and should not be included. Stop it with your disruptive WP:WikiLawyering, WP:I didn't hear that, and WP:Bludgeoning behaviour and instead WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I accept my responsibility, despite presently having Chronic Covid Syndrome at the moment. However, I think that Ilenart626 should not be acting too rash either by removing the FAQ template and instead offer his comments on the discussion first.

In fact because of the charged nature of the issue I had at one point considered asking uninvolved administrator to start an WP:RFC to solicit opinions across editors who're familiar with the subject. But fine, I'll head toward the FAQ compromise as originally agreed upon then. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The FAQ compromise was not originally agreed upon. I proposed it, but as I said I don't mind the FAQ being removed. You are in favour of including it. Ilenart626 is opposed. I'm not entirely sure what PaulT2022 thinks. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with him that it's probably better off at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group, although the WikiProject looks a little bit stale, with a defunct link in its resources section that now leads to something that's probably infested with malwares. Unfortunately I'll have to wait for others as IP address editors do not have page creation or move rights.204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitely agree that this edit that  204.15.72.92 reintroduced in the Space Age article is Wikipedia:Fringe theories and should be removed. I also believe the FAQ above should also be removed, but happy to wait for input from other editors Ilenart626 (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The old FAI rule, despite being perceivably pedantic, made sense in context though. They keep aviation records. If a person was the first to attempt flying across an ocean, say the Atlantic or the Pacific and crashed upon landing, the attempt is considered as a failure, even if he/she technically went from an end to another. Context matters and that's why the "asterisk" should be here to stay, even as a FAQ template relegated into talk page. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The edit should be removed as unsourced due to lack of WP:RS.

Where FAI is referenced (such as proposed FAQ or wording of Yuri Gagarin#Vostok 1), the vague "Gagarin's record" must never be used, as it might refer to a logbook entry or to the Soviet claim of Gagarin's three world records filed to FAI for example. It should be clear what records the concerns voiced in the sources affect.

If an FAQ is made, it probably should be maintained under Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group rather than one of the pages.

A possible way to resolve IP addresses's concerns about confused readers not understanding why Wikipedia claims that Gagarin was first in space, is to add a reference to a neutral source that clearly establishes Gagarin's primacy as the first person to fly to space by focusing on what was achieved, such as https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/56718196 PaulT2022 (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That would be a much more appropriate solution. The WikiProject Television's FAQ page looks set to be a useful example. While for the moment it would look very much like a stub page since there is only one question, it can be used as part of a standard operating procedure to clarify for the readers on any discrepancies in records or so on that may arise in the future, especially with the present revival of interest in space exploration. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The controversy was not mentioned in the BBC article, although BBC itself has other language reports briefly mentioning it while closing it with "the FAI approved Gagarin's spaceflight records" and "first to travel to space", not to mention the title itself.204.15.72.92 (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-56716051
• https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/science-56717342

Speaking about the controversy itself and just to explain more of the context, this would be akin to the case of Ferdinand Magellan. Despite dying in the Philippines in the middle of the circumnavigational expedition, he was widely reported in textbooks as being the first to circumnavigate the globe for many years. Now the National Geographic and History Channel had came out to ask people to think again and that someone else may deserve the true credit for being the first person to circumnavigate globe.

• https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/magellan-first-sail-around-world-think-again

• https://www.history.com/news/was-magellan-the-first-person-to-circumnavigate-the-globe

A more precise analogy can be found in Claims to the first powered flight. For example, it is arguable that Hiram Maxim had achieved a first powered heavier than air flight simply because during trials in 1894, the machine lifted and was prevented from rising by the outriggers. During its test run, all the outriggers were engaged, showing that it had developed enough lift to take off, but in so doing, it pulled up the track; the tethered "flight" was aborted in time to prevent disaster, with exactly the same vein used to justify Gagarin's claim. To put it simply, it left the rail, flew a little ways only to crash. But is he remembered as the first man to fly a heavier-than-air?

Moreover, Alberto Santos-Dumont rather than Wright Brothers was recognised in Brazil as the first person to make a flight simply because it's the first of their kind recognised by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. There were differing views of criteria in order to gain recognition as first heavier than air flight too and within such backdrops no doubt there's a point to be nitpicky by law and by fact records, just like the list of firsts in aviation with First confirmed manned powered flight made by Clément Ader in particular, coupled with the present wider turbulent context, not helped with this Newsweek article from two months ago alleging Gagarin of touching the Queen's leg. There'd still be the argument on whether to classify John Glenn's Friendship 7 as technically the first to complete the first human orbital spaceflight by the strict interpretation, had Shepard beat Gagarin into space. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

By now the rough consensus appeared to favor the restoration of the FAQ templates, so I had proceeded to edit the according articles' talk pages. However, those templates may be superseded if it's decided to move the information to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group/FAQ pursuant to PaulT2022's suggestions. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Rough" is certainly one way to describe the consensus with adding the FAQ. You support, I oppose but happy to see other Editors opinions, @TompaDompa: does not mind it being removed and @PaulT2022: stated "If an FAQ is made, it probably should be maintained under Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group rather than one of the pages." In other words, their is no consensus to add the FAQ to Talk:Space Age, Talk:Timeline of space exploration or Talk:Timeline of the Space Race. Therefore I am reverting your "Rough consensus" edits as their is no consensus.

PaulT2022 also made a very useful proposal to "...add a reference to a neutral source that clearly establishes Gagarin's primacy as the first person to fly to space by focusing on what was achieved, such as https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/56718196". I agree that this is worthwhile and will add this reference.

As TompaDompa has already suggested, IP address WP:drop the stick. Ilenart626 (talk)

There is an implicit consensus which would be best indicated in this improvement edit made by @TompaDompa: made immediately after Paul's feedback. Aside from that, your reversion had also orphaned the page; you'd be better off not acting too rash next time.

WP:KOOLAID said that However, speaking out against consensus and policy is not disruptive if it is done with civility, while we had already circled the wagon so many times regarding the problems that would arise if the passage was completely left out, even as a template in talk page. I'm pretty sure you have noticed the guideline stating that especially contentious content should be relegated to the talk page rather than deleted.

In fact, I was in agreement with @PaulT2022: that it is best moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group, most certainly as a subpage. By then the move and the inclusion of templates in affected pages would not be mutually exclusive since editing those templates individually across multiple pages is set to be exhaustive without that "centralization", and likely not be as "odd" in terms of styles as it is under the subpage of the Timeline of the Space Race talkspace. To put it simply, if there is something to add to the template, they can simply edit the centralized page over at the WikiProject conveniently.

This is not to mention that despite the heated discussion between me and Ilenart626, I have to agree with the latter that this thread is not to be hard closed and instead left open of further comments from other editors and readers. This is due to the fact that there is no participation from members, particularly subject matter experts like JustinTime55 who're actually listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group. In most times this can be quite problematic as this can be construed as WP:SHAMCONSENSUS or precisely unrepresentative consensus, although to avoid filibustering it's better if we can settle on something first, in this case the move of the information to the Wikiproject FAQs, like a "checkpoint" in a game. Unfortunately I may need further assistance to perform the move as IP editors do not have move permissions 204.15.72.92 (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Otherwise, it might be possible to simply merge the FAQ onto the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group front page itself, as a "FAQ for readers". Not to mention that foreign language BBC articles like this made mentions of the controversy but ultimately closing it out with "the FAI approved Gagarin's spaceflight records" and "first to travel to space". 204.15.72.92 (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no implicit consensus to include the FAQ, and adjusting its phrasing doesn't create one. Stop misrepresenting the discussion as you have repeatedly done. TompaDompa (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding implicit consensus and stop misrepresentating the discussion, like it or not due to the improvement edit, by the views of WP:COMMONSENSE it can be broadly interpreted as being "hmm, okay" with it. As for the very latter, no, quite the opposite and not the first time. Instead, aside from the "implicit consensus", I see that you had mistaken my brief restoration edits of interim nature pursuant to WP:STATUSQUO and WP:PROCESSFIRST as disruptive, while giving no condemnation to edits made by Ilenart626. Please note that at worst it reeks of double standards and even be construed as gaslighting, which of course would not be taken kindly by the editing community. (Disclaimer: The original computer network was down not unlike the 2022 Rogers Communications outage so I have to use another network at another place, hence the address difference).

In light of an insight made by a very experienced editor and GA reviewer, turns out that we are not really arguing about scientific questions and instead over the semantics of a few words. Hence we have to consider the possibility of returning to the very starting point after going through a large circle, although with few modifications such as more citations in the affected pages along with the addition of FAQ in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group. The only solace would be the learning of an interesting fact where Gagarin's record of attaining highest altitude in elliptical orbit through a one-man spacecraft remains unsurpassed.

After all, I have to strongly agree with his insight as per Dictionary of lexicography By R. R. K. Hartmann, Gregory James, an encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns. Within the pages like Timeline of space exploration, the passage instead would be just like those that distinguised both successful and failed Mars probes in terms of firsts specifically Mars 1 and Mariner 4, alongside New Horizons' Last original encounter with one of the nine major planets recognized in 1981. These were allowed to stand without much fuss, making this more akin to unnecessarily make a mountain out of a molehill from that perspective alone. If this debacle occurs on Simple English Wikipedia, then you might have a point as that Wikipedia is described by Tim Dowling of The Guardian newspaper that "the Simple English version tends to stick to commonly accepted facts". 193.233.171.17 (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

like it or not due to the improvement edit, by the views of WP:COMMONSENSE it can be broadly interpreted as being "hmm, okay" with it – I'm the one who made the improvement edit. I'm telling you that I don't agree that it means that the FAQ should be included. You could have asked me what I thought rather than assuming that I would be in favour of including the FAQ, and it's not like my approval would instantly create consensus in favour of including the FAQ anyway. The reason I called your edits disruptive is that you agree that the material is WP:FRINGE, that there is no controversy, and that the material does not belong in article space—and yet you added the material to article space to make a WP:POINT. I already told you this. You are being disruptive by promoting WP:FRINGE views that you acknowledge are fringe views, by WP:Bludgeoning the discussion, and by refusing to WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO this isn't a scientific question, it is a question on the mere definition of a mere word in the English language "spaceflight" and other synonyms. In most areas it goes by the common meaning of the term and IMO what Yuri did is included within that. But the article can and should cover "who was first" under other prominent definitions. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight which I had neglected in this discussion so far.204.15.72.92 (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: Although considering your insight, returning to the starting point where the passage remains on Alan Shepard's entry within the timelines looks set to be the way out, there are other legitimate concerns by the editors I've discussed with above that it would possibly confuse readers, or become a POV issue for readers living in Russia or other CIS countries. In this case I think it's also better to preserve other modifications made by TompaDompa and Ilenart626 namely the addition of more link citations from BBC and anywhere into the timeline boxes, and the so-called FAQ templates which according to PaulT2022, would be placed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group. I'd be happy if you are able to give advice on this too.

Moreover, should serious disagreements still occur after this point then I am proposing a compromise counteroffer which will involve Wikipedia:Content_forking#Project-level_forking forking of only summarized contents which are undisputably common facts (i.e. Sputnik, Alexei Leonov's first spacewalk, Apollo 11) into Simple English Wikipedia, as a last resort, while leaving out intricacies like Mars 1M and the Alan Shepard passage. This would be a best of both worlds as the Simple version sticks to commons facts while the ordinary English Wikipedia favors more to the raw presentation of information. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Gargarin made the first human spaceflight, the full trip. If he felt safer or had a reason to parachute down (I haven't read the full discussion) he carried the most important object which defined his mission as a human spaceflight: himself. Mentioning it on pages is an interesting fact, but it should be worded so it does not diminish, in any way, Gargarin's pioneering accomplishment and actually promotes it (although Albert II would have something to clear his throat about). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

True, and at the same time we need to avoid unnecessary WP:POVFUNNEL given that this is essentially a semantic debate rather than scientific question, and particularly the fact that the information distinguishing failed and successful Mars probe are allowed to uncontroversially stand. Notetags will be needed, as does those clarifying link references from BBC and otherwise that were added in the meantime. An ultimate last resort would be the forking of undisputedly common facts from those pages into Simple English Wikipedia. As a hypothetical and theoretical exercise I suppose that had Shepard beat Gagarin into space then we'd all be still arguing and discussing on John Glenn's "first orbital spaceflight without jumping out of spacecraft during landing" instead. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I totaly agree with TompaDmpa, “You are being disruptive by promoting WP:FRINGE views that you acknowledge are fringe views, by WP:Bludgeoning the discussion, and by refusing to WP:Drop the stick.” You need to move on from this discussion as NO ONE agrees with you. Ilenart626 (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Due to the unfortunate fact that some of us may be entering the WP:ASPERSIONS territory, alongside problems in my original computer network, it's better to do a temporary mutual withdrawal and take a break for a few days now.

Next, since this is a semantical debacle, I'd have to retract my earlier statements that agrees with Tompa's ad nauseum assertion regarding WP:FRINGE whether tacit or not, on the grounds it was a product of mischaracterization as, to quote a comment, "scientific question".

In the meantime an administrator from Simple English Wikipedia had been invited to comment on this discussion, in order to advice on the suitability of forking contents from Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race into Simple English Wikipedia. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

some of us may be entering the WP:ASPERSIONS territory – yes, you made accusations of gaslighting. Now stop moving the goalposts. It doesn't matter if the question is one of science or semantics—per the sources, the position that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE one. It makes no difference if that's because it's a WP:FRINGE interpretation of "(human) spaceflight" semantically or because of some scientific reason. It's still WP:FRINGE, per the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the accusations of gaslighting, it was made in the context of your misintepretation of procedural interim edits pursuant to WP:STATUSQUO and WP:PROCESSFIRST. For all the rest here, I would therefore share the page histories of Timeline of the Space Race, Timeline of space exploration and Space Age so that what were the "status quo ante bellum" would be clear enough in the air.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_Space_Race&offset=&limit=500&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_space_exploration&offset=&limit=500&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Age&offset=&limit=500&action=history

Within the page histories, the facts will speak for themselves. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the page histories demonstrate that you wittingly restored WP:FRINGE material to article space to make a WP:POINT about WP:STATUSQUO. TompaDompa (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

In fact, the standard operating procedures for WP:STATUSQUO edits involves the insert an appropriate tag indicating the text is under discussion.

• 1
• 2

At this point, to pretend otherwise would be more akin to the POV railroading. This is getting near the red line of WP:CIVILITY so I'd refrain from making further comments for a few days unless absolutely necessary, and instead passively awaiting further comments and advices from other subject matter experts whose fields are relevant to the topic of the discussion; can you do that in the spirit of WP:MUTUAL?193.233.171.17 (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Standard operating procedure is by no means inserting WP:FRINGE material that has already been removed for being WP:FRINGE material, that everyone in the discussion agrees is WP:FRINGE material, so it can be accompanied by a maintenance tag stating that it is WP:FRINGE material. Standard operating procedure for WP:FRINGE material is to remove the WP:FRINGE material. You added material that you knew and agreed wasn't compliant with the non-negotiable WP:Core content policy WP:NPOV because it's WP:FRINGE and tried to justify it by invoking the essay WP:STATUSQUO. Why do you want to include the WP:FRINGE material, knowing that it is WP:FRINGE material? TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi,folks - just stepping in the middle here, following an invitation from 193.233.171.17 yesterday. I'm surprised to see so many bits spilled over this bit of esoterica. If the USSR had been vying for a cash prize and they didn't meet the conditions as verified by some outside observer, then they wouldn't have gotten it. Absent the cash prize and observer at the landing, and considering the FAI has since recognized Gagarin's flight as the first human spaceflight (because he did, after all, go to space and come back alive), Gagarin was the first. Any reader is free to research these matters more thoroughly and come to a different personal conclusion, but the conclusion throughout the corpus of literature on space exploration is unamibguous: the USSR was leading the space race. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ke4roh:Thank you very much for the input. The discussion had in fact gotten so hot that I have to take a break and leave this to subject matter experts for a while. There is also the contentious question here on how to cover it as one side claims that it was "minority view" or even outright "fringe-y" while the other (including me and North) sees it as a "other prominent definitions" which "can and should be covered in the article"; the word "prominent" also vulnerable to different interpretations by the eyes of the beholders.

For the record the passage had actually stayed in the articles for six years or so, and in practice to arouse readers' interest in learning info from Wikipedia itself, including these kind of facts is also encouraged and even mandated, provided they are verifiable and given the proper weight, the latter again vulnerable to differing subjective judgement. This is not to mention that given the current international situation where readers are much more enthusiastic to challenge the veracity or extent of achievements made by Russia or USSR akin to lustration.

Summing these up, a number of middle way solutions have been proposed, such as the FAQ templates in the talk page of these articles and/or on relevant WikiProjects, alongside addition of footnotes. If (re-)inclusion of the passage is judged to be more preferable, then it certainly have to be rewritten so that it, to paraphrase a comment does not diminish Gagarin's flight in any way. Within the affected articles, a possible example would be the paring down the passage on Alan Shepard to just First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft. and leaving the rest into footnotes. I'd be thankful too if you can advise on how to proceed from here. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not the opinion of some editors that this is WP:FRINGE, it's what the sources say. You know this, because it has been explained to you repeatedly. It has also been repeatedly explained to you that if you want to include Shepard being the first to land inside the spacecraft, you have to demonstrate that it is not a WP:MINORASPECT by showing that it is WP:PROPORTIONAL to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject (i.e. the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race, respectively). TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Shepard being the first to land inside the spacecraft, the Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961-2006 by Tim Furniss and David J. Shayler describes Freedom 7 as 1st flight to end with the crew aboard on page 25. It's near the section "The Quest for Space". 193.233.171.17 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

A roughly-800-page tome giving this a single-sentence mention after having listed the same mission as "2nd manned space flight", "1st US manned space flight", "1st to make orientation manoueuvres", and "1st flight to splashdown in the sea" doesn't exactly scream that this is a significant aspect that should be included in our timelines. I'm sure you wouldn't think including that Lev Dyomin became the first grandfather in space with Soyuz 15 in our timelines would be WP:PROPORTIONAL based on this source alone, and that gets the same level of coverage by the source (if anything, slightly higher since it's the fourth milestone out of four listed rather than the fifth out of five). The same source credits Gagarin with "1st manned space flight", by the way. The source is also neither on history of space exploration or the history of the Space Race specifically but on the history of human spaceflight. Anyway, if we look at Appendix D: A Selected Timeline (which is way more similar in level of detail to our articles than the book as a whole is), it mentions of the respective missions that Yuri Gagarin becomes the first person fly into space and completes one orbit and Alan Shepard becomes the first American in space on a sub-orbital flight. TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, Shepard's first to land inside the spacecraft goes more to technical achievements while Dyumin's first grandfather in space goes more to "personal achievements", which the former would undoubtedly fit into the criteria in Timeline of the Space Race's lead sections specifically that of technical innovation. After all it's bound to be a sheer absurdity in the (aero)space field if pilots and by extension passengers cannot make their way home safely without jumping out of their craft in the midst of their landing to this day, though presently I have no strong feelings against including Dyumin's fact in those articles and/or elsewhere in Wikipedia since I actually spend more time reading than editing. Regarding that the source is also neither on history of space exploration or the history of the Space Race specifically but on the history of human spaceflight, concurrently they are interwoven or overlapping to each other as far as I can see regarding the standard perception of those fields. NASA has this stating Unlike the early U.S. human spaceflight programs, Gagarin did not land inside of capsule. Instead, he ejected from the spacecraft and landed by parachute. Different from Praxis logs and just like most other citations, they reported on the fact that Gagarin did not remain inside the spacecraft, although all it takes to reach to the conclusion as explicitly stated by Praxis is an immediate inference probably in the veins of disjunctive syllogism. Taking account of the logical aspects, I'd say that they meets the bar for "other prominent definitions".

On the footnotes, for the rest who're uninitiated, I start to get the feeling that this is reminiscent of those record disputes or discrepancies in Olympic sports so I went to check and found that in All-time Olympic Games medal table, there are Disputed participation notes near the bottom; the "some sources" wordings could be useful in this context as suggested earlier to cover that bit of info regarding the discrepancy of the Vostok 1 landing. The footnote methodology would also be useful if future disputes or discrepancies arise, in the ongoing advent of space exploration. After all despite our feelings and whatever is written, the Space Race sections of those timelines are bound to be looked as a scoreboard for most readers, given the obvious context of that era. Let's see what the experts have to say at this point; the reason why I invited Ke4roh and others to this discussion is due in part of Justin's surprising absence in here where significant inputs and advices from subject matter experts are needed in order to reach an amicable resolution; in this case WP:ALLARGUMENTS apply. I regret that I haven't thought about WP:RFC earlier, though it's too late by now. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

To my complete surprise, the present FAI Sporting Code on Section 8 (spaceflight) contains the following at 2.15:

UNCOMPLETED FLIGHT

A flight is deemed to be uncompleted if:

a) an accident occurs during the flight resulting in the death of any member of the crew within 48 hours or,

b) any member of the crew definitively leaves the spaceship during the flight.

Note: In the case of space stations which qualify as spaceships under 2.16 below, 2.15 (b) above shall not apply.

At this point it is definitely in the "other prominent definitions" territory. I rest my case for now.193.233.171.17 (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough about Dyomin, but I could have just as well used "1st in-flight public TV" from Vostok 3 and 4 as my example. And none of this changes the fact that Shepard being the first to land inside the spacecraft is per the sources a WP:MINORASPECT. Your assertions about "other prominent definitions" is your personal opinion (and WP:Original research, to boot). Your comparison with record disputes or discrepancies in Olympic sports misses the mark because according to the sources, there is no controversy about Gagarin making the first human spaceflight. You even acknowledged yourself that there is no controversy. Per the sources, your position is a WP:FRINGE view. You're entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting WP:FRINGE views. So I'll ask you this outright, and I expect an answer: why are you promoting WP:FRINGE views on Wikipedia? TompaDompa (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In light of discovery of the wording in the present FAI definition, the matter then becomes that Gagarin and Shepard did indeed made spaceflight, except the former is "uncompleted spaceflight" while the latter is "completed spaceflight". Had FAI sporting codes remained textually same from the 1960s until now, the former wouldn't be called a "spaceflight" at all. Ultimately the Tech Republic article had the following:

Thus, he did not “legally” complete a piloted flight under the guidelines of the FAI, the international aeronautics governing body. For years, the Soviet Union hid this information from the world at large, omitting the pilot-egress portion of the Vostok flight plan and contending that Gagarin returned to Earth in his craft, therefore qualifying for FAI records and avoiding any political naysaying or second-guessing by Western powers looking to discredit Gagarin’s achievements. A similar space flight soon validated the rationale behind this subterfuge. On May 5, 1961—less than a month after Gagarin’s flight—U.S. astronaut Alan Shepard journeyed into and returned from outer space without leaving his Freedom 7 capsule (which could land safely in part because of its ability to splash down over the ocean). The Soviet Union’s deception went undiscovered for decades, well after others had surpassed both Gagarin’s and Shepard’s FAI records.

With that passage and combining with the present FAI sporting code and all the sources put in here so far, it goes right into one of the WP:OR exemptions, specifically that SYNTH is not the word "thus". Regarding my earlier agreement with your statement on WP:FRINGE, I had since retracted it after it was made clear that this was a semantical debacle. I'm not going, and have no obligation to answer regarding your personally-pointed question on WP:FRINGE under the grounds that it is very likely a loaded question which can only make heated discussions to end up badly, be it on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Instead, we should do a WP:MUTUAL and pass the stage once more to subject matter experts.193.233.171.17 (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Gagarin and Shepard did indeed made spaceflight, except the former is "uncompleted spaceflight" is WP:Original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. It's a textbook example: you combined different sources to arrive at a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. TechRepublic—"an online trade publication and social community for IT professionals, providing advice on best practices and tools for the needs of IT decision" per our article on them—is hardly the most WP:Reliable source for what the mainstream view is on which the first human spaceflight was. And even then, they felt the need to qualify it with "legally" ("scare quotes" in original). The National Air and Space Museum however says: The conclusion of the delegates was to rework the parameters of human spaceflight to recognize that the great technological accomplishment of spaceflight was the launch, orbiting and safe return of the human, not the manner in which he or she landed. Gagarin and Titov's records remained on the FAI books. and as is true with any sports organization, the FAI reserved the right to reexamine and reinterpret its rules in light of new knowledge and circumstances. Yuri Gagarin remains indisputably the first person in space and the concept that the first cosmonauts had to land inside their spacecraft is a faded artifact of the transition from aviation to spaceflight. The FAI itself says the FAI duly amended the rules to encompass this new form of aviation and so the awards were ratified. The book Human Spaceflight by Joseph A. Angelo (a source you brought up—and quote mined, as noted by PaulT2022) says Gagarin's mission and marvelous accomplishment is still almost universally recognized as the first human spaceflight. And the Seeker article (not exactly a great source on this, but again one you brought up and quoted selectively) says the FAI held a special meeting of delegates to reexamine Titov's records and reconsider Gagarin's. The result of the meeting was a change to the parameters that defined spaceflight rather than a change to the records. The parameters switched to focus on the payload launched; this technical achievement mattered more than how the astronaut or cosmonaut landed. That Gagarin had orbited the Earth was the real achievement, and both his and Titov's records remain in the FAI's books. and After the decision to keep Gagarin's record intact, the early Vostok landing system went from a controversial issue to a historical oddity of the transition from flight in aircraft to spaceflight in capsules. You do understand that almost universally recognized as the first human spaceflight means that the notion that it wasn't is a WP:FRINGE view, right? Your whole "it's about semantics" argument is a complete red herring. It doesn't matter if you're promoting a WP:FRINGE interpretation of events or a WP:FRINGE interpretation of words—it's still WP:FRINGE. So answer the question: why are you so insistent on including this? TompaDompa (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I actually missed more of SYNTH exceptions, namely that SYNTH is not a rigid rule, SYNTH is not obvious II saying that If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH. An example of a perfectly valid citation is given in the guideline on citations, at WP:Bundling: "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big.[1]" The bundled citation uses one source for the size of the sun, and another for the size of the moon. Neither says that the sun is bigger than the moon, but the article is making that comparison. Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison, and SYNTH is not just any synthesis which is significant because in 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." [2] It seems clear that "synthesis of published work" was assumed to be part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia. Furthermore, considering the wording of the 2.15 of present FAI sporting code, calling Vostok 1 as an "uncompleted flight" doesn't necessarily makes it not a spaceflight; it's simply a precisionist categorization based on the nature of the flight which is a little bit like how suborbital and orbital flights are distinguished. Again and sadly, that is also vulnerable to the eyes of the beholders as well. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Again with the terrible WP:WikiLawyering. You are expressing your opinion that, given this definition of "uncompleted spaceflight", that's what Gagarin did. Surely you see that you're doing the same thing as the hypothetical editor in the canonical "plagiarism" example of WP:SYNTH (The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it.)? Anyway, answer the question: why are you so insistent on including this? TompaDompa (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Guess what? We have been reinventing a whole wheel without knowing it. A paragon of virtue for @Randy Kryn:'s Mentioning it on pages is an interesting fact, but it should be worded so it does not diminish, in any way, Gargarin's pioneering accomplishment and actually promotes it can be found in Timeline of space travel by nationality where a footnote stated:

Under Fédération Aéronautique Internationale rules, the Vostok missions are not deemed true spaceflights, as cosmonauts did not land with the spacecraft (they ejected from the spacecraft and landed separately). The first Soviet mission that did fulfill this requirement was Voskhod 1. ("FAI Astronautic Records Commission – Sporting Code Section 8" (PDF). Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-05-26. Retrieved 2006-04-09.) However, despite this issue, the FAI does recognize Yuri Gagarin as the first person to complete a spaceflight.

The page history indicated a silent yet far more longstanding consensus, than the passage of Alan Shepard as stated above. In order to be lucid about the extent of "status quo" over there, here are a few links:

• 2008
• 2009
• 2010
• 2011
• 2012
• 2013
• 2014
• 2015
• 2016
• 2017
• 2018
• 2019
• 2020
• 2021

What if, we settle on that instead and hence make the remaining passage into only First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft? @JustinTime55: @PaulT2022: @Randy Kryn: what's your take on this? 193.233.171.17 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't this logic imply that Apollo 11 article needs to be amended to state that "although FAI later recognised the Apoolo 11 flight records, Apollo 11 mission isn't deemed a true spaceflight according to FAI requirements, as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin exited the spacecraft, failing to complete flight to the Moon by FAI regulations" as well?

Sarcasm aside, my position is still the same: as FAI never recognised who was the first person to complete a spaceflight (or fly to the Moon for that matter), a WP:RS should be provided that would establish how FAI rules relevant to such determination, outside of their intended scope for establishing FAI-recognised records. (Where the 'leaving the ship' rule is consistently ignored by FAI both for Vostok 1 and Apollo 1.) I believe no sources (apart from a lengthy synth from FAI rule book) surfaced since this was discussed last time. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Per the 2.13 of present FAI Sporting Code, Apollo 11 would qualify as Temporary halts at non-manned space stations or places other than the planet Earth, either with the purpose of refurbishing the spacecraft or making repairs, are not considered termination of flight as long as all work is performed by the original crew, the same original crew resumes the mission, and no other human beings are involved. Regarding Shepard's First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft alone, it is backed up by Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961-2006 by Tim Furniss and David J. Shayler, which describes Freedom 7 as 1st flight to end with the crew aboard on page 25, near the section "The Quest for Space". 193.233.171.17 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

And as noted above, Shepard landing inside the spacecraft gets a single-sentence mention in a roughly-800-page tome—the same amount of weight as Vostok 3 and 4 having the "1st in-flight public TV" gets—and is not mentioned in the "Selected Timeline" presented in Appendix D. It is, per the sources, a WP:MINORASPECT. Why is it so important for you to include this? TompaDompa (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The Furniss and Shayler quote above doesn't mention anything about FAI rules or that Gagarin's spaceflight wasn't a spaceflight by some important definition. There's a massive gap between the proposed edit(s) and WP:RS, which is proposed to be filled with a massive amount of editor's opinion. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point the proposed edits can into just "First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft" alone on Alan Shepard's section within the timelines backed up by the Praxis citation, while putting a footnote identical to that was on Timeline of space travel by nationality on Yuri Gagarin's section before Tompa removed it, although for the latter a minor rewording is certainly in order. I suspect that by now, a sitewide WP:RFC is the only way in order to garner exact consensus from editors and readers on this and reach an amicable closure. By that stage I pledge to be respectful of the RFC outcome though. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is currently being proposed at here.05:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This is plain WP:I didn't hear that behaviour. The Shepard stuff violates WP:MINORASPECTS and the Gagarin stuff violates WP:FRINGE/WP:Original research, as has been repeatedly explained to you. You still haven't answered my question: why are you pushing so hard to include this information? TompaDompa (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, proposing a sitewide WP:RFC just seems like WP:Forum shopping to me. You started at Talk:Space Race, where all other editors agree[d] your edits were poor as CMD put it, then moved here (despite saying that you wouldn't, as Andyjsmith noted) where you have again been told by multiple editors that your suggestions violate Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies, and now you're suggesting to take it a step further? TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It is good that you alert us to the long-standing flagrant WP:Original research at the Timeline of space travel by nationality article so it can be removed. This is again a clear example of expressing a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the FAI rules, the Vostok missions were not "true spaceflights" (never mind that the FAI specifically amended their rules to address this as they considered this aspect to be outdated/irrelevant when it came to spaceflight) just as in the canonical "plagiarism" example of WP:SYNTH. And again: per the sources, Shepard being the first to land inside the spacecraft is a WP:MINORASPECT that it would be undue to mention in these articles. Why are you so dead set on including this? TompaDompa (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Rather than request for comment, would suggest a WP:CLOSE of this discussion would be more appropriate. As per WP:WHENCLOSE I believe this discussion has reached the level where "When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful: ...when further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later.".

I believe a simple summary of this discussion is 193.233.171.17 is advocating changes that the majority of Editors consider are WP:MINORASPECTS, WP:FRINGE and lately WP:Original research and none of the changes should be included. Thoughts?

Pinging all involved Editors for their input @TompaDompa: @PaulT2022: @North8000: @Randy Kryn: @Ke4roh: Ilenart626 (talk)

In fact, the discussion has also previously headed toward a "protracted stability" too before North's and Randy's comments. To play a bit of devil's advocate, without RFC there is still the loose end likely in form of close challenges, such as the issues unrepresentative consensus. But with RFC, the rationale of the loose ends would be rendered moot.193.233.171.17 (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I initially was leaning towards WP:FRINGE based on a false claim by 193.233.171.17 that FAI recognised that Gagarin was first in space. After verifying this in contemporaneous NYT reporting and primary FAI publications, it became clear that FAI had nothing to do with recognising Gagarin's primacy in space. I believe only two sources were provided that could possibly be used to support the proposed edit without synthesis, one being a children's book written by a non-expert, making the edit unsourced per WP:REDFLAG due to statements about FAI involvement that contradict with coverage in NYT/FAI.

I support the concern raised by 193.233.171.17 about readers possibly coming to Wikipedia after hearing conspiracy theories and not understanding why it claims that Gagarin was first in space; I believe a consensus was reached in this discussion to resolve this by including a reference to a neutral source where Gagarin's primacy is explained and my understanding is that this was done.

Support close. PaulT2022 (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not just the mere confusion about the claims; in the event of omission readers would ask why Wikipedia neglects to cover it and give rise to the feelings of systematic bias by omission. Regarding reference to a neutral source where Gagarin's primacy is explained, there are BBC sources in other languages like this which are essentially the expanded version of the original report; they actually touched it for a bit before ending with well rounded closure saying that he's ultimately the first man in space or so. To WP:IAR a bit and assuming implicit agreement I gonna put the BBC article alongside the sources at those pages, due in part of the preparing of all possibilities with regards to the looming RFC. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I see that JustinTime55 has reverted your addition on Space race on the basis of WP:Citation overkill and I have reverted your additions to Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race as their is no consensus for this addition. Do you really believe that adding this non-English citation which 99% of English Wiki reader cannot read helps in any way? Ilenart626 (talk)

Per WP:NOENG, citations to foreign language reliable sources are allowed. Template:Request quotation can be used to verify the material should dispute arise. This is getting into the WP:JDLI territory considering your remarks of Do you really believe that adding this non-English citation which 99% of English Wiki reader cannot read helps in any way?.193.233.171.17 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Enough already. The material was already properly sourced meaning the addition was unnecessary, and the addition itself was a transparent attempt to Trojan horse your POV into the articles. If people want to read about the details of Vostok 1 and Yuri Gagarin, they can read those articles. Either come right out and state for the record why you want to include this in the timeline articles or WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm neutral on this, I was just trying to help. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Following the brief and informal consultations and feedbacks from a particular subject matter expert on spaceflight topics who's also a de-facto lead editor in these fields within Wikipedia, it is learned that the following facts are present in historical consensus:

• Gagarin is acknowledged as first human in space and in orbit; as the FAI decided, it's a trivial technicality he didn't land in the craft.
• Shepard is the first American in space; also first to control his spacecraft and land in it (but no cigar as far as "first in space" goes).

Pursuant to the feedback which I hope will be a tiebreaker and thus avert WP:RFC and further WP:DRAMA; the former having the side effect of wasting editors' time, it should be okay to pare the passage at Alan Shepard's in the aforementioned timeline articles down to First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft, or simply smerge with First human-piloted space flight to become first to control his spacecraft and land in it though the latter could fail relevant style guide since the wording is not "professional" enough.

With regards to Yuri Gagarin and again in the pages discussed here, taking account of the suggestions from @Randy Kryn: putting a so-called "asterisk on the entry" in the form of Template:NoteTag with a near carbon copy from Gagarin's biographical article stating the following should be good to go:

Gagarin ejected from the capsule during landing. Due to this there were concerns the spaceflight would not be recognized by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), the world governing body for setting standards and keeping records in the field, which at the time required that the pilot land with the craft. Gagarin's spaceflight records were nonetheless certified and reaffirmed by the FAI, which revised its rules, and acknowledged that the crucial steps of the safe launch, orbit, and return of the pilot had been accomplished. Gagarin is internationally recognised as the first human in space and first to orbit the Earth.

As this looks to be a last turn before RFC is inevitable, everyone here is invited to ponder about this.193.233.171.17 (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

An RfC is in no way inevitable. You can always just WP:Drop the stick. Ilenart626 suggested closing this discussion on the grounds that further discussion is unlikely to be productive. PaulT2022 supported this suggestion. You yourself acknowledged that an RfC would be wasting editors' time. I agree that further discussion on this—here or elsewhere—is unlikely to be productive. This is the second venue (after Talk:Space Race) that has resoundly rejected your suggestions. Closing this discussion seems reasonable considering that you do not appear to be willing to just disengage. I would view you opening any new discussions on this, such as the RfC you mention, as overt WP:Forum shopping (as mentioned at WT:RFC). TompaDompa (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

To digress a bit the central topic of the discussion had itself moved as time goes; the original Talk:Space Race thread was regarding perceived NPOV problems in Space Race, such as The Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine in the "See also" section, which should just be in namesake satellite page as it's a bit out of scope in this article, appears to be something that "spikes the football" for Russia, in spite of original editor's intentions when adding the link to here which was long since fixed, and the omission of GALCIT which is actually a mere section below this discussion about Gagarin.193.233.171.17 (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep note that there isn't really a WP:SNOWBALL consensus at the moment to prematurely hard close this discussion on the basis that a consensus was reached to resolve the issues raised by including this reference to a neutral source where Gagarin's primacy is explained on Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race. 204.15.72.92 other changes were considered deficient by all other Editors and should not be included in any articles:

• IMO this isn't a scientific question, it is a question on the mere definition of a mere word in the English language "spaceflight" and other synonyms. In most areas it goes by the common meaning of the term and IMO what Yuri did is included within that. But the article can and should cover "who was first" under other prominent definitions. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Gargarin made the first human spaceflight, the full trip. If he felt safer or had a reason to parachute down (I haven't read the full discussion) he carried the most important object which defined his mission as a human spaceflight: himself. Mentioning it on pages is an interesting fact, but it should be worded so it does not diminish, in any way, Gargarin's pioneering accomplishment and actually promotes it (although Albert II would have something to clear his throat about). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

193.233.171.17 (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: Quotation text edited to reflect a posted comment. The old version cited a draft comment.193.233.171.17 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The details of Gagarin's spaceflight can be read, for those who are interested in reading about them, at Yuri Gagarin and Vostok 1. That should be satisfactory to you. Your suggestions about the timeline articles have been resoundly rejected as incompatible with WP:Core content policies. TompaDompa (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I see that three Editors involved in this discussion have all confirmed that they believe the discussion should be closed. Suggest that it should be closed on the basis that a consensus was reached to resolve the issues raised by including this reference to a neutral source where Gagarin's primacy is explained on Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race. 204.15.72.92 other changes were considered deficient by all other Editors and should not be included in any articles.

I see that 204.15.72.92 has requested JustinTime55 further input to this discussion on his Talk page. Recommend that we leave the discussion open for another 24 hours and, if after that time their is no further useful input, that we request closure. Ilenart626 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my concerns about reader's animosity towards perceived pro-Russia slants in general within the current international context are vindicated to a degree as of this moment. But nevermind; in the meantime an ad-hoc request had been delivered to the aforementioned subject matter expert requesting feedback and/or assessment of the "last-minute solution", which in this very context will serve as the final say. With that in mind, it is hoped that this can be resolved in 24 hours particularly given that this discussion has been going non-stop for almost two weeks give or take. After all to be fair we, including myself and yourselves aren't spotless and blameless either because ultimately it seems like way too much WP:Wikidrama being made of a dispute which should be easily resolvable by growing the hell up and presenting the verifiable mainstream facts in a NPOV way. This is one thing that is absolutely umambigous. Once this issue is amicably resolved, I hope ya'll have the best of all lucks. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, is that it—you think including this is necessary to combat a perceived pro-Russian slant in the articles? TompaDompa (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

And let's be clear here: the only reason this has dragged on for two weeks is that you have refused to take no for an answer. TompaDompa (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. Going into the realms of meta stuff which will be temporarily outside the topic of this discussion, there were cases like that before where the project decided to accede to "reader feelings" or so on, such as the renaming of Kiev to Kyiv; there's even an aricle specifically on the impacts of the war to Wikipedia editing as a whole. Maintaining project stability is all that matters for Wikipedia while its administrative processes are actually more akin authoritarian systems; there is even WP:CONEXCEPT stating that Wikipedia can hypothetically impose measures to override some standard consensuses and do things like prohibiting "whitewashing of Russian imperialism" if let's say it determined that it may harm project stability in the long run. While it hasn't obviously happened yet, to the best of my understanding Russia's action against Wikipedia might be a final straw to trigger a kind of Streisand effect and make the editing community to be fervent to check, minimise and/or fix those so-called pro-Russian slants in every field, be it polar expedition topics, history, and so on. In other words, not just this one. While outright disruptive actions such as vandalism would still be forbidden, legit or gray case actions like addition of verifiable contents to put a nuance (like this case) or removal of unsourced/unsubstantiated pufferies to that end will be the way and the norm.

Going back to this topic, yes I had to switch networks again since the previous two are open anonymising networks, thus vulnerable to misuse by vandals followed by [blocks on the infrastructures. Nonetheless at this point after re-reading Justin's initial comments I think for the moment if the footnotes can be dropped leaving only First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft or smerge to become something like first to control his spacecraft and land in it on the aforementioned affected pages, and we can agree on it in principle, then we can skip waiting for Justin and proceed to a swift closure. 194.145.237.79 (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to add, 24 hours is ideal, but the maximum should be until this Sunday to account for his quite-frequent breaks. If he finally weighs in and made the final call, I pledge to accept the judgement no matter what it is; you have my word. Godspeed.193.233.171.17 (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

193.233.171.17 was wondering where you obtained the following text you posted above: I see that three Editors involved in this discussion have all confirmed that the discussion should be closed on the basis that a consensus was reached to resolve the issues raised by including this reference to a neutral source where Gagarin's primacy is explained: as its funny that it is identical to this text I was in the process of drafting in my Sandbox. However I now see that you now admitt above that you were reading my sandbox before you posted your comments. Do you do that often to try and get advantage in discussions? Ilenart626 (talk)

GALCIT and Pioneer lunar probes

As mentioned, the "Origins" section in Space Race gives more coverage to Soviet rocket development whereas American ones like Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT were left out, the latter makes the statement This left the United States as the only one of the major three World War II powers not to have its own rocket program, until Von Braun and his engineers were expatriated in 1945. inaccurate. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now proceeded to make this edit on the article reflecting the existence of such program to maintain NPOV. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Passages regarding the Pioneer program had been expanded as well. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Unfortunately they all had been reverted by User:Ilenart626 under the spurious reasons of being unsourced, despite the fact that the passage pre-edit regarding the lunar probes has no sources either since it was stating the obvious.

The Pioneer program had one successful lunar flyby, Pioneer 4 in March 1959. The Surveyor program had five successful soft landings out of seven attempts from 1966 to 1968. The Lunar Orbiter program had five successes out of five attempts in 1966–1967.

204.15.72.92 (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggest you review Wikipedia:Verifiability Ilenart626 (talk)

That's a vague answer which is not helpful. Where exactly the problems are at? The proposed passages are pretty much a summary of articles such as Pioneer program, while Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed applies in this case and that of GALCIT.204.15.72.92 (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I see you have quoted an essay where Verifiablity is a Policy, suggest you look up the difference. For your proposed changes you need to provide reliable, published sources to ensure that you are not making it up.  In other words, find a source that supports your assertion in bold at the end of this statement "The United States as the only one of the major three World War II powers not to have its own rocket program until Von Braun and his engineers were expatriated in 1945,  'although civilian programs such as GALCIT (the precursor of Jet Propulsion Laboratory) existed”. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The details of the early Pioneer program probes are included in the following citations:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20090131181021/http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/QuickLooks/pioneer0QL.html (archive of http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/QuickLooks/pioneer0QL.html)
• Hess, Wilmot (1968). The Radiation Belt and Magnetosphere.

Please read Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed again, specifically Subject-specific common knowledge: Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions. To pretend otherwise would be more akin to a veiled WP:JDLI.204.15.72.92 (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The proposed passages regarding lunar probes has been restored, this time with citations. I'll be awaiting comments regarding GALCIT on whether although civilian programs such as GALCIT (the precursor of Jet Propulsion Laboratory) existed qualifies WP:BLUESKY to see how it goes. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 21:02, 11 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)

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 [10], and there was a few move discussion [11], 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)

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.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

Kyle Rittenhouse article and weight

I would like to get some eyes on the recently created Kyle Rittenhous BLP. I'm concerned this article has a number of issues and may be not much more than a FORK from the original Kenosha unrest shooting (here after KUS) article. The issues start in the opening sentence where Rittenhouse is described as a "conservative celebrity". Most of the sources used to support that claim don't actually support it. Typically they will say something like his trial was a cause celebre or he was a celebrity among some "far-right" or "militia" groups. Most sources discussing Rittenhouse don't mention anything about celebrity in any form. Thus there is a NPOV question, how many sources need to make a claim before it can be the opening claim in a BLP. I'm also concerned that, based on the content of the article, Rittenhouse's media appearances etc are given far more weight vs his actions related to the shootings and the trial. I think the best action here would be an AfD with a merger of a reduced versions of some content back into the KUS article as some level of aftermath. The rest of the content seems more trivia than substance. Thanks. Springee (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I looked at it and the sources to that lede sentence look A-OK to me. I think the best way to provide proper weight would be to put 2-3 more sentences about the shootings/trial in the lede, not removing anything. It's not like it's a very long lede. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the sources and commented on their issues here [12] and in a few other spots. Almost none support the specific claim and as phrased the sentence suggests that Rittenhouse is primarily known as a type of celebrity rather than for shooting people. Springee (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, @Springee, the first sentence of the article that calls him a celebrity also mentions his trial and him shooting three people. It would be disingenuous if the article said the subject was a celebrity without any description of why. Instead, the sentence continues and describes how he initially achieved his celebrity status. And when you say "Almost none support the specific claim", there are eight RS in the cite bundle specifically describing him as a celebrity. --Kbabej (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee Notify the other editors involved in that discussion that you have brought it here please. Template is at the top of this page.GordonGlottal (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

As the editor who created the article, I'm perhaps biased but thought I'd throw my two cents in. Many, many RS refer to the subject as a "celebrity" or a very close variation thereof. It isn't one or two blogs or YouTube reactions; it's green-level RS at RSP, including: The Guardian, NBC (x2), the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, NPR, The National, and The Conversation. And those are just the sources that currently appear in the lead. I cite bundled them to not overcite, but I think eight high-quality sources are enough to "prove" a short description. If needed, I can add many more, but I think that would absolutely be overkill. I'm not sure where @Springee is finding "Most of the sources used to support that claim don't actually support it." I actually bolded the use of "celebrity" in the cite bundle so it could be easily found, and every single one of them describes him as a celebrity.

As an aside, I'm not sure Springee's concern is actually due weight; it sounds like they think this should be AfD'd, which is a completely separate issue that doesn't need hashing out here. --Kbabej (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

As I noted in my link, most of the sources (specifically the ones you reference) use either the term "celebrity" or a similar term but almost none of the presented sources (much less even a simple majority of sources that talk about Rittenhouse) claim he is a conservative celebrity. Note that even the article's short description says he is "American conservative celebrity" rather than the teen who shoot three people. Springee (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

As examples of the misuse of sources, The Globe only uses the term celebrity in their headline. Per WP:HEADLINE that makes it not usable. The WP article is an OpEd. A person interviewed by Slate said, "He’s a celebrity for many of these right-wing militia groups". Unless you are claiming "right-wing militia groups"=conservative that one doesn't support the claim either. These are examples of the sort of issues with the sources used to support this claim. Springee (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide more sources with that description; there are many out there. Is your contention with the short description those three specific sources (leaving five other RS as the page currently stands), or is it the short description overall? If you have an alternative, what would you suggest? --Kbabej (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are some examples of additional coverage: There's the City Journal that wrote the subject "has recently entered the conservative celebrity circuit" here; The Washington Post wrote "The celebrity treatment that conservatives are giving Kyle Rittenhouse..." here; the San Antonio Current described him as "far-right celebrity Kyle Rittenhouse" here; PJ Media that wrote an entire article on him becoming a celebrity under the title "Why Is the Right Making Kyle Rittenhouse a Celebrity?" here; Mother Jones wrote "Rittenhouse quickly became the perfect young, right-wing celebrity.." here; Arizona Central said he was "caught up in his celebrity" here; etc, etc, etc.

Please note I have not read all these sources in depth, and I'm sure some don't appear as green-level at RSP (lookin' at you, PJ Media). I'm using these to demonstrate I just quickly pulled them off Google with a cursory search. Mainstream sources regularly refer to the subject this way. --Kbabej (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• What occupation would be better to list in the lead than something like "conservative celebrity"? That seems to basically be his job -- doing media appearances in conservative conferences, podcasts, etc. There are sources cited in the article which say "right-wing celebrity" in direct, exact terms, e.g. the first one cited ("He has since emerged as a rightwing celebrity"), but also ones that discuss it in less direct/more drown out terms, e.g. the Boston Globe article, which only mentions the exact word "celebrity" in the headline/subheader, but is generally talking about that throughout the rest of the article. I don't think listing his occupation as "celebrity" in line those articles is particularly problematic. Regarding little weight on the trial itself, that's what the article on the trial is for, no? The reason a Kyle Rittenhouse biography exists is because it doesn't make sense to discuss his media appearances in the article that is primarily discussing the shootings and subsequent trial. Endwise (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I see two issues. The first is that almost none of the presented sources actually establish that he is a "conservative celebrity" thus stating it in Wikivoice is undue. As I said, most of the sources that note the celebrity aspect either say he is a celebrity to a narrower group (militia, far-right etc) or say that his position/cause/criminal defense was seen as a cause celebre presumably for people who view is actions as legal self defense or similar. It is not at all clear that "conservatives" as a group view Rittenhouse as a celebrity nor that any of the source who make that claim would view that claim as true. The second issue is if we are going to cite the thing he is most known for, the shooting is it, hands down. It's not at all clear his post trial interviews etc will survive the 10YEAR test but his roll in the shooting will. Springee (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee, did you review the sources in the cite bundle as well as the additional ones I added in this thread? Just from the ones I added on this page, they almost all mention him being a conservative celebrity. City Journal: "conservative celebrity circuit"; Washington Post: "The celebrity treatment that conservatives"; PJ Media: "Why Is the Right Making Kyle Rittenhouse a Celebrity?"; Mother Jones: "the perfect young, right-wing celebrity"; and San Antonio Current: "far-right celebrity". They literally use "conservative", or a very close variation thereof (the Right; far-right). I'd argue "the Right" is basically synonymous to "conservative" in this instance. Even if we don't agree on that point, there are still the verbatim results.

Secondly, I've asked you this on the subject's talk page at least once, and up above in this thread as well: What do you suggest as a short description if you do not agree with "conservative celebrity"? --Kbabej (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The second issue is if we are going to cite the thing he is most known for, the shooting is it, hands down -- I guess I can understand this point. Maybe we could have two sentences in the opening paragraph, one for the shootings/trial and one for his subsequent fame and media appearances? I.e. a division like "Rittenhouse is known for the Kenosha unrest shooting and subsequent trial. He now has fame/celebrity status and does media appearances."? (Obviously not in those words). Endwise (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Kbabej, I only reviewed the source in the article lead. I did see the previous discussion and it doesn't appear that sources have a consensus description when discussing his status as a "celebrity"/cause celebre etc. If they don't agree we shouldn't favor one vs the other nor put such a claim in Wiki-voice. Also, while some source will use "right-wing" and conservative interchangeably, few would agree that "far-right"=conservative. You reverted my attempt to provide a better intro [13] where I described him as the teenager known for the shooting. Endwise, I think mentioning that his case made him a cause celebre is DUE. Many sources note that he got a lot of support from people who felt he was acting in self defense and they felt his prosecution was an attack on a right of self defense (many others felt the opposite). It would be better to say he was a cause celebre for many on the gun rights side and seen as deserving prosecution by many on the other side. It is way to early to know if his fame is going to be fleeting. Springee (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise, my understanding of MOS:LEADBIO states the information for the first sentence in BLPs follows this order:

• 1. Name
• 2. DOB
• 3. Nationality/citizenship
• 4. "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." (What I take to be the short description)
• 5. "The main reason the person is notable"

To me, it seems clear cut that the short description goes before a description of why the person is initially notable. --Kbabej (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I just did a Google news search for Rittenhouse. These are the first 4 hits and how the summarize him.

• Newsweek [14], "the teenager acquitted in November 2021 of first-degree intentional homicide and four other felony charges,"
• WP [15], " who shot and killed two people and wounded a third during a protest in Kenosha, Wis., in 2020, "
• The Root [16], "The acquitted Vigilante of Kenosha"
• USA Today [17], "Rittenhouse gained national attention in August 2020 after he went to a police brutality protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and fatally shot two men while wounding another – actions he argued were in self defense"
• Fox News [18], no specific summary description of Rittenhouse.

Basically, "conservative celebrity" is a very poor high level summary of Rittenhouse. Springee (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

So, again, @Springee, what is your suggestion? You have taken specific umbrage with the description. What is your suggestion to replace it? --Kbabej (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I made my suggestion. You reverted it. " is an American teenager who became known for his trial and acquittal after he shot three men in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The circumstances of that shooting made him a cause célèbre with some right-wing and gun rights groups. " (slightly edited from it's original form) Springee (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"American teenager" is not an appropriate short description. While he initially became known for the shooting and trial, MOS:LEADBIO states the "main reason the person is notable" comes after the short description. The reason the BLP on the subject exists is because Rittenhouse is known for more than the shooting and trial, or else it would be covered under the parent article. The BLP is for coverage of the subjects life through today, not stopping at the point of the trial and verdict. Rittenhouse is notable today for parlaying his notoriety into a conservative celebrity status.

I've made my points and don't want to bludgeon the process; I'll take a step back so others have space to respond. Please ping me if needed! Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO Springee's text is much more informative, gets to the point of why he is wp:notable and why people will come to the article. (the "teenager" could be decided separately.) This is also supported by the presented review of the sources and review of what the first sentence should contain. Finally, defining him primarily as a celebrity sounds like "famous for being famous" which is definitely not the case here. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree in general with Springee's main point re: "celebrity", but the bigger issue isn't the lead but the article in general reading like a fan bio of said celebrity. Lots of quoted praise, lots of detail about Rittenhouse's activities, perspectives, etc., without the context RS typically provide. So we have The Guardian's "Outcry as Kyle Rittenhouse sits down for Tucker Carlson Fox News interview" used just to say that "Carlson interviewed Rittenhouse about a wide range of subjects" and that Rittenhouse said he wants to be a lawyer or nurse. And this cnn op ed which is clearly critical of the interview used just to extract a long quote of Carlson's praise sans context. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• My take is as follows:

1. The lead paragraph is poorly written, and noncompliant with BLP, especially considering the subject was only 17 yo at the time.
2. Rittenhouse is not a celebrity. Civil unrest neither creates celebrity nor should it be celebrated.
3. Why does the section about his early life specifically state, "He is a white American." Does he somehow change color as he gets older? What is that about? Are we now including race and religion in all WP:BLPs?
4. FACT - found not guilty of even one of the 5 charges, and that must be made clear in the lead. He shot out of fear for his life; i.e., self-defense. That should not be omitted from the lead. Per NPR: Rittenhouse had a strong self-defense case and was found ...not guilty on the five charges he faced after fatally shooting two people and wounding a third during a night of unrest in Kenosha, Wis.
5. That article needs work to get it accurate and compliant with NPOV. Skirting around and avoiding mention of what that trial determined in its verdict is an embarrassment to this project; especially one that boasts NPOV and claims accuracy.
6. When it comes to BLPs, editors need to strictly adhere to policy, and present the facts in a dispassionate tone. Ask CNN+ what they'd do differently if they could do it over - see The Daily Beast article. And the [NYTimes: CNN must now emerge from one of the most chaotic periods in its history: the firing of its top-rated anchor Chris Cuomo; the ouster of its longtime president Jeff Zucker over an undisclosed romance with a colleague; and the absorption of its parent company WarnerMedia by Mr. Zaslav’s Discovery. Viewers knew there were too many times they got the story wrong, and simply stopped watching, so yes, ratings matter. HTH ~ Atsme 💬 📧 00:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

My post was on a pretty narrow question. A broader one is to echo the same points that Atsme just made. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence about whether a separate BLP is warranted, or whether this falls under WP:BLP1E and should be covered under Kenosha unrest shooting. Rittenhouse is notable for that incident, in which he took an assault rifle to an anti-racism protest and used it to kill two people. His subsequent buddying around with white supremacists, his trial, acquittal, and embrace by the political right are potentially enough to justify a standalone article, although they're arguably extensions of the single incident for which he's notable.
  The strongest claim to notability for an independent article is Rittenhouse's celebrity on the political right. A decent number of reliable sources highlight him as a symbol of the Republican Party's fetishization and glorification of political violence against its ideological opponents. But again, that might be best handled in an "Aftermath" or "Legacy" section in the Kenosha shooting article, rather than a standalone BLP, since the themes have less to do with Rittenhouse himself and more to do with the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism and violence. MastCell ^Talk 15:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  I second that, and also would emphasize that there is no rush or time limit. We should respect his privacy and go to a standalone if his current stature and presence within the Republican right gets ongoing coverage or analysis in the mainstream. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would add "two of them fatally" after mentioning that he shot three men. I would also place more emphasis on the shooting than on appearances before right-wing audiences, since that is his main claim to notability and the only reason he has an audience. And of course it received far greater attention in the media than his current career. The tone of the article could be less promotional. Although he was acquitted, it's questionable how he found himself in that situation. Also, as someone who chose to be a celebrity, he forfeits his right to privacy, at least to the extent that it is provided to otherwise unknown people in Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Glancing at the article talk page, why is it contentious to include that all the people who were shot had pursued or chased Rittenhouse? --Kyohyi (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Based in part on concerns raised in this discussion I have opened an AFD for the Rittenhouse BLP here [19]. Springee (talk) 19:14, 21 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)

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)

Help needed for a long running dispute

There has been a dispute that has been going on for quite some time now on the 2022 Laguna Woods shooting article and the talks to resolve it have been going nowhere. Some help to break the deadlock would be great Thundercloss (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to stop accusing other editors of not reading what you're writing, and either accept there is a 2-to-1 consensus against you, or start an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I am accusing them of that because that’s the truth as evidenced by the things they are saying. Did you actually read the dispute? Thundercloss (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Good response, accuse an uninvolved editor of also not reading discussions. Perhaps, just maybe, you should accept that others disagree with you, and that possibly your position is not the correct one, and move on? No, it's the children who are wrong. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

since you’ve commented on the ani case against me, I’ll respond to your remarks here over there Thundercloss (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Launch an RFC over there then. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 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:

• WP:TENDENTIOUS POVFORK obviously created to push the fiction that this is a thing rather than straight up aggression and irredentism. Also, there isn't a single source that would indicate notability here.
• there's literally not a single source for this topic - the sources in the article are from 1918, 1995, and other years before "Donetsk People's Republic" actually existed. This is simply made up.

On LPR-Russia relations:

• restore relevant info - NPOV means not engaging in the fiction that these are "real countries" - add citations

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)

 Administrator note: OP has been blocked for disruptive editing. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:18, 18 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)

When is listing how a politician voted DUE in an article, what level of sourcing is needed?

If a RS discusses a vote for a bill (or similar) and then lists either supporters or opposition, when is that DUE in a BLP about the politician? I asked a similar question earlier this year [20]. Recently a sentence to the effect of "[BLP] was one of # who voted against NATO expansion" was added to several politician's BLPs [21][22][23][24][25][26][27].

My question/concern is regards to what is needed to establish weight for inclusion in such a case. What sort of sourcing is needed for such vote listing to become DUE? Personally I think any addition like this needs two things. First, it needs sourcing that says why the BLP's vote was significant. That shouldn't be just "they voted against the Obviously Good Bill". Rather the addition to the Wiki article needs to explain why that vote is significant in context of the politician. "Senator X has consistently supported programs for [cause] including these [list]." Second, it needs a RS that supports not only that they voted for X (that could be confirmed by government records). It needs a RS to say why this vote is significant to the senator. Else we are engaged in OR by using our own opinions rather than RSs to say the vote is DUE in context of the BLP.

In the case of the MTG article the talk page seems mixed on inclusion with some saying this supports existing themes in the article (to what extent is that OR?) while others disagree. In the case of the Miller BLP a large swath of the article is little more than statements that she voted for/against various things. This seems to be a general issue with political BLPs. I will add a project politics notice. Springee (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

A random list of random votes that no sources care about, or issues that are pro forma or very minor, like so-and-so voted for the post office to be named after Ben Franklin, I agree, is undue and unimportant. When it's a significant vote on a significant issue that the politician has spoken on, and given previous press releases or interviews on, or is attacked/praised in the press for taking a certain stance or a position, and the vote goes toward other related content in the article about that issue, it should be kept. That is not original research or inappropriate synthesis, it's simply grouping related issues and content together to accurately reference the politicians' stances, positions, issues, and votes on a related topic. It isn't OR to say that John Smith voted against government funding for dog catching, and he also has spoken at the ASPCA about his views on stray dogs. That's a reasonable assumption, assuming we can source both statements separately, that they are related. WP:SYNTH tells us that the paragraph in which which "each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute" is OK. WP:NOTOBVIOUSSYNTH tells us that it's OK to connect sources so long as we aren't drawing conclusions or making inferences beyond what would be obvious. It's obvious that Marjorie Taylor Greene voting for or against NATO, relates to her statements on that topic. ""The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big.[1]" The bundled citation uses one source for the size of the sun, and another for the size of the moon. Neither says that the sun is bigger than the moon, but the article is making that comparison. Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison. " See also: Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not just any synthesis. See also: WP:MNA "When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc." We don't need to explain that taking a stance and voting on a bill are related. We don't need to explain that views on NATO are of geopolitical importance in the context of the conflict between the US and Russia. Regardless, both are easily sourced if they are being challenged, and that is not OR. Andrevan@ 21:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Aside from your personal concern about having such information recorded in any particular BLP, why should this be a difficult question? It simply depends on the WEIGHT of RS reporting and whether such sources portray the vote as having been significant. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

In the example given, I think it should be clarified that WEIGHT has to do with viewpoints. So if there are a number of sources that John Smith has spoken at the ASPCA, John Smith once gave Rover a poison biscuit, John Smith funded an investigation into the chew toy industry, and then an editor is adding a new well-referenced, reliable source for a new statement: "John Smith voted against government funding for dog catching." Then, an editor came along and removed the new statement, saying it is UNDUE because we are not a vote list. My argument is that, provided this new statement is adequate in other ways, it may be DUE weight since we are covering the overall stance of Smith toward canines in general over time, and so we don't consider it UNDUE weight for a single vote in that case, even if it only has a few reliable references. And maybe this is not clear in the policy and should be addressed more as a recommendation/guideline from WikiProjects and specific topic areas, with a case by case basis. I'm a little concerned about editors going around and removing any mention of a 1-time vote and claiming there's a consensus that adding votes is OR or UNDUE all the time. Andrevan@ 21:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Such removals, inasofar as I've observed them, are almost always done to push a POV or whitewash a well-established pattern of speech or behavior by the BLP subject. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ideally, there should be RSed that say that a politican focuses efforts on areas x, y and z. Such that how they vote on bills associated with x, y and z should be included, but even then using discretion to focus on major bills. We should not force a lawmakers interest in a topic by simply combining multiple vote results documented by RSes, it should be found as an issue they specifically deal with. For example, pointing out a GOP lawmaker has voted against wider health care bills when otherwise the lawmaker doesn't specifically have that interest would be inappropriate. This is how this NATO vote feels like, its being added to shame the lawmakers. Masem (t) 21:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Well of course we are only relying on secondary RS for starters. But in this case the vote itself is widely interpreted as a form of virtue signalling by isolationist foreign policy advocates. So a signalling vote is kind of open to secondary interpretation and commentary on what view is being signalled. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I want to generally disagree that we can only write reliable information on lawmakers' votes if there are RS that say they focus efforts on a specific issue. As to the NATO vote I will say that it was added to lawmakers' pages indiscriminately, but I only reverted its removal on 2 out of the handful or so it was added to: Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jeff Van Drew, specifically because we already had content in the article or that there is available RS content out there that specifically addresses these congresspersons' statements and actions on the topic of NATO and Russian foreign policy. Andrevan@ 21:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

They way to view this is that lawmakers see every bill that comes by, so we could easily argue that we can make sections on standard issues/topics and document the lawmaker that way. But it is better to be more refined here and avoid BLP situations as well as IINFO and possible SYNTH by focusing on the lawmaker's known topics of interest. We don't need to make special allocation in a GOP lawmakers article for, say, health care, if they have no specisl interest in it and that they follow the GOP party line in voting. Masem (t) 22:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, if a lawmaker routinely votes party line, we can best summarize by saying exactly that. No need to highlight their votes on particular bills. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot agree with the idea that votes on an issue like whether to withdraw from NATO, are SYNTH if we follow them with properly referenced content about possible amplification of Russian propaganda. Those topics are related, per WP:MNA, it is not IINFO if done surgically and in a cohesive way, or SYNTH to add that vote to a series of text or in a section about Russian foreign policy. I agree that this does not apply in every case, it depends on the situation, and the relevance, and weight. People keep throwing around BLP as though BLP would somehow prevent what votes a Congressperson has made. I really don't understand how the BLP policy would make a Congressperson's votes somehow not able to be included. Could you elaborate more how you see BLP restricting the inclusion of Congressional votes? Andrevan@ 22:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

For example hypothetically a GOP votes against an abortion rights bill but their position on abortion has never been clear before. Including their vote without any other position is a form of shaming and coatracking (given that abortion rights is generally seen in the eyes of the media as a good thing). Maybe the lawmaker had a reason to vote against a bill, such as if it also had added pork, so it would not be appropriate to make that callout knowing they had other reasons. Of course we'd hope those reasons would be documented too. Masem (t) 22:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That is not analogous to the situation because in this situation, their position was previously clear and there are already sources discussing that and closely related positions and issues. I will for the sake of argument, agree with you that just adding a vote on a bill with absolutely nothing else about that position is not part of what I'm defending. Andrevan@ 22:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There is synthesis/OR, and there is weight. Properly cited information on how a person voted is, of course, not OR by itself, and essentially never a BLP violation. I'm not sure about the point of talking about these hypotheticals, but I will say that it's unlikely for an individual vote to be worth noting, even if it bucks the party line. General statements on voting patterns, sure. But legislators vote on hundreds of bills each year, many of which are wholly anodyne, and so this is an easy vehicle to push a POV. Ovinus (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is saying every vote is worthy of inclusion, but neither is it true that a single vote could never be included if that vote got enough coverage and was relevant or important enough. E.g. John McCain's vote on Obamacare repeal. Andrevan@ 23:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, how do you know that MTG's vote is related to votes on Russia? Maybe she opposes NATO as a "globalist" institution. The Republican Right has opposed NATO since before Putin was born. TFD (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

1) Elsewhere you've denied the existence of the Republican Right pre-1964. 2) In the case of MTG, I've not seen any source write that she was acting on the basis of policy or principle. Ever. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's related because it's about the same topic, which is foreign policy, and she's made a number of statements on Russia/Ukraine. She has prior context. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on Tuesday suggested Ukraine bears responsibility for provoking a Russian invasion, breaking with the views of Republican leaders in her latest comments that more closely mirror Russian talking points than Western views of the conflict.[28] [29] Here's her own words in which she tied withdrawing from NATO to Russia and Ukraine. US should pull out of NATO instead of waging a proxy war with Russia, United States' Georgian Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene stated [30] (source may not be good, I'm looking for a better one besides Newsweek and RT) Andrevan@ 00:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan: Nobody is saying every vote is worthy of inclusion, neither is it true that a single vote could never be included if that vote got enough coverage and was relevant or important enough This seems like a bit of a non sequitur; I didn't say anyone was saying the first thing, and I was not asserting the second. I do think immediately juxtaposing a politician's stated opinions with how they vote--when that connection is not made in the source--is inappropriate synthesis. But it's likely that a secondary source on how a politician voted will say something about their history. Ovinus (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not a non-sequitur: You stated " it's unlikely for an individual vote to be worth noting, even if it bucks the party line," I offered a notable counterexample. Andrevan@ 01:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, where did I deny the existance of the Republican right pre-1964? I might have said that both parties contained right-wing elements and that between 1964 and 1980 they migrated to the Republican Party. TFD (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Weight is established by coverage in reliable sources, not by what editors find obvious. In fact, it's not obvious that she voted this way because of support of Russia. The Republican isolationist right has long opposed NATO and other "globalist" institutions. Their patron senator, Robert A. Taft, although he supported the UN, said that NATO was more likely to lead to war than to prevent it.[31] TFD (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

No one argued that weight was determined by opinion. Weight is determined by prominence in sources. But it does not make sense that a Congressperson's vote on an issue would be UNDUE if we have weight for other stances and activities that are related. I am arguing that it is obvious that her vote on NATO is related to her other positions and votes on Russian foreign policy, given that those positions are well-documented. "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." WP:WIKIVOICE Andrevan@ 22:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Let experts decide there is an "obvious" connection and then we can include it. You must be aware that what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. Individuals relate new information to their pre-existing world views. MTG for example connected news about fires in Florida to her belief in a conspiracy theory. No amount of evidence or argument could dissuade her. Your arguments sound a lot like what I would expect from MTG. TFD (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

TFD, the WP:MNA refers to the obviousness of basic table stakes in a field. Everyone in politics understands that if MTG says US should drop out of NATO, and also doesn't want Scandinavian states to join NATO, and then explicitly ties her view on NATO to Ukraine-Russia, those 3 facts are all related to her position on U.S.-Russian foreign policy. We don't have to find a source that says what NATO is or why it pertains to foreign policy. That stretches the bounds of WP:NOR, which has clear space for simple grouping of information. Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not a rigid rule, Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not obvious II, Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not just any synthesis, Wikipedia:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information. Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition. Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established. Those sources must then be combined to produce a cohesive, comprehensive, and coherent article. Neutral point of view requires presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue, and may include collecting opinions from multiple, possibly biased and/or conflicting, sources. Organizing published facts and opinions that are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research. Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. And accusing me of sounding like MTG is verging into an unproductive territory of inflammatory commenting-on-the-contributor which is contravened by policy. Andrevan@ 23:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I think theres a severe misreading of WEIGHT here, in that people think that if they can find five or ten sources on something that means it has the due weight to be included. The real question is how much weight is given to this one vote in proportion to say their entire career, or term of office, or even year. If something is a footnote in the overall coverage of the person it lacks the weight to be included here. If it is something that a biography of the person would give some space to then it may be appropriate to include. But just because you can find a dozen news articles saying so and so voted against some bill does not mean that it has due weight to be included. nableezy - 23:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a misread of the policy. If it shows up in sources, weight is proportional to the weight in reliable sources. Fringe theories that are not notable can be excluded, or they may be included if it is a significant minority view. It does not need to register sufficient to show up in their biography. Please cite where the policy says that. There will be plenty things in Wikipedia that a politician might not get in their biographical book. Andrevan@ 23:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not, weight is determined by its proportionality. If there are 20 sources talking about one vote some politician made, and of course there are because there are 20 newspapers that cover these things, but 2 million sources that discuss that person then no that is not sufficient to say I have 20 sources that means I get a paragraph to talk about this one vote. You dont get to decide which votes are important, thats the secondary sources that determine that. And they do that by giving it a proportionate amount of coverage to its importance. We follow that. Your view that oh I feel that this NATO vote is related to these other topics and I have a handful of sources that discuss it so I get to put it in their biography, that is the misread of policy. nableezy - 00:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

re: the same argument I've been making at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Use of term "conspiracy theorist".

We really have a problem on WP with editors wanting to rush in to include information that could be taken as critical of the BLP or topic, just because RSes report on it. There's a reason RECENTISM is necessary and to think about how the article should read 10 years from now, instead of trying to capture the court of public opinion (the media) "now". This type of discussion is just an extension of that. We need editors to be thinking far more impartially and dispassionately about these "hot" topics. Masem (t) 00:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It is entirely your spin and a novel, incorrect take that citing a Congressperson's votes is shaming them or is somehow critical of them. Andrevan@ 00:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Without any other context, outside of knowing where the media stands on matters, focusing on when the media points out that a lawmaker votes against things like NATO membership, abortion rights, health care, and the like without any more significant context is equivalent to coatracking on the part of the WP editor including the information. Now if the sources explain what the problem is with them voting in that fashion or have more context, then that's less a problem. Masem (t) 00:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

But there is context for the NATO position, and it's a single sentence about the NATO vote that is being challenged. Nobody said voting that way was a problem. It's just a fact of what happened. It's not bad or good. It's a political position, we are just reporting on it. I don't know where you're getting that it's a problem to vote against NATO. Andrevan@ 00:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a misread of how WP:PROPORTION and WP:WEIGHT work. It is a proportion that the viewpoint is accorded in reliable published sources. If some sources don't mention it at all, that doesn't make it a minority viewpoint. It would still be accorded a limited amount of real estate if it did not get significant coverage. Uncontested claims should be stated in WP:WIKIVOICE. It's not my feeling that determines the weight, but it is also not the case that you determine weight by "importance," the term is "prominence." A well-referenced situation may be merited to have a sentence (which is all we're talking about here) even if it's 20 sources out of millions that discuss them. It is a rough proportion that we judge for weight, and not a percentage of total sources, but a rough proportion that a viewpoint is accorded in reliable material. A simple fact that nobody contests or disputes is not a fringe view. Andrevan@ 00:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Just repeating something doesnt make it true. I didnt say every source needs to discuss it, but yes proportionality means you dont take some minor detail about a widely covered person and give it more weight in their biography than the universe of sources about that person gives it. Almost every vote will be found in sources. The Hill, Politico, local papers, they'll all cover a vote. That is a matter of routine reporting. But if sources do not give it weight relative to every other thing they give weight to then it doesnt belong. I dont know why youre throwing FRINGE in here, nobody is contesting that such and such vote took place. What matters is whether or not it is given enough weight, relative to the rest of the material about that person, in secondary sources. And kindly stop acting like you are the arbiter of policy and how it applies. nableezy - 00:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

But if sources do not give it weight relative to every other thing they give weight to then it doesnt belong. I think Andrevan was just trying to keep on track with policy. The green words from your post above sound like you have got the policy wrong, which is all Andre said. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

And how is that not what policy says? Just saying it is a misreading does not make it so. See below for basically the same argument. A particular vote may have long term relevance or significance … but we often won’t know that until until journalists stop writing about it and historians start to do so. nableezy - 00:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That is an argument to reduce weight but not to entirely eliminate well-sourced factual information that has sufficient coverage. Andrevan@ 01:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• As often is the case with articles related to politics and politicians, we have to be very wary of RECENTISM. News media tend to be very poor sources for determining long term relevance and significance. But as an encyclopedia, long term relevance and significance is precisely what we want/need to determine. A particular vote may have long term relevance or significance … but we often won’t know that until until journalists stop writing about it and historians start to do so. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  But simple statements of fact may be supported by primary sources. Andrevan@ 00:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is challenging the factual accuracy of the statement. That is a complete red herring. nableezy - 01:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

What we're talking about here is adding a Congressional vote in a single sentence, which can be sourced by simple factual primary and secondary sources. Andrevan@ 01:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

And why this vote and not the vote to repeal the Iraq War authorization? What gives this one vote the prominence or weight to be elevated over all the other votes any of these people have made? That is the issue, not the accuracy of the statement did somebody vote yea or nay. nableezy - 01:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Depending on the argument, I would likely be OK with adding the vote to repeal the Iraq War authorization as well? Has MTG made statements on her views on this that appear in RS? Is she somehow unique or significant for her stance on that? Because remember, I said that I did not think this applied to everyone or every vote, despite the goalpost-shifting and slippery-sloping that is going on here. Andrevan@ 01:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

If you are unable to articulate what metric would determine which vote merits inclusion then it is definitionally arbitrary and based on your own personal opinion. We dont decide what votes are defining or have any relevance or significance, the sources do that, and just waving ten sources about one vote does not demonstrate that proportional weight to be given to that one vote. nableezy - 02:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I just did articulate the test - votes with meaningful reliable source coverage and a relationship to the subject's positions or statements or actions, should merit inclusion. Or did you mean a mathematical formula? It's not a formula, these are case-by-case. MTG has a well-established view of Russia-Ukraine and NATO, then she votes against NATO. There are other examples surely, but it depends. It's not a measurable thing, it's a question for editors to evaluate, weigh, discuss, thoughtfully, and in accordance with the policy and guidelines that apply. Andrevan@ 02:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It actually is measurable, but that depends on RECENTISM. It is far easier to determine the weight of any individual vote if we have sources 10 years out that explain why the vote was significant, rather than depending on immediate news.

There are limited cases, such as Manchin's known obstruction, but that's a case of clear extensive coverage of Manchin's past voting coverage. Masem (t) 02:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That would turn nearly every legislative politician's article in to a tally of their votes. nableezy - 02:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not, as mentioned there are hundreds of votes, and politicians don't go and make public statements about everything. I do expect that for the major issues of the day that get significant coverage, each significant politician would have information on how they voted, as it should, since the sources do. MTG gets a lot of coverage and makes a lot of public statements. Someone like Nita Lowey I don't think you're going to have too many controversial statements about NATO or abortion that need to be covered. It is an effect of our RS/V policy that louder, more prominent, voices will necessarily get more coverage for their activities since sources write more about them. Andrevan@ 02:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: I'm afraid you'll find that bringing American political bios (particularly BLPs) to NPoV status, is extremely difficult. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is a complex question, which to some extent has to be answered on a case-by-case basis.

• The easy part is that some secondary sourcing is needed, at a bare minimum; using primary sources for how someone voted is a bad idea because politicians will often vote against bills for procedural reasons (eg. voting against the "give everyone a puppy" bill because they support the "give everyone a puppy and a pony" bill instead.) So we need secondary sourcing to provide context. Don't cite votes directly to the congressional records, except maybe in the most trivial and uncontroversial cases.
• When significant secondary sourcing exists, I think it's hard to argue for complete exclusion - a single sentence noting a vote, in the section of the article devoted to that particular issue, is usually reasonable. Sure, it could possibly be WP:UNDUE, but for a politician, their actions in office are the key to their notability, making it an uphill climb to argue that any vote that has received significant secondary coverage is undue for even a brief mention in a larger section devoted to that aspect of their views or term in office. Biographical stuff like their kids' ages or where they grew up or their jobs prior to getting elected might be undue; but votes that received significant secondary coverage are central, just like roles for an actor or works for an author, because it's directly part of their notability
• Now, in situations where they have an extremely lengthy record on that issue the importance of any individual vote might be low, especially if it's a vote that is in-line with all their other votes and which received only passing coverage; but it can still be obliquely part of a larger summary of their voting record. That is to say, if one vote is insignificant I would expect that to be because they have a lengthy history of voting in this way on this issue and we can just find a source stating that and cite that instead.
• If the vote goes against their previously stated positions or principles and is WP:EXCEPTIONAL in that way, it requires slightly better sourcing to demonstrate that - this is where the "we have to be careful the vote wasn't for procedural reasons, which means we need secondary sources analyzing it" bit comes in - but is also probably more notable if that sourcing can be found.
• Aside from that specific case, I would generally avoid arguments along the lines of "this vote is inherently exceptional" or the like. It usually isn't in any doubt how they actually voted; beyond that point, saying that a vote is exceptional starts become a value judgment on our part. Also, some people above are talking about including or excluding votes based on whether it makes the subject look bad - for votes in particular I would generally argue against using that as a criterion. High-quality unbiased secondary sources will tell us what the vote means and how it was significant; if people think the source is WP:BIASED, they can bring it up on WP:NPOVN or wherever and it can be settled with an RFC, but we have to accept the reality that in the present-day US political environment there are going to be people who will just say the entire mainstream media is biased and at that point it's not going to really be possible (or necessary) WP:SATISFY them - if people continue to argue that eg. the AP and the NYT are all significantly biased, start an RFC and move on, don't get bogged down forever. Saying eg. "we can't say this politician, who consistently opposed gay rights throughout their career, voted against gay rights in this specific situation, that makes them look bad" is... basically an argument to misrepresent them based on an editor's personal view of what a "good" politician looks like. It isn't a WP:BLP issue to say that someone holds or adheres to the views they stridently say they do; and it's effectively POV to omit or downplay a politician's clearly-stated views because we think they make them look bad.

Ultimately, though, our purpose is to summarize the highest-quality sources, with weight and focus reflective of theirs. If the sources treat a vote as significant then it's significant, or at least significant enough to mention or to be encompassed in a summary somewhere; if they don't treat it as significant, then it isn't. It's fine to demand high-quality sources, but not to continuously the second-guess high-quality ones we do have; as noted on WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, continuously doubting high-quality sources is a sign of tendentious editing. When there's a basic disagreement like that, hold an RFC and move on. --Aquillion (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Endorse Andrevan@ 03:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Even if there exists lots of sources for a single vote, what we want these articles to look like in the long run is something akin to records like that of John Glenn, where the highlights of what his political positions were and what he was known to support or oppose are broadly covered in a handful of paragraphs, with no specific vote actually discussed. And that's all something that takes time in latter sources (biographies, academic works, etc.) to develop. That's not to say that there are some current lawmakers whose position on certain topics can be readily documented without necessarily focusing on any specific vote (eg Manchin), but as others have said, even if RSes covered how some lawmakers voted on a specific bill, it is usually not at the summary-level that we want WP to write for. By focusing on the larger issues the lawmaker champions or fights against, we avoid a lot of any potential problems with BLP, SYNTH, and all that. Masem (t) 05:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no desire to eliminate specific votes from articles if they are well-referenced, I don't see this imperative in policy anywhere. There is no BLP problem with voting, I don't understand where this idea came from that we should remove votes because of BLP. BLP tells us to be careful that allegations or potentially negative or libelous statements and those sorts of things need extra vigilance. It does not say that specific votes are too detailed or somehow damaging to the reputation of the person, votes are not bias, and they are not negative, they are just activities. It is likely that John Glenn doesn't include specific votes because of the lack of coverage for these votes since Glenn is not a modern politician but one from a slightly earlier media coverage era. A better example is John McCain: "In the lame duck session of the 111th Congress, McCain voted for the compromise Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, but against the DREAM Act (which he had once sponsored) and the New START Treaty. Most prominently, he continued to lead the eventually losing fight against "Don't ask, don't tell" repeal." Andrevan@ 12:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see how it could possibly be SYNTH or a BLP issue to neutrally report noteworthy individual votes a lawmaker has taken, based on what high-quality neutral sources treat as noteworthy, and reflecting the tone and focus those sources t ake. We need those secondary sources, but once we have them it becomes an uphill climb to argue for complete omission - WP:DUE weight is based on sources, not our personal opinions or preferences, and the sources indicate that this was an important enough vote to warrant at least a one-sentence mention somewhere in the body. It could definitely benefit from being expanded into a paragraph or section on her larger views on NATO, sure, and eventually such a section might encompass all her votes on NATO without enumerating them, but that's the opposite of arguing for complete removal - the way we write such subjects is to start with the available coverage according to the weight and focus it gives us, and expand from there over time per WP:EVENTUALISM. Arguing that her article can completely omit her views on NATO (which is what removal would mean) seems like a nonstarter to me given the sourcing. And you've mentioned BLP several times now - you will have to lay out, specifically, how you feel this is a BLP issue, because I don't see any hint of an argument that it could fall under that. Opposing NATO is not like being a white supremacist or a fascist, which require stronger sources due to their exceptional nature; saying that someone opposes expanding NATO (when that fact clearly passes WP:V) implies no value judgment. --Aquillion (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Let's put the case that started this thread: the simple addition of those 18 GOP representatives that voted against the NATO resolution without any other context. That the editor didn't add to those that voted in favor of it (nor those that did not vote on it) is a selective POV stance implicitly stating that WP supports the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO and those Representatives that voted against that should be called out. That's both a NOR, NPOV, and BLP problem. And since we do not routinely include the full vote roster for any bill (this is something we can link to on the Fed. Reg.) then simply adding cases of lawmakers voting against the popular opinion (as reported by the media) without any additional context is effectively placing blame on these lawmakers. This is regardless of how many RSes are discussing the vote, but on the assumption that nothing more to provide context can be added.

  When there is context, like there is already for MTG and her stance on NATO in general, then that's far less an issue since this can be used to expand that section, particularly if the RSes reporting on this vote connect it to her stance. Then that's definitely outside being a BLP issue. But, and this is more towards thinking the long term, it is better to not try to focus on individual votes but on the larger issues. You mention that my example of John Glenn above was before the age of modern reporting, but at the same time, we have far too many news sources trying to report on every miniscle detail which is beyond the depth of what WP should be covering. That we could potentially document every vote with context made by a lawmaker, it is better to aim for coverage that is better attuned for an encyclopedia, which also helps to remove potential further BLP and NPOV issues. Masem (t) 00:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  "That the editor didn't add to those that voted in favor of it (nor those that did not vote on it) is a selective POV stance implicitly stating that WP supports the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO" Whaaa???? This argument is really illogical. And is not compliant with policy whatsoever. Andrevan@ 00:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Follows WP:IMPARTIAL. We do not take sides, so whether Sweden and Finland join NATO is not in Wikivoice's interest. But by only mentioning lawmakers that voted against that position (absent further context), that is implicitly taking a position on the matter. Masem (t) 00:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  We are not taking sides, that's NPOV. It's not a POV violation that the vote was only added to the page of people who voted against it. Because, everyone else who voted for it, or didn't vote at all, didn't get covered in reliable source material for doing so because it was not interesting or notable. That an individual editor only edited the pages of people who voted against it, does NOT, imply WP wants Finland to join NATO, that is really quite a bizarre assertion. Andrevan@ 00:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  It 100% is a problem. I mean, we as editors know that the popular opinion (as reported through RSes) is for these countries joining NATO, that's got to be taken as a given. So pointing out those and only those that voted against it without further context is a badge of shame and thus against BLP, one that is going against the popular opinion. Masem (t) 00:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have not commented on the popular opinion on NATO in the US or in Finland or anywhere, it is not a given, and it is not relevant at all. "Badge of shame" is not an accurate description of the vote, we are simply covering factual information on MTG's position. Nobody ever said it was a bad thing. She is, based on her statements and votes, anti-US-in-NATO, anti-Finland-in-NATO, anti-Sweden-in-NATO. She's been accused of aping Putin propaganda (attributed, NOT wikivoice, by critics). We are not making a value judgment on whether that is a good or bad position. We are REPORTING FACTS. Further I want to say I am very concerned that an admin on wikipedia thinks that adding things that are unpopular to a page violates BLP. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Andrevan@ 00:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Again, on MTG's page, there's context. The issue was what started this thread, only reporting on those that voted against it. And if you're talking about this matter (MTG + NATO), I would expect you to be reasonably well versed where public opinion is to understand when the vote was added to those lawmakers that voted against it without context, that was a badge of shame.

  There is no NPOV issue with readding it to MTG's page given there's plenty of context with her and NATO, which at least should be expressed in simply reiterating her view w/o implicitly stating in wikivoice any right or wrong about the NATO issue. Though I am saying from an encyclopedic view, we should not be focused on indiviual votes but on a larger narrative, but that's not an NPOV issue. Masem (t) 01:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I'm glad we agree it is proper and not an NPOV or WEIGHT or BLP issue on MTG's page when placed in proper context. I certainly understand and take your point that if a user were existing only to add unpopular votes with no context or significance to articles about certain people, that user is probably POV pushing. However, that isn't the present case, and per WP:AGF, it is legitimate as pertaining to our present circumstances, unless you believe otherwise? I believe a good faith user tried to add good faith information on this NATO vote. He might have added it a bit out of context on some of the other pages, I haven't done the research as yet on the full list, I reverted it on this article and Jeff Van Drew knowing that they have taken a public view of NATO. I actually do not know if NATO is polling well right now or if it would be a popular view to MTG's base or voters that are likely to vote for MTG's opponent, but it is not relevant as I said. I have long since learned that many things I like are unpopular and there are many popular things I don't like, so it's pointless to speculate.

  It sounds like we landed on a rough agreement, which is always good in these conversations. However, at the risk of reopening the surface of the dispute, I still want to delve the idea that BLP or WEIGHT means we cannot talk about individual votes. Individual votes can sometimes be significant punctuating events in a narrative about the politician's position evolving over time. Andrevan@ 02:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the sourcing or the bias in any sourcing. That is again a red herring. The problem is that WP editors are elevating the importance of any one vote when they include that vote and not the tens or hundreds or thousands of other votes the person has made. To take, for example, MJT voting no on expanding NATO, a vote of absolutely no consequence for expanding NATO, (it was a freaking House Resolution expressing support, the House doesnt get a vote on expanding NATO, that ends with ratification by the Senate of an ascension treaty), there is similar coverage to her vote on Access to Baby Formula Act, Honoring our Pact Act and so on. What you should be including are articles that discuss how her votes show her views and provide some analysis, like this or this. Write about how she has opposed aid to Ukraine and has consistently voted against it, not she voted no on this one vote that she doesnt even get an actual vote in. nableezy - 16:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

A single sentence on those votes would not be a problem, though I'll note that the latter one is a local news source and not as strong as the multiple sources for this one. I wouldn't object to developing this into a section on her larger views on NATO, but the possibility of expanding it in that direction isn't really an argument for removal. --Aquillion (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, I'll start by saying I am sympathetic to your position that if a BLP already discusses a lot of related content (MTG and Ukraine) then it's easier to say her vote here is DUE based on being part of a pattern. In reviewing The Hill I see it mentions how these people voted on several bills but I don't see that it makes any point beyond that. Basically the source article is a list in text format. So my question is how would we decide this content is DUE in MTG's article but not in say Dan Bishop's article? I'm asking for a generalized guideline rather than something specific for this instance since this is something that happens quite a bit. I also appreciate the thoughtful engagement you've been offering. Springee (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything new other than the standard Wikipedia policy on this. As I said, if there are sufficient reliable sources, and it relates to a position, activity, or notable aspect of the person, it can be included. The sources tell it. I'm not proposing to include all of this, maybe a couple sentences worth: Gaetz, Greene, and Boebert are among GOP members who repeatedly voted against US military and humanitarian support to Ukraine. [32] In May, Massie and Greene voted “no” on three bills connected to the invasion. One compelled foreign entities and individuals under U.S. authority to comply with sanctions on Russia and Belarus. Another called for making it U.S. policy to bar Russian officials from participating in meetings and activities in the Group of 20 and other financial institutions. The third would forbid the Treasury secretary from taking part in transactions related to the exchange of special drawing rights that Russia or Belarus possesses. [33] [34] [35] [36] Marjorie Taylor Greene told to stop ‘repeating Putin’s propaganda’ after she speaks out against Ukraine aid. Only two Democrats did not vote for the legislation at all but 57 Republicans, including Ms Greene, voted against it. [37] [38] Marjorie Taylor Greene of Northwest Georgia was among 10 Republicans this past week who voted against a House bill calling on the Biden administration to speed up supplies of military equipment to Ukraine as the nation continues to defend itself against Russia's invasion. Proponents of the measure spoke out on the House floor against Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion. Greene posted on Twitter last month that it was "Nazi militias" in Ukraine that were engaging in torture and that a U.S. aid package would further that. "We should not spend billions of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars on lethal aid to be given to possible Nazi militias that are torturing innocent people, especially children and women. It's not pro-Putin to be against this. It's pro-torture and evil to stay silent/censor it." In another tweet on March 15, Greene said, "Congress voted to fund Ukraine with $13.6 billion in lethal aid. How much U.S. taxpayer cash will end up in the hands of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine? "And to top it all off, NATO has been supplying the neo-Nazis in Ukraine with powerful weapons and extensive training in how to use them. What the hell is going with these #NATONAZIS?"[39] This one is a WSJ op-ed WP:RSOPINION that could be attributed to the editorial board of WSJ, hardly a liberal bastion She speaks to a group cheering white identity and Vladimir Putin. [40] Andrevan@ 23:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

As a general group question, if an example like this comes up where an article says "This is a bill and here is what the bill is about. Here are the people who voted for/against" how would we decide if this content is DUE (or BALANCEASPECTS which is what we normally mean when we say DUE)? The discussion above is long but I'm not sure we have any better guidance than when we started and this discussion seems far less clear vs the one from earlier this year. Springee (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

What seems to be missed in this discussion of DUE/UNDUE and BALANCEASPECTS is that significant minority information, provided it appears in a number of sources, may still be included just with reduced WEIGHT. I don't understand the BLP basis for completely excluding votes. There is no BLP argument that I have heard. BALANCEASPECTS is just that: include them in proportion, really FRINGEy FRINGE not at all, but things that appear in a minority of sources will still appear with proper attribution a minority of the time. It seems that some editors really want to trim down these articles so that anything that would possibly hurt the subjects' feelings should be removed. That is not what BLP is for. BLP is for a bunch of things, including incendiary name-calling or libel or allegations of crimes or stuff like that. These are just the politicians' VOTES. Andrevan@ 00:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Remember that UNDUE is about viewpoints, not factual information. Vote tallies are factual and thus not subject to UNDUE, but do fall under NOT (specifically IINFO -we have routinely never include the full vote lists for any bill). When it comes to viewpoints though - discussions about how a lawmaker voted, then we can consider what number of sources go into that specific aspect. Masem (t) 00:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:IINFO does NOT refer to in-context description of the VOTES of the UNITED STATES CONGRESS. It's about adding stuff like song lyrics. There is nothing indiscriminate about this info. As you pointed out, it was very discriminate. It was only added to people who voted against it. Then it was reverted, and I reverted back on only 2 pages. MTG, and JVD. Andrevan@ 00:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't read the examples at NOT#IINFO as the only types of material that are considered indiscriminate. Full Congressional vote records can be said to fall under NOTSTATS. And I'm not saying the readdition to two pages was a problem. Just that we do not add full voting records on articles, period. Masem (t) 00:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing to add full voting records, as in a pile of tabular data about voting, nobody has added that or proposed adding it. Reposting my original comment to the thread: A random list of random votes that no sources care about, or issues that are pro forma or very minor, like so-and-so voted for the post office to be named after Ben Franklin, I agree, is undue and unimportant. When it's a significant vote on a significant issue that the politician has spoken on, and given previous press releases or interviews on, or is attacked/praised in the press for taking a certain stance or a position, and the vote goes toward other related content in the article about that issue, it should be kept. Andrevan@ 00:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think to somewhat answer my earlier question I would propose a two part question to establish if this material should be included. Basically, does the BLP have logical context and does the source provide mating content to fit that context beyond just "X voted this way". After reading your various comments I think the other material in the article matters. Is this something that generally fits in or does it come across as out of the blue. In the MTG article a vote related to NATO (even though this vote was symbolic vs functional) can be seen in context of her other NATO comments. That isn't true for some of the other BLPs where this same material was added. Those were out of the blue. My second part looks at the RS itself. Does it say anything about the person and the vote other than the one cast a particular vote in the other? The RS (The Hill ) in this case didn't tie these votes to MTG's stance on NATO, Ukraine etc. Thus I would say The Hill is not sufficient to add this content to any BLP because it only says how the person voted not why a vote for or against would be notable. However, if The Hill said, members opposed due to the aparent support of Ukraine then we would have that context within the RS that would connect with the context in the MTG article and the context should be carried over from The Hill. However, in the case of the BLPs that have no other context then we shouldn't add it even though the RS may have some level of context. Of course, if the RS has strong linkage (statements and evidence that MTG consistently votes one way on a big issue) then both the how they voted and why the votes can come from a single article.

Masem mentioned a BLP concern as this may be targeted shaming by only mentioning "those who didn't support the Obvious Good is Obviously Good Act (OGOGA)". I have seen examples of that. However, I'm not sure that's a BLP issue since how a person voted on the record is a public record. The shame part only comes about when we collect those people into a group. I can see an argument that "One of # who voted against the OGOGA" suggests they are part of an outlier group. Removing the "one of #" would avoid that. Springee (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The Hill does not have to establish MTG's position on NATO or Russia-Ukraine policy if another source has established that information. If she states a position on something, then adding her related votes is proper and encylopedic. The source citing the vote, does not need to also explain the vote, if another source explains her position that preceded or followed the vote itself, provided the vote and the position are closely related, i.e. pertain to the same-named issue or topic. Andrevan@ 02:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• From WP:VNOT: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.

so… the next question is: Does mentioning the vote “improve the BLP article” or not? Personally, I don’t think it does, so I would ask those who want to mention the vote to explain how and why it improves the article. What is the point of mentioning it? Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the NPOV noticeboard. If we all agree there's no issue on NPOV here, we can discuss how to improve the article on the article talk page. Andrevan@ 13:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:Pseudoscience and Astrology

Editors are invited to comment at the following RfC: Talk:Astrology#RfC about short description.DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a Bad RFC as it was apparently a repeat/re-litigation of an earlier RFC. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)