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

Trumpism

Your definition is slanderous and liable. President Trump has never stated he intends to disregard the Constitution. Not one supporter of President Trump intends to disregard the Constitution. Your article is biased. It contains false and slanderous personal opinions from uncredited sources. Lies. You allow it to be Locked, which prevents anyone from editing or adding factual resources. 64.32.32.1 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the article Trumpism has a line in the lead saying that Trumpists do not want presidential power to be limited by the Constitution or by the rule of law, but the citation doesn't totally support that (the citation talks about the abstract concept of constitutionalism, which is something else). There's also no corresponding information about this in the body. This seems like an oversight: I'm able to find several sources talking about Trump's calls to disregard the constitution (like this, this, and this). Someone should probably use these to add more information about Trump disregarding the constitution. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Liable as in "Someone is liable to slip on your icy sidewalk"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you want to edit that article, you can, see WP:SILVERLOCK. Of course, other people can also edit the article, and there are some rules. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Michigan GOP is broke. This is why. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@Thebiguglyalien@Viriditas See The Republicans are plotting to literally rewrite the Constitution to eliminate core rights and protections. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Founding of the Church of England

Several of the articles about specific Anglican church buildings in England contain an infobox line saying "Previous denomination: Catholic Church" or similar. I have been removing these on the grounds of WP:NPOV, since to claim that the denomination has changed is to claim that the Church of England was created after that building was constructed. This led to a small edit war with User:Murgatroyd49 and User:Johnbod, who reverted my deletions (e.g. [1]).

The facts are not in dispute-- only their interpretation. This is a ship of Theseus issue, about what it means for the post-1531 church and the pre-1531 church to be "the same" church.

There are two particular interpretations:

• The modern Church of England was founded in the year 597 by Augustine of Canterbury, and the modern Church of England is that same church; Henry VIII changed its management rather than creating it. Let's call this the 597 view.
• The modern Church of England was founded in the year 1531 by Henry VIII. Let's call this the 1531 view.

To list any previous denomination in an infobox, for a building which was under the control of Rome before 1531 but not since, is to endorse the 1531 view. And endorsing one view over the other is not permissible on Wikipedia.

In the ensuing discussion on Murgatroyd49's talk page ([2]), Murgatroyd49 and Johnbod claimed that the 597 view is a fringe view without modern adherents. They are mistaken. Here are a few examples:

• Podmore, Colin. "Dioceses and Episcopal Sees in England." (2008)[3]: "Augustine can be regarded as the founder of the Church of England as an organized ecclesial structure".
• Giles, Richard (former dean of Philadelphia Cathedral). "Always Open: Being an Anglican Today", ISBN 1461660483 (2005): "...to be an Anglican in England is to belong to an ancient church, the ancient church of that country. This gets up other people’s noses somewhat, but there it is. Even Anglican self-effacement cannot stretch to despising its own birthright, although the ignorance of the media (even of the so-called quality newspapers) misleads many into believing the fable that the Church of England was an invention of Tudor times. It was not, of course, Henry VIII who founded the Church of England, but the unknown missionary who first ran his boat onto its shores in foolhardy eagerness to share the good news of Jesus of Nazareth with the fierce tribesmen of that wild and wet island."
• The Church of England's own page about its history[4]: "...until the Reformation in the 16th century the Church of England accepted the authority of the Pope. At the Reformation the Western Church became divided between those who continued to accept Papal authority and the various Protestant churches that did not. The Church of England was among the churches that broke with Rome."

I want to lay particular stress upon this point: I am not advocating for the 597 view here, merely saying that it is not fringe, and thus the 1531 view cannot be endorsed by Wikipedia. I would really rather settle this amicably without being called names.

This whole business was in November, but Christmas got in the way; apologies to everyone for the delay. Marnanel (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Conversely, to deny there was any "previous denomination" is to endorse the 1531 view, which surely remains the minority, especially if these are the best refs you can find; two pages from the CofE's own website & some American clergyman. Note that the 2nd one does not endorse the 597 view, but what one might call a 266 view - though his talk about "fierce tribesmen of that wild and wet island" strongly suggests he knows nothing of the period. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

1. I repeat, I am not endorsing any view here. I am trying to stop any view from being endorsed.

2. An understanding of the C of E's history which is held by the C of E itself cannot be a fringe opinion.

3. I don't care whether it's a minority opinion. What I'm saying is that it's not a fringe opinion, so under WP:NPOV Wikipedia can neither endorse or deny it.

4. (Not particularly important, but) Richard Giles is English, not American; he's now back in this country and working as a visiting fellow of St John's College, Durham[5]. Marnanel (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I'm a friend of Marnanel's, but disagree with M. about many incidental religious questions such as the minor matter of whether or not there is a God. I have no dog in this particular fight.) I thought I'd look up a few things that might indicate what opinions are commonplace on this. Here's what I found. (I haven't cherry-picked; this is everything I thought of looking at, aside from several books I expected not to contain anything useful that indeed didn't contain anything useful.)

• The definition of "Church of England" in the OED. Begins "The English branch of the Christian Church; (since 1534) spec. that constituted at the Reformation". That "spec." means that "Church of England" has both the more general meaning, applying to "the English branch of the Christian Church" without any particular restrictions as to place, time, theology, etc., and also a more specific one meaning what 1531-ists would call "the Church of England" and 597-ists would call "the Church of England after the Reformation". This doesn't endorse either view, as such, but it seems like evidence that both exist. The first of the three example uses cited by the OED is from the 14th century; the term "the Church of England", or at least "ye chirch of Yngelond", was in use before the Reformation.

• A book called "What Anglicans believe" by David Edwards (a clergyman in the Church of England). "The word 'Anglican' comes from 'English', because the pattern of life in the modern, world-wide Anglican Communion was set by the changes made in the Church of England during the Reformation of the sixteenth century." This only makes sense if "the Church of England" was a thing that existed before the Reformation, underwent changes during that time, and continued to exist afterwards.

• Alister McGrath's "In the beginning: the story of the King James Bible" (McGrath is a professor of historical theology). McGrath seems mostly to be a 597ist: e.g., in his index under "Church of England" there's a sub-entry "formation" pointing to the part of the book describing the English Reformation.

It looks to me as if "the Church of England" is commonly used, including by e.g. its clergy, to refer to an institution understood as continuing through the Reformation rather than created by it. So as far as this point goes I'm in agreement with Marnanel. BUT that isn't quite the actual issue here, and I'm not sure I agree with Marnanel about the issue itself.

• It's widely held by reasonable people (and hence Wikipedia shouldn't take a stance that presumes it's false) that the institution called the Church of England has existed since the time of Augustine. But that institution is not necessarily the same thing as the Christian denomination commonly called the Church of England. It could, it seems to me, be true that some Anglican building (1) has been owned and operated by the Church of England since long before the Reformation, but also (2) is now affiliated with the denomination called the Church of England, and was formerly affiliated with a different denomination called the Roman Catholic Church, and that seeing "Previous denomination: Catholic Church" or the like would be generally understood to mean #2 rather than not-#1. I don't think that holding that the denomination has changed implies holding that the Church of England was recreated rather than reformed in the 16the century.

• But suppose we decide that indeed #2 does imply not-#1. In that case, listing a "Previous denomination" would amount to some sort of endorsement of not-#1, which would be problematically POV-ish. But not listing a "Previous denomination" would also amount to some sort of endorsement of #1, also problematically POV-ish. I suppose maybe that implicit endorsement is weaker and hence less problematic than the explicit endorsement of including a "Previous denomination", but I don't think there's any way to avoid a bit of POV creeping in.

I don't claim to know what the Right Answer is here, but I think it's more complicated than anyone's been saying so far :-). Gareth McCaughan (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, so some of this is duplicating Gareth McCaughan's points, which I largely agree with)

I'd want to back up Marnanel on the points that

• declining to assert something is not to assert the opposite - infoboxes are for brief summaries of uncontroversial information, and leaving something out of one does not assert the inverse of it. (In this case, it's perfectly usual to omit this - I note St Etheldreda's Church, London, which was a Church of England church for about 350 years, doesn't have an entry.)
• asserting that the Church of England was not founded in 1531 is not a fringe position
• it's perfectly reasonable to include an organisation's own view - where that organisation is not a fringe organisation - as evidence that a view about that organisation is not a fringe view (as distinct from evidence that the view is true)

Regarding other sources:

• Encyclopedia Britannica has, "Church of England, English national church that traces its history back to the arrival of Christianity in Britain during the 2nd century. [...] As the successor of the Anglo-Saxon and medieval English church..."
• The Encylopedia of the Early Modern World says: "During the period known as the Reformation, the English Church broke with Rome and underwent major changes in doctrine and liturgy. [...] Henry had always claimed rights of supremacy over the English church, but not at the expense of Rome. In the 1530s, however, Henry asserted that English kings were answerable to no earthly superior. In 1532, he forced his senior clergy to concede that convocation (the provincial assembly) could not make ecclesiastical law without royal assent. Over the next two years, a succession of parliamentary statutes whittled away papal power in England while recognizing the king's right to reform the church, supervise canon law, and correct errors in doctrine. In 1534 the Act of Supremacy pronounced Henry's status as the supreme head of the Church of England. The English church remained Catholic, but the pope was no longer its head—he was now simply the bishop of Rome."
• The Oxford Companion to British History: "The present English church dates from the reintroduction of this Celtic Christianity into Northumbria by Aidan (635) and Roman Christianity into Kent by Augustine (597)."
• The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church article on the Church of England begins "It is impossible to say at what date Christianity was first planted in Great Britain, but the presence of British bishops at the Council of..."

All of these are nuanced, but I think it's fairly clear that, at the least, scholarly views in reliable sources are a lot more complicated than "The Church of England was created brand new in 1531".

I don't know whether I'm fully convinced either way on whether it's useful to include this in the infoboxes, but the question is certainly not a slamdunk against Marnanel's point. TSP (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this discussion, so please take or leave this as you will.

Perhaps it might be illustrative to look at how Template:Infobox military conflict suggests handling the similarly-difficult question of giving a quick statement as to a conflict's outcome: the short answer being that, if there's any debate at all as to who won, it advises ducking the question in the infobox and giving an explanation in the article itself. I'd suggest that that might be a useful way forward here: infoboxes and nuance don't really mix, and there is no expectation (indeed, quite the reverse) that the infobox should be a full and comprehensive summary of the article. That's not to pass any judgement either way as to which view of the CofE's founding and continuity is correct. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I have just come across this "discussion". In my opinion, it has nothing to do with NPOV (which is perhaps why it's petered out), and much more to do with WP:COMMONNAME. No-one is disputing that the Church of England has roots that date back to the 6th century, and that there were elements of continuity across the hiatus of the Reformation. However, in common usage, "the Church of England" refers to the post-1531 denomination that recognises the monarch as its supreme head, not the Pope, and that is thereby distinct in doctrine and hierarchy from the Catholic church – hence the OED's "spec", to indicate a narrower usage. If historians are talking about longer-term religious traditions, they would be as likely to refer to "the Church in England" or "the English church" (as several of the sources cited above do). It's clearly useful in the infobox to label a church building "Church of England" to indicate its present-day affiliation and devotional practices; but, if it's a historic structure, it may retain elements in its architecture and fittings that reflect its earlier history under a Catholic regime, and that's also useful information to provide (especially for the uninformed outsider who may be hazy on English religious history).

Marnanel's self-appointed campaign to strip out this information across the board is in my opinion unconstructive and unhelpful, and becomes particularly ludicrous in a case like Old St Paul's Cathedral, which stood for some 450 years as a Catholic church, followed by 130 years as an Anglican church, but which has not existed at all for more than 350 years. GrindtXX (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Public image of Taylor Swift#Privacy, stalking and private jet usage

Since I'm being told by Ronherry to go through WP:NPOV regarding this edit [6], which I believe fails WP:NPOV since the private jet paragraph now reads like an apologia for Swift (and is possibly a WP:BLP violation against Jack Sweeney by accusing him of accepting bribes with the only source being the letter written by Swift's legal team). What are your thoughts? Some1 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. The article states that Swift's team is accusing Sweeney of accepting gifts from some celebrities, just like Sweeney's data has accused Swift of certain amount of carbon emissions. It's how legal cases/lawsuits work. Go through any featured/good articles in WP:LAW.

]]. You're not following NPOV by censoring Swift's allegations against Sweeney while retaining Sweeney's allegations on Swift. I'm baffled this has to even be explained or discussed upon. ℛonherry☘ 13:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Swift's "allegations against Sweeney" are already included in the paragraph i.e. In December 2023, lawyers for Swift sent a cease and desist letter to Jack Sweeney, the person running the jet-tracking accounts, citing breach of Swift's privacy, safety and concerns of stalking. (emphasis mine). And I'll let the edits speak for themselves (note: I've only made a total of two edits to the article, btw):

• I added Swift's carbon credit purchases and removed a sentence saying The letter claimed that information leak of Swift's locations are a "life-and-death" situation for her and alleged that Sweeney tracks Swift's data particularly because of the public attention its brings forth, highlighting that he stopped tracking jets of certain celebrities in exchange of gifts or financial favors; media had reported in 2022 that Sweeney stopped tracking Mark Cuban after Cuban promised lifetime "friendship." per my edit summary [7]
• Ronherry did a "partial restore" to add The letter claimed that the data leaks of Swift's locations are a "life-and-death" situation for her and alleged that Sweeney tracks Swift's data particularly because of the public attention its brings forth, highlighting that he stopped tracking jets of certain celebrities in exchange of gifts or financial favors. [8]
• I removed the highlighting that he stopped tracking jets of certain celebrities in exchange of gifts or financial favors part while still keeping what Ronherry partially restored per my edit summary [9]
• Ronherry reverts to add that part back [10] (so now this is being discussed).

Some1 (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for this. This blatantly shows how you're attempting to censor Swift's argument. So, according to your argument, which you believe abides NPOV, allegations on Swift takes up space consisting of multiple lines in the same paragraph, where Swift's side of the story AKA allegations on Sweeney deserves only the mention of "privacy, safety and concerns of stalking". That's neither neutral nor due weightage. Swift's argument should also be expanded upon, considering her team believes Sweeney is bribed to keep silent about certain celebrities. Stalking is not their only allegation, therefore, there is no need to censor their statement. ℛonherry☘ 18:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, as part of the dispute resolution, I negotiated with you, agreeing to drop the Mark Cuban line. But you have been steadfast in only your version of the prose, refusing to find a middle ground and reverting the whole thing. ℛonherry☘ 18:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Provide reliable secondary sources demonstrating that it should be included. So far so the sources you've provided have not supported the content you've added, or haven't been reliable for contentious information in a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus isn't always the middle ground, you do need to provide reliable secondary sources if you want that to be the way this goes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple secondary sources all reporting and quoting the contended "in exchange for items of value" line from Swift's legal statement: Entertainment Weekly, Billboard, CNN, THR, The Washington Post etc. ℛonherry☘ 18:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources are quoting excerpts of the cease-and-desist letter, which include the "in exchange for items of value" line. If we were to mention that portion of the letter, we're giving too much WP:WEIGHT to Swift's defense claims. We could balance the paragraph out by including a sentence regarding Sweeney's (or his attorney's) response to the letter. These are from the sources you listed:

• [EW]: Sweeney uses already-public information from the Federal Aviation Administration His attorney stated: “This isn’t about putting a GPS tracker on someone and invading their privacy. It’s using public information to track the jet of a public figure. This is their means to try to quash a PR issue and bully my client to have the bad coverage die down.
• [Billboard]: Sweeney’s posts are derived from government data compiled by the Federal Aviation Administration and He linked the pushback from Swift’s team to negative publicity she had received last year about the environmental impact of her use of private jets. Sweeney’s lawyer went even further in defending his client, calling the claims from Swift’s attorneys “hyperbolic and unfounded” and saying the posts posed “no threat” to the superstar.
• [CNN]: operates the accounts on several social media platforms using publicly-available flight data from the Federal Aviation Administration, Sweeney also told CNN that he never intended any harm with his actions, noting that he is compiling “public information.”
• [WashingtonPost]: The accounts use publicly available data from the Federal Aviation Administration; he saw the letter as an attempt to scare him away from sharing public data. ... The letters, he added, were sent to him at a time when she faced criticism over her flights’ environmental effects. His attorney stated Swift's team had not identified any legal claim, that the jet information posed “no threat” to Swift’s safety and that Sweeney’s account had “engaged in protected speech that does not violate any of Ms. Swift’s legal rights Slater said he thought the Swift attorney’s letters were “hyperbolic and unfounded” and sent in hopes that Sweeney would “just delete everything and do what they said." “This isn’t about putting a GPS tracker on someone and invading their privacy. It’s using public information to track the jet of a public figure,” he said. “This is their means to try to quash a PR issue and bully my client to have the bad coverage die down.”

Some1 (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not saying that the article needs to include Sweeney's or his attorney's response. The reason why I started this discussion was because I object to your re-addition of the disputed part ("highlighting that he stopped tracking jets of certain celebrities in exchange of gifts or financial favors") and the addition of the "in exchange for items of value" line from the letter in general, due to the insinuations of bribery. Some1 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

With the same logic, the primary source alleging Swift of carbon emissions (Yard) is not a reliable source. Every other media outlet covering the issue only quotes/cites Yard, and there are no secondary sources verifying or acknowledging Yard's allegations either. The insinuations of Swift harming the climate also a BLPvio, as it stands unproved. ℛonherry☘ 03:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"alleging Swift of carbon emissions" what does this even mean? Those are general statistics not allegations, nobody seriously disputes them as far as I can tell. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Nope. These are not "general statistics". The source is not a governmental body or a scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scientific data about climate change and related topics are only reliable if they come out of a journal. Whereas, as per all secondary sources and Yard itself, the primary source is a list of people categorized as celebrities ranked based on so-and-so carbon emissions tweeted by the Twitter account "@CelebJets". Neither marketing agencies nor unverified Twitter accounts are reliable sources in Wikipedia. ℛonherry☘ 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Those are general statistics based on jet usage. We don't appear to be dealing with either an ad agency or unverified Twitter account unless I'm missing something. I'm beginning to get the feeling that you are a Taylor Swift Superman, would that be an inaccurate characterization? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

And I'm beginning to get the feeling you're a troll who is blatantly disregarding Wikipedia's guidelines so I'm going to stop responding to you. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 18:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yikes, ok. If its worth anything that should be superfan not Superman, darn autocorrect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

One of the funniest autocorrect I've seen lol Some1 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Is there even proper WP:Due weight for including any of this trivial nonsense? It seems like it would fall under gossip issues and recentism and isn't relevant for the overall span of her career. Silverseren^C 20:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I've been leaning towards. A lot of the sources are characterizing this as drama or gossip. Maybe a sentence that her private jet's activity was being published and she filed a lawsuit, the rest is overkill. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think the private-jet/carbon emissions stuff are due for the article (since the topic has received wide-spread media coverage back in 2022 and still does now) and is very fitting for Swift's Public image article (the section it is under is called "Publicity and controversy"). I do think the paragraph as it currently stands[11] is fine as is (since the disputed part has been removed). If we were to trim it though, I propose reducing the paragraph down to something along the lines of:

  In 2022, Swift received criticism on social media after Yard, a marketing agency, stated that she is at the top of their list of celebrities whose private jets produced the highest amount of greenhouse gas emissions that year, compiled based on the data posted by the now-defunct Twitter account @CelebJets. In December 2023, lawyers for Swift sent a cease and desist letter to Jack Sweeney, the person running the jet-tracking accounts, citing breach of Swift's privacy, safety and concerns of stalking.[113][114] Some1 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC) added that I'm fine with the current version [12] Some1 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  That looks like a succint summary of the issue, and I would support inclusion of this version. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  While I'm less confident the section needs to be trimmed (this is, after all, Public image of Taylor Swift, not Taylor Swift, we can afford to be a bit wordier), if it were to be trimmed I do like Some1's version. Loki (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  To remove "The spokesperson also stated that Swift had purchased more than double the required carbon credits to offset all tour travel and flights to visit Kelce"? I object. In an article about Swift's public image, how is it neutral to remove all of Swift's responses to the scrutiny she's receiving? I don't understand how it is neutral to remove both her responses to the controversy itself and to Sweeney. ℛonherry☘ 02:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  To make myself clear, I believe the "trimmed version" suggested above is lopsided. I think we should either remove the whole section (as there are no secondary sources supporting or verifying Yard's research or the truth to it) or keep the carbon emissions allegation, Sweeney's allegation, and Swift's counter claims about him. Inappropriately trimming one party's claims would not neutral, at least in a legal perspective. If anything, like SilverSeren had suggested, I support removing the entire paragraph as both allegations are unfounded. ℛonherry☘ 03:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  What is unfounded is repeatedly referring to the statistics provided by the account as "allegations" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  The current paragraph [13] (which I stated above that I'm fine with) has two neutral sentences regarding Swift's private jet use/carbon emissions:

  • Swift's private jet use has drawn scrutiny for its carbon emissions.
  • In 2022, Swift received criticism on social media after Yard, a marketing agency, stated that she is at the top of their list of celebrities whose private jets produced the highest amount of greenhouse gas emissions that year, compiled based on the data posted by the now-defunct Twitter account @CelebJets.

  Then the rest of the paragraph are in defense of Swift:

  • In response, a spokesperson for Swift stated, "Taylor's jet is loaned out regularly to other individuals [...] To attribute most or all of these trips to her is blatantly incorrect."
  • The spokesperson also stated that Swift had purchased more than double the required carbon credits to offset all tour travel and flights to visit Kelce.
  • In December 2023, lawyers for Swift sent a cease and desist letter to Jack Sweeney, the person running the jet-tracking accounts, citing breach of Swift's privacy, safety and concerns of stalking.
  • The letter claimed that the data leaks of Swift's locations are a "life-and-death" situation for her and alleged that Sweeney tracks Swift's data particularly because of the public attention its brings forth.

  Do you still think that the paragraph doesn't include enough of a defense for Swift? Some1 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes. Yard is a marketing agency, neither a publication nor a reliable source. There are no secondary sources that validate or verify Yard's claims. As long as it has not been repeated by multiple, independent sources, it is still an allegation, just like Swift's claims about Sweeney. But that's not the primary focus of this dispute.
  • I did never say Swift's defense is not included in the prose, I asked you to not tweak it, albeit not cherrypick, what has been said in the letter. The letter alleges not just stalking, but also bias encouraged by financial favors. There are two Grounds from the prosecuting party (stalking and bias); cutting one of the grounds out of the encyclopedia would be lopsided neutrality not just in Wikipedia, in my opinion, irrespective of the consensus that would form here amongst editors.
  • All I'm asking is, as per my understanding of NPOV, that, bias be also mentioned. As in: The letter claims that data leaks of Swift's locations are a "life-and-death" situation for her, alleging Sweeney tracks Swift's data particularly because of the public attention its brings forth and that he stopped tracking some celebrities in exchange of favors. This is what is said in the letter, and this is what the secondary sources have also chose to report widely. All I'm asking is to not exclude the bias point, as it is one of the two allegations she makes.
  • I do not wish to prolong this discussion further. I have said everything I wanted to say about this edit conflict. You've said what you think is right for the article and in my case, the same. I will accept whatever this noticeboard believes is to be done regarding this edit conflict. I rest.

  ℛonherry☘ 05:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  As another editor pointed out before,[14] the sources are just reproducing Swift's letter. One source[15] did explain that line a bit, but said right after that no money was ever exchanged. Unless there's multiple reliable secondary sources reporting that Sweeney does engage in the behavior that Swift's team alleges, that disputed part seems like it was cherry-picked from the letter just to attack him. The c&d letter makes numerous allegations[16], and it's not Wikipedia's job to report it all. I'm sure you'll disagree with what I had just wrote, and that's fine, we'll just agree to disagree. Some1 (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to point out: The report, which was not peer-reviewed and features a prominent disclaimer about its analysis, includes the names of a handful of celebrities, at least two of whom have publicly disputed the list, saying that the flight data affiliated with them does not reflect their actual usage. - The Washington Post. And then BBC goes on to say: the Yard analysis relied on flight data available on Twitter, was not peer-reviewed or verified, and while it tracked celebrity-owned jet flights there is no way of knowing when or whether the owners are on the jets. ℛonherry☘ 14:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the exchange of gifts or financial favors discussion, but I'll just throw this out there [17]: To create this report, Yard scraped data from Celebrity Jets, which in turn pulls its info from ADS-B Exchange (“the world’s largest public source of unfiltered flight data,” according to its website). Yard based its carbon emissions estimates on a U.K. Department for Transportation estimate that a plane traveling at about 850 km/hour gives off 134 kg of CO2 per hour; that 134 kg estimate was multiplied with both time-spent-in-air and a factor of 2.7 to account for “radiative forcing,” which includes other harmful emissions such as nitrous oxide (2.7 was taken from Mark Lynas’ book Carbon Counter). That number was then divided by 1000 to convert to tonnes. They also had a disclaimer: Yard stated that its research was “not conclusive to the biggest offenders, but the biggest offenders according to the data as presented on the Celebrity Jets Twitter page” and said it was not clear whether the planes’ respective owners were on each flight. [18] The analysis not being peer-reviewed or verified, or being disputed by a couple of celebrities themselves, doesn't negate the fact that T. Swift received criticism and scrutiny for her private jet usage after the report went viral. Some1 (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  It does not negate the fact that Swift received scrutiny but it does fall under contentious claims not verified by other independent sources, therefore a BLP violation. ℛonherry☘ 11:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  It does not negate the fact that Swift received scrutiny... that's what the article currently says, that she received criticism for her jet usage after the report was published. Some1 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  But that's not the only thing in the prose. The factoid for which she received the criticism is unfounded and that fact that it's unfounded is not mentioned in the prose. You arguing for alleged BLP violations about Sweeney be removed while supporting the same about Swift to stay is one of the things I'm concerned about here. You're contradicting yourself. ℛonherry☘ 16:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Addendum to my comment above: The Celebrity Jets Twitter account @CelebJets, whom Yard scraped the data from for their analysis, was ran by Jack Sweeney, the target of Swift's cease-and-desist letter. Some1 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with Some1's summary. The amount of ink spilled is disproportionate to the subject entirely, and to the specific sub article. Ronherry, as an outsider observer I would suggest you really dial back the stridency you're attacking people with, because you seem like you are rapidly reaching the point where you cannot maintain impartiality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  I do not think I "attacked" anybody or that I've been impartial. Can you show me where I "attacked" anybody? I'm simply arguing in favor of my side of the dispute. I kindly ask you to comment on the topic of this discussion here and not on me. Thank you. ℛonherry☘ 04:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Impartial is what we're supposed to be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ronherry, you do see the irony of accusing others of personal attacks while you are calling someone a troll above, right? You have basically every single editor in this discussion pushing back on your novel interpretation that the content is a BLP violation. The time to drop the stick is now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Both the Washington Post and BBC (sources that I've missed to highlight) have stated how the Yard analysis is not peer-reviewed or verified, with the former saying its truth has been disputed. Contentious factoids are indeed a BLP violation, no? I've quoted above what these sources say about this in my recent response. ℛonherry☘ 14:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  The article doesn't say in wiki-voice: Swift tops the list of celebrities whose private jets produced the highest amount of greenhouse gas emissions in 2022; it says she received criticism on social media after Yard, a marketing agency, stated that she is at the top of their list of celebrities whose private jets produced the highest amount of greenhouse gas emissions in 2022. I'll note that you were the one that added that to the article three months ago [19][20]. Some1 (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I did add it three months ago, when there were no sources disputing the analysis. That's not the case now. The Post and BBC sources are new, that emerged very recently in the past couple of weeks. And thank you for bringing up the fact that it was me who added the prose about Swift receiving criticism about her jet usage, because if that proves anything, it's that I am not interested in censoring her unfavorable press coverage or deviating from the citations; unlike Sweeney's case now, where I believe there's a bit of an unwillingness to represent the sources correctly.ℛonherry☘ 11:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am not interested in censoring her unfavorable press coverage You stated in another comment in this thread that you "support removing the entire paragraph".

  I think we're nearing five days of discussion, most of which consists of back and forth between you and me. I would like to hear what other editors' thoughts on the matters are, and whatever they decide, we'll just go with that. Some1 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Like I already stated, which you seem to ignore for a reason I don't know, the factoid was included when there were no sources disputing the analysis. That's not the case now. The Post and BBC sources are new, that emerged very recently in the past couple of weeks. When a piece of information is disputed, its place in an article will indeed be questioned. Hope this helps. And yes, I'll go with what the majority of editors think. ℛonherry☘ 16:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hellstorm (film)

There has been a dispute between the ony two editors who have edited this page over it's neutrality, eg is it a documentary, See it's edit history.[21], The article has just been protected. If it helps, he self-published book is here and on the film's creator at Renegade (media platform). Doug Weller talk 17:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § The use of 'infobox country' for fictitious states

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § The use of 'infobox country' for fictitious states. A discussion about what infobox should articles about micronations have is focusing on NPOV issues Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

1977 anti-Tamil pogrom

Wanted to get more eyes on this article 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom, it seems to needs a clean up to sound more WP:NPOV as it appears to have been written mainly on contradicting WP:PRIMARY sources, as reputable these are the lack of clear non bias secondary analysis has left the article opened for WP:NAT editing. With a lot of reverting and little discussion in the talk page. Cossde (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Articles about Julian Jaynes

Snarcky1996 (talk · contribs) persists in using non-neutral language in two articles and appears to be ready to edit war over it.

• Bicameral mentality
• The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

At issue is violating the guidelines about the use of words expressing doubt as clearly stated at WP:CLAIM. Skyerise (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I simply used the word "claim" to emphasize the controversial/unproven nature of the theory and the various claims of its author. Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Which is exactly what WP:CLAIM says not to do. Skyerise (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Bad interpretation of it. Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation of it is supported by 17 years of Wikipedia experience, both arguing the wrong side as you are now in my early days, but now understanding the intent and supporting that intent. But someone else will roll around and burst your bubble. Skyerise (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Still using arguments of authority. Bad habits. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You mistake the argument from direct experience for one of authority. I claim no authority, I just know the consensus interpretation of policies I interact with frequently. Be careful about WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS. Skyerise (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If you claim no authority, then stop resorting to such fallacies. I don't care for how long you have been on Wikipedia Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not a fallacy to state that I know from long experience how WP:NPOV and WP:CLAIM are interpreted on Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That's the definition of "argument from authority": relying on the credibility or reputation of the one using it (or of some other figure) rather than on the strength of the actual argument or evidence. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I provided the evidence first, the clear statements at WP:CLAIM, one of many words listed at words to avoid. Skyerise (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You provided the evidence first and then resorted to that.

As for "the clear statements at WP:CLAIM", said statements does not proscribe the use of the word. Neither do they proscribe the term "argued". furthermore, you still have not answered my genuine question on my talk page about the language that you use in the article. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't write the article. I am simply preventing you from inserting bias by changing neutral words to non-neutral ones. Per WP:BRD, if you are reverted by a regular editor, you are supposed to leave the article in the original state until discussion has reached a consensus. You instead keep edit-warring to maintain non-neutral language without waiting for other editors to join the discussion, as you are required to do. This is considered disruptive editing. Skyerise (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I edited an apologetic article by using terms that simply emphasize the theoretical nature of the subject presented in the article. The term "claim", as stated in the rule, indicate uncertainty, and that's why, from my understanding, said rule call to caution in its usage, however it is a term rather commonly used on Wikipedia to describe either unproven or disproved allegations/theories/beliefs, including when presenting the perspective of the author(s) of said allegations/theories/beliefs. For what reason is that not possible in this instance ? Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Becuase it violates our neutral point of view policy. We don't take sides. We report original, pro, and con positions neutrally, using neutral language. You are taking a side. Wikipedia maintains neutrality in all articles, including articles on fringe topics. WP:NPOV states: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, before my edits, the article clearly took a side : Jaynes's one. I simply restored a balanced account, I did not used language that criticized or denigrated the theory. Also, you seem to not have read articles on fringe or pseudocientific theories, nor the rule about it:

Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE):

"Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The use of neutral language is not taking a side. Nothing about using 'wrote', 'said', 'stated', instead of 'claim' makes the language supportive. Skyerise (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The language chosen, and the formulation, was anything but neutral, it strongly implied that the theory was based on numerous solid elements. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And "claim" simply invite caution, but does not refute anything in itself. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Claim is specifically listed as casting doubt. The article does not use supportive words such as clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed, which are listed as supporting non-neutral words at WP:CLAIM. Not using 'claim' doesn't make the article less neutral; using 'claim' makes it less neutral, as very clearly explained at WP:CLAIM. Skyerise (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Other words may be used, sure, "claim" cast doubt yes, but what that mean is that it invite to not take said claims at face-value, but casting doubt does not mean invalidating or refuting. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does. That's exactly what WP:CLAIM says it does, and is your admitted reason for wanting to use the word. Which is exactly the motive for the use of the word that WP:CLAIM is intended to stop. Skyerise (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that, no. It simply indicate that that word may be used in situations where there is doubts indeed. Which is the case here, and yes that's why I want to add it obviously. The point is to emphasize: "Theory unproven". That's not contrary to the Neutral point of view rule, and furthermore it is in compliance with WP:FRINGE. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course it does, right at the beginning: "On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications." And WP:FRINGE does not say to use words expressing doubt. It say to not unduly leave out criticism, which we also report neutrally. Skyerise (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The title of the rule is even "Words to watch", not proscribed words (WITH NO EXCEPTIONS as you like to emphasize).

Here what it say in intro: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution because they may introduce bias." Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Avoid does not mean forbid, and "claim" here does not make "undue implications" at all. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide links to policy pages explicity allowing such usage. Avoid means avoid, so unless you can provide a contrasting policy page that explicitly says when the use of 'claim' is acceptable, then it's not. When you change an article and there is a dispute, it is up to you to show that the majority of editors responding agree with you. Nobody here has agreed with you. Until a majority of editors agree with you, here or on the article talk page, your proposed change may not be implemented. Skyerise (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Noboby here has agreed with you either as of yet, so why do you bring that up? My basis for the use of "claim" is simple: Jaynes's assertions are just that: claims that he made. A theory that he formulated. "Claim" is forbidden only in cases where there is no reason to express doubt or uncertainty about something. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You are the first one that I talk to to make a link between the rule that invite to caution on certain words, and the neutral point of view rule by the way. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I bring it up because articles stay as they are unless there is a WP:CONSENSUS for change. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show the consensus. You have no consensus. Skyerise (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's not quite correct, articles stay as they are only if a modification is contested, which you did here indeed, but I had the right to edit the article at first. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Once only. You do not have the right to edit-war when you are reverted. Skyerise (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And you could have contested it in talk instead of immediately revert it. No matter. Let's go back to where we were in the debate. That is: My basis for the use of "claim" is simple: Jaynes's assertions are just that: claims that he made. A theory that he formulated. "Claim" is forbidden only in cases where there is no reason to express doubt or uncertainty about something.Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You write: "'Claim' is forbidden only in cases where there is no reason to express doubt or uncertainty about something." - but that's simply not true. 'Wrote', 'said', etc. are always preferred to claim. You've provided no policy or guideline that explicitly says otherwise. Rather, you are (rather inexpertly) attempting to "read between the lines" of policy seeing only what you think supports your position. And I did immediately take it to your talk page, then to here when you stuck your fingers in your ears. And I am explicitly allowed by WP:BRD to revert a change that I believe violates WP:NPOV. I don't have to discuss it first. There is an assumption that the current state of the article reflects the current consensus of all the previous and current editors of the article, until you show otherwise by establishing a new consensus on the talk page. Skyerise (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"are always preferred to claim." You are twisting the meaning of the rule again, first you pretended it was forbidden altogether. I have demonstrated that you were wrong in claiming that per the rule in question itself. Now you reformulate it, but that's still incorrect. Describing thoses Jaynes's claims as claims is perfectly appropriate. You provide no evidence as to why that would violate WP:NPOV here.

As for Wp:BRD, since you also still want to argue about that, it state that you should only "Consider reverting only when necessary." Which you did consider necessary here apparently, but that interpretation of yours is a stretch. Neither WP:NPOV nor WP:CLAIM indicate that my edit is inappropriate. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Show me the consensus that supports you. I'll wait. Skyerise (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You are the one seeking support for your position here it seems to me. Which could have be done in the talk page of the article, instead of trying to use this noticeboard to accuse me of non-NPOV editing on a rather thin basis. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I could have, but for the fact that you intentionally "don't get it", just like you did before when I had to post at WP:NORN. You have no respect for more experienced editors; if you did show such respect, I would treat you differently: but you don't. This board is used when newer editors won't listen to a more experienced editor. I brought you here because that's the case with regard to this specific issue. Skyerise (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

So that's simply disregard for editors that disagree with you then. Given your confrontational attitude from the start, I don't see why I should treat you with deference. And you're still using that argument from authority based on your "experience", despite the fact that nothing that you linked to me indicate unambiguously that you are in the right here. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As you were clearly told off by another experienced editor at WP:NORN: "If you still do not understand why you are wrong, you should at least accept that you are wrong and postpone the understanding. The alternative is that you will be blocked eventually". Skyerise (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And who say it is not you who don't understand why you are wrong here? That's it again: you resort to threats and arguments of authority despite the fact that I accepted to discuss and debate, in BOTH instances I might add. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's my direct experience that tells me I am not wrong here. And now other editors are beginning to chime in to tell you just that, just as they waited for you to exhausts all your long-winded but invalid arguments at WP:NORN. This is the way it works and is inevitable: your arguments are not convincing anyone. Skyerise (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That editor also contradict your interpretation of the rules. Its seems that despite all those years, you still have to learn about Wikipedia rules and their correct interpretations. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"They're acceptable (and sometimes even necessary) in order to reflect doubt that is present in the sources"

Seems that you forgot that "detail" in your description of the rule to me. You, you just said : it is forbidden in all instances. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Also the term "argued". Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• What sort of language do the sources use? The key point of WP:CLAIM is that words like "claimed" or "argued" cannot be used to introduce doubt. They're acceptable (and sometimes even necessary) in order to reflect doubt that is present in the sources, but editors can't just say "this is obviously just a claim" - you need to point to sources that handle the statements in question with tongs, so to speak, and treat them as unproven claims rather than fact. (Conversely, of course, to state something as fact in the article voice we need to be citing sources that treat it as fact; but if we don't have that then there would be deeper problems here.) It's not a question of whether there is "no reason" to express doubt; the question is do the sources express doubt about it - you can't introduce doubt yourself as an editor, you can only reflect doubt present in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Noted, thanks for that precision. But I must note that it is a bit problematic here I believe, since that theory, not being widely discussed in academia, is most of the time discussed by supporters only of said theory. Therefore, as a result, the article is a bit (even a lot i believe) biased in favor of the theory, despite its fringe status. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Any suggestions as to how to remedy to that sort of situations? Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is a specific policy just for that situation; see WP:PARITY, which is part of WP:FRINGE. However, you'd first have to successfully argue that the topic is fringe - you could bring it up on WP:FRINGEN, for example (or people might weigh in here.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah okay good, thank you very much for that information, I will bring it here then. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I was also just going to point out that nothing in the article establishes that the theory is indeed WP:FRINGE. No sources are introduced which are cited as saying so, so the idea that it is fringe is just an unsupported claim on your part. Skyerise (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that you finally admit to actively defending that theory. Good. That theory, who argue that consciousness appeared about 3000 or 5000 years ago, is not supported (nor even regularly brought up, it should be added) by the vast majority historians, psychologists, and neuroscientists. But you are free to claim otherwise if you want. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I am not "actively defending" any theory. I am defending Wikipedia's neutrality policy. There is a difference between historians, pyschologists, and neuroscientists disagreeing with Jaynes' findings, which disagreements are detailed in the article, and it actually being widely considered "fringe", which would require an overview source which explicitly says so. It's up to you to find such sources, quote and cite them. Which you haven't bothered to do, so what you say above is currently no more than your own opinion on the matter. Skyerise (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"Fringe" means exactly that: that scientists consider it fringe. That basically EVERYONE in these fields disagree with it. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

No, based on our sourcing requirements, it can only be called "fringe" if a reliable source explicitly calls it fringe. There was previous discussion on one of the talk pages about this, but the OP couldn't or wouldn't provide supporting sources! Skyerise (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And if you want to participate in the search of sources that refer to that fact, you are welcome. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that there are also supporters of the theory and some well-known writers have referenced it in a positive manner, and not all of them are affiliated (for example, Daniel Dennett). Skyerise (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And? I'm talking about the consensus of the scientific community here, if we can find reliable sources indicating that consensus, the fact that some philosophers and eventually some psychologists were enthusiastic about the novel theory at the time won't mean much. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

But you haven't provided any source that establishes the "consensus of the scientific community" and I don't believe you will be able to. Skyerise (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Why? Because almost no one discuss that theory in the scientific community? Yes, that's the main obstacle. You seem content about it I note.

But the fact that it is not much discussed (at all) is already a big indication of the fringe status of the theory. You should help me and others editors in our search of those sources instead, if you want to improve that article. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I rarely seek to change the consensus balance of an article. I primarily verify sources and replace weak sources with stronger ones. You do you. Skyerise (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Julian Assange#Statement related to Afghani informants

There is an RfC regarding whether the article should include the attributed allegation that, in regards to whether the names of Afghani informants should be redacted, Assange said "Well, they’re informants, so if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it."

Interested editors can find the discussion here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Benante editing Charlie Benante

Someone who is more sane (or less insane) than me should check if this edit is OK. Polygnotus (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gatemansgc: metalsucks is, indeed, not a great source, and dude obviously doesn't want to have this information out there. It's probably not untrue, but I am leaning towards not including it per WP:HARM. What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

IDK the phrasing isn't overtly negative. Aren't we supposed to be just relaying what the sources say? If you google it the incident is documented across multiple sources... Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 05:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Meh, I dunno, and I don't really care much because I don't know him and I don't listen to that music. But its probably good that people wiser than me can see it and can form an opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Israel Defense Forces#RFC Removing photography taken and published by the IDF

I am looking for other Wikipedians to comment and provide input here on this issue - honestly should potentially be applied in even a broader context for all armed forces. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The Epoch Times political alignment labels

In respect to the labeling of The Epoch Times as conservative, right-wing, or far-right in the lead of the wiki article:

• Distinct, reliably sourced examples for all three adjectives are present in the article citations
• Conservative and far-right are the most common, with right-wing appearing a handful of times
• Examples range from passing mentions in tangentially related articles (ex: "she got her news from the far-right One America News Network and Epoch Times, a pro-Trump newspaper produced by the Falun Gong sect that has spread the anti-Semitic QAnon conspiracy.") to descriptions in the lead of articles where The Epoch Times is the subject (ex: "Facebook's data on the first quarter of this year shows that one of its most popular pages was an article by The Epoch Times, a far-right newspaper that has promoted...", ex: "Today, The Epoch Times is one of the country’s most successful and influential conservative news organizations")

In light of the above, what are the best practices for maintaining a neutral point of view in regards to:

1. Inclusion of a political label in the lead description vs. later on in the page
2. Reconciling different labels when multiple sources are available to support each

ClifV (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Noting that ClifV has just been blocked as a block-evading sock and won't be responding to this thread. MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Vlachs vandalism by Hungarian Nationalists

Hello! This is the article in question: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs

The article is entirely rewritten by two hungarian users, CritiKende and OrionNimrod. These users are removing any and all mentions of the "contiunity theory" (i.e that Romanians lived above the Danube before hungarian arrival) and replacing it with the "Immigrant Theory" (that the Romanians came to modern day Romania only after Hungarian arrival). This is unacceptable and the entire article has been compromised, with over 54% of the entire thing being written by just them two without anyone elses input. Multiple important details were outright removed like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1208658409 (Vlachs traveling to Mount Athos in the 8th Century)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1198006497 (Removal of an entire paragraph about Volohoveni, who are thought to have been Romanians living in modern day Ukraine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1182790311 (Entire paragraph about Proto-Romanian being spoken in the 6th century being removed)

These to just name a few, OrionNimrod is much the same, if not even worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1182605334 (Entire section about Romanians in the 9th century being removed) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1182605334 (Reference to Vlachs in the 11th Century is entirely removed)

This is, at least to me, really urgent since they already got away with an insane and baffling amount of edits. Not only that, any revisions that go against their own visions are almost immediately undone and they keep adding things which are not related and "personal opinions" by historians they keep finding God knows where. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza

There is a request to move Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza to Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza or to Gaza genocide, See Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza#Survey_(Requested_move_29_February_2024). Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka refer

Granted Good Article status at some point but this should be reviewed as there is significant unsourced text and non-neutral wording. Nirva20 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Nirva20, you might need to be a little more specific about the issue. It's not immediately obvious what unsourced text and non-neutral wording you're talking about, and I don't see any comments from you at Talk:2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka explaining your concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I will repost. Nirva20 (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

2021 peer reviewed Harvard study POV concern

An addition from a 2021 study on the ExxonMobil article has been reverted due to alleged POV concerns by William M. Connolley, despite the fact that this is a peer reviewed study that has been covered by multiple reliable sources including CNN, Time, Scientific American, The Conversation, etc...[22] [23]

When I initially proposed the addition on the talk page, they did not raise any concerns over POV, and simply stated that they agreed with Exxon's rhetoric [24] and did not approve of the citations because they were "junk" and "not good." [25]

Before I made the addition I asked them if they could provide any other suggestions, other than their personal opinion on the quality of the source material [26], but they simply reverted and stopped participating in the discussion on the talk page.

Now we are here.

Cheers. DN (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly is the source at issue? There appears to be no "peer-reviewed study" in the revery you link. Bon courage (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Article link to the study is here CNN & the direct link is here One Earth Journal DN (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

So are you wanting to discuss CNN or the "peer reviewed Harvard study" you mention in the title here? To be clear, that source is:

• Supran, Geoffrey; Oreskes, Naomi (2021). "Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil's climate change communications". One Earth. 4 (5): 696–719. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.014.

which is some primary research in the journal One Earth? Bon courage (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I came across it in secondary reliable sources, which I used in the addition to the article. See their revert. DN (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Those look like lay sources, not decent secondary sources for academic research. If the original research is to be cited, it could be cited itself and attributed to its authors (and not asserted in Wikivoice as something that has been "shown" as you did). Whether it's due is a matter for editorial discretion: consensus needed I'd say. Bon courage (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I wrote that "the study showed." Which is backed up by all the sources. If you think WP:3O should be the next step, I will happily take it there next. DN (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Now about that POV concern... DN (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral wording would be the study "said". I assume since more than two people have now commented, 3O would be inappropriate. I suggest either wait for more discussion or pursue a WP:DR of some sort? (I am not interested in participating further). Bon courage (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with changing the wording, but since William is the only other participant and they have decided to resort to reverting instead of using the talk page, 3-O looks like a good option. DN (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Since I've given a view, that's more then two. Bon courage (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Since you aren't interested in participating I have reached out at 3-O. I appreciate your suggestion, but without more editors the issue will languish in a deadlock. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Would you agree that if we change the wording to say..."The study says"...that takes care of any POV issues? Cheers. DN (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What I get from it is something like

Science historians Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes have analyzed document originating from Exxon and write that during the 2000s the company's public position shifted away from outright denial of climate change, but that they used rhetoric which minimized its impact and portrayed the responsibility as being due to consumers, not corporations. In Supran and Oreskes' view this shift mirrors tactics used by the tobacco industry when seeking to disassociate itself from the harms of smoking.

It's an interesting point; whether it's due or not is for discussion. Bon courage (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Human rights in the United States

Does this article need to be rewritten because it gives undue weight to critics of the U.S. government? Jarble (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)