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

Feminazi

New editor User:Rolling Phantom claims that if we don't change the article to fit his viewpoint, then that proves the feminazis are sabotaging the article. His best "source" is a thread from Quora. I've reverted twice, and templated him for NPOV violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have only this to say about my "wiewpoint" : https://www.google.com/search?q=feminazi+vs+feminist&oq=feminazi+vs&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.7635j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Rolling Phantom (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of gobsmacked you've been here for six years and think either Google search or Quora are reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

LOL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, are the search results fake then? Rolling Phantom (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Rolling Phantom's sources are indeed unreliable. However, the article text seems to claim that "feminazi" is a pejorative term for both all feminists and specific feminists considered radical. Limbaugh has stated that the term feminazi refers to "radical feminists" whose goal is "to see that there are as many abortions as possible" and a small group of "militants" whom he distinguishes from "well-intentioned but misguided people who call themselves 'feminists'". However, the term came to be used more widely for the feminist movement as a whole; Per WP:LEAD, I propose the compromise solution Feminazi is a pejorative term for either feminists perceived to be extreme or all feminists as a whole based on body text. Leugen9001 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, Feminazi is a pejorative term for either all feminists as a whole or feminists perceived to be extreme could also be used. Leugen9001 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to keep the existing wording. Limbaugh indeed stated that he meant "radical feminists", which itself can be a term of abuse for people who would never describe themselves as radical; Christina Hoff Sommers used it to refer broadly to second-wave feminists around the same time.[1] The article also states, Limbaugh has used it in reference to the Feminist Majority Foundation and the activists Gloria Steinem and Susan Sarandon, and he is quoted as saying, "It's the way I look at the feminist movement".[2][3] So, clearly not just "radical" feminists then. The phrasing perceived to be extreme raises the obvious question, perceived by whom? It looks like a false balance, especially when independent sources describe the term as a pejorative for feminists, full stop.[4][5] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC) (edited 15:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC))

Feminazi is a rightfully pejorative term for extreme feminist. Other extremists may use it as a pejorative for any feminist. There are thousands of sources on this on the net. If the net isnt a reliable source, then neither is this article. There IS a difference between a feminazi and a feminist, from the wiew of normal people. Change it. Rolling Phantom (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It is correct to say the article is not a "reliable source", and it isn't meant to be, at least in terms of citing it in other articles; see Self-published sources, which covers a lot of the above search results to boot. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Large parts of the net is not a reliable source, isn't that obvious? Find the university-press etc sources in your google-search and include them in the article, if they are not there already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"rightfully" pejorative? Given that the Nazis hated and persecuted all vestiges of feminism with fervor, this particular term is uniquely unjust and vile. Your use of the term "rightfully", Phantom, tells us all we need to know about your ability to edit with a neutral point of view (and your ignorance of history). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Seems to me User:Rolling Phantom is correct, that line should be written with "radical feminists", since the lead line in question is stating what Limbaugh popularized, stated in body to be "radical feminists". (That would also seem the common understanding for a portmanteau ending '-nazi'.) The "overly" should not appear. A cite should not appear if the line in the lead is summarizing the article content per WP:LEAD -- particularly not give a cite different from what the body is using. The term also seems applied to all feminists by other individuals (perhaps further to the right than Limbaugh), and that POV should be mentioned but should not be portrayed as the only or main usage. I personally would not make the phrase a wikilink to Radical feminism, since Limbaugh and others seems to be using it for meanings other than what that article describes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I mean ultimately the problem is with, "radical according to whom?" As described in the sources for the article, although Limbaugh has insisted that 'feminazi' only refers to a particular radical variety of feminists, he slings it around regularly at people that most reliable sources would just call feminists, or even just "women who stood up to people Limbaugh likes". Someguy1221 (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't say that Limbaugh popularized the term in reference to "radical feminists". It says (1) that he popularized it, full stop, and (2) he claims it refers to radical feminists. The two are not necessarily related; Limbaugh can say it's about "radical feminists" till the cows come home, but that doesn't say anything about the term's wider usage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The use of "radical feminist" seems misleading. It seems less a reference to radical feminism than it is to what critics perceive to be, well, in Rolling Phantom's words, "overly" radical. That's not a specific type of feminist, that's a subjective evaluation relative to what makes the speaker feel threatened/uncomfortable. I don't know if there's a good way to word that in the lead, though, without getting into "feminists in general or whatever random aspect of feminism the speaker doesn't like or subjectively considers 'too extreme'." It's uncontroversial, however, that google searches and quora are completely unacceptable as sources. I.e. keep current wording until something better is proposed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should be defining the term based off of one person's statements, even if that person originated the term. In the second paragraph of "origin and usage", it says "the term came to be used more widely for the feminist movement as a whole". The next paragraph there also explicitly says that Rush Limbaugh has been accused of using the term "feminazi" as "propaganda" against a type of "radical feminist" that does not exist. Including "radical" in the lead does not seem appropriate given the other content in the article. The "origin and usage" section seems to adequately explain the debate about its usage, and that seems like the most appropriate place, not the lead. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

User Wallyfromdilbert is systematically removing any criticism from the pages of Seattle City Councilmembers

Hi, the user wallyfromdilbert has systematically scrubbed the pages of Debora Juarez and other Seattle City Councilmembers of any criticism. Many members of the Seattle City Council are extremely controversial, and criticism has been detailed in highly reputable outlets such as the Seattle Times and local TV/radio news outlets. Yet, anytime a user adds a criticism, wallyfromdilbert hits "undo" within hours or minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.192.63 (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You should try discussing with Wally, on either his own talkpage or the article talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not a viable solution when he violates 3RR over and over again.73.239.192.63 (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

How is that any different from what you are doing over and over again? You don't get extra points because you're adding and he's deleting. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

So, what’s the solution? Do nothing while somebody else gets to rewrite Wikipedia articles unchecked? 73.239.192.63 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Yes, this noticeboard is indeed a place to do that, but you wrote about another editor, not the content in dispute. If you want to continue here, describe that content, describe its sources, and explain your position on it. Linking to a diff of the content being added or removed can really help as well. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV discussion attempted on article (Gab Dissenter) concerning the possible existence of NPOV issues in the article - result deletion of comment

I tried to inform and discuss with contribs of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_Dissenter) of my concerns about the possible existence of NPOV issues in the article after seeing clear political bias and a lack of neutrality. (see link below) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gab_Dissenter#this_wiki_article_appears_to_contain_NPOV_issues

I did this in accordance with the regulations set forth in many of the NPOV pages that the contributors should first be informed and invited to discussion on a possible NPOV before proceding.

Jorm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jorm) proceded to immediately delete the talk entry. As dictated by wikipedia NPOV regulations I have sent Jorm a notice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jorm#Notice_of_intent_to_open_NPOV) that the NPOV issue is now a dispute that I will escalate to the NPOV noticeboard as per wikipedia regulations since he is now in the following category (see link below) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors

please see all associated screenshot links below: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000960185040956/Capture.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000971996069928/Capture1.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000976660135966/Capture3.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000971828428801/Capture2.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562030632155480126/Capture6.JPG

The screenshots will ensure that further attempts to hide events will not be successful. In case Jorm has the authority to delete this entry too, I'll take a screenshot of this entry as well after publishing

KykMooi (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This article gets nothing but bad faith rants from the alt-right loony crowd. Tons and tons of rants and personal attacks. That's pretty much all there is; what I reverted from this jamoke was him simply opening a talk page thread to say "there's bias here". --Jorm (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Your talk page entry added absolutely nothing to the discussion of the article, and your report here has added nothing either. If you have a specific complaint, bring it up, here or there. But detail-free announcements that NPOV issues exist are unhelpful. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I followed NPOV regulations and tried to initiate the NPOV discussion in good faith and was prepared to bring up specific points in the article. In order to bring up those points I had to determine FIRST if it would be possible to do so in a talk page which seems dominated by Jorm and Tsumikiria that seem DETERMINED to push a very specific political bias with an obvious lack of neutrality. At no point did I insult either. I see however that Jorm dismisses any opposing views by others as "alt-right loony" or "jamoke". How can any contributor argue with administrators with this approach to factual discussion. If you look carefully there is nothing on my talk page to indicate my political views (if any) nor did I type any political statements. The first action by Jorm was censorship and the second action was political insults. This clearly adds to my argument that the article and in this case the two mentioned administrators/contributors are politically biased. One only has to view Tsumikiria's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tsumikiria) to determine which political spectrum is the preferred narrative that is being endorsed here. If all of the evidence I have presented so far is combined with a detailed scrutiny (by a wikipedia approved and UNBIASED confirmed group of individuals) of the article in question. It will become very clear that there are several points in the article as well as the way the article is present that clearly favors a specific political bias and lacks neutrality. If an article lacks neutrality and involves political bias, is it now wikipedia's official policy to dismiss those who identify it in an article as a specific political entity or spectrum without even verifying such statements? Is insults the manner in which wikipedia identifies the truth and exposes violations of it's own policies concerning neutrality and lack of political bias? It is impossible to raise any specific details and also a total waste of time if the result is instant deletion and censorship. Which is the reason for posting on this noticeboard. Now please try other excuses @Jorm and @Someguy1221. I may be new to this platform and I am trying to learn all if it's particular nuances but this clear attempt to subvert attempts at alerting wikipedia to such blatant NPOV violations is unforgivable. KykMooi (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You just wrote four hundred and three words without providing any clarification as to what you were complaining about in the first place. Interacting with you is a waste of time. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Demanding that unnamed people "prove that no content is biased" is unhelpful and irrelevant to article improvement. Good removal. If you have specific issues with specific parts of the article, the burden is on you to explain your objections and propose specific, actionable changes that would address your concerns. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Chief Whip non neutral text

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chief_Whip&type=revision&diff=890466069&oldid=890434350

until 1st April 2019 when [[Julian Smith (politician)]] chose to attack his own government and Prime Minister. Smith went on to use so-called ‘remain [[propaganda]]' in an attempt to overturn U.K. [[Parliamentary Democracy]] when he suggested the [[2017 United Kingdom general election|2017 UK general election]] result meant parliament could overturn the [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|2016 European Union Referendum]] result.<ref>{{cite web|last=Cappuro|first=Daniel|title=''Julian Smith: The beleaguered Chief Whip with a long record of mistakes''|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/01/julian-smith-beleaguered-chief-whip-long-record-mistakes/|date=1 April 2019|publisher=The Telegraph|accessdate=1 April 2019}}</ref>

--Trublu (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:List of works by Leonardo da Vinci

A request for comment is underway at Talk:List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Talk:List_of_works_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci#RfC_-_Horse_and_Rider. The RfC addresses the following question:

• Should the wax statue entitled Horse and Rider on the List of works by Leonardo da Vinci page be included in the Recent Attributions or Disputed Attributions section?

All are invited to participate. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Criticism in country article leads

I don't normally edit country articles, but I noticed that the treatment of criticism in the lead is rather inconsistent. At a glance, it seems to reflect page-specific consensus (or lack thereof) rather than any systematic POV. This is fine in principle, except for the following concerns:

1) The phrase "any prominent controversies" in WP:LEAD gives little concrete guidance about how to measure prominence for subject like a country. Does criticism by human rights organizations create a "prominent controversy" in itself? Should prominence be measured by how often the criticism comes up in the news coverage of the country? international or only English-language press? all RSs on the contemporary politics of the country? Is frequently mentioned corruption an admissible type of "prominent controversy"? How about criticism of foreign policy, economic policy, stance on climate change, etc?

2) Country articles are a prominent feature of WP and there's a fairly standard set of issues that "countries" tend to be criticized for, so there is potential of coming up with some WP-wide points of consensus.

I wanted to start a discussion here to see if there's a potential RfC or two that could go somewhere. Here are a few examples I gathered. If I missed any criticism in the lead, please let me know and I'll update.

• China: no criticism
• Cuba: no criticism
• Iran: Organizations including Amnesty International[39][40] and Human Rights Watch[41] have strongly criticized Iran's women's rights record.
• Israel: no criticism, unless you count the use of the word "occupied"
• Myanmar: There is, however, continuing criticism of the government's treatment of ethnic minorities, its response to the ethnic insurgency, and religious clashes.
• North Korea: several passages
• Pakistan: no criticism, unless you count "challenging problems"
• Russia: While many reforms made during the Putin presidency have been generally criticized by Western nations as undemocratic...
• Saudi Arabia: The state has attracted criticism for a multitude of reasons including but not limited to: its archaic treatment of women, its excessive and often extrajudicial use of capital punishment, state-sponsored discrimination against religious minorities and atheists, its role in the Yemeni Civil War, sponsorship of Islamic terrorists, and its strict interpretation of Sharia Law
• Tajikistan: has been criticised by a number of non-governmental organizations for authoritarian leadership, lack of religious freedom, corruption and widespread violations of human rights.
• Turkmenistan: According to Human Rights Watch, ""Turkmenistan remains one of the world’s most repressive countries. The country is virtually closed to independent scrutiny, media and religious freedoms are subject to draconian restrictions, and human rights defenders and other activists face the constant threat of government reprisal.
• United States: no criticism
• Venezuela: no criticism
• Vietnam: no criticism (I'm including it here as an example of a country whose human rights record doesn't get much press coverage, though according to HRW it "remains dire in all areas.")

Eperoton (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You've raised a pertinent issue, Eperoton... --BushelCandle (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Outside input needed on The Great Replacement conspiracy theory

Looking for some outside input on some discussions on The Great Replacement. The first discussion concerns whether the article should be titled Great Replacement or Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory. The second (closely related) concerns whether or not to call The Great Replacement a conspiracy theory in the article itself or whether to distinguish between "conspiracy" and "non-conspiracy" variants.

• Move discussion
• Discussion of how to characterize the theory in the article

Nblund ^talk 17:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Phillips (activist)

Lengthy discussion about subjects military service. Seems a bit of whitewashing and proclaiming POV when anyone makes a well sourced edit. Seems the sources get scrutinized, which is good. However also seems when sources and citations meet wiki reliability standard reverts to claiming POV. The concern is reports of subjects “Vietnam vet” and “Vietnam veteran” claims are being whitewashed and undue weight is being given to editors who appear to want the subject is a more favorable light. Using the word veracity to paraphrase multiple reports that were sourced is not POV. Highly concerning. Also as soon as someone makes an edit that is sourced but less than favorable on the subject, proclaiming POV is definitely not wp:agf.0pen$0urce (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it kind of seems like you're just accusing other editors of bias. That's not the point of this board. What content would you like to see changed and why? Nblund ^talk 02:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That’s an opinion, elaborated on issues with the article and how the article is being aggressively policed and seems to give undue weight to one POV. Very active reverting on sourced edits. As soon as a new contributor comes along, makes edits, sources edits, they are accused of POV. Would think be ideal if a larger cross section of the community get involved and chime in. The talk page is lengthy and goes in circles.0pen$0urce (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you said what article is under discussion. The link in the heading is to a disambiguation page. Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC) [Fixed 10 April 2019. Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)]

Lot of back and fourth several folks tried to contribute sourced mention of the subjects embellishment or exaggeration of Vietnam service. Current edit states Vietnam Era Veteran, however misleading and subject is did not serve in Vietnam and did not meet the criteria to earn Vietnam Service Medal. I came along and saw folks were trying to make edits but every source got stonewalled Unreasonable sourcing demands So I figured ok maybe the souyrces are the issue fine, lets see what I can find, found about 3 carefully curated sources, tried to be careful in my wording stay NPOV, and almost immediately was accused of POV edit and reverted. Just seeking additional input here--0pen$0urce (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Again: this board is not the place to air grievances about other editors. It's about content. Why does it matter if whether or not he qualified to earn a Vietnam service medal? Can you link to a diff or say what you want the article to say and what sources you want to cite? Looking at the talk page, it actually appears that there are a fair number of experienced editors participating in the conversation. Nblund ^talk 01:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

”Again”, who’s airing grievances? Asking the community via this, npov notice board, to review the military service section for npov. I ask that you keep it civil and assume good faith.0pen$0urce (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The military service section should include sourced criticisms of subjects “Vietnam vet” portrayal, not just a white washed he’s a Vietnam era veteran. Several reports that subject including social media video that was reported on that subject portrayed himself inaccurately as a “Vietnam vet”. Even mention of those reports gets whitewashed, seems very POV. There happy. Geese no wonder Wikipedia struggles to attract new editors no wonder. Civility lacking for starters. 0pen$0urce (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There are no "civility" issues here, so stop with your transparent attempts to weaponize that. You have no suggested edits, only "it's biased". That doesn't work for us. You've had multiple experienced editors tell you that you're wrong. Your comments very clearly show that you are grievance-focused. I think you need to drop the stick and move on.--Jorm (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please focus on content not other contributors. Again keep it civil0pen$0urce (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, @0pen$0urce: Constantly accusing others of incivility is itself somewhat uncivil. I would second (or fourth, or fifth, really) what other editors are telling you: it seems WP:UNDUE to focus on this obscure question, and you're not going to convince anyone by endlessly bludgeoning this issue. It's probably not worth your time to continue tilting at this windmill. Nblund ^talk 15:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting comment about me. “Constantly”. “Undue and obscure”whelp that’s subjective. As well as arbitrarily proclaiming a source is a blog. Reported criticisms of the subjects portrayal of his Vietnam service. Just about every major news outlet that reported Phillips a “Vietnam Veteran” retracted after his service records were recovered under the Nathan Stanard. Additional reported criticisms, some originating from military focused news outlets (Stars and Stripes, Military Times, and yes Task and Purpose). These sources specialize in military centric journalism and can clearly distinguish the “Vietnam Era Veteran, “Vietnam Vet”,”"I'm a Vietnam vet, you know," Phillips said. "I served in the Marine Corps from '72 to '76. I got discharged May 5, 1976. I got honorable discharge and one of the boxes in there shows if you were peacetime or... what my box says that I was in theater. I don't talk much about my Vietnam times. I usually say 'I don't recollect. I don't recall,' you know, those years.-Nathan Phillips Facebook video talking to Native Youth Alliance 2018, as reported by Task and Purpose, re-published Buisness Week “ Not unreasonable to ask folks to comment on content and keep it civil.0pen$0urce (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI, 0pen$0urce provides only blog posts as sources and when they're told they're no good, they cast civility aspersions and template people with {{uw-harrass-1}}. So that's what you're getting into when you tell them that they're wrong.--Jorm (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

2nd request, please focus on content not other contributors and let’s keep it civil. Can you pleas provide reliable sources, not just subjective opinions that task and Purpose is a “blog” and furthermore that an article written by Task and Purpose’s Editor in Chief then republished by Business Week is merely a blog. I spent significant time researching task and Purpose. Several articles about the company in the Atlantic, huff post. There mission statement is Task & Purpose is a digital news and culture publication dedicated to issues that matter to veterans, service members, and the civilians who care about them. We aren’t just trying to speak to the next great generation of military veterans, we are actively trying to build it. If someone can find a reliable, not subjective source that task and Purpose is a blog. Sure they publish work from contributors. Proclaiming “blog” doesn’t mean it’s a blog and starting to give the perception of status quo stonewalling amongst other things going on here0pen$0urce (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I generically side with OpenSource on this one (as have others, see talk page). The fact that Mr. Phillips has indeed in the past claimed to be a "Vietnam Veteran" (which he is not) and not a "Vietnam-era Veteran" (which he is) is of note and reflects on his credibility. Likewise, there he has made confusing remarks about being a "recon ranger" that were later clarified. This establishes that he's loose/inaccurate with his choice of words, again, leading to credibility issues (see also his lies at the 2019 Lincoln Memorial incident). This is a WP:BLP and must meet those standards. Below is a closer attempt to address the issues OpenSource is trying to address:

Phillips entered the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves on 20 May 1972. During his time in the military, he served as a refrigerator technician in Nebraska and California and was trained as an anti-tank missileman. On 5 May 1976, Phillips was discharged as a private following disciplinary issues, including three AWOL incidents. In accordance with the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Phillips is classified as a Vietnam era veteran

Initial media reports in the wake of the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation were inconsistent as to the particulars of Phillip’s military service, leading to reports that conflicted with his actual service. Several media outlets erroneously reported Phillips was a “Vietnam Veteran” then subsequently issued retractions or clarifications. Contributing to the confusion, in an interview, Phillips stated he was a "recon ranger". He has made multiple statements since that video in which he only claims to be a Vietnam era veteran and clarified his "recon ranger" remarks as a description of his actions during a protest, not that he served in that capacity during his military service.

References

Hopefully that would remove the T&P reference while giving both context to his discipline issues (without whitewashing) and confusing remarks. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

MS-13

The MS-13 article has been held in a non-neutral state by a particular user User:Snooganssnoogans for the past few months. Several users have attempted to remove or change non-neutral language only for their changes to be immediately reverted by the user in question. There are numerous complaints on the talk page about the neutrality of the article.

I have made some efforts to remove or change non-neutral language, however there is still a lot more work to be done and any edits made are constantly being reverted. I would appreciate if anyone could help to build consensus in the talk page and change the language of the article to be more neutral, as right now it is embarrassingly biased.

PaganPanzer (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said on the article's talk page just now, it seems like your objection isn't really to our article but to what the sources say, ie. you object to sources saying that some of the claims about MS-13 are false and want to "tone it down" to 'some people object' or the like. But WP:NPOV is about reflecting the sources, not about giving the WP:FALSEBALANCE appearance of neutrality - when the sources unanimously say eg. "there is no evidence of X", we have to say so unambiguously. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to present such things as seriously contested when they are not. --Aquillion (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Come on, the sources are all left-leaning news articles that do not provide any sources for their own claims. Take the claim "There is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime or gang activity" for example, both sources simply make the claim without evidence. By your logic I can just change all the sources to right-leaning news articles that claim sanctuary cities do cause crime and then state "Trump is correct, sanctuary cities do cause crime" as if it were a hard fact. Even if the sources were academic and reflected the majority-view in academia, the tone of the article is still clearly biased. PaganPanzer (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

For reference, here are the sources you removed or downplayed with your last edits: Washington Post , NBC News, Propublica, AP News, factcheck.org. Explain what's left-leaning about those sources - they seem like mainstream reliable sources to me, and since they're reliable news sources we can take their statements on things like this at face value. If you're defining them as left-leaning based on your disagreement about what they're saying on this topic, then your arguments are obviously self-justifying, ie. no sources that state those things would ever be acceptable to you. --Aquillion (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the two sources I just mentioned, MSNBC is self-admittedly left-leaning [6], and the Washington Post article is very clearly written as a left-leaning opinion piece. So once again, by your logic, I am allowed to replace the sources with right-leaning news articles and then claim that their contents are factual? So you won't mind if I cite [7] and then claim that sanctuary cities experience increased crime? And the tone of the article is still very clearly not neutral, as numerous people on the talk page have already pointed out. PaganPanzer (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I am not defining something as left-leaning based on my disagreement with its contents. I do not have an agenda, I do not necessarily support Trump's policies or rhetoric. I simply value neutrality and believe that the MS-13 article is embarrassingly biased. PaganPanzer (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

NBC News =/= MSNBC. The "right-leaning" content that you want to use in the article to rebut RS content is a statement by a Louisiana politician.[8] It should of course not be added to the article, just as we would never add statements by Democratic politicians to rebut RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

NBC News is also left-leaning, and they may as well be the same entity. The statement made by the Louisiana politician is not a rebuttal, in fact the way I have presented the information it is the reverse: the left-leaning news sources are the rebuttal. The statement made by the Louisiana politician is of course relevant if the content is Republican discourse on sanctuary cities. I can instead change the wording so that the Louisiana politician is not named, and instead it is simply claimed that sanctuary cities experience an increase in crime, since that is what is said in the right-leaning sources. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You changed the reliably sourced sentence "There is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime or gang activity." to "According to Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, crime has risen in sanctuary cities across the nation, although it is disputed whether any evidence exists that sanctuary cities increase crime or gang activity." This is a NPOV violation, as it falsely portrays RS as being mixed on whether sanctuary cities increase crime when RS clearly state that here is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

My sources are RS. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You used one source for the Louisiana politician's fringe statement (which should not be in the article at all), and then altered the language sourced to the WaPo and NBC News so that it no longer stated clearly that there is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I used two sources. Can you demonstrate that it is fringe? Since the RS authors agree with his statement. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Wire is not a RS by any stretch, and there is no consensus about the reliability of the Washington Examiner.[9] Furthermore, it's a brazen lie to say that the Washington Examiner agreed with his statement. WaPo and NBC News clearly and unequivocally state that there is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)  

Which as far as I care is all well and good except that this is being used to argue for the dedication of half the lead of the article to a "Republicans are liar liar pantses on fires!" which is absolutely an NPOV issue. This is not an article titled "MS-13 as depicted by Republicans since 2016ish", it's an article titled "MS-13". 199.247.43.85 (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the party which controls the government in the world's largest democracy has made MS-13 a core part of its messaging in elections and uses the gang to justify family separations, mass deportations and calls for a closure to the Mexico border is extremely notable. The coverage of GOP messaging about this group is entirely commensurate with RS coverage of MS-13. This is the kind of content that clearly stands the test of time, and which will attract most readers to the article today, 5 yrs from and 50 yrs now. This is the reason why this relatively small gang is renowned whereas the larger and demographically similar 18th Street gang has nearly no name recognition at all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This is speculative. MS-13 were a well-known gang before Trump became president. Please stop making excuses to push your agenda. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the article is that the vast majority of its text is tick-tock of non-notable crimes; compare Crips and Bloods, which do not attempt to chronicle the minutia of every single crime ever committed by a gang member. If there's anything which needs to be trimmed, it's that. What will be considered important in 50 years — the minute details of a random drug bust or this gang's impact on presidential politics? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

And it's not just presidential politics. This gang features heavily in congressional politics (e.g. extremely prominent in the last few election campaigns, in particular 2018) and state politics (e.g. it was front and center in Virginia's 2017 state elections). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I may be biased but from where I'm standing it's looking like a consensus in the talk page that, at the very least, the degree of focus in the lede is undue. 199.247.44.10 (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Rent regulation

There is a stale RfC at Talk:Rent regulation as to whether the article should state that there is a consensus in the economics field about the effects of rent control, and if so, what the nature of that consensus is. I'm not necessarily interested in closing the RfC right now, but I am particularly interested in understanding the issue in question from a WP:NPOV perspective. Would the article be maintaining a neutral point of view if, for instance, it states that there is a "broad consensus among economists" that rent control reduces the quantity and quality of available rental housing? Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 16:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox neutrality

Infoboxes shouldn't contain an alternative facts version, generally, they should be non-controversial. The "Casualties" section on Infoboxes should be for casualties only. In particular, the case of the Philippine Drug War, where one side in the "conflict" dehumanizes the other as a media strategy. This article is as far as I know the only one where the casualty figure is not treated on its own as a casualty figure. Is there some rule that covers this, or do people agree that it should not be used in this way to promote a POV? zzz (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that the “casualties” parameter should list deaths (and perhaps wounded)... and that “arrests” are not “casualties” and so don’t belong under that parameter (as is the case in the Philippine Drug War infobox). However, I see this as a case of well intentioned editors trying to squeeze information into a pre-formatted template, and not a case of POV pushing. The number of arrests is a valid bit of info to put in that article’s infobox. The solution is simple: add a new, separate parameter for the arrests. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017

In Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017#NPOV issues/claims, as well as Template:Did you know nominations/Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 and other talk page sections, some editors arean editor is claiming that sources are "clearly POVed" and "biased towards Israeli/Jewish POV""Jewish" or "Israeli" sources (which would seem to include Newsweek, and "Israeli" seems to cover mainly Haaretz which has a rather strong Jewish-American section)are inappropriate for a protest by a few hundred nationalists in New York City in which there was Holocaust denial rhetoric and antisemitic signs were carried. Sources include: Newsweek, Forward1, Forward2, TOI, Haaretz, JC, Tablet, as well as on TPM([10], [11], [12]). This was also condemned by the Wiesenthal center. While certainly there has been coverage in Jewish oriented outlets, this is not surprising given this was in New York City and antisemitism is of interest to Jews. Outside input appreciated.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Struck + modified with direct quote per request below.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC) As a single editor is quoted - use "an editor" and specific TP quote section.Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"some editors are claiming that "Jewish" or "Israeli" sources (which would seem to include Newsweek, and "Israeli" seems to cover mainly Haaretz which has a rather strong Jewish-American section) are inappropriate "

Holy freakin' crap that's an utterly dishonest description of the dispute.

NOBODY said that "Jewish" or "Israeli" sources are inappropriate!!! Why is Icewhiz putting this in quotation marks (as if was said by someone else)??? This is some devious shit.

Here the word "Israeli" does not appear at all. The word "Jewish" does, given the topic, but the words "Jewish sources" or anything even close to it does NOT.

Here the use of Israeli sources is mentioned but the commentator actually says they're reliable. The mention is by ONE editor so it's not even clear why Icewhiz is referring to "editors", plural.

I'm sorry but this is straight up lying. The actual problems with the article have to do with WP:SYNTH (sources which barely mention the topic of the article), misrepresentation of sources by Icewhiz (failing to note that the sources are not reporting in their own voice but rather are conveying what somebody said) and possibly WP:BALANCE. One more time: nobody, absolutely nobody, said that "Israeli" or "Jewish" (sic) sources were "inappropriate". Icewhiz is trying to make an odious insinuation here, in order to smear fellow editors and win a content dispute. This is horrible behavior on his part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I did (just now) come close by saying I can see why this might be an issue in a BLP. But that was after this was posted. But I would ask that we do not discus editors action here, if there is lying its a violation of policy and should be reported.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Quote: This article uses primarily newspapers, some of them clearly POVed (ex. Israeli newspapers - reliable, but of course biased towards Israeli/Jewish POV; currently no Polish sources are used to show the POV of the other side). - top post in Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017#NPOV issues/claims. Multiple RSes are describing a protest involving Holocaust denial/antisemitism by a small (a few hundred) group of Polish nationalists in New York City. No RSes have been presented coloring this protest in any other light.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

"top post in Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017#NPOV issues/claims" - Yeah, I mentioned that. But:

1. You said the same claim about "inappropriateness" was being made at Template:Did you know nominations/Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017. Can you link to a statement on that page which mentions "Israeli" or "Jewish sources"? No? Then don't make stuff up.
2. You said the claim was being made by "editorS", plural. Can you link to statement by another editor who says anything related to "Israeli" or "Jewish" sources? No? Then don't make stuff up.
3. You said "some editors" (sic) were claiming that "Israeli" or "Jewish" sources were "inappropriate". Can you provide a quote where an editor says that such sources are "inappropriate" rather than a quote which says something entirely different? No. Then don't make stuff up.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have now posted other sources. Polish media refers to the protesters simply as Polish Americans. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz, are you going to retract your false accusations or not? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Per your request, I struck and replaced with direct quote above. Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep going User:Icewhiz. There's also #1 and #2 up there. Especially since your use of plural and reference to the DYK talk appears to attack me personally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Per your request, I struck editors plural as a single editor is quoted. I will note that diff - a different editor referred to "use of crappy sources which make obviously outlandish and false claims" in regards to rather mainstream English language sources at the DYK nomination. Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please take this who said what spat to DR or ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of Anti-Seminitism as an ideology of Hezbollah from some very POV pro-Israel editors

Hi. When I was reading the blue-locked article about Hezbollah, an organisation which has an Anti-Zionist view, I noticed Anti-Semitism listed as one of the ideologies in the infobox. I looked at the article's talk page and found that a discussion was already underway. The editors who supported labelling Hezbollah as Anti-Semitic were highly acclaimed editors who were very pro-Israel, and one of them had even explicitly written on their user page that their 'mission' on Wikipedia is to promote the views of the Israeli Zionist Government! I am quite concerned that their activities and approval on this website will push towards leaning to a pro-Israeli bias. Could somebody please help? Thank you! ^ - ^ -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)