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

Prime (sports drink)

Could other contributors familiar on Wikipedia policy on article neutrality (along with appropriate sourcing etc) please take a look at Prime (sports drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There have been endemic issues with unsourced and questionably-sourced promotional content in the article, and a recent contributor, User:Toby Farman, seems insistent on filling the article with content sourced to Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, the Sun etc, along with a complete list of ingredients, a 'sponsorship' sourced to a YouTube group run by one of the drink's creators, and other questionable content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern about the page Prime (sports drink).

• I recognize content sourced to Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, the Sun is not ideal, therefore any other contributors willing to provide other references would be beneficial.
• The full list of ingredients as sourced from the website, along with nutritional info, is designed to match the precedent set by the page Powerade.
• The sponsorship of the Sidemen Charity Match in 2022 was a significant sponsorship.

TobyFarman! 18:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Farman (talk • contribs)

Firstly, if you wish to add content, it is your responsibility to find proper sourcing when asked, not anyone else's. Secondly, using content from an article clearly marked as improperly sourced and promotional as a justification for adding content to another article is questionable, to say the least. And lastly, the Sidemen Charity Match was organised by a YouTube group run in part by KSI, one of the founders of Prime. How exactly is sponsoring your own organisation 'notable'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

ATG is biased (WP:BIAS) therefore shouldn't be editing the page. TobyFarman! 09:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Farman (talk • contribs)

Are you trying to get yourself blocked?: AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Try not being so rude in the future.

The page had significant issues before I began editing it.

My main question to you is, do you agree that the competition and ingredients section match the precedent set by the page Powerade? TobyFarman! 15:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Farman (talk • contribs)

Regarding rudeness, see [1] and [2]. Accusing experienced contributors of 'bias' because they understand Wikipedia policy better than you is a sure-fire way to encourage the sort of response you have been getting. As for 'precedent', Wikipedia doesn't work like that. There are a great many poor articles: their existence is no reason to create more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Incidentally, the Powerade products list had been tagged for maintenance for years, and I blanked it. WP:NOTCATALOG applies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I will jump in here. First off this discussion and the talk page of Prime is getting pretty heated so I want to remind everyone of WP:HOSTILE. Now for discussion - I would be very wary of content solely sourced from Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok. I do not think this would count as a significant sponsorship as it does not appear to pass WP:N(E). Additionally, the fact that one of the founders of the company was involved in the event seems to decrease how significant the sponsorship was. The sponsorship of Arsenal F.C. and the NASCAR driver are significant as they received significant outside media coverage. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 191 Using "Person-hour" in place of "Man-hour"

Resolved

WP:GNL calls for gender neutral language, in which case "man-hour" is the proper noun, and does not fall within the guidelines. Man-hour already holds a gender neutral definition and has been used for centuries to describe the definition. Simply changing the name because it has "man" in the word is WP:NPOV and adds to Ideological bias of Wikipedia, since it is not based in reality. If the consensus is promote political language, then I suggest an edit to man-hour, to "person-hour" to align with the Wikipedia consensus. When I asked for source documentation proving that person-hour is a common term, I was handed an opinion article from an editor, and warned to fall in line" is this really what Wikipedia is about? Jonchache (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"Man-power" is the standard term and should be used in articles. Trying to apply "person-hour" feels like a very strained reading of WP:GNL. However, I don't see how this is an issue of NPOV or ideological bias rather than a linguistic variant (albeit an unorthodox one). I'd also note that you're coming off as rather hostile, which is not a great way to approach these things. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree I needed to take a moment before posting. sorry about that. The editors that reverted me said: "Person-hours (PH) has been the industry standard term within the aerospace industry since at least the 1980s when accounting for the number of hours allocated or actually expended on aircraft maintenance tasks. The term "man hours" has been considered obsolete in aerospace for at least 40 years, so this is not new and not at all anything political. If anything Wikipedia has been slow to catch-up on this sort of industry use of terminology." and linked [3]This as the source. Jonchache (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Also personal source: I am in the aerospace industry, and have never heard person-hour used before seeing this Wiki page. Jonchache (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece written by an executive that doesn't appear to be a significant figure in the field, and it even says that "man hour" is still the standard term. I suspect whoever linked that to you only read the headline without doing their due diligence by checking the source or confirming that it actually makes the claim they're saying it does. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on how I can solve this dispute peacefully/professionally? I seem to be going against the consensus of a group of editors. Jonchache (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Generally the answer is to open the discussion more broadly to the community so more users can give input, which is essentially what you've done here. On Wikipedia, no user has any more authority than another, it's about what the community as a whole agrees upon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yea, "person-hour" is not a widely-accepted or used word. Some things like "manpower", "man-hour", they just are what they are. They really have nothing to do with a gender imbalance in the way "fireman" did, for example. Zaathras (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Being a new editor, yes I joined to edit that to "man-hour" (silly me) I accidentally blew the 3 edit rule, but it did force me to read all of the information on GNL, NPOV, and other editing guidelines, I still believe that "Man-hour" is the most proper noun to use in the article. with at least 3 editors, and one admin telling me that I have gone against the consensus, and that I was close to ban, I figured I would elevate the dispute, and landed here. I'm still unaware of how to solve this properly, any help would be appreciated. Jonchache (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

A google books search shows aerospace-related content back as far as 1981 using "person hour". As far as I can tell, "man hour" is still more common, but "person hour" is also used, and if the consensus on that article is to use the gender-neutral version, I don't see how you can "solve" it to your satisfaction. Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Replace person hour with man hour, and the books date back farther, and are more plentiful. Jonchache (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

So? The use of the term isn't incorrect. Your preference is "man hour", but if the other editors on that article disagree, then you lack consensus to make that change. Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

By what you have said, then it is nothing but mob rule, and whoever brings the most friends wins, that's not that way a professionally written page should be written. Though it is true what they say, history is written by the victorious. Jonchache (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on its policies and guidelines, not mob rule. The other editors have pointed out MOS:GNL, but you seem to feel it doesn't apply (I'm not clear why) It would be one thing if one choice was incorrect/inaccurate and the other was correct. In this case, however, neither is wrong. "Person-hour" is an acceptable word, just as "man-hour" is. Schazjmd (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Has there been an actual discussion on the talk page of that article about this wording? If there hasn't, then the only consensus was WP:SILENCE, which is void as soon as someone challenges it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

See discussion at User talk:Jonchache. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think Jonchache was right to bring the discussion to the community. It doesn't seem there's a pre-established consensus on this particular wording, and a user talk page is not a suitable place to establish it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In this specific case, why not replace the term with "labor hours", avoiding the whole mess of if a term has been degraded or if its replacement us strained? Masem (t) 00:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a great compromise. I was going to suggest "work hours", but I'd be happy with either. According to Ngrams (which is admittedly a rough measuring tool), either of these would be preferable to man hour and person hour if we're going off of recent use. Man hour is the best option by far if we're going off overall use, but I think language on Wikipedia should be contemporary when possible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

WP cannot be proactive on language choices...we need to be following when sources switch, not lead them. Masem (t) 00:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Surely you mean labour hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Clearly whichever version is appropriate to the established English variant in use. Masem (t) 13:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Assuming humo(u)r? The article has the {{Use mdy dates|date=April 2012}} & {{Use American English|date=February 2022}} templates, so it would be "labor". Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The consensus prior to the edit made, and I would say "snuck in" from 02:45, 18 October 2022‎ Meleager91 talk contribs‎ 53,260 bytes −113‎ ce, was "man hour" the edit was to clean up the grammar on the page, however the editor also changed man- to person-, which is not a word. It would be the same as switching "manipulation" to "personipulation" A word is a word, no matter how much it offends your point of view. Man-hour is the common term used in the aerospace industry (and all other labor driven industries) to describe the given definition, and remains the neutral point of view. Jonchache (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Let us be wholly consistent, and replace all instances of manifold and manifest with personifold and personifest. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you're hilarious. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

What is life, with no humor? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It's what we're experiencing now, because you're not funny. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget manhole Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why this is an NPOV issue more than a style issue, but I do think that the more natural English style-choice here is "man-hours", which appears to be the term more frequently used in sources that describes this event. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

As an observer up to now - to me the issue is not which phrase is correct, but how the decision to change from phrase "A" to phrase "B" is being made. This is obviously a contentious issue, and thus needs discussion - but Jonchache was very obviously edit-warring to keep his their preferred and proposed version in place while discussion is ongoing. That's a separate issue that needs addressing, although I note that they haven't re-edited since I level-4 warned them.

In fact, I note with disappointment that several other editors are also changing the established version to the proposed version. Given that those involved are all fairly experienced and should know about BRD, and general etiquette - all they have to do is wait for the conclusion. For the record, I agree that "person-hours" is not the best term to use, but I also agree that it's the term in current use, and as there have been several alternatives, until one that has consensus is found - the original stays in place. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Man-hour was the original. just because it was changed and missed by editors (with a certain point of view) does not make it right to stand today, thus the discussion. Man-hour is a proper noun, person-hour is not. Jonchache (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected, was typing in a rush. I have edited my comment above to take that into account. However, my main point still stands - that the original version should stay in place while an alternative is discussed. I am against "person-hour" as I don't see it as a GNL violation, and see it as an unnecessary change.

PS: Please note my comment directed to you on your talk page, re impersonating an admin. Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, Jonchache, that you keep using the term "proper noun" in an incorrect way. "Man-hour" is not a proper noun. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You are right, I should use "a more proper noun than". Jonchache (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

the original, prior to October 2022, was "man-hour" Jonchache (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that this discussion is ongoing at Talk:American Airlines Flight 191. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Person-hour would confuse readers. I understand trying to follow WP:GNL but changing anything with man to person is not applicable in every situation. Additionally, the term man-hour is applicable to everyone not just males. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: section on Ukrainian forces

I'd welcome more contributions to the discussions going on at Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine:

• Shall the article have a section on sexual violence committed by Ukrainian armed forces and law enforcement? The section, which was present in the first version of the article [4], has been repeatedly removed [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] and restored [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. The last version of it can be read here: [20].
• Related to the above: shall the category:Ukrainian war crimes be included in the article?

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This is yet another instance of Gitz6666 engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and not respecting consensus. (Also failing to notify relevant discussing of his posting here) Volunteer Marek 17:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Should the article have such section and the category?. I think the answer is no because the most recent UN report on October 18 [21] blames only Russian army of committing the significant sexual violence. One can also check the original of the report [22] (pages 16-18 in English version). Importantly, this most recent report also summarizes their findings from previous reports. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Was this a notable subject of itself rather than another example of wartime sexual violence? Do we have sources specifically on the topic? I don't think the citations there support it being a separate topic. I'd have thought this should be a section in something else like war crimes in the war in Ukraine. NadVolum (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Sexual violence is always significant; the question here is whether its mention is WP:DUE. The October 18th report isn't a summary of all events throughout the war, but specific to "late February and March 2022 in the four provinces of Kyiv, Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Sumy" (p. 2 here). Other reports covering the period from the beginning of February to the end of October [23][24] do mention "forced nudity" and "threats of sexual violence" by Ukrainian forces. I don't think it's even remotely comparable to what Russian soldiers have been documented committing, but it is mentioned. François Robere (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not object (and never objected) to mentioning such materials on the page if they are on the subject of the page, sourced to a couple of independent RS, and describe specific cases of violence, i.e. the sources tell what exactly had happen, where and when, or reliable statistical data, etc. I also do not mind creating a section if there is enough materials for the section. But at the very least, such section should be properly titled, i.e. if the source say it was committed by civilians, police and territorial forces, this should not be titled "Ukrainian forces" which translated in the context of the page as "Ukrainian army". Something like "Vigilante justice" would be a better title, but then it would probably belong to another page. That is all I am saying here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my answer is still no. Yes, sure, such section could be created if we had enough sourced materials for such section. But we do not. Yes, "vigilante justice" is bad, but news sources ([25],[26]) do not describe them as sexual offenses, hence such "justice" arguably does not belong to this page. See also my explanation here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• How is this even a debate? Has there been a war in history in which sexual violence has been perpetrated by only one side? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

1) Probably and 2) why is that even relevant? Volunteer Marek 04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Except that Ukraine hasn't invaded Russia. I really don't think this deserves a separate page. NadVolum (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That usually depends on the territory, i.e. the invading army usually commits such crimes on the territory of another occupied country. Armies usually commit few rapes of "their own people" on their own territory. This is true even with regard to Russian/Soviet army: most rapes were committed in Germany, even though such cases were documented everywhere. For the same reason, all such cases I know about during Second Chechen War, were committed by Russian forces, e.g. rape by Yuri Budanov, etc. But this is just a matter of sourcing. If there were many well covered and documented cases by any side, that would deserve a section. Looking at the proper sources, such as the most recent official report by UN (see above [27]), one can see that it includes (pages 16-18) a number of specific verified cases with details, all of which are crimes by Russian forces, which is not so surprising based on the trend described above. These cases do not include the alleged threat to a single soldier, which appears in the first diffs by Gitz. This is probably another "fake". My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That would then be another "fake" made by the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, since they were the ones who spread the news here (para. 44); the video is still visible on youtube [28][29], although I've reported it as abusive multiple times. Obviously, most of the sexual war crimes in Ukraine were committed by Russian soldiers, but there are also well-documented cases of sexual violence committed by Ukrainian soldiers and policemen, and I see no good reason not to report them in the dedicated article. The 18 October report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine does not invalidate/refute/disprove the 29 June report (para. 102) and the 27 September report (para. 54) of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said, this claim does not appear in the latest (October) report by the same organization, a report that also summarizes their previous reports. But even in the earlier reports, it only says: "HRMMU has also received an allegation of CRSV perpetrated by Ukrainian forces, when a captured Russian military member was threatened with castration on camera". This "received allegation" is very different from specific cases that have been confirmed and mentioned in the latest report. No, checking various YouTube records is not our responsibility, and they are primary sources anyway. Yes, this is something highly doubtful and poorly documented in sources. And you started this thread to enforce inclusion of such "facts"... My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Now, speaking about their report on June 29 [30] which does not appear in your diffs above brought to his noticeboard, it says something entirely different ("Out of 108 allegations, OHCHR verified 23 cases" and so on). Is that enough to create such subsection and make such category? I would say no because we need description of specific cases to create such section, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about their report published on September 27 [31] (pages 21-22), which also does not appear in your diffs in the beginning of this thread, they mention specific cases of such crimes only by Russian forces. They do mention several cases by Ukrainian forces, but do not provide any details, such as where and when each of the alleged episodes had happen. Again, this is not enough for creating such section on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean this is not enough? We don't need more information, let alone more sexual abuses - we report the information we have. The section on "Ukrainian forces" (last version: [32]) had perfectly verifiable and relevant contents. Nonetheless, it has been removed eight times from the article starting from April 2022. Three editors, who have always collaborated closely with one another, have achieved a result that strongly affects the neutrality of the article, and I would like to know - not specifically from you, but also from other uninvolved editors - if this is acceptable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no meaningful statistical data on this subject (the small numbers of cases are not representative and essentially meaningless at this point), although there are no doubts that the rapes by Russian forces are happening on a large scale, generally speaking. Therefore, the page should focus on well sourced and widely publicized specific cases at this point (that is what the most recent UN reports do). My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should publush the information we have (specific cases). I only object to publishing the information we don't have: mass rape used as a weapon of war. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine is a combatant nation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If WP:RS talk about Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine committed by Ukrainian forces NPOV does not give us any other option other than to cover it, I'm not saying we make a false equivalence but your argument is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen written on wikipedia by an experienced editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thing is RS don't really talk about such. There's some reallllllyyyy big stretching going on to make it seem like some do but even there it's a mention or two of a possibility or such. Volunteer Marek 04:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think their point is simply that it's Russian soldiers on Ukrainian territory, terrorizing Ukrainians rather than vice versa so of course it makes sense that almost all if not all cases of sexual violence are going to be perpetrated by Russians. Maybe at some point Ukraine will start its march on Moscow or whatever and then maybe things will change but for now there's nothing surprising about this. Volunteer Marek 04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing surprising about this, right - the only surprising thing is that you and your posse want to prevent us from reporting on sexual violence perpetrated by the Ukrainian forces, at least until Ukraine starts its march on Moscow. Another surprising thing is this: [33]. I don't even understand the point of removing the tag:POV while discussions are ongoing both here and on the article talkpage. Since there is no consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved (Template:POV#When_to_remove) I believe this already qualifies as sanctionable behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

the only surprising thing is that you and your posse… Why should I even bother replying to an obnoxious comment like that? Unless you strike the personal attacks there’s no point in discussing this with you. Volunteer Marek 17:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Well I don't think the citations justified setting up the article in the first place. But as to your point there is the question of weight, I would be just silly to go around complaining that the pond in my back yard should be included as a lake in Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the pond in the back yard should not be included as a lake, but it should probably be included as a pond. Given that there have been at least 11 documented cases of people being forcebly stripped and publicly beaten with sticks, as reported in the international media [34], in dozens of Ukrainian outlets and in no less than three reports of OHCHR/HRMMU, it is not such an insignificant pond after all, and certainly not a pleasant one for those who suffered that treatment. Verifiable information on Wikipedia and public scrutiny on these practices would not be a bad thing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Volunteer Marek 17:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no mention of sexual violence in your citation. And the lead section citation of the articlewhich is supposed to give it notability deals with sexual violence as one of a number of things rather thn specifically, that's why I was saying the article shouldn't exist, it should be part of the Ukrine war crimes artice. That's what the citation there was talking about. NadVolum (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain the logic of this to me? Even in civil wars and domestic security operations sexual violence occurs. In a war like the one in Ukraine we would expect Ukrainian forces to commit violence including of a sexual nature against collaborators and those they viewed as traitors. I have an academic background in torture and other violence in conflict and I'm just having a real hard time squaring what you guys are saying with reality and the literature. On the specific NPOV point if WP:RS have "a mention or two of a possibility or such" then our article should as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Meaning they would rape collaborators and traitors? Yes, sure, that would worth inclusion to the page if reliably sourced and documented as specific incidents that occur in certain time and places. But of course we should also follow the WP:NPOV on the page, i.e. we should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So, what are "the significant views"? Nearly all publications on this subject say something like this, i.e. "UN official: Russia using rape as war strategy in Ukraine", with supporting links to [35] ("UN panel reports Ukrainian children have been raped, tortured by Russian forces"), etc. So, whatever these sources say, we should fairly summarize them. And the "significant view" here is that nearly all crimes of this nature have been committed by Russian forces. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Objectively there is no such thing as a traitor, that's purely POV dependent. Having the vast majority of the article focus on Russian actions does not preclude a section talking about Ukrainian actions, even if only to note that there haven't been comparable atrocities. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Sure, one can have such section if there are enough well-sourced materials for the section (which I do not see at this point) and there is WP:Consensus to create such section. But not like this (1st diff in this thread), i.e. a single "allegation", while only 23 of 108 allegations have been confirmed later, according to their next report. Moreover, the cited source does not say what exactly had happen even in this single case, where and when. One should also prefer using the most recent UN reports, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The diff you shared shows tha article as it was on 18 April 2022: an excellent stub (actually more than a stub) created by Boud. Then the article was expanded by multiple users. The last version of the controversial section - the one worth discussing - is this: [36] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

That latest version says: "Since the beginning of the Russian invasion, videos circulated on social media and local media outlets showing people believed to be "marauders", bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators being tied to electricity poles or trees and beaten in public. Perpetrators were civilians, police officers and members of the territorial defence.." OK, there are two three serious problems here. (1) Yes, being tied and beaten is a vigilante justice and a human rights violation, but hardly anything of sexual nature (arguably does not belong to the page), and (2) if some or most of the perpetrators were civilians and police officers, why this is framed as crimes by Ukrainian army? But again, I agree that such section could be included if properly written, well sourced and supported by consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Third problem. It says "videos circulated on social media and local media outlets showing...". This is a textbook example of unreliable information that can not be trusted (especially in the context of war) and should not be included in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

1) The OHCHR says that these incidents qualify as sexual violence when the victims are stripped naked, and their opinion on this is more significant than yours ("hardly anything of sexual nature"); 2) "Forces" includes both "armed forces" and "police forces", and the subject of the article is sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which doesn't necessarily have to be perpetrated by soliders: policemen and civilians can also commit conflict-related sexual violence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Well you've resoundingly won that argument... Any other questions My very best wishes? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

But it doesn't justify having the article in the first place. They are described as crimes or war crimes and somebody in Wikipedia haswritted an article selecting what they consider sex crimes. Yes I can see some people considering being stripped naked a crime but it happens every day in jails and people are liable to be subject to it at for instance airports. Intent has to be considered and it doesn't sound like the stripping was supposed to be sexual but a form of humiliation and would be classed as a different form of crime from a sex crime. We should follow the sources and have the article lumped in with war crimes which is what they are. NadVolum (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You can nominate the article for deletion then. Do you understand how absurd your arguments sound to anyone with an academic background? You say that stripping someone is not sexual but a form of humiliation... Ignoring entirely that the sexual aspect is what makes it humiliating. I'm kind of shocked at your ignorance, in general rape as a weapon of war is not for the personal sexual gratification of the rapists... the primary point is in fact to humiliate the victim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have an academic backgrund but luckily I haven't as a result started making foolish equvalences between being naked and being raped. NadVolum (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You clearly do not have an academic background in torture and sexual violence in war otherwise you would know that both of those are forms of sexual violence. Its not a foolish equivalence, they are genuinely in the same category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You genuinely believe that pulling someone (a looter’s) pants down is equivalent to raping parents in front of their children or raping children? That’s it. We’re done. I honestly couldn’t care less now what your views on this subject are. Volunteer Marek 22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

They are equivalent in that they are both sexual violence. I understand that you find the content matter disturbing, it is certainly among the hardest to grapple with. If you ever are interested in learning more about the subject I suggest that you start with Torture and Democracy, The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law, and Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War?. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the word “equivalent” means something else in your world than mine. Volunteer Marek 23:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Mars and Jupiter are equivalent in that they are both planets. That doesn't mean that they're the same thing, equivalence only goes as far as they category they're equivalent in... Two things being sexual violence does not mean that those two things are equally bad. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Your argument though is more like “both the common cold and terminal cancer are sicknesses, therefore they’re equivalent”. Volunteer Marek 03:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a true statement, they are equivalent in that they are both sicknesses. There are many ways in which they aren't equivalent but that is one in which they are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ookay. Volunteer Marek 19:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess you're disappointed the journalists writing about the stripping didn't grasp that it was a sex crime, but then again they have not been academically educated. It means however we are unable to call them sex crimes in the article in Wikipedia because of the WP:OR policy. NadVolum (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Who said we were going to do that? IMO the primary thing we should be mentioning about Ukrainian forces is that they have not engaged in the same sort of widespread sexual violence, you apparently don't want *any* mention of Ukrainian activities at all which is just bizarre. We can't just categorically exclude one side of a war from our coverage about that war. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is ass backwards. You’re starting from the *assumption* that both sides are guilty and then arguing that we therefore we have to include both. We can’t just categorically *include* one side of a war in our coverage of the war *when that side hasn’t done what the other side has* This is kind of elementary. Volunteer Marek 00:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You're talking gibberish, what you just said has no resemblance to what I've argued. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I think it’s a pretty accurate description of your reasoning here, as well as some of your comments above where you assert - without sources or evidence - that both sides must be guilty simply “just because” (quote: “ Has there been a war in history in which sexual violence has been perpetrated by only one side?”) Volunteer Marek 03:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

And where do you get "guilty" out of that? I made no comments regarding courts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

well, NadVolum, since the OHCHR calls it "sexual violence" why couldn't we do the same? OHCHR reports are obviously a reliable source and they have also expertise in the pertinent area. Or do you have a source claiming that the OHCHR misinterpreted or misapplied the concept of conflict-related sexual violence when they referred it to the mistreatment of looters in Ukraine? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Have another look at the OHCHR report. It does not say the stripping was sexual violence. It says there may be some sexual violence related to that. I can't argue with that, it is possible just there's been no report of any. The case of sexual violence they actually talk about is the the Russian soldiers being threathened with castration. NadVolum (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you object to the article being limited to war crimes or expanded to human rights abuses instead of concentrating on sex? I don't believe we have an article on sexual violence or human rights abuses in the second world war, but if OHCHR is to be a major source and you specifically want to include sexual violence surely it should set the topic? NadVolum (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not replying to your second question because I think it's off-topic. The subject of the article is "Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". If you think it's not notable, take it to WP:AFD; if you want to change the subject, you can propose to move the article following the process detailed at WP:RM. Here we're discussing about having a section on "Ukrainian forces" in an article that has the subject and the title that it currently has. You're first remark, however, is relevant: does OHCHR say that forced public stripping amount to conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV)? The answer is: "Yes":

• March update: OHCHR also notes that binding partially or fully stripped persons to poles or trees and beating them in public could also amount to CRSV.
• June report: Five acts of CRSV were committed by Ukrainian armed forces, including territorial defence, or other law enforcement bodies, which consisted of forced public stripping and threats of sexual violence;
• December update: Since 24 February 2022, HRMMU has documented 86 cases of CRSV against women, men, and girls, including ... forced nudity and forced public stripping;

Since we have reliable sources with specific expertise in the area of CRSV/law (WP:RSLAW) reporting that CRSV was committed by Ukrainian armed forces and police in the context of the Russian invasion, IMHO we need a strong argument to exclude these contents from the article without affecting its neutrality. This is the topic on which I opened a discussion on this noticeboard. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Those three citations do not say stripping is a CRSV violation. The first says some cases could amount to CRSV. The second combines it with threats of sexual violence, were these cases of Russian soldiers being threathened with castration?, the third does not specify which side did what but said the majority were by Russian forces. Its good enough for human rights abuses but not for that article. NadVolum (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're seriusly claiming that "Five acts of CRSV were committed by Ukrainian armed forces, including territorial defence, or other law enforcement bodies, which consisted of forced public stripping and threats of sexual violence", does not imply that forced public stripping is a CRSV. Is that what you're saying? Mind WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It i a bureaucratic organisation. If they wanted to be clear they would be. But they say might and could about it. And in this case they link it with a threat of sexual violence without giving the circumstances. They never say any of the stripping is an act of sexual violemce and nobody else has either. I can see you're very keen to label it as such but you need clear citations for things like that and these are most definitely not that. NadVolum (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see any justification in excluding the reports by well-respected international organisations on sexual violence attributed to Ukrainian authorities/security forces. The proportions of attention should respect WP:DUE: that doesn't mean zero sentences/paragraphs on the quantitatively/qualitatively less significant incidents of sexual violence. More reports are available now since my initial stub, but unless the more recent reports directly contradict the earlier ones, we cannot infer that the older reports are considered wrong by the same organisations. I explained quantitatively on 18 April 2022 (numbers of sections, paragraphs, sentences) what seemed to follow WP:DUE based on the 26 March 2022 report available at that time. Boud (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• This seems like a topic that RECENTISM applies...we are not going to have any clear picture of much of what is going on beyond the major offenses in the war to try to be documenting from spotty accounts and weaker RSes. We do not need to be instantly up to date and it is far better to.hold off until a better picture of events can be documented from RSes, which may be months or years from now. --Masem (t) 20:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Our articles on war crimes during the Russian invasion do not offer a clear picture of what's going on. Based on the available sources (mainly news reports and reports from international organisations and NGOs) we cannot offer such a picture: the most we can do is reject blatant propaganda and highlight the conflict between incompatible accounts of the same incident ("the Russians say x, the Ukrainians say y"). But what we're doing is neither useless nor uninformative: we're offering a chronologically and thematically ordered summary of what Wikipedia's RSs are reporting about war crimes/sexual violence/torture/etc. allegedly taking place during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the future, it will be possible to compare what we thought we knew in 2022 with what (according to future historians) actually happened. However, in order for that comparison to be meaningful, and in order to provide our current readers with a relatively neutral and reliable account of the events, we must have a section on "(sexual violence committed by) Ukrainian forces". Removing that section is obviously incompatibile with our committment to NPOV. So far, I don't see a consensus for removal - in fact, only three editors have argued for removing the section. WP:NOCON applies. But it would be desirable/less contentious if other editors made it clear that we cannot simply disregard and silence RSs reporting about conflict-related sexual violence by the Ukrainian side. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

in fact, only three editors have argued for removing the section Out of the four that are active on the article, lol. This right here folks is the problem with Gitz6666’s approach to editing in a nutshell. I AM CONSENSUS! Volunteer Marek 20:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally we take the opinions of uninvolved editors more seriously and not less seriously than the opinions of involved editors. Are you suggesting that we are only to take seriously the opinions of those who are active on the article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No, what I’m obviously suggesting is that Gitz’s framing of the discussion so far as “only three editors argued for removing the section” is, to put it politely, disingenuous. Volunteer Marek 21:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella has commented on the talk page but I wouldn't say she is "active on the article". And My very best wishes is not "active" on the article at all, nor is he active elsewhere, as far as I can see: he doesn't publish anything. He just removes text from articles that doesn't fit his POV on Russia, occasionally takes editors to AE and to 3RR/N, or expresses his views there, and follows Volunteer Marek's edits wherever he goes, to support his views on talk page discussions and in edit wars. I'm not sure that this way of being "active" should make his point of view particularly authoritative as fas as establishing consensus is concerned. I think that the closer, if there will be a formal close, should take this into serious consideration: between VM, MVBW and GCB there's a long-term collaboration, while Boud, Horse Eye's Back and I are three completely independent and unrelated editors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You can wiki lawyer however you like but all that you’re doing at the end of the day is pretending that you alone determine consensus even when there’s many editors who disagree with you. You have both been warned and threatened with sanction on account of such WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior before. Volunteer Marek 21:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You too have been warned, threatened with sanction and actually even sanctioned in the recent past. Since you've removed a well-sourced section from the article no less than 6 times (maybe more) without a clear consensus behind, I would be a little less boisterous and haughty, a little more accomodating and humble, if I were you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m not the one that’s been indef banned on several other wikis already. The section was not “well sourced”. Yes, there is consensus for removal. And even if there wasn’t, you’re the one who needs consensus for inclusion per WP:ONUS, not the other way around. And before you ask others to be more “accommodating and humble” you might wanna strike your personal attacks and completely false WP:ASPERSIONS about them, as already asked twice. Volunteer Marek 03:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I had missed this comment, which requires a reply.

First, I haven't been banned on several other wikis. I'm currently banned only on es.wiki, and I believe that this was a blatant mistake that sooner or later they'll address (I'm not a POV-pusher on the Quran... and I made no edit war [37]).

Secondly, WP:ONUS doesn't apply here: here the guiding policy is WP:NOCON. WP:ONUS is about consensus-building and says that, when there is contentious material, leave it out of the article while discussion happens. WP:NOCON says that at the conclusion of the discussion, a "no consensus" result causes a return to status quo ante. Here the status quo is inclusion: the section has always been in the article, and 3 editors against 3 is no consensus.

Finally, with regard to WP:ASPERSIONS... well, I've nothing to say about this. You've done nothing but casting aspersions on this thread and elsewhere for months, so I really don't know how to reply. I'm not going to strike anything. If you have complaints about behaviour, please take them to WP:AN/I or WP:AE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: need for formal closure?. Perhaps we need a formal closure here or at least an admin/experienced user who's kind enough to guide us to the end of this discussion. If I'm not wrong, apart from myself also Horse Eye's Back, Boud and perhaps François Robere argued that the section should not be removed from the article. On the other side, My very best wishes, Volunteer Marek, NadVolum (if I'm not mistaken) and GizzyCatBella (on the article talk page) argued that the section should be removed. I think that in a case as this one WP:NOCON applies and the section should be retained:

  When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

  If the other editors want to remove the section, they need to build a consensus, e.g., open an RfC. However, VM [38] and MVBW [39] don't agree and reverted my attempts to restore the section. How shall we move forward? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No. if YOU want to include the section, in face of disagreement from multiple editors, YOU need to build consensus. Please stop trying to WP:GAME this by turning Wikipedia policy on its ass. Volunteer Marek 20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Asking at Wikipedia:Closure requests might lead to an uninvolved person closing this discussion. Boud (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Let’s be perfectly clear here. The main if not only reason for including this info is so that the article can say “BOTH Ukraine and Russian forces have committed sexual violence”. On one hand we have Russian troops raping parents in front of their children, raping children, raping each other, torture, sexual mutilation and other sick and abhorrent stuff. On the other hand we have that, early in the invasion some Ukrainian vigilantes caught some looters who were trying to take advantage of the initial chaos, tied them to poles and pulled down their pants. But yeah… “BOTH Ukraine and Russian forces have committed sexual violence”. Gimme a fucking break. And don’t even try to tell me about AGF. That ship sails the moment this kind of disgusting moral equivalence is pushed in our articles and presented as “neutrality”. And oh yeah, sources don’t support this nonsense either. And it’s UNDUE given reporting in reliable sources. And there’s absolutely no consensus for it. As User:Black Kite said, “ Why has Gitz6666 not yet received a topic ban from this entire area?” [40] Volunteer Marek 20:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If that is genuinely what you think is going on here I suggest that you currently lack the disposition to edit this topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

And if you don’t think that this is exactly what is going on here then you lack the competence and the background information necessary to edit this topic area. Volunteer Marek 21:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Today I proposed a new lead for the article, which of course MVBW removed immediately. You can read it here [41]. Obviously it can be improved, and I'd welcome your help in making it better, but could anyone in their right mind think that this text establishes some kind of "moral equivalence" between the two sides? There's no such an equivalence: sexual crimes committed by Russian forces are more numerous and more serious than those committed by Ukrainian forces. This clearly emerges from the lead I have proposed, because it emerges from the sources on which the lead is based. Reliable sources tell us that The majority of these violations [sexual violence] were perpetrated by members of Russian armed forces or law enforcement authorities (OHCHR, 2 Dec 2022). Why on earth can't we say the same? Why should we cover up sexual violence committed by Ukrainian forces and make it appear that all violations were perpetrated by Russian soldiers and policemen? What good would come of it? The encyclopedia would be less complete, less reliable, less authoritative - and readers are not stupid, they would realise this and conclude that it's all propaganda, and if anything goes then Russia Today is as good as anything else. Do as you think it's best, but IMHO having a section on sexual violence by Ukrainian forces is the bottom line of our credibility. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not among my reasons for wanting to include the info. Are you saying that you understand my motivations but that I do not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• After reading numerous publications on this subject it appears that almost all war crimes (I can not put an percentage here) are committed by Russian forces. Therefore, WP:GEVAL does apply here. We can not just say "both sides are guilty" as Gitz suggests. As about vigilante justice, yes, this is bad, but the typical news sources ([42],[43]) do not describe them as sexual offenses, hence the inclusion of such materials to this page is at best debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• This has already been explained at least half a dozen times which is why it’s so frustrating that Gitz keeps beating this dead horse and can’t just respect consensus. The proposed phrasing is POV because it does not reflect the overall nature of the sources. Worse it doesn’t even say what the given sources, as cherry picked as they are, say. For example [44] this source which is being used to cite the opening sentence in Gitz’s proposed text does NOT say “(sexual violence has been committed) by Ukrainian forces” or anything like it. “To a lesser extent” or not, it just simply doesn’t say Ukrainian forces committed ANY sexual violence. This is simply Gitz’s invention. And so on and so forth, I’m tired of explaining this repeatedly particularly since I’m pretty sure it will do nothing to change Gitz’s WP:TENDENTIOUSness. Volunteer Marek 21:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We aren't debating any proposed phrasing in this discussion, perhaps that's a different discussion on the talk page? This discussion is much broader. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the fact that they’re proposing text which completely misrepresents sources and then has the chutzpah to call that “a compromise” kind of illustrates what the underlying behavioral issue here is. Volunteer Marek 03:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective there is the general NPOV question that this noticeboard is equipped to answer and then there is the rest of it. I'm offering my opinion on the larger question of whether or not WP:NPOV supports the inclusion of at least a passing mention of Ukrainian actions and/or inactions in the war (I think we do have the sources for such a section, albeit a very small one). If there are behavioral issues you think need to be addressed I don't think this is the place to do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• As suggested by Boud answering my question, I've asked for a formal closure of this discussion: [45]. May I suggest that we editors who have already expressed our views repeatedly in this already vey long thread disengage? If other editors want to add their views, they are welcome and free to do so until the discussion is formally closed (if it will be formally closed). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666: I think you should shift that from the Administrative discussions section to the Other types of closing requests section - there are no particular administrative powers that are needed to judge what NPOV is in this situation; this is a matter of interpreting Wikipedia policy, where admins have no particular rights above those of other editors. What's needed is someone who is uninvolved in the discussion and can close it in a sufficiently clear and justified way that any appeal to override the closing is unlikely to be accepted: that person might be an admin, but doesn't have to be. Boud (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

   Done [46] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: The sources above are being completely mischaracterized and there inclusion is not only undue but off topic. There is no evidence that rape sexual violence as a tool of war or terror is being used by Ukrainian forces; there is overwhelming evidence that Russian forces are using rape sexual violence as a tool of war or terror. Crimes committed by military personnel are different from using rape sexual violence as a tool of war. I think this is an attempt to create an twisted moral equivalency between the actions of Russian forces and Ukrainian forces.

There is not a consensus for this inclusion. I think Gitz6666 is engaging in chronic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and believe it is WP:DE; as mentioned above, a topic ban needs to be considered.  // Timothy :: talk  17:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

1. The subject of the article is neither "rape" nor "rape as a weapon of war": it is "sexual violence" related to the conflict in Ukraine. According to WP:RS Members of the Ukrainian armed forces and law enforcement agencies have occasionally engaged in conflict-related sexual violence.
2. The sentence there is overwhelming evidence that Russian forces are using rape as a tool of war or terror is false. While it may be true that they're using it as a tool of war or terror, it is sure that there is not overwhelming evidence of this. OHCHR in its latest report said it could not evaluate the scale of sexual violence and we know that by 31 October the Ukrainian authorities were investigating 43 cases of sexual violence, which is too many but, after 8 months of invasion with tens of thousands of soldiers on the ground, seems incompatible with the claim (never officially made by the UN, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch or any other major human rights organisation) about "mass rape used as a weapon of war". We shouldn't express that claim with wikivoice in the lead, and on this there's currently a thread at WP:OR/N: here. Before expressing your views there, please read the discussion.
3. There is not a consensus for this inclusion. I don't agree: there is not a consensus for this removal. In fact the section on Ukrainian forces has always been included in the article and has now been temporarily removed per WP:ONUS. Once this discussion is closed (apparently with no consensus for removal) WP:NOCON applies and the section should be restored.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Strike "rape" replace with "sexual violence". My comments stand.  // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The article history shows this material is disputed and never had consensus for inclusion; the onus is on those that wish to include it to gain consensus.  // Timothy :: talk  18:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of CIA drug trafficking

An editor is repeatedly misquoting a source Talk:Allegations of CIA drug trafficking#Poppy cultivation and I would like to not edit war over this. User:Rja13ww33 has changed statements of fact to a quote and an editorialized quote at that. In the source the CIA's actions in the Afghan opium trade are said to be "documented." This is a statement of fact and not one person's opinion. Rja13ww33 claims that A direct quote is always best.[47] and I have pointed out[48] that is not correct.

Additionally this is a good time to talk about the bias of the title: It is inappropriate to include the word "allegations" because this article contains proven facts. Allegations are appropriate to include but are secondary to the subject of the article. The current title incorrectly describes all of its contents as mere allegations. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The source does not support what you wrote in the article. Though they would have been better off without using quotation marks, Rja13ww33's revision is more in line with the source, and they were correct to change it. Regarding the title of the article, it appears that this is the title that was decided upon during the article's AfD, and it is entirely appropriate in line with how Wikipedia handles allegations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

In what way does the source not support my version? When is it ever appropriate to add an editorialized version of a quote and not an actual quote?

Are you really talking about AfD from 10.5 years ago? Invasive Spices (talk) 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The relevant passage in the source:

Following earlier patterns, Washington looked the other way when CIA-backed Afghan insurgents battling the Soviets in the 1980s were involved in cultivating and smuggling opium poppies to help fund their cause. This was the CIA’s biggest covert operation since Vietnam, and once again, the opium trade was one of the biggest winners. As McCoy (2003, p. 18) summarizes, “To fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA, working through Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence, backed Afghan warlords who used the Agency’s arms, logistics, and protection to become major drug lords.”

Your edit said in wikivoice that the CIA was supporting drug smuggling through the Pakistan ISI. The source says that the CIA worked with the Pakistan ISI to provide support to Afghan insurgents that also received funding from drug smuggling, and it quotes McCoy's opinion on the matter. Rja13ww33 fixed this by attributing the opinion to McCoy through an exact quote by McCoy lifted verbatim from the source. Personally, I think that even this was generous, as I probably would've reverted your edit for misrepresenting the source. Your edit omitted context that changed the meaning, while theirs was an exact quote with attribution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's start with the obvious problem. Thebiguglyalien do you understand that Rja13ww33's is presenting edited quotes as verbatim quotes? Do you understand that Rja13ww33 has done so again below? I told you this above and you ignored it. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Is any of this sinking in yet? I don't mean to be rude here (we are to AGF and so forth) but is English your first language? I'm trying to guess what the disconnect is. Very simply, here is what you added to the article: "During the 1980s the CIA worked through the Pakistan ISI to support Afghan cultivation of opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) and smuggling of the product.". Here is what the source says (word for word): As McCoy (2003, p. 18) summarizes, “To fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA, through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, backed Afghan warlords who used the Agency’s arms, logistics, and protection to become major drug lords.”

Obviously there is quite a difference between those two statements.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Telling me the sky is chartreuse is not going to work. You have again presented an edited quote. I am aware that this is Wikipedia and everyone argues without reading sources but they will if I repeatedly point it out. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 December 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is it a "edited quote" when it is verbatim from the source? I'm still waiting to hear that one.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I see one comment here, and another at the article talk page, where Rja13ww33 left out the word "working" in "...the CIA, working through Pakistan's...". The block quote they added above appears correct, as does the text they actually added to the article, so I'm not seeing the problem. Invasive Spices, it might help if you actually explained exactly what difference you see between the original quote and what Rja13ww33 is saying. Squeakachu (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I side with Rja13ww33 on this one. First of all, the quote is verbatim from the source. (The word "To" was changed to "to", so perhaps that is part of the objection.) Secondly, the idea that the CIA trafficked drugs or facilitated drug trafficking is a contentious claim that requires attribution. For instance, the United States Department of State, Inspector General of the CIA, United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (i.e. the Church Committee) looked at McCoy's earlier, but similar claims about the CIA during the Vietnam War and found them to be unsubstantiated. - Location (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

the idea that the CIA trafficked drugs or facilitated drug trafficking is a contentious claim It is not if we have WP:RS which demonstrate it is true. We do. My original edit included precisely that. If we have opposing WP:RS we could (must) present the controversy. I would not disagree. We would do that using both sources but no one has provided any such. We cannot present Andreas's facts as if they are McCoy's unsupported speculation.

that requires attribution. To repeat: no attribution is required because we have Andreas WP:RS. I am not opposed to attribution however and in fact the prominent attribution of this statement in Andreas may justify such prominent attribution in our article. However Rja13ww33 did not just attribute. Rja13ww33 changed a WP:PARAPHRASE of several Andreas paragraphs to a quote.

I hate to be pedantic but why would anyone cite sources on Wikipedia if they are of no consequence and A direct quote is always best.[49]? Quotes are almost never used.[50] Andreas is there for a reason. What is the reason?

Rja13ww33's edit removes the context: The source is not McCoy but a prestigious independent source which cites McCoy as one among his many sources. Our opinion is decided by WP:V. I hate to debate WP:V here as if WP:V can be ignored.

For instance…earlier, but similar claims…found them to be unsubstantiated. I will not address other matters in other articles with different sources. Afghan opium is Afghan opium. Other matters do not justify removing context and presenting cited facts as if they are uncited baseless quotes from McCoy. These situations are not analogous because this has not been found to be unsubstantiated by anyone, in fact it is substantiated by Andreas.

We can see from User talk:Rja13ww33 that this user has a history – for years – of WP:POV edit warring on this and related articles. Looking at Special:Contributions/Rja13ww33 shows exclusively POV edit warring on this and related articles. That editor is a WP:SPA or close to it. That is not a history of neutrality.

My aim is this: the over all thrust of my edit was to WP:PARAPHRASE several paragraphs from Andreas – because that excludes other material, because Wikipedia is written by its editors, because WP is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of quotes, WP is not Wikiquote – and to include the commodity in trade, opium. Opium is the thing in question and I want to distinguish it from several other commodities which could be implied by the quote alone. (Especially Cannabis.) What Thebiguglyalien said above is strange and obviously not correct: removing context and replacing it with a quote does not add context, and Rja13ww33's edit is misleading because it removes the context which shows McCoy is supported by Andreas. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You're getting caught up on this quote thing, but that's not the issue here. You came to your own conclusions that were not supported by the source, and you inserted those conclusions into the article rather than summarizing what the source says. They were removed and replaced with a direct quote that more plainly states the allegation being made. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we agree that Andreas supports McCoy? I am baffled something so simple has no agreement thus far. Invasive Spices (talk) 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The absence of responses in 4 days is telling. Everyone knows there is no sourced disagreement on McCoy. As such we may not misrepresent McCoy as an opinion WP:VOICE. Avoid stating facts as opinions. … Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

The article as it stands misleadingly portrays McCoy as the story and misrepresents Andreas as not supporting McCoy. Most readers will not examine the reflist and so will be under the misimpression that the citation is to a publication of McCoy. Those few who do examine the reference will be given the false impression that Andreas merely lists quotes. Andreas is not a quote book. Only those very few who read Andreas thoroughly will notice that our article is misleading – Andreas says that McCoy documents these facts.

I am open to opinions regarding phrasing however A direct quote is always best.[51] is incorrect, reflects an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia and is explicitly WP:VOICE forbidden in such situations as this.

I am also open to contrary WP:RS however it is telling that no one has even attempted to present any. Invasive Spices (talk) 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is replying to you much anymore because we can't seem to get you to listen (either that or at lot of people are on vacation). In no way does the article misrepresent "Andreas as not supporting McCoy". It's simply a direct quote (from McCoy) that doesn't take the liberties you did. So is this the issue? (Nice of you to finally tell us/be clear on the point.) We aren't clear that Andreas is supporting McCoy? The fact we are citing a article by Andreas should make that clear shouldn't it? How is directly quoting McCoy from that article diminishing Andreas's apparent support? Try to be coherent for once.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the lack of response means that your argument has not convinced anyone. To expand upon the context you touched on above, Andreas wrote: "As historian Alfred McCoy (2003) documents in detail in his classic, The Politics of Heroin, the CIA was complicit not through corruption or direct involvement in the illicit trade but rather through what he describes as a radical pragmatism that tolerated and even facilitated drug trafficking by local allies when it served larger Cold War goals." One thing that Andreas left out is that McCoy's claims that formed the basis of The Politics of Heroin were addressed by at least four governmental agencies and found that they were unsubstantiated. To this you wrote: "I will not address other matters in other articles with different sources." On one hand, you want to use material from an author citing that book. On the other, you dismiss that material (or at least the investigations of it) as irrelevant while continuing to claim there is "no sourced disagreement on McCoy". You can't have it both ways. -Location (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You correctly added[52] this material to a different section showing you are aware this is impertinent to the Afghan poppy trade. Why are you here misrepresenting this material as relevant to the Afghan opium section? Invasive Spices (talk) 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The material is relevant to McCoy's credibility as a source for claims of CIA complicity or involvement in drug trafficking. Your argument seems to be that McCoy is an impeccable source of information and should be cited without attribution, so I provided information that shows he isn't. If Andreas can attribute material to McCoy, what's the problem with Wikipedia doing the same? - Location (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You clearly do understand that it is irrelevant. You put it in a different section. The strings "Afghan" and "opium" and any other such related concepts do not appear anywhere in the text you added.

what's the problem with Wikipedia doing the same? because Andreas is a source and you are not. Relying upon yourself to establish that they are related despite not even mentioning each other is obvious WP:SYNTH. — Invasive Spices (talk) 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I've already explained how this is relevant 1) to the article and 2) to the discussion regarding explicit attribution for certain material. You came here for feedback and I gave you mine. FWIW: My edit is here if anyone wants to review/discuss the content or sources, but I would suggest continuing this on the article's talk page. (I've removed the outdent as it makes it look like Rja13ww33's comment below is in response to me instead of you.) - Location (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You've now got 4 people telling you that you are wrong. The only thing the source says regarding the Afghan opium trade in the 80's is what I quoted. (A direct quote.) Nothing in the source backs what you said about the CIA supporting Mujahadeen drug production.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Erich Honecker

Erich Honecker

An IP editor added "dictator" to the lead in this diff. It was removed about a month later in this diff. Subsequently, other editors have added this terminology back into the lead.

I don't think it's appropriate to call Honecker a dictator. Other GDR leaders are not called dictators on Wikipedia. And the same goes for Soviet leaders, such as Brezhnev, who Honecker was associated with. And it could be argued that Brezhnev held more political power than Honecker did. Michael60634 (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Other GDR leaders are not called dictators on Wikipedia => Ulbricht was arguably less autocratic than Honecker. But if anything, he should be labeled one too; some political scientists deem him to be one.

And under Brezhnev, it was a dictatorship by the Politburo, rather than Leonid Ilyich himself. See Collective leadership in the Soviet Union Synotia (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of how the leadership in the USSR worked. My point still stands. Michael60634 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

How does it still stand, when you know that these cases are different? Synotia (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Even the article for Joseph Stalin does not say he was a dictator in the first sentence. Michael60634 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting my next edit ;) Synotia (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

And it will probably be reverted quickly. Stalin's article gets much more attention than Honecker's article. Meaning people will notice politically motivated editing there much more quickly. Michael60634 (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Like I did with yours? ;) Synotia (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean removing a template and edit warring? Michael60634 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way Misha, I checked the Joseph Stalin article. No need for me to do anything: Within the very first alinea one can read Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become a dictator by the 1930s. Synotia (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Kindly stop calling me Russian names like "Misha" and "tovarishch". Michael60634 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Synotia & Michael60634: I would suggest that both of you stop arguing. Being combative just makes people think you're not interested in improving the article. Synotia, I think you have solid ground for restoring the wording, so I don't know why you're being rude and trying to provoke a response. You're undermining your own argument. Michael, now that there are reliable sources establishing that he is a dictator, the correct response is to find reliable sources that contradict these, saying that he is not a dictator. Also, we're talking about Erich Honecker right now, so other articles are not relevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The article now lists four sources for the claim that he is a dictator, and they all seem reliable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Because the term at face value is contentious, it should not included in the lefe sentence but can be included in the lede with additional context as why the term applies, like the use in the Stalin article demonstrated earlier.Masem (t) 16:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That would be preferable to what is currently in the article. Michael60634 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem… the fact that Honecker is described as being a “dictator” is the type of contentious information that is more appropriately mentioned at some point later in the opening paragraph(s). The opening sentence should avoid such labels. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
• I agree this should not be in the first phrase. Yes, he was a dictator within the East Germany, but pretty much a puppet and subordinate as a leader of one of Soviet satellite states. My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem that it probably would be best for it not to be in the first sentence, the nature of the regime can be elaborated later in the lead. And I will also say that the comments made by Synotia including "tovarisch"[53] and "dorogoi tovarisch"[54], now also "Misha" in this very thread are completely inappropriate. Mellk (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I would only use the term when the original definition applied: a leader who suspended the constitution and ruled by decree during an emergency with the pretext of restoring the status quo ante when the emergency was over, sometimes without holding any official position or having an untranslatable title such as Fuehrer or Duce. While that clearly applies to Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet and Noriega, it doesn't apply to Communist states. IOW use it when the person is a de jure, not just de facto, dictator.

Policy requires that the tone of articles reflects reliable sources, which rarely would describe Communist rulers as dictators in the first few sentences.

There's also the issue of how much power any specific Communist ruler had. Generally, Communist bosses who defied their own party found themselves out of office, so their power was limited.

TFD (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Communist bosses who defied their own party i don’t think such a statement actually makes sense in this context. Is there any specific examples you have in mind? Volunteer Marek 06:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Khrushchev, Zhao Ziyang, Gorbachev (almost), Wilhelm Pieck, Malenkov, Dubček, Imre Nagy, and Peljidiin Genden, among others. And in 1989, numerous Communist leaders were ousted when they refused to reform. In most cases, had a Communist "dictator" decided to hold open elections, remove the privileges of the Communist Party, introduce capitalism or form an alliance with the West, he would have been replaced. Or do you think that as dictators they had the power to do whatever they wanted, which is the definition of a dictator? TFD (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And now some editors are removing the neutrality template... Michael60634 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes because it’s not a consolation prize for having brought an issue to WP:NPOVN and failing to get any support. Volunteer Marek 06:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say my position of not calling Honecker a dictator in the first sentence of the article did indeed have support. You can read the comments in this section for yourself if you haven't done so already. Michael60634 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If someone wants to move the info further down into the lede (but not out of the lede), that’s fine. Volunteer Marek 06:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Should labels given to a website by some secondary sources that contradict the website's own statement be placed in the opening sentence in WP voice?

There’s been discussion above about Wikiislam, whether to attach "Islamophobic" or "anti-Muslim" labelling to it in the the opening sentence in WP voice because some sources say so and no other secondary sources say it is not. But I just found out that the site itself says that it “is not Islamophobic” (1). Doesn’t that mean the labelling is controversial, which is even more reason not to put it in WP voice?
Also, sorry, I’m not very well versed in Wikipedia policy, but if someone is said to be a moron in some secondary sources and no other secondary sources say he is intelligent, does that mean that it can be written in the opening sentence of his WP article that "X is a moron..."?
Addendum (January 1, 2023): also one more example, if some sources say that Islam is an anti-semitic religion, and no other sources say it is not, should it be written in the opening sentence that “Islam is an anti-semitic religion”? I don’t think that’s quite right. Isn't the word anti-... contentious?; edited LiuWu87 (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC) LiuWu87 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if we could find RS that said that and no RS that contradicted it, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If some sources say that the US is an anti-communist country, should it be written in the opening sentence that it is “an anti-communist country”. If some sources say that DPRK say is “an anti-japanese state”, should it be written so in the opening sentence? I don’t think those would be right, since “anti-some people” is a contentious term.

I agreed that secondary sources should be included, but if those sources contradict with what the subject themselves say, doesn’t that make the claim controversial and should be attributed to the authors of the sources instead, and shouldn’t be written in WP voice even more so in the opening sentence. LiuWu87 (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If they represent the bulk of sources that comment on it, yes. We represent what RS say. And no to be controversial, the controversy must be between RS, not RS and one person. That is what wp:undueWP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:fringe are all about. We only care about what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a word “uncontested” in the rule, if the word “uncontroversial” after that meaning the same, then I don’t think there’s any need to write it “Uncontested and uncontroversial”. Also the rule says

such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution

I think anti-(some people) falls into the racist category above, which if it really wants to be used it should be attributed to the authors of the sources. LiuWu87 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Which is not practical in the lede, as we would need to say "according to the BBC, The Time Prof Wom, Dr thing, the royal society, the BMA, FEMA, Hate watch" and god knows who else. It also says "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. " 1 person is about as small a minority as you can get. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read again the last part of the rule

may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution

It doesn't have to mention all the sources, the one that proposes by @The Four Deuces, below would suffice I think. LiuWu87 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The parts quoted by Slatersteven as part of the same policy, one part doesn't over rule another. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Where did I say the rule I quoted above overrules the others? It's clearly written that calls like racist (which anti-Muslim seems to fall into) are contentious and if it still wants to be included then it should be attributed to the source, like "various sources call it anti-Muslim" instead of writing in WP voice as "it is an anti-Muslim site", Thank you. LiuWu87 (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Not rules but policies, which have to be interrupted with other policies. Fixating on the wording of one part of one policy is what know as WP:WIKILAWYERING, something you should read along with WP:BLUDGEON -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, forgive me if I'm using the wrong term, I'm not a native in English, but my argument above still stands (at least to me). The wikipedia policies are made to be followed, one cannot follow one policy and ignore the others. LiuWu87 (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an important distinction as they are describing behaviour on Wikipedia not prescribing it. You could do something that brokes every policy but if the community were to decide it was an improvement to the encyclopedia, then well WP:IAR is also policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You could do something that brokes every policy but if the community were to decide it was an improvement to the encyclopedia,

Okay, but is it really necessary in this case? We talk long and hard about policies, but in the end they’re going to be ignored? LiuWu87 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

They are being ignored in your opinion, I and others here disagree with you in your interpretation of policy. As I said earlier, you fixating on one sentence as if it must be followed against all other policies. That's not how it works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're talking as if the part of the WP policies I brought up above contradicts the other WP policies, even though they just complement each other. Fringe theories such as the US didn’t land on the moon shouldn’t be given its due weight in the United States’ WP article, but that doesn’t mean saying the US is anti-communist, racist, etc. is okay in WP voice, even more so in the opening sentence, just because many sources say so and no other sources say it’s not, since those terms are contentious. I don't think this case about Wikiislam is so extraordinary that one of WP policies must be broken to improve Wikipedia. LiuWu87 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's actually a guideline, not a policy, which means that exceptions are allowed. I wonder though about the tone. Could we say anti-Muslim, anti-Islamist or generally considered Islamophobic? I don't think the intention of the guideline is that it doesn't apply to lead sentences, otherwise it would say that. TFD (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV which is policy, WP:LABEL is part of MOS. Islamaphobic should be used if the weight of reliable sources use it, any attempt to water that down is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, there's a distinction between false balance and neutral tone, which is also recommended. We don't say for example in articles about serial killers that they are disgusting, twisted, evil social deviants, although that type of wording is used in some reliable sources. It doesn't mean that these articles are soft on serial killers. TFD (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

But to say anti-islamic instead of islamaphobic isn't neutral tone, it's the opposite. Wikipedia states serial killer, not collector of souls for the afterlife. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Self description should always be given zero weight because it is inherently biased in favour of the subject. Like, should we not describe InfoWars as a conspiracy theory website because it doesn't self describe as such? What you are proposing is basically in total contradiction to how Wikipedia articles are written. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  okay, so if some sources say that Islam is an anti-semitic religion, and no other sources say it is not, should it be written in the opening sentence that “Islam is an anti-semitic religion”? I don’t think that’s right. Isn't the word anti-… contentious? LiuWu87 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• A self-published source is notoriously unreliable. The DPRK is neither democratic, nor a republic; and we don't give a golly-gosh-darn what they say about themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  okay, so if some sources say that Islam is anti-semitic religion, and no other sources say it is not, should it be written in the opening sentence that “Islam is an anti-semitic religion”? I don’t think that’s quite right. Isn't the word anti-... contentious? LiuWu87 (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  The DPRK can say what it likes, but multiple highly reliable sources say otherwise. So giving any weight to the DPRK self statement is undue, and introduces a false balance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  is it written in the opening sentence of its WP article that it is an anti-capitalist, anti-western, anti-japanese state? LiuWu87 (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know are those facts due? If they are or not would be a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Orangemike. Subjects have an inherent interest in pushing a positive POV. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• RS>SPS no question. Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• Also, per WP:TONE, no article should literally say "X is a moron" in Wikipedia's voice whatever the sourcing. On the broader point of sources presenting different views on a subject, the answer is in WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• @DeCausa That depends; we do say in wiki-voice that X is a conpiracy theorist etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. "Conspiracy theorist" is within the scope of an encycopedic tone. "Moron" is not. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Ah, that is obvious :3 TrangaBellam (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Conservapedia says it is The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia in its logo. Perhaps you could get better advice there? 😀 NadVolum (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• My take on this (and other, similar debates) … the opening sentence of any article should avoid contentious labels. This doesn’t mean we should ignore the labels… simply that we should mention them in subsequent sentences in the lede. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• I see that approach put forward occasionally by editors but what's the policy basis for it? If yhe "contentious" term is appropriate and needed to describe the subject per MOS:FIRST, and its prominence satisfies WP:DUE why shouldn't it go in the first sentence? DeCausa (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s more a question of style and tone than a policy issue. The first sentence should be short and barebones. Avoid adjectives. If the subject is a politician from Freedonia, just say that. If the subject is an online magazine, just say that. Trying to convey the subject’s reputation is inappropriate for the first sentence. It is extraneous information that should be conveyed in a subsequent sentence. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Is a politician. Not a right/left wing politician? I don't see anything wrong with the latter if its a common description. If the newsorgs put it upfront, why shouldn't we? Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think being left or right in politic is the same as anti-“some people”. I mean if some sources say that DPRK is an anti-capitalist state, should it be written in the opening sentence that it is an anti-capitalist state? if some sources say that the US is an anti-communist country, and no other sources say it is not, then it is should be written in the opening sentence that is “is an anti-communist country”? LiuWu87 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If 10 sources discuss DPRK and 8 of them note DPRK to be "anti-capitalist", then yes. If 800 sources discuss discuss DPRK and 8 of them note DPRK to be "anti-capitalist", then no. I assumed that all of the sources under evaluation are equally reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia rule that clearly states so? I strongly believe that this labelling is controversial because the subject itself says otherwise, so the labelling should be attributed to the source, not written in WP voice, more so in the opening sentence. LiuWu87 (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Countless editors have answered your original query and derivative posers. Yet, you seem unable to accept that the broader editorial consensus differs from your "belief". We are not bound to satisfy your increasingly tortous lines of enquiry and pursuing such an I-do-not-hear-that course attracts sanctions. Drop the stick and move on. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

As to answering this particular query: you have been already pointed to WP:DUE by ActivelyDisinterested to the same question. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Please don't be rude and put your words in other people's mouths, I respond to each of the existing arguments as much as I can, if you think my arguments are wrong please refute them, don't harass me like this.

My problem is that this labelling is controversial because the subject itself says otherwise.

If by uncontroversial you mean uncontested, then there is no point in writing it in the rule as "uncontested and uncontroversial".

Plus per WP:label it asks to avoid using racist labeling, which even if it is forced to be included then it should be attributed to the source. LiuWu87 (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing harassing about TrangaBellam's comment. They are quite right in that you keep replying with the exact same argument to every comment. Repeating the same thing again and again will not change other editors minds. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It's okay if that's what you think, but it's not necessarily what everyone thinks. Can we just focus on the issue instead of ad hominem? thank you. LiuWu87 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Baselessly accussing others of harassment is just the same. You point has been answered again and again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an English native so I am so sorry if I'm wrong but the meaning of harass as I read it is "subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation". The way he puts his words in everyone's mouth by using the pronoun “we” and saying that, "We are not bound to satisfy your increasingly tortuous lines of enquiry and pursuing such an I-do-not-hear-that course attracts sanctions. Drop the stick and move on." I think that falls into that category. LiuWu87 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Their words could be considered mildly uncivil, but only as an expression of their annoyance. It certainly doesn't come across as an attempt to intimidate, that might be a language issue.

The use of 'we' is justified by you posting the same reply to multiple editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• NPOV also says article Ledesma in particular should be written in a neutral, dispassionate tone, and throwing in something that is controversial in the first sentence immediately breaks that. DUE have no being for what content belongs in the lede (it is about the balance of viewpoints in an articke). And it is far far more neutral to wait a sentence or two to brief explain the controversial aspect in context than to throw the label around without context. Masem (t) 14:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It depends. That can create a false balance. If DUE requires that degree of prominence then not giving it that in order to achieve a "neutral" tone then that is a breach of NPOV. The lead should cmply with DUE in the same way as the whole article has to comply with it. The lead is supposed to reflect the article.DeCausa (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

DUE has nothing to do with the lede, it must be neutrally written. Just becayse it may seem that bulk of RSes claim one thing about a topic, we should still try to establish what the dispute is about, in a brief manner. DUE has more applicability in the body to flesh out arguments against the topic. Masem (t) 15:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm taken aback by you saying that. How can DUE have nothing to do with the lede? For one thing the lede has to follow the body. One has to be reflective of the other. To say DUE has nothing to do with the lede is like saying V has nothing to do with the lede. But more fundamentally, DUE is a core part of what we (WP) mean by neutrality. Take away DUE and what's left is a fake neutrality based on false balance. DUE isn't something separate from WP neutrality, it is WP neutrality. DeCausa (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• A huge number of problems are created by statement made above that say we discuss the site's own description in favor of what others have said, as that means we have taken a side in the debate. Instead we should present both sides as part of the controversy over a group's description, making sure attribution is used, and balancing the weight of arguments by UNDUE. It is far more neutral to say "/The website Wikiislam claims it is not Islamophobia, but numerous journalists claim the site is anti-Islam." Masem (t) 14:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• WP:MANDY is a decent essay. Marjorie Taylor Greene will obviously deny being a conspiracy theorist, Robert B. Spencer will obviously deny having prejudice against Muslims, and so on. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  We just had an RFC related to denials that says we should report them, making MANDY really no longer applicable. Masem (t) 14:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Please try leveraging the RfC (link - ?) at Marjorie Taylor Greene or one of the doxens of articles from AmPol, that I can list. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Do you recall where this RFC is? Thank you. Snuish (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  WT:BLP#RfC on Denials Masem (t) 20:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Although take not of the closer additional rational on their talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear the closer closed that RFC as 'option 1' should be the wording of the policy, but their talk page (and the subsequent ANI thread) didn't clarify of issue of false balance etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• We go by what RS say, not what a self-serving SPS says. Very few racists never call themselves, racist, and very few criminals ever break the law (according to them), Its amazing how many Germans were on holiday for the whole of 1939-1945. Also to be contentious, RS has to contend the claim is not true, not the target. We need to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)c

  There is zero false balance on one summaey line that says "X says this, Y says this" (a result from the recent denials RFC). It is a problem if we go over a sentence two tied only to the SPS to explain their side fully (thats where we'd need RS to cover should we include that. Masem (t) 14:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  That is exactly what WP:GEVAL warns against. - MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  As was discussed at the RFC, including what subjects say about themselves (especially when it comes to denials of allegations) is highly appropriate, and important for maintaining neutrality. We should not give it UNDUE weight, but we do need to give it some weight. That usually means at least one sentence noting the denial. Let the reader decide whether the denial is credible or not. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Fwiw, the RfC result does not insist on mentioning denial in the lead. [Note: The RfC concerns BLPs; not organizations etc.] TrangaBellam (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the thing, if there is a bunch of rs saying a thing, we can say it in wikivoice upfront and self serving denials can be mentioned down the page somewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you! TrangaBellam (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  It would be inconsist to allow denials for BLP and not named organizations who may have named BLP in its positions. Masem (t) 15:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone is disputing that denials are allowed. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  At the risk of invoking Godwin's law - Stormfront says that they are 'a community of racial realists and idealists'. Should that be in the lead? That's the kind of org we're talking about. MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes that should be in there but with both clear attribution and alongside the most popular way they are described. Eg "Stormfront claims they are acimmunity of racial realists, but many scholars and journals consider the group as a racial hate gtoup" (or something like that). Then the body can go into why the later is considered true with examples in context, without needing to touch on any more.SPS sources for the group's claimed purposes. Masem (t) 16:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  A single line that is "x says one thing, y says other", and then later where plenty of coverage expanding Y's (reflecting the DUE coverage in RSes) and almost nothing about X's side, is not a GEVAL violation. That single line is simply establishing the basis of a conflict which is minimally required under NPOV. A GEVAL problem would be were X's side is artificially inflated with SPS type sources to balance it against Y's side. Masem (t) 15:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  The lede is a summery of the article, and must reflect its balance. If we say X has this which Z has denied`" that is a false balance IF x is 15 sources (or even 5) and Z is one person. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  It is typically impossible for the lede to have equal balance of weight as the body, as it meant to summarize the points in the body, and this by necessity will leave some stuff out of it. It should balance the article structure by there's no requirement of 1-to-1 weight inclusion. Masem (t) 16:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Usually it's not "x says one thing, y says other" it's WP says (multiple sourced) ie stated as a fact. An SPS denial is not a fact. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that when a near plurality of sources, which may include academic sources, then we can say that as a fact. But just having multiple sources but not having anywhere close to a plurality (eg 10 out of 100 sources) then attribution is required. Masem (t) 16:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  And what number do we set it at, 10 100 1000? Silence is not disagreement, indeed it maybe because they think it is so obvious it does not even need stating. What we do is (I think) have a simple standard (its called wp:npov), what do the majority of RS say, who comment on a topic. Also using this logic we can't say "X has denied it" unless a majority of sources have reported the denial. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  You just pointed it out, we are looking for something like a majority of sources, so in a case where there are 100 known and available sources (all presumed reliable), we may be asking for as few as 25 of them to make the claim before we can say it in wikivoive. Otherwise, attribution of some sort (even if it handwavws it as "several journalists". What we don't want, but gas become more predominant, is the cherry picking of sourced to find a negative term and use it as wikivoice. If the SPLC names s group as a hate group but none of the other collective sources do, it has absolutely wrong to say that in unattributed wikivoice.

  Being able to say the denial exists is required by NPPV.we want to briefly summarize the source of the debate, and including the climate and denial is necessary, even uf that us not documents by RSes. The details if why one side believes they are right then follow from following DUE, which does mean that we cannot create a false balance in coverage of debates not brought up in RDed. Masem (t) 20:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter whether its a majority of sources if the best that exists on the denial side is SPS. Because that means the actual sources are not disputed. Selfstudier (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  When a normally reliable source claims something under a contentious term, we should assume that there us a conflict and that we cannot present that as fact. If more sources exist (approaching the majority of all sources that exist) then we start getting into the realm of using wikivkice, though we still can respect the minor dissent that may be there. 60 of 100 sources call a group as a hate group, but the group calls themselves "race idealists", then we can present that all as "The group is a hate group, despite their claim to be 'race idealists". Then in the body id expect pulling material from those 60 sources to explain how the term applies. Masem (t) 22:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  There is a difference between contentious (define it) and something like "right wing". If the sole denial of the latter description is the person/group being so described in reliable sources then that's good enough for wikivoice. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Context matters. Here, "anti-islam" should clearly be seen as a contentious term. "Right wing" may or may not, as it it depends how it is framed, since the term could just be about someone sitting on the right, or could be for someone who is far far on the right. Masem (t) 22:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  We can agree on context and that it may not be clear as to what constitutes contentious. This makes it more of a case by case affair than any kind of firm rule. For myself, I would usually go with the sources because I am disinclined to give SPS denialism an easy time of it. Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Again note the additional details of the close on the closers talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Notified: Talk:WikiIslam. Snuish (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
  .

Reliable secondary sources should be used instead of the subject's self-description. This is most obvious in the case of criminals. We wouldn't describe Al Capone for example as a wrongly imprisoned philantropist, we would describe him as a gangster.

However, sources making a claim that a website is Islamophobic must be reliable for the claim made and it must be clear it is a consensus opinion in academic literature. In practical terms, that means using academic articles or textbooks or expert sources such as the SPLC.

Furthermore, per WP:LABEL, we may have to qualify the description. For example we might say identified by the SPLC as Islamophobic or considered to be Islamophobic, provided a source actually says that. We should avoid using multiple references, then say multiple sources consider it Islamophobic, since that violates WP:WEASEL. It's alright of course if a source actually says that.

We could also consider saying they are "anti-Islamist" (in quotes), since that is how Islamophobes describe themselves.

Note that since Islamophobes usually do not consider themselves Islamophobic, they will continually argue against any suggestion that they are. Typically, they blame "left-wing liberal" disinformation. But what is important is not the ideology of the experts making the claim, but its acceptance in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point wp:bludgeon might be worth a read. Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, S. Three editors (me, ActivelyDisinterested, and you) have suggested the OP to drop the stick; waiting for the critical mass to reach five. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Wilderness therapy

Talk:Wilderness therapy

POV was raised by another user @ParticipantObserver on 27th december 2022 the pov issue are list bellow

• Because the article cotains a lot of criticizm

• lack of viewpoint from propents

• Lack of information on claims wildernes therapy programs and their benefits

• lack of information on the effectiveness of wilderness therapy.

• lack of clarity on the defination of Wilderness therapy programs.

--1keyhole (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep. To clarify my stance:

Unlike other pages about therapeutic approaches (including highly controversial and generally condemned practices), this page includes little to no explanation on what the therapeutic approach is and what benefits proponents believe it has. If a general reader wants to know what wilderness therapy is, or why someone would even theoretically choose to practice the approach, the page does not really contain that basic content, and instead is focused almost exclusively on criticism. The page does not describe how the approach differs from traditional therapy nor why anyone would choose this form of therapy. The page does not describe any underlying theories or techniques.

Academic discourse surrounding the topic is largely not reflected on the page (and one editor has stated that all academics who have not personally witnessed this form of therapy are to be considered unreliable sources and should be actively excluded from being used as sources).

Information about existing standards is not discussed, nor any substantial information related to the Outdoor Behavioral Health Council, though reliable sources consider the OBHC to be notable.

There is substantial lack of clarity on the page with respect to the definition of 'wilderness therapy' and how it differs from 'adventure therapy'. This is relevant to POV because one editor has resisted definitions other than that "the vast majority of" wilderness therapy programs involve involuntary transport and human rights violations and that adventure therapy programs by definition do not, though this distinction is not supported by reliable sources.

The POV dispute has occasionally popped up in the past, and were removed because they were considered stale (not because the article improved):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilderness_therapy#Highly_Biased_Article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilderness_therapy#POV_issues

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilderness_therapy#Needs_editing_or_just_some_erasing. ParticipantObserver (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"More than 120,000 teens in the US enter behavioral modification programs"

"It was the beginning of 12 weeks in a wilderness therapy program, without a tent, a shower, or a toilet."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/15/wilderness-camp-for-my-own-good

"Much of Rowan’s therapy while at camp centered on her sexual orientation. She knew she was gay from a young age and had already come out to her family, who did not have an issue with the news. At WinGate, she was told her homosexuality was a sin, and that she needed to seek God. The camp was not religiously affiliated, but many of the staff were members of the Mormon church and even though WinGate claims to be a safe place for LGBTQ+ teens that does not tolerate microaggressions of any kind, some staff would project their beliefs on participants. Former participants explained that being assigned a therapist that was homophobic was simply a matter of random determination.As part of her therapy, Rowan was made to write an “accountability letter” to her parents which included explicit sexual details." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/14/us-wilderness-therapy-camps-troubled-teen-industry-abuse 1keyhole (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Huh? None of that says anything about the points I raised above or elsewhere. Yes, we all agree that some of the programs are abusive. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Though I'll point out again that the second source you provide above does describe the Outdoor Behavioral Health Council as a third party that "sets standards for accreditation, cost-benefit analysis, outcome-based research and risk management" and that that should probably be mentioned on the wilderness therapy page. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph you refering to states clearly that the Outdoor Behavioral Health Council is run by members of the industry and there for is not relible source.

"The article was so shocking that the wilderness therapy industry leaders gathered together to find ways to prevent more deaths, which is how the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Research Center (OBHC), the third-party monitor specific to the wilderness therapy field, was created. It sets standards for accreditation, cost-benefit analysis, outcome-based research and risk management."

WP:BIASEDSOURCES 1keyhole (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

As previously stated, The Guardian would be the source in this instance. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Wait the point of this converstation is that you wanted to improve naturality of article that's want you been wanting to dicuss for 3 days.

but now your wanting to add more about these behaviour modification wilderness therapy programs and the accrediation that is run by the people who work in the trouble-teen industry. 1keyhole (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, adding more information to the page would help improve the neutrality of the article, as described above. I think we should add text that is not solely describing criticisms and negative media coverage. Among many other things, this might include text re: the accreditation. The sources you keep pointing to suggest that the OBRC is notable as being an (unsuccessful?) attempt by the troubled teen industry to prevent more deaths. Idk why that can't or shouldn't be mentioned. ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

So because there preventing death that excuses child neglect conditions

"More than 120,000 teens in the US enter behavioral modification programs"

• It was the beginning of 12 weeks in a wilderness therapy program, without a tent, a shower, or a toilet."https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/15/wilderness-camp-for-my-own-good 1keyhole (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No one is attempting to excuse child neglect conditions. No one has disagreed that some of the programs are abusive and no one has disagreed with including a discussion of those abuses on the page. I do not understand what your stance is, and I do not understand what you are aiming to accomplish with these arguments.

It is a POV problem to only include sources that discuss child neglect and to exclude every other source as "COI" and "unreliable" simply because it doesn't focus on child abuse. The page should be built on reliable sources without improper synthesis. If you disagree with that, then I am sorry, because then I don't see a way to move forward here.

You started a discussion here on this noticeboard. Were you just asking for additional eyes on the discussion, or do you have a specific question/concern?

Are you opposed to the POV template being added to the article? What parts do you disagree with?

Invasive Spices (talk · contribs) added some text mentioning the OBRC accreditation. How is that new text excusing child neglect conditions?

Are you opposed to the addition of a 'History' section?

Are you opposed to the addition of a 'theories and techniques' section?

Are you opposed to the addition of some text describing the differences from traditional therapy?

If so, why?

Please, if you have a specific concern, explain what your concern is. I do not know your stance, except that you appear to want the page to solely discuss child abuse, which is not how an encyclopedic article should function. ParticipantObserver (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you opposed to the addition of a 'History' section?

Are you opposed to the addition of a 'theories and techniques' section?

Are you opposed to the addition of some text describing the differences from traditional therapy?

How are you going to write these when you haven't estblished what wilderness therapy is?

1keyhole (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"lack of clarity on the defination of Wilderness therapy programs" is on the list of issues that you seem to be combating. Yes, that should be one of the first things we tackle. The other things are also issues. Are you opposed, in principle, to these things? If not, why did you post on this noticeboard and request an RFC?

What is your specific concern, if you have one? Or is this an argument for the sake of argument? ParticipantObserver (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you rejecting the defination provided by both academic and media source that say wilderness therapy is a type of behavior modification program? 1keyhole (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I said anything to that effect. But that's not a full definition. Wilderness therapy is different from other programs aimed at modifying behavior. And you still have not stated your concern or your objection to the POV label. You just keep asking me questions or posting quotes about child abuse. Is this an argument for the sake of argument? ParticipantObserver (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You have been editing the article 4 years and have been stone walling for that long and failed find a defination or history in those 4 year.

Just accept the historic facts that wilderness therapy is a behavior modification program that came out of birgham young unviersity. 1keyhole (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I have not disputed the claim that wilderness therapy is a behavior modification program. That is not a full definition that distinguishes wilderness therapy from other behavior modification approaches. I haven't tried to add material about the history. As we previously discussed, my efforts over that time were primarily to remove unsourced or poorly sourced claims. I gather that you do not have a specific objection to the POV label. Correct? ParticipantObserver (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I have found Outdoor Behavioral Health Council, though reliable sources consider the OBHC to be notable. that ParticipantObserver talked about. I added[55] that briefly to the text. Invasive Spices (talk) 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

When I looked into this, I was struck by a disconnect between the media coverage and the peer-reviewed literature. The media is mostly covering clear instances of abuse; the peer-reviewed literature (especially the MEDRS-compliant meta studies) are mostly positive, with the exception of an almost universal opposition to the unethical US involuntary transport industry which is often connected to programs. It ends up that the peer-reviewed materials mostly look at the programs which are accredited and regulated, but in the US there is also a very large unregulated for-profit industry which are not allowing studies and do not report to central bodies, and those have some pretty horrible abuse cases associated with them. The difficulty for NPOV is ensuring that we use the MEDRS compliant literature but also clearly cover the abusive unregulated side of the industry. I've just come across some decent published articles which discuss both, so I hope that will help. If interested, one such was provided by 1keyhole here, which while a media article covers both the abuse in unregulated programs and raises a couple of success stories from the accredited side. It is a difficult topic, and it will be hard to get the coverage right. - Bilby (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to add According to the new york times back in 2005 there was between 140 and 300 unregulated programs

"The National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs lists 140 schools and programs, about 100 more than it listed in 1999. But educational consultants, who advise parents on these programs, say the total number of programs available is now closer to 300."

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/business/a-business-built-on-the-troubles-of-teenagers.html 1keyhole (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Minneapolis

In the article Minneapolis > Cuisine, is this image non-neutral content? Many sources, including the Minneapolis Star Tribune explain a 60-year-old rivalry between Matt's Bar and the 5-8 Club over invention of the Jucy Lucy. I feel picturing one bar and not the other is unfair, and that picturing both is too many dive bars. I would prefer no image, or a different image. Earlier, I failed to have the image replaced (I closed that RfC with WP:SNOW). This has been discussed on Talk:Minneapolis at length since it was introduced into the article on October 25. I will notify the editor who added the photo. Thank you for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion where User:SusanLesch claimed "this photo violates WP:NPOV" was at Talk:Minneapolis#Jucy Lucy. Other editors involved were User:The Banner and User:Bobamnertiopsis. My comment at that discussion was "First, the most recent photo choice was made by consensus at an RFC you initiated. Second...and let me get this straight...because there is a rivalry between these two restaurants about which one invented some greasy local cheeseburger, you feel it would be unfair to feature the photo of one restaurant over the other. Is this correct? Seriously?" Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not see how a one sentence mention of a cheeseburger variation requires a photo of a restaurant, especially if it creates a perception of non-neutrality. Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The plan was also to replace the photo with a poor picture of another restaurant where SusanLesch was working on. So the NPOV could also been seen as: I don't like photo A (the present one), refuse any alternatives (both competing restaurants) so let us replace it by a photo of another restaurant with doubtful notability or by a half eaten burger. The Banner talk 00:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The 5-8 Club was founded in 1928 as a speakeasy; it claims to be one of the creators of the Jucy Lucy cheeseburger.

Two notable restaurants, 5-8 Club and Matt's Bar, both claim to have invented the Jucy Lucy. The article currently displays an image of one of those restaurants, with the caption stating: "it claims to be one of the creators of the Jucy Lucy cheeseburger." How is this POV? Where in MOS:IMAGES does it say every notable building in a city must be included, lest someone's feeling be hurt? The current image was selected because of its relevance, as it should be. Moreover, the photo caption completely removes any hint of POV by acknowledging the burger feud, and that this is one of the claimants to its creation. A simple solution to this POV issue would be to remove that sentence from the caption.

A glance at Talk:Minneapolis shows many discussions between User:SusanLesch, myself, and others, regarding the content of the cuisine section. My editing of that section has primarily involved removing what appeared to be over-the-top puffery, and excessive details about Owamni, a restaurant where SusanLesch is top editor. Past discussions about photos of Owamni include:

• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 223#Minneapolis
• Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 8#Photo of restaurant kitchen
• Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#Photo of Owamni
• Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#Owamni continued again
• Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#Placeholder
• Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#Owamni/Fuji Ya exterior photos - SusanLesch announced that they had contacted the copyright owner for two photos of Owamni, and the copyright owner agreed to release them to Wikimedia. "These were the best I found out of about 2,000 images".
• Talk:Minneapolis#RfC: photo in the Cuisine section
• Talk:Minneapolis#Jucy Lucy

Magnolia677 (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Follow up on WP:DRN cited above -SusanLesch (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Owamni is a separate matter and your conclusions are wrong. You argue that James Beard's best new restaurant in the United States should not be pictured in Minneapolis, the birthplace of the American Indian Movement. I did not expand the Owamni article until after the RfC and after it was flagged {{Notability}}, {{POV}}, and {{Weasel}}. Then I "worked on" Owamni, incessant sparring continued there, and I became its top editor. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The Matt's Bar and the 5-8 Club feud is more than 60 years old. Wikipedia does no one a service by acting a scofflaw [56] on a non-negotiable policy: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.". To stop this battle, in fairness I prefer no image. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Using a feud to push your own agenda is also not appreciated. The Banner talk 17:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I waited for comment until this reached #10. Except for User:Magnolia677, we seem to have agreement on Minneapolis talk. Magnolia can you agree with User:Cullen328, User:The Banner, and me, and close this out before it scrolls away? Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure if there is consensus or that people just stopped responding to your non-committal. The Banner talk 13:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me, User:The Banner. My non-committal to what? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

To use discussion to come to a working consensus. The Banner talk 22:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In truth, except for one editor who sat out, the last three posts on Minneapolis talk came very close to consensus. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Philadelphia is fortunate that Pat's and Geno's are close enough to each other that you can get both in a single shot (see Philadelphia#Cuisine). Note that buildings are depicted, and not a cheesesteak. I don't think including one photo over another amounts to taking sides in a rivalry; the important question is what image (or images, if there's space), best represents cuisine in Minneapolis. There are other notable alternatives, such as Al's Breakfast or the Band Box Diner. Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Again my preference is for no photo. Cuisine became contentious and I'd rather not open new arguments. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

RFCs are supposed to settle issues like this. Continuing on with this after the RFC didn't go your way is starting to look disruptive. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Right User:MrOllie, I abide by the RfC's decision to not replace the photo with Owamni 100%. The present photo was added unilaterally by Magnolia on October 25. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

And the RFC has validated that and cemented it in place. It is time to accept that and move on. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the RfC did not ask or find that. However, as you say, it is time to move on. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

More (Polish-speaking) eyes needed at Falanga (organisation)

I just came across Falanga (organisation) in the new pages queue, and would appreciate if editors familiar with Polish and Polish sources could take a look at it. It cites a mountain of sources to substantiate various activities of the group in a manner that is likely WP:UNDUE but that I don't feel up to the task of assessing due to inability to assess sources involved. Given that the subject matter is an ultranationalist organization, it seems likely that this may have resulted in a WP:FALSEBALANCE situation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sources from Ivan Katchanovski and balance

Editors may be interested in the following discussion: Talk:Ivan_Katchanovski#Massive_removal_of_sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of critical content from Priyamvada Gopal

Could uninvolved editors please weigh in on this discussion around significant changes in the content of the Priyamvada Gopal article since protection was removed. The most significant diff is here and the relevant talk page section is here Talk:Priyamvada Gopal#Massive removal of content. The main NPOV issue I am raising is the ommission of notable, sourced material referencing controversies, although this is exacerbated by inclusion of non-notable, poorly sourced material about the subject's academic career and positions, and non-NPOV changes to the language. These can be seen by comparison with the more NPOV version of [page when protection was removed] (User talk:Samuelshraga) 14:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

There is also a case concerning this BLP at DRN. It appears that the issue was a removal of content by an editor who has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I think that this case can be closed here, either as resolved by blocking the disruptive sock, or as pending mediation at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Criticism at the Samvel Karapetyan article

Could someone uninvolved look at Talk:Samvel_Karapetyan_(author)#Libelous_claims and opine whether criticism could be included one way or the other? The disagreement has led to repeated reverts. My opinion is that scholar criticism is a natural biographical part of many scholars and researchers and that particularly in case of a wikinotable author, his peer criticism could be included in the biography of another peer researcher. Thanks in advance. Brandmeister^talk 10:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not even scholarly criticism of any of Karapetyan's work, it's more of De Waal having a different opinion. No other sources have made this criticism, so it is undue and potentially libelous. Also De Waal is just a journalist, he is no peer and has no qualifications to be critical of a respected researcher like Karapetyan. --Dallavid (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Porter and Jick letter

Three different users, including an admin, have reverted to an earlier version of Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics, for reasons which have nothing to do with content. [57] [58] [59] [60] I believe these reverts have removed important details and reintroduced structural issues with the article. They've also reintroduced wording about "Methodological limitations from which the letter suffered", almost implying that there was a problem with the letter itself, though the cited sources don't characterize it that way. Also, a partial quote at the end almost makes it sound like Jick was taking some blame for this, whereas the full quote in the cited source does not give that impression. All of this could be fixed just by undoing the last revert, which again had nothing to do with content. 81.0.64.6 (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

YOu need to make a case at the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Kenneth Roth

Would be helpful to have some outside eyes on Kenneth Roth#Remarks on Israel's policies / Talk:Kenneth Roth#Criticism and controversy bias. Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oregon Forest Resources Institute

Could a neutral third party please look at the Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) article, especially how the organization is described incorrectly at the top of the article as a "forestry trade association" and "de facto lobbying organization" to verify that this article appears to be written as an attack on OFRI from detractors of the Institute? I represent OFRI and therefore have a conflict of interest, but I believe the most recent editors of the page have a conflict of interest as well and have been citing selective details from several-years-old media coverage of the agency to paint it in a negative light. Take a look at the talk for more details about our concerns with the way this article about our organization is written. OreForests (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh

I would like to ask for third party opinions with regard to proper wording and attribution of statements by top officials of Azerbaijan and Russia. Please see here: [61], and relevant discussion here: [62] In my opinion, the statements of top state officials should simply be attributed to the persons who made them, without using non-neutral wording such as "alleged". Grandmaster 00:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• All countries and organizations stated for Azerbaijan to lift the blockade. Third-party WP:RS clearly stated that supplies are running low or either are entirely lost due to the blockade. HRW, referring to some media reports, said trucks allegedly containing humanitarian goods were allowed to pass. Red cross helped transport a patient / delivered medicine and baby food once (from article's sources), that's it.

So fringe, undue and extraordinary claims of Aliev ("about four hundred trucks of peacekeepers have passed through the corridor" / "Red Cross was granted permission to pass as many times as they asked") either stay as Aliev alleged (which is completely appropriate wording for this instance given Aliev's wild claims in contradiction to majority RS, countries and orgs) or don't stay in the article at all for violating WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, that's my view. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not undue or extraordinary, because in addition to reports in Azerbaijani media, there is plenty of video evidence of Russian supply convoys passing into Karabakh daily. Some examples: [63] [64] [65] Every day dozens of Russian supply trucks move via Lachin road in both directions. Some days the number of trucks reaches 50. Also, it is not up to us to evaluate veracity of statements of officials. It is a WP:OR. Statements must be presented with attribution, as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, without any POV language such as "alleged". Grandmaster 10:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I should also add that the use of words such as "alleged" is generally not recommended by MOS:ALLEGED. Grandmaster 11:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Do readers need disclaimers warning them that they're about to be linked to unreliable tweets? (Twitter Files)

See discussion at Talk:Twitter Files#Warning?. The discussion is about whether we should include a disclaimer when linking to the primary source tweets of the Twitter Files in the external links section, warning people that tweets are not reliable. Here's what the warning would look like. Endwise (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No. Taking that we expect editors to be competent, they can see the target of a link before clicking on it. And I would think it is not our place to necessarily say the links are not reliable at the point they are being clicks, particularly in the case of the Twitter Files, as they are a mix of truth (actual messages from past Twitter employees) and poor interpretation of what they mean.

If we start to do that for that, I can see us being dogpiled to do the same for opinion sources and the like. I think its better to just make sure the prose around the links to be clear what's going on. Masem (t) 03:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about an external links section here, so there would be no prose around the links. Endwise (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Posting this to two noticeboards at once looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

?? I posted the two notifications at the same time. How could I be looking for a different outcome? WP:ELN is probably more strictly relevant, but ELN is quite low traffic, and since it is also an NPOV issue, I posted it to both noticeboards. It's quite normal to advertise for participation at RfCs and other such discussions at more than one location. Endwise (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about many links all to unreliable sources many pushing conspiratorial political and medical claims. And the section head here is incorrect. They are links to biased commentary reading things into cherry-picked, internal conversations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added "unreliable tweets" to the header. Endwise (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliability is the wrong issue… in this case, the tweets are being linked as primary sources simply so readers can see the text of the original tweets - the subject of the article - in their original form. Linking to the tweets themselves is the MOST reliable way to do so.

Let me give an extreme example of a similar situation: in our article about Adolph Hitler’s book “Mein Kamph”, we might include a link to a scanned copy of that book (so readers can see what Hitler said in his own words). Now, we can certainly debate whether doing so is appropriate (or not)… but, if we do include it, then we want to do so directly, and NOT via a secondary source discussing that book. We want to take the middle-man out of the equation. The most reliable link is to the original.

So… We can debate the reasons why we should/should not include links to the original tweets but, in this situation, reliability is not one of those reasons. The most reliable link to ANY text is a link to the original text itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

These are NOT the original text in context. They are snipped pieces of corporate conversations. That is, edited. And. conspiratorial commentary has been added which is demonstrably false. This is more like taking small pieces of Mein Kampf out of context to make Hitler look like a sweet guy who just wanted to improve life. Remember the bulletin boards in Germany showing happy Jewish families in the relocation “communities”? Sorry, you brought up Hitler I'll say it again, "take the text out of context and you are left with a con." O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree… The “Twitter files” refers to a selected group of tweets… those presented (and edited) by Elon Musk. In other words… the subject of the article isn’t the internal communications, but rather MUSK’s tweets about selected internal communications at Twitter. His exposé. So the original text is whatever MUSK tweeted. That is what we are linking to. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

If the section ahead of the table of links actually went to explain, using RSes to back this up, that the Twitter Files are a specific narrow slice of the company's communication that appear selected to push a certain message, putting that in prose above the table, then you don't need to have the additional warning - you're using RSes to explain the caution readers should take on reading further. Masem (t) 17:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, as I've read, Musk only sent the various journalists the slices of communications and let the journalists write the narrative around it (likely with Musk's prodding at the implications). Musk talked about the tweets but did not actually reveal directly any "Twitter Files" himself, just advertised the published articles about the tweets when they came out and answered questions related to them from others. Masem (t) 17:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The info box points to the files. Why do we need 18 links (and growing) to twitter conspiracy threads with misleading titles? This isn't neutral or RS. We are in the business of information based on reliable secondary sources, not misinformation directed by one man supposedly gleaned from communications we (and reliable sources) are not allowed to see. Otherwise, we are simply aiding claims the FBI paid off Twitter, Twitter conspired with the government to block Covid information, (he also suggested Dr. Fauuci be prosecuted), Russia didn't interfere with our elections, etc. Reliable sources have not done this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no requirement to have a link in the infobox, since there's actually no single website that published the original stories. That would leave a section with appropriate prose warning that the information should not be taken as fact.

But that said, we do not put warnings about links to other organizations or websites which may have unreliable information when there is an actual existing website (eg take Alliance Defending Freedom as an example). If you make a starting point here, you create the slippery slope to apply everywhere, where it is better to establish why information provided by an EL may be questionable as determined by other RSes in the surrounding prose, and trust our readers are not taking these links in absence of the prose. Masem (t) 18:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

There is already a link in the infobox to a compendium of these links. The "surrounding prose" included "Russiagate lies", "Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary" with no explanation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing on our prose about that. Our surrounding prose in the lede next to the infobox is clear that the Twitter Files are very questionable about being legitimate. Masem (t) 19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It was at the very bottom, past the reflist and nowhere near our prose. That's why I felt it needed a warning. It has been removed during discussion. Here's a version before the removal:[66] O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so we're talking the actual titles of the published TF pieces. Which would be inappropriate to outright remove if the links were kept as those titles are part of the proper referencing for the links. But the prose that I was suggesting to be included prior to the table, to be clear that these are the original published stories but which are considered to be improper interpretation of the various events claimed to be described, would be the included prose to warn the reader w/o the need for a special warning box. Masem (t) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The compromise suggested (and rejected) was to change the warning box to an info box. It needs to stand out considering the length (which was continuing to increase). In any case, I don't think this increasing table belongs anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Prose ahead of the table would be sufficient as a warning/notice that the links in the table are the original published stories and should be taken as questionable. Masem (t) 20:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, everything about the both the titles and conclusions should be taken as wild conspiracy theories based on secret communications that reliable sources have not been allowed to see. I simply don't understand why an encyclopedia would link to such. Should we start linking to StormFront posts? Isn't the infobox link enough? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

To me, if we have an article about a specific article or articles from a source we'd normalky call unreliable but otherwise accessible, it is silly to not link to the specific stories, as to help readers that are furthering research on it. Of course, I would make sure that the reader is well aware of the RS view of the works, and common sense that by linking them in the context of discussing them directly that we are not necessarily promoting or supporting the material.

If we were talking an organization like Stormfrint or Libs of TikTok, where the story is on their general practice and not any one specific article, then it doesn't make sense to link to any specific article they have published. Masem (t) 14:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Not only are the readers unaware, some of the editors adding these are unaware. One states these "prove" FBI collusion with Twitter (indeed paying Twitter) to hide information from the public. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If an article is explicitly about a publication (whether it is a book, website, newspaper article, et cetera) a link to the publication is warranted as an external link. The specific example you're trying to use as a reductio ad absurdum is linked in its article: Stormfront (website) links to the hellhole in question right in the infobox. The Unabomber Manifesto, famously written by a murderer as an exhortation to overthrow civilization, has a link to Industrial Society and Its Future, hosted on the Washington Post's website, in the external links section. Mein Kampf has no less than eight links to different versions and translations. So does The Communist Manifesto – plus a link to a Wikisource page of the entire thing. It is hard to overstate how firmly our policies stand on the side of allowing readers to access the materials that we write articles about: it's the way an encyclopedia works. The singular exception I'm aware of is the now-defunct 8chan, where if I recall correctly the external link was removed due to the fact that people regularly spammed it with child pornography which would show up on the main page if you went there, i.e. the link was literally against the law to click. That is not the situation here. jp×g 08:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to join the discussion at Emrah Safa Gurkan page

Hi, we are engaged in a content dispute in the talk page of Emrah Safa Gürkan article. It is a relatively obscure page; that's why I wanted to publicize the discussion. Thank you. Man-at-Bogomil (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

How should the Preamble to the United States Constitution be neutrally presented?

I am trying to make Constitution of the United States § Preamble more neutral and concise. I am concerned that the current version has an unencyclopedic tone and omits some relevant information, as I've discussed at length at Talk:Constitution of the United States § Flowery, biased, and factually incorrect. I have proposed making the following change:

Current

Proposal

Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States". This echoes the Declaration of Independence. "One people" dissolved their connection with another, and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".

Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States", echoing the Declaration of Independence in its claim to speak for all Americans. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold: "to form a more perfect Union" and to "secure the blessings of liberty", though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I.

Penlite and Dhtwiki have rejected this proposal because one of the cited sources is biased, but I don't think that should be grounds for rejection, especially when it's not the only source for the information. Looking for an outsider well-versed in Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines to weigh in.      — Freoh 19:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article but isn't this really a question about sourcing? And about interpretation rather than presentation? They don't seem that much different except for the part at the end of the second one. If that part is common in reliable sources I don't see a problem in including it. I guess that part is interpretation rather than merely conveying only what it says. Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead? I posted here because Penlite was repeatedly citing WP:NPOV as his rationale, and WP:RS/N has already confirmed the reliability of the source.      — Freoh 20:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Everybody says POV when they don't like something, but NPOV is ultimately a question of what's in the sources, isn't it? On balance. I was trying to figure out what the request is really about, if it is "just" a content dispute between several editors and it can't be sorted out, then maybe an RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. To be honest, I'm also trying to figure out what the request is really about. I was trying to understand Penlite's NPOV rationale, but he disengaged before we could reach a consensus. I'll post an RfC if people here think that this isn't a neutrality issue. Thanks!      — Freoh 21:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

At the article talk page, not here :) Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "biased" source must be Howard Zinn's book, although Freoh doesn't make that clear. That's not the only basis for objecting. In Freoh's version, such phrases as "in its claim to speak for all Americans" and "though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I" spend a lot of time pointing out how hypocritical the preamble seems to people today, which should be understood or deserves a separate article. Also, the proposed version, while admirably concise in some respects, leaves off the helpful demonstration of the need for "a more perfect Union" arising from the flawed "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that this deserves a separate article, as POV forks are not neutral. I was thinking that the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation was clear enough in context, given that this is discussed at length in Constitution of the United States § Articles of Confederation. How would you prefer it to be worded?      — Freoh 20:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The end of the proposed change/version sounds like a POV created angle rather than straightforward coverage of the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by a POV created angle? Are you saying that the contradiction between liberty and slavery is just an opinion? How would you prefer to word it?      — Freoh 23:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: Essentially, yes. Whether it's a justified opinion is irrelevant. No one gets to add one specific viewpoint about the failings of the Constitution to the lead. To give you an example that I hope makes the issue clear: imagine if a conservative user added "though this contradicts the legal restrictions on the right to bear arms" and then cited something like Kopel, Gallant, Eisen. Human Rights and Gun Confiscation. Obviously that would be inappropriate, right? I would oppose that change, and I oppose this one for the same reasons. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to add it to the lead, and I don't understand the comparison. Your example is about legislation that arguably acts against constitutional principles. I'm talking about a contradiction (between liberty and slavery) solely within the U.S. Constitution, one which reliable sources describe directly as a contradiction. Isn't this within the scope of the article?      — Freoh 09:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the answer is to think of it as two separate sections (I am intentionally not visiting the actual article), the first section would be the presentation of what it actually says (per sources/quotes) and a second section devoted to interpretation/implications etc (also per sources and respecting DUE), I am sure the slavery thing is not the only issue and if it is, then there ought to be sources saying that, apart from that, everything else is rosy. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Moot

 – Allreet just overhauled this section, so the issues have changed.      — Freoh 18:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Freoh: What issues remain for the Preamble sub-section? As I just posted on your Talk page, I'm still fine tuning the wording and may add another thought or two but nothing major. Others are of course welcome to pitch in, including changes to what I've written.

I wholeheartedly agree with @North8000 on the need for "straightforward coverage", which to me means focusing on mainstream secondary sources. To that I'll add that our "filter" should also be the needs of our audience. IOW, we're not helping anyone if we belabor details that are well-sourced but go beyond the scope of why people come here to learn.

On that last point: The sub-sections on the Constitution's Articles that follow are under-sourced. While I think the basic information outlined is good, in the interest of readers, that's not true of the forays in constitutional law and the attendant history. IMO such discussions belong elsewhere, either in another article or a separate section. Allreet (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I've already made some changes to what you've written and replied to you on my talk page. I don't have any more complaints after that last conflict of interest is resolved. Your recent edit warring has reintroduced neutrality issues. Please stop.      — Freoh 01:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: I've added sources to supplement the existing Congressional Research Service sources you dispute. On further reflection, I disagree that the Service's published statements constitute a Conflict of Interest, though I have no problem providing more sources. In any case, as best as I can tell, WP:COI does not apply here.

Meanwhile, you've added the same footnote to the word "liberty" in two places in the Preamble subsection with citations linked to Critical Race Theory sources. This seems to be Citation Overkill so one of the two needs to be removed. Allreet (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The citations are not repeated, so I don't see how this is "needless repetition".      — Freoh 01:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: What is your rationale for applying the same footnote to the same word in multiple places? To quote David Byrne, "Say something once. Why say it again?"

And as I've requested before, please ping me when replying to my comments. It's a requirement of the noticeboard (see the guidelines at the top) and it's good form on regular talk pages as well. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

​I was thinking that it could be useful to put it in both places because the context is different (one in a quote, the other in wikivoice), but you can remove the second one if you'd like.      — Freoh 22:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The first doesn't belong in the quote. You've soiled it. Affected people's reading experience by interrupting it with your political POV.

The second may just be a first in publication history. Publishing the same explanatory note twice for the same word in the same section.

Ridiculous. Allreet (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

​Could you explain how it's soiled? How is it a political POV that slavery was constitutionally protected?      — Freoh 12:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote, the most iconic passage of the Constitution, should stand on its own without interruption so that people can read it on their own, entertain their own thoughts, and reach their own conclusions. That's not possible with a note in the middle of the quote, one that introduces a political theory of a highly controversial nature. That's going to stop most readers in their tracks, even those who are amenable to those views, myself included. That should answer both your questions. Allreet (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

​How does the current version make it impossible for people to read it on their own, entertain their own thoughts, and reach their own conclusions? Wikipedia guidelines encourage us to favor secondary sources over primary sources, and I still don't see evidence that anything I added is highly controversial.      — Freoh 19:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You're in the middle of a dispute over neutrality, and your use of sources has been questioned. Then you apply a source on a controversial theory to one of the least contentious sections of the Constitution. Would you think it innocent if someone did the same to Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? I think you're being disingenuous. Allreet (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Answering the question put to me, the statements in the constitution are general and need context (including the norms of the time) to know their intended meaning, and also include even more general goals (e.g. liberty) . You can interpret ANY power given to the government over people as a conflict with the goal of liberty. Also you can interpret allowance of any forcing by one individual over another as a conflict with the goal of liberty. Criticizing it as self-conflicting based on such thought processes is a POV argument rather than straightforward coverage of the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Request for inputs @ Talk:Islamic feminism

Request for inputs @ Talk:Islamic feminism#Strange content deletion summary

Bookku (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)