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

Former Ladies of the Supremes

I’ve seen this article with issues. I fixed the article to show like an encyclopedic article, but it seems like it doesn’t look like one, instead of looking like a fanbase wrote the full article. The article is not in chronological order; Before it had “Keeping The Musical Playing - Musical Highlights” and “Forty Years Later - Fantasy Becomes Reality”, I fixed those two sections. I recently put a POV template in the biography section because of all this, and removed “exit member, enter member” because it did not look like anything that belonged in the article. Yes, people should know the members who left and entered (replaced), but I had to merge all of them. Other sections are highlighting their performances, which is really not necessary for anything that is on Wikipedia. So, I wanted to put this on the noticeboard because this article has been poorly written since the past 10 years. I recently replied to a old comment from 15 years ago.Oldschoollover24 (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I sort of had cleaned up the article a little bit, but I will review it later and come back to add refs. Binksnternet had cleaned up the article, and I had cleaned it up multiple times before they did. I still need help for cleanup. Oldschoollover24 ( chat with me ) 23:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Aucayacu massacre

This may not be the appropriate board for this, but it's probably as good as any. This article needs more help than I can give it, ideally from someone Peruvian. For three months it said that MRTA carried out this massacre, I changed it back to Shining Path, but perhaps I'm wrong. Really it needs someone who speaks Spanish (I don't) and knows the subject matter (I kind of do) to go through all the references and see which claims can actually be verified by the sources. Prezbo (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Participation request: talk:Donald Trump#Fascism

There's a discussion on the Donald Trump talk page at which editors seem to want more participation. The thread concerns a proposal to include article content related to recent media and expert discussion of Trump's rhetoric and plans for his forthcoming reinstatement as POTUS. It would be especially helpful if some editors would volunteer to read the various sources cited and linked in that thread. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

In agreement, more input from more editors is required. I fear the discussion there, is deterioating. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Tunisians and Tunisian Arabic

These articles are constantly being raided by the same editor "Skitash" with a panarabist political opinion who tries to paint everything about the country as arab or islamic as possible (removing anything saying the population is of berber ancestry, deleting elements that mention the multicultural aspect of the country, trying to portray tunisian arabic as much as possible just as a dialect and nothing more to it etc...)

I don't exactly know how to deal with these kind of edit wars, the editor seems to have started his work since 2 years ago and targets tunisian pages with the same pattern of article modification.

Could you help ?

Thank you Asmodim (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

He starded doing that this year and not 2 years ago* Asmodim (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Baselessly labelling me as a Pan-Arabist or Islamist is nothing more than a personal attack. I am unsure what "raiding" you're referring to, but I'm guessing that, in your perspective, raiding means reverting your unsourced edits[1] and your unexplained content removals[2]. I find it bizarre that you blatantly delete sourced content[3] just because you don't like it while accusing other editors of POV-pushing. Clearly, you have not discussed any issue with me. All you have done was open a discussion[4] personally attacking any editors that have made constructive edits to the article in the past few years. According to your argument, it appears that you object to a sentence involving "purely Arab settlement," being in the body of the article, even though it is supported by credible sources. This clearly sounds like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Please set your baseless accusations aside and provide me with any revisions that, in your view, point to any "raiding" carried out by either myself or other editors. Skitash (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Asmodim also filed a request at DRN, making the same statement about User:Skitash, a few minutes after filing this report here. This was forum shopping. I closed the DRN request because this case was also pending here. User:Asmodim has now been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. When they come off block, they should try editing collaboratively rather than forum shopping and edit-warring at the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Is a lengthy description of a fictional portrayal undue?

I am reviewing Besitos,[5] and I want to get an outside opinion on a specific section. The text below describes events from an episode of Selena: The Series. Is including a lengthy description from this biographical drama, giving undue weight to what would ordinarily not be a reliable source?

When Selena failed to show up for a recording session, A. B. became upset and confronted her about it. Selena explained that she had been working tirelessly to develop the band's aesthetic for the album, hoping that it would attract attention from prospective buyers. This led to a disagreement between the two regarding their respective priorities. Selena made amends by reassuring A. B. that she would quickly record "Besitos" to make time to visit a fabric store before it closed. She achieved this by rapidly singing the song from its original downtempo version. A. B. appreciated this new approach and instructed keyboardist Vela (Hunter Reese Peña) to develop a faster tempo inspired by Selena's interpretation of the song.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It does feel undue. It's about the episode not the song, as the episode is a dramatised version of what happened not a documentary about it's creation, and it could although it is introcuded as being about the episode it could easily be mistaken as statements not fact by someone skimming the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Azores edits about sustainability

Can I get some eyes on the article Azores please? Latest edit. I am the only one reverting this IP and would like another set of eyes so I don't feel like I'm edit warring. Talk page discussion at Talk:Azores#EarthCheck Sustainable Destination. Choosing NPOVN since the PAG in question here is probably WP:UNDUE. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

POV claims

Article: Revolution of Dignity Talk section: Talk:Revolution of Dignity#POV_claims

Diffs: "Russia had put pressure on Ukraine to reject it." -> "Russia pressured Ukraine to reject it, while providing a $15 billion loan and a 1/3rd reduction in gas prices."

My edit was removed for POV. After I started a new section in talk, one person (@Rsk6400) who did so retracted their claim immediately (the other person (@Czello) did not respond to the new section. I pinged them). This means, the purpose of this dispute had been solved immediately, but, that editor did not grant consensus and instead, told me to summarize 3 books that another editor posted on the topic (which is where the problem lies - explained later on). The edit I tried to make provides a factual account of the sources currently in the wiki article. Sources who cover this topic always state two things simultaneously:

1. That the EU deal was refused by Ukrainian leaders (primarily Yanukovych), because Russia pressured them to do so via multiple methods. This is represented in the lead.

2. Russia offered them, from the leaders' perspective, a better deal than the EU. Which was a 15 billion loan and a 1/3rd reduction in gas prices. This is not represented in the lead.

The reason sources cover both factors, is because both factors are the multi pronged approach that led up to the refusal of the EU deal. Listing only one of those factors, does not provide a proper account and hence, misleads people. Which is why the sources we have referenced in the wiki article do so simultaneously. 4 editors in the dispute do not provide consensus for this edit because they've made it conditional on me summarizing 3 books that @Manyareasexpert has referenced. So this edit is not disputed, all editors agree to its accuracy, but, my problem is that this conditionality is irrelevant to my edit, and completely unreasonable to force me to do that for them so that they would then allow me to insert a factual, undisputed, mainstream, account of history. If they would like to summarize these books, I welcome it. There is no resistance or pushback from me. But, I am not interested in this task. What I ask is that anyone who is willing, to go over to the talk page, and voice your support by saying that consensus should be granted, or even if not, that it should not be conditional on the summary of 3 books which have nothing to do with my edit. Thank you. RBut (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering your question yesterday. A few things though:

1) I never edited the article itself;

2) I do not object to including the 15 billion and gas thing in the body if it's clear it was part of the pressure moscow was exerting on Ukraine;

3) where did you get 'him' for me?—blindlynx 20:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It's already in the the body, several times. It's mentioned in the source used for the lead too (27th reference). The lead mentions one part of why Ukraine refused EU's deal, one of which was pressure from Russia, the other part is not mentioned, which is the deal that Russia offered. The 27th reference within the same paragraph, talks about the deal. So that source is referenced for the first part (the pressure), then that source should be referenced for the second part which it mentions in the same paragraph (the deal). That's what my edit adds in. It adds in the second part, or the deal, which is mentioned in the same paragraph of that source. The lead has to mention both of these. This deal is also mentioned in the body several times, hence it follows MOS:LEAD standards. So this is in line with the wiki article, and with the sources that are referenced in the article (including sources referenced by @Manyareasexpert which are not in the wiki article). RBut (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The protests and revolution started because Yanukovych abruptly refused the EU deal not because of the gas deal—blindlynx 21:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

He refused the EU deal because of pressure and a better deal from their perspective, that Russia offered. This is why you should have been involved in this discussion from the start if it is of interest to you since this is way off topic again and not where we are at. You are making me repeat everything that we have already discussed.

The 27th reference in the wiki article is used for the first part of this (the pressure), and within that same paragraph, it states the second part (the deal): "...a $15 billion loan offered by Russia unconditionally". So there's two parts to this, only one part is mentioned in the lead (the pressure). This is what I am trying to add (the deal). But consensus is not given to me by any of the 4 editors (you included) because I refuse to summarize 3 books that another editor (@Manyareasexpert) has referenced. How does that seem like a reasonable request to you? It is unrelated to this dispute. I am in complete disbelief that editors are allowed to hold an edit hostage with something like that, how can I not view this as bad faith? And I have posted this here because I am looking for support, for people to say that consensus should have been granted long ago, that it should not be conditional on that unrelated task. RBut (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Look that lead is already bloody long and it needs to be paired down if anything, i don't think that the gas deal is directly relevant enough to the revolution as a whole to be included in the lead. You are welcome to try and convince others—blindlynx 17:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Right now the lead says that the EU deal was refused because of pressure, but that is only one part. The 13 extra words in the lead (loan + gas deal) are required to portray the second part the EU deal was refused. This is what all the sources covering this say, including reference 27 in the lead which is referenced for the first part (it even says this in the same paragraph. So there are two parts to this. We cannot only provide one part). RBut (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Free Palestine (phrase)

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

---

I won't edit the article directly, because I don't want to get anywhere close to an edit war. However, well, read the article.

During the British Mandate of Palestine the phrase was a call to end the British rules of the Land of Israel and the creation of a Jewish state on the land. (There is nothing else in the lede.)

The phrase, however is also highly critized as it calls for the murder of all Jews currently in Israel. Wikivoice? etc, etc.

The article was previously created by a non-EC user, which I nominated for db-gs speedy deletion, which was then carried out. This time round, the creator User:Galatz is EC, but the article is honestly worse. I'm putting this here on first instance because I have no desire to get into a long tp argument on Israel/Palestine matters, and editors more motivated than I will have eyes on this noticeboard. Fermiboson (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Palestine (phrase). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Who knew? :) Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Article is deleted, so this can be filed. Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Eyes on Falafel

Yes, it's true. Apparently Falafel is a controversial subject. I recently stumbled into this by removing what seemed to me like an UNDUE political statement that was COATRACK for the article topic. But this was challenged here with a claim that it was granfathered consensus in the page.

Could we have some more eyes on this page to get opinions on this? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, an editor is removing well sourced material that has been there for over a decade that directly discusses the topic of the article without discussion. More eyes would be lovely. nableezy - 20:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand this "been in an article for a decade" argument. What wikipedia policy does it draw upon? eyal (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:EDITCON, but also this relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area and only extended-confirmed editors may participate. nableezy - 23:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess at this point WP:5P3 has become just a branding slogan eyal (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an essay, but WP:UNCHALLENGED is on topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

A POV fork of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was created. Other wars don't have "children in... x" articles. Polygnotus (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

At AfD, nominated by yourself? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Indeed. Is that a problem? I figured it should be mentioned here because it is a POV fork. Polygnotus (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

According to you. If it is at AfD it doesn't need to be here as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy." Polygnotus (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If the problem is NPOV why nominate it for AfD? Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Because I do not think the POV problems can be fixed by rewriting/improving the article. I think the topic of the article makes it inherently POV. Whatever content is salvageable should be merged, and the article should be deleted. Polygnotus (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Then make that argument at AfD. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I did, didn't I? Polygnotus (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, just close this, waste of time. Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Then move on. Polygnotus (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Political positions of Javier Milei — Environment and climate change

TLDR: Should the undermentioned content be restored at Political positions of Javier Milei?

While this dispute is by no means limited to a single section, I will start with this. There has been a discussion between @Pedantic Aristotle and I at Talk:Political positions of Javier Milei. Unfortunately, the discussion has been only between them and I, so I hope that we can get some imput from one or more third-party users. I think this is the appropriate noticeboard, since Pedantic Aristotle argued: "To include such paragraphs will only be attributed to political activism, it does not follow WP:NPOV guidelines, and derails the discourse from the actual content of this article, which are specific political policies, and views on government affairs." Obviously I disagree, and I think it is an NPOV violation not to discuss something that has been widely covered by reliable sources (e.g. from the Associated Press: "He believes selling human organs should be legal, climate change is a 'socialist lie,' sex education is a ploy to destroy the family and that the Central Bank should be abolished."). They also think these are not political positions (obviously they are in my view and have been reported as such by reliable sources), even though this is clearly discussed in other articles, such Political positions of Donald Trump. This is what the removed section about Milei's views on climate change and the environment had to say:

A climate change denier, Milei rejects the existence of global warming, contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change, and attributes it to a socialist invention; he said that concerns about climate change are nothing more than "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists". Despite his past comments that global warming is a hoax, Marcia Levaggi, a veteran climate diplomat, said in December 2023 that she has the full support of Milei's government, stating that Argentina would stay in the Paris Agreement and keep its commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050 under Milei. Levaggi also said that the Ministry of the Environment would be eliminated as part of a promised effort to shrink the government and "distributed among different ministries".

References

They removed this section arguing: "lets wait for more specific sources from Milei instead, this could be more relevant to policies under the government, or his presidency. its not clear if these are Mileis positions to stay in the paris agreement, or this is related to a larger political program." Obviously, they are relevant in my opinion, secondary reliable sources are preferred over primary ones, and the same reliable source (Reuters) explicitily cited Milei's past climate change denialist comments, which are important for context if we must have such a section. I think this should be restored (its wording can be copy-edited, more sources be added, etc.) and WP:PRESERVE be applied. The bolded part was added by me in an attempt to compromise with them, since they said they see "political positions" to mean those related "specific political policies, and views on government affairs", with the bolded part fitting that, yet they still removed the sourced content.

In conclusion, to reiterate: should the aforementioned content be restored? Or were their arguments for removal valid? Davide King (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned, I don't see how opinions on climate change can be a political position, since its an environmental phenomenon. Environmental policies would be political positions. I support the inclusion of opinions on climate change in the right context if there is a relevant policy being discussed, as was done in a statement like this;

"Argentina under incoming President Javier Milei will remain part of the Paris Agreement on climate change, the country's new top climate diplomat told Reuters on Sunday, despite the leader's past comments that global warming is a hoax."

I've opposed adding it as stand-alone or an extended elaboration as proposed, since such elaboration would not be relevant for a political position article, but may be relevant for other articles. Since there was ongoing discussions about this in the talk page, and the proposed paragraph was mainly focused on Marcia Levaggi, instead of Milei, I reverted the paragraph while working towards consensus or waiting for something more suitable to be added.

The key question is if including opinions on environmental phenomena is NPOV when listing a presidents political positions; "A climate change denier, Milei rejects the existence of global warming, contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change, and attributes it to a socialist invention". I believe it would violate NPOV guidelines quite severely to include it this way, but it could be included in various contexts if relevant to the topic, e.g. to contrast the position on the Paris Agreement, sections on media coverage, a section about his rhetoric and so on. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Can we please get a third-opinion view? Pinging these who have recently replied to one of the threads here, such as @ActivelyDisinterested, @BD2412, @Coretheapple, @Jimcastor @Masem, @Nableezy, @Selfstudier, and @SPECIFICO, but anyone is welcome. Davide King (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I would not restore the bolded text as it is far too close a paraphrase to the Reuters source. On its subject, I do not think there we can draw a clear distinction between political positions of an individual and the political actions of their government, at the very least they contextualize each other and sources are likely to compare them (as Reuters does). On the question of whether Environmental matters belong in political positions, in general they definitely do, as do demographic matters, military matters, cultural matters, etc. In this specific case, the views seem to overlap with not only his time as a political pundit, but also with his time as a legislative candidate/legislator. On the unbolded sentence Pedantic Aristotle notes above, there are some ways in which it is not as encyclopaedically written as it could be. I would remove "contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change", which does not add much understanding and thus reads as quite pointy. "A climate change denier, Milei rejects the existence of global warming" is also entirely redundant, saying the same thing twice, which may also read as pointy. CMD (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@CMD, thanks for your response. It is written that way so that we can have relevant links for the reader, such as Climate change denial and Scientific consensus on climate change. Also the wording used here is not different from that of other relevant articles, such as Political positions of Donald Trump or at Jair Bolsonaro.

Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, repeatedly contending that global warming is a "hoax". He has said that "the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive", a statement which Trump later said was a joke. It was also observed that he often conflates weather with climate change.

Bolsonaro rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. He repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the Paris Agreement during his campaign.

We could just have "climate change denier" or simply say that Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, if that would be less pointy; it is, however, well in line with hwo the issue has been described in other relevant articles. Reliable sources have widely reported on Milei's statements that climate change is "a socialist lie" and the like. So how do you suggest we word it?
Davide King (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Putting "scientific consensus" in the same sentence segment is better than having it in its own segment, if that is the way you wish to go. I don't think the socialist lie part is an issue, although reading again is a socialist lie the same as a deception by neo-Marxists? They feel similar. There is no need to force wikilinks in if they don't naturally work, but if you think they are important, and assuming socialists are neo-Marxists for Milei, perhaps "Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change; he said that concerns about climate change are nothing more than "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists". CMD (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That would be fine, @CMD. The only reason I used that wording was also to avoid WP:NOPIPE and for transparency/precision, e.g. it may not be clear where exactly "rejects" link to. But linking issues aside, your suggested wording is fine. The reason why I put both "socialist lie" and "deceptions by neo-Marxists" is that the first can be considered a form of conspiracy theory about climate change, while the latter can also be put the context of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (according to reliable sources I have read, neo-Marxism is considered an euphemism for Cultural Marxism, since the way it is used it has nothing to with actual neo-Marxism), of which Milei has been described as promoting.

That is another section that was removed. Again, Political positions of Donald Trump include Trump's birtherism conspiracy theories about Obama, so the question to ask is this: should Milei's promotion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory have its own section (like with Trump and birtherism) or should be merged into the "Education" section? Indeed, apparently the other user (Pedantic Aristotle) and I had reached a compromise about having the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory mentioned in the "Education" section, since that is the way Milei sees it, yet they removed it on the grounds that they were "some controversial additions. also make sure the article focus on the political positions, we have a dedicated article for public perception, to keep things on topic". As I said, mention of conspiracy theories, which are often political in outlook, have been routinely discussed in such articles. The only disagreement should be on which wording to use and how to word it, rather than whether it belongs to; per reliable sources, it clearly belongs and is something that has been significantly discussed. To semi-quote ActivelyDisinterested, "Cultural Marxism shouldn't be a political position, but politicians have made it a political position." Davide King (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Climate change shouldn't be a political position, but politicians have made it a political position. Inclusion of a politicians position of such matters is not NPOV, neither is having a section for it an NPOV matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, indeed that is also what I said that climate change "shouldn't be a political position, but politicians have made it a political position". Yet I do not understand your next statement of why "inclusion of a politicians position of such matters is not NPOV, neither is having a section for it an NPOV matter." If reliable sources widely reported the topic, the real NPOV violation is not including something that has been deemed by reliable sources a "significant view". This is also well in line with how we have covered the issue with other politicians.
Davide King (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I meant the opposite, but was thinking about the policy while typing. To not include the section would go against NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that inclusion of the position and having a section for it are inline with NPOV policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @ActivelyDisinterested, that makes more sense. :-)
I found your quote very interesting, and I think that could also be applied to "Cultural Marxism" (another issue), what do you think? That was also removed on the grounds that these were "some controversial additions. also make sure the article focus on the political positions, we have a dedicated article for public perception, to keep things on topic", even though I thought we had reached a compromise in having that discussed within the context of "Education" rather than "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", which the other user opposed on similar grounds for climate change. I think WP:PRESERVE applies and I believe that sourcing is good enough. The wording could be improved but I see no reason to remove it outright.
Davide King (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, regarding "Climate change shouldn't be a political position, but politicians have made it a political position."

This seems to be a common interpretation by editors here. But, we are also entering a significant fork in the road on NPOV, either it means there is an established Truth with consensus amongst editors on Wikipedia that should be supported, and the role of Wikipedia is to educate the readers and inform them about these evil politicians, or NPOV means Wikipedia does not engage in this discussion, and simply lists relevant information.

By including opinions on topics unrelated to political positions, because we believe politicians have made them into political positions, we are in fact engaging in this very discussion, and going for the former definition. Alternatively, this information is only listed as contextual information, for relevant positions on the environment, the difference is subtle but fundamentally important.

The larger topic on rethoric etc, can easily be included in other ways, which does not establish The Truth for the readers.

This is a much larger problem than what people here think it is, with significant consequences for how Wikipedia is edited. If the definition is in fact the former, Wikipedia should probably abandon the goal of NPOV, and instead pursue a consensus based opinion.

cc: @ActivelyDisinterested @Chipmunkdavis @Davide King Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I will just say it is not us who have made them political positions. It is reliable sources themselves that discuss it within that context. For example, we do not discuss the climate change views of Donald Trump because we feel they are a political position or to provide some WP:TRUTH. We do so because reliable sources consider them political positions and have widely reported them that not including them violates WP:NPOV. Milei's views on this have also been widely reported. These are just my two cents. Davide King (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we should include those with attribution in e.g. public image. Anything else would be to transfer those opinions to become Wikipedia's opinion. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

For reference, some sources that do not support the definition of climate change being a political position;

UN on climate change; https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change

BBC on climate change; https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24021772

Oxfords definition of Political; https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/political?q=political

Cambridges definition of Political; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/politics-political-politician-or-policy Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course, climate change is not per se a political position, since it simply "describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its effects on Earth's climate system". Yet it is clearly relevant to politics and government as both the UN and BBC sources report, thus supporting what @ActivelyDisinterested, @CMD, and I wrote.

• The BBC article literally includes a section titled "What are governments doing about climate change?", while the UN says: "Climate action requires significant financial investments by governments and businesses." Additionally, the dictionaries definition respectivaly says politics "means the activities of the government or people who try to influence the way a country is governed" and "connected with the state, government or public affairs". So where is the issue?
• Finally, both linked articles report that "recent climate change has been caused by human activity, mainly the widespread use of fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - in homes, factories and transport", and that "since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas."
• Milei rejects this consensus on climate change, calling it "a socialist lie" and linking it to "Cultural Marxists / neo-Marxists", thus making even more relevant to politics, since Milei himself linked climate change to politics with his "socialist lie" and "Cultural Marxists / neo-Marxists" comments.

What more is needed to see this as the obvious? Davide King (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Just include content related to what Milei thinks the governments should do about climate change, and its clear as day. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What about those who think the government should do nothing about climate change because it is "a hoax" or "a socialist lie"? That is still a position, whether you like it or not. Also Wikipedia is based around independent secondary sources, and an article about the politicial positions of a politician should not be a mere list of what he or she said but should reflect how these independent secondary sources have covered him. If they covered him as a climate change denier, we explain why using what those sources said, or what Milei said, and his eventual response or denial that he is a denier. But it is relevant to his positions. Davide King (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if there is a source that actually states the position as the government should do nothing about climate change, or equivalents, it should be included under "Environment" as the source states. For Milei I did not see such a source yet, the only source I read is that his government supports the Paris agreement. Then we can include the comment on global warming being a hoax to balance that as Reuters did, since its a relevant context. Just needs to be done in the right order, as the right order would be perfect NPOV, and simultaneously convey the same content. Win-win. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Environment positions are defacto political positions and are commonly included as such in other articles.
The article subject is "Political positions of Javier Milei" not just the government header by Javier Milei political positions, so anything relevant to the political position of Javier Milei is appropriate to be in the article. If you want an article about only the position of the government he is currently leader I suggest you start a new article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No disagreement here, I don't think it contradicts my proposals. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No what I'm saying is that the environment section should be returned to the article, there is no need to have a source that actually states the position as the government should do nothing about climate change, because the article is not about the government run by Milei but the political positions of Milei himself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, what i meant was that we need a source that confirms what political positions Milei has on this topic, i.e. what his opinion is on government affairs related to the environment. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

So do you, @Pedantic Aristotle, agree that the section should be restored? Because now we have two third opinions supporting we restore that (@ActivelyDisinterested and @CMD, with the latter also giving us some advices on how to improve the wording but still agreeing that it should be restored). Both also seem to agree with my argument that this is indeed a political position and that climate change is something that can be discussed in an article about the positions of a politician, if reliable sources have significantly covered it, which is clearly the case.
Finally, as Actively Disintered said, we do not need "a source that confirms what political positions Milei has on this topic, i.e. what his opinion is on government affairs related to the environment" because "the article is not about the government run by Milei but the political positions of Milei himself", and reliable sources have significantly covered Milei's comments denying climate change. Davide King (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

We all agree there is a difference between government policy, and political positions, and we all agree that climate change is relevant to politics, and I have no problem including a section on Environment, thats not the topic of discussion. We also seem to agree that climate change is not a political position in itself.

How then do we create a section on Environment? We need sources that mentions his political positions related to the environment first, no? After that we can include it in the article, and we can add contextual information as Reuters did. The comments from @ActivelyDisinterested and @Chipmunkdavis has not really addressed this issue.

The article should front and center be about the positions, the moment we start filling this article with political discussions and controversies, we are engaging in a debate we should be no part of. To help the process move along, how about

we include something like this?

== Environment ==

Javier Milei will keep Argentina in the Paris Agreement on climate change. This stance contrasts with his earlier comments that global warming is a hoax. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I prefer using a clearer chrological order (e.g. he first made his climate denying comments) but we can simply reverse that. I oppose to the removal of Milei's characterization of climate change as "a socialist" lie" or that he rejects the scientific consensus of climate change; we should give context, and since it is about Milei's political positions, it is relevant that we include what Milei has said about the issue, as reported by reliable sources. It is also not a given that "Javier Milei will keep Argentina in the Paris Agreement on climate change", and that is the part that CMD had some issues with; I had added it as a compromise to have the section restored. Davide King (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so its tricky in every direction. It would be helpful to have sources elaborating on his Environmental positions, that would make things easier.

Things like "a socialist lie" etc is more related to rhetoric and criticism of socialists, than anything else. "Rejects the scientific consensus of climate change", i would include with attribution in public image, assuming the sources say that directly. I find them notable topics related to his character and persona at least.

What is unclear, is what is the purpose of including them as a political position? The notability is related to the statements themselves, not because they are notable political positions, i don't think they even are political positions to begin with.

When reading about political positions, I assume a reader would be looking for positions, rather than a list of controversial statements. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Colombo, Sylvia (9 December 2023). "'From horrible to merely bad': will Javier Milei take his chainsaw to the environment in Argentina?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 December 2023.

"A climate change denier, Milei has promised not to comply with the 2030 agenda – which is centred on 17 sustainable development goals – and to withdraw from the Paris agreement because he will not accept 'impositions from outside'. He says his government will not have policies to fight the climate crisis, protect Indigenous people, or decrease deforestation, nor to sustainably regulate the production of the shale oil and gas reserve of Vaca Muerta, seen in Argentina as a golden goose.

But in recent weeks, there have been signs of a possible softening of the rhetoric as Milei prepares to take office in Casa Rosada on Sunday. Nature defenders in Argentina and Latin America are watching to see if he will implement his destructive environmental agenda, as his Brazilian ideological partner, Jair Bolsonaro, did in Brazil between 2018 and 2022, or whether he will moderate his tone."

This is well in line with my proposed wording. Davide King (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this source we could use for something. It will need rephrasing to align with encyclopedic content, but it contains information on political positions.

The article would support something like this;

Milei intends to pull Argentina out of the Paris Agreement and ignore the 2030 sustainable development goals. His approach includes no specific policies on tackling the climate crisis, reducing deforestation, or regulating the Vaca Muerta shale reserve sustainably. He has previously stated that global warming is a hoax.

We need to consider what to do about the other article contradicting the Paris Agreement statement tho. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That is fine by me but this belongs: "Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change; he said that concerns about climate change are nothing more than 'deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists'." The same source I provided to you calls him a climate change denier, we simply cannot ignore that. Your proposed wording, without this part, makes it appear as though Milei does not think anymore that climate change is a hoax, which is not supported. Davide King (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point, I didnt read it that way, but we should stick to factual statements, and avoid opinion statements.

E.g. "Milei has stated that global warming is a hoax" would be a factual statement. How about this phrasing?

"Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", is an interpretation, better suited for public image.

That he has used "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists", would be a factual statement, but its not very relevant, beyond him accusing neo-Marxists of things. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that "Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" is an opinion, to me it reads as an accurate description by reliable sources but that is secondary. Whatever precise wording we use, it is important that we mention his views about climate change, which have been described as denialist. Also stating that "global warming is a hoax" is, by default, rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change. Why mention the quote about it being "a hoax" and not "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists"? I think both are relevant. Davide King (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Re, "Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" lets call it an interpretation then, it seems people have a bias against things being called opinions, even though most things are.

The statement "global warming is a hoax" is directly related to the section on environmental policies related to climate, it also captures "climate change denial" well, while also being a factual statement. It is the best option from my perspective.

neo-Marxists, socialist lie etc are primarily related to anti-socialist rhetoric, they don't add anything that wasn't already stated on climate change. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

But that is not an opinion, and it is not seen as an opinion by WP:RELIABLESOURCES who state it as fact, and there is no reliable source questioning this, in which case it would have needed to be attributed. That is even more the reason why we should report this, and explain that his views about climate change come from his anti-socialism. Davide King (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we are going a bit off-topic, and into a discussion on semantics. What i mean is that you require an interpretation when making an analysis of what someone said. The interpretation can contain facts.

Re "That is even more the reason why we should report this, and explain that his views about climate change come from his anti-socialism.", I think it would be sufficient to just add what RS have reported as political positions, explanations and analysis are done in public image, where we just repeat what has been reported by RS. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we will have to agree to disagree, or else this will never end. We will leave that to the closure.
I think, here, @Liu1126 explained this issue perfectly. In particular, "if we use this method, then we end up having to go through this whole rigmarole for every single sentence of every single article, deciding whether it falls closer on the fact side of the spectrum or the opinion side of the spectrum." That is something that I have noted in my interections with you, and while I think we did much good together, it is becoming tearsome to have such long discussions about everything, with you questioning everything a source said. I am following what Liu1126 wrote, and my proposed text falls in line with WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." That is what I did, with both The Guardian and the Financial Times (independent secondary reliable sources) doing the interpretation for us and describing him as a climate change denier. Since no one is disputing this, certainly not any reliable source, it can be considered more than a mere opinion, so there should be no issue with us stating that "Milei is a climate change denier" or that he "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" in a section discussing his views about climate change and the environment, plus the other wording you proposed, which is fine.
Davide King (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think semantics are important, although apparently not everyone here agrees with that.

I don't see that I'm proposing anything complicated or controversial;

- add attributions when its an opinion

- don't state opinions as facts

- use reliable sources for the content, not our own opinions

- stay on topic, add content where its relevant

What @Liu1126 says about rigmarole is not what I'm proposing. Simply phrasing things with attribution would be a simple solution for most cases, and would end arguments like these.

If he is described as a climate change denier, then we should write that he is described as a climate change denier. Its not what is being done, instead editors are transferring these statements to become the opinions of Wikipedia, there should be no surprise it results in so many discussions...

I'll try to summarize the alternative. Wikipedia should form a consensus to define the truth and opinions on various subjects, and write that in the article. It should derive the truth and opinions represented by reliable sources. If that is what most editors on Wikipedia wish, then thats what it will be. My opinion is that its likely not desired, and will have unintended consequences.

Overall, the quality of the articles are improving, but i agree it is a slow process. At least I hope I'm getting some of my points across. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTION says: "Although everything on Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice, not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." That is why we avoid saying "Sources A, B, C, D, F, G, etc. say X." If sources A and B say X but sources C and D says Y, with all sources being equal on quality, then we use attribution. We can say that Milei has been described as a climate change denier, or that his positions have been described as rejecting the scientific consensus. But we must say it in a section about climate change. So far, you are the only user opposing that we write what Milei has said about climate change, including calling it "a socialist lie" and attributing it to "neo-Marxists". Just because Milei is using anti-socialist rethoric, it does not mean it is not relevant to write this in a climate change section. Milei himself made this a political position, since these quotes are straight from him.
Davide King (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Why would it be an interpretation and not a description? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

In short, this version would add only the part that CMD opposed the most, and remove the part that ActivelyDisinterested and I had no problem with (e.g. Milei rejecting the scientific consensus and the way he characterized the issue). Davide King (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested, @Chipmunkdavis, and also other users from the Kennedy's thread, which seems similar to this in regards to NPOV issues but in this case the other user I have been discussing this with (Pedantic Aristotle) oppose the aforementioned text at Political positions of Javier Milei § Environment and climate change. In alphabetic order, excluding no one (everyone is welcome to help us move frward with this stalemate): @Ad Orientem, @BD2412, @Bon courage, @Darknipples, @DeCausa, @EvergreenFir, @The Four Deuces, @GRuban, @Hemiauchenia, @Hob Gadling, @Horse Eye's Back, @Liu1126, @Masem, @Muboshgu, @North8000, @Pavloskaz, @Ser!, @Silverseren, and @Szmenderowiecki. Davide King (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Milei's policies or Argentina (independent of Wikipedia's take on it) for me to confidently comment on this issue right now. I think I may be interested in closing this discussion instead.

By all means present reliable coverage, and in particular I am looking forward to your usage of South American newspapers (particularly Argentine ones). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

During his political career, Milei has described climate change as "a socialist lie", and said that concerns about climate change are nothing more than "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists". As result, he has been called a climate change denier. Pedantic Aristotle wants to remove this and move them at Public image of Javier Milei, although I do not see what they have to do with that and are clearly relevant to his political positions. Now that he has become president, it appears that he is trying to moderate his stance, although that is to be seen, and WP:CRYSTAL applies. Even reliable sources reporting on his attempt to moderate mention his climate-denying comments, so why should we not to? Finally, we already have precedents with Jair Bolsonaro and Political positions of Donald Trump, who are incidentally also two politicians who have been compared to Milei, where we report they reject the scientific consensus on climate change and how they have characterized it (e.g. Trump with the Chinese hoax and Milei with the socialist invention). Even La Nación reported: "During the presidential campaign, Javier Milei gave several statements denying climate change and its sources." Whether he will really moderate is to be seen, and even if we will, the article should cover Milei's political career and not just his presidency.

References

Davide King (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not at all opposed to having them on Wikipedia, but I believe they should be included in the proper contexts. They are relevant to public image, due to the large amount of articles written about his him that includes these statements. They are not political positions, as per the dictionary definition of the word "Politics".

Also... we should defiantly not establish the articles on Bolsonaro and Trump as precedent for how to write articles. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

As stated by TFD and many others, they are considered political positions, thus they belong to an article about his political positions... Davide King (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed a few editors have this opinion, but i find it quite odd to change the dictionary meaning of things. If that was not enough, it also has implications which i believe are harmful to NPOV and the credibility of Wikipedia. But i can only offer my concerns, and hope to shift the consensus in a positive direction. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Milei's position on climate change is a political position. It's part of his political position of anti-socialism. Compare with abortion. Abortion itself is not a political position, it's a medical operation. But attitudes toward abortion are political.

I agree btw that the phrasing used for Trump and Bolsonaro is better. He "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" conveys a more neutral tone to "contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change."

Also, I don't favor replacing "socialists" with "neo-Marxists." TFD (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are possibly related to his anti-socialism position, but this is also well covered. Abortion is a good example, the topic for a political positions article is about government policy on abortion, not abortion itself, but we can clarify the position on abortion with e.g. religious beliefs. Only including the religious beliefs would make no sense. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces, "neo-Marxists" is used because that is what he said, and we are quoting him. We could link "neo-Marxists" to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory since that is the context (he has promoted this conspiracy theory, which was also removed by the article by Pedantic Aristotle, even though it was put within the context of education, as they had agreed and also used similar arguments to their removal of climate change, citing NPOV issues), and clearly not what we say at "Neo-Marxism". I prefer using the quote, since "socialists" could mean everything and nothing, and because it does appear he used the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory in relation to climate change, too. It is not a big deal to me though. Davide King (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Pedantic Aristotle needs to read WP:FRINGE and its corolllaries WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:LUNATICS and WP:YWAB. NPOV does not mean all opinions are treated equally, only those that are treated equally by reliable sources. Crazy ideas that are clearly rejected by experts, such as climate change denial, are to be described as such. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are implying i disagree with these policies, but that's not quite the topic of the debate. Its a matter of how to write it NPOV. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I am implying that you are trying to violate them by treating scientific consensus as a mere "opinion". That is not how it is done on Wikipedia. NPOV does not mean what you think it means. Loads of experienced editors have been telling you that in one way or another, but your philosophy seems resistant against any reasoning. WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY is another good read for you. (Anticipating a response: There is no WP:TWOAGAINSTMANY but if there were, it would say pretty much the same thing.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Lets skip the semantic discussion then. If you think my proposals are not helpful, thats also fine, but I assume people will consider the arguments on their merits. We are here to help improve Wikipedia, and I'm sharing my perspectives as everyone else are. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps now is the time to see that your argument does not stand on its own merits is only perpetuated by bludgeoning? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm against uninformative vague characterizations in Wikipedia and doubly so when they are made by "RS's" that are political opponents. "Climate change denier" is one of those terms. At worst it can mean flatly denying the common meaning which is the scientifically accepted central tenet of climate change (human caused activity significantly affecting the climate) or much vaguer more arguable things. Or interpreting spur-of-the moment hyperbole. Much better to put in objective facts in rather than somebody's characterization. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. The case of Milei seems to fit "flatly denying the common meaning which is the scientifically accepted central tenet of climate change". If it was much vaguer, I could see your point, but I think there is no one disputing this, so I think at least in this case your concerns are unfounded. We can avoid using "climate change denier" (even though diverse reliable sources, such as the Financial Times and The Guardian, used it), if that will restore the sourced content that in my view was wrongly removed. But we cannot avoid stating that Milei "flatly [denies] the common meaning which is the scientifically accepted central tenet of climate change". Is there anyone or any reliable source disputing this? Davide King (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm here because pinged and interested in the wiki process side. On that note, disagree with the process of your last sentence. Setting a high bar of "need an wp:RS that says otherwise" to leave something out is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

But the thing is, in this case, that Pedantic Aristotle is arguing we do not put something in, like that Milei has been described as a climate change denier (we can say this if you prefer) or that he rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. Indeed "setting a high bar of 'need an wp:RS that says otherwise' to leave something out" is what Pedantic Aristotle has argued, just subsitite "that says otherwise" with "that says that 'climate change is [relevant to] a political position'". This is clearly relevant to his views about climate change and the environment, which is something that should be discussed in the political position article of a politician, do you not agree with this? Davide King (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Climate change is just as much a political position as his views on abortion are. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

We would not write a dedicated section about Milei's opinion on medical abortion procedures in a political positions article. On climate change, its only relevant to include political positions related to the environment. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yet abortion is always cited in "Political positions of" articles because it is a political position, it is relevant to politics (e.g. whether someone is for it to be legal or illegal, or whether someone supports or reject the scientific consensus on climate change, which requires governments, thus politics, among others to be solved), and it is routinely discussed as such by reliable sources. You are free to think all such articles should not have an "Abortion" or "Climate change" section, and you are free to argue to have them removed. I do not think you are going to find any consensus though and you will likely get reverted for it and will not achieve consensus in a RfC either. Davide King (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You should know by now thats not my position. I've supported both abortion and environment sections. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yet you continue to think that "Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", or that he is a climate change denier, is an "interpretration" and do not want it to be stated in a climate change section, even though reliable sources clearly consider this and his past denialist comments relevant. Again, would you be okay with us stating "Milei's position on climate change has been described as rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change" (I do not support this wording), or is the issue that you do not consider this relevant or a political position? Even though it is, per WP:RS and most other users here who have commented. Davide King (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, i would not support those. We already include his comment that "global warming is a hoax", making these redundant additions, as @Chipmunkdavis also mentioned.

The place to elaborate on how media has characterized him would be Public image. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No, CMD's issue was mainly with having both "climate change denier" and "rejects the scientific consensus", in fact their proposal is this: "Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change; he said that concerns about climate change are nothing more than 'deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists'." Also Milei's comment is not that "global warming is a hoax", his comment is that climate change is "a socialist lie". It is reliable sources that have described him and his comments as arguing that it is a hoax and that he is a climate change denier. Also no, we do not segregrate content like that. How reliable sources have described Milei on a given issue, e.g. climate change, can also be discussed in the "Political positions of" article, which should not be a mere party platform where we just list "Milei said this and that". It must have analysis. Davide King (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it should be an article including everyones opinions and analysis about the positions, because that would make the article an unreadable mess. Encyclopedic content should stay on topic. Where does it say analysis is required in positions, when public image is dedicated to such analysis? To my knowledge, this is how other equivalent articles have been edited (please don't use Trump/Bolsonaro as examples).

Beyond that i think you demonstrated the problem with the Wikipedia approach you suggest. It becomes very confusing who said what, who interpreted what, what are facts, what are opinions when its all muddled together without attributions.

What about this then, although its less optimal;

== Environment ==

Milei has expressed intentions to withdraw Argentina from the Paris Agreement and ignore the 2030 sustainable development goals. His environmental policy approach includes no specific policies on tackling climate change, reducing deforestation, or regulating the Vaca Muerta shale reserve. He has called climate change a socialist lie. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Genghis Khan

I want to add historical dates such as early 13th century or 1220's in this sentence but I'm being prevented by another user. Does he even have any right to do this? "The two earliest descriptions come from the Persian chronicler Juzjani and the Song diplomat Zhao Hong" it comes a section of a wikipedia paparagraph-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Character_and_achievements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengoku-lord (talk • contribs) 12:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain how this presents an NPOV issue? I am not clear on that. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sengoku-lord, the best approach would be for you to start a thread on the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes. Please be aware that the article is currently undergoing a review for good article status. Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Niyi Osundare

• Niyi Osundare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is our article on Niyi Osundare sufficiently neutral? I thought not and made some cuts, but a new editor disagrees. Am I the one in the wrong here? More eyes and hands would be very appreciated. MrOllie (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

no, it is not sufficiently neutral. i would go so far to say that more ought to be done. at the very least, several claims should be backed up by citations RetroCosmos (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont think this page I wrote, Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, should have been deleted. It involves Michael Jackson

I think it was improperly deleted bc it upset some fans. What do you think;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safechuck_v._MJJ_Productions&oldid=1189083980 Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It was redirected because the case is ungoing and appeal court rulings that may or may not lead to trials do not warrant standalone articles. No articles were created for this case when the cases were dismissed, nor were articles created for the dismissed creditor claims. There are also no articles to Robson vs MJJ Production or MJ Estate vs HBO either. There are 1000s and 1000s of appeal court rulings which set precedents and they don't have separate articles. castorbailey (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But then why did you delete all the CONTENT about the ruling from the "Child Sexual Abuse Accusations against Michael Jackson" page when i put the content on there? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Just because a case "involved Michael Jackson" does not guarantee it a page of its own. See WP:NOTINHERITED. BD2412 T 01:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Though it should be covered, which it appears to be on that redirected page. Masem (t) 01:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. That is its best context. BD2412 T 01:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Are there standalone articles about appeal court rulings especially in ungoing cases? Never saw any. castorbailey (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine comes to mind, but such cases are a rarity, involving legal issues of national importance. BD2412 T 02:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's a federal case about an abortion drug and the article was created before the appeal court ruling. It's about the case as a whole not the ruling in particular. I don't see why a ruling by a state appeal court which the state supreme court did not even review would warrant a standalone article just because it involves Michael Jackson. castorbailey (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There are definitley stand alone appellate ruling pages. I searched the California court of appeals pages to create the stand alone page.

I would be fine with inserting the ruling content on the redirected page but users seem eager to delete it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The ruling summary has been repeatedly deleted from the redirect page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Just doublechecked and all references to the ruling have been scrubbed from the page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree! I wasnt saying it needs its own page bc it involves MJ. I meant to say i think it is being DELETED bc it involves MJ. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Revamping the header

There is currently a discussion on the talk page about revamping the header that may be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. non-neutral lead section

- Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

In the lead section of the article we read that he is “is an American politician, environmental lawyer and activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories.” The characterizations of promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories seem undue for a lead section. WP:UNDUE

Compare with the corresponding presentation current lead section of Britannica: “American environmental lawyer, member of the prominent Kennedy political family, and activist who became a leading figure among vaccine skeptics.” with no mention of misinformation or conspiracy theories.

Currently edits are locked for unrelated reasons, Special:History/Robert F. Kennedy Jr. but it seems appropriate that the lead should be edited. Pavloskaz (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

He seems a very well-established antivaxxer.[6] Maybe the world's most famous? There might be a case for having that descriptor first, but in any event it's due prominently in the lede to avoid whitewashing. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that he may be currently the most famous vaccine skeptic, hence “a leading figure among vaccine skeptics” seems appropriate to include in the lede.

However, he is currently a candidate for POTUS. As such he is better characterized by his political positions on a wide array of issues. Saying that he “spreads vaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories” in the lede seems biased in the current context.

Also, the choice of words is too strong, and the sources cited cannot claim high degree of majority agreement (again, contrast with the Britannica description, arguably a source that is more incentivised towards neutrality than any of the sources [1-5]).

The current description, both in content and phrasing, seems way unbalanced.

See also the lede for other candidates:

“ Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.”

“ Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ ⓘ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States. An ideologically moderatemember of the Democratic Party, he previously served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 under President Barack Obama and represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009.”

There is clearly a gap in the degree of neutrality compared to the Kennedy article. Pavloskaz (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

'Vaccine skeptic' is a kind of fake term like 'climate skeptic' and not something for a serious encyclopedia article. Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not see what “fake term” means. One can be a skeptic on any subject, regardless of our position regarding the merit of their doubts.

Skepticism Pavloskaz (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Would that make us "skeptic" skeptics? GRuban (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

🙂 Pavloskaz (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"vaccine skeptic" There is no such thing, just conspiracy theorists and scaremongers. Misinforming people for fun and profit. Dimadick (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone can be anti-vax without providing misinformation. "Misinformation" should not be in there unless he furnished categorically false info and there is strong sourcing for it. North8000 (talk)

Let me say first that Kennedy does promote "anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories" (see article sources) and it's absolutely WP:DUE to have that upfront in the lead (and, indeed, watering that down to “a leading figure among vaccine skeptics” is what would be WP:UNDUE). However, subjectively, that first sentence makes one think one is about to read an attack piece rather than an encyclopedia article - the tone is off. I would suggest ending the first sentence at "activist" and make the next sentence "He is known for promoting anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories and is the chairman and founder of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group." DeCausa (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that is still not neutral, in the sense of placement. It lacks the civil distantiation afforded to other candidates in the lede. No one would introduce a POTUS candidate as “known for promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories” in the first, second or third sentence.

Compare with the ledes of two more candidates.

“Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an American philosopher, theologist, political activist, social critic, actor, and public intellectual. The grandson of a Baptist minister, West's primary philosophy focuses on the roles of race, gender, and class struggle in American society. A socialist, West draws intellectual contributions from multiple traditions, including Christianity, the black church, democratic socialism, left-wing populism, neopragmatism, and transcendentalism. Among his most influential books are Race Matters (1993) and Democracy Matters(2004).”

“Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy is an American entrepreneur and presidential candidate. He founded Roivant Sciences, a pharmaceutical company, in 2014. In February 2023, Ramaswamy declared his candidacy for the Republican Party nomination in the 2024 United States presidential election.” Pavloskaz (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

A better template might be David Icke or Andrew Wakefield. Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

These individuals are not currently candiates for a major political position. The comparison is incongruent in terms of neutrality standards that need to be upheld. Pavloskaz (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Putting yourself up for elected office does suddenly not grant you special status on Wikipedia, so far as I am aware. Follow the sources. Bon courage (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You cannot “put yourself up” for POTUS. It requires a minimum of public exposure that justifies a heightened impartiality standard in the lead description. Pavloskaz (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

He declared himself a candidate, ergo he "put himself up" for office. Impartiality is not "heightened" in these cases. We don't purposefully create double standards. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not about neutrality/impartiality of the encyclopedia in a presidential race. The lead, which naturally will have the highest readability reach, currently reads more like an attack on the candidate. It also sets the perception for the rest of the article. No other current candidate is presented in such terms. Biographies of living individuals naturally have to be edited to adapt to evolving contexts.

The way that it stands now it runs the risk of being misinterpreted as a double standard in the presentations between Kennedy and other candidates. Pavloskaz (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Correction: “This *is* about neutrality…” Pavloskaz (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

So in order to remedy a supposed double standard you are proposing a WP:FALSEBALANCE? How do you square that with policy and guideline? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not proposing a false balance. What I am proposing is balanced given the current context. As the article stands, I would be like introducing Donald Trump with “attempted to overturn the 2020 election result” in the lede. Or Joe Biden with “and withdrew U.S. Forces from Afghanistan”, i.e. include a major attack point of their opponents on a specific political position in the lede. Does that seem appropriate? Pavloskaz (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The false balance would be equating mainstream political positions and conspiracy theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"I am not proposing a false balance." Agree to disagree on that. DN (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the false balance exactly? The lead states opinions as facts, and includes opinions without attribution, which is clear NPOV violations.

This could be written true NPOV, immune to NPOV criticism, but instead the choice is to write opinions as fact, which does more harm than good, and discredits Wikipedia overall. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead states facts, the only opinions I see are Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s. DN (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It is clearly asymmetic to the way other candidates are presented in the lead (even Trump is presented in a neutral manner) and makes the article look vandalised. Like someone has tried to cram as man references as possible against the candidate n the first sentence! Pavloskaz (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Comparing RFK to other candidates will not help your argument. What you may not realize is that truth is irrelevant here. The lead sentence says "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials as RFK Jr. and the nickname Bobby, is an American politician, environmental lawyer and activist..."and that is the first thing readers will see. The rest is not as much anyone else's fault, including the editors on Wikipedia, as it is RFK's. DN (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The reader will see the full first sentence, that’s how reading goes, and not just the uncontested segment you copy here. And it is the part you miss that we are discussing. Pavloskaz (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We do not "heighten" impartiality. We remain impartial, even if it is not politically convenient to a political candidate. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The current lede is not impartial imo. By “heightened” I mean that this is currently a very important article because of the presidential race. Pavloskaz (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, a lot of political articles on Wikipedia is about pushing a political bias, rather than writing encyclopedic content in a neutral tone. The main problem seems to be the practice of transfer opinions from reliable sources into facts on Wikipedia, instead of including opinions with attribution. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUTH EvergreenFir (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with it. Opinions are not facts, yet opinions are frequently written as facts simply because editors found many RS agreeing on something. Its very harmful to the Wikipedia project. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That is literally how being a candidate for POTUS works. You can put yourself up to run today if you'd like. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Getting yourself on the ballot in a majority of states requires a minimum of public exposure. Pavloskaz (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There is not a single state in the Union where getting yourself on the ballot includes a public exposure standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Getting a Wikipedia article requires a certain amount of exposure as well (see WP:N). EvergreenFir (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't require any more exposure than that there be sources and that those sources be publicly accessible in some way... We have plenty of obscure topics which are almost completely unknown outside of a specific academic niche (well under 1 in 100 of the general population would have been exposed to them). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ballot access

“In the 20th century, ballot access laws imposing signature requirements far more restrictive than Wigmore had envisioned were enacted by many state legislatures; in many cases, the two major parties wrote the laws such that the burdens created by these new ballot access requirements (usually in the form of difficult signature-gathering nominating petition drives) fell on alternative candidates, but not on major party candidates.” Pavloskaz (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

How do you get from signatures to public exposure? If you're familiar with signature drives you will know that most of the people who sign have never heard of the candidate before, they are supportive of the process. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Except that unlike them, RFK Jr's notability does not come from association with conspiracism. Like Donald Trump, mentioned above, people knew who he was long before he weighed in on conspiracy theories.

The relevant policy is Impartial tone: "articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." We don't say for example that Dr. West "promotes Christian misinformation." We don't lecture readers that Christianity is an irrational belief system.

No reasonably informed reader will confuse "vaccine scepticism" with holding a reasoned scepticism of vaccination. It's similar to lots of polite descriptions: pro-life, climate change scepticism, anti-Islamism. TFD (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The guy does seem to like a good antisemitic conspiracy theory too.[7] Bon courage (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering the people with which Kennedy associates himself, hardly surprising. He has been promoting the international Jewish conspiracy for quite some time. Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• I must comment on the oddness of a 10-year, 8-month old account making their very first edit today and finding their way to this noticeboard directly afterwards. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is nothing odd. I was shocked by the sloppiness of presentation on a very important article. And thanks for the warm welcome on the noticeboard :) Pavloskaz (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, Evergreen is right. That is odd. You made an edit request on Talk:RFK Jr. and didn't even wait for a response before launching this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I am not an editor, but a daily reader. Maybe I rushed to the noticeboard and did not follow the process correctly, because of inexperience. I apologise for this. Pavloskaz (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Welcome @Pavloskaz, your input is appreciated. Typically the edits are done on the article, and if its reverted, discuss on Talk page first. The topic can be posted here if no consensus is made in the Talk page discussions. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Pedantic Aristotle. Editing is locked “to prevent vandalism”. I have submitted an edit request. Pavloskaz (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• His promotion of scientific/medical misinformation and conspiracy theories is well documented in reliable sources. It has been a major topic of coverage about him and his campaign. It belongs in the lead. I am not sure if it belongs in the opening paragraph. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not familiar with the person in question, but i think NPOV requires attribution instead of writing it as a factual statement. It would not be a problem to state that reliable source X has accused him of Y. Its a different thing entirely to present it as The Truth. Since this appears like a political article, anything thats not factual events should be considered an opinion. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  The problem comes when we would have to say that "reliable sources A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U, and V have accused him of Y." In that case when there are no significant sources which say the opposite we can just say "He did Y" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Then it could be generalized if they are of similar nature. If it is a diverse and wide range of sources, then write a short summary of what those are. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why? And can you point me to an article which does that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  It says right here in the first bulletpoint WP:WIKIVOICE. Avoid stating opinions as facts. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  These aren't opinions, they're facts. It is a fact that RFK JR promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories. It would be an opinion if we for example said it made him a bad person or unfit to be President. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, that only applies to uncontested statements. If it was uncontested then it wouldn't be here on the NPOV board. Statements such as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" are definitely interpretations/opinions, regardless of their merit. If there are many sources saying this, it would make a stronger case to include that in attribution, rather than presenting it as the opinion of Wikipedia. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm fine with stating something to the effect that "he has been widely criticized for promoting conspiracy theories and misinformation regarding vaccines." -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  So I took a quick look in the articles body to make sure it would be justified, but i couldn't find many attributions that would support that statement. The only attributions i found on vaccines was from one epidemiologist, and his own family, so the body needs to be fixed. The body in its current shape would only support something like "has been criticized by some epidemiologists and the Kennedy family for his anti-vaccine disinformation", which I'm certain is not a correct representation on this topic.

  Unfortunately the editing of the body is so poor, it may ruin the credibility of the criticism. Assuming the criticism is justified, the article deserves an NPOV cleanup, so that the content can be taken seriously. NPOV wording would be something like this, the current lead could easily be dismissed as political activism:

  "Robert F. Kennedy Jr., born in 1954, is an American environmental lawyer, writer, and anti-vaccine activist. He is the son of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy. In 2023, he announced his independent candidacy for the U.S. presidency.

  Kennedy founded the Waterkeeper Alliance and has been involved in legal actions against pollution. He has garnered significant attention for his controversial views on vaccines, which have been widely criticized by scientific and medical communities." Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Scientific American article says: "Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality" and "Kennedy has been brazen in publicizing outright lies". The article provides the receipts, giving specific examples of false statements that Kennedy has made, and has continued to repeat after being presented with proof of their falsehood. BD2412 T 00:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is a good inclusion to support the lead. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  So using reports from Scientific American, NBC, The Hill, NYT, The Guardian, The Wrap, we can characterize a candidate in the first sentence of their. And link the reader to these articles in that same sentence to get a first encyclopedic impression of the candidate. Does that seem like a proper editing practice? Pavloskaz (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  It is a frequently used practice on Wikipedia, which is very harmful to the project in my opinion. I would argue the practice should be abandoned, and i would encourage editors on Wikipedia to defend proper NPOV style of writing across the board, regardless of their personal opinions on a topic. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Citations are usually supposed to be left out of the lead, but this can lead to instability for certain more contentious topics, typically political. DN (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  What reliable sources contest those statements? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  The opening post mentions one source that does not include that phrasing, but I'm not familiar with this person or topic. I'm providing input on how to write this NPOV, not the content. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  You can't base content on what sources don't contain. If there were RS that said this person was a respectable source of high-quality health information, that would move the needle. But you can be sure there is no such source. Bon courage (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, but we also can't pick sources and assume their opinions are universally accepted. Facts and opinions needs to be treated differently, especially on political topics. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  So despite previously claiming that it was contested you are now claiming to be unaware of any source which has contested it? How does that work? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not here to argue content. The statements are phrased as opinions, thus they are opinions, and require attribution. The fact is that such and such RS have made these statements. Whatever we may think of this person, we should not reword opinions into facts, regardless of how widely used they are. If they are widely supported opinions, then write that. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Which statements are phrased as opinions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Statements such as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" are interpretations/opinions. It automatically becomes an opinion statements due to these words. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why is either of those an opinion rather than a fact in this context? If they're opinions what would the factual name for the misinformation and conspiracy theories be? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The only fact is that we have RS that says this or that. There are no ways to write opinions as facts.

  It would be a big quality boost, increase the credibility of the article, and end these kinds of discussions to simply write it formally NPOV as opinions with attribution. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  But what they're saying are facts, not opinions. What isn't factual about about the text concerning misinformation and conspiracy theories? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  An opinion statement cant be a fact, it is semantically impossible. A factual statement would be an opinion with attribution. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  What would be the opinion being attributed? I can't identify an opinion in that sentence, thats why you're being asked to. You haven't yet. You need to if you expect to be taken seriously. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The statement "activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation", is an interpretation/opinion of what he has said. A factual statement would be e.g. "have been criticized for promoting anti-vaccine misinformation by x".

  The phrasing here is key, one is an opinion, the other is a fact. By including a RS, we did not prove the statement "activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation" to be true, we only proved it as an opinion by RS. Its not up to Wikipedia to take a position one way or another, we simply include what RS have said about the topic, and thats it. In this case, as there appears to be a wide range of sources, we simply write that a wide range of RS have said this. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Its not an interpretation/opinion of what he has said, its what he said on a basic factual level. The information he promotes is factually misinformation and the theories he advances are factually conspiracy theories. Those are no more opinions than his birth date. See WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, you are asking wikipedia to take a position... A pro-fringe one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  "The information he promotes is factually misinformation and the theories he advances are factually conspiracy theories."

  Please show me where i have contradicted this. I've provided no opinion on that one way or another, only NPOV phrasing. I disagree my proposals for NPOV phrasing would support his views. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Kennedy's promotion of anti-vaccine narratives, particularly through his Children's Health Defense organisation, has been his most notable activity over the last 2 decades. It belongs in the opening sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• The lead could have a sentence or two on his political views (other than his environmental work) as he is a presidential candidate with non-negligible support, but the anti-vax advocacy stuff definitely belongs there and it has been the defining characteristic of at least a substantial part of his life. And "anti-vaccine" and "misinformation" are appropriate descriptors of his advocacy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• There were two recent well attended RFCs about this matter, which ended with the current wording. This looks like forum shopping to try and undo those RFC by finding a technicality. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Just to point out again, any change to the wording should go through closure review or a new RFC. NPOV will have been considered in those RFCs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have submitted an edit request. Editing is currently locked for unrelated reasons. Pavloskaz (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• While the anti-vax and misinformation details are absolutely correct for RFK Jr., and they are significant enough to his notability to be in the lede, placing them as such in the lede sentence violates the neutral, dispassionate tone requirement that NPOV demands, because it makes it like we are forcing the scarlet letter about those aspects front and center. The same intent can be said by a second lede sentence to explain and give content without forcing it into what should be an objective statement that ledes the article. --Masem (t) 02:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not this invented rule again! It's probably better to follow MOS:FIRSTBIO and make sure the opening sentence says what this person is most notable for (health misinformation). Bon courage (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  That rule says "The first sentence should usually state:" (my stress). FIRSTBIO also goes on to say "However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead paragraph." Which is basically what I am suggesting to improve tone. Masem (t) 03:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The most notable thing about this person is the antivax stuff. There is no reason to avoid reality. Bon courage (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  And there is zero harm to moving that to a second sentence, still keeping it high up in the article lede to meet the principles of FIRSTBIO to show that it is a significant reason why he's notable, while meeting the NPOV policy requirements on tone and impartiality. Masem (t) 05:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  As ActivelyDisinterested mentioned above, the last two RfCs aren't even cold yet. It should console everyone clutching their pearls here to know that the first part of the lead sentence (which is quite long) reads..."Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials as RFK Jr. and the nickname Bobby, is an American politician, environmental lawyer and activist...". DN (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, It's a shame its being written in a way that would automatically dismiss the criticism as political activism. If it was written NPOV it could be taken seriously by more readers. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Is that the point? More readers? DN (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't the point to write articles on Wikipedia to be credible sources of information? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Credible according to who? Pavloskaz? That's only one reader. You said readers, plural. Who are these people you speak of? DN (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  As a longtime reader and donor I am very disappointed by this attitude on a very important article. This is just an obviously politicised presentation of the candidate, inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and the editing process seems to be blocked.

  Again, do a quick comparison with Britannica, they have all the information about the anti-vax and conspiracy stuff, but not in the first sentence! With 5 links to just these. Like, isn’t this the obvious good practice for a POTUS candidate? Pavloskaz (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Pavloskaz, consider that NPOV also implores us to avoid a recency bias. Yes, right now this individual is in the news for political candidacy. However, they have spent the last 18 years with a large amount of coverage in reliable source around their anti-vaccine advocacy. If this individual were in fact a perennial political candidate (eg. Jill Stein) the discussion would certainly be different, but that is not the case.

  I'll also point out that Britannica does indeed have an anti-vaccine note in the first sentence, for what that is worth. —siroχo 18:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Credible, as in verifiable. The factual statements written in the lead are not verifiable as facts, only as opinions. Thus the articles credibility comes into question. Readers trying to verify the information, will fail to do so in its current form. If it was written NPOV, this wouldn't be a problem. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  A problem for who? DN (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not for who, for what. It wouldn't be a problem to verify the information, the current phrasing is unverifiable. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• The fact that he is an anti-vaccine pseudoscience pusher is the primary source of his notability and has been for decades. Recent political activities doesn't change that. We wouldn't alter the first sentence of Alex Jones just because he ran for president, we would just add "and United States presidential candidate" to the first sentence. Which is what was done with RFK Jr, with the American politician part even being the first things noted in the lede sentence. Everything in his first lede paragraph is properly weighted in prominence and discusses both aspects of his notability. Trying to remove or lower this information in the lede is just attempts to subtly whitewash the article. Silverseren^C 02:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Several here have made this comment, that he is most famous for his anti-vax positions. But I think that this is clearly wrong, as he has bexome recently much more widely known globally because of his presidential bid. I doubt that many people outside the US knew him before that. (I certainly didn’t. I came to the article to check him because of the 2024 bid.) Pavloskaz (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  And it immediately looked like someone had vandalised the article to include an attack on the candidate in the lead! But at the same time editing is locked “to prevent vandalism”. How does that work exactly? Pavloskaz (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  It works. DN (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  That does not answer the “how”. Pavloskaz (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The "how" is quite irrelevant. DN (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I mean in terms of process. Who decides ultimately to lock the article to its current state? Pavloskaz (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is a question better suited for the WP:TEAHOUSE. I suggest staying on topic according to the venue. DN (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thats done by administrators, who are elected by vote by registered users. Restrictions on editing are usually done for articles that experience frequent reverts, instead of discussion and consensus on the articles Talk page. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you! I see the elected editors are not doing their job properly in this case. I will look into how I can take part in the voting process. Pavloskaz (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The lock could be valid, since the article may have had frequent edit waring and contention. It is there to promote discussions on the Talk page for edits, and reduce volatility in response to volatile editing. I think voting requests for admins are sent out automatically, based on users who has interacted with the administrators in question, but I'm not very familiar with the process. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the lock is for frequent changes as indicated by the history, and seems valid. But this also blocks the process of updating the article to reflect current context. Pavloskaz (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The opposition, which seems to be frequent is not related to the content, but that its not written as NPOV. It actually discredits the article and editors, instead of the subject, which is very unfortunate. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. As it stands now the lead is clearly sub-standard for an encyclopedia article on a U.S. presidential candidate. Pavloskaz (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Above, Pedantic Aristotle has difficulties recognizing facts, calling them "opinion". Here are opinions: its not written as NPOV and clearly sub-standard. Most experienced editors disagree with you two.

  My opinion is that your reasoning has been substandard through the whole thread.

  • First, you essentially argued that the articles about people who are not famous for spreading misinformation do not say that they spread misinformation, so an article about someone who is famous for spreading misinformation should also not say that he spreads misinformation. Well, let's just write "X is a human." as a first sentence so they are all the same.
  • Then, you essentially argued that misinformation is in the eye of the beholder, as if no methods existed that can reliably discern true information from false, and as if no people with any clue about anything existed. Well, they do exist.
  • Then, you essentially argued that what Kennedy did yesterday overshadows everything what he did the last twenty years to the extent that it is not worth mentioning anymore. This is the WP:RECENTISM playbook, and we should not follow it.

  You can find multiple instances of the same reasoning in the archives of the Kennedy Talk page. They did not work because that reasoning is bad. But the people who used it probably believe that they did not work because of a sinister conspiracy of, I don't know, maybe pharma shills, or Democrats who want Kennedy's antivax stance be be widely known, in order to split the loon vote by luring antivaxxers away from Trump, or whoever. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is a miserepresentation of my arguments. My only argument is that this is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is too politicised as a lead description.

  I am not discussing the content or veracity of the misinformation claims, and Kennedy did not become a candidate yesterday (recentism). He is currently known globally for being a presidential candidate. To say that he is currently mostly known for anti-vax seems U.S. provincialism to me at best. English language articles have global reach, especially the ones about POTUS candidates. Pavloskaz (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  To say that he is currently mostly known for anti-vax seems U.S. provincialism I am not from the US and do not live there. His misinformation is available worldwide, but you cannot vote for or against him worldwide. So, "U.S. provincialism" applies to his presidential candidacy more than to his antivaxerism. Also, information about the truth or otherwise on what somebody says about a scientific subject is not "politicized". Deleting it because he is running for president would be. Misrepresenting science-pseudosience conflicts as "political" is a common ploy by politically motivated pseudoscience fans, such as climate change deniers. It does not work on Wikipedia because of WP:NOTDUMB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  So it would be e.g. OK for Wikipedia to introduce Donald Trump as “ex president etc… , and a climate change denier.” With 5 references just to the last phrase, in the first sentence of the lead? Pavloskaz (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  If the reliable sources gave that aspect that sort of weight, yes. But actually, he is more of a all-round reality denier. Things he regards as unpleasant - a black US president, climate change, COVID-19, Trump having a smaller crowd than Obama, Trump losing an election, several other things - he handles by denying that the are true, as fans of Norman Vincent Peale and other extreme proponents of a positive mental attitude are always in danger of doing. Since climate change is not what reliable sources focus on, it would not be OK. If they did focus on it, it would. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure what you are referring to as facts, but facts needs to be supported by evidence. If a wide range of sources have said X, it does not make their statements fact, the only evidence would be that they are opinions expressed by a wide range of sources.

  Its unclear if your comments are related to things i wrote or not, but I will answer them anyway;

  • I believe I proposed to include what RS have said about it, instead of rephrasing it as facts.
  • Whether his statements are misinformation or not, or if its in the eye of the beholder is off-topic for the article, it is sufficient to state what the RS have said, thats it.
  • Agreed on WP:RECENTISM.

  I have no opinion on the content of the article, only the style of writing in relation to NPOV. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The sources quoted in the article would tell you why it is misinformation, if you actually read them. Everybody can verify that the things he says about vaccines are untrue. That you dismiss the information as "opinion" and are too lazy or unwilling to check is your problem. They are reliable sources, and what they say checks out with what other reliable sources say on the same subject. The sources even contain links to such sources. Kennedy is spreading misinformation. Fact. Your claim that, for instance, what Scientific American writes is opinion, has no basis in reality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not taking any position on the information, neither am i dismissing it. There seems to be a semantic confusion on the word opinion. A fact is something you can verify through experiments. Opinion includes interpretations of facts. I'll assume you are correct that the sources include statements that can prove he is spreading misinformation, but it does not make the statement "Kennedy is spreading misinformation" a statement of fact, thats a semantic confusion. The statement "activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories" is a reflection of the opinions or findings of the sources.

  Wikipedia should only convey what RS say on a topic, nothing more nothing less. What is relevant is that many sources have criticized him for his spreading of misinformation, and that the semantics chosen in the lead is phrased as an opinion of Wikipedia.

  The example i posted earlier, or similar, would be a much clearer phrasing, which would align with both NPOV and verifiability ("He has garnered significant attention for his controversial views on vaccines, which have been widely criticized by scientific and medical communities")

  In general, the goal of phrasing things as WP:Truth is not a good idea. The same information can be conveyed within NPOV, and increases the credibility instead of decreasing it. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  There seems to be a semantic confusion on the word opinion I am not interested in those sophisms. By interpreting the words "opinion" and "fact" that way and insisting on treating the anti-vaxer term as a mere opinion, you are trying to turn Wikipedia into one of those relativistic, postmodern Larry Sanger-style failed "encyclopedias" that are useless for obtaining actual information because they make no difference between a scientific finding and the brain fart of an ignorant loudmouth. You really need to read up on the Wikipedia policies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've only clarified it to make sure we understand each other, I hope I was not offending. My proposal is to attribute these statements, to improve the credibility of the statements. Its the opposite of what it seems you think I'm saying. In order to establish credibility, its important to know who has made a statement. An opinion can have significant weight depending on who has made it, its not a dismissal or belittling. Including such statements without any attribution does not provide it credibility, its quite the opposite. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  We should not attribute statements of fact because it falsely implies they are not actually facts, like we wouldn't write 'According to NASA, the earth is round.' MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, but we disagree on the definition of a fact where this applies. In this case it is actually harmful to not include it. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• I would agree with some above that while the information belongs in the lead, the existing MOS:LEADSENTENCE is suboptimal. A rewrite to handle the views/activism on their own rights would convey the same information, perhaps even without the classic WP:REFCLUTTER. Raising anti-vaccine topics twice independently in the first two sentences is another signal that the text isn't meshing as holistically as it could. I would also agree with those above suggesting the individual's notability is to a great extent related to his US Presidential candidacy. Looking at the google trends, there is a marked difference in attention right at the declaration of candidacy. This is not recentism, but a reflection of the different importance reliable sources associate with different activities. (All said however, I am not sure whether this discussion should overturn the consensus of an RfC.) CMD (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I just left a “support” comment for the proposed change there (from another user). Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

  That was proposed on Nov. 2. As time goes by, I think the current lead becomes more and more dated, and needs to be edited to reflect neutrality in the presidential race. Pavloskaz (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Re: That was proposed on Nov. 2, on November 3, well after entering the presidential race, Kennedy attended an anti-vaccine conference in Georgia and "confirmed his commitment to the cause and spoke to his base about how he, as president, would serve the movement he built", specifically saying that he would order the National Institutes of Health to stop fighting infectious diseases, stating: "We're going to give infectious disease a break for about eight years". BD2412 T 15:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Since I responded to the edit request, I should repeat and expand on my opinion here. My response (which I still stand by) was: Per MOS:LABEL, these terms can be used if widely used by reliable sources, which they are, as you can see in the in-line footnotes. Also per WP:VOICE and WP:DESCF, the use of Wikipedia's voice instead of in-text attribution is appropriate here as these statements are not contested by other reliable sources.
  However, I made this response towards the request of removing the misinformation and conspiracy theories part entirely. This discussion is more about the placing of the wording, and my opinion on this issue is slightly different. A Google search on "Robert F. Kennedy Jr." gives results that seem to feature more about his current presidential campaign, which would indicate that his "current" notability is more about this campaign. Balancing this against his "past" notability of anti-vax claims, my opinion is that this could go both ways. I wouldn't mind if the candidacy information was put into the first sentence and the anti-vax information placed after that (while still in the first paragraph), but I don't feel too strongly for this either.
  Pavloskaz's comparison to Trump and Biden's articles is invalid because they have already served as president, which would be a stronger claim to notability for them and should be used as the first sentence per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, whereas Kennedy Jr.'s strongest claim to notability is more debatable, given his long history of anti-vax activities. Again, I emphasise that I do not have a strong opinion on the order of the information in the first paragraph, as long as the information currently in the first paragraph stays in the first paragraph.
  In response to Pedantic Aristotle's comments, I stand by my original response. Unless you can provide reliable sources that explicitly contest the statements on him spreading anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories, these statements should be considered uncontested for Wikipedia's purposes. To give an example, there's plenty of people out there who believe that the Earth is flat, but we don't say in the Earth article that "a majority of sources state that the Earth is round". Liu1126 (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Liu1126. I started the thread here right after submitting the edit request and may have jumbled the process a bit because of inexperience.

  The Earth article is not the best comparison imo because we are talking about the biography of a living person.

  For a candidate previously widely known for other stuff I would compare with Cornel West or Vivek Ramaswamy. In both of these cases you can see the difference in the style of presentation with Kennedy’s lead.

  As you are aware, more and more people will be searching for the candidate and led to the wiki page, which in the current context seems way outdated. I am an international reader, and I am not even informed in the first sentence that this person is currently a candidate for POTUS. Pavloskaz (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  That the Earth is round is something that can be proven with experiments, so that is the definition of a fact. There is no contestation on the accuracy of the information, i have no opinion on it. Using the phrasing "activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories", is an interpretation. It may very well be true, but it is a statement of interpretation/opinion and requires attribution. It should certainly be included, just be done properly within NPOV. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  It appears to be uncontested... What reliable sources contest it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Whether a statement is a fact or opinion isn't determined by our subjective views, there is a clear definition at WP:ASSERT. If there's no serious dispute over the statement (in reliable sources, of course), then it is a fact. If there is, then it's an opinion. Like many people have said, you need to provide reliable sources that explicitly refute these statements to show that it's in dispute, not just based on your own opinion.

  The issue with separating facts from opinions using your method of "proven via experiments" vs. "interpreted by people" is that the real world isn't black and white like this, its a spectrum. There's statements like "the sky is blue", which can be proven by observation; then there's current events that theoretically can be proven by just being there; then there's descriptions of events that people may dispute even if they all saw the same thing... etc. If we use this method, then we end up having to go through this whole rigmarole for every single sentence of every single article, deciding whether it falls closer on the fact side of the spectrum or the opinion side of the spectrum. Liu1126 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Basically what you are saying is that e.g. if many RS writes their interpretation of something, and they agree or write the same thing, it becomes a fact. I'm not sure that is a wise approach, and it opens up a can of worms.

  Yesterday was my first time reading anything about RFK, yet the lead made it look like he was a victim of political activism, as is common for politicians. With the amount of misinformation and propaganda spread everywhere, critical thinking is becoming a requirement. The proposal would entail that Wikipedia should do the critical thinking for you.

  I would urge people to reconsider this approach. Writing statements with attribution will improve the quality dramatically, in particular for political articles which are filled with activism and disputes, and would remove bias in editing. Adding attribution would further the credibility of the statement, leaving political statements without attribution is more likely to discredit it as someone POV pushing. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, your summary of my comment is correct. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and if all reliable sources say the same thing, then Wikipedia should also say the same thing, and in its own voice. There's plenty of people who disagree with various policies of Wikipedia, but this noticeboard probably isn't the best place to discuss it. WP:VPP would be a better venue.

  If I may go a bit off topic here, I think Wikipedia shares many traits with traditional encyclopaedias, and one of those traits is its use as a general reference work, where most casual readers want to know some random thing and quickly look it up to satisfy their curiosity. Sure, we don't recommend this practice, but that's probably what the majority of readers do, and burdening them with a comprehensive discussion of twenty different viewpoints just sends them away. People don't want opinions, they want facts; they don't want to think, they want to know. Critical thinking is important, but it's not the job of Wikipedia to promote it, just like one wouldn't expect Encyclopædia Britannica to do this. But that's just a little rant about society from me. Liu1126 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. If that is the established policy, then Wikipedia should probably not be used for political articles. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• As ActivelyDisinterested says, there have been two long RfCs with a great deal of participation. We do not need to revisit this every few weeks or start forumshopping. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I am not forumshopping, I am just not experienced with the editing process. I have left a support comment in a related RfC. And as Kennedy becomes more and more recognisable as a candidate, this does need to be revisited. Pavloskaz (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Could I direct you towards WP:BLUDGEON? You've commented in this thread thirty-three times in under 24 hours. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Do not accuse people of forumshopping if you do not wish a reply 🙂 Pavloskaz (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, and that's still thirty-two other comments in under a day. My point, and WP:BLUDGEON, stands. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The wording has already been hashed out in prior discussions held by actual Wikipedia editors. Jumping through hoops every time a new WP:SPA gets their hackles raised is a time sink. Zaathras (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, RFK Jr. is the leader and public face of a famous anti-vax and health conspiracy organization. His activities are well-documented and reliably-sourced. It is weird to come whine to Wikipedia because people don't like RFK Jr.'s career choices. -- M.boli (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Sigh Excellent forum-shopping, but RFK Jr.'s actual profession for the last two decades has been as the leader of an organisation whose sole aim is the pushing of an anti-vax misinformation campaign. He has been notable for very little else until this presidential run, so removing what he is notable for now would be WP:RECENTISM. After all, he could scrap his presidential run tomorrow. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  No forumshopping or SPA. The quality of articles is a legitimate concern for me as a longtime reader and donor (albeit not editor). The current lead is clearly politicised, does not even mention that he is a candidate in the first sentence, and makes Wikipedia look like an op-ed.

  This is bad for Wikipedia, when it is used like just another social media account for or against a candidate, instead of defending its status as one of the last, and possibly the most important holdout for the original vision of the web. Pavloskaz (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  You clearly did not read WP:RECENTISM, why would we put one notable thing (running for US presidency) RFK Jr has been doing for < 1 year above the several notable things (environmental activism, anti vaccine activism) he has done for decades? Also, these recent attempts at whitewashing the lede of the article are very concerning for me as a longtime reader and editor (albeit not much of a donor) - our wording on his antivaccine activity had been rather stable for years until he declared this candidacy. Knuckling under, what IMO is fairly transparent attempt to turn this biographical article into more campaign outreach, would be a huge blow to Wikipedia Cannolis (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"with no mention of misinformation or conspiracy theories." So Britannica is useless and presents biased and inaccurate information. I already knew that when I joined Wikipedia twenty years ago. It is a rather poor excuse for an encyclopedia. Dimadick (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Concerned that Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson lacks neutrality as it omits a number of sourced accusers

Especially the "Further Allegations" section at the end. Someone researching Michael Jackson who wanted to learn exactly how many individuals have accused him according to the mainstream press would never, ever know.

That is the complete opposite of what an encyclopedia is all about.

At the end of the day, it has been widely reported that 8 males who met him as a child have accused him of sexual abuse. Not necessarily all these males accused him of sexual ASSAULT, but all 8 absolutely accused him in sworn testimony, court filings, or high profile interviews of childhood sexual abuse.

Every effort to list these accusers, no matter how well-supported by multiple news articles, gets reverted by others.

The article overwhelmingly discusses the accusations of one boy, Jordie Chandler, in 1993, in utterly exhaustive detail, in what I can only interpret as an effort to discredit that first accuser and tire the reader before learning more.

Should the reader make it through the blizzard of text to the end, they will see "Further allegations" with the tiniest blurbs on Arvizo trial, and the subjects of Leaving Neverland.

Editors immediately pare down any effort to describe these accusations more fulsomely. It was 8 boys from what mainstream sources in Google News tells me.

The article is called "Child Sexual Abuse Accusations against MJ" not "Child Sexual Abuse Accusations against MJ (But Only The Real "Big Deals")."

I want to stress that I'm not saying that what the accusers said about abuse is true. But it IS true that the 8 accused him. That happened.

Every other high-profile American recipient of multiple sexual misconduct allegations (Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Russell Simmons etc etc) seems to have a chart or list of accusers but not Jackson.

And Jackson is DEAD unlike those folks so defamation is an utter non-issue.

Would welcome neutral opinions as i know others disagree.

Big discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

From what it looks like, we don't have firm (through investigative or court decisions) that some of the claims of those accusers are true. Thus, from both a standpoint of neutrality and for the privacy of the individuals that have made claims yet verified, its best not to name them. The example cases you give are those where the accusations have been resolved, so the names seem reasonable there. Masem (t) 01:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait, Jackson was acquitted in the one trial he underwent so none of the 8 accusers' stories have ever been verified. All 8 were minors at times they alleged abuse so none of them should be discussed in public by that metric, right?

We have no reason to assume any of the allegations are true. We just know they were made. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

of the 8:

- 4 gave public interviews (safechuck, Jacobshagen, George, Robson)

- 4 never wanted to be public presumably (Chandler, Arvizo bros, Francia).

Should the names of all who haven't gone public be removed and changed to "first accuser," etc. The names are widely published. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Just being widely published is not the metric we use, particularly when it comes to living persons in this case. If they have taken steps to try to stay out of the public light, we absolutely respect that. Masem (t) 01:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The article has been stable and reached GA status as it has zero neutrality issues. There is no complete list of accusers that are listed on any of these pages that you mention above. Wikipedia is not a social movement and does not require that every single allegation is listed about a high profile person or celebrity.

Furthermore, this particular article is about extraordinarily notable accusations against Jackson that has been widely reported. The listed accusers in this page were either a plaintiff in a civil trial/suit or “By the People” in a criminal trial. This is not about everyone who has made questionable accusations against Jackson. If there was no thorough investigation of sorts to address these accusations where the accuser was the subject of a civil or criminal trial against Jackson, they are not listed here. If I made an accusation against Jackson and some sources reported on it, it would not make this article. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but then why are Chandler and Arvizo named in the article? They certainly try desperately to stay out of the public eye. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok then why cant we simple say in tbe lead that the article ONLY covers people who brought civil or criminal claims against Jackson? Why does the article have to mislead readers into thinking they are looking at the breadth of accusers? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The title of the article does not implore to me that it is fully extensive, but only those that have significant media coverage and resolution. Masem (t) 02:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Chandler’s allegations were huge. It was the first time that Jackson was accused of abuse. Notability of these allegations were huge. Chandler’s received multimillion dollar settlement with a civil case preceding a criminal case. Chandler first went to a lawyer, but eventually law enforcement got involved and started to investigate Jackson to a notable degree. Arvizos went to law enforcement after first seeking civil lawyer. A criminal case went to trial and created a notable media frenzy. A thorough investigation took place. None of the other proposed additions have this level scrutiny, notability, or impact to Jackson’s career and life. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Why would an accusation need "resolution" before it may be listed? Resolutions can take years. Shouldn't "widely reported" be sufficient?

The piece i keep getting stuck on is the idea that someone wants to look up the agreed facts about the Jackson accusations in the encyclopedia and ... cannot. Imagine I'm an academic researching high-profile accusations. I come to the page for a basic timeline and I cannot get it. Not because the media didnt widely cover those other accusers (because they did) but because they aren't as famous as "the four biggies." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to give people free publicity because they make accusations. Imagine if everyone who wanted to see their name in Wikipedia was informed that all they had to do was make a sufficiently salacious accusation against a sufficiently notable figure, and get the press to report that the accusation was made. In that light, it becomes rather obvious that there must be some reasonable internal limitations to prevent Wikipedia from becoming Accusationpedia. A reasonable start would be to require some degree of proof to provide credibility beyond the mere fact of the accusation being made. BD2412 T 03:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As User:Popcornfud explained, reaching GA status may be insignificant, esoecially if reached, like this page was, in 2008 and the page has been drastically rewritten since. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s actually not been substantially re-written. It’s been stable. Nonetheless, there’s a process to contest its status within reason, and that reason just does not exist. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)